.NET Standard 2.0 is final - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dotnet/announcements/issues/24 <comment><USER3> For people confused about what .NET Standard is and how it relates to .NET Core:

Here's an FAQ: [https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/faq.md](https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/faq.md) Here's a series of short videos from the product team explaining it: [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRAdsfhKI4OWx321A_pr-...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLRAdsfhKI4OWx321A_pr-7HhRNk7wOLLY)

Short excerpt from the FAQ:

      .NET Standard is a specification that represents a set of APIs that all .NET platforms have to implement. This unifies the .NET platforms and prevents future fragmentation. Think of .NET Standard as POSIX for .NET.

      Having a standard solves the code sharing problem for .NET developers by bringing all the APIs that you expect and love across the environments that you need: desktop applications, mobile apps & games, and cloud services.

Conceptually, I think of it in terms of browsers and browser standards. The relationship between .NET Standard and the various .NET platforms (.NET Core, .NET Framework, Mono, Xamarin, UWP, etc.) is similar to HTML specifications (e.g. [https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/](https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/)) and individual browsers. Newer HTML features are available on newer browsers, and some browser feature implementation is contextualized (e.g. some web features don't make sense on a mobile phone browser). I know there are rabbit holes to #wellactually on that, so if it doesn't work for you don't worry about it, but as an analogy I've found it helpful.

Having a defined feature matrix makes it easier to see which APIs are available for a given platform and version.

(Microsoft employee, .NET team member, Nazgûl)

<comment><USER4> Another analogy for .NET developers:

.NET Standard is like an interface

.NET Core is like a class that implements the interface

Desktop .NET framework is like a class that implements that interface

Mono is like a class that implements that interface

Like any other class/interface relationship, the class has to implement all interface members, but may add class specific features

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Compatibility mode sounds like a godsend for those of us who have had to hold back due to compatibility issues with third party code/libraries. It's a risk, to be sure, but awesome that it's an option now.

Side note: very much looking forward to UWP targeting .NET standard. Not long now before you'll be able to develop UWP apps for Ubuntu and Mac OS :)

<comment><USER6> Microsoft's Xamarin Forms 3.0 (stable release later this year) allows you to target Linux and Mac[1] and is very similar to UWP conceptually - UI written once, run anywhere. It's just that Xamarin's "anywhere" is much larger :)

Disclosure: I work on Xamarin team at Microsoft

[1][https://forums.xamarin.com/discussion/85747/xamarin-forms- fe...](https://forums.xamarin.com/discussion/85747/xamarin-forms-feature- roadmap)

<comment><USER7> Question for you - I have created a few (okay, two) UWP apps, but the limited success of the store has made me look to using Xamarin. Only thing is, Xamarin's XAML is sufficiently different from UWP's XAML that I got disoriented and gave up.

If I want to target cross platform apps (including Linux and Mac), should I wait for Xamarin Forms 3 or will UWP eventually expand to cover Mac & Linux?

I'm only a hobby programmer so I don't want to waste hours learning something that will be a dead end.

Any insight you might have would be very useful! thanks

<comment><USER8> Microsoft is working out a XAML standard to cover that case.

If you check BUILD 2017 sessions, there were a couple of talks about it.

<comment><USER9> Will the new XAML version (the first one in 10+ years!) finally solve the problems of excessively verbose syntax, excessive XML namespace imports, excessive binding syntax options, and excessive-needing-to-search- stackoverflow-to-do-the-simple-things? :)

Any news on allowing JSON or another syntax as an alternative to XML-based XAML?

<comment><USER10> JSON is no where near expressive enough to replace XAML, it would look a lot worse than what we have right now.

The XML-like syntax of XAML isn't the problem, it separates object properties from child content well due to it's nature - the bigger issue is how difficult binding syntax is to grok by anyone who hasn't been working with it for quite some time.

<comment><USER9> > it separates object properties from child content well due to it's nature

This is only the case for trivial properties - there is also the expanded form of properties and that's where it muddies XAML very quickly.

For example, in a WPF project of mine I have a DataGrid with a Templated column parenting an ItemsControl with HyperLink children (it displays a list of Phone numbers for each Customer row).

This is my current XAML - I understand this is the minimum I need to achieve that effect: [https://pastebin.com/cRjT2PG5](https://pastebin.com/cRjT2PG5)

It could be simplified drastically in two ways, for example:

* Eliminate `<ItemsPanelTemplate>` and `<DataTemplate>` elements, they're implicit in 90% of cases and yet add another element and indent level without conveying significant information. They could be expressed as attributes of the `<ItemsControl.ItemsPanel>` and `<ItemsContorl.ItemTemplate>` property elements.

* Allow C# expressions and the composition of child-binding to be used in property bindings, not just `String.Format` strings. In my example I have to populate `<Hyperlink.Tooltip>` with a full `<TextBlock>` and `<MultiBinding>` element - why can't I just do `<HyperLink ToolTip="{Binding Kind} {Binding Number}">`? That alone would 10 lines of my 42 line example.

Another issue with XAML is that the creators of XAML failed to learn from HTML+CSS: while it succeeds at separating programming code from view-level concerns, it fails at separating presentation from content - it's like we're back in HTML3/4 days when <table> and <font> were all around and it was nearly impossible to tweak and standardise a UI. XAML does have <Style> and <Setter> elements but they're more used for setting Template properties - the end result is a horrid mess.

<comment><USER10> > * Eliminate `<ItemsPanelTemplate>` and `<DataTemplate>` elements, they're > implicit in 90% of cases and yet add another element and indent level > without conveying significant information. They could be expressed as > attributes of the `<ItemsControl.ItemsPanel>` and > `<ItemsContorl.ItemTemplate>` property elements.

XAML ultimately compiles to an object tree, if you're putting more than a reference, string, int, etc. into a property you need to construct it as a child element - if you want you are free to define the DataTemplate elsewhere in your XAML or in a resource dictionary and use the binding syntax.

> * Allow C# expressions and the composition of child-binding to be used in > property bindings, not just `String.Format` strings. In my example I have to > populate `<Hyperlink.Tooltip>` with a full `<TextBlock>` and > `<MultiBinding>` element - why can't I just do `<HyperLink ToolTip="{Binding > Kind} {Binding Number}">`? That alone would 10 lines of my 42 line example.

Use a converter? I know they're cumbersome to write, but that's what they exist for.

> Another issue with XAML is that the creators of XAML failed to learn from > HTML+CSS: while it succeeds at separating programming code from view-level > concerns, it fails at separating presentation from content - it's like we're > back in HTML3/4 days when <table> and <font> were all around and it was > nearly impossible to tweak and standardise a UI. XAML does have <Style> and > <Setter> elements but they're more used for setting Template properties - > the end result is a horrid mess.

Again, resource dictionaries, bind reusable styles to your elements. Syntax again sucks, `<TextBlock Style="{StaticResource AwesomeTextBlock}"/>`, and there IS the nagging issue that the styles are decided by the UI - but it's not too much worse than CSS classes.

Don't take any of this to mean your concerns aren't valid, but it's really not _AS_ bad as you make it out to be. There's always room for improvement though!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Such a confusing name. I thought this was the .NET Spec publication. Still better than .NET 365 Premium Plus I guess :-)

<comment><USER12> ".NET Standard is a specification that represents a set of APIs that all .NET platforms have to implement. This unifies the .NET platforms and prevents future fragmentation. Think of .NET Standard as POSIX for .NET."

[https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/faq.md](https://github.com/dotnet/standard/blob/master/docs/faq.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> So just so I'm clear,

.NET ECMA Spec ⊆ .NET Standard ⊆ (.NET Core ∩ Mono ∩ Xamarin ∩ Unity) ⊆ .NET Core ⊆ .NET Framework

Correct?

<comment><USER6> ECMA spec is for the CLI, essentially the specification for runtime like type system and GC and all the other things that make an environment work at all

Net Standard is a specification of APIs. So in order to be compliant to the standard you must have a class named X with parameters string Y, int Z.

"Net Framework" is the name for the Windows "full .net framework" \-- this doesn't have a descriptive name since it was before all the rest, but basically its an SDK that is a superset of the Net Standard (and therefore is .Net Standard compliant / interoperable)

Mono is a open source implementation of "Net Framework" that runs on multiple platforms (linux, etc). It attempts to treat full .NET Framework's surface area as a spec but re-implement it cross platform. It is _also_ a open source CLI implementation. So in common speech "mono" like ".net" can refer to either the "basic sdk" _or_ the runtime environment.

Xamarin is forks of mono for iOS, Android and Mac platforms plus libraries that include full support for interacting with those platforms Native SDKs

Unity is a fork of Mono plus gaming tooling and runtime tools. Microsoft does not maintain this, it's a separate company.

<comment><USER13> To be more clear, I wasn't actually confused, just commenting on how confus _ing_ the various meanings of ".NET" are getting, and maybe helping clear up some of the confusion for people who think visually and remember their discrete math (set theory).

Of course it's still helpful to plenty of people reading this thread to define all those terms. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Awesome milestone, so happy to see progress with .NET Standard as it makes developers lives a lot more predictable.

On that note... a shameless plug :), don't miss .NET Conf 2017 our 3-day digital event that will talk all about .NET standard 2.0 and much more in Sept.

Sept 19th - 21st, watch anywhere details at: [http://www.dotnetconf.net/](http://www.dotnetconf.net/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Does anybody have any idea what is the total number of APIs available in .NET Framework? I am interested how big of a subset .NET Standard is.

<comment><USER16> The .NET Framework has approximately 250k APIs. The majority are from the application models stacks (WinForms, WPF, and ASP.NET).

.NET Standard has about 32k APIs that set is pretty close to all the APIs that are part of .NET Framework that aren't specific to any application models. However, we still have a few things we need to bring to .NET Standard.

<comment><USER17> Are we calling public classes API's now?

<comment><USER16> APIs are a long standing name for the set of all .NET constructs (classes, structs, delegates, interfaces, methods, properties, events, fields).

In total, the .NET Framework has about 15k types.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> UK-AL Heh, .Net Contracts is in there. I thought that was basically unmaintained.

</comment><comment><USER18> I can already see some APIs that were missing in 1.6 that I need. Extremely exciting and will definitely making transitioning to .NET core so much easier.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't really get what the purpose of this spec is. I would much prefer if they spent the time on improving the .NET Core story. In typical MS manner .NET seems to get more confusing all the time.

<comment><USER16> I can totally share the sentiment around complexity. We're working hard towards reducing it though and .NET Standard is one piece of the puzzle. Let me try to explain:

If you're a typical .NET customer, then you're used to the .NET Framework, which also means you're probably only used to doing development on Windows. That was no longer a viable strategy for .NET, so we're now pursing a cross- platform strategy. A good chunk of the complexity you see today is a result of the changed dynamics of software engineering: the PC is no longer the only relevant form factor, server applications have to be rethought as scalable cloud services, and the UI paradigm is no longer a sequence of dialogs but has to be tailored to multiple clients, and on top of that you now also have to deal with multiple different operating systems.

.NET has a long standing history of embracing the underlying platform (hello COM, hello P/Invokes) while also providing a ton of conveniences on top that make it approachable (hello WinForms). We can't really shield you from all the complexities that result from the changed dynamics. But what we can do is making it more consistent and productive.

Over the last years, various different .NET stacks were created, several of them outside of the Microsoft bubble (Mono, Xamarin, Unity). So in order to build modern experiences, you often have to use various different stacks to get the job done. We understand that this isn't free of challenges, which is why we try very hard to reconcile the differences. For instance, we acquired Xamarin to fully embrace the mobile support they offer and make it a fully integrated part of the .NET development platform. We changed the license on Mono to enable Unity to use the latest version and pick up innovation instantaneously. And we've created the

.NET Standard is a way to achieve API consistency between different .NET stacks. This makes it much easier for application and library authors to share code between different .NET implementations.

Our goal is to empower .NET developers to build any kind of app, for any kind of operating system. That's the world we live in now and we're fully committed to make this experience as productive as possible.

<comment><USER19> I am not sure if you are going about this the right way. Instead of doing .NET standard, .NET Core and .NET full framework with overlapping functionality, I think it would better to have .NET Core as the underlining cross-platform standard. Then add WPF, WCF and whatever as separate packages that may be cross-platform or not.

The whole thing reminds me a little of the UI situation. Start with Winforms, don't improve it but start WPF (and keep Winforms), then start Silverlight, then start UWP. All in parallel instead of building on top of each other.

MS doesn't need more more frameworks, but less.

<comment><USER10> .Net Standard isn't an implementation, it's a specification. Code that targets .Net Standard is guaranteed to run on any compatible runtime that supports it.

.Net Core has API's that aren't applicable to the Windows full-fat Framework, Mono or Xamarin - you don't need or want them there.

<comment><USER20> All of these API surfaces are pretty large- what is a good way to get a feel for what they do/don't offer? In particular, what are you referring to in .NET Core that you wouldn't want in Framework?

<comment><USER10> .Net Core supports P/Invoke on Linux and macOS, you aren't going to be using a library that provides bindings for libsystemd.so or whatever on Windows - <USER2> is probably one of the most prominent examples. I know there's a handful of others, but I'm having a hard time finding a good article or any relevant documentation on it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to monetize small web apps - <AUTHOR> I recently made a web app that is gaining quite some traction in it's community. Imagine it as a single-page web-game. It's currently sitting at 1k unique daily users and I would like to try and monetize somehow.
I would add some small un-intrusive ad(even tho i'd prefer another solution) but it's not a content website and both media.net and adsense said it's no go.
There is also not much to convert it into a SaaS. It's whole appeal is that it's something easy.
I have also other similar apps of varying degrees of success and I could possibly apply the same.
Any other ideas of what I could try that is not exploitative of the users? <comment><USER2> can you create another level or something to sell?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's not really a game, it was mostly an example of something that doesn't really have a content.</comment></comment>


Wall Street Talent Is Moving to Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2015/11/21/why-wall-street-talent-is-moving-to-silicon-valley/ <comment><USER2> Paul Graham says this often, and I am paraphrasing here:

They did a study at harvard, and they figured out that MBA's flock to the wrong industry right before it dies. It was bonds, equities and then silicon valley in the 90s.

It was an interesting anecdote which I have heard often, but now am certainly curious enough to try and dig up that article/study.

edit: The author seems like an accomplished person, and I don't want to paint in the tech v. finance differences, but to highlight what camp she is from, take a look at the first sentence describing Mor Assia:

Mor advised Israel's global telecommunications billing giant, Amdocs, to choose the right verticals for diversification in their technology acquisitions and launched offerings like Billing for Dynamic Pricing to create new growth opportunities.[0]

I mean, sure, I parse JSON data to codify the new web standard leveraging agile tooling like visual basic to fast-follow with a GUI interface which is deployed into our cloud based infrastructure to track the IP address, but I wouldn't write that down in the 2nd sentence of my biography.

[0][https://www.iangels.co/team/mor-assia/](https://www.iangels.co/team/mor- assia/)

edit: I can not find the video clip. My memory is that the study was done by Harvard Business School, and it found that MBAs were categorically picking the wrong industry. The examples cited by the speaker, I am 90+% confident it was pg restating it, were going to wall street to trade bonds with Michael Milliken right before he went to jail, Silicon Valley right before the bubble burst and one other which I would guess to be real estate or M & A post KKR, but that is just complete conjecture. Don't take my word for it, and I don't want to misquote PG quoting some study, but I am fairly confident for what it is worth.

<comment><USER3> Can you please provide source for what you say pg said?

<comment><USER2> been looking. It is in a video, so it has been difficult all searches of Harvard MBA study pull up Michael O'Church rants. Will update when found.

<comment><USER3> Just found that rant too!

I remember him saying Business Schools are good at making MBAs that help you run a business well. They should do that and leave cultivating entrepreneurship to folks like YC. But I see that argument in line with this article's data. These MBAs are trained to get things like M&A right, so getting them onboard might be the right thing to do and does not necessarily indicate another crash.

<comment><USER2> No way can I parse 10 hours of PG video. Just rewatched the Calacanis interview and some of Charlie Rose. I vividly remember him speaking about the study, but can't remember if it was an interview or just a speaking engagement (possibly Pycon 08).

Here is him talking about MBA's whipping their meek rent-a-programmers during the interview[0] which is the best I can do. If anyone remembers what video it is in, or better yet, actually knows the (i believe harvard business school) study, would be super interested.

[0][https://youtu.be/YMqgiXLjvRs?t=20m30s](https://youtu.be/YMqgiXLjvRs?t=20m30s)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'll stick my neck out on this and say, the author is right and these are the people who are ruining Silicon Valley. Take a look around at the big named "innovators" and you'll notice that they're really "iterators". People building a "business" around a small, incremental improvement in an previously existing process. I refer to this as the HFT, hedgefund incremental approach. Let's pick up nickels in front of bulldozers while the getting is good(1). Get enough money before the bulldozer hits you. This seems like the premise behind AirBnB, Uber, Square, and every other unicorn. Can't wait 3 minutes to order your food at the cafe? Billion dollar business! Can't wait 4 minutes and chat with your companion while you wait for your dinner check to arrive? Billion dollar business! Creating electricity from small, safe, pollution-free hydrogen power cells? Eh, maybe a few hundred milli tops. Not worth it.

It's this kind of quick buck thinking around simple, non-inventive iterations on existing models that are actually _killing_ the Valley. The Valley should be for big ideas and wild bets. Not bets on people to do your laundry for you.

These Wall Street/finance people need to pack up and go back east.

(1) This was the idea behind Long Term Capital Management (LTCM). We all know how well that worked out.

<comment><USER5> I agree with your general sentiment, but I feel like your examples are wrong. Uber has fundamentally reshaped how we view and consume transportation. With the addition of self-driving cars, it has the potential to utterly reshape logistics. Square has completely modernized the dinosaur POS business. As someone who works with a lot of small businesses, I can tell you that Square has really impacted their lives for the better. AirBnB, while I like a lot as a consumer for opening up a whole new genre of places I can stay and feel at home, has admittedly started to devolve into managing a bunch of unzoned hotels. LTCM while insanely leveraged was actually arbitraging an anomaly in Tbills. It was a great business run quite well, right until the Russian gov't defaulted and sent shockwaves through the bond market. That kind of high sigma event is pretty hard to forsee.

<comment><USER4> I'm much more interested in the company that brings us self-driving cars (or flying cars) than the glorified taxi company that leverages them. Call me a dreamer. I'll probably die broke and penniless though.

Also, comedic if you think that LTCM was well run. They were sniffing their own flatulence and getting high on their own supply. They employed two Nobel laureates and based their model on those laureates....whose work ended up being completely flawed. How many people use Black-Scholes today? Zip (if they have a clue). You really should read "When Genius Failed" if you think they ran a good business.

<comment><USER6> I'd suggest to you that incremental improvement is generally more important than revolutionary improvement, even if it's distinctly less sexy.

<comment><USER4> That's OK. It just doesn't belong in Silicon Valley. Ship it out to XYZ Valley/Alley/Prairie.

I'm also a fan of punctuated equilibrium and cladogenesis as opposed to evolution over millenia. But maybe that's just me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Before Silicon Valley gets all flattered, consider:

"Soifer has long studied the proportion of Harvard MBAs who pursue careers in finance; when more than 3 in 10 head for Wall Street, it's time for investors to sell, he says."[1]

I used to work on Wall Street. I left because of this issue writ large. There are quite a few pieces of research claiming this trend is a negative indicator.

[1][http://www.cnbc.com/id/45030885](http://www.cnbc.com/id/45030885)

<comment><USER8> Likewise when they start heading to Silicon Valley in droves... Last time around was 2000 -- 'nuff said.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Seems like a good a time as any to break out my favorite anti-MBA story.

I took a Masters CS class some time ago, and for our final class project, not knowing anyone else in the class, I got lumped in the "leftover" group with a working engineer and a Wharton MBA student. We meet up the day before the project is due to integrate each of our individual pieces together into a final submission and the MBA candidate shows up empty handed. Turns out he had spent his time trying to "schmooze" the answers/code out of the professor and the TA, who, to their credit, had stood firm. Guess who spent that entire night writing that dolt's portion of the project from scratch.

<comment><USER10> Why did you write his code for him? You should've just told the instructors he didn't pull his weight, I think. With what happened, he ended up with a successful group without doing any work, which is a great outcome for him.

<comment><USER9> Because I'm a stubborn ass who'd rather suffer a freeloader than hand in an incomplete assignment. In hindsight, I guess I should have finished the project and explained the division of labor.

<comment><USER11> > _Because I 'm a stubborn ass who'd rather suffer a freeloader than hand in > an incomplete assignment._

And sadly, off the backs of those like you MBAs flourish.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was expecting to see a "(1999)" in this headline.

</comment><comment><USER13> There's a glaring error, which makes me doubt the credibility of the rest of the article. Mary Meeker joined KPCB as a partner, not an analyst ( _huge_ difference). And this was 5 years ago, so it's old news.

</comment><comment><USER14> We don't need them. We have automated, or are in the process of automating most of traditional finance anyway. They can come here, but they won't find jobs unless they are willing to put in the time to learn and be competent technically.

I'm not holding my breath.

<comment><USER15> No one is automating M&A work. It'd probably take something close to strong AI to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "Talent"

</comment><comment><USER17> California is completely out of water. I really doubt that many people are foolish enough to mover there by choice.

<comment><USER18> If it gets _really_ bad they might have to desalinate which will cost... $3 per thousand gallons. Oh, the horror.

<comment><USER19> A single 1g almond takes 1.1 gallons of water to produce. That 1kg packet of almonds is going to go up in price by $1.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> A dozen top financial people from Wall St. have taken up financial jobs in Silicon Valley, and this is news?

<comment><USER21> Agreed...

...and when I think about where the 'talent' is in the financial world, it's on the technical side and all of those people are still there.</comment></comment>


Gaussian Processes - <AUTHOR> http://efavdb.com/gaussian-processes/ <comment><USER2> GPML is the canonical textbook for Gaussian Processes for any who want to go deeper (or find OP's explanation too handwavy), and it's available free online: [http://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/chapters/](http://gaussianprocess.org/gpml/chapters/)</comment>


SiteGround Review and Expert Advice - <AUTHOR> https://bloggerwalk.com/siteground-review/ <comment><AUTHOR> SiteGround offers shared hosting, WordPress hosting, cloud hosting, and dedicated hosting plans. If you are just starting out, then their shared hosting plans would be a perfect fit for your needs. Check out our SiteGround review</comment>


A Look Back at Why Blockbuster Really Failed and Why It Didn't Have To (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregsatell/2014/09/05/a-look-back-at-why-blockbuster-really-failed-and-why-it-didnt-have-to/#552a986c1d64 <comment><USER2> Blockbuster used to have a really crappy selection of mostly mainstream movies, but often it was one of the closest video rental stores around, as they seemed to be everywhere. They also censored and cut their movies, which was really annoying. I don't know what their agenda was on that front, and why they couldn't just let mature adults watch the full films.

My friends and I used to much prefer going to independent video rental stores, which had a much better selection and did not cut or censor their films, but we'd often have to go pretty far to reach them.

Then Netflix DVD came around, and that had a pretty good selection.. maybe not as good as some of the best independent movie rental stores, but wider in some ways, and overall good enough so that the added convenience of getting DVDs delivered to my door and being able to return them by merely dropping them in the mailbox whenever I felt like it made me stick with Netflix and never step foot in a brick and mortar movie rental store again. I had meant to try Greencine, as it supposedly had an even better selection of obscure movies, but I never got around to it, and then it went out of business.

Then came Netflix streaming, with a crappy selection comparable to the crappy selection Blockbuster had in the bad old days.

I've stayed with Netflix DVD service because of their far better selection, but most people these days don't seem to know that Netflix even has a DVD service (not very surprising as Netflix doesn't even advertise its presence on netflix.com and you have to go to dvd.netflix.com to reach it).

Many of them rarely realize how crappy the selection of Netflix streaming is, as they've been brought up on a diet of crap, and are only vaguely aware that there's a whole world of fantastic movies out there beyond Hollywood blockbusters and TV shows.

<comment><USER3> > Many of them rarely realize how crappy the selection of Netflix streaming > is, as they've been brought up on a diet of crap, and are only vaguely aware > that there's a whole world of fantastic movies out there beyond Hollywood > blockbusters and TV shows.

I like science fiction and well done period dramas (i.e. historical fiction or alternative history). I am not really into high-brow art movies, as I don't really have the education to get them. Is there really a wide world beyond Hollywood for the type of movies I enjoy? If yes, how does one go about exploring this world?

<comment><USER2> I don't know about period dramas, as I'm not really in to that genre, but I am very much in to scifi and there are plenty of great scifi films that aren't on Netflix streaming.

As to how one find them, I have a number of strategies:

First and best is to find people who share your taste and ask them for recommendations.

Second, find other films by the directors and writers who's films you like.

Third, read reviewers, forums, blogs, and magazines that talk about your favorite genre of films.

Fourth, try doing web searches for more than one of your favorite films at a time. If you get lucky, you might find them all on a list of great movies and go from there.

Fifth, there used to be a website called YMDB (if I'm remembering right), which used to let you put in your top 20 films and match you up with others who had similar tastes, and then you could see what other movies they liked. Unfortunately, it's no longer around, and I'm not sure if there are any other services like it these days.

Sixth, find lists of great movies and watch as many of them as possible.

Seventh, go to movie clubs and art house cinema houses and watch what they show or maybe talk to some of the people there and see what they can recommend given your taste in films.

Eighth, read some books on film.

Ninth, listen to directors' commentaries on the movies you like, and read interviews with them. They'll often mention films and directors that influenced them. Watch those.

Tenth, rate all the movies you've seen on dvd.netflix.com and then look at what they recommend based on your ratings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In the same year that Reed Hastings was laughed out of the conference room, Blockbuster announced a partnership with Enron for Videos on Demand. [https://www.forbes.com/2000/07/20/mu4.html#545092873541](https://www.forbes.com/2000/07/20/mu4.html#545092873541)

The partnership lasted a single year. I wonder which event happened first? If they met with Enron first, it seems the morale is to move fast and never underestimate what the future holds. If they met with Netflix first, I'd say it's don't be as skeptical to the big guys as you are to the startup.

<comment><USER5> It seems so bizarre - a rental company would stream video, through an energy company's fiber optic cables. Didn't this seem incongruous to anyone at the time?

[https://youtu.be/5sMXR7rK40U?t=6m8s](https://youtu.be/5sMXR7rK40U?t=6m8s)

<comment><USER6> The idea of "Enron Broadband" seemed ridiculous to me at the time.

<comment><USER7> Enron didn't have any last mile broadband capability. How did this deal get done?

<comment><USER8> The same way all of Enron's deals got done. Lies about capabilities/offerings and then shady accounting to cover up reality.

<comment><USER5> Another video talks about Enron using mark-to-market bookkeeping to record $100 million in revenue from the 20-year deal.

[https://youtu.be/hwollZoVmUc?t=4m44s](https://youtu.be/hwollZoVmUc?t=4m44s)

<comment><USER8> Yup, which was their MO. Skilling insisted the company move to mark-to-market accounting, something not common with non-financial companies (and for good reason), which meant marking down the perceived value of the contract and then later, not bothering to update for the loss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The author harps on "networks" too much. In general, brick and mortar retail sectors which can be done better on line have tanked. From Sears to Radio Shack to Toys-R-Us, that's happened. Malls in general are hurting badly.

<comment><USER10> Oddly one of the big San Jose malls (Valley Fair) is currently undergoing a huge renovation and expansion.

<comment><USER11> It's very uneven. Upscale malls are generally doing pretty well. Then there's the nearest mall near me which sports such luminaries as Sears and JC Penneys as anchor stores (plus the Toys R US which recently closed). It's not... great. There are a few stores in the same general complex that seem to be doing fine but the mall itself is moribund.

<comment><USER12> I have to go to the mall here in Melbourne, FL for work clothes. The standalone clothing stores mostly sell stuff targeted at tourists and snowbirds (beachwear, Hawaiian shirts, etc.).

Bah, maybe I should get a job that lets me wear Hawaiian shirts to work everyday.

<comment><USER10> For sure you can do that in Hawaii. It's actually quite awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't think that social influence critical masses were really a factor here.

Blockbuster was brick and mortar, and 'on demand from home at $10 a month' is going to kill that business on the basic fundamentals.

There's no special science here.

Blockbuster executives were fools - not so much to 'not see it coming' (few did) - but to not react when the writing was on the wall.

Video streaming might be hard but it's not rocket Science, and a _lot_ of people still wanted to rent videos.

Using the massive installed base, stores, and gazillions of customers to launch an 'on demand' service that was 'pretty good' might have snuffed Netflix.

After all - Netflix had to make the switch from DVDs.

I worked at BlackBerry and saw kind of the same thing - sitting on the Titanic watching the iceberg get closer ... not at all alone in my concern, however the large ship was unable to change course.

Especially as Netflix was just getting into streaming, and however we can point fingers, the fact remains that Blockbuster had all the opportunity and advantage, it was squandered.

<comment><USER14> > Blockbuster was brick and mortar, and 'on demand from home at $10 a month' > is going to kill that business on the basic fundamentals.

That doesn't explain why Redbox managed to thrive though.

<comment><USER15> Sure it does. While Redbox is a physical presence, its overhead is negligible. And for those whom $10/mo isn't an option because, no $150/mo internet to base it on (not everybody can afford expensive internet connections) Redbox is an option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Article is a bit vague and oversimplified. So Netflix won because of network effects? and Blockbuster didn't have network effects? Blockbuster is bigger than Netflix when Netflix was a startup and simple ripples in Blockbuster could have generated a much bigger effect than Netflix in terms of Facebook posts or Twitter messages.

Network effects don't happen because people want them to happen, network effects benefit in marketing is really just really good service that turns into lots of word-of-mouth that is spread super-fast throughout the internet whereas traditionally it would just spread in your traditional community. You can build for network effects but that doesn't mean you can get that effect.

<comment><USER11> There are different network effects/economies of scale that end up getting conflated.

There are often benefits to size like brand recognition, better pricing from suppliers, amortization of R&D, etc. Apple is a poster child.

There are network effects where having more users actually helps to make a better product through increased data etc. (This is increasingly true with products that rely on ML and large data sets in various ways.)

And then there are the eBay-type (or telephone system historically) network effects. If your auction site only has a handful of sellers (or a handful of buyers), it's more or less useless no matter how wonderful it is by other metrics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> My girlfriend runs an independent video rental store. I've been thinking of ways to implement a streaming service for our extensive collection of physical DVDs from the store to customers in the local area, perhaps to a proprietary TV box. I have the skills to do this.

Does anybody here know if this has ever been done, or is legal? I'm in BC, Canada.

<comment><USER18> Technical execution is the easy part, but legally speaking, you might fare much better by just offering to physically deliver movies on demand.

<comment><USER19> Reminds me of a promotion I saw a few years ago where some pizza chain had paired up with a video rental place. You ordered a DVD with your pizza and they were delivered together.

<comment><USER17> Our store did that a few years ago, too. Skip the Dishes is widely available in our town now, and we're surrounded by restaurants, but I haven't asked them if they'll deliver DVDs yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If you ever come to Portland, visit movie madness and grab a video: Save Movie Madness, via @Kickstarter [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hollywoodtheatre/save-m...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hollywoodtheatre/save- movie-madness)

</comment><comment><USER21> They have not totally failed. There is one store left in Bend Oregon [http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/ny-news- bl...](http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/entertainment/ny-news-blockbuster- video-down-to-one-store-20180712-story.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> Video rental stores and physical media was destined to go the way of the dodo as soon as uncapped broadband hit in the early 2000s. And now there's unlimited data over 4G networks. I am 30+ too but lets not overindulge in nostalgia. I have access to a vast library of entertainment 24/7.

</comment><comment><USER23> Business Wars did a series on Netflix and Blockbuster at its launch: [https://wondery.com/shows/business-wars/](https://wondery.com/shows/business- wars/)

Both entertaining and enlightening.

</comment><comment><USER24> Blockbuster was also servicing US$1 billion in debt after being spun off from Viacom.

<comment><USER25> Netflix currently has $4.8 billion in debt and another $15 billion of streaming content obligations. ([https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/15/16151944/netflix-disney- de...](https://www.polygon.com/2017/8/15/16151944/netflix-disney-debt))

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Antioco was, in fact, a very competent executive—many considered him a retail genius"...yet he made incredibly obvious mistakes to prop up a business with a flawed business model. I fail to see any of the genius, he seems like another corporate idiot in a suit, to me.

<comment><USER27> Antioco tried launching a dvd by mail and streaming service around the same time Netflix did. They were behind, but not _that_ far. The problem seems to be this

> While he convinced the board to back his plan, one of his lieutenants, Jim > Keyes, led a rear guard action.

Had they actually listened to Antioco, they may have survived.

I subscribed to Blockbuster Online because I could return things to the store and get movies faster than Netflix. Everything about it was equal or better (except maybe the name.)

Then it all sorta fell apart on Blockbuster and I've been a happy Netflix subscriber for more than a decade.

<comment><USER25> Has there ever been a successful large scale pivot by an American technology company that wasn't founder led? All of the successful FAANG companies successfully managed transistions led by thier founders. Even though Microsoft's recent turn around wasn't founder led, I don't think the current CEO could have done it without Bill Gates' support.

<comment><USER8> Intel?

The company has massive problems now, but many of the larger scale pivots in its history were not the work of Moore or Noyce. Now, we can debate whether Andy Grove counts (and I tend to say no, because though not technically a founder, he was employee number 3 and there from the day the company was incorporated), but looking at someone like Paul Otellini, who most definitely helped turn the company around, I think that's a good example.

Otellini missed mobile, a massive, massive problem -- but I don't think there is any evidence to suggest that Grove would've necessarily done better. It's hard to say.

And if we want to go further back, I would argue that IBM was never led by its founders. Watson wasn't a founder; he came into what became IBM as a hired manager. One could argue his son was "more" of a founder because he grew up seeped into the culture of what IBM became and he definitely helped lead the company to greatness.

But subsequent CEOs like Frank Cary and Louis Gerstner really did the big turnarounds and pivots.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Read it. Internalize it. Profit from it.

[https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0036S4B2G/ref=dp-kindle- redirect?...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0036S4B2G/ref=dp-kindle- redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)</comment>


What info (if any) should be kept secret about new startup ideas? - <AUTHOR>

Many experts, including Brad Feld in his awesome book Venture Deals, have said that asking VCs or others to sign an NDA for a basic pitch is an obvious sign of an amateur and totally not necessary.  That makes a lot of sense to me.  But very recently I came up with a concept for a netsec startup that I think I can whip up a MVP for in less than a month and start generating significant and very scalable income immediately there after.  So in other words, with minimal time and resources and expertise, this idea can generate a lot of cash.
Now given time, I think I will be able to build up increasing complex algorithms to improve upon the process to such a degree that I will have a good amount of defensibility for the longer-term.
At this early stage of the game, I would like to get as much feedback about my idea as possible (I've already told about 7 people and almost all thought it was a good-to-great idea, many of them have already given me token investments as a sign of confidence) but if my idea is even half as clever as I think it is, if enough people hear about it someone is likely to give it a try for themselves because it is such a simple money-maker.
So what do you think?  Should I stop being paranoid and just tell the world or if not, which elements (generally speaking) should I keep to myself? <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting essay on the subject by Chris Dixon: [http://cdixon.org/2009/08/22/why-you-shouldnt-keep-your- star...](http://cdixon.org/2009/08/22/why-you-shouldnt-keep-your-startup-idea- secret/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Try to avoid answering questions that begin with "how" or "why". And if you do get these, rehearse your answer in advance, or pause, or answer by asking for more detail.</comment>


There's No Such Thing as Real Vegetarians - <AUTHOR> https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/jpkk4d/this-vegan-professor-says-theres-no-such-thing-as-real-vegetarians <comment><USER2> This seems just like either a ridiculous cry for attention, or else another philosopher that is lost in relativism.

There are many good arguments for saying vegetarianism is ethically not strong enough (e.g. the amount of critters killed in modern agriculture) but this ain't one.

And even then - if vegetarianism in his world is not ethically defensible then eating animals would be even less defensible. Settle on the smaller evil and you're good to go from the position of most ethical systems.

</comment><comment><USER3> He just forgot the "What if you're stranded on deserted island" argument. Should one really waste time and attention on this?</comment>


Atlassian lets its staff stay at home forever - <AUTHOR> https://www.afr.com/technology/atlassian-lets-its-staff-stay-at-home-forever-20200807-p55jhx <comment><USER2> It will be interesting how this works. I'm noticing that some people are thriving at WFH, while others are suffering from lack of routine and work/home separation. I also think some roles are better in workplaces

Personally I prefer WFH</comment>


Show HN: Fancy Emitter, a Fresh Take on Node.js's Event Emitter - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mothepro/fancy-emitter <comment><AUTHOR> I prefer TypeScript over plain JS and would like a strongly typed way for dealing with event emitters.

So, I created fancy-emitter. I figured there are many other improvements which could have been made to the events module so I tried to make use of all of them and make the underlying JS engine deal with the scheduling.

<comment><USER2> Really loved it from first glance. I wanted something similar when I was debugging an odd problem from events last year.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, hope it helps next time you need to debug.</comment></comment></comment>


Reimagining the browser as a p2p network OS - <AUTHOR> https://pfrazee.github.io/blog/reimagining-the-browser-as-a-network-os <comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR: We can use the Dat protocol as a WAN filesystem, give the user a "Root Dat Archive," and build in a bash-like JS terminal. Users can configure and manage their system modifying files in their Root Archive, and can link in archives published by self or others.

We've got a demo of the terminal now [https://pfrazee.github.io/assets/img/webterm.gif](https://pfrazee.github.io/assets/img/webterm.gif)</comment>


My startup: Build your own search engine and share it. - <AUTHOR> http://www.intelliverb.com/PESS/ The Idea is to empower the user with the choice of URLs to crawl, when to crawl from where to crawl (you can crawl from you car as long as you have internet access).
You build your own repository around your personal web site, company intranet, your favorite sites or subject and share it with friends or colleagues.
See a sample we did for YC and related sites:
http://www.intelliverb.com/Search/?six=SRC6187978038750 <comment><USER2> Where are you hosting this? Seems you are hitting a connection limit, cant serve any more pages right now.

<comment><USER3> Neat idea, but it's also been down every time I clicked so far. If you're working on fixing it at the moment, you should comment in here, so people know to come back.

It might be wise to invest in some load testing so you know in advance this won't happen when you get traffic at a larger scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rollyo is about 4-5 years old and is the best known of these,. there are probably quite a few more. Will you be doing something different at all?

<http://rollyo.com/>

<comment><AUTHOR> The main difference: whether a site is public or not you can build a search for it, chose what content to include in your search, when to crawl it and who to share it with.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The Idea is to empower the user with the choice of URLs to crawl, when to crawl from where to crawl (you can crawl from you car as long as you have internet access).

You build your own repository around your personal web site, company intranet, your favorite sites or subject and share it with friends or colleagues.

See a sample we did for YC and related sites:

<http://www.intelliverb.com/Search/?six=SRC6187978038750>

<comment><USER5> Quick feedback:

* I like the idea. Reminds me of Google's CSE tools, but with individual crawling control.

* I think you need to proofread the text on the main page a bit. Some of it doesn't parse correctly for me, for example: "You decide what sites to crawl indexed and search"

* A lot of your links on the right are 404 or missing.

* Your signup form does not accept emails with a "+" in them. So I cannot signup with my default email address. Please resolve this if you can.

* So the crawler itself has to be a local app? In other words, my local computer is doing the crawling? I had assumed the service was that your site would do the crawling based on the information I provided and on the schedule I wanted.

Seems like an interesting project, but you do need to work on the user-facing aspects a little to prevent people from being confused.

The layout is pretty unprofessional, so it doesn't encourage me to want to download an EXE client to run locally.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great feedback we'll definetly apply changes. Thx.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> "You decide what sites to crawl indexed and search"

Should probably be:

"You decide what sites to crawl, index and search"

You might also consider avoiding technical terms altogether when you market it.

</comment><comment><USER6> I like it. I wish I would have had access to this a few years ago when I had to build my own search for a company I worked for :) How do you plan on making money?

<comment><AUTHOR> So far we're thinking ads for individual account and make it payable for companies of some size.

<comment><USER6> What technology are you using for your crawler?

<comment><AUTHOR> It may sound silly but we built it from scratch. I think it was necessary given what we wanted to achieve.

<comment><USER7> > we built it from scratch

Thats anything but silly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I very much like the idea. You should consider selling it on an appliance that you've optimized for, a la google search.

</comment><comment><USER9> Err, Rollyo.com?

<comment><AUTHOR> Our idea is different from Rollyo

We drive the search 100% You initiate the crawl; you actually chose your URLs and content not just filtering results from some domains, your repository grow over time totally under your control You can crawl behind firewalls, this is practical for intranet With the URL to your search, you can search from anywhere and share with anyone, no login necessary

Still to come: File search and Data search with a great emphasis on ecommerce

<comment><USER10> you should focus on this idea. SEO for "search behind your firewall" don't try to be generic. don't try to put a foot on rollio market.</comment></comment></comment>


Dick sticks up for Theranos - <AUTHOR> http://www.bizjournals.com/twincities/news/2016/04/21/dick-kovacevich-sticks-up-for-theranos.html <comment><AUTHOR> " Dick Kovacevich, who serves as a board member of Theranos, defended the company and insisted it will survive the investigations, setbacks and threatened regulatory sanctions The company is a good company and will survive and will achieve its objectives," he said"

</comment><comment><USER2> This is an _interesting_ use of title editorialization.</comment>


Bitdefender Anti-Virus: Heap Buffer Overflow via 7z LZMA - <AUTHOR> https://landave.io/2017/08/bitdefender-heap-buffer-overflow-via-7z-lzma/ <comment><USER2> With most types of software, if you're stuck with C/C++, you want to keep the development to a high standard where there aren't any bugs like this. But anti-virus software is unusual in that it needs to handle malicious input of an unusually wide variety of file formats, which makes completely eliminating file-format vulnerabilities basically unfeasible without some sort of broadly- applicable fix.

That fix could be a memory-safe language, or it could be sandboxing. But the assumption should be that for any antivirus product which does its file- parsing in C or C++, and which doesn't sandbox is scanning engine, there's going to be at least one critical vulnerability in the scanner. Bitdefender is still unsandboxed, so fixing this particular vulnerability is only of limited use; there are almost certainly other, similar vulnerabilities in it, so users running it are vulnerable to anyone with the resources to find one.

AV companies have mostly gotten away with this sort of thing in the past, because individual AV scanners tend to have low enough market share that they aren't as desirable targets as web browsers. But Windows Defender recently broke that trend by being present on every Windows system, and having a critical vulnerability, so now there are a lot more researchers looking at unsandboxed AV scanning engines and finding problems.

<comment><USER3> What would you recommend instead for a Win platform?

<comment><USER4> Nothing. There is no need for anything.

<comment><USER5> > There is no need for anything.

This is a bit of a broad brush. It assumes that all people always act with the best security hygiene.

I detest traditional AV as snake oil and realize that there is additional risk added by using AV, but it does have its place in many threat models, especially for those who are not internet+security literate.

<comment><USER6> AV will make those people who are not internet+security literate _more_ vulnerable. There have been vulnerabilities found in all major anti-viruses, some of them were really bad. You're better off not using an antivirus. See for example: [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/06/lates...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/06/latest-high-severity-flaw-in-windows-defender-highlights- the-dark-side-of-av/)

Staying up to date on your updates is the best advice you can give.

<comment><USER7> _> AV will make those people who are not internet+security literate more vulnerable. There have been vulnerabilities found in all major anti-viruses, some of them were really bad. You're better off not using an antivirus._

I don't think you can reasonably defend this position.

Let's take a pessimistic guess at the efficacy of antivirus software and say it blocks 50% of the new malware generated in a given day. Now let's take a wildly optimistic stab at the added risk of using antivirus and say it increases your exposure by 1%.

Are you really saying that a 1% risk increase is too high a price to pay for halving your risk overall?

Don't get me wrong, there are all kinds of reasons for power users to bemoan antivirus. RCE vulnerabilities are certainly one, but even just day-to-day usability issues are a legitimate concern. The average user, though, is still statistically much safer with antivirus.

 _> Staying up to date on your updates is the best advice you can give._

The vast majority of attacks don't involve vulnerabilities, even counting events like WannaCry. It's mostly down to people clicking on things they shouldn't be clicking on. Keeping your software updated is important, of course, but absolutely will not keep you safe.

<comment><USER8> Oh this looks like a fun game. Let me try. Let's take a pessimistic guess at the efficacy of antivirus software and say it blocks 20% of the new malware generated in a given day. Now let's take a wildly optimistic stab at the added risk of using antivirus and say it increases your exposure by 35%.

Are you really saying that a 35% risk increase is an acceptable price to pay for a small reduction in overall risk?

You can't just pull numbers out of thin air to make your point.

Experience has shown us that antivirus software does not do what it says on the tin.

<comment><USER7> _> You can't just pull numbers out of thin air to make your point._

 _> Experience has shown us that antivirus software does not do what it says on the tin._

Whose experience?

I built WildFire at Palo Alto Networks[1]. We analyzed a few tens of millions of new potential threats daily, including the VirusTotal firehose.

As part of our internal efficacy and competitive monitoring, we took the top 5 enterprise antivirus products and ran everything coming into WildFire through them.

The delta between ground truth and what the antivirus engines caught using only static scanning and emulation was about a third, i.e. better than the pessimistic estimate of half I threw out. (In the real world, antivirus actually does better because malware is easier to catch after it starts running.)

The danger of antivirus, on the other hand, is wildly overstated in this thread. A small fraction of attacks use vulnerabilities to begin with, and in the scheme of things, very few antivirus vulnerabilities have been found. 1% is just a nice, round number chosen for illustrative purposes; it's orders of magnitude greater than the real risk.

Now, this will surprise exactly no one who works in security, since most new malware is a minor variant of existing malware and exploits are relatively uncommon, but for the less experienced folks reading these comments, I implore you: Don't listen to people who say antivirus is useless or, worse, makes you less secure.

It isn't. It doesn't. They're wrong.

1\. It's the biggest ATP product out there, took the crown from FireEye c. 2015. [https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/products/secure-the- network...](https://www.paloaltonetworks.com/products/secure-the- network/subscriptions/wildfire)

<comment><USER8> > Whose experience?

Off the top of my head, users of Bitdefender.

You're right of course, my point is that without some evidence you're just making up numbers to prove your point and any jerk with a keyboard (like say, me) can do the same thing. Thanks for providing some background to those numbers.

<comment><USER9> This Bitdefender vulnerability doesn't come with a PoC and is difficult to exploit due to DEP and ASLR---hooray for defense in depth! I've got a thousand nodes running Bitdefender in environments where malware runs rampant, and I'm not really that worried about someone coming after us through the scan engine. What I am going to do is make sure all my clients are up to date, which is really no different than my existing patch management activities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Moreover, the engine runs unsandboxed and as NT Authority\SYSTEM.

Is there an antivirus that _doesn't_ parse untrusted input in a process with full system privileges? What a joke.

<comment><USER11> Already years (~7+) ago AVG introduced an out of process scanning implementation that opens the file in question with system rights however transfers the handle to a lower privileged process (restricted with ACLs) that actually performs the actual scan

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting. Unfortunately, AVG has been acquired by Avast last year [1]. I already looked into the new version of AVG a few months ago, and found that they have replaced AVG's engine with Avast's engine. Since the scanner always runs as NTAuthority\SYSTEM in the current Avast version, I would assume that the same is true for the most recent AVG version. I'm not completely sure, though, so don't quote me on that.

[1]: [https://press.avast.com/avast-announces-agreement-to- acquire...](https://press.avast.com/avast-announces-agreement-to-acquire-avg- for-13b)

<comment><USER11> Well since I am no longer involved with them for a long time, I can't really say how this all went and what is currently the state.

However this piece is realtively simple to implement on windows so I can only hope they would implement the same thing for avast eventually at least. This is IMHO the only sane way to do scanning without exposing the system to a huge risk

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> "Assuming that the size is not explicitly casted, the compiler should throw a warning of the following kind:"

In D, implicit truncation of an integer value is an error, not a warning.

I've predicted before that lack of memory safety will be the demise of C in internet-facing programs. Dealing with the bugs is just too expensive.

<comment><USER13> It seems like your prediction is not becoming reality.

I have the following issue: I would like to be able to download a file from the internet (jpeg, pdf, mp3, mp4, etc) without the risk of getting malware on a Windows machine. Or Mac. Or Linux.

Can't be done.

Everything is relying on crappy C code dragging around pointers and sizes, making index calculations, calling malloc and free.

<comment><USER12> > It seems like your prediction is not becoming reality.

We'll see. I only made it last May :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> _" Note also that Bitdefender's engine is licensed to many different anti- virus vendors, all of which could be affected by this bug."_

<comment><AUTHOR> That's right. The list of anti-virus products that license the Bitdefender engine is extremely long. Actually, I wanted to include the most prominent Bitdefender customers in the article to give an impression. I ended up not doing so, because some license partner use the Bitdefender engine with disabled archive extraction. In this case, they would not be vulnerable to this bug, and I didn't want to mislead someone into thinking they are.

<comment><USER15> So if Bitdefender develops the engine, what does the anti-virus vendor do? Only develop the input (definitions)?

<comment><AUTHOR> The definitions are licensed with the engine and can usually not be modified.

In a nutshell, most anti-virus vendors that are licensing the Bitdefender engine extend it with their own engine to improve their detection rate. For example, they support more exotic file formats and binary packers, or fancy heuristics, etc. Essentially this means they have the full attack surface from Bitdefender plus their own attack surface...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Might we agree to recommend to Microsoft users that they should use Microsoft AV. About 6 months ago we had a similar discussion [0] which arrived at that conclusion.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13489100](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13489100)

</comment><comment><USER17> > I want to thank Bitdefender and especially Marius for their response as well > as for fixing the bug.

I don't see an update for the mac version.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bitdefender's core has dynamically loaded modules that are distributed with the regular definition update, which runs fully automatically. So there is nothing to do.

<comment><USER13> There's also an appstore version which is unlikely to update the application code together with the definitions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Bitdefender has problems with HTTP comet stream. Stop buying it so the company can go bankrupt.</comment>


The Long Road to Maxwell's Equations - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/the-long-road-to-maxwells-equations

<comment><USER2> To this day, I still think derivation of the speed of light in a vacuum from the Maxwell equations is one of the most elegant and beautiful things in Physics.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I went to college in the US and got a EE degree and along the way almost switched to Applied Physics because of a really awesome professor I had and during which the physics I was taking was making use of the EE courses I went through. I was introduced to Elctro-mag theory from a physics class that was again used in some of my EE classes. I still remember physics experiments of passing current through two conductors each placed on balanced aparatus and watching the repel and attract due to current direction.

I had (still have) a knack for math and science but I'm just so amazed by guys like Maxwell.

The one thing that strikes me over and over is how insightful guys like Maxwell were. At such a young age and time he was piecing together I guess what others living at the same time might call phenomenon. Same for Einstein and Tesla. I mean he literally devised the mathematical model that foretold what we would discover in the future. And some 20 years later, Hans Christian Ørsted obtained the first evidence of a link between electricity and magnetism is quite amazing to me.

I recall reading an article some time ago about Tesla and how it was described that Tesla literally envisioned and saw AC current and then struggled to write it all down. I write software and I can see a similar pattern in myself. I often know and see, in my head, how something should work is so hard to explain. Of course at a much more basic level than these guys. It's as if Maxwell just saw and imagine how things were connected.

I keep waiting for the link that adds gravity to the mix.

Very nice article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really enjoyed this book on the discovery and definition of electromagnetism.

Faraday, Maxwell, and the Electromagnetic Field: How Two Men Revolutionized Physics ([http://www.amazon.com/Faraday-Maxwell-Electromagnetic- Field-...](http://www.amazon.com/Faraday-Maxwell-Electromagnetic-Field- Revolutionized/dp/1616149426/))

</comment><comment><USER5> When I read these stories, it always amazes me how the ordinary terms we use everyday are simply the names of the people who discovered them. That and how difficult it was to make discoveries back then when even the math wasn't fully formed. Today we just ask Google for anything we don't know.

<comment><USER6> _when even the math wasn 't fully formed_

You'd be surprised by how much of today's used mathematics is actually "old". I mean most of it (even the mathematics of electromagnetism) hasn't changed since the 19th century and before, we are using the same theorems they used at the time.

<comment><USER7> It depends on what you mean by fully formed. For example the idea of vectors and quaternions, which seem so natural, is quite new (~250 years old) [1]

When maxwell derived and unified electromagnetic theory, he didn't use constructs like the gradient and divergence of vector fields (those concepts didn't exist), instead performing those operations 'just' partial derivatives [2]. Sure, the math is explicitly identical, but the modern concepts of operators on vector fields that is so powerful just didn't exist which, to me, is rather telling about the evolution mathematical thinking: we are all doing the same thing (and have been for a long time) but way we think about it evolves with our notation. And notation that we are used to is actually quite new

[1] [https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/MAT21D/SUPPLEMENTARY- AR...](https://www.math.ucdavis.edu/~temple/MAT21D/SUPPLEMENTARY- ARTICLES/Crowe_History-of-Vectors.pdf)

[2] [http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459.full....](http://rstl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/155/459.full.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What a coincidence, earlier today we studied these equations in class, only we used different names:

Maxwell-Faraday equation.

Maxwell-Gauss equation.

Maxwell-flux equation.

Maxwell-Ampère equation.

<comment><USER8> Interesting! Are you studying in the US? I went to high school and university in the States and never learned individual names for those equations.

But now you say this it's kind of odd -- we have Ohm's law (and pythagoras' theorem and the Riemann function etc). What's different about these four?

(and it seems the name "Maxwell's Flux Equation" would really be simply the description of that one rather than a name).

<comment><USER6> _Are you studying in the US?_

No, Tunisia, 2nd year of CPGE (Maths/Physics), French curriculum.

 _What 's different about these four?_

It's just the names, what matters is the equations themselves I believe, the names only reflect their history (except for that third one indeed, it seems like a description but that's the actual name used[0] )

0.[http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/%C3%89lectromagn%C3%A9tisme_d...](http://fr.wikiversity.org/wiki/%C3%89lectromagn%C3%A9tisme_d%C3%A9pendant_du_temps/%C3%89quations_de_Maxwell)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I thought it was interesting that they felt the need to briefly explain "del".</comment>


Show HN: What do you think of this short End User Licensing Agreement? - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/C91fEqAf

<comment><USER3> > The company reserves the right, exercised in its sole discretion, to revoke > your license at any time.

That clause makes sense for online services. But for packaged software -- really? If I buy a piece of software, I don't expect the developer to have the power to decide, at their whim, that I'm no longer allowed to use it. Even Microsoft EULAs (e.g. <http://goo.gl/IE8RN>) don't purport to give them that power.

<comment><AUTHOR> But how come it makes sense for online services then?

I've seen this in more than one license to date, I'd say it's not that uncommon. From what I can tell, this is a way to deal with the unforseen abuse situations.

<comment><USER3> > But how come it makes sense for online services then?

Because, as you just said, it's a way to deal with unforseen abuse situations.

But that justification only works for online services (or other situations involving shared or limited resources). It doesn't make sense for standalone software. What does 'abuse' even mean in that situation? Is Excel going to complain to its union rep if I make it work 80 hours a week?

<comment><AUTHOR> A software being used to facilitate the spread of malware.

Or being used as a part of a scam operation.

Or being used by an entity that creates a negative impact on the company's brand.

<comment><USER4> So someone doing those things is really going to care that their license was revoked?

Also how is it revoked? Can you revoke it for everyone by updating the website or will you contact people in writing individually.

Drop the clause or limit it to breach of other clauses. The clause will stop anyone depending on the software wanting to use it and bad actors won't care that they don't have a license.

<comment><AUTHOR> Alright. Color me convinced.

Though limiting it to the breach of other clauses doesn't make much sense under the same argument - those who are breaching hardly give a damn about the license.

<comment><USER4> Yeah you would probably have to put some more restrictions in to make it worthwhile but as it is it only scares the honest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> EULAs are basically meaningless. Nobody reads them, and everybody knows that nobody reads them. Also you generally can't disclaim your liability for damages caused by your gross negligence, and a judge, not an EULA, will decide if you have done that, should someone be aggrieved enough to take you to court.

</comment><comment><USER6> > You cannot sell, rent, lease or lend the software.

I am not a lawyer, but AFAIK this clause is unenforceable in the US.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_sale_doctrine>

<comment><USER7> This is why these "agreements" start out saying the software is licensed to you, not sold to you.

<comment><USER8> They can say whatever they want, but it's still not necessarily true or enforceable. The Wikipedia page linked above describes rulings by the European court which suggest that they consider that software _is_ sold rather than licensed, in which case it can't be contracted out of as this tries to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I don't especially care for license agreements, but it does seem better that they be simple like this than fifty pages of legalese. On the other hand, I don't especially like that this keeps some of the most typical objectionable clauses of such agreements:

Clause 1: you disclaim any fitness for purpose? Not only is this likely unenforceable in many jurisdictions, it seems distinctly weaselly to sell a product and attempt to claim that in the fine print.

Clause 2: does that mean if it erases my entire hard drive, you're not responsible? Seems a bit not cool; though I can understand wanting to avoid claims if it crashes and data is lost, it seems overly wide-ranging.

Clause 4: I have a perpetual license, until you decide it's over for no reason at all and that's that - in which case I get no consideration or refund?

Clause 5: as csense mentioned, at least parts of this would seem unenforceable too.

I guess maybe it makes it seem worse that it's all laid out starkly without all the jargon to mask them; they're not uncommon clauses to include in such agreements, of course.

<comment><AUTHOR> Clause 1 is a standard DISCLAIMER in many O/S licenses. That's the source of it.

Clause 2 - Correct. This is a straight-forward translation of the legal speak. Again, fairly standard, you've just not been paying attention :)

Clause 4 - As I explained in another comment, this yet again appears to be a standard way to protect against unforeseen abuse. For example, someone's using the software to facilitate phishing ops or something to that end.

Clause 5 - The lease/rent/lend is a standard clause in many licenses, e.g. [1]. The "sell" clause also made an appearance in several I looked at, so it only seemed reasonable to combine these two.

[1] [http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/sysinternals/bb469936.asp...](http://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/sysinternals/bb469936.aspx)

<comment><USER8> Yep, I understand that those clauses are common in many agreements. Doesn't change that I just don't care for any of them, though :)

I think having them laid out that might make me more likely to react to them than if they were buried in a whole lot of jargon, which makes a slightly unpleasant case for longer agreements :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I have released several projects under conventional multi-page licenses, covering everything from not suing "licensees of data providers" and force majeure (that may or may not be different from the acts of God). This time around I have a simpler project and I want to try a simpler plain-spoken EULA that boils down to this:

      1. This is an "as is" software

           that may break
           in which case you won't go after the developer

      2. You won't do objectionable things with the software

Have anyone tried this?

There's just such a stark difference between, say, a BSD license and a license that comes with a typical Windows/Mac software. But since BSD clearly works, so why not try and keep things simple?

 _EDIT - > added "that boils down to this"_

<comment><USER7> That doesn't work at all if it is the actual wording. For point 1 you can find warranty wording in any number of open source or creative commons licenses.

For the second, objectionable requires a definition. For example many would consider the US drone assassination program objectionable, and hence tar US companies and people with the same brush. Does that mean US companies and people can use the software? How many steps do they have to be removed (eg is providing the payroll software to the defense contractor a problem?)

<http://wonko.com/post/jsmin-isnt-welcome-on-google-code> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-hCimLnIsDA>

Because of copyright laws, people can do virtually nothing with software. If you actually want to give the user freedoms - <USER2> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html> \- then pick a well known free software license since it will have already addressed all these issues.

<comment><AUTHOR> No, duh. Of course this is not the actual wording.

It is here instead - <http://pastebin.com/C91fEqAf>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I would not agree to it. I cannot modify the software? Why not? Why should you have the right to revoke my right to use this software?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, then you don't agree to it.

> _I cannot modify the software? Why not?_

To spare the company supporting randomly modified versions.

Also, the "cannot modify" clause is a weaker version of a universally used "You shall not decompile or reverse-engineerthe software", which is also frequently coupled with "You will not try and defeat, deactivate, bypass, remove or otherwise circumvent any software protection mechanisms". I don't think it makes much practical sense, but this _is_ an industry standard. Virtually every proprietary software license is locked down this way.

<comment><USER9> "> I cannot modify the software? Why not?

To spare the company supporting randomly modified versions."

Then why not just say that? Why not just say, "No support shall be provided if the software has been modified without authorization?"

"I don't think it makes much practical sense, but this is an industry standard. Virtually every proprietary software license is locked down this way."

Yes, well, when I said that I would not agree to it, I meant it -- because I do not agree to proprietary licenses with such terms (i.e. I do not use proprietary software).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why not a standard set of symbols to cover all of the standard stuff? You understand what the symbol means one and no longer have to check for something that might be skipped in.

</comment><comment><USER11> I used Oracle's as a template. I'd briefly read through theirs and see if you missed anything important.</comment>


Design's Lost Generation - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@monteiro/designs-lost-generation-ac7289549017 <comment><USER2> So a designer should judge the ethics of the customer and his/her business while assuming the overhead of student loans and the shakedowns of professional accreditation?

I like the sentiment, but if I were Mike, I wouldn't go down any dark alleys with Cisco guys.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you prevent people in a referral system from referring itself? - <AUTHOR>

I have a referral system in my website where I award users for referring people to join my website. I know that IP address can be faked so that can't be used in my use case. Letting the users enter mobile number is to extensive for my system and entering credit card is also very extensive for my system. So is there a service who can track referrers uniquely? Or how can I build one? <comment><USER2> Depends how tech-savvy are you customers and how big rewards are for referring.

* You could try flash cookies if enough prospectives have flash enabled

* Require a minimum of activity before earning rewards (e.g. 20 posts)</comment>


Introducing the Maker Channel on IFTTT - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ifttt.com/post/121786069098/introducing-the-maker-channel

<comment><USER2> > _NOTE: Requests may be rate limited_

You can't just say something has a rate limit without stating what the rate limit is.

Given that this is oriented toward IoT as well, that's an oversight.</comment>


Follow DNS Root Zone KSK Rollover - <AUTHOR> https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ksk-rollover <comment><AUTHOR> Will it rollover smoothly? Feel free to report any issue here:</comment>


Glenn Greenwald: Fake News That MSNBC Spread to Discredit WikiLeaks - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/12/09/a-clinton-fan-manufactured-fake-news-that-msnbc-personalities-spread-to-discredit-wikileaks-docs/ <comment><USER2> While there's no sign the emails published by WikiLeaks were doctored and it's concerning that the Clinton campaign made such a baseless claim, it's similarly concerning to me that WikiLeaks itself created/spread false interpretations of the emails they published.

Here's what happened:

* Conservative commentator Ben Domenech goes on Fox News Sunday show and quotes what he read on The Daily Beast: "We saw this week reporting that a pro-Clinton super PAC had paid more than a million dollars to have supporters of her online push back against Bernie supporters" (Transcript: [https://t.co/7IuO1c7j7N](https://t.co/7IuO1c7j7N))

* DNC chair Debbie Wasserman-Schulz had appeared on an separate, earlier segment of the same show. Likely because of that, a DNC staffer writes a bullet-point transcript of the panel debate and sends it around internally with the subject "FNS [date]", subheaders like "Panel" and comments like "I didn't catch everything [in this part]" – very easy to identify as a transcript: [https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351](https://wikileaks.org/dnc-emails/emailid/8351)

And yet WikiLeaks spun it on Twitter as if it were a smoking gun:

"DNC knew of Clinton 'paid troll factory' fighting Sanders supporters #FeelTheBern" [https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757077620928512000](https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/757077620928512000)

So they misrepresented a transcript where some random person quotes some other news source as a statement by the DNC itself, a statement of veracity or admission of internal knowledge. Got over 5000 retweets, never retracted/corrected.

After what they did in this election, WikiLeaks can no longer claim to be just a neutral platform for leaked secrets – just like everyone else, they spin facts to fit certain narratives they want to promote for whatever editorial reasons.

<comment><USER3> Exactly.

Wikileaks has continually misrepresented, lied, and obfuscated the truth. Not just on this issue.

They repeatedly put innocent people in danger and generally favor a very obvious set of political stances (and one of those is being incredibly obviously slanted towards Russia).

Now you can speculate over _why_ they do it, but THAT they do it remains a matter of fact.

<comment><USER4> Which of their actions are so obviously pro-Russia? I can think of some that are pro-Russia in the sense that they are attacking Russia's opponents but those targets are opposed by others as well, making the conclusion less clear. The most well-known example: is helping Snowden seek asylum pro-Russia or anti-USA? The fact that they were seeking asylum in more than Russia, it seems more anti-USA.

<comment><USER3> To be clear: I'm not saying it's a deliberate pro-Russian policy - I can see how that might have been implied - but it's undeniable that a large number of their actions benefit Russian interests.

Maybe they are unwitting pawns, or just useful fools, but that it's serving those goals is rather obvious.

<comment><AUTHOR> You seem to be saying that if leaks benefit Russian policy, the bearer of those leaks is a pawn or a useful idiot.

If legit information benefits someone, it doesn't make that information tainted or the bearer of that information biased or a pawn. I don't care whose interests the truth benefits. We all deserve to know the truth regardless of whom it benefits.

<comment><USER3> Not at all. When it's a consistent pattern of leaks that are released and misrepresented (for whatever purpose) that benefit one party...

... well _then_ they are either a tool or a fool.

This is Wikileaks now: either in the pocket, or foolish enabler, of Russian interests.

They could be either, but they _are_ one of them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nuance is impossible on twitter, so I afford them some lack of brevity in that medium. But beyond that I haven't noticed them editorialize. They release the docs and people can look at them to come to their own conclusions.

Can you show me any examples where they "... continually misrepresented, lied, and obfuscated the truth."

<comment><USER2> The brevity of Twitter is not at fault. The whole purpose of their account there seems to be to editorialize the leaks. It's clearly more than just an announcement channel of new releases for people "to come to their own conclusions". They tweet conclusions supported, sometimes incorrectly, with links.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It was Communism, then War on Drugs, then Terrorism, all really well designed and extremely effective pr narratives.

I always wondered what would come next in the list, I think it might be "Fake News". It is a great PR concept - it is simple, fits in a hashtag, good for Twitter mud flinging, and also invokes powerful emotions: "External entities are brainwashing and controlling the citizens of my country".

What happened to the media and how propaganda worked during this election cycle is interesting to study. It will probably be digested and analyzed for years to come.

Mass media here has always been subservient to those in power, but it had to maintain this minimal facade of being "balanced" and "impartial". A lot of consumers didn't want to believe otherwise so it kind of worked out. But something happened, out of desperation or foolishness they have lifted the curtain too much. That was a fatal mistake. Too many people saw how the sausage was made, it became hard to ignore it. I am talking about telling people blatant lies and treating them like idiots, stuff like "these documents are illegal to read, it is different for the media, come to use for interpretation", "Wikileaks doctored all these emails", or "Russian hackers are hiding in the bushes in rural Wisconsin, with laptops and USB keys hacking voting machines" and so on.

Another way, to interpret the "Fake News" phenomenon is to think of a cornered rat. How it will start biting and attacking because it sees no way out. It thinks it is the end and it has nothing to lose. Perhaps "Fake News" is such a response from the media. It lost control and it is a way of lashing out.

<comment><AUTHOR> >Mass media here has always been subservient to those in power, but it had to maintain this minimal facade of being "balanced" and "impartial".

I'm not so sure about that. The media seemed to be at war with Bush during his entire presidency.

<comment><USER6> Excluding all the cheerleading during the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> fair point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I do find it fascinating the cries of "fake news" starting just after the election ended. I'm struggling to find the source of non-fake news. Honestly, I can't find it. If you're left-leaning, then it's obvious Breitbart, Fox, and friends are fake news. If you're right-leaning, it's obvious CNN, MSNBC, BBC, and friends are fake news.

If you're centrist, like me, and you investigate the claims, they all turn out to be pretty much spot-on. All the above really are fake news.

So what isn't? Is there a source of news that is at least close to correct, most of the time, even if the story doesn't play to their narrative?

<comment><USER8> I'm a liberal with minor libertarian sympathies and I'll say that Fox News is bad, but I think it the average article on Fox is a far cry from what we're talking about with regard to fake news.

I can also point to cases where the NYTimes has reported quite badly (Judith Miller, for instance), but all the major players are in the business of more or less accurate reporting colored by various editorial biases.

That's in contrast to the things I see relatives sharing on Facebook where my first inclination is "time to go check snopes".

<comment><USER9> It's a bait and switch. Left-leaning people will push for vague policies within Google, FaceBook, and Twitter to curtail fake news. These policies will be applied inconsistently, which is why they will be purposefully vague. Both fake news and ideologically-improper news that also happens to be true will be filtered.

<comment><AUTHOR> Google does it with more than just news. Try shopping for a gun using google or craigslist sometime. (you can't)

Edit: This post has been flagged for the second time now. An effective tactic for making stories drop unnaturally fast. IMO it's a hidden and incidious form of censorship and bias found in social media:

[http://i.imgur.com/Ba9Rt1C.png](http://i.imgur.com/Ba9Rt1C.png)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> [https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22fake%20news%22](https://www.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22fake%20news%22)

I find it amazing that despite decades of tabloids selling fake news, it has only become a hysterical, existential danger RIGHT NOW.

<comment><USER11> And decades of people like Limbaugh blatantly misrepresenting issues like Sandra Fluke's testimony since the 80s. The "alt-right" news phenomenon isn't anything new. Hop onto any forum website's political section and you'll get plenty of links to crazy. Been that way since at least W. Probably since Drudge and the Monica Lewinsky thing.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh–Sandra_Fluke_con...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush_Limbaugh–Sandra_Fluke_controversy)

I've noticed that ever since the election result, it seems like the NYT has completely lost their minds, nothing but doom and gloom. At least wait until something happens to report on rather than rampant speculation. I'm so sick of hearing about Trump. Isn't there any news fit to print?

I remember when Hillary started using the term "alt-right" on the campaign trail, as if it were something different than the typical Fox / Drudge / Limbaugh drivel. It seems as though she was trying to protect the GOP from the master it created by disassociating it somehow. It's the same ole same ole, just evolved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Greenwald is deliberately misrepresenting the reporting done by Kurt Eichenwald about the leaked emails. We know it's deliberate because he's distorted the story the same way in the past and it's been pointed out to him. Eichenwald did not claim that the leaked information was false, but showed, to a high degree of probability, that Trump campaign staffers were working with Russian disinformation operatives. It was an amazing story.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wikileaks has done plenty to discredit itself. MSNBC shouldn't have done this but let's not pretend WL is a bastion of credibility.

<comment><USER13> Wikileaks' credibility in the minds of the mainstream is the highest its ever been. President-elect Trump mentioned them _by name_ as a credible source, while discrediting all other media outlets as being propaganda tools for the left.

And it worked. He won, and in no small part because Wikileaks has become the only credible news source for many people. Not even because of what Wikileaks published, but because of what people _claim_ they published.

<comment><USER14> Their credibility was shot for me once they decided to release the DNC materials in a piece-meal fashion in order to affect a national election. At that point, I lost all respect for them.

<comment><USER13> That's understandable - but how many people gained respect for them because Wikileaks' releases appealed to their political biases?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The dominant theme of Neil Gaiman's work is the redemptive value of stories, which always struck me as a convenient meme for a seller of stories to spread. Journalists write of the value of journalism with great gusto; I am similarly unimpressed. Facts and their dissemination are important; There are ways of doing this that do not involve employing a pharisaical class, most indoctrinated in the same few universities, and having theme write ideologically-poisoned clickbait for peanuts. Prediction markets and information bounties would likely be much better sensory organs than the press. This market is ripe for disruption, but disruption won't look like Buzzfeed, or Breitbart, or Vox. It will be some incentive structure that does journalists jobs far better, without journalists.

</comment><comment><USER15> That's rich. Greenwald's lecturing about fake news while continuing to claim that PRISM gives the NSA unfettered access to Internet companies' data. This guy's the godfather of modern fake news, has repeatedly been called out on it, and has a bone to pick.

</comment><comment> angry-hacker It doesn't matter anymore. You're allowed to only have a different opinion if you're rich enough. Like Thiel. Only then it is diversity. Otherwise it's fake news, Russian agents, and Trump spam.

</comment><comment><USER16> Glenn Greenwald's opinion on anything matters exactly as much as Wikileaks these days.

<comment><USER17> I am genuinely curious. why do you think that?</comment></comment>


Airborne transmission as the dominant route for the spread of Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/06/10/2009637117 <comment><AUTHOR> "We have elucidated the transmission pathways of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) by analyzing the trend and mitigation measures in the three epicenters. Our results show that the airborne transmission route is highly virulent and dominant for the spread of COVID-19. The mitigation measures are discernable from the trends of the pandemic. Our analysis reveals that the difference with and without mandated face covering represents the determinant in shaping the trends of the pandemic. This protective measure significantly reduces the number of infections. Other mitigation measures, such as social distancing implemented in the United States, are insufficient by themselves in protecting the public. Our work also highlights the necessity that sound science is essential in decision-making for the current and future public health pandemics."

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm not too convinced, because yet again this is a correlation, not a direct experimental measurement. In this pandemic, there are a lot of models and approximation, and very few studies with hard experimental evidence.

What the paper says may be true, but I'd love to see more experimental data.</comment>


Chevy Volt: Batteries aren't the problem - <AUTHOR> http://www.autobloggreen.com/2008/02/19/gm-the-battery-is-not-the-problem-with-evs-its-everything-els/

<comment><USER2> Snarkless query.

"...all the other components are electrified as well. [...] There is not an established supplier community for this. It's a very complicated system with known technological solutions. But they've never been integrated in these forms."

Could someone familiar with manufacturing explain why this is a problem? I mean, if there are solutions, shouldn't it be just an issue of fitting them together? That doesn't _seem_ all that difficult, from a complete layman's perspective. Enlighten me, please.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the problem is that the auto industry is so entrenched in gas-based cars, and the system has been running for so many decades that it's hard to start producing an entirely new product. A car has thousands of pieces, many coming from different suppliers.</comment></comment>


Inside the Harvard Business School Case Method - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bS7McbxyZnY&feature=player_embedded#at=81

<comment><USER2> Marc andreesen attacks this method for good reason - the case methodology suggests you'll have a lot more data in the real world than you do and trains people to look for clues in the past about what you should do now; you simply can't always do that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Source?</comment></comment>


Wintel puts all its chips on Windows 8 - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/11/us-computex-wintel-idUSBRE85905120120611 <comment><USER2> "Analyst Serene Chan of Frost and Sullivan said that Microsoft plans to charge $100 for each Windows 8 licence - a significant increase over what it charged for Windows 7 running on mobile devices, especially when compared with Google's Android operating system, which manufacturers can use for free."

"The cost of the licence that OEMs have to pay Microsoft will be a major drawback," she said.

 __100 dollars per W8 license __

</comment><comment><USER3> Not surprised. Microsoft and Intel have been helping each other for decades. That's why they coined the term "Wintel". But unfortunately for both, the future is "Armdroid".</comment>


Things developers "love" hearing from non-technical managers - <AUTHOR> https://waydev.co/the-impact-of-git-on-software-development/ <comment><USER2> This guy has 2 blogspams that he's been posting over the last 12 hours or so to HN, one about things developers 'love' to hear from management and the other about git.

(They're blogspams because the posts are from 2 other sites. His posts are basically excerpts of those posts (which he does provide links to at the end of his own) ).

basically quotes excerpts from the actual posts from Hackernoon and another site -- he does provide the actual links -- and posts links to his here).

</comment><comment><USER3> You have the wrong title for this article.

<comment><USER4> Was that a parody of the parody?</comment></comment>