If Eventual Consistency Seems Hard, Wait Till You Try MVCC - <AUTHOR> http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2014/12/08/eventual-consistency-simpler-than-mvcc/ <comment><USER2> I certainly wouldn't dispute that it can be hard to reason about concurrent operations in traditional database systems - particularly if you want to do it across multiple database systems, which do indeed have differing implementations. That said, if the author thinks eventual consistency is easy/not-that-bad/whatever by comparison, I would tend to question their understanding of programming for eventually consistency. Eventual consistency for non-trivial applications is really, really, really hard to get right.

Consistency in relational databases is a hard topic because maintaining consistency in any concurrent system is hard. Traditional systems provide you with a set of tools (isolation levels, foreign keys) that make a decent programmer capable of building a safe concurrent application. Throwing away those tools and replacing them with nothing does not make life easier. The tool is easier to understand, but the problem is harder to solve.

<comment><USER3> Something that also stands out to me from the article is the general negativity about implementations the author knows in-depth, and positivity about the implementations that he doesn't know that well and only read about. I think this is what often drives people to adopt new things which avoids some old problems but knowledge about the new problems it creates are not that well known yet, even less so with possible solutions to these new unknown problems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> PostgreSQL supports true serializability, while maintaining good performance and concurrency:

[http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/transaction- iso.ht...](http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.4/static/transaction- iso.html#XACT-SERIALIZABLE)

It's based on fairly recent research by Michael J. Cahill, et al.

It's simple. If you are confused, then set default_transaction_isolation=true. You will get errors if there's a data race.

Given that, what's the point of the article? That sub-SERIALIZABLE modes have complex semantics? Yes, that's true, but they are still much more likely to help you then the NoSQL "you're on your own to avoid races" approach.

If you want to avoid lots of really challenging problems, PostgreSQL is often the best bet by far.

<comment><USER5> > If you want to avoid lots of really challenging problems, PostgreSQL is > often the best bet by far.

How about 0 single points of failure. How does PostgreSQL help you avoid that challenging problem?

<comment><USER6> I'm pretty sure, every try to solve all development and maintenance problems in single software will always fail. And also asking "How to do X with Y?" is bad. "How can you ensure zero points of failure?" is the right question not "How does PostgreSQL help you ensure zero points of failure?".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I agree with the author that the various levels of isolation, etc. within the current crop of SQL databases is a morass. I'll point to some recent fine work by Martin Kleppmann ([https://github.com/ept/hermitage](https://github.com/ept/hermitage)) that explores the issue and shows how many systems fall short of serializable isolation in their default modes. (And sometimes in modes labeled "serializable"!) In his test three databases actually achieve full serializability: PostgreSQL, MS SQL Server, and FoundationDB.

But don't give up on ACID yet! If can actually get real serializability, you have a very powerful model that is also very simple to reason about. Serializable isolation gives you a virtual "whole database lock" that lets you modify lots of things all over the database before you "unlock" it and hand the database to the next client. The amazing thing about MVCC combined with serializable isolation is that you get to use this "simplest possible" mental model even though hundreds or thousands of concurrent clients might be all hitting the database at the same time.

<comment><USER8> > The amazing thing about MVCC combined with serializable isolation is that > you get to use this "simplest possible" mental model even though hundreds or > thousands of concurrent clients might be all hitting the database at the > same time.

I think you've proved the author's point better than he ever could. With serializable isolation, you don't have concurrent clients all hitting the same data at the same time...you've got locking/blocking. The two things you're trying to put together are mutually exclusive.

The whole point of the article is that when you're trying to write concurrently to a database, it will be necessarily complex. ACID databases attempt to sweep that complexity under the rug and create a simpler mental model. But those abstractions are leaky and bubble up to the surface in ways that are often unexpected or difficult to handle. This is especially true when you try to scale beyond a single machine...achieving serializable isolation whilst replicating between database nodes is all but impossible.

Most NoSQL databases take the approach of explicitly exposing the complexity to the application with the assumption that concurrency is an absolute requirement and the application will understand how to achieve consistency better than a generic data tier can.

<comment><USER7> Hmm... Serializable isolation and concurrency go together fine and certainly don't require blocking or even locking when using MVCC and optimistic concurrency. For that matter serializable transactions and scalability are not incompatible either (though few NoSQL systems have tackled the problem yet).

I think the author's main point is that sub-serializable isolation levels are confusing and can lead to wrong behavior in subtle ways. I agree, but to me it sounds like the failing is in using too weak a consistency/isolation model, not too strong a one!

<comment><USER9> > Hmm... Serializable isolation and concurrency go together fine and certainly > don't require blocking or even locking when using MVCC and optimistic > concurrency. For that matter serializable transactions and scalability are > not incompatible either (though few NoSQL systems have tackled the problem > yet).

For non-conflicting operations, I agree entirely that serializable transactions can scale just fine. In fact, just about every serializable concurrency control algorithm (e.g., two-phase locking, partitioned OCC, MVCC with clever timestamp allocation) can scale just fine for non-conflicting operations.

However, for conflicting read-write operations, serializability will incur higher costs than many alternatives (e.g., eventual consistency, weak isolation implemented in a scalable manner). Serializing access to shared data items fundamentally requires some serial execution.

This fundamental overhead is a key reason why almost every commodity RDBMS defaults to one of these weaker isolation levels and why databases like Oracle don't support serializable isolation at all. It's not that their respective database architects don't _know_ how to implement serializability -- it's that weak isolation is faster and, in many cases, reduces deadlocks and system- induced aborts, even if it increases programmer burden.

<comment><USER7> > Serializing access ... fundamentally requires some serial execution.

This is true, but I don't think this requirement limits scalability because the serial part can be arbitrarily cheap (e.g. approve ordered batches of work).

You also say that many databases could implement serializable transactions but don't because of the "higher costs" and that "weak isolation is slower". This sounds like a tradeoff to me so, of course, there will never be one right answer. Well, maybe someday for problems that permit I-confluence :)

However, the article attests to the high costs of sacrificing serializability in programmer productivity and system complexity. Those are serious downsides that need to be weighed very carefully against any actual, measured, performance advantages that are on the table.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the functions of an Operating System is to provide (the illusion of) isolation between Processes and the resources they acquire. Roughly,

Transaction : Database :: Process : OperatingSystem

The four transaction isolation levels, defined nearly fifty years ago, were an attempt at categorizing incomplete isolation. Can you imagine launching an operating system process and saying "It's OK if my memory locations are changed by another process" Or "Don't let my memory locations be changed by another process, but it's OK if another process prevents me from deleting a resource". That's what we're asking of our non-serializable database transactions.

Why not just provide strong isolation? Partly because it is hard and partly because the performance impact of strong transaction isolation is greater than the performance impact of process context switching.

But if you're living with less than strong transaction isolation, then tautologically, strange and unexpected things eventually happen: seeing state that never existed, seeing state changes that you didn't make, failing to see state that you should have seen. Rarely, the application can reliably detect and handle some of these situations. Typically, the application only thinks it can.

Sometimes, I think the core issue is with the notions of isolation and serializability themselves. Developers want to believe that events are noticed simultaneously with their occurrence, and that all observers (transactions) see the same history unfold in the same order. But the pesky physical world doesn't work that way.

</comment><comment><USER11> While reading this I was thinking about Datomic. I know that transactions are serialisable and actually serialised and stored in the database. Essentially what you get is a full DB lock and you can access the full database, or even do whatever you want. That of course does lock the database transacter, reading can still go on consistently.

Was is not also the research in VoltDB, that coordination is the problem, and that you have to do all transaction on a single core. Am I remembering this correctly?

Seams to me Datomic hits a very nice spot very you have relativly fast writing and concptionally unlimited reads.

If somebody know more then me, I happy to learn.

PS:

Also, why are we still using NoSQL and make any generalisation about it, by know there are so many NoSQL databases that they have literally nothing in common exept that its not a traditionall SQL database.

<comment><USER12> The author also has thoughts on Datomic: [http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2013/12/28/immutability-mvcc- and-g...](http://www.xaprb.com/blog/2013/12/28/immutability-mvcc-and-garbage- collection/)

tl;dr; append-only is great as long as you don't use your database much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It would seem a much more honest argument to me if MVCC were being compared to another implementation of consistency management, rather than compared to NO IMPLEMENTATION at all.

<comment><USER14> That not the point of the article, which is not very well made. The author explains/try to explain that MVCC has also its quirks under high write workload, it's not a silver bullet, even when considering "eventual consistency databases" which "do nothing to help you", quite the contrary because it's a design choice.

I think this article must be read inside the debate "ACID or no ACID". Where Google with F1 [1] and appengine [2], FoundationDB and wiredtiger push for strong transaction features _because it 's easier for developers_.

[1] [http://research.google.com/pubs/pub38125.html](http://research.google.com/pubs/pub38125.html) [2] A Design for a Distributed Transaction Layer for Google App Engine

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> > "what's the difference between Consistency and Isolation again?"

This is what bothers me most about this article. How can a person seemingly having advanced knowledge of relational databases cannot understand that Consistency is about __dataset state __and Isolation is about __transactions __. It 's not that you get consistent results between transactions or even queries, but that if key is integral number, then `itoa()` works (given that bit length not too large) no matter what, period.

If you want to support concurrent read and write operations on a database, then it's not much different from multithreaded programming - hard and impossible to get right without compromises.

<comment><USER14> The author makes this statement rhetorically, without explaining it more than all 4 ACID properties are tightly coupled.

In the case of Consistency and Isolation, you _might_ have a inconsistent databasse if Isolation allows phantom reads. Now that I think (again) about it, it seems to me consistency can only be a consequence of Atomicity and Isolation. Maybe not... because if Isolation allows to write things based on phatom reads then the database even if Atomic and with strong isolation it will be inconsistent.

tl,dr: yes, the author was quick in that sentence, doesn't mean he is stupid. `itoa()` example is far fetched and non very instructive.

<comment><USER15> Sorry about that, had to finish up quickly. I will try to clarify my view, and sorry again if this wall of text is too long. I just wanted to stress that Consistency is about _data_ itself, while Isolation is about _dataset acquisition_ (the same goes for Atomicity).

My view is that Consistency should only be mentioned when talking about data. It is much like method argument type checking in type-safe languages: if you get float passed in it WILL contain a valid number and you do not need any additional explicit checking for that. Consistency is data validation.

Isolation, on the other hand, is a form of concurrency control. Once you have shared data between concurrent threads, care must be taken. SQL brings this to a new level by having only shared data between threads (transactions). Since performance is directly related to concurrency control techniques, some compromise must be taken. The article is just about those compromises. Phantom reads can be viewed as a manifestation of holding and releasing locks (semaphores) during thread execution.

I believe that ACID properties are all orthogonal and databases should be examined where/when/how those properties are violated, e.g. Isolation is not always ensured because of the mentioned MVCC.

Atomicity: data is treated in atomic datasets; Consistency: data validation; Isolation: data immutability during transaction; Durability: data retention (and as a consequence Consistency) over prolonged periods of time.

But that is my own humble opinion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find this: [http://martin.kleppmann.com/2014/11/25/hermitage-testing- the...](http://martin.kleppmann.com/2014/11/25/hermitage-testing-the-i-in- acid.html) a more informative read on essentially the same topic.

<comment><USER17> Thanks for posting that link, I agree it does a slightly better job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not entirely sure I understand how things are any better in either world. Especially if you are approaching the problem with the idea that you will have no failure conditions, things are going to be tough. Prohibitively so.

</comment><comment><USER19> > Sorry, I'm not impressed with serializable isolation via a single writer > mutex.

I think that for a large number of applications, this would work just fine. Especially if the underlying storage is SSD-based -- something that's now easily obtained via VPS providers like DigitalOcean, Linode, and Vultr. After all, most database-driven applications aren't large-scale operations. So it's probably better to favor correctness and simplicity over concurrency and scalability.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think part of the goal with Eventual Consistency is that it lets you attack the underlying issues in a qualitatively different way.

Relying on the DB, your options are constrained by your choice of relational tables and rows, and further affected by your DB vendor and configuration. When you lift the conflicts out to a higher layer of abstraction, you can do something more object-oriented, leveraging some of the same tools you'll need anyway to deal with other inconsistencies and quirks.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm probably the minority on this, but I think innodb's docs on its isolation modes are clearer and easier to understand than postgres'. That could be because I have internalized them over many years though.

To me, the only sensible isolation level for transactions is serializable. We've had so many consistency issues because developers didn't understand when to lock and when not to. Everyone (including me) gets it wrong from time to time.

Very careful use of nonlocking selects can be correct and improve concurrency, but across a huge codebase, bugs slip in. If I could turn on a mode where the default is "select ... lock in share mode" but opt into a "select ... nonlocking" I would be eternally grateful. Judicious use of wrappers where we force the user to specify the lock mode has helped curb this trend quite a bit.

I'd still take MVCC with tons of warts over eventual consistency any day of the week. It is impossible to reason about eventual consistency because the database is literally allowed to do basically anything. Causal should really be the default starting point for AP systems.

<comment><USER22> _To me, the only sensible isolation level for transactions is serializable._

There's something to be said for this. As was discussed a few weeks ago, "repeateable read" semantics differ quite a bit between MySQL/InnoDB and MS SQL. In MySQL/InnoDB, you can have two transactions update the same record in repeatable read mode, and lose the second update without an error being reported.

But you take a huge hit on performance in serializable mode. You can only do one thing at a time.

<comment><USER23> No. In serializable mode it simply _appears_ that one thing is happening at a time. You can touch unrelated data concurrently with no performance impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> While they aren't distributed, Apache Lucene and Apache Lucy (the "loose C" port of Lucene that I work on) both implement MVCC: each index reader object represents a point-in-time view of the index that persists for the object's lifetime.

Core developers such as myself have to deal with some subtleties when implementing MVCC, but I wouldn't say that MVCC is too terribly hard for our users. The thing is, our interface does not look anything like SQL -- you have to use a different mental model when interacting with our data stores, and of course they are not suitable for all applications where you might use SQL.

What I took away from the article is that MVCC does not fit well within SQL semantics.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is a great thing to read and discuss, as opposed to blindly jumping on one bandwagon or another.

A relational database is a framework for storing data that comes with some rules in in exchange helps to guarantee certain characteristics. A flat file is too. The choice of which one to use depends on the problem.

Often there are several good choices. Imagine all the relational db zealots who frown upon using a relational db in a slightly unconventional way, such as strong events in a single table using a json column in postgres. Yet postgres provides some useful features and so it may actually be very smart to use it that way.

</comment><comment><USER26>
      > Does the first part of this excerpt contradict the second part? (Emphasis mine)

No, it's perfectly clear and consistent. Does anyone else find it confusing?

</comment><comment><USER27> I wish people would not blog as experts about things they don't know a great deal about.

</comment><comment><USER28> > Many developers, including myself, have written applications that fall afoul > of the MVCC implementation and rules.

Color me shocked.

</comment><comment><USER29> He's trying to claim that MVCC pushes complexity on to the user, but the examples of that are just typical "mysql does it wrong". So, that means mysql pushes complexity on to the user, not MVCC.

<comment><USER13> To his credit, the author acknowledges PostgreSQL is not his strong suit. As a pg fanatic myself I think there is a lot of negativity toward SQL in general that is more fairly leveled at MySQL and Oracle in specific.</comment></comment>


Spacewar 4.2 online (masswerk.at) - <AUTHOR>

You may now play version 4.2 of Spacewar! (the earliest known digital computer game) online at http://www.masswerk.at/spacewar -- make sure to select the right version from the "Version"-menu at the top.<p>(There are also version 3.1 and version 4.1f, the latter being the version apparently run at the CHM.)<p>To my knowledge this is the first chance to play a version online that requires the PDP-1's hardware multiply-devide option. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable URL: [http://www.masswerk.at/spacewar](http://www.masswerk.at/spacewar)</comment>


Billion-Dollar Blunders: How False Online Reports Sink Stocks - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/entertainment/theweb/magazine/16-11/st_rumors

<comment><USER2> WOW, that is a lot of money lost. I wonder is someone is going to get sued because of it.

<comment><USER3> I really wonder about how they could control this though. So much power based on someones words and yet people have to have the right to make mistakes too. no?</comment></comment>


America, Europe's Greatest Invention - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/2013/07/america-with-love-aa-gill-excerpt <comment><USER2> It really was. Unfortunately if it were to happen again in today's world, there would be few to no places for oppressed people to flee to.</comment>


Site replicates effects of psychedelic drugs - <AUTHOR> http://squareeater.com <comment><USER2> I've never done any sort of drug. I was skeptical that this would do anything. Having just cancelled my cable (because, you know, fuck TV and its rot...)

\-- I decided to test this out. My procedure was to turn off all of the lights in my apartment, put on my headphones, and set this short 'Lucid' to full screen.

Here are my results: No hallucinations or anything, I do feel very calm. This may be because I was just sitting there not thinking for a while. No seizures either, thanks creator.

It is a very interesting effect as the flashes from the screen end up taking up your entire field of view, not just the screen. Also if you close your eyes a bit, you can see the flashes on your eyelids quite clearly, kind of in reverse.

If you kind of let go a little bit, and let your eyes loose focus, the effect gets a bit more intense. I had this really deep scared feeling at one moment towards the end, because the feeling was so novel to me (the screen was starting to consume my whole field of vision... it was really weird).

Altogether, however, nothing particularly unexpected in terms of results I don't think. I suspect you could stare at any flashing screen with random patterns and achieve a similar effect. (Perhaps that is the point?)

Also, I'm glad this didn't turn out like Snow Crash where the white noise causes the programmers to

</comment><comment><USER3> Never taken good psychoactives have you?!

You cannot simulate the solvency of consciousness and ego.

If you experiment with psychoactives don't do so alone and make sure you are in a safe secure environment with people you trust and preferable have experience with psychoactives themselves.

Tread carefully - a full on trip is a VERY confronting experience if you don't know what to expect.

You might just as well trawl <http://www.pown.it/> \- but 9.5 points for the link bait

</comment><comment><USER4> Site _attempts_ to replicate the effects of psychedelic drugs. It's mildly effective, but no more effective than listening to dubstep with a subwoofer.

.

Actually, a bit less effective than the latter.

<comment><USER5> But the music in the squares is better than your average dubstep track.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have found a few uses for binaural beats such as power napping, stimulation for studying, and meditation/relaxation/anti-anxiety.

For psychedelic effects...meh

One interesting experiment I have tried is looking at brain wave recording of monks in pubmed and trying to recreate the frequencies, with mixed results.

This week, I am blindfolding myself for a few days and expect interesting results.

</comment><comment><USER7> Brian Dunning, of Skeptoid fame, has written an article/podcast about 'Digital Drugs':

<http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4147>

 _"[...] while the claimed science behind binaural beats is unfounded, this doesn't mean that the effect isn't real and simply unexplained. Maybe you can listen to a certain binaural beat and induce a desired state, but for reasons we don't yet understand. So let's take a look at the research, and see if such an effect has actually been observed. [...]"_

..follows a lot of background info, with references, and at the end of the article he comes to the conclusion:

 _"So, in summary, binaural beats certainly do not work the way the sellers claim, but there's no reason to think they're any less effective than any other music track you might listen to that effects you in a way you like. If they make you sleepy (like they all do for me), use them to go to sleep. If they relax you or get you amped, use them for that. But don't expect them to be any more effective than regular music. If someone you know claims that they are, put them to the test, and bust the myth."_

<comment><AUTHOR> Squareeater has a page about the science from real journals: <http://squareeater.com/howitworks.html>

From that page: <i>We are often asked "aren't the effects just placebo?". While there certainly have been users whose response is largely imagined, there have been a number of studies (see research below) published in legitimate scientific journals drawing a correlation between binaural beats and brainwave functions. While the research is insufficient at this point to fully understand how the brain reacts with entrainment, a variety of responses have been well documented.</i>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I had an idea like this a while back, but I tried to go with less flashy and more interesting patterns. I was making a website for stoners who were up late at night. The plan was to sell them pizza and other munchies.

<http://www.treeowls.com>

Navigation is rough but click on "content" and then the picture of what you want to view. Some of them move along with the mouse, most don't. It never got much further than how it is now because I felt guilty selling things to people who were chemically dependent on drugs. Still a pretty good idea though.

<comment><USER9> Ever since I saw this webcomic, I knew that was a great idea! <http://www.octopuspie.com/2007-07-09/025-well-duh/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "Site replicates effects of psychedelic drugs"

No, it doesn't.

<comment><USER11> I still can't wait for the day I can simply lick my choice-of-screen-at-the- time to get a high, akin to LSD. :P

 _ponders whether licking an image of blotter paper works just as well_

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am unsure what these things are intended to induce, but I mostly find the flashy bits annoying at best. The sound by itself can be soothing, but combined with the flashes, it just stresses me out.

edit: I should probably note that my brain is not exactly wired 'right'. So that may have some mitigating consequences.

<comment><USER13> In my case it induced a sweet end of the workday headache.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for the head's up...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is like trying to replicate the effect of food by looking at pictures of spinning donuts.

</comment><comment><USER16> Make sure you're following the instructions before you criticize the site. Being as near to the monitor as possible (moving it half and inch or less in front of your face) is really important.

<comment><USER17> Well, here's my first criticism of the site: I could not find instructions anywhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> <http://squareeater.com/howtouse.html>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Very, very cool, for what it is. After about 7 minutes, I begin to see fairly interesting evolving kaleidoscopic patterns that are in my mind, and not actually on the screen. I'd like to go further, but the sound stops randomly after 3-7 minutes, which is the only thing seriously limiting my enjoyment of it.

Of course, this has very little in common with a real psychedelic experience. It's more trance-like, and somewhat meditative, which is still neat.

</comment><comment><USER19> Not as good as the real thing. Don't visit if you are epileptic.

</comment><comment><USER20> Weird. I've never had any problem with visuals inducing nausea or motion sickness, but that (Deep Down, short) made me feel very unwell. Interesting part is the nausea only came on 5-10min later (I'm assuming it was that... aside from HN/Google News and a glass of water, that has been my only stimulus so far today).

</comment><comment><USER21> real disruptors. They might take drug dealers out of business in a matter of months considering the fact that it's an easy scalable idea. If you add bitcoins they might take over the world. Unless someone from Mexico will buy them out.

</comment><comment><USER22> Funny thing. Site supports it's claims by referencing 3 articles, whilst there are 10^2 articles claiming the opposite. Good old TV-shop marketing trick.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's an interesting idea, but after 10 minutes of staring at the flashing screen, the only thing I got out of it was a headache.

</comment><comment><USER24> There were no leaves on the bed, so I turned it off.

</comment><comment><USER25> Doesn't work at all for me, and it introduced me to a whole new failure mode for Flash: They load to the initial screen, which flickers like mad and would likely induce a seizure were I prone to them at all. My mouse cursor changes to a 'hand' when it's over the play button, but when I click it doesn't register at all. No sound, no change.

(Firefox 4.0.1 from the repos on Natty x86_64 with flashplugin-installer 10.3.181.14ubuntu0.11.04.1 from the repos (latest; installed just this evening). I can do things like YouTube just fine; this is the only site I have Flash problems on. It is, in fact, the only site I've _ever_ had Flash problems on in many years with Ubuntu.)</comment>


Show HN: BookAuthority – personalized book recommendations from industry leaders - <AUTHOR> https://bookauthority.org <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN!

We are excited to share our new service with you:

BookAuthority helps you discover the best business books recommended by thought leaders (Bezos, Musk, Seth Godin, Sam Altman, Andrew Chen and 150 others).

Select from a dozen areas of interest such as startups, product or marketing, and BookAuthority will build a personalized reading-list tailored for you.

We would love to hear your feedback and suggestions!

<comment><USER2> I'd love a non-fb auth option like logging in with Google! Facebook is blocked at my work-place :(</comment></comment>


SSL/TLS Scanner - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
What are your opinions about ssllabs.com vs htbridge.com/ssl/ ?
Should we use them separately, as only one? Or using both of them is fine?
Thank you! <comment><USER2> why you want to use only one? you have some kind of request limit on the website? the more information is always better!

<comment><AUTHOR> That is what I thought. But SSLLabs and HTbridge SSL are little bit different. That is why I asked.

Thank you for opinion</comment></comment>


Is domain extension .eco logical?  Al Gore thinks so. - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7927812.stm

<comment><USER2> _Maybe_ this makes sense for sites running entirely on renewable power or something, but I'm not sure I see the point of a TLD for a few single-issue "awareness" sites. We already have .org for non-profits.

</comment><comment><USER3> All of these new TLD are ridiculous. Its hard to imagine anyone giving up on the idea of getting a .com for any of the mildly weird new ones...</comment>


ELI – A System for Programming with Arrays - <AUTHOR> http://fastarray.appspot.com/ <comment><USER2> APL is fundamentally cool and I'd like to think it will make a comeback. But it seems that most modern APL-derived languages focus on trying to squeeze everything into ASCII as concisely as possible.

The following is an example of quite readable ELI with only a handful of symbols:

        c,[1.5]32+1.8*c<-$_10+5**!10

It's not bad, but when all you have is ASCII, dense notation will inevitably look like line noise.

APL's graphical notation was one of its original inventions, but custom keyboards weren't a viable solution in the PC era... But today the situation is different again. High-DPI displays and touch screens are becoming standard.

Would it be possible to reinvent APL notation to take advantage of high-res graphics and natural input methods? I'd love to see a tablet-only reinvention of APL that doesn't have a keyboard at all, just a number pad and painted gestures.

<comment><USER3> Honest question: if I know J, what can I get from learning APL? When first looking at array based languages the symbols used by APL scared me off and I decided to go with J, now I wonder if the very same symbol set wouldn't be better than pure-ascii.

<comment><USER4> IMHO learning about a new language (without becoming proficient with it) is always good as it makes you think about the one(s) you're proficient with.

<comment><USER3> > learning about a new language (without becoming proficient with it)

Mostly true, but there are languages which are completely useless without becoming proficient with them. In my experience Forth and J are such languages: you can "learn about" them, but you won't really understand them without using them for some time. So I suspect APL, K, Q and Eli here are similar; the question is what will I gain from becoming proficient with one of them or alternatively is it worth becoming proficient in one of them if I'm already proficient with another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We have some pretty significant matrix processor apps made with APL at the company.

I'd really like to bring this functionality to our web apps, but it seems HTTP interface and external APIs are not available in these implementations. How can you use ELi, or any APL, with a web app?

ELI site is down at the moment, but I read couple of their docs through google cache. There is support of compiling into C, but what about support for C interface? Or HTTP out of the box?

<comment><USER6> CGI - or, if you insist, FastCGI - works surprisingly well in 2014.

<comment><USER5> Well, yes. Simple solutions work too. I was burned trying to write sophisticated Python stuff with plain CGI back in the days of Apache 1.3.

<comment><USER6> CGI does need something that can start in at most one geological age, yes. FastCGI is, well, faster, and is pretty simple as long as you don't support multiple concurrent requests to a single backend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Please check a mirror website here [http://cs.queensu.ca/~chenh/eli/](http://cs.queensu.ca/~chenh/eli/), if you find the [http://fastarray.appspot.com/](http://fastarray.appspot.com/) is not accessible.

Hanfeng Chen

</comment><comment><USER6> You may also like [http://prog21.dadgum.com/114.html](http://prog21.dadgum.com/114.html), which is a slightly gentler introduction to the APL world.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, will check it out!

There are lot of recommended books about a selection of languages regarded as more powerful/expressive/safer than the mainstream, but there's not so much good information about APL, I don't think. Every now and then, I hear different people give a hint about APL's power (not too noisily though... as if they did not want to completely give away the secret :).

I keep wondering what problems are good fit for it. From far it doesn't look like a general purpose PL. To my untrained eyes it looks like some sort of query language that you can somehow bend into doing other things (in the same vein you can use SQL to render the Mandelbrot set [1] :).

And then there's the whole clones/successors/spin offs situation. If I were to learn APL today, I wouldn't even know were to start. ELI looks like a good candidate.

\--

1: [http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set](http://wiki.postgresql.org/wiki/Mandelbrot_set)

<comment><USER8> There's GNU APL as a free APL implementation. As for learning APL... It's essentially learning what all its symbols do (there are some references for free online from the vendors of paid APLs, just avoid reading about their extensions,) even Wikipedia's page about APL works as a fast reference. I just use it to play around with numbers (yes, I also wrote a Mandelbrot set with it, a one liner that fits in a tweet,) and I'm trying to enhance a little its usability with a iPython-like in-browser "REPL" specially suited for my uses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Exist a array language with more "normal" sytax (ie: more like python than APL, so instead of symbol use words?)

<comment><USER10> Check out Q from Kx Systems. It uses an SQL-like dialect but is still powerful and expressive. Here are some simple example programs: [http://code.kx.com/wiki/Sample_Queries](http://code.kx.com/wiki/Sample_Queries)

<comment><USER9> I have seen this before, but now I do the tutorial and the experience was not as bad as I have imagined.

I hope to draw some idead from it (I'm triying to build a relational language)

<comment><USER10> Keep me in the loop as you work on your project. I think the world has a lot to learn from array languages, and there still isn't a strong open source option. Contact info in profile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Am I the only one reminded of Abre Los Ojos?

</comment><comment><USER12> How well does it work when doing matrix multiplication or combining arrays in comparison to standard methods in R, matlab etc.?</comment>


Show HN: Invalidate browser cache of Django static files automatically - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/3207357

<comment><USER2> How does this differ from Django's CachedStaticFileStorage backend? [https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/contrib/staticfile...](https://docs.djangoproject.com/en/dev/ref/contrib/staticfiles/#django.contrib.staticfiles.storage.CachedStaticFilesStorage)

<comment><USER3> From what I can tell, there isn't much difference. My guess is the developer was making up for the lack of this functionality in Django 1.3 and didn't realize that 1.4 added it. Before 1.4, django pipeline was a good solution but was difficult to work with IMO. Glad to see this included in 1.4 for sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Why not use ETag instead?</comment>


Our addiction to stories keeps us from understanding history - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/10/5/17940650/how-history-gets-things-wrong-alex-rosenberg-interview-neuroscience-stories <comment><USER2> summary: stories[1] about history, despite being epistemically weak, are rhetorically strong.

[1] pedantically: narratives with tropes, things to make movies out of...

> "When I say "narrative," I don't mean a chronology of events; I mean stories > with plots, connected by motivations, by people's beliefs and desires, their > plans, intentions, values. There's a story."</comment>


Completion of Coursera's Scala course, per capita for countries - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropbox.com/s/wdoshx3adb9988m/Scp.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's also a map of absolute numbers: <http://lampwww.epfl.ch/~hmiller/worldmap.html>

</comment><comment><USER2> What meaning does the per capita normalization have, other than "n people registered and m people completed it", and in what ways is country-wise data useful?

<comment><AUTHOR> jaipilot747: It means normalized by the population of the country.</comment></comment>


70 Percent of Enterprise Ransomware Victims Paid Up - <AUTHOR> https://www.onthewire.io/70-percent-of-enterprise-ransomware-victims-paid-up-data-shows/ <comment><USER2> I'm terribly surprised the percentage is that high. I would have suspected it would be less than 10%. Backups, kids. Backups.</comment>


Boeing Downplayed 737 Max Software Risks, Self-Certified Much of Plane's Safety - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2019/03/boeing-downplayed-737-max-software-risks-self-certified-much-of-planes-safety/ <comment><USER2> "Instead of dual AOA sensing, let's use one for MCAS, on each leg alternating the one used. We can score better on weight and complexity. Beautiful -- What could go wrong?"

Such decisions are akin to playing a lottery of death, with jackpot winners every few months</comment>


The Age of Rudeness - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/15/magazine/the-age-of-rudeness.html <comment><USER2> > It strikes me that good manners would be the thing to aim for in the current > situation. I have made a resolution, which is to be more polite. I don't > know what good it will do: This might be a dangerous time for politeness. It > might involve sacrifices. It might involve turning the other cheek.

Important counter-point: [http://gawker.com/on- smarm-1476594977](http://gawker.com/on-smarm-1476594977)

The idea that politeness is what divides the do-gooders from the bad ones is, I think, part of what got us into this mess in the first place.

<comment><USER3> Yeah politeness associated with "goodness" is like associating beauty with "goodness". Anyone with sense knows they aren't even slightly correlated. Politeness looks nice, but can be Machiavellian or it can be good. It really just depends on how its applied.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Excuse the slight deviation from the principle of the linked article. I am compelled to speak out about one egregious paragraph.

> Meanwhile, in the Essex town of Harlow, a Polish man is murdered in the > street by a gang of white youths who apparently heard him speaking his > native language.

I spent the first nineteen years of my life in Harlow, living in the area of the murder referenced in the quote above. Most reports suggest the attack happened after a prolonged confrontation[0], not on sight of sound of a Polish voice.

While this act was desperately sad, Harlow remains a home to relatively large Polish and Lithuanian populations. It is, however, also afflicted by high youth unemployment and drug-related crime. The Stow in particular has seen some horrible crimes over the last 10-20 years, including the brutal murder of my childhood friend's aunt, mere feet away from the scene of the 2016 murder[1]. Indeed, violent crime is a real problem[2].

I found it distasteful at the time when sections of the press pounced upon this story in a reckless frenzy of angry, vindictive narrative building in the immediate aftermath of the EU exit referendum vote. I find it to be utterly disgraceful now.

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2016/dec/01/boy-15-charg...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2016/dec/01/boy-15-charged-with-killing-of-polish-man-in-harlow) [1] [http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/anniversary-appeal-killer- mother...](http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/anniversary-appeal-killer-mother- beverley/story-28646917-detail/story.html) [2] [http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/harlow-council-leader-jon- clempn...](http://www.harlowstar.co.uk/harlow-council-leader-jon-clempner- insists-town-is-safe-after-shocking-crime- figures/story-30118995-detail/story.html)

</comment><comment><USER5> Maybe these people appear rude to the writer because people like her see them as invisible, low class types who are supposed to be run over by the pettiness of each self-aggrandizing, set-absorbing and condescending request from people like the writer. Maybe the writer claims superiority over these poor people simply because their uniforms are cheap-looking (her words), or her face is not what she expected (her words) or her salary doing their jobs is lower than what she gets paid writing this selfish nonsense. It's typical of the liberal elites like her that think that the world is wrong, only because the world is less privileged than they are.

</comment><comment><USER6> I agree with the rude man that accusations of rudeness are themselves rude! (Even where they are true).

This reflexive property is interesting, for example:

Hatred is harmful. Accusation of hatred is a form of hatred. Racism is harmful. Accusation of racism is also harmful. Rape is harmful. Accusation of rape is harmful. Pedophilia is harmful. Accusation of pedophilia is harmful. Blasphemy is harmful. Accusation of blasphemy is harmful.

Obviously the harm isn't generally equal. Does the disparity say something about how honest a society is?

<comment><USER7> It's a vicious cycle.</comment></comment>


Restaurants Are Scrambling for Cheap Labor in 2019 - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-04/restaurants-are-scrambling-for-cheap-labor-in-2019 <comment><USER2> I feel like restaurant culture could change to be more efficient. Some observations from visiting Asia or eating out in general:

In Korea, there is a button on every table you can press to get the attention of waitstaff. No more inefficient hoping to catch eye contact when they walk by.

A lot of places now make you walk up to a register and pay as you leave. No more having the waitstaff make 2-3 trips to your table just so you can sign.

Having iPads or something for ordering is another step, but may take longer to recoup those initial investments.

Focus only on a few speciality dishes, rather than offering 200 items.

Edit: there's also the automat, which was in fashion in the early 1900s in America, I believe. There was the Eatsa chain but it folded, apparently due to "expanding too fast."

<comment><USER3> how about ordering directly to the kitchen from the table via ipad. I usually don't have any questions for the waiters.

<comment><USER2> I have personally seen this in some airports. The problem was they were fixed in place in front of you and constantly blared ads.

At some restaurants near me, the waitstaff now hand you an iPad instead of a menu. Once we got over the clunky UI, it made ordering a lot more efficient.

I imagine you could embed a short 15s video to explain what the dish is (if needed).

<comment><USER4> The United terminal at EWR — ground zero for the "iPad at every seat" concept — basically feels like you're trapped in a combination of a high-security video poker casino and the "Minority Report" retinal-scanning advertising scene, with the added insult of a CBGB-branded craft cocktail bar.

Having said that, it's still the best terminal you'll find in Newark, so ... eh.

<comment><USER5> OTG is the company behind the iPad concept [1], and there are large installations at IAH, YYZ, LGA, etc.

I don't know, they're ok. I wouldn't use the iPads to surf but they're a great food ordering tool. The one advantage is that the seats at these iPad stations are usually very comfy. They also free you up from having to look for seating at a busy food court. I was once able to order Popeye's from several gates away where things were quieter, and my food was brought to me.

[1] [https://www.macworld.com/article/1167138/ipad_installations_...](https://www.macworld.com/article/1167138/ipad_installations_at_airports_take_some_of_the_stress_out_of_traveling.html)

<comment><USER6> LGA has an area that looks like a sit down restaurant with the ipads. I found it to be quite pleasant. However, if I just want to sit and relax I don't want the ipad in front of me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was shocked last year when I spent some time in Canada over how many restaurants had mobile pay devices that the server brought over so you could pay at the table.

In my town (Central PA) only 1 restaurant had this technology and they stopped using it for some unknown reason.

Sadly the only really automated ordering system in place is at Applebees and at McDonalds. You can order and pay 100% at your table. Unfortunately they can only bring you insta-food so not a good trade off IMHO.

Who'da thunk that if you are hostile to immigration (or even undocumented workers) you'd find the low level jobs in the US wanting for labor. I thought these were AMERICAN jobs. Sigh.

<comment><USER8> I'd say 99% of all restaurants in Canada have mobile pay devices. All our credit/debit cards are chip and pin, so the server cannot walk off with your card and run through the payment themselves as that won't work.

I'm shocked whenever I go to the US and servers walk off with my card! Canadian cards to chip and pin in the US as well and some retailers are confused when their terminals ask for the pin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> What I'm seeing down here in NZ/Australia are repeated anecdotal cases of restaurants being charged with abusing immigrant(mostly legal and some illegal overstayer) employees.

The abuse typically involves underpayment in the form of fixed income and unlimited hours, or required overtime without additional pay as per employment law.

More recently, I've become aware of two major fast food franchises with a cheap labour scam so common it must be known or knowingly ignored by the franchisors(1 in Aus, 1 in NZ).

It is a scheme where immigrants are sponsored for work visas in entry level exempt fast food management jobs working unlimited hours for $60k salary a year.

The problem is the immigrants pay back $60k thru seperate channels for the opportunity, effectively becoming indentured servants for 1 year.

That is so incredibly unethical and immoral, if not illegal(unsure about that, but questionable quasi-legal at best).

I can understand, if not sympathize, with how and why this has come about.

Looking in from the outside, the fast food and quick casual restaurant industry is ruthlessly competitive and cannibalistic.

Restaurant owners/franchisees and franchisors would be well aware of such financial subsidy benefitting directly(franchisee bottom line) & indirectly(franchisor P&L leverage to push for higher reinvestment/co- marketing).

Just because immigrants are willing/able to agree to a fixed term indentured servitude, doesn't make it ok.

I'm a legal immigrant myself and I have a legal immigrant starting his first day tomorrow(after a 6 month search).

We only had the opportunity to employ him after he was poorly treated(due to leveraging him with implied threats with his work visa) here in NZ and after he was poorly treated in Qatar and Bahrain previously.

<comment><USER10> The solution is to become stricter on immigration. In Australia this would take the form of disallowing migrants on Student visas from working. Hundreds of thousands of people are coming to Australia yearly to work, and for many $10/hour is a fortune compared to what they would make back home, but an illegal wage in Australia.

<comment><USER11> The government are the ones who came up with this awesome indentured servitude scheme, I doubt they'll be motivated to do more to prevent it.

"Job creators".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Restaurants are interesting, because the serving experience is a really important part of the encounter. Almost all of it, in fact.

It's a social experience, not a utilitarian 'fuel me up' encounter.

If you cut back on that, the whole product is less valuable, so cheap labour is really important. If it gets too expensive, 'average' people won't go any more.

You could have the best quality food in the world, but if it's ordered via a McDonalds' style kiosk and comes around on a conveyor belt to a plastic, unmade table, most would probably not bother (at the price a "restaurant" would charge, anyway).

In the UK we have Wetherspoons' pubs. There's an app you can use to order food to a table. It's great and I use it often. But it's low-end food that does the job.

At a "real" restaurant I want the lighting, the waiter, the wine glasses, the atmosphere.

Without that, well, 40+ quid goes a _long_ way in the supermarket.

<comment><USER5> > the serving experience is a really important part of the encounter. Almost > all of it, in fact.

For me, it's not so much the serving experience, but the experience of eating with and around others in a "third place".

I did a little thought experiment: would I prefer to eat with a restaurant full of people and 1-2 mediocre servers, or be lavishly served by impeccably trained waitstaff in a restaurant with only a few patrons?

I concluded that the former would be my preference every time. I figured my interaction with servers is typically less than 5 minutes in duration, but my interaction with the restaurant environment is often about 1-2 hours.

<comment><USER12> It's a balance though, right?

The limiting case would be McDonald's.

Which has it's place, but is hardly a place to go for a social occasion.

<comment><USER5> You're right of course. No service would definitely diminish the experience, especially if one is dining with family or significant other. I wouldn't take my significant other to an automat for a date...

But in my opinion (and it's just me -- I do see your point of view and it does make sense to me), service itself is only a small part of the experience. I just got back from dinner at a sit-down Indian restaurant where service was minimal but the food was amazing. I had a good time. My expectations may be cultural however. Most Asian restaurants have minimal service, and I usually hardly notice if the food's good. There's still service in a sense (the busboys bring out the food) but interaction is minimal.

All that said, I still want humans in the picture...

p.s. this is an aside and has nothing to do with your observations, but there is one McDonald's where it wouldn't be inconceivable to go for a social occasion: the McDonald's HQ in Chicago, where they serve an international menu. Interestingly, though you order on a touch-screen, bussers bring out the food to you at your table, like at a restaurant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I believe the hospitality industry is in even worse shape.

I just got back from a resort in the US that was probably the worst trip I've ever had. It was high season, so prices were insanely higher than the rest of the year. But every single section of the hotel (housekeeping, engineering, front desk) and F&B (servers, bartenders, bus staff) was insanely understaffed. People were frustrated and downright angry at the staff and, eventually, at each other.

We're at this tipping where something has to give. We're at or nearly at full employment and everyone is happy to spend money again...but wages won't budge.

I could also talk about other sectors like retail. Have you been in a Target or Wal-Mart lately? Even stores like Target, which are usually immaculate and fully stocked all the time have large empty spaces on the shelves and entire classes of items are short or missing.

 _Where do we go from here?_

<comment><USER2> Some ideas:

European style: Higher prices, shorter hours.

Japanese style: more automation, vending machines for everything.

Anecdotally, I haven't seen those issues you mention with retail.

Fundamentally the problem is that the price people are willing to pay won't support the required number of people at such "high" wages. Either the price has to go up or the experience has to become cheaper.

Or you just fly overseas to Mexico and enjoy much cheaper labor at Cancun or Cabos. Every time I look at resorts in Hawaii I conclude that I should just go to Mexico instead.

<comment><USER14> You should just open the border with Mexico :)</comment></comment></comment>


Bug: Botched NPM Update Crashes Linux Systems, Forces Users to Reinstall - <AUTHOR> https://it.slashdot.org/story/18/02/22/2034213/botched-npm-update-crashes-linux-systems-forces-users-to-reinstall <comment><USER2> this bug is definitely not great! but do people really run npm as root in production? and also update to latest npm in prod right away?

</comment><comment><USER3> Wrong way to deal with package repository bloat.</comment>


What bug tracking software do you use? And why? - <AUTHOR>

My team is trying to decide what bug tracking software to go with, and finding it difficult to choose something. We have past experience with Jira, but we find it too "fidly" and hard for non-technical employees to interact with.
Our requirements are: Individual bug tracking, some way to group bugs (something like "epics" in Jira, but simpler), sprints, preferably a native iOS app (or a nice web app).
Any suggestions would be helpful. Thanks <comment><USER2> Might sound like a stupid idea, but using "issues" on GitLab/GitHub ?

They're pretty easy to understand, users can assign issues to other users, and labels make it easy to say what kind of problem the issue refers to.

<comment><USER3> It gets confusing once you have more than 5 repositories and want to prioritize between them. [https://waffle.io/](https://waffle.io/) might be a solution (haven't use it myself yet).

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.getdonedone.com/](https://www.getdonedone.com/) was pretty nice at a previous company. Note: the product itself isn't as colorful as the product page.

</comment><comment><USER4> partial to fogbugz.com, the original bug tracker developed by Joel Spolsky, www.joelonsoftware.com, by developers, for developers.</comment>


Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-23642880

<comment><USER2> Well, here's my thoughts - First, why the hell would you trust that the "transparency" would be real? Admit what Snowden revealed, and keep the next violation of human rights under wraps. If we can't verify transparency, it would have to be based on trust - and I see a distinct lack of both the ability to verify the NSA's claims and reasons to trust the NSA.

Second, why would you trust President Obama to follow through on a promise? I believe he promised protections for whistleblowers on the campaign trail, after all.

And third, what good does knowing that the NSA monitors everything do, when all that really does is give them carte blanche to use the data however they want, knowing it won't expose the program? (Program being already exposed)

<comment><USER3> I agree that it would be foolish to trust anything Obama says at this point. But I also found a bit of solace in his paying lip service to the Constitution. Given the government's increasingly open hostility toward anything resembling liberty or reason, I had developed a foreboding about how quickly things might devolve into totalitarianism. At least for now it seems we have achieved a temporary moment of stability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _Mr Obama said there had been more anti-American rhetoric since President > Vladimir Putin returned to Russian presidency._

I like how this implies the anti-American rhetoric is because of Putin becoming president, rather than America doing things that it actually deserves to be criticized for.

"We're sick of people criticizing us, but we're going to keep doing all the stuff that caused that criticism".

</comment><comment><USER5> _" It's not enough for me as president to have confidence in these programmes; the American people need to have confidence as well."_

Great tactic. Redefine the problem. NSA is not the problem. Confidence is.

<comment><USER6> I think the NSA should exist, so it is not the problem. Balancing safety and privacy is the challenge. Preventing abuse is the challenge. Having enough transparency that we are comfortable is the challenge.

<comment><USER5> So can you tell me how has NSA protected you? What has it done?

<comment><USER7> The NSA should be about protecting privacy & communications infrastructure by hardening crypto security.

Don't they do some of this already? I just think this is what they should be focusing on, rather than gathering data.

<comment><USER5> When people say "but government is supposed to do that" it sounds almost like a religious belief. Just because the holy book - in this case, the constitution - says so, it doesn't mean it is so. It also doesn't mean we should somehow fix the government. When a religious person complains his priest is not praying hard enough for him that's why he's not doing so good, the solution is NOT to find a better priest.

But a less abstract reply to your comment should be this: what does protecting privacy and communication mean in the case of NSA doing it, how is it done specifically and why does it make you safer?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
        Mr Obama said: "No, I don't think Mr Snowden was a
        patriot."

IMHO the word "Patriot" has become the worst kind of weasel word. It can basically be twisted any way by the speaker to launch an ad hominem attack on someone.

Given the revelations of the past two months, I'm certain that many many Americans don't think that President Obama is a patriot either since he's basically sold out on the Bill of Rigthts, a core pillar of our nation. On the other hand, Obama's use of patriot at this PR event basically means someone who provides defenses for the country against perceived existential threats and does not weaken them. By that definition, Snowden would probably not qualify as a patriot according to many.

Given your values, the meaning of patriot can change between two definitions that are at odds with one another. This makes it a useless word that plays to emotion and lowers the level of discourse dramatically.

Besides those two defitions, many characteristics of someone who is patriotic are interchangeable with the characteristics of someone who is a bigot. Just like one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. One man's patriot is another man's bigot.

<comment><USER9> "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel". Particularly used in the negative tense (calling someone unpatriotic). Hermann Göring did the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I read, "You will have more access to the documents we want you to see." and "We want to figure out how to get the American people to be OK with us violating their constitutional rights, because I'm OK with it."

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm furious that reporters just kept throwing soft balls at him in the face of the Special Operations Division revelations. If that's not abuse, what is?

<comment><USER12> Yeah, that's the one that totally clearly crosses the line for me. It's not a Hoovering thing, it's not a "this will almost certainly be abused some day" issue, it's a "fruit of the poisoned tree" abuse of due process, no matter what sophistry is used to justify it. And amply confirmed, e.g. by a paragraph in an IRS document (saying to never mention it or the like).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was an Obama supporter during his first presidential campaign. I remember some people warning that Obama would be a disaster. I tried to listen to what they said, but I couldn't find any criticism at that time that made sense, just some wingnuts saying that he was the AntiChrist, or that he wasn't born in the US (me neither, I don't care) or that he was a fascist without explaining why.

I wonder if it's just that the media was really good at mocking these people, or if they were really wingnuts and they have just been lucky in being somewhat right in the long run.

<comment><USER14> I think Obama believed most of what he campaigned for. But I believe the Office of the President changes people, and I'm sure there is a lot going on that we don't see. Something changed his mind. Not that I agree with his change in stance, but I suspect that's what happened.

<comment><USER15> > But I believe the Office of the President changes people

Looking at what some former presidents (Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton come to mind) say after they left, it seems that this change is not permanent. It's almost like moving into the White House makes folks automatons void of any previously held principles. And moving out makes them decent people again.

<comment><USER16> I think a big part of it is that presidents don't really think for themselves. They are essentially at the behest of their advisors and the heads of these various organizations. If the head of the NSA tells you that the program is constitutional and we have X, Y, Z safeguards in place to protect Americans, why would he not believe it? It's not like he can evaluate the implementation himself. I doubt he would even have time to if he wanted to dig into the gritty details.

The fact is, there is a machine that exists beyond any sitting president, and that machine is adept at getting its way. Convincing one person, who does not have any former experience in these matters, that your way is the right way, is probably the easiest part of their job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What value can be placed on Obama's pledges? He promised transparency in 2008. He promised again in 2012. He failed to follow through. Why would anyone think he will follow through this time around?

</comment><comment><USER18> "That promise I made a few years ago and then did the exact opposite? Would you believe me if I made that same promise again, this time with even less incentive to follow through on it?"

</comment><comment><USER19> Like he pledged to close Guantanamo, protect whistleblowers, and so on? He lies more than the Bushes or Clinton ever did.

I think at this point he's just a puppet of a fascist machine, and until it collapses, we're going to face more of the same -- an empire on its last legs.

</comment><comment><USER5> Also, note how he put it: "the american people NEED to have confidence". Because WESAYSO.

<comment><USER8> I don't think anyone wants confidence. We want guarantees and actual oversight. We're simply going to get the oversight theatre that gives false confidence to people.

<comment><USER16> This is exactly right. I don't want to have to "trust" anyone that things won't be abused. I want a real system of checks and balances such that abuse cannot happen and when it does it will automatically be brought to light.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >The president also accused Russia of "backward" thinking, following its decision to grant asylum to Edward Snowden, who disclosed details of the secretive surveillance programmes to media.

I like how it is in quotes.

<comment><USER21> It's in quotes to identify it as his explicit statement rather than a reporter's characterization of his statement. This is standard journalistic (and English) usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't see transparency in quotes in the article, also your title doesn't match the article's: "Barack Obama pledges greater surveillance transparency"

<comment><AUTHOR> Point taken and title updated.

<comment><USER22> Thanks, although I agree with the sentiment of the original title :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Yes economic interest apparently took over as prism scandal threatens to take us tech industry down the drain.(and of course 27 new programs and 14 new courts will be created to take care of current damage.)

Also what about all the hate for Russia and Putin? Any f$*#@king apologies or pledges on not doing it in the future? Or that was complimentary, on the W.House?</comment>


Shirt/mug/case store doesn't pay royalties for offline sales of submitted art - <AUTHOR> http://www.designbyhumans.com/store-terms/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is really an awesome business model for them. They get to print a million shirts and sell them through brick and mortar retailers without paying any royalties to the artist.</comment>


Universal payment API coming from Paypal veterans - <AUTHOR> http://www.paymodo.co/

<comment><AUTHOR> Picking a payment provider and integrating with it can be confusing and time consuming. Paymodo simplifies the process by helping you pick the right ones for your industry whether you are developing an application for eCommerce, non-profit, web, mobile, online or offline. Paymodo also allows you to integrate multiple providers using a simple and elegant API. The API supports many languages including Ruby on Rails, Python, Java and others. Finally, Paymodo lets you test multiple payment solutions using a single sandbox.</comment>


USPS 'Informed Delivery' Is Stalker's Dream - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/10/usps-informed-delivery-is-stalkers-dream/ <comment><USER2> > ....the Postal Service is working on an approach that it hopes to make > available to the public in January 2018 which would allow USPS to send > written notification to addresses when someone at that residence signs up > for Informed Delivery.

Written notification is good. In addition they should implement mail-based authorization, where an activation code is mailed to the customer, and the code must be entered on the Informed Delivery web site to confirm participation in the program.

<comment><USER3> Also the current system has an option where you have to visit the local post office to get authorized for the service !

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> For myself personally, the service did ask specific questions and I don't think other people can answer them. But indeed services like , spokeo, linked and others can help us answer them !!</comment>


TLDR of Buffett's Annual Letter by Sandy Leeds, Finance Professor at UT-Austin - <AUTHOR> http://leedsonfinance.com/2011/02/27/buffetts-letter/

<comment><USER2> Based on decades working in the US, don't purchase a house unless you are retiring into it or can switch jobs without moving. Losing (or changing) a job that forces selling a house is a great way to lose money, as they usually come during down times.</comment>


Wildebeest muscles far more efficient than those of any other mammal measured - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2018/10/why-it-hard-break-gnus/573793/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> BLUF: On average, Curtin found that the muscles converted 63 percent of their energy into work—i.e., physical movement. For comparison, the equivalent figures are 42 percent for cows, 34 percent for mice, and 27 percent for rabbits.

Greter muscle efficiencies are likely out there, but the breadth of research data is still narrow. I would be interested in Dolphin and Blue Fin Tuna muscle efficiency.

Probably research of interest to, say, Boston Dynamics?</comment>


Top Secret Russian Unit Seeks to Destabilize Europe, Security Officials Say - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/world/europe/unit-29155-russia-gru.html <comment><USER2> Russia has had a siege mentality for quite a while now. Napoleon, the Kizer, Hitler, these events each shaped the russian Psyche. This is why Russia misbehaves, they are paranoid of invasion. They want to keep the west weak and divided so as to limit the threat.

To improve the situation we must find a way to bring them in to the fold. The more we isolate Russia, the more we play in to this narrative where the only winners are the military industrial complex.

<comment><USER3> I think that there will be a lot of push back towards bringing Russia into the fold considering how much suffering their past actions have caused. Poland in particular will probably never be happy with it. (Are the Polish still mad about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?) This push-back could fracture the West by itself. We already saw some cracks appear due to Nord Stream, where Western Europe wanted the pipeline, but Eastern Europe didn't. Eastern Europe got overruled, so they sought help from the US. This showed cracks in the cooperation of Europe and the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yeah, but Russia has pennies in comparison to the U.S. regarding the amount of money and resources to throw at these kinds of subversive offensives...

I doubt Russia could really pull this kind of thing off if they can't even manage to operate a single aircraft carrier from the 80's, led alone design anything new other than the S400 AA missile.

<comment><USER5> That's why they're fighting a hybrid warfare — a blend of propaganda, hacking attacks and disinformation — as well as open military confrontation. They don't have the resources for a conventional war like it was in Korea or Vietnam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the Russian war on the west is far larger than even this article shows. I think Putin is treating this like a total war and directing massive resources of money and people to destabilize every country around the world he can. Russia had a major hand in supporting dictators in Venezuela and Syria, Putin has murdered indiscriminately around the globe without consequences. He purposely made public examples of some of the people murdered, but I am sure he has the ability to secretly murder people in make it look like heart attacks or something like that. I bet in 50 years we will discover Putin has had thousands of people killed overseas to go with the hundreds of thousands murdered in his own country. I work in PR and every day I see traces of the largest PR campaign I've ever seen. Just look in the comments of any newspaper and you will start to discover this.

<comment><USER7> The US has 800 military bases spread across the globe and is currently involved in many "destabilization" efforts (not to mention actual armed conflicts), all funded by billions and billions of dollars.

And the media is demonizing Russia. Talk about a PR campaign.

<comment><USER8> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whataboutism)

<comment><USER7> It is not a matter of whatabaoutism, it's a direct attempt to divert attention from wrongdoings, building a narrative that justifies imperialist actions by the USA.

<comment><USER9> The media has been very critical about U.S. policy regarding Saudi Arabia and Yemen. It's been very critical about both Obama's and Trump's decisions regarding Syria. It's been split, largely along partisan lines, about the Iran nuclear deal.

Yes, in far too many circumstances the media seemingly toes the line. But the U.S. media has _manifestly_ shown significant independence. Independence isn't synonymous with being contrary or critical, and it certainly doesn't mean agreeing with your personal perspective. U.S. foreign policy isn't invented out of thin air; it emerges from the same political and cultural dynamics that shape the news and popular opinion, so it's entirely unsurprising that the popular media would agree more often than not.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Reveals It Received Secret FBI Subpoena - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/10/14/freed-from-gag-order-google-reveals-it-received-secret-fbi-subpoena/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if anyone has ever sent a fake National Security Letter. The inability to speak about or verify these letters is concerning to me.

Seems like you could cause a lot of damage by sending a fake NSL ordering a company to send you private data. At minimum it would cost the company several thousand dollars in legal fees to determine its fake.

<comment><USER3> Where would the fake NSL demand you send the collected info?

<comment><USER4> "FBI office" at an address where no (real) FBI office exists (with a slightly obfuscated address that doesn't mention FBI by name, but something that sounds like a department in FBI but isn't, so that the postal service doesn't get suspicious).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The insane thing about this is that it is wholly unnecessary. Why can't the feds go court and get a search warrant if they really have anything more than a "hunch". And if that's all they have, do we really want them issuing secret orders with no public oversight at all? That's exactly where you need scrutiny.

The current and previous administration is going to find out in a hurry why checks and balances are important if Trump gets into office. He's exactly the kind of chief executive who will be terrible to behold with that kind of power.

<comment><USER6> > .. do we really want them issuing secret orders with no public oversight at > all?

do _they_ want to issue secret orders with no public oversight at all?

Yes. Yes, they do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> There is zero surprise.

When a Three Letter Agency wants information, they get it. The current United States government is the most powerful single entity to exist in human history (insofar as it can be called a single entity). Especially those who frequent HN should be well aware of that at this point.

Dear God I am depressed about our chances at this point. Reigning in who I would call traitors seems impossible.

<comment><USER8> I reckon Ive done just enough to waste their time including me in their letter :)

Playing with honeypots much safer and more fun than active hacking.

<comment><USER7> > Playing with honeypots much safer and more fun than active hacking.

How so?

<comment><USER8> how is it safer or how is it more fun?

The former, because it wont get you extradited, the later, well, that would be telling.

lets just say there are a lot more organisations than a few analysts in Maryland monitoring the internet and our communications, and they are interested in much more than unhappy muslims. Then leave it at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Honestly at this point you just have to assume this is a nearly constant reality.

<comment><USER10> This is sadly true, but I think we also need to reject that this is the new normal. We need to continue to push back firmly on secret government request without oversight.

<comment><USER11> You can't put the genie back into the bottle. It has already escaped. In our days, surveillance is being performed by all governments and many private companies. For US to be the only country that doesn't do it, it would be uncompetitive. We have to accept the new reality - ever since digital cameras became popular (year 2000) and ever since cell phones became packed with sensors and always on connectivity (and continuous auto-updates), hard drives cheap and large, face recognition software efficient - there has been no way to stop surveillance. It is an emergent situation based on a confluence of technologies.

We need AI to protect privacy, capable of detecting information leaks and unintended exposures right in the browser and OS, similar to an antivirus that is always scanning the data flowing in the system. We need to have software educating people about consequences and making it really easy to remain private. It won't solve the problem fully, it's impossible to do that today.

<comment><USER12> _In our days, surveillance is being performed by all governments and many private companies. For US to be the only country that doesn 't do it, it would be uncompetitive._

How does surveillance improve competitiveness?

<comment><USER13> Governments spy on other nations businesses, then pass the information back to their companies who process to undercut the competition (because they have all the information)

Here's China doing it to America [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china- business/10842339/A...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/china- business/10842339/America-sues-China-over-corporate-spying.html)

'According to the indictment, five hackers "stole trade secrets" which allowed Chinese companies to undercut their American competitors, or gave them "insight into [their] strategy and vulnerabilities". '

And here's America doing it to everyone else (including allies both domestic and foreign) [https://theintercept.com/2014/09/05/us-governments-plans- use...](https://theintercept.com/2014/09/05/us-governments-plans-use-economic- espionage-benefit-american-corporations/)

<comment><USER14> Except that passing the information back never actually happened in The Intercept article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Given Google's size and how much information they have, you'd imagine they've been subjected to every secret demand allowed.

Are there any good examples of a gag order like this which was reasonable? When would they ever be justified?

<comment><USER16> The basic idea of of the gag order and not being able to reveal the details has pretty sound roots in not tipping off the people being investigated. The issue is they're incredibly broad so companies receiving them can't usually even reveal the exact number received.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anyone have a reference for how NSL's are estimated for the "hundreds of thousands" reference in this article?

It seems more like ~20-30k/yr at this point from my cursory search.

I interpret "hundreds of thousands" to imply 200k+ which made me think... dayum - that's a lot of fear.

<comment><USER18> 20 to 30k / year times the number of years they are in use would easily get you there.

<comment><USER17> The author says "hundreds of thousands of letters issued each year"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The only reason this continues to go on is that no one is brave enough to risk arrest and just publicly read the full contents of these NSLs when they get them. Gag orders have only been declared constitutional when they are used to protect someones right to a fair trial. No one has ever challenged a gag order that protects a police investigation. It is much easier to challenge these gag laws when you have been personally charged with violating them, then you have a criminal trial you can appeal and escalate through to federal appeals and the supreme court. Otherwise it is just civil suits that can be thrown out easily as you cant justify why you need to take this to trial because you are not suffering any monetary damages.

</comment><comment><USER20> One of the solutions is to move to a model where all data that companies like google have in their servers is encrypted by a key that only the user has in his device.

The side effects are:

-No server side analysis/logging/sharing/selling to advertisers of the user's data

-All decryption takes place at the client side

-Targeting ads/content becomes impossible

-gag orders are rendered useless to seek user data from service providers

-Privacy

<comment><USER21> It exists you just need to use it:

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

[https://protonmail.com/](https://protonmail.com/)

and many others. Most people are too convenient or careless though to take the (little) extra effort for privacy.

<comment><USER22> The literature for Protonmail looks really good, thanks for the tip. Can you recommend them service-wise?

<comment><USER23> I started using Protonmail 2 weeks ago and I am quite satisfied (planning to migrate all my communication from Gmail to Protonmail). It does feel slower than Gmail (because of the decryption, but that's not that much of a problem). Also, you have to use their own app, it cannot be connected to a mail client, that's a bit of a downside, but I suppose I will be willing to make that compromise.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


ICA asks ICANN to block .Org private equity deal in damning letter - <AUTHOR> https://domainnamewire.com/2019/11/15/ica-asks-icann-to-block-org-private-equity-deal-in-damning-letter/ <comment><USER2> Excellent Article and insightful comments setion.

As much as I hated seeing the US Department of Commerce having stewardship of ICANN this recent development this is really a body blow to all .org stakeholders.

I guess we all should have seen this coming when it was spun off to a "Multi stakeholder board".

First an increase in allowed fee's then the private turnover. A well scripted subversion.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it quite impressive that everyone raised their voices, although ICANN and PIR seem to turn a blind eye to them.

For a registry, their main costs are nameserver costs and ICANN licensing fees (~$25K for gTLDs, not sure for classic TLDs). It's totally unfair on PIR side to jack the prices up just because they can.

<comment><USER4> These costs don't sound exorbitant.

Are profane TLDs allowed? I'd love to register a particular four letter gTLD. I'm sure it'd make its money back.

<comment><USER5> Not really profane, but there's [https://get.sucks](https://get.sucks)

<comment><USER4> I love that the first selling point is

> Protect your identity online so that no one can defame your name.

This one is an extortion racket.

<comment><USER6> [http://facebook.sucks](http://facebook.sucks)

> Registrant Organization: Facebook, Inc.

[https://whois.nic.sucks](https://whois.nic.sucks)

<comment><USER7> microsoft.sucks, apple.sucks, and google.sucks are registered by their respective companies as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The letter itself: [https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICA-Letter-to-ICANN- Bo...](https://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/ICA-Letter-to-ICANN-Board-of- Directors-November-15-2019.pdf) [PDF]

<comment><USER9> I have certainly taken the internet's infrastructure for granted at times. Can someone who follows this more closely say something about how this is likely to play out?

The profit motive is helpful in some areas, but it can just wreck service- related fields.

<comment><USER10> The profit motive is helpful when it comes to providing incentives to innovate. There's no room for innovation here - it's purely a cash grab.

<comment> o-__-o See all of the new TLDs as an example of a cash grab, we all know how they are going to play out once the internet phenomenon peters out

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Having a crazy thought here...

So we have things like Tor, which makes a PKI based .onion TLD. What's stopping Us (the people) from making our own TLDs?

It really just is a massive amount of groupthink, inertia, and acceptance of who dns is... right?

And with IP6 seems like it'd be a wild west on all sorts of TLDs.. But we have these monolithic orgs holding us all back. Hell, I know it's orthogonal to TLDs, but we even had the ANPR ip space sold partially to Amazon ( [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20475855](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20475855) ). Bluntly stated, these orgs that manage underlying infra aren't trustworthy. And that goes without stating ICANN and all those woes.

<comment><USER12> Check out OpenNIC: [https://www.opennic.org/](https://www.opennic.org/)

<comment><USER13> I posted this elsewhere a while ago but it's relevant to opennic, let me know if something is out-of-date or wrong:

The choice to support DNS roots like .oz, .ku, .te, .ti, and .uu is not standards-compliant. Say suddenly a new nation comes into the world and ISO assigns them one of these abbreviations, or one of these "emerging countries" they have TLDs for gets assigned a different cctld, what does opennic do? They made the choice to pre-register a bunch of domains under these reserved 2-letter country codes, so now they either have to

A. stop being able to say "we directly support all ICANN-assigned tlds" and keep resolving the existing domains

or

B. say to the existing domain owners of [their artificial] tld "sorry to be you" as their domain names they thought they owned now become registered to other entities.

<comment><USER14> The implicit goal of a project like OpenNIC is to eventually get a seat at the standards compliance table, where they'll be able to convince decisionmakers not to make those assignments in the first place.

For now they do (B). They renamed their .free domain to .libre after ICANN registered .free.

<comment><USER4> Why don't they purchase gTLDs?

<comment><USER14> They're ideologically opposed to ICANN's authority over gTLD registration, so even if they could afford to I don't think they'd want to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How was this transaction valued if it was a "private" sale to a private equity firm? Should it not have been done along the lines of a FCC public spectrum auction? Secondly, as I raised this issue previously, why is .org. being commercialized in the first place?

</comment><comment><USER16> Why is there only one .org registry, anyway? There are multiple registries for .com.

I hate to say it, but maybe domain names should be managed on a blockchain, so there's no central authority.

<comment><USER17> No, there is only one .com Registry: Verisign. There's multiple Registr _ar_ s (the companies you as an individual typically buy your domains at) for .org just as there are for .com

<comment><USER18> > buy your domains

Rent.

As far as I know, you can't "pay off" a domain. And most of us are at some usually negligible risk of losing a domain by mistake or because someone bigger wanted it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm not really informed enough about this to fully understand it, but if I own a .org domain, can anyone explain to me what repercussion can this have?

<comment><USER20> Your annual renewal cost will go up.

<comment><USER21> And ICANN removed any sort of price cap (used to be 7% per year) because fuck non profits and consumers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This makes me think of ENS project (based on Ethereum) that is making a decentralized TLD. The registry is managed automatically by a smart contract.

Pros? The conditions are equal to all users. Cons? It is a wild west style registry with no governance besides the little the automated algorithm offers.

They're goal, if I understood correctly, is having .eth TLD managed by this decentralized registry. It can be an interesting experience.

[Full disclosure: I'm part of the Almonit project which uses ENS]

<comment><USER23> Namecoin is a lot more popular and better known than ENS, fwiw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Raising the price for tld would actually be a good thing, as it would make "domain investing" (domain hoarding) unprofitable.

Let's say a .com costs $1,000 per year. For a legitimate business / organization, that is a trivial cost. For a domain hoarder, that makes keeping domains by and large unprofitable.

Killing this parasitic activity is a good thing.

<comment><USER25> So keeping the domain for my primary email address that I've used for 15 years is "hoarding" now?

<comment><USER26> Personal anecdote: If the e-mails I get every few months are to be believed, yes. I was lucky enough to be around on the Internet when domains were free so I have two .org domains (because to have a .com back then was a sign that you were one of those "dirty businesses" who wanted to "sully the InterNet"[0]) that are old enough to buy their own drinks in the States. Both have been used for e-mail and internal naming schemes for as long as I've had them; only one has a web site.

Every few months, I get e-mails asking if I'll sell one or the other for a small sum or donate the domain to the group that's asking. I used to reply and politely decline but the vitriol about my "pointlessly" keeping a domain that I'm "obviously not using" that inevitably comes back now has me shift-Delete e-mails like that. The times, they have changed.

0 - And getting a .net meant showing you were an actual Network Operator. Anybody else remember FTPing the template down from internic.net and sending it to hostmaster and waiting two months for the zone delegation?</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: QRganize - Your QR code library. - <AUTHOR> http://qrganize.com

<comment><USER2> Not much to show, sadly, since it's not ready. :(

The feature I'd really like to see in something like this--for QR or NFC, etc. --is for the app to know when you scanned a code and when you took a photo.

For example, I take a picture of poster, then scanned the QR code at the bottom. The app would recognize the two actions as being connected and associate the QR with the photo. That way I can search back over codes using visual reminders of what I was looking at. Add in location and I'd really appreciate the whole thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a really interesting idea there. Don't worry it'll be ready, looking for feedback, thanks for your comment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is this just a QR scanner that has a history feature?

Keeping the photo makes sense in theory, but most of the time the code itself takes up the entire photo and so the context (magazine page, advert, etc) is out of the picture.

<comment><AUTHOR> Going complete opposite of the history feature. Here's a link that describes it better: <http://blog.qrganize.com>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How do you pronounce that? corganize? queue-are-ganize? kwarganize?

<comment><AUTHOR> The second one there is most accurate :) QR is all caps so pronounce that as you would an acronym, then ganize.</comment></comment>


Facebook's New Feature – Real Time Tips - <AUTHOR> http://readsource.com/technology/facebooks-latest-feature-place-tips/

<comment><AUTHOR> Facebook is going to look a little different on your mobile device moving foward. Check it out!</comment>


American Reportedly Killed by "Uncontacted" Sentinelese Tribe Off Coast of India - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2018/11/21/669909594/american-reportedly-killed-in-flurry-of-arrows-as-tribe-defends-its-island-off-i <comment><USER2> Uncontacted is not quite true. They do have their reasons, explained here:

> There's been a lot of talk about the missionary killed by the natives of > North Sentinel Island. They're probably so aggressive because of this > weirdo, Maurice Vidal Portman. So here's a big thread about this creep and > some facts from my decade-long obsession with the island. > [https://t.co/rfOVjfU2ZY](https://t.co/rfOVjfU2ZY)

— Respectable Lawyer (@RespectableLaw) November 23, 2018</comment>


Houzz lays off 155 employees, cuts executive salaries - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/04/21/houzz-lays-off-155-employees-cuts-executive-salaries/ <comment><USER2> > The company also said it will help those laid off find their next gig > through resume writing, career coaching and network referrals.

Does anyone write resumes anymore, or need help writing them?

For anyone who has been laid off during an economic downturn, how much can career coaching help, and what does the coaching usually consist of?

Not trying to be negative (and Houzz' offer to keep benefits such as health insurance going through the end of July is a generous one for the U.S.) but I was a bit surprised by listing things which should either be A) "of course we'll do that" (such as network referrals) or B) may not make much of a difference to employees who have just been launched into the maw of a severe recession.</comment>


Arlington Wallace: First Free Robo-Advisor in the UK - <AUTHOR> http://arlingtonwallace.com <comment><USER2> Please don't solicit votes or comments to promote a submission on Hacker News.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, I had no idea I could not share the link with friends and family. Just now I noticed in the FAQs you're not supposed to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm intrigued. It's a brave proposition to charge no fees. I'm sure you'll get loads of interest! I'll be watching to learn more.

<comment><USER4> no fees, pompous venture names - there might be a catch somewhere :) I'm sure HN will figure this one out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is really interesting, i've been paying 0.5%

<comment><USER6> I've been paying 1%

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Im curious! How are they going to make money?

</comment><comment><USER4> What's the catch?

<comment><USER4> looks awesome. an area ripe for disruption. Is this UK only?</comment></comment>


Adblocking and the End of Big Advertising - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/07/adblocking/

<comment><USER2> "That's $14.17 a month. In other words, we could replace the entire advertising industry with a 10–20% bump on our internet subscription fees either on our cable or cell service bill. In fact, it wouldn't even have to be this high, since we only have to replace the revenues received by publishers, and not all of the expenses of the existing ad industry, which could be entirely disbanded."

So..how will a tiny Wordpress site get their cut of this revenue? I thought net neutrality was supposed to de-couple content from the Internet provider (IE: it's just the highway). But this article seems to want to put them together again.

If there was some kind of revenue sharing, it would basically put all of the money into the hands of the top 10% and the rest would need to survive on scraps.

The unintended consequence would be making it more difficult for startups to survive and making big companies, even bigger.

</comment><comment><USER3> theres a strong need for a revolution of ads in my opinion, who doesnt have adblocker or sth similar nowadays. Guess the ones that can do that will be the next google/facebook revenue-exploding wise:)</comment>