Mathematics pronunciation guide - <AUTHOR> http://waukesha.uwc.edu/mat/kkromare/up.html

<comment><USER2> As a native french speaker, I'm not convinced at all about "zhah(n) bah teest zhoh zef foo 'Ryay" to say "Jean Baptiste Joseph Fourier" :D

<comment><USER3> But it's fun so fun to say

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> All those, and they couldn't even say which way "tuple" was supposed to be pronounced? I've been dying to know!

<comment><USER5> As far as I know "tuh-ple" is American programming jargon (Python jargon for sure), while everywhere else it's "too-ple", including American mathematics and European everything - programming and math. Correct me if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER6> I have no idea personally, but I say "tuh-ple" because it comes from "n-tuple" (think of how you pronounce "quintuple").

<comment><USER7> What about quadru(oo)ple?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One that got stored in my brain faultily is χ (chi) as "key" versus "kai" - but the indicated pronunciation as ky is still ambiguous (think inky vs Kyle)! Wikipedia says kai. I still tend to pronounce it with a ch sound like Irish, German, Scottish "loch" etc. though.

<comment><USER9> When you learn that letter in Greek, it's pronounced "key." I don't know if you mathological folks decided to change that or not. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Ha ha, if you're a non-American take these pronunciations literally you _will_ end up sounding like an American mathematician!

orthogonal: US: ohr 'thahg uhn uhl UK: or 'thog uhn ul

<comment><USER11> Or "beta", "theta" and "zeta", which I would rhyme with "beater" but Americans would rhyme with "data".

Except I'd rhyme "data" with "garter" rather than "dater" anyway so that's a bad example.

Wow, Barbie was right -- math is hard!

(Err, maths)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fantastic.

However, I wish that IPA pronunciations were also provided.

<comment><USER13> More and more often now, the IPA transcriptions (and alternate pronunications for some terms) could be mined from Wikipedia. Google's dictionary

[http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&...](http://www.google.com/dictionary?aq=f&langpair=en|en&q=pronunciation)

has some entries with IPA transcription of pronunciation, but fewer for mathematics than I expected.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was excitedly hoping it would be a guide to how to pronounce formulae, alas not.</comment>


Ask HN: Why does everyone call it Sublime Text 2 - <AUTHOR>

Why not just call it Sublime Text. I don't state the version on any other IDE I use. <comment><USER2> I guess it because nobody know about Sublime Text 1 as popular application - Sublime Text 2 it's like the first known name of this app.

<comment><USER2> And I believe that the new version "Sublime Text 3" will be called as "Sublime Text" by everybody (or might be "Sublime Text 2" version 3 :) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The titlebar of the program says Sublime Text 2

</comment><comment><USER4> Why does this question even exist?</comment>


Memory Models: A Case for Rethinking Parallel Languages and Hardware - <AUTHOR> http://cacm.acm.org/magazines/2010/8/96610-memory-models-a-case-for-rethinking-parallel-languages-and-hardware/fulltext

<comment><USER2> For the record, this is the same Boehm of boehm-gc the garbage collector.</comment>


Show HN: An iOS app to get motivated to do push-ups - <AUTHOR>

Hello!
I just made a free iOS app (no in-apps) to follow how many push-ups your friends are doing. The app automatically create a monthly leaderboard powered by the number of push-ups made. It aimed to encourage improvement through competition.
My goal is not to promote it, it is simply to get your feedback about the app! The app is named PUWF - Push-ups With Friends and you can download it here: https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/puwf-push-ups-with-friends/id955478124?mt=8
I would really love to hear your feedback about that.
Thanks! <comment><AUTHOR> Here is the link to download the app: [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/puwf- push-ups-with-friends/i...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/puwf-push-ups- with-friends/id955478124?mt=8)

</comment><comment><USER2> That's a nice little idea, helps that you picked my favourite blue colour for the UI (which is pretty fresh by the way).

What did you use for the backend - Parse or something?</comment>


Qi: a Simple Package Manager for Common Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://codyreichert.github.io/qi/ <comment><USER2> If the author shows up, as one of a few here who wants to know, why YAML? In other languages YAML parsers are a dime-a-dozen affair, while the same is true of SEXP/EDNish type stuff so proudly mocked in Lispland by insiders and outsiders alike.

Was it personal preference or something more? I scanned your stuff, but did not see anything insightful on the landing page.

<comment><USER3> YAML is a neat format.

<comment><USER2> I take your opinion pretty seriously with the weight of your CL work. If you have time, I would love to hear your rationale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not sure I understand what this is providing over QuickLisp and QuickProject. Version pinning seems useful, but I don't see an explanation of how it's being done, and I don't understand how it can work with a REPL. It seems like it would be better to handle it in asdf and QuickLisp. Using YAML also seems like a poor choice for Common Lisp, where everything is s-expressions.

Also, there's already a Common Lisp project named "Qi": [http://cliki.net/Qi](http://cliki.net/Qi)

<comment><USER2> That is a very fun story. It is not really Qi anymore, it is Shen.

And boy oh boy does that have an interesting backstory unto itself. If you wanna try the proprietary cum BSD-licensed core of it, a K-lambda language that is like a Lisp on Haskell/Idris-typed steroids, give it a shot.

[http://www.shenlanguage.org/download_form.html](http://www.shenlanguage.org/download_form.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> This looks pretty cool. It sounds like it can wrap Quicklisp, which is real good considering how much work and apprecation there is for @xach re the Quicklisp work. He also expects to have a big donor announcement status announcement in a few days, according to blog.quicklisp.org.

This seems like it is not just a package manager, but maybe like a project manager, between Quicklisp and cl-project?

Anyway, every few months I am happy to get back into the CL scene. There is something I cannot get me to move away from the dark arts of Lisp!

<comment><USER5> Quicklisp is definitely awesome - CL is a million times better with it.

You don't need to use Quicklisp to use Qi, but you can definitely use them together. The same is true for cl-project (which I really like).

The biggest use-case in mind was the ability to specify dependency versions and custom dependencies that aren't in quicklisp (pulling from a private git repo was my use-case; someone added support for mercurial recently).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems to focus more on project lifecycles and scaffolding than Roswell (my current go-to toplevel for Common Lisp).

I'm not sure about using yml to track dependencies, those should be in the asdf file, although I guess this is to enable pinning etc.

<comment><USER2> I too was looking at Roswell only to discover the core is in C. There is a very amusing issue where one contributor/user asks why not in Go, but then one of the core devs is like "Is there not another language we might be interested in? You know, the one we're developing for?"

[https://github.com/roswell/roswell/issues/104](https://github.com/roswell/roswell/issues/104)

I am not sure why C in the first place. It looks like a fun tool, but seems like minor heresy. Jokes aside, the ease of shoving things down a la Lisp images, albeit unpopular, made me think building a Lisp mgmt tool in Lisp is easier for idiots like me who took ages to understand the ./configure, make, make install workflow of *nix platforms.</comment></comment>


Oh my God. I just witnessed the single greatest moment in human history - <AUTHOR> http://likethebookshop.tumblr.com/post/28164604850/oh-my-god-i-just-witnessed-the-single-greatest-moment

<comment><USER2> I saw this a few days ago - don't remember the source - and moved to click on the HN submission bookmarklet. But then I stopped.

Yes, it's a nice story - very "feel good." Very uplifting. Very encouraging.

But satisfying one's intellectual curiosity?

It's genuinely a great story, but there are hundreds of those out there that I would claim are not in any way appropriate or specific to Hacker News.

And this is one of them.

So to anyone reading this - what do you want HN to be? A place to come for uplifting stories like this? Or a place that's specific to hackers and technical entrepreneurs?

Can it be both? Do you want it to be?

 _Addendum: I haven't flagged this, because I no longer believe that my preferences and interests are properly and fully aligned with what HN has become. As a result, I don't believe I should flag things unless they're clearly spam._

</comment><comment><USER3> Swear i've seen this somewhere before.</comment>


Off-Grid Cyberdeck: Raspberry Pi Recovery Kit - <AUTHOR> https://back7.co/home/raspberry-pi-recovery-kit <comment><USER2> As I've been playing with Raspi's and Beaglebones and stuff lately, it's been driving me nuts that EVERYTHING I do needs to be apt-gotten off the internet, the base image doesn't even include basics like screen/tmux.

If those repos are inaccessable for any reason, I have a bunch of hardware that's very hard to do anything useful with.

I know there are such things as apt-caches and squid caches and stuff, but I could really use thing that goes through every apt-get I've ever done and the top 50,000 packages on github and stuffs 'em all onto an SD card and shows me how to use them from my commandline.

OP mentions this as a future direction for the project, but I think it's one of the most important.

<comment><USER3> NixOS solves all of these problems.

a) define your entire system state and dependencies in a single, declarative file

b) prebake an image based on this file

It's all done and ready, available now, no hacking around required.

<comment><USER4> This is precisely what every linux distro does. Nix isn't providing novel functionality for bootable OS images.

But a bigger question for the ergonomics of NixOS: Are NixOS and Nix prebuilding for ARM now?

<comment><USER3> > This is precisely what every linux distro does. Nix isn't providing novel > functionality for bootable OS images.

None of them provide native, single-source-of-truth declarative configuration that is easy to reason about, pure, and guaranteed to deliver sane results every time (vs. something managed via a classic CM system). Oh, also one that it symmetrical to the way the distribution itself is built and managed.

> But a bigger question for the ergonomics of NixOS: Are NixOS and Nix > prebuilding for ARM now?

Yes. [https://nixos.wiki/wiki/NixOS_on_ARM/Raspberry_Pi](https://nixos.wiki/wiki/NixOS_on_ARM/Raspberry_Pi)

Ports to other ARM devices are also very easy.

<comment><USER4> > None of them provide native, single-source-of-truth declarative > configuration that is easy to reason about, pure, and guaranteed to deliver > sane results every time (vs. something managed via a classic CM system).

Firstly: the Nix language isn't pure. And neither are some base Nix library functions.

Secondly: You may find it easy to reason about. Many of us have _not_ had that experience. Trying to do work as a developer, I felt it was absolutely miserable the instant I needed to depend on a new package or a new runtime. Every language had slightly different conventions and rules. You had to relearn how any specific package worked to integrate it with another, because there often wasn't sanity. And if you DID need to somehow interface with something outside of Nix (say, a vendor binary not in Nix) you had to use an unreliable environment hack.

And of course, the tutorials and docs didn't actually cover the majority of concerns on how to add new stuff folks will inevitably have, except for a trivial C executable.

In one case, after spending a week working out how to add a package to enable a Haskell binding to said package correctly, I submitted package updates that took MONTHS to propagate into the main repo, so I had to start pushing my fork of the nix repo from machine to machine via github on my own to manage multiple machines. It was pretty ridiculous and I regretted my choices.

I like the Nix philosophy. I respect a lot of the people on the project. But I am not a fan of the "it is all fine and well-baked and I'm sure you can use it too" approach a lot of Nix proponents decide to take.

You could _absolutely_ arrive at a solid installable image for ANY major Linux distro.

> Yes. > [https://nixos.wiki/wiki/NixOS_on_ARM/Raspberry_Pi](https://nixos.wiki/wiki/NixOS_on_ARM/Raspberry_Pi)

That's great! I'll have to try it again there if it has packages I want for SDR work that are not comically ancient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This site cannot be viewed without third-party JavaScript enabled (it shows a blank page on both Firefox and Chrome), and this is happening more and more on HN links. I think it's pretty sad that so many websites are adding a client- side dependency on third-party code just to view the website. In this case, this doesn't seem intentional, as the code is full of <noscript> tags.

I also cannot begin to understand how can a <body> tag's class definition can take 4400 bytes. In what kind of situation do we need to apply 146 CSS classes to the <body> tag ?

<comment><USER6> It's a squarespace site, and this particular behavior is pretty universal to squarespace sites, near as I can tell.

Since it's due to the squarespace, I wouldn't really characterize this as "third-party" javascript per se, but I agree it's annoying the page needs javascript to even render. Boo on squarespace.

If you don't want to enable _all_ third-party scripts, try uMatrix ([https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/umatrix/ogfcmafjal...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/umatrix/ogfcmafjalglgifnmanfmnieipoejdcf)). It has very fine-grained control over what assets you allow from where (it's why I knew offhand this was squarespace). A warning though: it's got a bit of a learning curve, and depending on how restrictive you want things, you will probably end up spending a fair amount of time un-breaking the internet.

Needing third-party scripts isn't necessarily evil in my mind though--aside from squarespace-like cases where a page loads scripts from the underlying platform (squarespace, or custom domains on top of medium), the other common case I see is loading scripts straight from cdnjs or similar. Is it really evil or insecure to load jquery from cdnjs?

<comment><USER7> Strange, it works for me on an ancient version of Safari (9.1.3) that's kitted out with ghostery and JS blocker. Most modern sites don't work on it, but this one did.

<comment><USER8> That's probably because that version of Safari ignores this little bugger:

        .site.page-loading { opacity: 0 }

I used the developer tools in Firefox to disable that one and the page was instantly viewable without JavaScript.

That's right, the site uses CSS to _hide_ all the content and then presumably reenables it somewhere in the gobs of JS, maybe after its loaded whatever other analytics/tracking crap there is. Absolutely vile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is why hacker news, despite all its problems, is such a joy. There are people doing some amazing stuff that I can learn so much from (while trying not to think to hard about how lazy I am). Its not only a cool project, but is really well photographed and documented. Thanks for posting.

<comment><USER10> Projects like this remind me of why we need to use public money for space exploration. The extreme constraints on space exploration drive new innovations and ideas that can flow down into our everyday lives.

<comment><USER11> We used public money to go to the moon and our government recorded over all of the video footage. Can you name a single piece of video footage that is more valuable than that which was recorded on the Apollo missions? I can't. Governments are either incompetent or corrupt - usually both.

<comment><USER12> The video footage may be inspiring and I agree that it's a huge shame that it was erased but it really is of very little scientific value compared to the other research and data gathered on these missions.

<comment><USER11> If the footage from the Apollo missions is worthless that would support my claim beyond the point I made in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really like this project! But I speak from authority, having fully integrated a wireless and wired network and charging station into a carry bag for work uses:

Thar Netgear switch will cut through your onboard battery like a bullet. You'll absolutely need a larger battery if you flip that switch on.

<comment><USER13> You can find crummy little 100mb switches on Aliexpress that actually power from micro USB. They're almost but not quite as bad as you think they'll be but for only $8...

[https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33047436686.html](https://www.aliexpress.com/item/33047436686.html)

<comment><USER4> I tried one of these and I just found it was constantly drawing out 100mA+ of current. They're really not made with portable efficiency inside.

In the end, I just found that portable wifi solutions to be more power efficient.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is beautiful and I am now motivated to make my own as well. And I've figured out what I'm going to do with it.

Since 1999 I've been 'printing to PDF' all the great stuff I've read on the Internet. As a result, I have an 36gigabyte archive of PDF files.

I'm going to make one of these ultimate boxes, and put my archive out in the wilderness, up a mountain, behind my hut in a deep, dry hole in the rock.

That way I'll always have something great to read when I get up the scrag. ;)

<comment><USER15> That would be pretty sweet to share as a doomsday bathroom reading collection. Any chance you might throw it up on archive.org?

<comment><USER14> Oh I dunno, it'd take a fair bit of time to vet for personal data .. I think I'll just make it more of a family/friends heirloom installation, and for those 'in the know' about how to get up to the hut. There's a ton of great stuff in the archive, but I don't think its something of public interest as much as just my personal tastes in interesting shit ..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Looks like my HAM Go Box with a GPD [https://twitter.com/nvk/status/1113183963571421187?s=20](https://twitter.com/nvk/status/1113183963571421187?s=20)

<comment><USER17> What do you have there? I'm a little bit out of touch with the HAM scene lately

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I once worked on a project trying to isolate WiFi signals. We ended up purchasing a metal box with a conductive gasket, and were able to detect wireless signals through the box until we screwed the lid down to spec. Just a point of reference, I've never done EMP work... But I'm not sure how much the copper foil will buy you. Regardless, beautiful build!

<comment><USER19> An ungrounded Faraday cage is a re-radiator.

If it's grounded you need very little material. The most important factor is the largest gap in the cage, which dictates the longest wavelength that is passed. Look at microwave oven meshes to see a size of gap that blocks slightly above 2.45 GHz.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> > Numerous holes in the case would make ingress of water or moisture even more > common

Salt in air from moisture is also a major issue. I have lost many RPi from the sea air.

<comment><USER21> A bit OT, but my brother lives by the sea, literally at the top of a cliff. He's a biker, and has owned 5 motorbikes in 10 years - every single one has ended up badly corroded because of the salty sea air, resulting in hefty bills.

After the first bike, he started putting a cover over them, but it didn't help much.

Any ideas on what might help reduce corrosion? (he doesn't have a garage, and building one isn't an option).

<comment><USER22> Afaik the traditional corrosion protection method is a decent layer of paint, or variations thereof.

<comment><USER21> Indeed.

For some reason cars seem to be mostly OK there, it's just motorbikes that are badly affected. Obviously the parts that can be painted, the parts that aren't stainless steel, are paintee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> On the Pi at least, once you've got a card set up you can `dd` it onto another card. Saves a lot of time when rebuilding. I tape them to their respective cases so they're easy to find when needed.

</comment><comment><USER24> I love the integrated switch! Is it meant to stand up a small cluster in a hurry? Thinking more, what is the use case?

<comment><USER25> I was thinking a lower power USB3 hub might be more useful, could do USB ethernet dongles if really needed, or other options... may not be as high a throughput, but that probably isn't the goal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This might pair well with an Othernet kit, supposing you're in a coverage area.

[https://othernet.is](https://othernet.is)

<comment><USER27> What is this? No offense but this site looks like a concept mock-up. There's no actual information besides general ideas and stock photos, and there's no further links or reading, just an email address.

<comment><USER26> I can assure you, it's real! I got mine in the mail on Monday!

Caveat: I have not attained reception yet, because of obstacles.

The North America kit comes with:

\- Low Noise Block Downconverter (LNB) antenna, capable of Ku-Band reception of the SES-2 satellite. Must be pointed very accurately: elevation, azimuth AND rotating for polarization

\- Crappy little tripod, good enough to get started

\- An acrylic laser-cut LNB collar to hold the antenna on the tripod, which I immediately snapped.

\- A 1GHz arm based board with embedded software defined radio.

\- An 802.11n dongle.

Here's a youtube overview of the desktop environment: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TuNVC0Vw2Y&t=281s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9TuNVC0Vw2Y&t=281s)

Basically, the board receives compressed tar files in the data stream and caches them on a secondary microSD card. You access that content with various linux desktop apps served over a webdesktop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> For the keyboard, a random question... does anyone know a real laptop keyboard that's available for general purchase and includes a datasheet on how to interface it? I don't really want to go to the length OP did and build a keyboard from individual switches.

<comment><USER17> [https://hackaday.com/2018/12/04/teensy-liberates-the- thinkpa...](https://hackaday.com/2018/12/04/teensy-liberates-the-thinkpad- keyboard/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is really neat, and timely -- I was just watching some of those "buying and opening a Titan II missile launch facility in Arkansas" videos on YT. Seems like a useful addition to one's underground lair.

</comment><comment><USER30> Can I get an explainer on how this would help in a disaster recovery situation?

<comment><USER31> I was thinking it could be pre-loaded with tons of relevant media and reference materials. Plus being a general purpose tool. I could see distance sailboat cruisers packing one away, similar to how they would pack some redundant spares of key electronics, or an industrial sewing machine like a Sailrite, for enhanced self-reliance in challenging environments. Pack a 3d printer in there too!

<comment><USER32> > " _I could see distance sailboat cruisers packing one away..._ "

...where the high humidity and salt air of the ocean would corrode the heck out of it. The author mentions that it has air vents.

A Panasonic Toughbook would be a far better choice.

<comment><USER33> I'm pretty sure he didn't mean he added vents to the pelican case, since he specifically states that this time he did not make holes into the case.

<comment><USER32> He has to open the case to use it, no? Quoting from the article:

> " _I also added cooling vents- the internal Pi 4 has a fan on it, but it > needed vents too- so if you look close you can see vents above the connector > panel and above the display._ "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> sl-1 Really cool! I especially liked the external EMP-shielding-box. I wonder if it's tested and how would one test those? Put it in a microwave and see if anything breaks?

<comment><USER34> This is not too healthy for the microwave

<comment><USER2> Put a glass of water in the microwave as dummy-load to prevent high VSWR from reflecting back into the magnetron. Standard procedure any time you're doing dumb shit with a kitchen microwave.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> That needs connectivity via PJON: [https://github.com/gioblu/PJON](https://github.com/gioblu/PJON) :)

</comment><comment><USER36> I'd go with an x86 or 64 bit SBC because although someone compiled Linux to run on ARM a lot of programs still can't.

<comment><USER33> Isn't the whole point of C that you can compile it against whatever architecture you wish? What programs you know of that can not be compiled to run on ARM?

<comment><USER36> Any program that's closed source. But also it's just kind of a pain to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> this is just cool as hell. congrats OP.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder about the keyboard though -- why ortholinear? I guess if you prefer it...? I find it very unwieldy. Or maybe all the staggered 40% kits out there wouldn't fit?

<comment><USER39> Probably an aesthetic choice.

Have you ever used ortholinear layouts? (I have not). I've heard they aren't as weird as you first expect, and you can get used to it fairly quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I call this a fake. Look at the photos and focus on the keyboard. What is it missing? The space bar. How the hell do you use a keyboard without a space bar?

</comment><comment><USER41> Is this the new thing now, were everything is going to be cyber-thing, built for a post-apocalyptic world, with bullet proof shielding and water proof, emp proof?

<comment><USER42> I actually would really like that as the theme for 2020. The perception of an increasingly hostile world pushes designs to reflect rugged and reliable qualities. It would be a breath of fresh air compared to the crappy planned obsolescence of the 2010s. Can't wait for Apple to create a phone with sharp square corners!

<comment><USER43> That would be planned obsolescence of clothes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The shape vaguely reminds me of an oscilloscope.

The raised lettering looks nice at first but I think might be rather prone to damage; inset/engraved would be preferable.

</comment><comment><USER44> Love that tiny keyboard, but where is the space bar?

<comment><USER45> Certainly missing other often used keys, like colon, semicolon, comma, quotes, /, ?, <, >. Guessing he must have some way of dealing with all that.

Higher res picture of the keyboard: [https://images.squarespace- cdn.com/content/v1/5caa4adb92441b...](https://images.squarespace- cdn.com/content/v1/5caa4adb92441be122fcead4/1570029451147-TEWBYE5CM1BCGJPG60PN/ke17ZwdGBToddI8pDm48kFmfxoboNKufWj-55Bgmc-J7gQa3H78H3Y0txjaiv_0fDoOvxcdMmMKkDsyUqMSsMWxHk725yiiHCCLfrh8O1z4YTzHvnKhyp6Da- NYroOW3ZGjoBKy3azqku80C789l0iXS6XmVv7bUJ418E8Yoc1hjuviiiZmrL38w1ymUdqq4JaGeFUxjM- HeS7Oc-SSFcg/JAY01429.jpg)

<comment><USER46> This style of keyboard is called "40%" and, just as you would press shift+1 to input an exclamation mark, they're invariably set up with additional modifier keys (or chorded sequences) to input the values of all the missing keys.

It's hard to say exactly how this one is configured, because it looks like a custom layout. The kit can be found here: [https://5z6p.com/products/plaid- through-hole/](https://5z6p.com/products/plaid-through-hole/)

<comment><USER45> The keys chosen in the primary layout in your link seem much more sensible to me. Trying to imagine what vim is like on the OP's keyboard :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Thats slick. Gives me alot of ideas but also makes me regret passing by those milspec connectors on a pile of surplus.

</comment><comment><USER48> Looks very cool. Is it comfortable to use?

<comment><USER3> I don't think comfort is within scope for this device, given its usecase.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> The back panel is beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER50> No connectivity in TFA. I'd suggest IRLP or better [0]

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

<comment><USER51> What does "TFA" stand for?

<comment><USER52> The fine article. In the same way that rtfm means "read the fine manual".

At least, that's the sfw version.

<comment><USER53> I always read the F as "featured"</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Kevin Rose: Digg Turned Down $80 Million Acquisition Offer - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/kevin_rose_at_disrupt.php <comment><USER2> Digg is boned. Product is at a dead end and users are losing interest in the community.

Meanwhile, they're funded up their ears. $40 million? For what? It's a bunch of user-submitted links and discussions. You need a couple of developers, a sysadmin, a designer, some sales guys. Am I missing any other roles?

100 employees for such a simple product is insane to me. I couldn't believe they topped out at that number. I am biased – I prefer small, lean teams over bloat, but come on, anyone can see this.

And now, yeah, they're boned. You're not going to get any significant multiple of $40 million out of that business. Boy, the investors would have been fortunate to get their money back period.

I guess that's just how the VC game is played.

<comment><USER3> I'd love to see

* Number of Employees

* Monthly Active Users

* Server Operating Costs

* Monthly Revenue

for

* Reddit

* Fark

* Slashdot

* Digg

I'd assume the other sites would bury Digg (no pun intended) on at least several of those fronts.

<comment><USER4> reddit has more daily pageviews than digg by a few tens of millions, reportedly. So, their 6(?) person team is outperforming 100+ digg employees in the most important metric (revenue _might_ be more important, but I'm not so sure...if I could pick a site to own, I'd choose the one that is bigger, growing faster, and has _dramatically_ lower expenses).

<comment><USER5> why are pageviews more important than visits, unique visitors or revenue?

<comment><USER4> User engagement. A visitor that spends hours on the site each day, producing content in the form of discussion, is worth a lot more than a visitor that drops in for two minutes in order to spew some spam into the queue, and then leave. I don't think there's any question that the reddit community is more engaged than the digg community...a brief perusal of the comments at both sites will quickly eliminate any doubt.

As for revenue, I said that more pageviews and much faster growth from a much leaner organization was better. There were several variables in my statements.

Besides, it is not a small difference in pageviews. It's ~40%! Which pretty much certainly equates to more visits and more unique visitors than digg.

No matter how you slice it, though, digg is a 100+ person operation that is generating less value to consumers than a 6 person operation. Value to consumers is a reasonable proxy for the kind of revenue you can generate from a site. They just haven't found the formula for monetizing it yet. It doesn't mean the value isn't there.

<comment><USER6> I'd bet money that a Digg user is far more monetizable than a Reddit user.

So I'd say Revenue is the best metric to compare, but I'm skeptical Reddit will ever make much money - their users are spending all their cash on weed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Rose wouldn't go into details, but said that he was getting "burned out"

Nail in the coffin statement there, uncommitted leadership during crisis mode is when all is lost.

I don't blame Rose from being burned out, bringing him back was more terrible decision making from board.

<comment><USER8> Amber MacArthur and Sarah Lane interviewed Kevin Rose during net@night for August 11, and he said he misses the days when Digg was small and they could come up with an idea, and have it live by that night. Now Digg has 40-50 full- time engineers, two data centers, and hundreds of servers.

Rose: "It's a big operation. To be honest it's bigger than I'm comfortable with... and I'm very excited to hire a new CEO very soon ... I'm not cut out to be a CEO of this size of company."

Inspired by 37signals, he wants his next company to be a small group of 10-15 people "based out of Portland or something... Chillin' in the woods, drinking tea, chopping wood..."

Sarah Lane: "Are you still on that Portland thing? ... I've been hearing about that for 10 years."

<http://twit.tv/natn163>

<comment><USER9> I'm in Portland, and I don't think that "chillin in the woods, driking tea, chopping wood" accurately describes it.

<comment><USER10> Then what else is there? Chillin in a garage, drinkin PBR and working on a fixie?

I think the better things to do here in Portland definitely involve things like chilling in the woods and chopping wood.

<comment><USER11> Umm, hello? Modest Mouse? Meth?

// nostalgic Portland ex-pat

<comment><USER9> PDX Ignite, PDX Hack-a-thon, OSBridge, OSCon, etc

Not to mention all of the bicycling stuff that goes on. Being a vegan, there is an awesome vegan community here, with a potluck almost every weekend.

For example:

1\. Portland Vegan Iron Chef, for example, went from an idea to an event with a venue that was too small for the number of people that wanted to attend within a matter of a couple of months. SupremeMasterTV even showed up to film it -- not that they are 'mainstream' or anything, but it wasn't just a couple of random people in their garage either.

2\. Vegan Convergence went from just an idea that someone was kicking around (the idea that there were a ton of vegans in Portland that he didn't even know -- 'convergence' as in bringing all of the different groups together to expand social circles) to an event in the part w/ 150+ people responding as attending on Facebook (dunno how many actually showed up; there were a lot of people, but people tend to come and go at various times at these types of events).

I guess it just depends on the circles that you are in... I'm sure there are some people that describe <insert name of city> as 'sitting in the garage, drinkin some beer' because that's all they do.

<comment><USER10> I am a big cyclist (it's my business), and I don't know what other large cities are like, but Portland's bike scene is a disaster. I can't believe the animosity that's been fostered between drivers and bikers, but I went from easily doing 100 miles a week to not wanting to ever get on my bike in about two months. At least a quarter the rides I do involve pretty frightening/stressful situations like being swerved/swore/honked at. Call me thin skinned, but damn these people are nuts.

Can't attest to the vegan thing - I am a reformed vegetarian who enjoys a tasty 5th quadrant burger here and there :) Oh, there we go, the beer! I knew I was forgetting my favorite thing about Portland.

<comment><USER9> That may be, but coming from Toronto, Ontario, there are a _lot_ of cycling events/rides/etc. It's totally awesome once a year, they shut down the bridges for cyclists (even the I-5 bridge).

Last summer (2009), I was biking a 15 mile round-trip to work, and I wasn't really running into issues, but I was also riding very defensively.

[I will admit that I wasn't a cyclist in Toronto, but -- as I understand it -- it is very bike-hostile (though there are bike couriers). If you think that the west-coast drivers in Portland are crazy, don't move to the east-coast...]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm shocked that the Digg board turned down $80 Million. Unless it was an overly complicated deal, that sounds like a lot more then it was / is worth.

The real value in Digg was always the unpaid community that powered it. Programming, I.P. and tangible assets are worth a fraction of what Digg is worth. In essence, someone offered $80m for the opportunity to put their hands on the steering wheel of the once powerful group of people who contributed, dugg and evangelized everything Kevin and crew did.

As Digg has proven, communities are fickle and without proper management, motivation and reward, they fail. In retrospect, neither the Digg community nor the assets it has are worth that much money. However, with a carefully crafted goal, properly motivated community and importantly a plan that includes a way to monetize the community, community based services could very well be worth $80 Million or more.

<comment><USER13> According to crunchbase digg has taken $40M in funding. A multiple of less then 2 on the investment doesn't seem to be the kind of deals to get VC's excited.

At the time there was really no reason to not try to hold out for an extra $40M or so.

Of course Kevin wanted to take it he's walking away with a significant amount of that $80M in his pocket.

Heh it makes the Reddit deal ($100k in and sold for $20M) look effing brilliant - and with the uptick in traffic its getting from digg v4 its making that look like the much smarter play.

<comment><USER6> Agreed @ Reddit. Maybe a winning formula.

      1. Find a startup in a new area that is over funded (digg)
      2. Copy it, on the cheap.
      3. Get bought for a "cheap" price compared with what the
         over funded startup would request.

<comment><USER14> It wouldn't work in this case. Digg did a Round C in 2008 of $28.7m. That's when they were over funded.

Reddit was founded in 2005. Digg was founded in 2004 and did a Round A at a reasonable $2.8m in late 2005. <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/digg> <http://www.crunchbase.com/company/reddit>

The only way your plan would work in this case is if you have a crystal ball in 2005.

Basically, your competitor bets after the flop and you're planning on playing the hand while short stacked.

And on the flip side you may end up being the Jaiku or Pownce to someone else's Twitter.

<comment><USER15> Bad example. Jaiku was bought by Google. Twitter keeps getting VC money, but hasn't gone liquid/profitable yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> with good investors, entrepreneurs usually have a lot of leverage in sitautions like this as long as the board sees them as crucial to the company's success going forward. so i wonder how much kevin pushed it.

my 1990s startup got an early acquisition offer for $30M when their was only $400K in; the VC left it up to us, and we decided we wanted to build a company. a few years later we hit the wall and the board could have forced us to take a lowball offer but we decided to see it through and managed to turn things around. in the end with $16M invested, we sold to Microsoft for around $60M ... the investors were split, but the executive staff (including me) wanted to do the deal so after some discussion we did. we had great investors, of course; not sure what digg's board is like.

<comment><USER17> This was PREfix, right? (Hi Jon, haven't seen you in a while :)

<comment><USER16> yep, it was -- good to see you too, Aaron, and apologies for the belated response!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A lot of people are here laughing at digg for turning this down, but hindsight is 20-20.

Zuckerberg turned down $1Billion from Yahoo, and at least on paper is worth an order of magnitude more now.

At the time, digg was a leader in a new take on publishing distribution. If executed well, it could have very feasibly been worth more than $80M.

<comment><USER19> > Zuckerberg turned down $1Billion from Yahoo, and at least on paper is worth > an order of magnitude more now.

Just because you won the lottery doesn't mean it wasn't stupid to not take the cash. Zuck should have took the billion as a first time entrepreneur. It was the better bet. Playing against the odds might be exciting, and you might even win, but it's still not smart.

<comment><USER20> Depends whether or not you believe Zuckerberg genuinely wanted to build a world-changing business. If that's his main goal (and the more I hear him talk, the more I start to believe it), and he genuinely believes he can do it, then taking the money isn't necessarily what's most important to him. I read a lot about entrepreneurs getting shit on for not swinging for the fences, but then they get shit if they turn down a billion dollar offer when they only see that as a triple.

It remains to see how this all plays out, but when you turn down a billion dollars, I think there's a good chance you're doing it for more than the money.

<comment><USER19> Still doesn't matter. Your first shot out of the gate, you take the money because it enables you get money out of the way. Everyone needs money. You swing for the fences the second time out, after you've got cash in the bank and don't need the money. That's the smart thing to do, play the odds. Zuck went against the odds, that wasn't smart, it was immature; he seems to have beat the odds so it worked out, but it was much more likely to go the other way, and it still could. Something could wipe out Facebook just like Facebook wiped out MySpace.

<comment><USER21> I have a feeling Zuckerberg is not going to have to worry about money no matter what happens. Even in 2007 he was clearly headed for multimillionaire status.

I don't know him personally but at the time he reputedly lived on a mattress in an empty room in Palo Alto. Maybe he's the kind of guy that values winning more than the accoutrements of success.

<comment><USER19> If facebook hadn't taken off, I doubt anyone here would know who Zuckerberg was. He rode a fad to fame and capitalized on it and made many a blunder along the way. He's no different than Kevin Rose and Digg. Facebook's popularity will wane, people will abandon it; many people already are in the sense that they don't check it much anymore. Something else will come along and the crowd will have a new toy.

<comment><USER22> In what universe is Facebook a fad? There are billion-dollar companies built on their platform, ferchrissakes!

<comment><USER19> Platform, lol. The site was better before the platform enabled apps. The entire platform is faddish, it's popular because it's popular and everyone else is doing it; until they aren't, then you stop. There are billion dollar industries that are entirely based on fads, movies, music, games, or fashion for example. The amount of money has no bearing on whether something is faddish. For most, facebook is entertainment, the entertainment industry in all its forms is all about fads and popularity.

<comment><USER22> Every company is around until it isn't. Blockbuster just declared bankruptcy -- does that make Blockbuster a fad?

Facebook is six years old. 500MM people use it every month. They are profitable and do over $1Bn in revenue. They have a platform, on top of which there is at least one $1Bn company (Zynga).

Groupon, also a $1Bn company, owes its success in large part to Facebook's ad platform.

Facebook is now moving into location and online payments. They will compete with PayPal, another $1Bn company (before being acquired by eBay).

Zynga is PayPal's second largest merchant, after eBay itself. Through Facebook credits, Facebook will be taking 30% of each of those transactions. They are building a database of credit card numbers to do it.

Tencent QQ, a Chinese social network with gaming elements -- most of the popular genres on Facebook were taken from popular Chinese social games, e.g., the farming genre -- is 15 years old and did over $1Bn in revenue last year.

Tencent's IM product has 610MM monthly active users and 63.2MM people with subscription accounts.

[http://www.tencent.com/en- us/content/ir/fs/attachments/inves...](http://www.tencent.com/en- us/content/ir/fs/attachments/investorintro.pdf)

When does this stuff stop becoming a fad?

Sure, fine, there's some universe in which Facebook vanishes tomorrow. The demand is still there. Social networking is here to stay.

The only way Facebook will fall behind is if they slow down and let someone else pass them, but given their history of aggressive and forward-thinking innovation, that seems unlikely for at least the next 5 years and/or until Zuckerberg stops caring.

And "it's popular because everyone else is doing it" -- you just described every business built on top of network effects. Craigslist is popular because everyone is using it. Does that make Craigslist a fad? eBay? VRBO? Etsy? YouTube? HN?

Pet rocks were a fad. Slap bracelets were a fad. Snuggies are a fad. <http://fmylife.com> is a fad.

Do you really think Facebook is that? Really?

I also notice that you didn't cite a single piece of data. Do you have any to support your argument, or is it just your "intuition?"

<comment><USER19> I didn't say Facebook was going away, or that it wasn't big business, nor did I say Facebook is a fad. I said he rode a fad to fame, that means it was a fad and then it became something tons of people use as it fleshed itself out over the years. If you don't agree, then don't, I don't care; don't get all bent out of shape about it like I insulted your mother or something. I don't need to quote sources to state my opinion.

<comment><USER23> Facebook's as much as a fad as photo-sharing, sending people messages and joining a discussion forum. Zuck originally said he wanted the relationships on it to reflect real life. The only thing faddish about it, is people's willingness to share their lives on it, and that's what Zuck wants to change, he wants sharing and exposing oneself to be normal, after all, for him it's all lulz. It's the over-exposing that is a fad as people start to want privacy.

When it first came out, I thought this is just like a friggin Xoops installation customized for college students (but custom built, and carefully sold to the right people). Also, a lot of Web 2.0 ideas were just like Xoops CMS modules (or WP plugins) but scaled out and adapted for mass website usage. The Facebook platform is just like Xoops module deployment that users can customize for themselves rather than the webmaster.

Theoretically, the only thing that could take out Facebook or come close, would be some type of cross-language, cross-server middleware layer, that webmasters could use that would simplify and improve web development, and give broad social, ecommerce, presence and whatever other features are, or will start to be in common. FB is in the best position to do that, and that's what I expect to see going forward: it'll have to create standards and protocols (an open source FB server?) and release those into the community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This article on digg claims it has 293 comments: [http://digg.com/news/technology/digg_redesign_tanks_traffic_...](http://digg.com/news/technology/digg_redesign_tanks_traffic_down_26)

After clicking "Load More" a couple times until it says there are no more comments to load, $(".comment-body").length in the firebug console says there are 104 comments. Am I missing something here or are they lying about comment counts to make the site seem more active than it actually is?

<comment><USER25> Did you count the replies and hidden comments?

<comment><USER26> You needed to click load more for the comments right? Stands to reason that you'd probably have to do the same thing for hidden comments etc.

<comment><USER24> So try it and prove me wrong. As I said before, that jQuery selector appears to be counting all the comments, including the hidden ones.

<comment><USER26> I hate to break it to you ... but the burden of proof is on you :D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Discussion about whether the board should have accepted the offer would benefit from knowing when it was made. In Digg's "heyday" is a bit vague. 80m is a biggish bird in the hand but 20m of that was earn out and given that Google were reportedly on the verge of a 200m offer in 2008, it's not clear that whoever thought 80m was lowball was altogether insane.

</comment><comment><USER28> I think the real story here is that he is "burned out" at Digg but excited by his angel investing. Where might that lead?

</comment><comment><USER29> I bet the digg board are regretting the decision since the launch of v4.

<comment><USER30> The board probably wasn't making any money with a $80M offer. It is a top 100 site... why not go for it? They could have built a ton of other revenue models... and they still can. They just need to start believing in it themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This reminds me of Yahoo on one hand (should have taken the money before they started tanking!) and Etsy on the other hand (70 employees was already far too many, next they went on a VC fueled hiring spree and now have about 130). In another similar move, Etsy recently brought back their old CEO/founder, to the horror of many members who were around for the first three years.

</comment><comment><USER32> Any estimates on the current valuation?

<comment><USER33> Not to start a bidding war, but I am willing pay $250 for the domain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> So i guess the BW cover was bullshit.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BusinessWeek_cover_14_Aug_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BusinessWeek_cover_14_Aug_2006.png)

</comment><comment><USER35> can't say i'd blame him, in digg's heyday, it was likely worth a good bit more.

<comment><USER36> "While he was personally willing to take this offer, the Digg board decided to turn it down." He wanted to accept it.

<comment><USER37> They had $40million invested so i guess that's a little low to accept...

On the other hand this raises some questions for founders on getting funding and what to expect down the road...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> they need to work more on their own concept and should stop being inspired from reddit.</comment>


Facebook already has a Muslim registry–and it should be deleted - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/12/facebook-should-delete-the-muslim-registry-it-already-has/ <comment><AUTHOR> "Facebook's business is data collection in order to sell more effectively targeted advertisements. While massive data collection is not new or unique to Facebook—search engines such as Google and Microsoft's Bing have the same feature—Facebook is unusual in that it actively strives to make that information personally identifiable. Facebook accounts tend to use our legal names, and Facebook relationships tend to reflect our real-life associations, giving the company's data a depth and breadth that Google or Microsoft can only dream about.

Among the pieces of personal information that the site asks users for is religion. As with most pieces of information that Facebook requests, this is of course optional. But it's an option that many people fill in to ensure that our profiles better reflect who we are."

I actually hadn't considered this angle before now. And this is bad. Imagine if someone decided to do bad stuff; hiding a religion on your profile isn't necessarily enough (especially if Facebook tracks changes), but analysis of messages sent to contacts abroad could also help reveal you.

I don't live in the US, so I don't have a lot of insight as to how US laws work in this regard. How difficult would it be for him to do something like this?</comment>


I hate Forth - <AUTHOR> http://www.embedded.com/story/OEG20010731S0028

<comment><USER2> My observation of Forth is that it is used to write an _undocumented_ [1] DSL and then solve the actual problem using that DSL.

This is great if you were the one that wrote the DSL and thus understand it intimately (having a prodigious ability to memorize is pretty important too). On the other hand, it sucks if you didn't write the DSL and have to understand how to use it or fix bugs in it because you first have to reverse-engineer the DSL. Reverse-engineering the DSL may take as long as writing it in the first case.

[1] The biggest documentation failure I typically have seen in Forth is a failure to document the word's parameters, i.e. the stack contents going into and returning from words. This is aggravated by the stack manipulation operations duping, swapping, etc. that look more like a game of "15 squares" <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifteen_puzzle> than an algorithm.

<comment><USER3> Stack languages present a troublesome problem for documentation. Forth in particular is untyped, but my own experience was with a small compiler/interpreter I wrote over a dynamic language(haXe). The language was easy to implement, and it solved one domain problem very well(in-game dialogue) and another not so well(choreographing two-dimensional movement patterns). I've filed it away as "cool experiment." My implementation allowed the same syntax to be used with different semantics - a batch compiled word, or words sliced up into lists of function calls, which made them usable in continuation-passing style - very useful for my in-game dialogue.

The debugging I encountered mostly revolved around correcting stack manipulations so that things lined up with the right parameters. The brevity of these languages comes from the stack allowing implicit parametrization; just list your data and then the word you want to use. The downside comes from this property also allowing the stack to leak when under or over-parametrized - enabling mystery behavior or crashes that you wouldn't see with C-style calling conventions.

On the other hand, a major plus: Working with the stack lets you avoid littering your code with named variables. This is what enables Forth words to have extremely high density and readability, and I've incorporated more of this style into my coding elsewhere, so that in the most extreme case, I might go ahead and set up a stack in(for example) an object, and then list out method calls like a high-level Forth operation:

obj.wordA(); obj.wordB(); obj.wordC();

Blending this with more imperative or functional constructs, I can get the best of both worlds: something compact and readable but also self-documenting, with decent type and parameter safeness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Reminds me of cats. Ask someone who hates cats to describe cats, and cat lovers will agree with the description. Cat hater ends with something like, "And that's why I hate cats," while cat lover ends with, "And that's why I love cats." Both to the same description.

<comment><USER5> I like cats, but I am really allergic to them, and thus hate being around them.

What is the similar situation for a programming language?

<comment><USER6> I have had people assert that they are allergic to parentheses, causing them to hate Lisp.

Of course, offering to make them a read macro to let them use any two other characters in place of parentheses didn't help, but such is life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What a strange article. He's upset because it's easy to experiment and test with Forth? OH NOES, TEH TERRIBLES!!

If you don't like interactive development, then just type everything into a file, compile it, and run. The choice is yours.

If there's something to complain about with respect to Forth it's the flakiness of concatenative programming. I'd rather write a program in terms of function application or sending messages than in stack transforms. That's why I don't like Forth, and is probably the only _real_ reason to dislike it. Everything the author dislikes is in his coworkers, not in the language.

</comment><comment><USER8> He mentioned everything I like about Forth. Peek and poke machine registers. Quick check out of hardware. Forth should be in the toolkit of any one bringing up new hardware. What is there to hate about it ? Every tool has it's limitations and should be judiciously applied to each task.

</comment><comment><USER9> Note the article was written in 2001.

</comment><comment><USER10> "Well, now when this all is over, I want to tell you that thisarticle definitely was a joke. ... But why people did not take this article as a joke? Because one has to know Forth to understand this joke. Given that most people do not know Forth, distribution of such articles is anti-education."

The article was satire?

</comment><comment><USER10> Are any HN users using forth in your personal life at work? I haven't seen it mentioned here much.

<comment><USER11> It's used as a shell interface in Open Firmware. So, it's in more places than most realize.

BTW, the phrase "personal life at work" is amusing.

<comment><USER10> haha, oops. I meant to say "personal life or work"...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems to be a rant about the limitations of certain language tools, not the language itself.</comment>


Tell HN: My only complaint thus far... - <AUTHOR>

I've loved having found HN. For the most part it's been an invigorating and informative venue to peruse relative to most other places I've visited on the internet. HN is now part of my daily regimen (or read "addiction")
I've seen some comment about a waning or stagnation. I lack the historical perspective to do much commenting being, myself, new to the 'hacker' scene.
But I can say something generally as to one, at times repelling at others suspect and sometimes both, is an air in some articles of a kind of either forced or false (or both) pretense of authority.
Not all have this, and even some that do have something I can take away of value.
It seems this kind of element comes from either a need for reputation seeking for outward reputations sake, or it seems tied to plugging, in a round about way, some app or product or start up.
I think that if you could somehow get rid of that aspect then all other evolutions to the site would be benign or beneficial.
Any decline I see seems born out of either a superficial spirit or an almost exploitative opportunism. <comment><USER2> Three virtues of a programmer:

\- _Hubris_

\- Laziness

\- Impatience</comment>


Trudeau pauses 21 seconds on question about Trump's actions [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1745421379773 <comment><USER2> It was kind of odd or interesting, in that he was looking at the camera the whole time for those 21 seconds.

Personally, if talking to another person, I would look down or away if formulating (or trying to give the impression that I'm formulating) an answer. Rather than look at the person uncomfortably (on the part of the other person) for 21 seconds -- maybe that's because in person, if you look at someone and say nothing for a long period it invites them to fill the gap and say something instead.

Perhaps it's different or he thinks about it differently because he's looking at a camera? Or it's a one-way press conference?

It does just look odd though. Not to say he shouldn't take time to answer important questions -- and in fact more public figures should do this. But I would just naturally think he would look down or away from the camera while doing it, to indicate that some response is coming during the silence.

<comment><USER3> As someone who watches Trudeau every morning, I see this as his normal mannerism. Sometimes when he translates his thoughts (he has to say most things in both French and English) he does the same thing, although for a much shorter duration. This was a bigger question, and one which he had to answer with his usual tact and mindfulness in both languages.

He is always extremely careful with his words, and doesn't really hide it when he is calculating his responses. The benefit of course is that he very seldom speaks out of character or says things he didn't quite mean. Sometimes it backfires if he translates from French to English first, causing him to come up with great phrases like "speaking moistly" when describing ways Covid-19 can spread.

People used to make fun of his continuous "uh," but when you realize he grew up in and around Quebec, that speech pattern makes sense as well. Quebec French has a really specific sort of "errr" (my spelling does it no justice) where English speakers would say "um" or "ah". He uses a sort of anglicized version of that sound because it is the norm where he grew up.

Literally a lot of things in his mannerisms that people joke about or point out as odd in some way come from Quebec. And others are because he does the full translation in his head before speaking.

The 21 second pause is, for him, only unusual because of the duration. It would be interesting to capture the thought process he was going through before breaking trance to speak. It clearly was an answer he had difficulties putting together in both languages while retaining his signature tact.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> That was fascinating in his non-verbal cues even as the question was asked. You could see him take a deep breath and let it out as soon as he realized that it would be a a difficult question. He took the time to think through how he wanted to respond, and gave clear indications that he was thinking it through. He looked like he was struggling to form an answer, but was not in a panic over it.</comment>


Announcing your plans makes you less motivated to accomplish them. - <AUTHOR> http://sivers.org/zipit <comment><USER2> I noticed this effect very early on as a kid, where I was often hacking away at some new project or trying to undermine some system.

Some of my ideas were pretty exciting, so usually I'd be bursting to pass on my excitement to someone else - usually my parents. (As any entrepreneur can confirm, coming up with a great new idea is _very_ rewarding) However, I never failed to feel like I lost some intrinsic level of motivation whenever I explained to someone else what I was working on.

It felt like holding a secret only you knew and then letting it out spoiled it. After awhile I learned to contain my enthusiasm and direct it toward making a functioning product before telling anyone... this probably explains why I tend to be much more independent when it comes to my startup ideas...

Working in secrecy makes you feel like you're about to pounce a revolutionary new idea upon the world and take it by storm.

<comment><USER3> Of course, on the flip side ... having people continually asking about your progress is actually pretty motivating (even if for the wrong reason)!

<comment><USER4> Once I tell people, however, I find myself waiting for those other people's questions about my progress. And if I don't get them, I do lose motivation although the reasons for them not asking me could be any (e.g. they didn't really understand or they're too busy with themselves).

So once I put it out there, I tend to constantly look for external validation even though I might not want to. It's not my own anymore.

<comment><USER5> I have the same problem, although (as I've mentioned before) I'm a writer, which I believe requires the same kind of creativity and ability to pull out unique ideas for solving problems.

Once I've announced a project, it seems to lose some of its energy and when people don't ask to see more, it makes me question my work. I stalled on one project after showing it to my wife, she didn't ask about it for a long time (which due to college, work, friends and immigration papers, she hasn't had the time to read anything). However, the self-doubt creeps in and now I'm stuck deciding between an entire rewrite of the old project to correct the problem, or to switch completely to my 'on the side' project that has occupied me for a week (compared to a few months) and has produced about half as much in much less time.

I also realised that the people I've listened to have been the wrong people, despite them being well intentioned. When I used to work as a reviewer, my editor praised my personal voice as akin to Terry Pratchett, but when I used it in actual stories I was told it had too much personal voice in it. Stupidly I listened to the other people and not my instincts.

So now I'm back to pointing my own compass, which is where I enjoy being and where my motivation stays up. Ironically it involves hiding the work from my wife, although I usually don't write when she's home anyway, which is definitely going to get me kicked (the question is where) if I end up with a finished 80,000 word novel I neglected to tell her about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When I did the Ironman last year, I told _everyone_ about it: friends, family and co-workers. I did it on purpose. It was a risk I took, because would I have failed to prepare for the race or finish the race, everyone would have thought I'm a "looser" or "quitter". I used this fear as additional motivational fuel. Also, to my surprise, most people told me I'm an idiot for even attempting an Ironman and that I wouldn't be able to finish it. (Lesson learned: Culturally, here in Eastern Europe 'we' don't have the 'can do' attitude.) That was another huge boost, showing these people how limited their mindset is. It's kind of cheating, because you're using external factors to motivate you, but you need all the "help" to do extraordinary things.

Think of Ali when he was preparing for the Foreman fight --- he used an entire nation to motivate him for the Rumble in the Jungle. Whenever he got a chance, he went on TV and said he would destroy Foreman. He absolutely commited himself in front of the entire world and it worked for him. Foreman, on the other hand, was different, he was more introverted, and although he lost that fight, he was still a great boxer.

So, on a personal level, I strongly disagree with this article. I'd rather strive to be like Ali than accept some mediocre average.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5o-yxwBJuk>

<comment><USER7> I had a very similar reaction. I rode a century (100mi) bike ride this spring, and telling people I was doing it was an important part of staying motivated. Also, because the ride was a charity fundraiser, once I had people sponsoring me (i.e. donated money to the cause) I felt like I couldn't back out.

I think the difference between this sort of goal and what's described in the article is that with a lot of intellectual pursuits, just telling people that you've been thinking about it and sketching out how you would do it gets you 80% of the respect and satisfaction for 20% (or less) of the total effort. On the other hand, you don't get much cred for just saying you're going to do a marathon or tri or century.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This slightly overstates the case. Structured announcements ("I will have done X by date Y") give you a chance to fail in the eyes of people whose opinions you value. That helps. I have an online friend who used this idea a couple months ago. To make himself achieve his weight-loss goals, he announced that he'd be posting nude pictures of himself on his blog at a set date. I'm not sure how well it worked (he lost weight, but not as much as he'd hoped), but he did actually post the pictures.

<comment><USER9> Link? Or actually, never mind...

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It would seem that for some public shame (announced plan that you never completed) is a motivator, while for others public announcement gives you a sense of reward.

Most studies show that the biggest motivator for anyone is when it costs you and not accomplishing the goal costs you even more.

There is a study on going to the gym and they found that the primary motivator for working out is if you pay for a gym membership and are reminded that you're losing money. It does not work if it's a gift (money you never had). It would be interesting to see if it matters between extroverts (get energy from talking to strangers) and introverts (lose energy when talking to strangers).

<comment><USER5> Personally I'm an introvert and while possibly not as bad a case as others, I'm restricted to a handful of friends who being with doesn't seem to drain me. Again, personally, I seem to lose motivation when I tell other people about a project, because I expect other people to ask about the project. However, that isn't realistic, I'm sure a hardened extrovert would tell their friends about every single part of the project as it progresses.

From what I can tell, an extrovert is going to be motivated because they get to tell everyone new stuff because they keep working. Where as an introvert is going to lose motivation, because they don't have the tendency to be out there talking to everyone, they expect an unrealistic and disproportionate amount of questions.

I guess a good analogy is that an introvert is the actor on the stage who always wants to be in the spotlight, but doesn't do enough to attract the spotlight. Where as the extrovert _is_ the spotlight, who wants to tell everyone where and what to pay attention to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think he should be a bit more specific here. Zig Ziglar says: Share "give up" goals with everybody. Share "Go up" goals only with family, friends, and people you can rely on who will support you and not bash your ideas.

So if you want to give up smoking, tell the whole world and they will hold you accountable. If you want invent something new and exciting, only share it with people you know will support you.

</comment><comment><USER12> Conversely, announcing your plans and having a financial stake in the completion of those plans is shown to work exceptionally well. The company, stickK (stickk.com), is founded on this principle. It is drawn from behavorial economist Dean Karlan, so it is based on incentives rather than rigorous psychological evaluation, but it seems to work well: <http://www.stickk.com/about.php>

<comment><USER13> If the financial state is already having invested the money, I wonder if this is more or less motivating than a possibility of money later. The money paid is a sunk cost, so failing to follow up negatively impacts your experience and not the financials.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "The soft over comes the hard, the slow over comes the fast,

let your working remain a mystery

just show people the result."

\- Tao Te Ching -

</comment><comment><USER15> This is exactly what Friedrich Nietzsche was talking about when he said;

"160. One no longer loves one's insight enough once one communicates it." [Beyond Good & Evil (1886)]

The story is that Nietzsche returns from his mid-day walk having had what he considers a brilliant idea. He is smiling. He passes an acquaintance who asks him what he is smiling about. He explains the idea.

The instant he does so he regrets it. As he is speaking his mind is suddenly changing, his emotions deflating. The smile becomes a concerned frown. He goes home and writes down number 160. He no longer loved his insight enough. Communication ruined it.

\---

The idea is you can never formulate experiences/thoughts into words. The best we have are metaphors which only cheapen the beauty of the original by associating it with the everyday.

</comment><comment><USER16> The third way is to announce something as complete. That gives you a real sense of motivation to get it done (see Vikings, burning boats).

</comment><comment><USER17> First of all, I was immediately turned off by this article when it cited a study from _1933_. Sure he used other evidence later, but I've come into the habit of being seriously skeptical of any scientific work done more than twenty years ago.

I may be reading this article wrong, but this seems to fly in the face of Steve Blank's customer development model and other wisdoms that are being thrown around these days. To me, part of putting your plans out there is the resultant pressure from peers to see them through. When an idea is just in my head, nobody knows when I abandon it for no apparent good reason. But when I tell my friends, family, and everyone I meet what I am planning to do, then I better follow through or risk hurting my credibility. I like to call this "going balls deep."

<comment><USER18> _I've come into the habit of being seriously skeptical of any scientific work done more than twenty years ago._

That has amusing implications for us, twenty years from now.

<comment><USER19> I think he was talking about behavioral studies.

<comment><USER20> I would imagine that human nature changes much more slowly than that.

<comment><USER19> You have to take into account the rapid changes in technology. Surely, the Internet has somehow affected human behavior?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "those who kept their intentions private were more likely to achieve them"

Or they forgot about or lied about having those private intentions? How do you know that someone had private intentions?

<comment><USER22> exactly. if you keep quiet, you can't disappoint the people you'd have opened up to.

perhaps a defense mechanism?

don't kick me. i'm talking about myself here. i'm no psychiatrist, just a programmer who talks too much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> At first glance, this rings very true -- I've seen it myself in open-source work. As long as I'm privately chugging along solving problems, things go well, but as soon as I see the project as an attention-getter, I find myself focusing on the attention instead of the actual project. This has happened to several times over the last decade, and it has always led to me abandoning whatever it was I was working on. (Not that I don't take it up again later, but by then it's a different project.)

But I have a counterexample, too: my house renovation, which I'm blogging. (Cf. <http://big-old-house.blogspot.com>) Clearly, I'm being public about my plans there, and yet, knowing that people are going to look at what I've gotten done _today_ is a real motivator in getting something done every day, even if it's trivial. So in that instance, the publicity has really helped motivate me (as Maro noted earlier with the Ironman prep).

Perhaps human involvement in big projects isn't necessarily a demotivator; in my house case, I'd say that I assign my social value to each task only as it's done and I can show people what I did -- by breaking the big project down into little tasks, and not talking about the little tasks until they're complete, I can get the best of both worlds (i.e. having the social support and advice of people, without the loss of motivation due to talking about unhatched chickens).

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm not convinced that announcing plans causes people not to fulfil them. The studies may show correllation, but I wouldn't assume cause and effect. Another explanation could be that the people who keep their plans to themselves are the kind of people who are more likely to carry them out.

<comment><USER25> Yes, I suspect there are a large number of factors that affect our motivation, and each of those factors has a different effect on different people.

What's more important is finding those factors that personally motivate you.

For me making a public announcement helps in the short term, to get the ball rolling, but doesn't keep my motivation at a high level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't think so.

Who was it that said that one of the forces keeping an entrepreneur going was the embarrassment factor--having announced the plan, then being committed to prevent the shame of failure.

Studies of this sort leave me questioning the true amount of science in social science. The business about "symbols in the brain" is pretty lame. (As if that is where the mind is--but that is another discussion altogether.)

<comment><USER24> I agree that the bulk of this article is speculation. "Identity symbols" and a "premature sense of completeness" may be one possible explanation, but the article presents them as the only explanation of the correlation shown in the studies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Funny, I have noticed this exact same phenomenon in bars.

</comment><comment><USER28> I partially agree on this.

I believe it depends how a person values the opinions of friends and families.

If I care about what they think, I will be accountable and try to reach those goals.

If I announce my goals and do not deliver, my friends and families would stop believing in and listening to me.

I'm very selective on the plans I announce. I only announce those that I think I can achieve.

</comment><comment><USER29> The author emphasises: "Announcing your plans to others satisfies your self- identity just enough that you're less motivated to do the hard work needed."

This is one of those sentences that seem to make sense but don't. It's a oversimplification at best, psychobabble at worst.

<comment><AUTHOR> It is just a useful summary of the many academic studies.

The article's links point to the actual studies for those who want the details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If true, this has a devastating effect on elections. The more a political party talks about its agenda, the less it will do?

It totally contradicts the notion that the voters like a candidate that can clearly explain what his goals are.

</comment><comment><USER31> [http://rulesformyunbornson.tumblr.com/post/51600839/222-dont...](http://rulesformyunbornson.tumblr.com/post/51600839/222-dont- boast-about-projects-in-progress-celebrate)

</comment><comment><USER32> However, announcing your plans early can generate buzz (which is helpful in case of startups), IF you can "under promise, and over deliver."

<comment><USER22> what's the most extreme form of underpromising? promising nothing? not promising?

and then you pull the rabbit out of your hat.

the buzz might be achievable by just giving off the impression that you're working on Something Big, Details Are Secret etc...

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> <http://ideas.al3x.net/>

Alex Payne's Open Ideas: he's publishing his notebook of "someday" ideas

<http://twitter.com/al3x/status/2169778627>

</comment><comment><USER34> I suspect the worst thing to do is to talk glowingly about your progress or efforts to people who don't have the ability or desire to judge the accuracy of it.

</comment><comment><USER35> Does Open source makes you less motivated to accomplish?

<comment><USER36> How many times have you heard the words "I'll release the code when I've had some time to clean it up", implying it was developed in private.

How many abandoned projects are there on Sourceforge and Freshmeat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> _"Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth the ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself, and then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in one's favor all manner of unforeseen incidents, meetings and material assistance which no man could have dreamed would have come his way. Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now."_

\- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

<comment><USER38> I find the italic really annoying to read

<comment><USER38> Italic is more annoying/difficult/straining to read. Seriously. You know how they say hackers don't think about user experience?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> That's really interesting. It's taken as read in marathon running that you should tell everyone you're going to do it and this well help you keep motivated to train during the winter. I did that because I was "supposed" to, but it didn't seem to affect my motivation much - however lots of people _did_ prematurely say well done, hmm.</comment>


Century-Old Vaccine Investigated as a Weapon Against Coronavirus - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-30/century-old-vaccine-investigated-as-a-weapon-against-coronavirus <comment><AUTHOR> I wonder if there's research comparing Covid-19 deaths versus BCG Tuberculosis vaccination:

1\. Between countries. E.g. Russia (mandatory vaccination) versus Western Europe (canceled some years ago).

2\. Between territories. West Germany versus East Germany.

3\. Between people. Migrants to US from mandatory vaccination countries versus US locals.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very recent (March 28, 2020) non peer reviewed preprint:

"Correlation between universal BCG vaccination policy and reduced morbidity and mortality for COVID-19: an epidemiological study"

[https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042937v...](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042937v1.full.pdf)</comment></comment>


John Cochrane on Carbon Taxes - <AUTHOR> https://johnhcochrane.blogspot.com/2019/05/ip-on-carbon-tax.html <comment><AUTHOR> From the article:

"To my climate-skeptic friends: Given that the government is going to regulate carbon, this is the way to do it with least damage. To my green-warrior friends, if the government is actually going to reduce carbon, not just subsidize cronies and engage in worthless value-signaling gestures, a trade of carbon taxes for absurdly costly regulations and subsidies is the only way to get anywhere."</comment>


CppMem: Interactive C/C++ memory model - <AUTHOR> http://svr-pes20-cppmem.cl.cam.ac.uk/cppmem/

<comment><USER2> Does anyone in industry use a 'model checker' like this while writing multi- threaded C++ code? Just curious..</comment>


DRM and the Challenge of Serving Users - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/05/14/drm-and-the-challenge-of-serving-users/ <comment><USER2> This is incredibly shameful. It's now only a matter of time before images, CSS, JavaScript, hell, even the text, are delivered through OS-specific, locked down CDMs. It will start with pissant sites nobody cares about (like the ones who are currently fighting AdBlock), but eventually a large site will demand it - most users will be using a device that handles this, and we will literally never have the Open Web ever again. (If you can't imagine how this would be done, go look at a restaurant website without Flash. Replace Flash with a gigantic EME-required media element. It's closer than you'd think.)

I get that slippery slope arguments are often problematic, but DRM has always been something where we've slid down as much as is allowable as soon as it is allowable. The broadcast flag, Macrovision on DVDs, SCMS, Cinavia, etc. are just a few examples of this.

Highly recommended reading is also this post, which discusses how Mozilla will implement EME: [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas- missi...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission- and-w3c-eme/)

I also don't feel the 'open source sandbox' will be permissible by most developers of CDMs. My opinion is that mozilla will waste countless cycles implementing EME that won't be acceptable to the content mafia. Adobe is not the only player in this space.

<comment><USER3> Mozilla is working very hard to limit the DRM to Video.

This matches what has happened in practice over the years. Ads and entertainment have been packaged up in Flash with DRM. EME paves that cowpath.

<comment><USER4> Just like they worked very hard to prevent EME?

<comment><USER3> The point is to put the slippery slope argument into context. Mozilla had made the sandbox very explicit and divorced form the rest of the content in the DOM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _> . We face a choice between a feature our users want and the degree to which that feature can be built to embody user control and privacy._

It can't be said for all users. I don't want it. No DRM junk in the browser please. I understand that she probably means some estimated majority, which is unfortunate (i.e. majority accepting unethical practice like DRM).

 _> Firefox users would need to use another browser every time they want to watch a controlled video_

Irrelevant for many users of DRM-free OSes (like Linux) who won't have any DRM backend for EME anyway. I.e. it really sounds like "users would need another OS".

 _> Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content._

I hope there will be a switch for disabling the whole EME altogether. Even better, I'd prefer builds of Firefox free of any DRM sickness. It's very unfortunate that this garbage is finding its way into the open source browser which always stood for the users' rights more than many others.

<comment><USER6> > majority accepting _unethical_ practice like DRM

Are you kidding? DRM is great. I love being able to just pay money to Netflix in return for content. DRM enables that nice, clear-cut transaction. What's the alternative? Judging by the rest of the web, it involves tracking your internet activity and throwing advertising in your face.

<comment><USER5> DRM is never great. Show me one user who actually appreciates DRM itself. What you meant above is that users like the service. They could like it even more if it hadn't DRM garbage attached to it. I.e. DRM has nothing to do with what users like - it always degrades the quality of the service and the digital goods it delivers.

<comment><USER6> That's like saying nobody likes the turnstile on the subway. Of course not, but it enables the service to exist in the form it does. I'd much rather go through the turnstile, as awkward as it can be if you've got a suitcase, etc, than be forced to watch advertisements during my subway ride...

<comment><USER5> No, DRM does not enable the service because it's not an essential part of it. The service could work without DRM all the same while being ethical and more user friendly at the same time. DRM is like a sickness attached to an otherwise healthy product. It only becomes better when you remove it.

<comment><USER6> That's like saying the subway turnstile isn't an essential part of the subway. It's only true if you define "essential" in a narrow technical way that ignores the realities of having to monetize the use of products and services.

<comment><USER5> _> realities of having to monetize the use of products and services._

Essential means technically and financially essential. I.e. without it the service can't work or can't bring profit. DRM is neither of that. Those who require DRM [publishers] have no technical or financial reasons to justify it. No valid ones at least (all reasons they usually voice are false, and their true reasons they usually don't voice).

<comment><USER6> That makes no sense. What "true reasons" do publishers have for DRM that aren't fundamentally financial?

<comment><USER5> I can think of several:

1\. Monopolistic lock-in. DRM is more than often used to control the market. It happened with Apple in the past, and was one of the key reasons that music publishers realized that being DRM-free is actually better for them.

This reason also includes DRM derivatives like DMCA-1201 and the like. It's all about control (over the markets, over users and etc.).

2\. Covering one's incompetence. DRM is used to justify failing sales (i.e. when execs are questioned about why the product performs poorly, they say "Pirates! But worry not - we put more DRM in place").

3\. Ignorance and / or stupidity (many execs have no clue and might believe that DRM actually provides some benefit). This type can be called DRM Lysenkoism.

None of these reasons are valid, all of them are crooked and anti-user, but they are often present in various combinations.

<comment><USER6> > 1\. Monopolistic lock-in. DRM is more than often used to control the market.

How does this benefit the publisher? They already have a exclusive rights to whatever particular movie you're watching.

<comment><USER5> It's not always the publisher. It can benefit some middle parties which implement DRM. Or for example mobile carriers which use DRM to prevent users from switching. Or whatever other monopolistic lock-in scenario.

When publishers realize that monopoly falls to some other hands, they quickly become sober and find common sense. When monopoly remains theirs, they pretend that DRM is needed for other reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The handwringing over this strikes me as extreme. Mozilla already ships with the ability for users to enable closed-source, proprietary DRM schemes to view web content -- the Flash and Silverlight plugins. Moving from the current regime of Flash/Silverlight to the EME is a move towards openness, not away from it -- the DRM scheme is still closed, but the content itself is more open and standard than before, as you're no longer tying yourself to Flash's implementation of video streaming.

<comment><USER8> I agree, and think the sandboxing of the DRM plugin is a positive step towards more openness as well - the opaque algorithm implementing the DRM can apparently only touch the video streams it's being fed, and a unique identifier generated by the browser. Much better than the current situation of Flash having arbitrary network access and suchlike.

In concept, I think it's not too much different from server-side website code being mostly closed source. The only difference is that this component happens to be running on your computer.

Also there is prior form for this in similarly open systems, e.g. tainted modules in the Linux kernel, which seem to have turned out okay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Each person will be able to decide whether to activate the DRM > implementation or to leave it off and not watch DRM-controlled content.

At first glance this may seem pretty "reasonable", but it really isn't. It's like putting a backdoor in every Intel chip (such as say through TPM 2.0), and then just telling people "look, if you don't want the backdoor activated, you can disable it - Now here's the list of 10 instructions to do so..."

It's an _illusion of choice_ , and nothing more. While some may be content that this option exists, the reality is that DRM is now getting _pushed_ to billions of users out there through the web, as the default for soon most video platforms.

I don't fully blame Mozilla for this. In fact I blame Netflix first, and Google and Microsoft second. This Gang of Three is the one that made it happen in the first place. But I am saying that Mozilla's attempts to alleviate our concerns aren't very effective or particularly useful.

<comment><USER10> It's off by default, though. Isn't that the opposite of your scenario?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> _A number of content owners (in particular film and TV studios) require technical mechanisms to reduce the ways in which people can use that content_

Drm is the opposite of serving users. By definition. The "challenge" is actually to select which privileged users you still want to serve in spite of the not-serving default.

</comment><comment><USER12> I wish I could be against all DRM. Like many things in life, it's not that simple. I'm proud of Apple for successfully taking DRM out of the equation from music sales. But what about non-sales interactions?

We don't get DRM-free copies of all our music from Spotify, nor should we reasonably expect that. We are subscribing to a service that allows us access to music so long as we are paying customers. Why shouldn't there be light- touch DRM in place to keep us from flagrantly abusing the system and retaining all copies of the music after if/when we cancel our subscription?

Should we reasonably expect to be able to keep a copy of a television show that we streamed from abc.go.com? ABC makes far less money from showing us ads than if we purchased a copy from iTunes. They do this, part and parcel, because we don't get to keep a copy of the show after we're done watching.

From my perspective, DRM has no place in a "sales" relationship. We should have full usage rights whenever we buy a book, movie, or song.

DRM should exist for subscription services and ad-supported streaming. DRM should essentially serve to enforce the social and legal contract that says we are "borrowing" the books, movies, or songs for long as we have that relationship. Once that relationship is over, we can't use that stuff any more.

I suggest that we create an open-source DRM system designed to fairly protect the content creator in cases where the audience is "borrowing" the creative work (whether ad-supported or subscription).

<comment><USER13> > We don't get DRM-free copies of all our music from Spotify, nor should we > reasonably expect that.

Why not? I use a number of internet "radio" stations that send DRM free mp3 streams to my computer (complete with ads). Some even have paid accounts that stream at a higher bitrate.

The only reason Spotify can't do that is because the recording studios act like frightened little children, scared that someone is going to take their toys away. They've (somewhat successfully) planted the meme that DRM is required or the evil pirates will just steal everything and they'll go out of business. But I just don't buy it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Mozilla should have done the right thing and stood by their beliefs that DRM is harmful to the free web. Instead, they folded to the media corporations and implemented EME. I understand the tremendous pressure they must have been under, but it was the wrong decision. Mozilla is not serving the users by allowing Netflix, Amazon, and others to trample their freedom for the sake of watching TV shows.

Mozilla, please remove this anti-feature. Do the right thing.

<comment><USER15> Mozilla can't serve it's mission, or it's users, by dying valiantly on a hill somewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > It will be easier for Firefox users to play DRM-enabled videos because they > will not have to download Flash or Silverlight first. Firefox users will be > able to choose whether to activate the new DRM system before it is accessed.

Why not have this downloaded upon first use, the way that Flash and Silverlight have been?

Also, isn't this what users on many Linux distros (e.g. Iceweasel on Debian) will have to do anyway?

<comment><USER17> Mozilla employee here, speaking for myself but pretty close to the info source.

That's actually what we're looking at doing: the sandbox would be in there, harmless, by default, but the actual crypto module (the "CDM") would download from Adobe upon first need. (And they have committed to support the platforms we support, Linux included.) The exact UI is still up in the air. I could imagine us using the opportunity to display a message to educate users as to what DRM is and whose phone number to call if they don't like it. ;-)

<comment><USER16> > I could imagine us using the opportunity to display a message to educate > users as to what DRM is and whose phone number to call if they don't like > it. ;-)

Please do this!

I understand that Mozilla has been backed into a corner on this, so I get why you'll be adding this (much as I wish you didn't have to). But that doesn't mean forgetting about the issue entirely.

I wouldn't ask this of any of the other major browser vendors, but I like to hold Mozilla/Firefox to a higher standard. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So... how long until we reverse-engineer the CDM and write a free decryptor? Is there any indication that reverse-engineering the CDM would be technologically unfeasible?

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

<comment><USER19> You often don't need to decrypt the content. Nothing is stopping you from screen-recording video that's behind DRM and putting it up on Piratebay.

<comment><USER13> Sure, but re-encoding will degrade the quality. It's much better to just strip the DRM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Is it part of the nature of the DRM technology that it can't be walled off in an XPI? I find myself thinking the change would be significantly more palatable for those who care deeply about the division of open and closed source if Mozilla could implement this by building a video-supporting XPI that users can choose to not install (thereby verifying that no closed-source blobs are living in their browser, spying on them or whatever closed-source blobs do that is so undesirable).

 _Edit_ : Ah, I see. [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas- missi...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/05/reconciling-mozillas-mission- and-w3c-eme/) clarifies the intent to remove plugins from the web altogether.

</comment><comment><USER21> With that title, a Damon Knight story leaps to mind...

</comment><comment><USER22> Mozilla should implement the closed-source portion as an official addon. They can give the user a choice to include it or not during the installation. Maybe this is what they're doing; their post wasn't completely clear on that.</comment>


From PHP to ASP.net: Obama's Peaceful Transition of Power - <AUTHOR> http://www.newmediacampaigns.com/page/obamas-peaceful-transition-of-power-from-php-to-asp

<comment><USER2> "This change seems to go against the theme of transparency and progress which has taken Obama to the highest office in America."

I know I'll get downmodded for this, but, pleeeeaase. Don't you think you're getting a little bit too dramatic??

It is entirely possible that it is being required by the white house IT team.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think it is consistent with the theme of stimulating the economy. Your not going to stim it by using all free stuff regardless of the merits.</comment>