Aldous Huxley: the prophet of our brave new digital dystopia - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/22/aldous-huxley-prophet-dystopia-cs-lewis <comment><USER2> I'm usually not a big fan of infographics, but there's been an infographic that displays the differences between the future that Huxley depicted and the future that Orwells depicted surprisingly well [1].

I always found the world in 'A brave new world' to be better _designed_ than the world in 1984. Orwell installed Big Brother and had tight control structures organize society. I.e. people are forced to not misbehave. Huxley, on the other hand, (at least that's how it felt to me) found solutions to all the small issues that make people misbehave, and just implemented a society around it. In his dystopian future, people don't _want_ to misbehave, they're not interested in it. I think both societies have equal chances of survival, but the Huxley society has a higher chance of coming into existence because it installs itself in line with peoples desires, instead of confronting their desires.

[1] [http://thesleepymoose.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/huxvor-2.p...](http://thesleepymoose.files.wordpress.com/2012/10/huxvor-2.png?w=604)

<comment><USER3> 'Amusing Ourselves to Death' is actually the name of a great book by Neil Postman. I'm a little bothered by the author of that infographic stealing it for his title. It's a great book and if you like thinking about this kind of thing you should check it out.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I've read the book many a years ago. Another good read in this vein is Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer's "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" [1]:

"they proposed that popular culture is akin to a factory producing standardized cultural goods — films, radio programmes, magazines, etc. — that are used to manipulate mass society into passivity. Consumption of the easy pleasures of popular culture, made available by the mass communications media, renders people docile and content, no matter how difficult their economic circumstances."

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_industry)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _Brave New World_ is a nasty reactionary's idea of dystopia. There are genuine horrors there--conditioning, eugenics, erasure of independent thought--but the central themes that it keeps coming back to are that everybody's employed, everybody's happy, nobody's hungry or sick or miserable, there's safe, consequence-free, recreational sex and drugs for everyone, and _these are portrayed as bad things._

 _BNW_ is fucked up in some serious ways, but--taken as an average across all levels of society--I think it's actually better than the world we live in now.

Huxley, to his credit, eventually came around to the idea that sex, drugs, and communal living could be used for good as well as evil, and actually wrote a utopian response to his own earlier dystopian work. It's telling that _Brave New World_ remains in every high school curriculum, but no one's ever heard of _Island_. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_(Huxley_novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_\(Huxley_novel\))

<comment><USER5> It's not that those things are bad, it's the way they are used by the society.

The drugs are used to avoid confrontation, emotional hurt, and to keep people content with the status quo.

Everybody is employed... Yes, but they are conditioned to be content with their class and job in society. You can't move up or down in class, you are born into your job.

Nobody is hungry because everyone gets enough to survive, but only because everybody is conditioned to enjoy their jobs and be content with their place in society.

Sex is treated in the exact opposite manner of what we have now, sex is only used for recreation and encouraged (even forced) from a young age.

I don't see how you can view any of these ideas as being "good." I would trade our fucked up world over what they have in Brave New World any time.

<comment><USER4> > _I would trade our fucked up world over what they have in Brave New World > any time._

That's certainly a valid opinion. Still, I suspect it's easier to see BNW as an utter horrorshow if you've never known real hunger or oppression or torture or watched loved ones die of treatable diseases. I'm in the same boat myself. But there are many millions of people in our world who would be genuinely much better off in the Brave New World. It's hard to know what to think about that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it particularly telling that, however much this author rages against "the machine", he still is a willing participant; facebook, twitter, google and linkedin all have neat little javascript "links" at the bottom of his page which are tracking all the blog's readers.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've always been really interested in a claim made in the foreword of Brave New World by Huxley that sexual freedom is inversely correlated with economic and political freedom:

> As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends > compensatingly to increase. And the dictator (unless he needs cannon fodder > and families with which to colonize empty or conquered territories) will do > well to encourage that freedom.

I'm not aware of what historical (as of 1946, when it was written) examples this was premised on, and I've never seen it expanded on anywhere else (though I have looked).

I'm curious if anyone who cares to defend Huxley's dystopia has any actual rational basis for this claim, since it forms a core component of the world he builds.

More generally, I am not terribly sympathetic to the overall world built in Brave New World as a possible future. It definitely seems to me as if the 1984 predictions are much closer to reality than BNW's.

We live in a constant state of readiness for wars that have unclear purposes and the governments we have seem much more interested in tearing down ideas like full employment or sexual or narcotic freedoms. So it's surprising to see people think that Huxley got it right and Orwell didn't.

<comment><USER8> It's not really an either or: they both identified bad habits modern society is falling into. But whereas Orwell may have more recognizable details, the in the broader strokes it's Huxley that seems more apropos: people are _choosing_ for this life. In Orwell's world dissent and choice were suppressed; in Huxleys they were voluntarily discarded.

No matter how nasty the scandals surrounding the NSA are or how overblown the rhetoric in the neverending "war on terror", I don't think anybody (sane) is suggesting we _cannot_ end them. Sure, some dissent is punished harshly (manning, snowden), but for society at large the current state of affairs is entirely by choice.

<comment><USER9> >No matter how nasty the scandals surrounding the NSA are or how overblown the rhetoric in the neverending "war on terror", I don't think anybody (sane) is suggesting we cannot end them.

Yes we are. There are large mass movements calling for revolution precisely because we don't want neverending war, don't want a surveillance state, and don't want neoliberalism.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Every time I read or hear about the dystopian futures laid out by Huxley, Orwell and in fact, many others, I can't help but think of the future imagined by Banks. In the Culture, people are free to do pretty much whatever they want, which eventually brings crime within the Culture to a near-zero. Even the most atrocious crimes, albeit rare, are punished (if ever) by a slap on the wrist. What I find particularly interesting about this is that Culture people being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, they in fact end up in a state of lassitude and ultimately, a form of self-servitude and meaninglessness (hence the expansion of the Culture and so on).

This shares Huxley's view of servitude through content, but it brings the interesting point of whether the Culture could be qualified as a Dystopia or a Utopia. It's funny to see that the majority of Culture people (as written by Banks) think of the Culture as the closest thing to a Utopia, yet Banks himself has pointed out on a number of occasions that he would not like living in such a society. It also brings up the question of whether a Utopia is really defined by (at least near-) complete freedom, or by individual comfort.

I very much enjoy my freedom (or whatever it is I think I have) and I do have a tendency to reject (or rather circumvent) authority, but the more I think about it the more I realize this view isn't shared by everybody. A lot of people don't want to have to make decisions, question things and whatnot, their comfort lies in the absence of having to do so, a view I can understand (though do not share). I don't know if it's right, or wrong, and I'm certainly not in a place to decide for others, but it does show the subjectivity and flimsiness of the concepts of u/dys-topian societies.

<comment><USER9> The problem is that the definition of _freedom_ has some assumptions most of Enlightenment philosophy (being so bizarrely focused around thought experiments dealing with yeoman farmers on homesteads) has direly neglected, namely: relationships with other people.

What is freedom? Freedom, we're told, is when you can make decisions for yourself. Therefore, are we in servitude to the laws of physics? Well no, those are impersonal. Yet are we told that we can be in servitude by force, by deprivation, or even by manipulation of our own desires? Yes.

So what's freedom? Freedom _really_ means having our own actions unconstrained by the values or goals of other people (for a _large_ value of "people", including institutions, the State, and in the limit God Himself). There the problem emerges: the only way to be _completely_ unconstrained by other people, to be _totally_ free, is to have no actual relations with other people whatsoever.

Total freedom, therefore, is total isolation, but this fact is never acknowledged because so much of our philosophical tradition assumes that freedom proceeds from the individual alone and precedes social relationships entirely. It assumes that everyone is a yeoman farmer on a plot of land who should always be able to retreat to his property and do exactly as he pleases -- which never happens in real life.

Then, are people really so stupid for choosing "less freedom", or are they just finding more meaning in the presence of voluntary relationships than the absence of compulsory ones?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Aldous Huxley gave a speech at Berkeley "The Ultimate Revolution" which can be found online in many places, not least at [http://archive.org/details/AldousHuxley- TheUltimateRevolutio...](http://archive.org/details/AldousHuxley- TheUltimateRevolution)

In the talk he discusses how the most likely scenario relative to 1984 is that people will come to "love their servitude".

Well worth a listen.

</comment><comment><USER12> In my opinion we are to close to this picture for comfort. [http://i.imgur.com/rTXSQ.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/rTXSQ.jpg)

<comment><USER13> Speaking of uncomfortable pictures: [http://eranfolio.deviantart.com/art/Reality-1440x900-7886180...](http://eranfolio.deviantart.com/art/Reality-1440x900-78861805)

:/

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anyone who appreciates Brave New World and 1984 should really take a look at Yevgeny Zamyatin's novel, We.

It was the first book banned after the Russian revolution and according to Orwell it was his inspiration for 1984. I found it a lot more amusing and poetic than 1984 however.

</comment><comment> guard-of-terra Brave new world is a surprisingly benign place. You could do whatever you like there if only you had the idea to. Compare that to 1984 or "We".

I can totally see them accepted into galactic equivalent of EU having only to replace lower castes with robots (what they totally could). Not so fast with the current messy state of Earth.</comment>


Government Moves recovery.gov to the Cloud to Save Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/05/13/moving-cloud

<comment><USER2> One of the clearest explanations of cloud computing for the uninitiated I have seen so far:

"There was a time when every household, town, or village had its own water well. Today, shared public utilities give us access to clean water by simply turning on the tap. Cloud computing works a lot like our shared public utilities. However, instead of water coming from a tap, users access computing power from a pool of shared resources. Just like the tap in your kitchen, cloud computing services can be turned on or off as needed, and, when the tap isn't on, not only can the water be used by someone else, but you aren't paying for resources that you don't use. Cloud computing is a new model for delivering computing resources – such as networks, servers, storage, or software applications."

<comment><USER3> .. sorry, how do you deliver networks over the cloud? Do they mean content distribution networks?

<comment><USER4> The cloud provides the network for you. Admittedly the network has been slow to move itself into the "aaS" crowd since we haven't quite figured out yet how to provide a Newtork as a Service. But for the purposes of a layman's description of cloud computing, the cloud takes care of the networking for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm a little confused as to what has actually changed here. Did they just stop running things off their own machines and start paying someone else to host the site?

<comment><USER6> It's now on EC2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is the US government really the world's 'largest consumer of information technology'?

<comment><USER8> as a former government employee, I can almost guarantee this is true if the measurement is in money spent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> do they say which cloud?

<comment><USER10> $ ping recovery.gov PING recovery.gov (22.214.171.124)

$ whois 220.127.116.11 OrgName: Savvis

Answer: [http://www.savvis.net/en-US/infrastructure- services/Cloud/Pa...](http://www.savvis.net/en-US/infrastructure- services/Cloud/Pages/Home.aspx)

<comment><USER11> [http://www.savvis.net/_layouts/SavvisUtilities/Video.aspx?id...](http://www.savvis.net/_layouts/SavvisUtilities/Video.aspx?id=9acf6628-86e7-4e78-88db- ca68b8636d6d&item=1)

Reminds me of those Ruby guys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> But saving money won't create as many jawbs!

</comment><comment><USER13> Did anyone read that metaphorically as 'US recovery has moved to the clouds and became an un-attainable dream' ?

<comment><USER14> No.</comment></comment>


MailChimp's Project Omnivore: genetic algorithm predicts email abuse rates - <AUTHOR> http://www.mailchimp.com/blog/project-omnivore-declassified/

<comment><USER2> But why genetic algorithms? It seems odd to start with something so complex and so slow instead of starting with simple (eg. generalized linear models) and then work your way up if they are not good enough. I suspect there are many classical statistical techniques and modern machine learning algorithms that would give better results, be faster and would have well understood principles that can be used to diagnose the model.

<comment><USER3> Genetic algorithms (and other evolutionary algorithms) aren't necessarily complex nor slow. They could get faster and better results than traditional algorithms. And, best of all, you don't have to understand your problem domain to use them.

This last point is very important. You could just throw an EA at a problem without understanding it at all. Just give the EA the task with some variables to optimize and it'll come up with solutions.

You do have to come up with an automated way of judging which solution is best, but that's usually much easier than understanding the problem domain well enough to model it with a traditional technique.

Take a look at Monica Anderson's talks below for a high-level overview of some of the advantages of using EA's and other "model-free methods":

<http://videos.syntience.com/>

<comment><USER2> Best of all you don't need to understand your problem domain?! This sounds like a recipe for disaster to me - how do you tell if your model is giving you nonsense or not?

<comment><USER4> We had a fairly conservative cross-validation function that tested the results of the genetic optimization for a first pass. Following that, Omnivore was put into "observation" mode, so we could verify that the results it generated were predictive going forward, and not just biased towards the test set. Over the course of the past few months, the model has held up quite successfully.

Since accusing a customer of being a spammer without non-heuristic proof can be an emotion-ridden experience for everyone involved, we were conservative and optimized for accuracy over efficiency pretty much every step of the process.

<comment><USER2> I don't doubt the quality of your final model, I just think you might have found it easier to get there with a better method.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We use MailChimp, and I'm impressed that they've managed to make such an awesome app for something totally un-sexy.

<comment><USER6> I love their adorable monkey mascot. <http://webimages.mailchimp.com/img/classic/bg_campaign.jpg>

<comment><USER7> It's not a monkey, it's a chimp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's getting more and more difficult to send legitimate email to a list through your own server these days. MailChimp's free tools have been helpful, but I think we'll have to bite the bullet and go certified soon.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you think of ideas to surface data in new ways? - <AUTHOR> I currently have access to a large amount of interesting data. This data is already analyzed for some purposes and those metrics are used for any number of use cases.
However, I want to explore the data further and figure out a new way to look at it that is dissimilar from what we've already done, but I'm having trouble being creative.
Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> I think we need to know what the data is and what you've already tried if we're going to be helpful.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think needing to know what the data is is necessary for my question.

I'm not asking for ideas of what to do with what I already have. I'm asking for ideas of how to think about data in general and how to be creative with it. Does this mean finding tangential connections to other data like how weather affects baseball in outdoor ballparks versus indoor/closed roof ballparks, does air temperature in a hockey stadium affect how the puck moves on ice (air friction, pressure, etc.).

Or perhaps focusing more on the mathematical/analytical aspects, like perhaps deciding how to incorporate new types of analysis that haven't been performed on the data yet (such as using derivatives to find velocity rather than another method) with better, more accurate results.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is a Pattern always</comment>


Dasher:A Novel Text Entry System For Mobile and Other Devices [video] - <AUTHOR> http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5078334075080674416#

<comment><AUTHOR> This is yet another post on text entry system targeted to (area) limited devices. Rather than posting it as a comment on an old thread I decided to make it into a standalone post.

The video is long, but I did not regret watching it. Here David Mackay, an information theorist, explains how one may input text through space limited devices. If only I could explain theoretical concepts as lucidly and as well as he does.

What interests me is that, Dasher, when adequately augmented, is even more appropriate for inputting programming text than say English. Though English has been modeled by (stochastic) context free grammars, its only an approximation. Whereas programming languages, fit it to a 't'. Mackay mentions that English has an entropy of around 1 bit per letter and that a finger is usually capable of generating 14 bits per second. Source code, I believe, has significantly less entropy than English (this depends on the language of course).

I think lisp is a good language to target because the actual layout of the source code does not matter and can be automated. Also because it is such a thin layer above the AST and hence an ideal match for simple context free grammars. It is also advantageous that the first token of an s-expression has an overwhelming possibility of being drawn from a set of few key possibilities. Making the language's bit rate low.

There are several extensions that are possible. For instance given a code base, learn the coding style and adapt the model to it (including the style of generating identifier names). For new code bases, one may learn the model on the fly.

Finally, I like his analogy. Writing as an activity has had two dominant forms, (i) pushing buttons (ii) scribbling. Dasher is writing by navigating/driving efficiently through a library of all possible text. Depending on the style of your intended text one may re-arrange that library.

The only drawback I see is that it requires your attention, unlike say typing. But that might after all be a good thing.

Its released under GPL and available for free on iPhone as well <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/MobileDasher.html>

<comment><USER2> > The only drawback I see is that it requires your attention, unlike say > typing. But that might after all be a good thing.

I don't see how being distracting can be an advantage for an information entry system. It seems like it would just distract you from the content of the message. Care to elaborate? (I'm curious)

Edit: The other major drawback is that it limits your expression. Suppose for example that I want to write the word "Rhinocephant" (it's half rhinoceros, half elephant, and 100% imaginary). But if I want to type that with Dasher, it will be extremely difficult (because it is not in their language model). On the keyboard (or pen) the hardest part is deciding how to spell it. (Unless I'm wrong about typing imaginary words?)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh its a minor quibble. I can text without looking at the keypad but here I would have to look at the screen. I probably should take back my confusing comment about drawbacks. About your other comment, it becomes particularly easy to enter a word if a word fits the language model. But if it does not, it is not that much more difficult than picking the letters one by one.

In fact I just had to try your example out on it. It turns out 'rhinocephant' isnt a hard enough word for the default English language model at all. 'rhinoce' and 'phant' turned out to be common substrings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't want to sit here trying to strain to understand a one-hour video and the site linked in the video description leads to a car loan ad site.

What's the low-down on this technology?

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh ! dont worry about that link, I guess the researchers let it expire and someone else grabbed it. This link would have more details <http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/>

One can try it in one's browser here [http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/TryJavaDasherNow.h...](http://www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/TryJavaDasherNow.html) but looking at the video/demo helped in understanding what is going on. In fact I was surprised to find that it's actually easier to use than what it looked like in the demo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here is their Git repo:

<http://git.gnome.org/browse/dasher/tree/>

Last commit only a few days ago, that's good.</comment>


Designing DownJS - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/josephwegner/6845371

<comment><AUTHOR> I would love to get some feedback on this idea. Is it useful? What would make it _more_ useful. What are the potential pitfalls? Where are my ideas flawed?</comment>


GNU nano 2.9.0 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nano-editor.org/news.php <comment><USER2> So I was looking through the sources of nano and I seemed to have discovered a previously-unknown (at least based on a quick search) easter egg.

First modify the buffer somehow. It really doesn't matter if you just type in "test"

Hit ^X to exit nano. When it asks you if you want to save the buffer hit Y

Save the file as "zzy" and press ENTER to trigger the Easter egg

^X+Y+zzy is likely a reference to xyzzy, a cheat code originally used in Colossal Cave Adventure[1]

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyzzy_%28computing%29?wprov=sf...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xyzzy_%28computing%29?wprov=sfla1)

<comment><USER3> Uh, really cool! Spoiler recording [https://asciinema.org/a/aWR9hmT5CuEMbxfUUYEx4ATS4](https://asciinema.org/a/aWR9hmT5CuEMbxfUUYEx4ATS4)

PS: You can quit this text-animation by any keypress and then store the actual file zzy, if required.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I used nano for years until I was forced to use vi when I was doing a FreeBSD install just for fun on my Cr-48. Once vim clicked for me I never went back. At the same time, Nano was invaluable as an easy to use terminal editor as a beginner. It was a huge help when I was learning to use Linux.

<comment><USER5> It's weird how comfortable familiarity is. I approached vim similarly, I first used pico/nano to modify files here and there but mostly used GUI IDEs or editors. Switched to vim and been using it for 10+ years.

Every once in awhile I encounter an OS where visudo or something else defaults to nano and I feel so awkward just trying to make simple changes and save the file.

<comment><USER6> The huge advantage of nano over vi in that scenario, is that nano 1) uses the conventional [i.e. as used by every editor other than vi] arrow key cursor movement and typing behavior without the need to toggle any modes etc, and 2) displays the shortcuts you need for anything else on the screen by default - things like saving, cutting/pasting, searching, and, oh yes, quitting.

So, while it might not be optimal for vi users, it is at least accessible to pretty much everyone regardless of their background. Whereas for someone not familiar to vi, getting thrown into the dreaded : prompt can be a frustrating nightmare.

<comment><USER7> The arrow keys work in vim too (I don't know about plain vi).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Nano does what is does very well. Want to quickly modify some some file it is the tool of choice in the way a hammer is the tool to drive a nail. Right tool for the right job.

<comment><USER9> I dislike using nano because of this: open a narrow terminal and open a file with lines long enough to wrap. Insert a character on the wrapping line. nano will insert a line break, hard-wrapping the line. Probably you can customize this, but I don't want to have to customize an editor so it doesn't break my files.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a beginner it was my editor of choice, as most of us it seems. But the GUI made me want a better editor, with the same capabilities of a GUI editor.

So, when i heard of micro i switched immediately, I just find the default copy/cut/paste and the mouse functionalities very comfortable.

</comment><comment><USER11> Also known as the "record macros in Nano" release.

<comment><USER12> remacs is already taken

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love that there are people working on nano and the nano-styled website. Also excellent release notes. I just wish that nano in Bash for Windows was more recent than version 2.5.3 so I could try out the new features. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER14> Some of my favorite memories are of learning C++ using the nano editor. I ended up a C# dev, put I still put nano on all my Windows boxes. It can be quite handy.

</comment><comment><USER15> I used nano for quick edits for years with modified sane CUA keybindings. It was ok. Recently found the "micro" editor here and liking it more.

</comment><comment><USER16> The only feature I miss is Undo.

<comment><USER17> Alt-U or option-U

<comment><USER16> Thank you so much! Is that a new feature?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> echo "export EDITOR=nano" >> ~/.bashrc

<comment><USER19>
        sed -i s,^EDITOR=nano$,EDITOR=vim ~/.bashrc

<comment><USER20> sed: -e expression #1, char 26: unterminated `s' command

<comment><USER19> Good catch. Forgot a comma at the end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Is anyone using this thing?

<comment><USER22> nano, or the new feature? I use nano all the time.

<comment><USER23> Why do you use nano?

<comment><USER24> I use it in a pinch fairly constantly. Despite being a heavily customized Emacs user all the rest of the time. Mostly when I'm already scouring around the shell poking at files or need to make a simple new one (like a .gitignore) and I don't want/need to perturb whatever else I'm doing in Emacs.

<comment><USER25> This post makes me so glad to have been forced into vi all those years ago.

Its everywhere, its quick, and unless you've done some pretty nutty stuff in your configs, basic usage is the same between a heavily customized vi and the vi you find bundled with every is bundled windows and gentoo. (Not to disparage any preference for emacs; it just seems a bit much to have to fall back to an entirely different editor seems a bit much)

<comment><USER24> I don't _have_ to "fallback". I just choose not to interrupt the extremely rich development environment I have setup in Emacs and my projectile projects by bringing in random other files/buffers.

It's akin to the same justification for why I wouldn't bother opening a random tiny file in Xcode or IntelliJ IDEA.

I don't use Emacs as just a simple text editor. I can probably count the times I've typed `emacs some/file/path.whatever` into the shell on one hand.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Intel Confirms Apple Macs Will Switch to Arm CPUs by 2020, Says Report - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/apple-mac-arm-cpus-2020-intel,38668.html <comment><USER2> I could see Apple doing this on the MacBook Air. I don't see them doing this on the pro line in the near future, if ever. That'll be a good differentiator for the pro machines.

</comment><comment><USER3> RIP virtualization on Mac. I hope I'll be proved wrong.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's already hard to do on an AMD processor, but yeah, this is going to be so much worse.</comment></comment>


China Succeeds in First Space Docking by 2 Spaceships  - <AUTHOR> http://www.space.com/13477-china-space-docking-success-shenzhou8-tiangong1.html

<comment><USER2> The link title is ambiguous. It's the first time that _China_ has docked two crafts in orbit. Good for them.

The first time that two spacecraft have _ever_ docked in orbit was, I believe, the Gemini/Soyuz joint missions in the middle of the previous century.

<comment><USER3> The Chinese vehicles in the article were robotic. The electronics did the docking, not a pilot. That seems like a reasonable accomplishment, even if somebody in "The West" has done it before.

<comment><USER4> _"The Chinese vehicles in the article were robotic. The electronics did the docking, not a pilot."_

The Kosmos 186 and Kosmos 188 docking, achieved by the USSR in 1967, was unmanned and completely automated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This quote made me laugh:

"We can never count on other countries to sell their mature technologies to us, so we have to rely on our own, ..."

Especially considering the large amount of hacking of western technology companies and government that is originating from Chinese military universities.

</comment><comment><USER6> It's really great to see China pursuing their space program so vigorously.

Hopefully it will continue like this and pull more technical innovation into China like it did for both Russia and the U.S.

</comment><comment><USER7> These photos seriously look more like underwater photos than space photos. That supposed space-walk China had clearly showed bubbles coming from the spacesuits. ... Bubbles. In Space. Mhm...

<comment><USER8> [http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/di...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2008/10/08/did- the-chinese-fake-their-space-walk/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Very good

</comment><comment><USER10> This may seem like sarcasm but in reality the USA funded this, albeit indirectly, no?

Insane irony considering what has happened to NASA.

<comment><USER11> Unless you're making a talking-head argument about China owning the US treasury, the only way the US "funded" this is via the publicly available information on NASA's work, in which case you have to mention the Soviet Union/Russia, too.

<comment><USER12> I think he's referring to China's stealing of every piece of foreign technology that they can get their hands on.

<comment><USER6> Care to provide relevant citations for space technology that china stole?

Or is this just belligerent racism?

<comment><USER12> I was saying that I think that's what the parent is talking about.

There have been many examples of cloned tech in China's recent history, though, so I'm not sure where your outrage is coming from. I didn't say anything about Chinese people as a race.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Heard they're parking this near the ISS so they can get Chinese carry-out.</comment>


Ask HN: How to lose heavy accent overtime? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Everyone has an accent, try Youtube videos on the accent you want to learn?</comment>


Tell HN: The HN user page UI is broken - <AUTHOR> Maybe I'm nitpicking, but when I click on the user edit page the whole site is shifted a few pixels to the right and the width of the container is completely different. I am using Chromium latest with JavaScript disabled. Can we fix this? <comment><USER2> You can email the moderators, contact link is in the footer.

</comment><comment><USER3> Happens to me too on Firefox 77. From the main page to the user page, everything shifts right a few pixels.</comment>


Nanoscribe – Think big, print nano - <AUTHOR> https://www.nanoscribe.com/en/ <comment><USER2> This is extremely interesting in theory, but I'm put off by the dearth of real technical information on the site, and what would appear to be a "let's haggle" approach to pricing. It's hard to assess the business case if I don't even know how many zeros the price tag has!</comment>


TSFluff: tslint rules for the masochistic developer - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bencoveney/TSFluff <comment><USER2> Thank God for this. AirBNB rules are just bad style. I wish someone would make a PR of a glaring omission I want for our juniors: [https://github.com/bencoveney/TSFluff/issues/17](https://github.com/bencoveney/TSFluff/issues/17)</comment>


President Obama Signs a Temporary Bill to Encourage More Angel Investing - <AUTHOR> http://www.goodwinprocter.com/Publications/Newsletters/Client-Alert/2010/Temporary-Exclusion-for-100-of-Gain-from-Qualified-Small-Business-Stock-Acquired-By-Year-End.aspx?article=1#news_article_top

<comment><USER2> A three month window that started last month?

Seems like this bill was custom crafted for some specific person that has already made his move. It seems very unlikely that many investors hearing about this bill today will be able to change their strategy in such a short time period, it would only affect deals where they have the agreement made and paperwork and financing all ready to go with just the final signatures remaining.

Therefore it is not a bill to encourage investment. It is a bill to help out some specific person.

</comment><comment><USER3> Text of the bill:

<http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h5297/text>

And related tax code:

<http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_26.shtml>

</comment><comment><USER4> "The investor must hold the stock for more than five years" and you must realize the gain before Jan 1, 2011. How does that encourage new investment?

<comment><USER5> My reading is that one needs only to purchase the stock before Jan 1, 2011 and then hold it for at least five years. Gains from sale of the stock after that would then be taxed according to this new bill.

<comment><USER4> Ah, I guess it could be read that way:

"which includes a temporary exclusion for 100% of the gain recognized by non- corporate investors from the sale of qualified small business stock ("QSBS") acquired after September 27, 2010 and before January 1, 2011"

so the dates apply to "acquired" rather than "recognized." It's pretty ambiguously worded.

<comment><USER6> I find it almost impossible to read the sentence your way because you'd have to split the phrase "acquired after September..."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> note that this does not apply to any of the following types of businesses:

• Businesses that performed services in health, law, engineering, architecture, accounting, performing arts, consulting, athletics, financial services or brokerage. • Businesses that have as their principal asset the reputation or skill of one or more employees. • Any banking, insurance, financing, leasing, investing or similar business. • Farming, mining or petroleum production. • Hotels, motels, restaurants and similar businesses.

<comment><USER8> Just wait till it makes it to Fox News tonight, it'll be explicitly for socialist private businesses.

EDIT: Come on guys, that's really not funny at all? Socialist private businesses? Throw me a frickin' bone here.

<comment><USER9> HN community is ultra-cautious about upvoting humorous comments. This is likely because these types of comments quickly devolve into and encourage low- quality discussions. The exception is when the comment is extremely witty and contextual.

Actually, it would be interesting if someone did an analysis of the top 100 humorous comments on HN - it would be very fascinating.

Edit: I kinda had a fear that I would be downvoted for explaining.. oh well

<comment><USER10> I especially don't upvote humor that is nothing more than social signal flashing. If your "humor" boils down to "Hurr hurr, them folks sure are teh dumb where we are teh smartz!", expect a downvote. That's toxic stuff, regardless of the target.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I heard about this a while back. One thing that I haven't heard any talk about is how this affects early employees who may have had options in their company.

It sounds like this could benefit people exercising options. At least, I don't recall reading anything that would preclude these benefits from being applied to option purchases.

Does anyone have any insight into this?

</comment><comment><USER11> So why does this only run for a few months - until the end of the year?

If you want to encourage investment in startups doesn't this have to be permanent - not just a hand out for deals that are already in progress.

(assuming it's not just a technical point that it needs a special bill for the current year and then becomes permanent as part of some other legislation)

<comment><USER12> You timebox something to encourage immediate action. Making it permanent or even long term may encourage investors to wait for the market to improve before acting, which isn't ideal for a bill aimed at improving the market.

<comment><USER11> These deals take months to put together though - this is only sweetening deals that would go ahead anyway, or giving a quick tax loophole to anybody that can put together a fake deal quickly.

It's like trying to boost car workers jobs by saying any new car bought today only is tax free - that doesn't exactly motivate makers to open new plants.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does this have to be an ordinary corporation, or does an LLC taxed as a C corporation count as a corporation here? It's a lot less hassle and paperwork to have an LLC.

<comment><USER14> I believe you have to be a C corp...we're an LLC and we've talked about converting before the end of the year specifically for this.

<comment><USER13> Looks like my state has reduced requirements for single-shreholder corporations so I could start out with one of those this year and deal with complications when I add partners. It's just a choice of one day of formalities and pain today for a chance that I will want to sell it in five years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have money in my own personal savings. I also am on the verge of incorporating.

Can I invest some of my own money to save some money in taxes down the line if I pay dividends to investors?

</comment><comment><USER16> This will help founders as much as it helps angel investors. Assuming you're building a business which is likely to exit at $50mm or less (i.e. most consumer internet companies), the biggest hardship is holding on for 5 years, which could be a couple years after M&A exit.

This also encourages founders to bring early employees into equity ownership by purchasing founders stock, vs. options, so those employees can get this favorable treatment. (generally, buying your stock with a right of repurchase ends up being a win because it converts ST to LT capital gains, anyway).

i.e. on day 0, the company is worth $10k, because the founder puts in $8k of his own money, and the first 4 employees buy their grants for $500 each.

</comment><comment><USER17> What a weird bill, it only affects a 4 month period, what is so special about Sept 27, 2010 to Jan 1, 2011?

<comment><USER18> One hypothesis might be that a more long-lasting bill is being drafted, and this an interim solution.

<comment><USER19> > One hypothesis might be that a more long-lasting bill is being drafted, and > this an interim solution.

A more realistic hypothesis is that they've figured out that a long term approach is dumb. A bill that has to be renewed every six months gives folks two reasons a year to "help" the legislators.

Remember, "reform" means "we need to get more money from supporters".

<comment><USER8> That's 2009 thinking. You know how much work it is to round up 1,000 $2,300 donations?

Just get one guy to write a $2 million dollar check to the Chamber of Commerce and you're good to go. After all, it's freedom of speech, according to the Citizens United ruling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> "The investor must not be a corporation" seems key. Do angel investors really invest out of their own bank accounts or do they form LLCs for this?

<comment><USER21> angels usually invest as individuals or via LLCs and super-angels and VCs are usually structured as partnerships so the exclusion won't apply to most active early stage investors.

<comment><USER19> > angels usually invest as individuals or via LLCs

LLCs are corporations.

I wonder what the bill actually says.

<comment><USER22> LLCs are _not_ corporations, at least not in the United States.

<comment><USER19> My mistake - I thought that the limited liability aspect was defining of corporations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Better idea: eliminate the capital gains tax entirely, forever and ever.

</comment><comment><USER24> A very obscure, complicated and short term bill that lets democrat congressmen go back to their districts and run political advertisements that claim they "passed legislation to help america's small businesses", etc.

Minimal effect, and on top of it, it is overwhelmed by bills already signed that do significant damage to the economy. For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, putting a permanent burden in taxation or inflation on the economy that Obama claims will "Stimulate" it. Making things more expensive and preventing businesses from expanding is not stimulative. Adding more workers to the government payroll is a drain.

<comment><USER25> > _"For instance, the bill that massively increases the size of government, > putting a permanent burden in taxation or inflation on the economy that > Obama claims will "Stimulate" it."_

Which bill is it that massively increases the size of government?

<comment><USER26> Healthcare? Without debating the merits of the bill, there's no doubt that it represents a huge increase in government bureaucracy.

<comment><USER25> What's "huge"? Similarly, what's the benefit of considering "expansion" of government bureaucracy without the context of its budget impact?

i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an _increase_ in the _size_ of government if the effort will _reduce_ the net _cost_ of government?

e.g. Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we _expanded_ government?

Looking at one side of the equation it's trivial to see that we have. But looking at the whole equation, in context, it's just as trivial to see that we haven't; not in any practical, useful sense.

So pardon me if I'm deeply skeptical of people arguing about only one side of the equation and with subjective measurements to boot.

<comment><USER27> "i.e. Is it meaningful to loathe an increase in the size of government if the effort will reduce the net cost of government?"

When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net cost?

"Suppose we could hire a thousand accounts at a hundred thousand dollars a year to go over the defense budget with a fine-toothed comb. If the effect of adding these accountants was a cost reduction of several billion dollars per year, have we expanded government?"

The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them? Also, who decides how long we are going to wait and see if they will be successful..and how long would be considered successful? 1 year? 5? 10?

My other problem is that the Democrats will never admit when something just doesn't work. If a tax hike fails to improve the economy, we either didn't increase taxes enough (or fast enough) or the economy is so bad because of Bush that anybody in their position would have a problem. The faithful Democrat voter believes this crap and we get to keep repeating things that have already been shown to fail.

<comment><USER25> > _"When has increasing the size of the government EVER reduced the net > cost?"_

Isn't that exactly what the CBO has estimated as the result of health care reform? A reduction in the deficit despite the increase in scope (and thus surely number of desks) of government?

> _"The question is: If they hire these accountants and they don't reduce the > overall cost by several billion dollars, can we fire them?"_

I was making a point about the whole equation. If you absorbed my point you would already know that my answer is an unqualified "absolutely".

> _"If a tax hike fails to improve the economy"_ No-one has proposed that tax > hikes will improve the economy. Tax hikes are proposed to reduce the > deficit. Which, by definition, would depress the economy.

I have to tell you, it's pretty difficult to talk to people who are so certain they know what the other party is thinking and how they will react.

<comment><USER27> "Isn't that exactly what the CBO has estimated as the result of health care reform? A reduction in the deficit despite the increase in scope (and thus surely number of desks) of government?"

I don't know if I believe it. I would have to see the numbers. For years, people have claimed how great France has been with it's many social programs. Now, after creating a society that is dependent on these programs, they can't even cut it a little bit (because they are running out of money) without violent riots in the streets.

Also, Even though the deficit is reduced, overall quality has also been reduced. I have many relatives in Canada and they all come over here for any major surgery because of the waiting lists.

Greece is very similar. I've heard from many Democrats that the reason it's doing so poorly is because they didn't get enough in taxes (not the ridiculous social programs that just don't work in the long-run). This is exactly what I am talking about.

"If you absorbed my point you would already know that my answer is an unqualified "absolutely"."

You say this now..and it does sound great. But reality shows that it never happens this way. Governments are generally very inefficient and bloated. They also have no incentive to save money since it all comes from the taxpayers. Running a successful government and a successful business aren't really that different.

If you get funding from the government and you spend less, guess what happens? You get less money the next year...so most will spend it all, even though they don't need to.

"I have to tell you, it's pretty difficult to talk to people who are so certain they know what the other party is thinking and how they will react."

The best way to predict someone's future actions is to look at what they've done in the past. This is because for the most part, people don't change. This logic also applies to future spouses, friends, and bosses. I would really like the Democratic party to prove me wrong.

It's not difficult to talk to me. You just don't have a very good convincing argument.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Number of Threads to Create - <AUTHOR> https://www.akkadia.org/drepper/thread-number-stacks.html <comment><USER2> He obviously never heard of split stacks, which do solve exactly that problem. Eg. [https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks](https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/SplitStacks)</comment>


A review of free sparse sequence taggers for NLP - <AUTHOR> http://fnl.es/a-review-of-sparse-sequence-taggers.html

<comment><USER2> Did you test on newspaper text? 3% error rate looks like it, but the caveat would be that

(i) you want to tag other texts, and

(ii) a license for the Penn Treebank (i.e. the standard training set for English newspaper text) sets you back by about $3k,

plus another couple thousand if you want a commercial license for the Stanford tools (although GPLv2 means you can use it in a SaaS without getting one)

<comment><AUTHOR> By the way, regarding your other points (although I think they are a bit off topic):

As for the cost of corpora: That number is extremely variable, and in many cases (outside of newswire, in particular) you might have your own training data. And then there is non-english NLP, too. Last but not least, tagging text is not the only thing you can apply a CRF (or any graphical model) to...

Regarding paying for a Stanford (or any other software) license: That is precisely what the text linked to explains - that you do not need to pay for such stuff - not only are there free tools around, some of them are far better than the commercially restricted ones.</comment></comment>


First-Ever Credible Evidence of Someone Killed by a Falling Meteorite - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencealert.com/we-finally-have-credible-evidence-of-someone-being-killed-by-a-falling-meteorite <comment><AUTHOR> 1888</comment>


For 18 years, I thought she was stealing my identity. Until I found her - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/apr/03/identity-theft-racial-justice?CMP=fb_gu <comment><USER2> Previous discussion from nine months ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14022588](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14022588)</comment>


Chip industry had worst sales year since dot-com bubble burst - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-02-03/chip-industry-had-worst-sales-year-since-dot-com-bubble-burst <comment><USER2> >Revenue fell 12% to $412 billion in 2019, ....That's the biggest drop since 2001, when industry sales slumped 32% as the dot-com bubble burst.

In 2001 post Dot Com Bubble, that 32% drop was _real_. The 12% drop in 2019 was only due to NAND and RAM went from Record High and back to "normal". Samsung was the most profitable company in 2018 simply because NAND and DRAM. Almost everyone in Semiconductor industry is making fairly decent amount of profits and increase unit shipment in 2019. Look at look at the leading Foundry ( TSMC ) _and_ Intel all making record profits and shipment.

Bloomberg is quickly becoming BuzzFeed for financial news.

<comment><USER3> I know we're being trained to hate journalists these days, but that quoted sentence is just stating a fact: the biggest drop since dotcom bubble... and the article reads very reasonable. I don't see anything controversial in there - seems to balance the negatives with things like "the rate of decline abated" and "the decline in industry sales didn't stop investors betting on a future rebound." \- how is that sensationalist? Maybe they could have reported it as "19th best year since dot com bubble"?

<comment><USER4> As someone who watches the financial news, it almost feels more like baseball statistics, where they say something like, "this batter on sunny days in April has an advantage against left-handed pitchers."

While it may be true, it feels more like p-hacking than some kind of useful fact.

I felt like the financial industry was really doing this early in 2019, after the huge drop in stocks, everyone was like the S&P is up 20% this year already (forgetting to mention it was down a huge amount in December and ready for a comeback).

Of course how you frame these numbers and which numbers you pick is part of the reporting. When taking numbers of out of context, I think it can get a little sensationalist.

<comment><USER5> According to EMH, all information is subsumed into the price. As such, how could the huge 2018 Christmas drop affect future returns?

<comment><USER6> Maybe EMH isn't correct?

<comment><USER7> Statistically it's not incorrect.

While you should be skeptical of strong forms of the EMH, all evidence points to weak forms of the EMH being true.

A corrolary that is good to keep in mind is "markets are more efficient than you're smart" \-- prevents you from starting doomed financial enterprises

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wrote before that semiconductor industry economists were awaiting a crash for a very long time.

At least since 2016, I saw notion of a coming crash coming from very esteemed industry publications that cost few thousand bucks to access.

Everybody in semi knows of the cyclical nature of the industry, and the non- stop long bull run since 2008 looked very unusual to many.

Why is this so important?

The reason is that few years ago, the industry committed itself to the biggest capital infusion in history with EUV.

Those fabs costs tenths of billions, and take years to build. They are never ever constructed without an extremely thorough research done with top tier economists.

<comment><USER8> > tenths of billions

Do you mean tens of billions? The difference is two orders of magnitude :)

<comment><USER9> I assume OP meant tenths of trillions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I run this site, where we track public companies revenues, and Q3 2019 shows -8% drop in revenue for semiconductors segment, but it can be because Q3 2018 had +15% Y/Y: [https://finintelligence.com/app/segment/2873229239](https://finintelligence.com/app/segment/2873229239)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Repost from: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20630279](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20630279)

Semiconductor industry is a very reliable canary for the long term economic situation. Semi industry employs top economists. It is critically important for them to have extremely thorough economics research when they decide on their financials. Fabs cost billions, and whole fab complexes close to $10B. They take many years to construct and make running.

Financing plans for them have to be done impeccably, and account for way more than capital forecasts.

The financial outlook for a fab changes dramatically depending on how the world changes during its construction. The few fragments of such report done for TSMC I saw included everything down to political, cultural, and technological black swan events.

One of the most bizarre one that they actually managed to predict was the current regulatory and sociocultural "dotcom backlash".

For example, they see big server chip buyers like Facebook, Amazon, Google greatly scaling down their ambitions, and therefore they did not include the option for big reticle sizes in their lithography equipment buy list.

</comment><comment><USER11> I used to work in the semiconductor equipment industry in the 90s and it was quite cyclical. One year the demand was great and they were hiring like crazy and the next year things were looking dismal and they had to do layoffs. This repeated many times though the overall trend was of growth. I managed to stick around for some time since I was in R&D and with a bit of luck. Things smoothed out considerably over the decades.

<comment><USER12> Does this follow companies not buying new equipment annually, but wait a couple of years inbetween before the next upgrade?

<comment><USER13> I'm not sure why all companies would be on the same cycle of upgrading. You would assume they would all be offset and it wouldn't make a difference in sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Could be that Intel chip supply shortages, and decreased average sale prices (due to AMD offerings) could be the reason for this. Not as many people upgrading as inter generational gains start to level off.

<comment><USER15> I think embedded systems account for the vast majority of chip production, so any dynamics involving Intel/AMD would be very minor.

<comment><USER16> Embedded chips are generally cheap. CPU's sell for ~1,000x the price of most embedded chips. X00$ CPU vs X0c 32 bit microprocessors / microcontroller etc.

<comment><USER17> 10c 32-bit microcontroller from Intel/AMD? Have I been buying the wrong chips? Care to share some links?

EDIT: commenter above edited their post, mentioned $.10 MCUs from Intel/AMD

<comment><USER16> I edited the comment for clarity, but never mentioned Intel or AMD.

<comment><USER18> All right, X0 c 32-bit microcontrollers from whom?

<comment><USER19> Cypress, Microchip, STM... Really, take your pick.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Agreed, this news doesn't square with market performance. For instance, FSELX (Fidelity Select Semiconductors portfolio) mutual fund is up 43% over one year, doubling the performance of the S&P500. Top-10 holdings (68%) include Intel, Qualcomm, Broadcom, Nvidia, Micron, Marvell, ON, NXP, FLex, Commscope, so it's a fairly broad measure. For this cross-section to be performing so strongly, others must be circling the drain if indeed the industry is turning down steeply. I'm not seeing that.

<comment><USER21> In saying that there cannot be a turndown because stocks are rallying, you are not comparing apples to apples. Companies can circle the drain while their stock rallies. Companies can do good business while their stock gets crushed.

First, people are buying equities in general because interest rates are being held low artificially by the Fed, which has been pressured by the President to do this.

Second, few traders and investors understand how to differentiate semiconductor companies, so when it blows, it will all blow. People get out of crowded trades chaotically. Investors and traders, who are largely unsophisticated about the specific technologies that each company develops and markets, will punish the sector rather than choosing individual names to sell. I will say it again: most people who trade tech professionally have no fucking clue what these companies actually build. They look at numbers, watch earnings reports, and listen to buzzword-laden commentary from research analysts.

Look at Apple. Their supply chain is threatened by factory shutdowns and a huge market of theirs has basically been put on ice, but their stock is near all-time highs. They haven't made a game-changing product since the days of Steve Jobs, and people usually say their value now comes from their execution. But how can you execute if your suppliers are shut down and one of your major markets is closed for business?

INTC is facing tons of pressure in enterprise and PC from AMD, their 10nm has been a disaster for them, and yet their stock popped 9% on earnings due to cloud demand. It's trading near dot-com bubble levels. They are getting hurt in their competition vs TSMC on fab, and losing market share to AMD, yet their stock is like a rocket ship. Doesn't this seem weird?

QCOM has been hit hard by several regulators and in a number of lawsuits for its IP bullying, it has come out and said that coronavirus is going to hurt smartphone manufacturing and sales, and yet its stock is trading near all-time highs.

Don't ever confuse stock performance with company performance. Boeing stock is trading at more than double where it was when the 737 Max 8 took its first flight four years ago.

<comment><USER17> I'm honestly extremely pleased with my iPad Pro and Airpods Pro, both are honestly impressive pieces of tech. I'm coming from an EE background, so I might not be able to really distinguish nuances in software, but hardware-wise they are impressive.

I can't agree with you on the Apple perspective, and it's my subjective opinion, I might be also biased since I have a large position on APPL. However, I can agree on the idea that the stock price can be completely disconnected from the fundamentals of the company.

<comment><USER22> Apple's most recent earnings call seems to suggest they're doing just fine expanding into wearable accessories and monthly subscriptions as well.

Seems like half of NYC has airpods when I'm walking around and in most of the stores here they won't be in stock until March (a jump from mid February a couple of weeks ago).

That could be supply chain disruption or they're selling like hot cakes.

Very satisfied with my pro pod pair post purchase as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> No one can innovate when they can't understand. No one can understand when they can't read the data sheets for chips they don't use.

Want people to build things with your crap? Don't fight them when they try.

<comment><USER24> This absolutely. The chip people always make custom protocols for /everything/.

<comment><USER23> Custom protocols are not really the end of the world, it's when they make a custom protocol and then use copyright to force you to do certain things in order to use it.

<comment><USER24> They really do slow down development though, and flrxe you to hire specialists who can make sense of the often terse datasheets.

<comment><USER25> Wouldn't a lot of the complexity be due to the fact that these are likely the most complex pieces of engineering on earth?

<comment><USER26> Complexity and nicely written datasheets /doc are tractable. Obfuscated docs and average complexity is cryptic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Thanks for the post, tipped me off to the current rock-bottom ram prices to max out the ram of my desktop I built 5 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER28> There is interesting news about Xilinx specifically: they are no longer allowed to sell the Huawei, so their stock declined recently. The consequence is that Huawei needs to switch to home-grown ASICs, and I'm sure the pressure is on for a high-end home-grown FPGA vendor.

So this is just one company, but I'm wondering if tariffs in general are a part of this decline.

[https://epsnews.com/2019/10/28/xilinx-cuts-huawei-from- futur...](https://epsnews.com/2019/10/28/xilinx-cuts-huawei-from-future- forecasts/)

[https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/business/economy/trump- us...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/business/economy/trump-us-china- deal-micron-trade-war.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> "hurt by a trade war between the largest chip producer, the U.S., and the largest consumer, China"

This sentence confuses me. Seems like they have it backwards. Can someone clear this up?

<comment><USER30> It depends. Do you include Taiwan in China or not? If not, then yes.

In fact, U.S. is the largest manufacturer of semiconductors. In 2018, nearly half of the total semiconductor market was occupied by firms based in the U.S., according to the Factbook2019 of SIA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Here's the historical total graph, not the year to year change graph.[1] Unclear if this is constant dollars. That's from the World Semiconductor Trade Association, which collects statistics and resells them, expensively. The Bloomberg article is what you get from the free tier, press releases.

[1] [https://www.wsts.org/](https://www.wsts.org/)

</comment><comment><USER32> Coincidentally, I've been wondering about dumping some cash into a semiconductor ETF like eg the VanEck offering (SMH). I noticed that there are leveraged ETFs like SOXL that magnify returns and I typically associate these riskier offering with precious metals and so forth. I hadn't realised that semiconductors seem to fall into that same "cyclical commodity" category.

</comment><comment><USER33> Question: why then are there recent media reports that DDR4 and SSD prices going to be increased? Is this Samsung's unilateral oligopolic move, another price fixing event, a ploy to stimulate panic buying and/or some other structural move related to real ability to supply? (Yes, I remember the hyper- commodification DRAM price wars and price fixing of years gone by.)

</comment><comment><USER34> Uhhhh I think it is because everyone is waiting for the next gen consoles of Xbox and PlayStation. There are even rumors for a Nintendo switch "x"

And they all need chips.. And electric vehicles are also slowly catching up. They need chips too.

Its not a bubble burst, just a generation change (and wait)

</comment><comment><USER35> This must be mostly attributable to the massive NAND and DRAM prices falls in 2019.

</comment><comment><USER36> If only the US had the infrastructure to do everything from mining the materials all the way up the chain to building custom PC's, wouldn't that be cool? If we could do everything "in house" so to speak?

<comment><USER37> Seems like it should be a priority for homeland security really...

<comment><USER36> Not sure about you guys but I would be willing to pay a premium if I knew that every part in my computer was created right here in my own country.

<comment><USER37> Pretty nasty pressure move to strangle your rival's access to chips. New foundries can't be built over night.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> [https://archive.md/3Ms5l](https://archive.md/3Ms5l)

</comment><comment><USER39> This article sounds alarmist. "Revenue fell 12% to $412 billion in 2019, the Semiconductor Industry Association said Monday in a statement. That's the biggest drop since 2001, when industry sales slumped 32% as the dot-com bubble burst."

I don't see how 12% is a skyfall number. Especially when compared to 32%.

It was pay-walled so I did not read any further.

<comment><USER40> Revenue falling at all in any tech industry is usually cause for extreme concern, as all the investor numbers assume infinite growth.

<comment> t-writescode Perhaps that's the real problem there.

If companies like Intel and AMD are still turning a respectable profit, there's no cause for actual panic, yet.

Investors should learn that intractable P/Es on established companies are, at best, unwise in all but the edge cases.

<comment><USER41> Let's stop discussing a hypothetical. Analysts in this space are well aware of the cyclical nature of it, and have better data than some of the companies in question. The premise is false.

Cyclical trough/peak earnings normalization is decades old from industrial and resource sectors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> hmmm every time I'm at the store I see like 3 new brands of chips I've never seen before.</comment>


Eight Tons of Punk - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/8002/maximum-rocknroll-record-archives-photo-essay <comment><USER2> Sorry to loop in software/tech...but...

I remember once years ago explaining to a co-worker about how i felt that free and open source software (FOSS) in general - but linux (oh sorry, gnu linux) as a specific example - as being the punk equivalent but in tech. The person i explained it to was a techy at a large enterprise, and really understood it once i explained in those terms. My co-worker was your typical buttoned-up very nice guy, he had only been exposed to the conventional corporate ms windows platforms, etc...So, while he likely wouldn't go out and listen to punk nor go play with installing slackware or debian, etc...he really respected linux (and the rest of FOSS) __BECAUSE __of the context that i put them in as a comparison to punk. I haven 't worked with him for years now...i wonder what he thinks now that linux and FOSS are everywhere - well everywhere but under blankets of corporations like google (android), and others, etc.? I wonder if he still thinks of linux as punk - as i had described to him long ago?

<comment><USER3> When I think of punks of the tech industry I think of the Homebrew Computer Club. I've tried looking for a similar community but these seem to be few and far between.

I lot of the tech communities around where I live seem to only be interested in "startupping", seed funding and networking rather than experimenting and pushing tech itself. Hackathons, where I used to find a few punks years ago, are now filled with people mildly interested in tech and big corporate sponsors.

Maybe it's the fact that technology keeps getting more complex and thus a few punk hackers are not enough to really disrupt it.

<comment><USER4> I grew up in the early 90s in the pre-Internet days, so my idea of "punk tech" came from the old greybeards who wanted to hack on hardware, software and everything along the way. I think that spirit still jumps around by curiosity and idealism, usually through some new technology (like Mastodon, or cryptocurrency in the early days) or is satisfied with goalless explorations of tech, like tilde.club or a lot of the early hackathons and maker trends (3D printing, drones, battle bots, etc.)

<comment><USER2> Yeah Linux wouldn't be the only "punk tech"; and fediverse, crypto currency, and the hardware stuff you referenced would certainly classify as punk tech in my book too! Thanks for that!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _"We don't want to move [the record archive] to some museum, we want it to be accessible," Curran told me._

If not in a museum, what does it mean for records to be accessible? If you keep it physical, only a select relative few will ever access it.

Start digitizing it, then, if needed, auction off the interesting records to fund the rest of the effort.

<comment><USER6> You are assuming that the _music_ is the most important thing. It very well may be, but part of the culture around vinyl is, I think, the actual physical product, particularly the art that accompanies the vinyl. Add to that the DIY ethos that drives the punk scene, and those physical artifacts become even more important.

<comment><USER5> _You are assuming that the music is the most important thing._

I'm not sure how you came to that conclusion.

...obviously, you can digitize album covers and liner notes. I thought that was clear. You're right, there's culture around that, but it's not important to physically touch it to experience it.

Saying "you just had to be there", "you have to listen to this pressing of the record", "you must hold this in your hand", etc. is playing gatekeeper, which is antithetical to punk and DIY.

<comment><USER7> > it's not important to physically touch it to experience it

Why not?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Anybody interested in the zone [https://archive.org/details/maximumrnr](https://archive.org/details/maximumrnr)

</comment><comment><USER9> Slightly off topic: Going to take a moment to shoutout Sunny Singh and his hate5six project, archiving punk live performances! Awesome project. You can be a techie and still be punk!

</comment><comment><USER10> Somebody here has enough money to help this out and contribute back to SF + culture!

<comment><USER11> I hope it is preserved. MRR was key to DIY music scenes across the US and other countries. The internet dispatched the need for it. At the time (I'm referencing the mid-late 80's), the crappy newsprint that came off on my fingers was the only way to find out what bands or cities were doing in really independent music. It's pretty difficult to put it in context in a world post- blogs, twitter, and bandcamp etc.

</comment></comment><comment> rr-geil-j I just can't articulate it yet but saving this archive feels anti-punk...

<comment><USER12> Its the nature of these things, that the original ethos gets lost, for example, Green Day is classed as a punk band.

<comment><USER13> Just because some people say that doesn't make it true. Green Day fans are like the flat Earthers of punk.

<comment><USER14> Glad to see that the superiority complex of the scene is still alive and well...

Everyone needs an onramp to discovery. There are WAY worse things to be into than Green Day. But please, don't let me stop you from telling Hacker News how you're too punk for Green Day...

<comment><USER15> green day dookie was the first CD I owned. It was the first thing I found on the street (read: garbage), and inspired my interest in free and used things. I owe them a lot. But man do they suck.

<comment><USER16> I don't know, I've always been more of an Offspring fan, but I don't think it's fair to say that Green Day "suck". They've obviously achieved an impressive level of success and people still pay attention and listen to their new releases decades after they were truly relevant.

I never was a big fan of Dookie but their next album, Insomniac, is still an immensely enjoyable album to this day. Whether it's technically not 'punk' and is instead 'pop-punk' or just 'rock' makes no difference to me. The fact that their music isn't overtly anti-establishment doesn't affect the quality of the music.

In fact, and this may get me into trouble here, I like the Dead Kennedy's 'Plastic Surgery Disasters' just as much as I like Green Day's 'Insomniac'. Is one punk and one not? Who cares? I quite dislike the purity tests in some genres of music (like punk and metal). That's something I've always appreciated about pop music - it doesn't have to adhere to some nebulous framework to qualify for the genre, it simply has to be popular (e.g. Beatles were pop, Madonna was pop, and Arianna Grande is pop - very different styles of music)

<comment><USER17> You like the music you like and that itself is as punk rock as you can get.

The difference between "Lookout! Green Day" and "Warner Green Day" is one of DIY vs Payola. These days, it's much easier and potentially more profitable to go the DIY route, but back then, you needed a sugar daddy to "make it big" fast. Taking the easy route meant Green Day were shunned by their original fan base (somewhat justifiably so,) but they had more energy, raw talent, and Buzzcocks hooks than anything else on top 40 radio with the exception of Nirvana (which is why Warner was trolling for talent in the first place.)

It's hard to call any "punk" bands sellouts after Nevermind. Were Hüsker Dü sellouts? They signed to Warner in '85 (almost a decade before Green Day.)

The music business is harsh. If you're in a band and into it for the long haul, own your masters and go the DIY route. Your fans will find you and are more likely to pay directly when they do. If you're in a band and want to make it big fast, consider this often cited article from Steve "Mr. Gold Bracelet" Albini on cashflow:

[https://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17](https://www.negativland.com/news/?page_id=17)

There's a reason you're seeing a lot of live music. Streaming doesn't pay the bills.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Cloud Resume Challenge - <AUTHOR> https://cloudresumechallenge.dev/ <comment><USER2> Your personal portfolio/blog site is really well done, but this feels unfinished. A cool idea, but should polish up the site before trying to get some participation (e.g. why is there a search bar? And why is the top bar so large and the same color as the background?)</comment>


Ask HN: Most amount of time you spent on a project with nothing to show for it? - <AUTHOR> Edit:  The question was meant for <i>personal unpaid</i> time, not a company funded project that was scrapped. <comment><USER2> Worked with a friend and his family's privately owned SMB to monetize an additional revenue stream. Spent 6 months part time and used a bunch of social currency to get a Fortune-100 company on board as a paying customer for MVP.

Asked to signed a contract as a consultant so they could "properly compensate me" \-- trusted and signed and got kicked out the next day + had a gag order in the agreement so I couldn't talk publically about it.

Lost a friend and learned a big life lesson there. The project floundered after that; it was my heart's desire to make it work even if I wasn't there, but they just shuttered it without letting me know. I emailed them to give me some peace and closure by at least letting me know why they did what they did but never got a response. I still see this "friend" due to a common-ish social circle.

Bad things happen some times -- I haven't lost the ability to trust and have faith in people; my opinion of lawyers and contracts that protect me have increased though.

</comment><comment><USER3> At university, I spent almost a thousand dollars on an espresso machine and a few hundred dollars on cups. I was going to open up a to-the-classroom coffee delivery service. I just never pulled the trigger. I've had really good espresso every morning though, and the cups are reusable.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've had some web app projects i've been playing with for a couple of years now - i've completely rewritten some from scratch several times over (and I have yet to actually finish the custom framework I was going to make for my personal website which has been useless since about 2011.) And if you count Game Maker projects that i've started, stopped, and restarted again, and given up on again... maybe five or six years?

Although with my tendency to ignore projects entirely for weeks or months at a time, it's not as bad as it seems but still there's a long line of failed projects behind me. Really, what do I have to show for anything? Not much.

</comment><comment><USER5> A person I know quite well explained to me how his company hired a team of six or so developers to work on a project full-time. They worked on the project for about about two years before feeling ready to showcase it to clients. Once they showcased it to clients they realized their solution was far too generic for its intended application and it had to be scrapped. Huge amounts of time and money lost due to bad project management and inability to meet market needs. The solution ended up so generic that it could not really fit the specific role it was needed for. Its intended market requires a high amount of attention to specificity and detail.

</comment><comment><USER6> My first game for an early mobile platform (2003) took me six months and sold 600 copies. My latest iPhone release took a couple of years of part time work, and doesn't look like it will even approach that. It won't even cover the cost of repairs I made to my macbook during development.

I am proud of my games, I only ever wanted to be a game designer but right now I'm feeling wary of expending so much effort again for so little reward or even recognition.

<comment><USER7> Mind posting the URL to your iOS game? I would like to try it out.

<comment><USER6> [http://antigengame.com](http://antigengame.com)

<comment><USER7> Well, I bought the game and I gave it a shot. I like indie-productions like this.

The game is fun but I encountered a little snag where, somehow, it'd keep asking me if I wanted to resume the game constantly. I must be doing something non-standard with my thumbs and this takes away from the experience.

Granted, I play this on an iPad at 1x-mode, so the form factor difference might be the reason for the constant pausing.

<comment><USER6> Hmm, Not sure what the problem would be. Are you accidentally touching the top right corner of the screen? Thats where the pause button is, there's a little video player pause icon up there. I made that whole corner into a pause button so it's easy to hit when your playing on the iPhone

<comment><USER7> Nope. Fingers are always on the fingerprint icons. Just keeps flipping into the resume screen.

<comment><USER6> I will see what I can find out. It doesn't happen on iphone or ipod touch. Thanks for the bug report!

<comment><USER7> Some more information:

When I put the system at 2x and played the game, I made it as far as level 8 without a glitch. Then, all of a sudden, it kept going into a mode where it kept asking me to resume again. I play the game on landscape mode on an iPad Air, if it helps you any.

The game is fun.

My constructive criticism is more business related than game related. For $1.99, there are other apps that give you a lot of strong competition. An ad model or some other addictive mechanic that employs IAP once people have it in their hands might work better for you. Also, more people looking at it will get you more feedback, and that'll guide your future development as a developer.

Regardless, I've added your blog to my list of blogs to read. I'd like to see you succeed in your efforts, whatever it is you try (if you continue on this path.)

Thanks for sharing the link.

<comment><USER6> Thanks mate, To be honest the game was designed primarily for iphone and ipod touch. I've tested it on 3 generations of iphones and ipods.

When I set the deployment target to "iphone" rather than "universal" I assumed the app store would exclude those devices. I will have to get my hands on the various ipad models for more testing.

I've always been a bit wary of the IAP model used by so many mobile games. I guess I am more of an oldschool designer, better suited to making PC games. Oh, and thanks for checking out my blog. I've got a lot more writing in the pipeline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Years. I've made a lot of games not up to the level of quality I want to be associated with. They're in a graveyard on my NAS.

I don't buy into the "it doesn't have to be good, it has to be done"; for me it has to be good _and_ done to feel okay having my name on it. But I'm getting much better at this, and am working on a project I feel good about.

</comment><comment><USER9> A whole summer mid-college in my late teens (three months of prime time it turned out!) coding a cloud e-learning platform for the industrial training vertical (what a Cornerstone does today basically) for a partner who then didn't sell any product, disappeared and I had to go and sue - cost me both time and legal fees!

</comment><comment><USER10> I spent 11 months writing an app, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6Z81dMzhc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vS6Z81dMzhc), and sold less and sold less than 100 copies. It was probably too much to take on as my second app... I did learn a lot though.

<comment><USER11> Make it free now and see where it goes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Months.</comment>


We have seen this movie before - <AUTHOR> http://chestergrant.posterous.com/we-have-seen-this-movie-before

<comment><USER2> The formatting choices were jarring, though I wholeheartedly agree with the large bolded words in the last paragraph.

<comment><USER3> Good stuff. Agree as well.

<comment><USER4> >I will pay you $10 for everyday I don't come to the gym and get on that bike for at least 25 minutes.

Not to nitpick, but I think that "dont" shouldnt be in that sentence? The way it's worded incentivizes the trainer to make sure I don't show up. Without the "dont" it sort of encourages me to not show up because it costs an extra $10, but at the same time the other guy is going to be encouraged to get me to show up. Or maybe the analogy just doesn't work. I get your point entirely though.

I liked the article.

<comment><USER5> You are correct that the trainer is incentivized such that he would prefer I not show up. But /I/ am incentivized /to/ show up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the problem with this argument is that our observations are pre- selected before see them. This biases our predictions towards spectacular success/failure stories and exaggerated anecdotes. What would have happened if you were Facebook and thought, "we know social networking startups end in failure, and so we should try something else".

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure Facebook thought that in 2004. Besides, it's all relative. Some people reading this will think, "Gym? Bring it on!!" Obviously, a successful path would somehow diverge from previous failures.

Also, I think the article is more about addiction to HN and not so much startup advice.</comment></comment>


Apple Tech Would Stop iPhones From Filming Live Events  - <AUTHOR> http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/16/new-apple-technology-stops-iphones-from-filming-live-events/

<comment><USER2> Listen, concerts and live events are the least of it.

What if the cops have this tech installed in their cars and prevent you from filming them in action?

</comment><comment> misuse-permit And they're filing a patent?

So let me get this straight. Mr Band holds a venue and pays to install Apple's patented film-blocking technology. Then, all of the loyal Apple customers who paid good money for their phones get a feature disabled at the concert. Meanwhile, Joe who bought a cheap Samsung phone can go on recording the event because his phone doesn't have some crappy Apple-patented technology in it.

Or is the idea that when I go to a big name concert, they'll confiscate all the phones that aren't made by Apple?

Either way, the idea, if reported by Fox correctly, is stupid and does not make any sense.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is only a patent. This is not a feature of a shipping product. Hopefully it never will be.

Apple patents anything and everything and a ton of them are never really used. Optimistically, perhaps they grabbed this idea solely to prevent anyone else from doing it. By having a patent, they can refuse to license the idea to anyone and go after anyone who tries it anyway. You never know.

<comment><USER4> While I want to share that optimism, I worry precisely because of Apple's many flirtations with censorship and their having built an amazing architecture for such on their iOS platform. This patent, whilst it wouldn't make any marketing sense or design sense, seems philosophically quite compatible with modern Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There was an earlier post about this here... <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2660794> with a different initial reporting source. I put a link to the patent that might be concerned in my comment on that thread.

</comment><comment><USER6> Which means that hardcore bootleggers, as always, will spend their money on the hardware that works best for them.

<comment><USER7> Which, in this case, would be a quarter-inch square of electrical tape.

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't count on it. Standard CMOS sensors can see infrared, but are filtered so that they do not. It would not be much of an engineering challenge to use the CMOS sensor to read an IR data stream while filming.</comment></comment></comment>


Yet another general purpose C++ library - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/pfi/pficommon

<comment><AUTHOR> This library looks nice and I'm happy to see some real world example of waf.</comment>


The Mythical Matched Modules (2009) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/papers/2009-kell2009mythical.pdf <comment><USER2> There seems to be some problems with this approach, as the paper itself points out.

It advocates (in section 3.3) developers "imagining" an abstract API, integrating other components using that API and later creating concrete implementations. This sounds a lot like what Java tends to do, leading to APIs with critical flaws in the real world, like a filesystem API without support for symlinks.

Section 3.2 claims that, to some extent, this is not a problem because unknown concepts can be interpreted as other known concepts – but interpreting symlinks as regular directories can lead to serious problems, e.g. when recursively deleting a directory tree.

Similarly, if the developer imagines something like the Win32 API and its I/O completion ports, implementing it on POSIX will lead to bad performance, just like implementing fork() on Win32, as Cygwin does.

Section 5.1 sort of acknowledges this: "Clearly, there is a limit to how far interface hiding can be taken. Perhaps truly ubiquitous interfaces, like POSIX, should not be hidden. There is also a risk that the programmer will design an external interface which cannot be satisfied by any foreign components, or which unduly strains the expressivity of the integration domain."

But what is a "truly ubiquitous interface"? POSIX is clearly not, unless you ignore Windows (for real-world applications). Perhaps the KDE developers believed that DCOP (as discussed in the article) was "truly ubiquitous"?</comment>


The World's Largest Street-Level Imagery Dataset for Teaching Machines to See - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mapillary.com/product/2017/05/03/mapillary-vistas-dataset.html <comment><USER2> Very timely considering the new Snapchat building facade imagery detection patent just published this week.

I have to say putting emojis and ads/brand integration on buildings is not the most impressive of their AR visions but I can see why they want to do it.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/5/15559728/snapchat- augmente...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/5/5/15559728/snapchat-augmented- reality-glasses-facade-database-patent)

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's one to add for training: False lane departure

[http://imgur.com/a/KnsXU](http://imgur.com/a/KnsXU)

<comment><USER4> Would you like to explain what we're looking at in that picture?

<comment><USER3> SB HWY 17, at Bear Creek Road, Los Gatos, Ca. early May. The road was resurfaced at one point. The old surface and new surface form a line that runs parallel to the lane marker (the yellow line in the shadow on the left).

At about 8:30 AM a sunny day, the median barrier casts a shadow that is also parallel to the lane marker. The edge of the shadow and the edge of the road resurface artifact form a line that is similar width to the road marker.

The old road surface is more reflective than the new road surface and the higher reflection creates a bright line that appears to the lane tracking video system (Subaru EyeSight) to be a lane marker. Since the car has crossed that bright line, the system sounds a lane departure alert.

Leads me to think that if the car were autonomous, it would have reacted.

<comment><USER4> Ah, I see. So the thing that looks like a painted white line on the left is actually nothing of the sort? Am I wrong to be puzzled by the fact that the central and right-hand lines are white, but (assuming what you say is right, which I do in fact assume it is) there is no white line at the left of the road, only a yellow one?

(I'm in the UK, where we have white lines at both sides. Perhaps the US is different?)

<comment><USER5> In the US, yellow lines indicate a division between lanes flowing in the opposite direction. White lines are used otherwise. So there's a yellow line on the left because it abuts the barrier dividing the lane from oncoming traffic. The dashed line in the middle is white because it separates two lanes flowing the same direction. And the solid line on the right is white because it does not abut any opposite-flow lanes but rather represents the edge of the road.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


NASA, We've Got a Problem. But It Can Be Fixed.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/13/science/13tier.html

<comment><USER2> I wonder why the cost of manned space flight has increased to the point where a lunar mission is no longer feasible. Could someone enlighten me? Overpriced equipment, personnel cost, additional safety costs?

<comment><USER3> I read somewhere that the only reason the Soyuz is cheaper than the Space Shuttle is the fact that Russian engineers are just paid a lot less.

<comment><USER4> I very much doubt that's true, because you're not comparing like with like. Soyuz isn't carting around all the gubbins needed to be "reusable" for a start. Compare Shuttle to Buran...</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is your favorite nootropic? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Good ole "caffeine + L-Theanine" combo mostly. I also use Phosphatidylserine and while it's hard to be sure, I feel like it has some beneficial effect. I also use Ashwagandha extract and Green Tea extract fairly regularly.

<comment><AUTHOR> That is a nice stack. I should test Phosphatidylserine.</comment></comment>


Show HN: the government sent me a traffic sniffer - <AUTHOR>

Is anyone else on HN participating in this FCC research project to measure broadband performance? [1] I signed up for more information when the project was announced, some time ago, but a few days ago the device arrived. Technically, it is quite an interesting little box.
It's a generic consumer device, shaped like a wireless router, with an antenna and five RJ-45 jacks. But it works more like a bridge, plugging in between my existing ADSL modem/wireless-router and any wired devices that used to be plugged directly into the existing ADSL. No changes needed to be made to any of the wireless devices in the house---the antenna on the new device sniffs any wireless networks in the vicinity.
It came with a printed copy of the GPL.
There was no configuration required except to plug it in. Within a few hours, I received an email announcing that it had successfully phoned home and offering a login to the web site where I could view graphs showing the results of measurements on my broadband connection.
I've not examined the software in the device yet to figure out what all it's actually doing, but I can't help wondering [2].
[1] http://www.samknows.com/fcc_and_samknows
[2] Two years ago there was a brief discussion on HN about it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2837451 <comment><USER2> According to your first link:

      The specially developed 'White Box' does not monitor the
      home network or web traffic, but solely focuses on the
      relevant ISP's network.

That would imply that it doesn't even act as a bridge, but rather is just another device on your local network.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Self-criticism for the link-baity title, but I was impressed that it didn't require re-associating all my Wi-Fi devices.

<comment><USER3> Why would it? They are already authenticated with your router and still connecting to it, not a new device.

<comment><AUTHOR> _...already authenticated with your router and still connecting to it, not a new device._

But the monitoring box connects downstream from the wireless router, though:

                     ___              ___
                     \|/              \|/
                      |                |
      ISP --> my Wi-Fi router --> mystery box --> wired devices
                                                       ___
                                                       \|/
                                                        |
                                               wireless devices

The mystery box acts as a Layer 2 bridge for wired devices, but it must sniff wireless devices from the air. The FAQ that came with it strongly suggests that it sniffs _all_ the wireless networks it can see, not just mine.

 _Edit_ : to improve the ASCII art diagram</comment></comment></comment>