U.S. Government Starts New Round of 'Pirate' Domain Seizures - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/u-s-government-starts-new-round-of-pirate-domain-seizures-110521/ <comment><USER2> These seizures are probably illegal based on 4th amendment issues. No due process in the seizing.

See this opinion: [http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/ice-seizures-criticism- magic...](http://www.copyhype.com/2011/03/ice-seizures-criticism-magic-words/)

Senators were calling for more information on their activity at the end of last year but I don't remember hearing much more on it.

The interesting part is where international laws come into play. The issue really hasn't been resolved, but in the mean time, domains continue to be seized.

And they have been making lots of mistakes like when they took a dynamic dns's server mooo.com and it's 84,000 subdomains for one account's alleged actions. See: [http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/vulnerabilities...](http://www.informationweek.com/news/security/vulnerabilities/229218959?subSection=government)

What they are doing is twisting an existing law on the books to apply to domains and playing cowboy off tips by the MPAA and RIAA. Domains getting taken away without notice or due process. It makes me sick.

<comment><USER3> I guess it's more ammunition to slowly pump into people that are still ignorant enough to believe that the government has their best interests at heart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I am really ashamed that I once thought that this asset seizure thing was a good idea.

Surly, I thought, only bad people like drug dealers would have their mansions confiscated. Shame on me.

<comment><USER5> At least the drug dealers receive due process.

<comment><USER6> Alleged drug dealers will get due process for drug charges. That is not quite the case for the seized assets since "proceedings are brought against the property itself, not the owner. Hence they often have odd case titles, such as _U.S. v. Eight Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifty Dollars_ or _U.S. v. One 1987 Jeep Wrangler_." [1]

[1] <http://reason.com/archives/2010/01/26/the-forfeiture-racket>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If nothing else the long term effect of this is simply to harden the internet infrastructure against govt. interference.

It's sorta like saving electricity. We're mostly pretty inefficient so it's easy to make instant savings. For example switching from incandescent light bulbs, putting in geyser blankets, and so on, are all implemented easily, cheaply, and have an instant material effect. But it's a one time saving. It delays the inevitable, it bys time, but it doesn't solve the root problem.

In the same way fiddling with root dns servers is easy, quick, and (temporarily) effective. It's a one-time solution though. If this carries on then people will simply work around the problem. We're already seeing alternative root dns servers, alternative top level (non-US) domains and so on. If the govt. want to waste their effectiveness on such mundane things as movies and music, then so be it. But every time they do it they just encourage more and more people to work around the problem. And the solution is likely to be (already is) more resistant to this form of explicit interference.

The Internet is a genie not going back into the bottle. It is not something that can be controlled, censored, or governed in the traditional sense. As music and movie executives come to terms with what the digital part of 'Digital Revolution' really means, the govt is starting to learn what the real meaning of Revolution is.

The times they are a changin' (again).

<comment><USER8> Circumventing government DNS seizures with alternative DNS root servers will only be a temporary stopgap.

It's only a matter of time before the governments will mandate (by law) that every router should have a way to block certain IPs and MACs, and also offer a backdoor for government agencies to configure the router; hardware which cannot comply with this will be outlawed and illegal to operate.

With that in place, government agencies can block any IP or MAC they want, without having to deal with DNS.

<comment><USER9> In a world of virtualized services, blocking IP or MAC will also only get you so far. It's fairly easy to switch servers onto a different IP address, a different MAC address by simply using a different machine or configuration.

DNS is the most vulnerable part of the stack simply because its the one thing in the stack that is centralized (loosely speaking).

<comment><USER8> Is it really that easy? Both my home ADSL as my datacenter servers have permanent IP adresses, which I can't change. I could change the MAC of the network interfaces, but not the IP address.

Or do you mean going through a VPN of some kind?

<comment><USER10> >Or do you mean going through a VPN of some kind?

the VPN of some kind is the easy way to do it, yes. Setting up a new VPN provider is pretty trivial. I could do so tomorrow; all I'd need is one of those visa prepaid cards to do so anonymously.

But the point is that yeah, sure, the government could mandate that we block certain IPs but it would be difficult for the government to do and fairly easy for targets to get around - going after the centralized naming resources is going to be much easier, and is going to produce much less resistance.

It's true that there have been alternate dns root servers for some time now; it's not a technically difficult thing to set up. But it is a huge problem of trust. It's very difficult to design a system that is resistant to governmental pressure but is still trustworthy enough that when I type in a site name I can be fairly certain I'm getting the IP address for that site and not a pretender.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Such sites should be moving away from US controlled domains. The writing is on the wall.

<comment><USER12> One of the biggest and oldest swapped everything out to the Isle of Man TLD recently: .im

<comment><USER11> That's a start, but I'm not sure I'd trust the UK any more than the US.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The only "registry" today that is secure against such attacks is .bit. It uses a concept similar to Bitcoin, but instead of "mining" coins you get domain names.

.bit is not available over the official root servers, to access .bit names you can:

1) Locally install a resolver for .bit 2) Use one of the nameservers on <http://dot-bit.org/HowToBrowseBitDomains> instead of your provider's nameserver 3) Use a domain that mirror's the .bit hierachy to resolve names, such as bitname.org

The nice thing about .bit is that there is no central authority, but at the same time the ownership of names is clearly defined.

<comment><USER14> Boy am I tired of hearing about bitcoins.

.bit is different from popular domain registries in that your users actually use it. Also, it's hardly a new idea. if you want to host a web site that can't be shut down, I'd go with a Tor hidden service: <https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.en>

<comment><USER13> The new idea about .bit is that you have a decentralized system able to securely assign names to different participants. With existing systems the name is basically the hash of a public key which is not really that easy to remember or to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> O yea, lets bring down [random blog with tv shows that gets read by 10 ppl a day]. Who cares about 16 top sites... or TBP and WBB.

</comment><comment><USER16> So why are they ignoring the big ones? Like for example ThePirateBay is a .org address which falls under US regulation?

<comment><USER17> Simply because ThePirateBay uses a domain register that is not located in US.

Most confiscated domains have registered with GoDaddy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> what are the domain names that American government cant steal - .com . net. org domains are regulated by the U.S. it seems,

what about .me domains, .to , .in domains - i have heard that .me domain is also regulated from the US although it is a Montenegro domain

<comment><USER5> It comes down to which specific registrars will listen to the US government when Uncle Sam tells the registrar to point the TLD dns entries for the domain to ICE's dns server.

I do not know what happens when multiple registrars update the TLDs with conflicting information? Is that allowed? Can ICANN intervene and force a TLD update, bypassing a registrar?

<comment><USER2> with ICE, they go straight to Verisign with ICANN consent and take the domain at the root without involving the registers.

The way it works is that registrars for .COM and .NET work with Verisign who runs on the root name servers for those TLDs. It used to be Internic which was operated by Network Solutions, which was bought by Verisign but then NS was later spun back off, but Verisign kept the root name servers. .ORG was given to another organization at some point to manage.</comment></comment></comment>


How to Get an Influencer's Attention - <AUTHOR> http://www.techipedia.com/2010/influencer-attention/

<comment><USER2> I find who is NOT in the list interesting. While I certainly am not condemning the article, it is interesting that no one who is highly technical is in the list. Where are the 21st century Andy Groves, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Nolan Bushnell? The marketers and the popularizers (not to say PR men, because that is apparently a bad thing to be) are the ones determining the next big thing, and not Linus Torvalds, or Lars Rasmussen or anyone from ARM.

Or are those guys just too busy building the things that'll change the world to be out twittering or blogging about it?

<comment><USER3> As the author of this post, I wanted to let you know that this post wasn't intended for a highly technical audience.

I mentioned in the comments that I explicitly reached out to the influencers in the "new media" sphere because they'd be a lot more responsive than, say, Bill Gates or Steve Jobs.

Maybe you're right, though, I should have given it a try. I don't know what Bill Gates's email address is. I do know Steve's, but my experience from emailing him is that he won't even bother to respond. Some "influencers" put themselves on a pedestal and don't bother engaging. Steve is one of those holier-than-thou types.

I focused on those who had an audience online for that very reason.</comment></comment>


Just connecting to Milan airport WiFi sends your MAC address to advertisers - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/pimterry/status/1192028773526441985 <comment><USER2> I'm not an expert on GDPR but if PII is being collected and distributed/sold without explicit consent that sounds like it should be a legal liability. What is the per-violation fine for things like this under the GDPR?

<comment><USER3> 5% of your gross income

<comment><USER4> Correction: the _maximum_ fine is 4% of annual income or €20 million, whichever is greater.

There is also no guarantee of any fine, see vertex-four's comment. For something like this I expect they will simply be warned to fix their WiFi and won't actually be fined unless they continue being in violation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems irrelevant taking into account you don't expose your MAC address when you connect to the Internet (unless the access point is compromised, as is the case).

<comment><USER2> The owner of the AP can track you by MAC; if the advertisers have agreements with WiFi providers and software that works with the AP hardware to track by MAC then they can definitely track someone that way. Sounds like something Google would do...</comment></comment>


Applications open for winter 2009 YC funding - <AUTHOR> http://ycombinator.com/w2009.html <comment><USER2> For all those applying, I have some advice: I live well. I live very well, and all I do is sell software online. I got rich the moment I stopped chasing the startup dream.

I used to think that I could become a millionare by having one big software hit that would get bought by Microsoft and I'd never have to work on it again.

After a series of disappointments, I decided to stop chasing this dream, and instead just sell software online. Now I work very little, and I work on things I enjoy doing, and I earn way more money monthly than I can spend.

I'm pointing out that you don't need to create a calender widget or some time monitoring software to become rich. You can also just make a normal product that people want (for example Tax entry software), and sell it for a price that people are willing to pay ($300), and you'll make good money.

Play the lottery, but don't give up your entire life in the hope of a better life.

<comment><USER3> If you don't have a family to support, my advice is to ignore the above advice.

<comment><USER4> I really do hate that type of statement - why do people feel they can't have a family in order to make it in the startup world? I'm married, have a mortgage, have car payments, pets, etc. My income is the sole income of our household at the moment and my wife is excited every time I start a new project, regardless of the risk.

If we lost our house, cars, etc on a gamble and had to rebuild, we'd still be alive and do what we have to do to rebuild. BFD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To anyone on the fence about applying, I suggest going for it- after interviewing with the folks at Y Combinator I walked way incredibly impressed with each and every one of them, from the intellect brought to the conversation to their flexibility with the odd circumstances we brought to the interview.

All of the YC founders I've met speak highly of their experience and wouldn't trade it for the world- with every founder I've met and asked if they found it was worthwhile, the answer was an unequivocal yes. Give it a go and see what happens, the worst that can happen is you're no worse off than you are today.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd like to apply, but i don't want to apply as a sole founder. Is anyone else in the same position? Shoot me a message, maybe we can work something out.

<comment><USER7> Similar position, but here's the thing:

        How long have the founders known one another and how did you meet? Have any of the founders not met in person?

I think "cofounder" is in the same zone as "wife" in terms of trust required.

Would someone with experience in the area comment on the merits of "marriages of convenience" in the cofounding of startups?

When I asked jl at startupschool where most people met their cofounders, she said friends at school.

<comment><USER8> _I think "cofounder" is in the same zone as "wife" in terms of trust required._

Now would be the time to start building the relationship for the next funding cycle. It'll give you time to try out working together and build a prototype to show off. Maybe you'll click immediately, and maybe you'll have a kickass weekend of coding together (remotely together is fine, too...Open Source projects often exist for years with the developers never meeting in person--my co-founder and I had worked together for about five years before meeting) and produce some sort of prototype. Sometimes things Just Work.

 _Would someone with experience in the area comment on the merits of "marriages of convenience" in the cofounding of startups?_

It's happened, but nobody is going to recommend you start a business with a total stranger. But, if the choice is "start working with a stranger today to find out if we click as a team, or wait indefinitely until I know someone well enough to start a company with them" the answer is, obviously, try working together. If it works, great! If it doesn't, you're out a couple of months, and you've found out that this person isn't right for you. Make sure you establish some ground rules when code begins showing up, so you can divide or give up on the spoils and move on without animosity, but otherwise, digging in and working is the only way to know if you'll work well with someone.

You'll never know until you try, and if you can build a working demo and get along great, having a "wrong" answer to that one question will not prevent you from getting into YC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Do any founders have other commitments between June and August 2008 inclusive?" -- probably not relevant to the January to March 2009 cycle.

Also, it's nice to see the weed-out question added: "Are any of the following true?"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, fixed.

(We added that question last cycle. There are no changes to the questions this time.)

<comment><USER10> One or more founders will keep their current jobs during the summer.

Shouldn't that be winter?

<comment><AUTHOR> Argh, fixed, thanks.

<comment><USER10> The Apply button on the footer still goes to S2008 too :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Repl that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hey

PG, we've built a product similar to a product you have already funded. Whats your policy on issuing funding to a similar services, albeit marginally.

<comment><USER12> I was meeting with some guys that funded both XM and Sirius. Others were confused why they invested in both, in a space with only two real players. Their logic was clear: we will be invested in the winner. It paid off greatly.

<comment><USER13> a hedge?

<comment><USER14> Sort of. But more like an index-fund for the whole - but very small - market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've never liked that the product description comes before the pain statement. If the product description makes the pain statement obvious then it isn't needed at all, but if not then it seems like the problem with the status quo should come first to put the product into context.

</comment><comment><USER16> If possible, maybe YC could do a third session per year with a smaller batch.

<comment><USER17> And a fourth, during the fourth of july weekend. :)

<comment><USER16> :) YC is an idea that is hard to scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> That seems really early... is it normally around this time?

<comment><AUTHOR> People were sending us a lot of emails asking about applying. The deadline's still around the same time.</comment></comment>


A Practical, Purely Functional Game Engine, and Why It Matters to You... or Not - <AUTHOR> http://programmer-gone-mad.blogspot.com/2014/09/introducing-nu-game-engine-worlds-first.html

<comment><USER2> Really big words on how c++ should be abandoned for games from a guy that has simply made a 2d game engine with F#...

Until there is a 3d game engine written in purely functional style that produces good results, the question is open.

<comment><AUTHOR> Putting 3D into the engine is a nearly trivial matter (it is in fact planned if I can ever find some support for development). 2D was simply a scoping decision.

Have you ever developed a 3D game engine? I have, several in fact, and you can either trust me or do your own research, but the difference in feasibility is moot when it comes to FP.

<comment><USER2> I actually participate, as we speak, in the development of a MMORPG, which uses its own hand crafted 3d game engine in c++ and Java.

Although the project is in c++/Java, it faces numerous challenges regarding performance, so I really really doubt that it can be done in a functional programming language.</comment></comment></comment>


The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2B on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels - <AUTHOR> https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/the-pentagon-is-spending-2-billion-on-soviet-style-arms-for-syrian-rebels <comment><USER2> The same documents confirm the CIA has been arming Al Qaeda in Syria. Scroll down to the last map[1] which shows CIA weapons went directly to Idlib province (northwest section in green) and the Golan border region (south). Both of these areas were and continue to be occupied by Al Qaeda. Idlib specifically is where genocidal cleansing of religious minorities was confirmed to be conducted by Al Qaeda "rebels" directly assisted by CIA weapons.[2]

[1][https://www.occrp.org/assets/makingakilling/MapOfSyriaIraq.p...](https://www.occrp.org/assets/makingakilling/MapOfSyriaIraq.png) [2][https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2016-01-19/ass...](https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/syria/2016-01-19/assad- has-it-his-way)

<comment><USER3> At this point, is anybody surprised by this? It's quite clear that when it comes to sponsoring groups in the Middle East, we just throw money/weapons at anyone, no matter who they are.

<comment><USER4> I've been saying this for years. "The CIA created ISIS. Not just funded, but created the situation where such organizations could come up."

I constantly get criticized for this. "No, of course America isn't funding ISIS. We're fighting them." I then talk about The Bay of Pigs, the 1973 Coupe in Chile, Iranian Contras, The School of the Americas ... a criminal rap sheet that shows a pattern of sociopathhy by the US government -- and Syria fits that pattern: arm ISIS, bomb Assad and then bomb ISIS too .. we're creating and fighting all the wars.

I'm not surprised, but the majority of Americas would be .. if this appeared on CNN, NPR or a major media outlet. Otherwise it's "fake news."

When sales for 1984 went up after the Trump election, I was greatly disheartened. It meant the current administration had commandeered the minds of people to think that now was the age of Orwell, when in reality, we've been in 1984 long before I was born and long before my parents were born.

<comment><USER5> Setting aside every other part of this discussion:

I don't think a state actor can be accurately described as sociopathic. The expectations and interactions among nations are fundamentally different from those among people.

<comment><USER6> Then why is it so many other countries don't act as we do? USSR under Joe did; that's hardly a ringing endorsement. Any Scandinavian country would be a good counter argument. Finland has withstood Soviet/Russian intimidation for more than seven decades without running around instigating insane, right-wing police states across the Globe.

<comment><USER7> > Then why is it so many other countries don't act as we do?

That's simple: they're weak and can't get away with it. The baseline conduct of nation states is basically that of fairly rational psychopaths, capable of evaluating what they can get away with. Deviations from that norm are mostly reminiscent of irrational psychopaths. Anyone who expects "moral", "just" or "trustworthy" behavior from a nation state is just out of their mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The US is literally sponsoring Al-Qaeda and its affiliates in Syria to fuel the proxy war against Russia and Iran and to hinder their fight against ISIS and other jihadi groups. It's 1980s all over again and a 16th anniversary of 9/11\. No lessons learned.

<comment><USER9> So all Russia and Iran are doing is just trying to defend against ISIS? That's certainly one interpretation I suppose.

<comment><USER8> At this point, they are trying to support a secular and a relatively liberal (relative to an alternative) regime against ISIS and other jihadis, yes. To see an alternative, take a look at Libya after Gaddafi where there are literally slave markets in 2017.

<comment><USER4> Fun fact, Gaddafi didn't run the country. No media outlets reported on the democratically elected head of state in Libya. They also didn't report on the free electricity, subsidized housing, subsidized fuel, free education and the fact that Libya was stable and in no debt to the WMF.

Now they are in debt to the WMF, are a totally non-stable state ravaged with crime and their slowly progressively moving government has reverted decades in terms of democracy and human rights. It's a mini-Iraq with less than 1/8 of the news coverage.

<comment><USER10> Free is only free until your money runs out. Look at Venezuela, the government gave the things you listed as free until they couldn't.

<comment><USER11> You could say that about almost any Petro State, including Saudi Arabia. Libya's tremendous energy reserves plus small urban population made it that much more easy to offer freebies to all the citizens who asked for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The better link is the whole project page:

[https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/](https://www.occrp.org/en/makingakilling/)

>Since the outbreak of war in Syria, weapons from Central and Eastern Europe have flooded the conflict zone through two distinct pipelines – one sponsored by Saudi Arabia and coordinated by the CIA, and the other funded and directed by the Pentagon.

>A series of investigations by the Balkan Investigative Reporting Network (BIRN) and the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project (OCCRP) have brought to light these multi-billion-dollar weapons deliveries -- exposing the misleading and potentially illegal documents on which they rely, the shady dealers at its heart of the trade, and the governments that have profited from the war.

<comment><USER13> Anyone got a tl;dr about the motive behind all this? What does the US government gain by flooding the middle East with weapons?

<comment><USER9> Broadly, America has traditionally supported Sunni leaning states, most notably Saudi Arabia. Russia has traditionally supported Shia Iran, and both the powers are competing for influence within the region.

In the course of the Arab Spring, the legitimacy of many ME leaders/dictators was questioned, among the most notable of these was the rule of Bashar al- Assad of Syria. A popular local outpouring of resentment against his regime was coopted and inflamed by hardline Sunni extremists, many of these being veterans of the Iraq War or younger generations of recuits. This escalated into a full civil war, which quickly turned into a proxy battle for control over Syria, which heretofore had been a Russian proxy state, with a large air base.

While the United States has been arming anti-Assad (who also are notably anti- American) forces, Russia has been targeting civilian population centers (with both conventional and chemical weapons) to first create then inflame the Syrian refugee crisis, driving political instability first throughout Turkey then the EU - both sides seeking to ratchet up the pressure on terms favorable to them.

The tl;dr is a civil war turned proxy war is creating some of the most acute human suffering present in our world today.

<comment><USER14> Oh wow.

The refugee crisis unfolded years before Russia even entered the conflict. Accusing them of creating it now is silly. Nor did Russia have a large air base in Syria until last year. Nor did the Russians supply or use chemical weapons. In fact, they earnestly tried to do the opposite - take Assad's chem weapons away (though they obviously failed).

The thing about Russia targeting civilians is curious to me. Is Russia killing civilians in Syria? Sure. Are Russians doing it on purpose, as part of their strategy? That I am not so sure about. I suspect it has more to do with urban nature of the conflict, low-precision bombs, bad intel, and yes - I have to admit - the traditionally lower value Russians place on human life (including their own). But as a part of some grand genocidal strategy that Western press attributes to the Russians? Probably not.

Case in point, when US aviators were bombing Mosul, they were also killing hundreds of civilians in the process (see links below). Despite the fact, no one has accused the US of specifically targeting civilians. All civilian deaths were chalked up to mistakes, rather than evil intent.

But in Russia's case, it's a strategy. Beats me why.

[1] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis- syr...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/isis-syria-iraq- air-strikes-civilians-killed-injured-casualties-children-mosul-offensive- latest-war-a7771146.html)

[2] [https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-13/were-high-civilian- ca...](https://www.pri.org/stories/2017-07-13/were-high-civilian-casualties- mosul-unavoidable)

<comment><USER9> >The refugee crisis unfolded years before Russia even entered the conflict. Accusing them of creating it now is silly. Nor did Russia have a large air base in Syria until last year. Nor did the Russians supply or use chemical weapons. In fact, they earnestly tried to do the opposite - take Assad's chem weapons away (though they obviously failed).

Correct, I misspoke earlier - the Russians did not create the refugee situation - but they have certainly inflamed and weaponised it. In addition to targeting civilian population centers with indiscriminate munitions, they have also shut down legal asylum from Syria into Russia, claiming that Syria is safe for its residents. Again, it does this so the refugees are forced to flow eastward into turkey then Greece, despite Syria being a proxy state and Russia owing some form of assistance. They've compounded these issues by spreading disinformation in Europe, planting stories of fake rapes and murders by Syrian refugees in European media, again to sow distrust and create political instability. And I'm thoroughly unconvinced about the efforts of Russians to find and confiscate chemical weapons - they only agreed to the deal in the first place to mitigate the chance of Americans opening direct military operations after the red line violation, and as you've alluded to, there have been plenty of chemical weapon attacks since then.

And to fend of further misrepresentations of my words, I never said Russia's goal is to kill civilians - again their goal is to destroy their homes and communities, so that they are forced to become refugees. By closing its own borders it's making sure other countries have to bare the burden of its operations - this is what the NATO commander meant when he said Putin is trying to use Syrian refugees to break NATO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I doubt I would have read this article (through HN) if the submitter hadn't added "Falsifies End User Documents" to the submission title (actual title of the article is "Revealed: The Pentagon Is Spending Up To $2.2 Billion on Soviet-Style Arms for Syrian Rebels"). So I'm glad that technical detail was emphasized, because a lot of this story deals with technicalities. It's not a secret that the Pentagon spends hundreds of millions to fund rebel groups -- as the article points out, they put out press releases and official PowerPoints about it. But what is interesting is the obfuscation of details, such as the special ops "end-user certificate" which is so vaguely worded that it basically implies the Pentagon could transfer weapons to anyone it feels like. "NATO allies and partners" instead of "Republic of Iraq", for instance.

I loved the example of one of the publicly-available arms contracts being altered after reporters sent questions; even in something as big as arms deals and proxy wars, someone in the bureaucracy will fuck up the paperwork: [https://www.occrp.org/assets/makingakilling/pentagon- procure...](https://www.occrp.org/assets/makingakilling/pentagon-procurement- database.png)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you. That was the point of my submission. The importance of the article is not so much that the US is funding weapons to Syria (as many commenters have said, that's unsurprising); the key point here is that they are using nefarious means to do it, and thereby undermining international law and control mechanisms such as the UN Arms Trade Treaty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This article makes it sound like the program is ongoing, but I am not sure how to reconcile this with stories like this, which claim that the program has been cancelled: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/trump...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/trump-ends-covert-cia-program-to-arm-anti-assad-rebels-in-syria-a- move-sought-by- moscow/2017/07/19/b6821a62-6beb-11e7-96ab-5f38140b38cc_story.html?utm_term=.6759fb36cb24)

Does anyone have insight here?

<comment><USER17> The WaPo is not an independent reporting body, its parent group Amazon, has juicy contracts from the CIA, you can trust nothing it prints.

<comment><USER18> Amazon is not WaPo's parent; Bezos owns it independently of Amazon.

<comment><USER19> Still a conflict of interest.

<comment><USER20> If you're a conspiracy theorist, sure. Why would WaPo write negatively about the CIA if that were the case?

<comment><USER21> >Why would WaPo write negatively about the CIA if that were the case?

To distract from something else or to downplay their ill deeds or to explain what they did in completely different context so that the real intent can be hidden.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is no way for a group like ISIS to exist in the modern world without support from a major power.

The dichotomy of arming and supporting extremists and those who support global extremism like SA on one side while accelerating surveillance programs at home to protect yourself from the same extremists is diabolical, something a truly despotic state can pull off.

They would have to have near complete control or a pliant media, civil institutions, academia and a passive citizenry to pull it off.

</comment><comment><USER23> It's a valuable story to tell, but I wouldn't leap to any conclusions:

Why shouldn't the Pentagon be arming allies in the Syrian civil war? Speaking very generally, I hope they do support those resisting Assad, Iran, and Russia. There is nothing necessarily nefarious in arming allies, and it's better than sending your own people to fight and die.

However, I'm surprised it's going on:

First, the Obama administration was accused of being too cautious in arming anyone, not only in Syria but in Ukraine. (I read that they studied the issue, and concluded that the tactic of arming insurgents rarely worked out well, and often resulted in the arms falling into the wrong hands. I don't know how much that study influenced their decisions, however.) Obama was in office until January, so Trump would only have had a few months to setup and execute this multi-billion dollar program, including procurement, international logistics, and more.

Second, the Trump administration has announced they are abandoning the rebels, except when they are fighting ISIL, and accommodating Assad and the Russians (and as a result, their ally the Iranians).

So under what and whose policy are the Syrian rebels being armed?

</comment><comment><USER24> So does paying taxes in the US qualify as funding terrorism?

</comment><comment><USER25> One of the stipulations for supplying these militas with BGM-71 TOW anti-tank missile launchers is to upload a video of them shooting their target to youtube.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW#2011:_Syrian_Civil_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BGM-71_TOW#2011:_Syrian_Civil_War)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/search?q=syria+tow&re...](https://www.reddit.com/r/CombatFootage/search?q=syria+tow&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all)

</comment><comment><USER26> It always surprises me that those intelligence agencies obviously think this is worth it, considering they certainly must be aware of all the potential drawbacks that occur when you fuel war and instability like that.

They must operate with totally different views of what constitute "good" and "bad" outcomes of the whole conflict. I guess you can justify all of that by just being cynical enough, but I'd like it if the military (at least in democratic countries) had to make their rationale for heating up conflicts transparent to the civilian world.

<comment><USER21> It's not very surprising. It's very simple. They serve people who benefit as long as there is conflict.

If there is conflict:

\- there will be multiple groups who want to defeat each other

\- you can sell weapons to the richest of those groups

\- you can sell weapons to third party governments (who use money collected forcefully from the public) to "fix the problems" caused by the conflict

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Several comments here blame profits of the military-industrial complex as motivation for these arm exports, yet these weapons are produced in former USSR countries not in the US.

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned here yet, since it's even in the title of the article. Of course, there are still profits for the US military- industrial complex. For instance the article states that "US-based Alliant Techsystems Operations" has a contract for buying these weapons from countries like Bulgaria. In addition, one can cynically assume that heating up the conflict will increase demand for US involvement and subsequent increase demand for US weapons. Still, I find it interesting, that after initially arming rebels with US weapons, the US switched to soviet-style weapons. According to the article, the rebels "were already using and familiar with" the soviet-style weapons. I would say that makes sense, but would hardly be a deal breaker if your main motivation was selling US weapons. This is not meant to defend US policies, but I think their geopolitical motivations are much more important than mere profit seeking and corruption.

By the way, this seems to be a very well researched article, thanks for the submission @rapeofthelocke.

<comment><AUTHOR> Pleasure. Keep following OCCRP: they are the world's best kept secret in investigative reporting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Saddest thing is that most Americans are brainwashed by one sided mass media to think that USA is doing good and righteous deeds. Sad truth is that USA is for a century producing countless wars for its own interest, in which millions of inosent people died and left many regions in ruin and in bad relationships to its neighbors. Btw, i witnessed two of those pointless wars. Last time when as a kid in a capitol of Europe, Belgrade, bombs and tomahawks were falling on my city. Painfully pointless and sad.

<comment><USER24> The winners will always have the privilege of rewriting history to make themselves look righteous. If Germany had won WWII, it would be the same thing except with a different set of ruling elites.

Perhaps we need to consider that governments as they exist today do not work, especially when power is held in the hands of so few people. The US congress (which has the power to kill people) is only made up of 100 senators, which is supposed to represent the views of ~325 million people. Doesn't that seem a little fishy? In the age of the internet, why can't everyone with a computer or cell phone participate in policy making?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> if anyone hasn't seen the movie "lord of war" with nic cage, i highly recommend it. it deals with these kinds of issues.

</comment><comment><USER30> Aaaand the story is pushed down: [https://i.imgur.com/TTTvpPy.png](https://i.imgur.com/TTTvpPy.png)

</comment><comment><USER31> This is a damned if we do damned if we don't sort of situation. People are horrified by Assad's regime, so the US is called to take action. Arming rebels is one way it has taken action. Unfortunately in a situation as complex as Syria some of those weapons inevitably fall into the hands of rebels groups we do not want to be associating with.

On the other hand if the US were to do nothing, people would decry the injustice of such a powerful nation ignoring - tacitly accepting - the mass murder of civilians.

There are no good answers here.

Edit: Any country, not just the US, that tried to get involved in foreign affairs to the degree that the US has would inevitably have negative outcomes. Involving oneself in messy situations usually leads to messy conclusions.

<comment><USER32> It's not people are horrified by Assad's regime at all. That's just a line to sell a war in newspapers. There are much much worse governments than Assad in the world. Some are nominally our friends. Some we just ignore because they aren't in strategically important locations or don't have resources of interest.

I thought it was commonly understood at this point that "spreading democracy and human liberty" translated to "strategic significance". Which I'd feel a lot better about if they just came out and said. I might even support the campaigns if a good argument were made. But being deceived leaves a bad taste in the mouth and you start not trusting.

<comment><USER31> You're much too cynical. We support democratic nations and try to set up democracy and liberal institutions when situations present themselves. We don't completely shut out nations like Saudi Arabia because there is more to be gained by working with them than against them. What would you want the US to do, invade Saudi Arabia because we disagree with it?

<comment><USER28> who gave you the right to invade anyone on that matter? people will disagree all the time. if iran or somalia or kuba or whomever disagree how USA is governed, does it give them right to invade you? and will you have the same opinion if USA were to be weak and they had the power to do it?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


We have 32 and 64-bit CPUs, why not a 128-bit CPU? - <AUTHOR> https://m.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ke0o5/we_have_32_and_64bit_cpus_why_not_a_128bit_cpu/ <comment><USER2> Things like encryption would certainly benefit from 128-bit operations. The trend seems to be to implement instructions for the encryption algorithms rather than instructions that would generically accelerate encryption algorithms, so the usefulness of 128-bit operations is diminished.

The other major computational area that historically benefited from larger machine word sizes was HPC. HPC applications seem to be fine with 64-bit precision, so there is no motivation for it from them unlike how there was with 64-bit.

With the exception of the SGI UV2000 and SGI UV3000, people are not using the 46-bit physical address space available on 64-bit Intel processors, so the necessity of increasing memory address sizes from 64-bits is quite far away. We would need ~18 die shrinks before 64-bit physical memory becomes limiting to us in the same way 46-bit physical memory is now.

If we assume that we can continue doing die shrinks until we reach a single silicon atom that has a diameter of 210 pm, we would be able to do another 6 die shrinks (14nm -> 210pm) before hitting the limits of miniaturization, although most people seem to think we can only do 3 or 4 more. Wikipedia lists 10nm, 7nm and 5nm, with a half node at 4nm:

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

Assuming that people do manage to do those 6, we would need the equivalent of 12 more in addition to those 6 for 64-bit to be as limiting as 46-bit is today. 3D might help, although we would be talking about 4096 layer chips and there is still heat dissipation to consider, which would probably require enough volume that more layers would be needed to make up for it. Memristors might help there, but they would need to be shrunken down to physical limits too. We are a long way from machines needing more than 64-bit memory addresses.</comment>


New Jersey Town Set to Ban Drivers Who Don't Live There Because of GPS Apps - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/new-jersey-town-set-to-ban-drivers-who-dont-live-there-1821580916 <comment><USER2> Fantastic! One possible way to get around critics maybe to make all the town roads toll roads with a toll of $200 except for card holders. And only residents can get cards.</comment>


Huawei confirms it has built its own mobile operating system - <AUTHOR> https://www.scmp.com/tech/big-tech/article/3001685/huawei-confirms-it-has-built-its-own-operating-system-just-case-us <comment><USER2> Sounds good to me. Software companies are no longer independent of the local government. Doesn't make sense for a country's companies to be beholden to software from other countries that is riddled with backdoors for their intelligence agencies.

</comment><comment><USER3> This highlights the absolute crazy situation smartphone manufacturers have let themselves into.

They have let Google put them on a leash.

</comment><comment><USER4> Note: 14 Mar 2019

They've seen this coming for a while.</comment>


A Non-Blocking HashTable - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2007/03/a_nonblocking_h.html

<comment><USER2> For the impatient, here's a pastebin with the actual code:

<http://java.pastebin.ca/1298391>

A followup article to this one includes a link to his sourceforge project:

[http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2007/04/nonblocking_has.h...](http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/2007/04/nonblocking_has.html)</comment>


My Response to the Accusation that Nerds are Misogynistic - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/QXsFTNvE

<comment><USER2> (Holy shit! My apologies for the length and, at times, the tone. Take it with a grain of salt if you want to. All this just resonated with me and it comes from a desire to help, not criticize!)

> You don't know what it's like to be in my shoes. To be extremely lonely with > no friends. To have nothing but your intelligence to keep you company. To > change your patterns of living, the places you eat, and the paths you walk, > just to avoid certain social situations. To stay confined to one place for a > while because to get to where you want to be, you have to pass through an > anxiety-zone to get there.

I know what's it like to be in your shoes. You're describing me, or at least who I have been for a long time, to a tee! I can elaborate, but suffice it to say it's pretty much as you describe. It even made me consider suicide for a while.

But more importantly, _tons_ of people know what it's like (especially in this corner of the world).

It's just that 1) we're not very visible in popular culture on account of it not being that interesting to watch an episode of a guy sit at a computer by himself, and 2) lonely people, by definition, don't meet lonely people.

A very, _very_ common and _very_ harmful defense mechanism that I've seen and experienced is to blame others for this, and to develop a sense of arrogance ("nothing but your intelligence"). While this is understandable, I think it's completely untrue and most importantly: it's utterly pointless. Even _if_ it's true, it's not going to change how you feel, it's not changing anything and, worse, will make you focus on these negative emotions.

It's a downward spiral. Your resentment or anger prevents you from seeing those instances where people _do_ reach out, because you're too busy feeling bad for yourself. The arrogance you develop as a defense mechanism (however subconscious this process might be) makes you insufferable, and, well, that's what we call a self-fulfilling prophecy.

And you know what? Even _that_ is utterly common. There are tons of very social people who exactly the way you do: lonely, bitter, angry, and entitled/arrogant. It's just that their particular spiral just looks different: they might become drama kings or queens, and they flit from friendship to friendship and relationship to relationship because nobody can stand them in the long run.

Now let me be less harsh and comment as constructively as I can on some specific things you say that stand out to me:

> We can't hit you. Then you turn around and think you can slap me? Please. > Don't slap me or I'm going to be really tempted to slap you back.

As a rule, I don't hit girls. There are all sorts of good reasons why this rule is good. But there have been few occasions, few and far between, where I warned a repeat-hitter (of the non-playful style of hitting) to cut it out or I'll hit her back, 'conventions' be damned. And it's happened that I did physically restrain or push a girl after she'd continue to be abusive.

Now, I never outright hit a woman, but that's because it was never necessary. Maybe one day I might hit a woman. But you know what? It's not relevant. It never happens, as I don't hang around women who punch me. If you do, then stop doing that.

But letting that happen and making conclusions about 'women' seems like a bit of a silly thing to do. It's like concluding all black people are thieves because you decide to walk around in a gang-area with money flapping out of your pockets.

But it does fit in the victim-role that I've once taken on, for understandable reasons, and that you might find yourself taking on currently.

> Women can be ruthless. It's not just men.

Yes, they're human, and a lot of humans are shitty excuses for humans. But I know very few people who think otherwise, and that includes people who are bit too far on the militant feminism side of things. And again, why not just avoid people who claim that women are _not_ ruthless.

> And a lot of this is that I don't get it. I don't. I am horrible socially.

You probably are. So was I, and I still am in many ways. That's why I like to spend a lot of days alone with a computer, or the comfortably-distant company of people on IRC or Hacker News. That way I can think about my responses and not feel anxious.

The moment I realized that _it is okay to be an introvert or loner_ , I became much happier. And as a result I found it easier to go out and learn to socialize and deal with my anxiety find a balance. I will always be more anxious kind of person, but that is why I seek out people who suit me in that way. Other geeks are great for that.

But acceptance is key to this, and resentment and arrogance keep you from accepting yourself, and then figuring out how else you could be.

> When will being a beta male be OK?

Go to a tech meetup. A programming camp. Stuff like that. Talk to a psychologist. The world is filled with beta males and nobody cares. Nice people care that you are _nice_ , and even plenty of 'alpha' males, hot and social girls, and whatnot, can enjoy the company of nice beta-males. I've experienced that, and it still surprises me sometimes that once you're out of the high-school clique-mentality, we nerds can offer a lot to others.

Once I lost my anger and resentment, and decided to accept my nerdy, anxious, socially-inept selp, I gradually became the guy people wanted to be friends with. The guy who you talk to about serious stuff. The guy who gets carried away by some nerdy topic, but isn't that kinda funny and interesting and you can just tell him to shut up already and watch the football. The guy who girls of many varieties like because he's got a mind that he likes to use, and despite his oddness, he _cares_ about them and _respects_ them (and even alpha males need nerd-love!).

> And I have to take you out, pay for your dinner, and your concert tickets > [etc.]

No you don't. Part of the problem is that you don't really know what you 'have' to do, on account of being so stuck in your notions of what this 'outside' world is like. If I'm on a date, I usually split the bill. Or I pay if I feel like it and if I like the girl enough to conform to 'conventions' that might exist.

If she cares that I don't pay, that's the last date.

Just to be clear, I could be off about you. I'm just trying to interpret what you're saying. But if you don't feel I'm being accurate, my apologies. I'm just sharing this out of frustration over having seen so many people get lost in loneliness (or even depression or homelessness) for precisely the reasons I describe.

The core mechanism is simple:

1\. person can't 'function' in a way they themselves desire, for a variety of reasons (mental issues, personality, personal history, etc). 2\. person gets understandably sad and frustrated and lonely, and nobody seems to care 3\. person develops a constant feeling of inferiority and failure, and their mind shields them from this through inflated ego, arrogance, entitlement, controlling behavior, extreme introspection (leading to a false 'understanding' of the world) and a variety of other defense mechanisms. 4\. these two seemingly opposite things interact to both confirm his negative feelings, and further destroy his sense of self-worth and self-acceptance.

The only way out is to suck it up, seek professional help, learn to be a nice person, learn to comfortably reject shitty people (as a result of having the self-worth and awareness to do so), and avoid especially the isolating, 'I am a special snowflake' type of thinking, again and again.

I can still fall into the snowflake trap, as I am a self-involved human like anyone else. But it's easier for me to get out of that now by remembering that I am not alone, my problems are _shockingly_ common, and that everyone needs good people to offset the shit that happens. Trying to be such a good person, and finding help for my particular problems, has make me so much happier than I've been for most of my life.

> I'm just so tired of everyone yelling this, that, and the other thing, and > missing the picture that is mental illness

You (and I) might have legitimate issues, but the only purpose of labeling them as illness is if we go and find a cure. Otherwise we're just emotional hypochondriacs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps the author is an inadequate human being. Or perhaps he's perfectly fine and everybody around him is broken and twisted. I guess he should find out the answer himself. But a little perspective helps.

I'll risk suggesting some Stefan Molyneux and some Karen Straughan:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-coVbPfh6k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-coVbPfh6k)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PO8J6SGy7o](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PO8J6SGy7o)

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfgbIM3gvyI](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfgbIM3gvyI)

OP: feel free email me if want to bounce off some ideas, be be warned I'm not `nice`.

</comment><comment><USER4> Your sentiments aren't wrong, but your delivery is a bit cringe-worthy at times, and probably isn't gonna get a lot of respect (much less help the cause) as a result.

I highly recommend looking through Karen Straughan's youtube channel [0] to help you gather your thoughts on the matter and deliver arguments in a less 'potentially inflammatory' way; because like it or not, unfortunately this viewpoint is the underdog and is always met with _heavy_ , emotionally charged criticism that doesn't look to understand the logic of the argument first.

Also, despite it's criticisms, the [http://reddit.com/r/mensrights](http://reddit.com/r/mensrights) community is very diverse, understanding and well-reasoned -- unlike a lot of the old cliche misogynistic "No Ma'am"[1] MRA's of the 90's. So if you're looking for support from others who have shared and/or noticed your type of experiences (not just men!), it's a good place to hang out.

Also, here's a good intro to how people usually discover and fall into this rabbithole/problem that's pretty enlightening:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/24lqgf/came_here...](http://www.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/24lqgf/came_here_mislead_i_absolutely_see_nothing_wrong/)

Hope that helps!

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS- fsg](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcmnLu5cGUGeLy744WS-fsg)

[1] [http://www.bundyology.com/nomaam.html](http://www.bundyology.com/nomaam.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. I'm not very good at getting my point across. People are often confused by what I say and I can tell they didn't quite get what I meant. I wish I could get past that.

Thanks for your comment (and the other guy's). I'll look through all the links.

<comment><USER4> Trust me, your phrasing wasn't even bad -- the problem is literally just how _sensitive_ the actual subject is (as I'm sure you've noticed). It's worse than debating race/politics/economy/etc, we just have to tread lighter than walking on eggshells when bringing up these matters in our society unfortunately.

And as you can see, this thread itself has already been flagged from the front pages as a result...

<comment><AUTHOR> This is my first time posting. Was it flagged by a moderator or did it just finally slip off the page?

I'm politically incorrect, and I kind of like it that way. It can cause issues, and sometimes I hurt people I know when I don't want to, but it's hard to have a real discussion when one side is whispering and the other is yelling.

<comment><USER2> I'm sorry for being so 'meta' in here, but here I go again. One thing you could ask yourself is why feel the need to that discussion in the first place.

I have my own thoughts on the male-female dynamic that are by no means mainstream and could offend a whole bunch of people. But rather than inflate a sense of 'disconnect', I now try to find the 'harmony' and to only discuss these things in the right setting and with the right type of people.

In hindsight, I feel that seeking out such discussions was really just a combination of on the one hand confirming how much more unique, smart and reasonable/rational I was in comparisons to other, and on the other hand a way of justifying my inability to deal with the 'otherness' (of women, social people, etc.).

Not only did this behavior actively hurt others at times, it didn't really matter that much to my own life. I could've simply quit engaging with people who disagree with me to the point of 'active' disharmony, and spent my time with people who are more, well, agree-able. Or I could've disliked their beliefs, but given it a rest because in the grand scheme of things not being lonely is often preferable to being 'right' (within certain limits, of course).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Sorry, folks. The LHC didn't find a new particle after all - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2016/08/sorry-folks-lhc-didnt-find-new-particle <comment><USER2> They wrote this editorialized piece of shit based on a single paper from LAST NIGHT?!

When is wired.com shutting down? Soon? Please?</comment>


Show HN: Real Estate property tour builder - <AUTHOR> https://tourzap.com

<comment><USER2> I was an agent a few years ago, side trip from my career.

Agents eat this kind of thing up. If they think it will help, they'll buy it or something like it (and there are somethings like it).

Selling pick axes in Denver is a great business to be in.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool. It would be great to have a quick phone or Skype chat with you to learn from your experience as an agent. Can we touch base via email at obaid[at]tourzap.com -- thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Awesome, great work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks :)</comment></comment>


How  Chrome OS Can Bring Google Revenue - <AUTHOR> http://www.thechromesource.com/5-ways-chrome-os-can-bring-google-revenue/ <comment><USER2> This seems a little naive to me. Google requires you to be logged into a Google account to access the OS. Given that fact they'll have access to everything the user does. So the opportunities to make a profit are endless to the point of being terrifying. They'll be able to datamine your entire Computing experience and they'll have the computing power to combine that with data from other people. "Hey Ford, want to sell some cars? By looking at people's browsing history and calendar appointments we can tell you the hightest concentration of people who need cars will be in these locations at these times"

In that context fees like the $50 a year for Google Apps seem insignificant

<comment><USER3> _Google requires you to be logged into a Google account to access the OS._

Really? I thought it was like Android, where setting up a Google account was encouraged but not mandatory. If that's the case I'm revising my assessment of Chrome OS from "pointless" to "actively dangerous".

<comment><USER4> > _"actively dangerous"_

When was your evil-o-meter last calibrated?</comment></comment></comment>


If the World Could Vote - <AUTHOR> http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/

<comment><USER2> If we did everything the rest of the world wanted, we'd all be speaking German or Russian. The world wanted to appease Hitler, the world wanted to appease Stalin. It took Americans to actually stand up for liberty to bring down the great monoliths of evil.

If we did what the world wanted, we'd be letting the Islamists do whatever they wanted: Cutting off the heads of infidels, cutting off every womens genitals and spreading hate.

<comment><USER3> "World" != "your preselected hateful minority"</comment></comment>


What technical reasons are there to have low maximum password lengths? - <AUTHOR> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/33470/what-technical-reasons-are-there-to-have-low-maximum-password-lengths/33471#33471 <comment><USER2> Doesn't this have to do anything with brute force password cracking and entropy?

Obligatory XKCD reference: [https://xkcd.com/936/](https://xkcd.com/936/)</comment>


Swarming Ai with Quadtrees[game] - <AUTHOR> http://katielefevre.com/

<comment><USER2> it is so addictive I can't stop. I got 10% cleared. Post your score here!</comment>


Show HN: Shareable.Theater – A WebRTC theater for watching things together - <AUTHOR> https://shareable.theater/ <comment><USER2> I really like the idea. Watching stuff together at a distance is great when you can't physically meet up. It would be great to know how this works and the requirements therefore too.

This doesn't work with multicast, does it? I surmise that the bandwidth requirements of the initiator increase linearly with the number of participants, but it would good to put that in the README.

Would also be good to say a word about latency. Will the host (or as they might be known in the project: projector) be 3-5 seconds ahead of the guests?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for taking a look!

This works by creating a p2p RTCPeerConnection between the host (or projectionist) and each member of the audience. So the p2p aspect is a hub and spoke model. The video is captured either from a local video element if you're sharing a local file, or from some part of the projectionist's screen using `getDisplayMedia`, then streamed over that connection. There is a server that's responsible for the signaling required to create those p2p connections, but it's responsibilities end there.

The only requirements are a reasonably new browser and something you want to watch. I suspect that you're right about bandwidth requirements, however I haven't done the experiments to prove it. In terms of latency I haven't noticed anything significant, but I'm sure that's dependent on the bandwidth of the two parties.

If you're at all interested and willing to help improve the README or any part of the project, a pull request would be very welcome!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This project came out of some friends and I missing watching bad movies together. I'm of the mind that writing software takes practice. So it was a great chance to practice general p2p design and specific WebRTC implementation.

The basic idea is, one person can open a theater and share their screen or load a video file. Then anyone with the audience link can watch along with them.

I hope it lets some people enjoy some movies together!

I'd love any and all feedback / contributions to the code [https://github.com/whytheplatypus/shareable.theater](https://github.com/whytheplatypus/shareable.theater)!

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you hit any limitations on what type of media can be played back (resolution, encoding, bitrate, etc)?

We are working on a internal project at work using WebRTC for some non traditional use cases and came across some limitations with large resolution, high bitrate H264 video.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have seen some odd behavior but I haven't had a chance to identify exactly what is causing the limitations. For example one h264 video played correctly on the projectionists browser but resulting stream had a slightly off aspect ratio. I've also seen audio get lost depending on encoding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is great for just sharing a video with my overseas family without uploading it to anywhere</comment>


How the 'Five Eyes' cooked up the campaign to kill Huawei - <AUTHOR> https://www.theage.com.au/business/companies/how-the-five-eyes-cooked-up-the-campaign-to-kill-huawei-20181213-p50m24.html?platform=hootsuite <comment><USER2> I don't think there is a plan to kill Huawei. Look at what happened to ZTE, they were not killed.

Also, look at what Huawei has done in the past to Nortel, Cisco and Motorola. If anything, Huawei's past is coming back to haunt them. It seems their leadership have sought growth and profits at any cost, whether legal or not.

Whatever happens, I don't think Huawei will disappear. Perhaps their leadership will learn from this and they'll be more sensible with their actions in future.

</comment><comment><USER3> > "vendors who are likely to be subject to extrajudicial directions from a > foreign government".

Australian government only allows extrajudicial directions from a local government or an allied foreign government.

</comment><comment><USER4> That is just part 2.

It was preceded by a part 1 : a negative PR campaign run for many months before, to make sure the public would approve going again Huawei.

It was very evident here on HN.

Governments uniting to kill a foreign company. What is the WTO doing? (lol)

<comment><USER5> I think if the public knew what was really going on they would be much more concerned about Huawei. Western companies are getting bombarded by cyber attacks from china and the companies hide these breaches because it would be bad PR for it to get out. A network device isn't a commodity, the manufactures can place backdoors into them that are almost invisible. I don't think the WTO is equipped to handle this. They can't even handle the IP theft lawsuits against china.</comment></comment>


Interdisciplinary and physics challenges of Network Theory - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1509.00345 <comment><USER2> For a great, accessible intro talk on this topic, check out Geoffrey West's "On Complexity":

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFFVSvAr7Wc)

</comment><comment><USER3> I must admit my BS detectors are set off when anyone claims that their own little field of expertise is going to have a major impact on brain dynamics _and_ quantum technologies _and_ quantum gravity.

<comment><USER4> The author is seriously overselling their claim, which is regretably common in the 'complex networks' field.

<comment><USER5> Which claim is she overselling?

It reads like a fairly conservative and well argued call for the continued involvement of theoretical physicists and mathematicians in the already very successful field of complex networks- and this is from one of the best researchers in the field.

She is not claiming network science will take over and be at the heart of everything, but rather that network science has already had great success in widely different areas of science and as domain specialists become increasingly involved, it is important not to lose the focus on the theoretical underpinnings which can be shared across domains.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are there news sites that focus on network theory, complexity theory, chaos theory, information theory, etc?

<comment><USER7> You can check John Baez's Azimuth blog (math oriented) at

[https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com](https://johncarlosbaez.wordpress.com).</comment></comment>


Wikipedia's https certificate expired. - <AUTHOR> https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ninja

<comment><USER2> And it was fixed basically as it broke.

      22:28 Ryan_Lane: restarting apache on singer
      22:19 Ryan_Lane: pushing new star cert to singer
      21:55 RoanKattouw: SSL certificate for secure.wikimedia.org expired about an hour ago, no ops around. I've just texted Ryan

</comment><comment><USER3> Massive certificate warning. Technical words. Expired 5 minutes ago. And I'm using FF4.

Seems like FF continues to have no consideration for the non-technical audience who will click 'Get me out of there' or close the tab. And just because the certificate expired 5 minutes ago.

This is why I'm not forcing https onto visits.

<comment><USER4>
        > the non-technical audience who will click 'Get me out of there' or close the tab.

_This is the right thing to do_. You do not attempt to second-guess a certificate expiration for any reason. If you program in a way to ignore a bad security certificate, I can guarantee you that that will immediately be used to defeat the entire system, and that leads directly to grandmothers giving their credit card details to J. Random Phisher.

<comment><USER3> The standard with scary messages (even a 5 minute expiry) with encrypted connections? Or the one where the standard is unencrypted connections?

This is Wikipedia. Not a bank. I prefer some security over none.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> And it looks like it's back up. Total downtime, about two hours.</comment>


What does it mean to be human? Analysing the genetics of ancient humans - <AUTHOR> https://mosaicscience.com/story/ancient-human-evolution-neanderthal-genetics <comment><USER2> This person has little understanding of evolution or genetics. Seems a strange article to post here.

To be positive the reason the lactase persistence allele has become very frequent in Northern Europe was not due to a population bottle neck, but due to the small selective effect of being able to extract more nutrition from milk than those without it. The people with the gene had more children (on average) that survived to adulthood and so over a couple of thousand years the allele came to become very frequent in some populations. This is evolution in action.

</comment><comment><USER3> >>I am a Londoner, but I'm a little darker than many Englishwomen because my father is originally from Eastern Europe.

for a reasonably "scientific" article this is an odd statement. most R1A eastern european crowds - polish, ukrainian, belorussian, latvian, lithuanian generally look "whiter" then their "western european" counterparts.

<comment><USER2> Not if this is code for Roma.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Sitting in this ancient home, knowing none of them survived to today, is a > poignant reminder of how vulnerable we are – it could so easily have been a > Neanderthal woman sitting here wondering about her extinct human cousins.

but she just said she's 1% Neanderthal...

</comment><comment><USER5> I like this DNA analytics stuff.

Did a 23andme that told me I'm Neanderthal, lol.

Also ~1% irish :3</comment>


Rumor: Google to buy Valve (videogame developer/publisher) - <AUTHOR> http://www.theinquirer.net/gb/inquirer/news/2008/09/17/google-valve

<comment><USER2> "Complete Fabrication."

      I contacted Valve pr man Doug Lombardi who replied to my request for comment on this news with just two words: "complete fabrication."

[http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/09/17/valve-on-rumors- of...](http://multiplayerblog.mtv.com/2008/09/17/valve-on-rumors-of-google- buy-out/)

<comment><USER3> It wouldn't be the first article from this source that was made up out of thin air. It was my first time being on the opposite side of a fabrication recently, and everyone at our company kind of chuckled and said "how did they come up with this stuff?".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would think that most of the bloggers got it all wrong.

If Google have bought Valve, it would not be for the Android app store.

The most obvious reason why Google would buy Valve is that Microsoft is moving aggressively into in-game advertising and by buying Valve, Google just got themselves a massive platform to distribute their future in-game advertising solutions.

<comment><USER5> I hope Valve will be "Still Alive" after it gets bought by Google.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I can't imagine playing a sequel to Portal in a browser.

If it did happen, would Valve members be compensated with stock and cake?

<comment><USER5> Don't you know Cake is a lie. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm actually not sure we should be convinced this will happen since it's just coming from a single rumor from a single news source-- but we'll see how it goes.

I'm a big fan of Valve (I integrated/wrote some popular scripting engines for their Source engine), but I'm not so certain this is a fantastic match. They probably don't need Google and Google doesn't need them-- but while it's not a great idea, it's probably not a bad one.

One thing to note is that not only does this get Google a content distribution network, but Steam also has a community, IM, etc. I don't know any real numbers for who uses those pieces, but it's likely to have grown to become one of the largest gaming social networks. Those have shown to be worth a good bit to the right company (for example, Xfire sold to Viacom for $100 million).

Top that off with the advertisement network and technology Valve integrated already into some games.

So compared to most game companies, I think Valve has some really great business decisions in their portfolio that should make them attractive to pretty much everyone. They took the money from the Half-Life series and created a great game platform, solid titles, an innovative and well- established software distribution network, some in-game advertisement technologies, along with an up-and-coming social network with no sign of slowing-down.

If you're looking to invest in an entertainment company that's built some long-term value, you can do much worse than Valve.

<comment><USER8> Maybe the combination of gaming and info harvesting, like in Google's image labeling game, makes such a merge plausible. Given how much online gaming happens, I think there's a lot of potential there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Excellent! Live clickable ads on the Wall in Half Life! Probably for ammo shops and medical retailers, I suspect.

<comment><USER10> Context sensitive to your text and voice chats, no doubt.

EDIT: just saw this. perfect. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=307061>

FWIW I'm calling bullshit on this story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Valve's Steam system is built around DRM. You can't even play a singleplayer Steam game without a connection to the Internet with Steam phoning home. And it's Windows-only.

What does this have to do with organizing the world's information, what does it have to do with "don't be evil", and what does a computer science outfit know about making stuff that's fun? I don't get it.

<comment><USER12> All I know is I'm still fully addicted to Counter-Strike a full 8 years after I first played it so Steam is alright with me. I don't even remember paying the original fee (maybe $50 years ago), and I don't need to mess with discs or reinstalls. Just download Steam, login to my account and BAM! all my games are downloaded and ready for playing, no patching no mess. Genius.

Now if Valve wanted $50/year to maintain my access to CS:S (something I can see Google doing), I'd find a new game.

<comment><USER13> In TFA, there is much focus on the quality of Steam as a content distribution platform, and it's relevancy to Googles own efforts in that venue.

It sounds more like Google want to use Steam technology in other products, and don't have any particular interest in Valves current business.

<dream class="pipe">Maybe they'll even opensource CS, since cash flow from that is probably pretty insignificant by now, and there's a lot of good-will to obtain.</dream>

<comment><USER12> Open-sourcing CS would be awesome. Bring the game full circle back to the days when it was just a fee mod made by Gooseman and Cliffe. What ever happened to those guys?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It really all does fit together now ...

The Explanation: Goobuntu: the Google desktop operating system. -- [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/31/google_goes_desktop_...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/31/google_goes_desktop_linux/) Glacbook: The first Google laptop (thats a joke)

(what do you need for an os) Web Browser - Check! (Chrome) Value Proposition - Check! (Android) 3d Rendering - Check! (OpenGL ES) Windows application support - Check! ([http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080219-google- intoxic...](http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080219-google-intoxicates- linux-users-with-wine-improvements.html)) Gaming Engine (valve) Application Suite (Google Pack)

</comment><comment><USER15> MTV's 'multiplayer' blog says no. Sorry no link but no copy paste on iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER16> _"Google Content Distribution (Beta) however should make just about every other competitor lose several years of sleep, most of their remaining hair, and large gobs of stock price."_

That's for damn sure.

</comment><comment><USER5> Valve is a great company because of the amazing games it has in its kitty. Games for PC's are not doing great and i am pretty much sure, in couple of years developers will stop making games for PC.

Steam is good content delivery system but will it be able to compete with XBOX Live, i really don't think so. Future for gaming is consoles, most of the in- game advertising will be done by the platform's like Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo.

<comment><USER14> Consoles are ALWAYS going to have a market, and possibly a growing market.

Games are getting harder and more expensive to make, but projects like Irrlicht and Ogre 3d are becoming more complex. As the years go on the paradigm will change from a content centric design in PC games, to a complexity and community centric design philosophy. I can see a time when the community builds the environment within the bounds of the rules of the game engine - and I'm not talking about second life.

And where do you suggest all the millions of Modders will go?

Consoles are becoming computers, and I can guarantee the operating systems will look more and more like a simplified version of windows, or OSX as the years go on.... OpenGL, DirectX will continue to be developed. The simple fact alone that Console games must be developed on a PC is going to keep the PC kicking - it has to run emulated versions of the software that the console (lesser hardware) runs - PC Gaming isn't dead at all ... All you need to realize that is an internet connection and a POGO account. I realize this isn't the market segment you are talking about but the largest private website in the world is an online PC games site (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miniclip>) As long as there is a pc - AND THERE always will be a device that allows for open development, and deployment of software - there will be games (irregardless of how complex) for that platform.

Bottom Line: as long as people have computers they, and their kids are going to want to put games on them.

<comment> ryan-allen "I can see a time when the community builds the environment within the bounds of the rules of the game engine - and I'm not talking about second life."

Hey! Like Spore! I think it's a damn great idea :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hopefully it's because google is working on real portals.

</comment><comment><USER18> oh lawl; [http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/17/google-to-acquire- valve...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/17/google-to-acquire- valve/#comment-2471770) deals an uppercut to TechCrunch and their staff.</comment>


Writing a Simple Linux Kernel Module - <AUTHOR> https://blog.sourcerer.io/writing-a-simple-linux-kernel-module-d9dc3762c234 <comment><USER2> "And finally, you'll need to know at least some C. The C++ runtime is far too large for the kernel, so writing bare metal C is essential."

That line reminded me that NetBSD added Lua for writing kernel modules. ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6562611](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6562611))

Anybody have any experiences to share from this?

<comment><USER3> There are plenty of operating systems that use C++ on the kernel side of things. Some things, like exceptions, are frowned upon and rarely used -- if at all -- but there is no shortage of C++ kernel code. Just not in Linux.

When it comes to Linux, one could say that most reasons to avoid it are historical, but this does not quite paint the awkward truth -- namely that, for most of the kernel's lifetime (since back in 1991), C++ compilers simply did not have the level of maturity and stability across the breadth of platforms that Linux required. Linus Torvalds' stance on this matter is pretty well-known: [http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus](http://harmful.cat-v.org/software/c++/linus) .

Today, when x86-64 and ARM are the only two families that you need to care about in the following ten years or so ( _maybe_ RISC-V but I rather doubt it), it probably makes sense to look at C++ for operating systems work, but the runtime is certainly heavier than back when Linus was writing about it, too. A modern C++ compiler has a lot of baggage; C++ was huge back in 1998, now it's bloody massive. IMHO, all the reasons why you would want to use C++ (templating support without resorting to strange hacks, useful pointer semantics and so on) are reasonably well-served by cleaner languages with less hefty runtimes, like Rust. What these alternatives do lack is the amazing level of commercial support that C++ has.

<comment><USER4> > C++ was huge back in 1998, now it's bloody massive.

I don't think any "run-time" feature was added since, though. It's all either OS support (<thread>, etc, that you wouldn't use in-kernel anyways) or template stuff that has 0 impact on runtime (and actually sometimes helps decreasing code size).

[https://istarc.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/stm32f4-oop-with- emb...](https://istarc.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/stm32f4-oop-with-embedded- systems/)

[https://www.embedded.com/design/programming-languages-and- to...](https://www.embedded.com/design/programming-languages-and- tools/4438660/Modern-C--in-embedded-systems---Part-1--Myth-and-Reality)

[https://hackaday.com/2015/12/18/code-craft-embedding-c- templ...](https://hackaday.com/2015/12/18/code-craft-embedding-c-templates/)

If some guys are able to run c++ on 8kb microcontrollers, there's hardly a non-political reason it couldn't be used in-kernel.

See also IncludeOS: [http://www.includeos.org/](http://www.includeos.org/)

<comment><USER3> Additions have certainly been made since back in 1998 (things like smart pointers are relatively new on this scale, as far as I know). Many runtimes for resource-constrained embedded systems do not support all of C++'s features. Exceptions are the most usual omission.

You can certainly strip things down to a subset that can fit 128K of flash and need only 1 or 2K of RAM at runtime, but the question is not only one of computational resources used for the library itself. Additional code always means additional bugs, the semantics sometimes "hide" memory copying or dynamic allocation in ways that many C++ programmers do not understand (and the ones who do are more expensive to hire than the ones who do not), and so on. You can certainly avoid these things _and_ use C++, but you can also avoid them by using C.

I agree that mistrust and politics definitely play the dominating role in this affair though. I have seen good, solid, well-performing C++ code. I prefer C, but largely due to a vicious circle effect -- C is the more common choice, so I wrote more C code, so I know C better, so unless I have a good reason to recommend or write C++ instead of C, I will recommend or write C instead. I do think (possibly for the same reason) that it is harder to write correct C++ code than it is to write correct C code, but people have sent things to the Moon and back using assembly language for very weird machines, so clearly there are valid trade-offs that can be made and which include using language far quirkier than C++.

<comment><USER5> I absolutely do not understand your point. Anybody doing OS development in C++ is doing so with absolutely no C++ standard library support, same as if you were using C++ to develop for your microcontroller. If C++ binaries are compact enough for Arduino or Parallax Propeller development (<32KB RAM), they are absolutely fine for kernel development.

The real answer is historical, and cultural. On the latter, Unix is a product of C (well, and BCPL) and C is a product of Unix. They two are intertwined heavily. The former is as was mentioned a product of the relative crappiness of early C++ compilers (and the overzealous OO gung-ho nature of its early adopters perhaps as well...)

C++ without exceptions, RTTI, etc. has a lot to offer for OS development. Working within the right constraints it can definitely make a lot of tasks easier and cleaner.

It won't happen in Linux, tho.

<comment><USER6> And lets not forget C++ got created, because Bjarne didn't want to touch C after his experience going from Simula to BCPL, but it had to be compatible with AT&T official tooling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone have a story or two of a time you've created a kernel module to solve a problem? I would be interested in hearing real world use cases.

<comment><USER8> I wrote one so I could keep my job...

I work at a company that provides backups for both Linux and windows. The entire concept was around block level backups. You could just open up the block device and copy the data directly but it would quickly become out of sync by the time you finished copying it. We did not want to require LVM to be able to utilize snapshots to solve the sync problem. On top of that we had a strong requirement of being able to delete data from the backup.

This resulted in me learning how to build a kernel module and then slowly over about 6 months creating a kernel driver that allowed us to take point in time snapshots of any mounted block device with any fs sitting on top.

Other requirements also dictated that we keep track of every block that changed on the target block device after the initial backup (or full block scan, after reboot).

I wish I could release the source but my employers would not like that :( So at least for me learning how to write kernel modules and digging in to some of the lower stuff has keep me gainfully employed over the years. It is still in use on about 250k to 300k servers today (it fluctuates).

The hardest part was not writing the module, but getting others interested in it enough so I don't have to be the sole maintainer. I like working on all parts of the product and don't want to just be the "kernel guy".

One other time I wrote a very poorly done network block device driver in about 8 hours. You can find it here [https://github.com/mbrumlow/nbs](https://github.com/mbrumlow/nbs) \-- Note I am not proud of this code, it was something I did really quick, wanted it on hand to show to a perspective employer -- I did not get the job, I am also fairly sure they did not even look at the driver, so I don't think the crappy code there affected me.

<comment><USER9> So you implemented something like Windows's volume snapshots/shadow copies? (Why couldn't you use the existing feature?)

EDIT: Thanks for both replies! :)

<comment><USER8> Yes, and no.

Windows Volume Shadow Copy has the advantage of being integrated with he FS a bit closer. So in Windows VSS can avoid some overhead by skipping the 'copy' part and just allocating a new block and updating the block list for the file.

For the Linux systems we had the requirement to work with all file systems (including FAT). So we could not simply modify the file system to do some fancy accounting when data in the snapshot was about to be nuked. So that resulted in me writing a module that sits between the FS and the real block driver. From there I can delay a write request long enough to ensure I can submit a read request for the same block (and wait for it to be fulfilled) before allowing the write to pass through.

> (Why couldn't you use the existing feature?) We did on Windows, VSS is used > with a bit of fancy stuff added on top. For Linux there is no VSS equivalent > (other than the one I wrote, and maybe something somebody working on a > similar product may have written). And even if one did come about (or is and > I am just not aware of) it for sure was not available when I started this > project.

<comment><USER10> It sounds like you implemented something very similar to the LVM snapshot feature. You didn't want to require LVM but ... is that really worse than requiring your custom module which is roughly equivalent?

EDIT: ok so it looks like the management of the snapshot space is a _bit_ different. still, you could probably have wrapped LVM management enough to make it palatable, in less than the time it took to write a custom module

<comment><USER8> The problem is requiring LVM is a NOGO if they did not already have LVM. We could have standardized on LVM, but then all the people who were not already using LVM at the time would not be able to use the product. At the time many hosting providers -- who we sold too -- just were not using LVM. We to this day still have many fewer people using LVM than raw block devices, or some sort of raid.

Also at the time LVM snapshots were super slow. I don't have the numbers but even with the overhead my driver created I was able to have less impact on system performance.

I was able to do some fancy stuff to optimize some of the more popular file systems by making inline look-ups to the allocation map (bitmap on ext3). This allowed me to not COW blocks that were not allocated before the snapshot. This was a huge saving because most of the time on ext3 your writes will be to newly allocated blocks.

Wrapping LVM would probably not work, and still require a custom module to do, the user space tools don't do much. LVM really is a block management system that needs manage the entire block device, so existing file systems not sitting on top of LVM would get nuked if you attempted to let LVM start managing those blocks, and you still had the issue that reads and writes were coming in on a different block device. Asking people to change mount points was not a option. There were also some other requirements like block change tracking that LVM does not have the concept of doing. This is for incremental snapshots. Without this sort of tracking you will either have to checksum every block after every snapshot if you wish to to only copy the changes. This module also was responsible of reporting back to a user space daemon that keep a map of what blocks changed. So when backup time arrived we could use this list (and a few other list) to create a master list of blocks that we need to send back. This significantly cuts down on incremental backup time. Some companies call this "deduplication" but I feel that is disingenuous -- to me deduplication is on the storage side and would span across all backups.

So yes, requiring a module is much easier than telling a customer they can't trial, or use this product until they took their production system off line and reformatted it with LVM. Many people hated LVM at the time, it was considered slow and caused performance problems, this was like 8 years ago... LVM has vastly changed and does not have these type of complaints any more. But I can tell you people still are going to scream bloody murder if we told them they had to redo their production images and redeploy a fleet of 200+ servers just to switch to LVM so they could get a decent backup solution.

Also shout out to aseipp! Miss working with you. Have yet to find a bug in the code you wrote :p

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Replying after checking my notes from the University (NTUA): Before around 14 years (~ 2004) one of the excersies we had in Operatin Systems Lab was to actually implement a char device driver for Linux called ... lunix as a kernel module. The actual device was just a buch of bytes in memory.

These times were so happy - implementing a device driver seemed like owning the world for a student!

If anybody wants I'd be happy to put the source code in github - mainly for historical reasons because I'm not sure that the code will be still working today.

<comment><USER12> Please do. One of the issues for tfa is how little it actually covers. While it quite fairly says module development is more like writing an API than an application, it then proceeds to entirely ignore any hooks other than init and exit!

<comment><USER11> Here you go:

[https://github.com/spapas/lunix](https://github.com/spapas/lunix)

Notice - I tried compiling it but was not able to (and I don't have time to research modernizing this code).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >> A Linux kernel module is a piece of compiled binary code that is inserted directly into the Linux kernel, running at ring 0, the lowest and least protected ring of execution in the x86–64 processor.

The author seems to be implying that rings are implemented at the processor level for x86-64 processors. If I'm interpreting the wording correctly that's interesting! Coming from the ARM world I'd always thought that rings were an OS construct.

<comment><USER14> Most chips have different privilege levels... ARM processors have 'modes' like User, FIQ, IRQ and Supervisor (sort of the equivalent to ring 0). Different modes can have different access controls, e.g. varying access to memory.

Edit: See [http://www.heyrick.co.uk/armwiki/Processor_modes](http://www.heyrick.co.uk/armwiki/Processor_modes)

<comment><USER13> Right - out of curiosity do you know if the Linux kernel uses the term "ring", or some other terminology to map to the underlying hardware implementation, be they rings for x86 or modes for ARM? Maybe it's just "privilege level" or something similar?

<comment><USER15> The Linux kernel just talks about "kernel mode" and "user mode" (or "userspace"). Those then map to ring 0 and ring 3 on x86, or other mechanisms on other platforms.

<comment><USER13> Cool, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Kernel newb w/ a question on this. When you register the device with

      register_chrdev

you also have to create the file in userspace with

      mknod
    ?

<comment><USER15> You never need to use mknod yourself anymore. Based on the metadata you provide to the kernel, the kernel will create the device itself in devtmpfs, and even set appropriate baseline permissions (e.g. root-only, world-readable, world-writable). udev will then handle any additional permissions you might need, such as ACLs or groups.

<comment><USER17> Out of historical interest, why was it necessary before? Was it an intentional separation between userspace/kernel responsibilities?

<comment><USER15> A few reasons. Prior to the existence of udev, all devices had to be created with mknod and have permissions set; a script called "MAKEDEV" did that. That didn't handle dynamically created devices, so (skipping "hotplug" and an old attempt called "devfs" which was filled with race conditions) the kernel started sending events to userspace for dynamic devices, and udev created those. Then, it made sense to "coldplug" all the existing devices and have udev create those, to use the same unified path for everything, and use udev to set groups and permissions. But that did take some time at boot time, and it meant that you needed either udev or a manually created /dev for tiny embedded systems. devtmpfs handled that use case, automatically creating devices from the kernel. But then, if the kernel knows how to create devices, why not have it do so all the time? So, udev jettisoned the code to create devices itself, and started requiring devtmpfs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> netcat released their album as a linux kernel module [0]. Browsing their code might be a more fun way to learn how to write a kernel module with a real "use case".

0: [https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel- module](https://github.com/usrbinnc/netcat-cpi-kernel-module)

</comment><comment><USER19> Kernel code does not operate at "incredible speed". This guy doesn't know what he is talking about.

<comment><USER20> You are correct about the speed, but the short response combined with the unjustifiedly overly general attack of the authors knowledge is unnecessary.

<comment><USER19> This is somewhat unnecessary, but this article is spreading false claim about kernel mode "incredible speed" and this should be denounced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In the device_read function,

      len — ;

should be

      len --;

<comment><USER22> Probably a CMS thing. printk is probably also discouraged, these days. pr_warn/info/..() or dev_warn/info/err...() should be used.

Also for anyone writing kernel code, this is indispensable: [http://elixir.free-electrons.com/linux/latest/source](http://elixir.free- electrons.com/linux/latest/source)

<comment><USER23> It doesn't exactly apply here since the author doesn't seem to be allocating resources dynamically, but another thing that's "newer" and less widely used are the devm_ family of functions.

Nowadays, lots of code could be using devm_kmalloc, devm_ioremap, etc which will release the resources automatically when the driver detaches from the device.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A dynamic version of 300 CSS Properties to learn and practice - <AUTHOR> https://www.web4college.com/css-play/ <comment><AUTHOR> It is a resource of around 300 CSS properties. I have been working on it for a few months. Each individual property is covering up many aspects of a property. For example, description, syntax, values, default value, practice, applicability, compatibility, and practice in our code editor.

<comment><USER2> Nice! But consider adding some pagination or grouping them in different sections. The page loads pretty slow on desktop and it's pretty much dead on mobile.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did consider the load time of this page. But my intention was just the easiness of a user so that he can find any of the property with examples and values in one place. Can you please elaborate "grouping them into different sections". Still, I managed the load time efficiently with respect to content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> After thinking about this further, it might make sense to have the option to have an unpaginated list of all properties, but perhaps not start with it as @mihiafm mentions. I did notice it becomes paginated as soon as you click on one of the properties--perhaps an intro page?

Anyway, great work--useful to me, thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. My first page contained the static version of CSS properties but the other pages are dynamic i.e. a user can change and practice the values of a property.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> cool but the performance is very poor. Loading time is not ideal but the really issue is after it loads, scrolling and navigating the page CRAWLS.</comment>


Trying btrfs and giving up for now - <AUTHOR> https://a3nm.net/blog/btrfs_giving_up.html <comment><USER2> btrfs will be 10 years old next year. I wonder how many more years it will take btrfs to match zfs with respect to stability.</comment>