Secure Remote Password protocol - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Remote_Password_protocol <comment><USER2> While this is interesting historical reading, SRP is badly outdated and should not be used for any newly built systems. It has a lot of non-obvious failure modes around parameter handling and offline password cracking that have broken the authentication mechanism in every implementation I've seen in the real world (new implementations, not when using large packages such as OpenSSL).

Furthermore, PAKEs are of relatively limited utility; in almost every situation you could use a PAKE, there is a better, more battle-tested alternative. You will be much less likely to have complete authentication bypass in your system if you use mutual TLS rather than a PAKE.

If you have to use a PAKE, use a reviewed implementation of SPAKE2. Oh wait, there aren't any. Don't use a PAKE.

<comment><USER3> A nit: even compared to some recent designs, SRP is pretty thoughtful about offline password cracking. It's not as expensive to crack as a real password hash, but far more expensive than other PAKEs.

<comment><USER2> I haven't read enough about the other PAKEs to know what offline attacks look like there, but the fact that they are endemic to PAKEs is a total footgun.

For example, one implementation of SRP I looked at used 8-digit codes (e.g. 12345678) to connect new devices to a network. Eight digits was enough to prevent brute-forcing by repeatedly sending codes to the server, but not enough to prevent an attacker from MITMing the connection and brute-forcing the code offline, because the server was using a bad RNG.

<comment><USER3> Wait, what's the brute-force attack you're contemplating here? I'm thinking of the attack where you've compromised the servers and stolen the verifiers.

<comment><USER2> Looking back at my notes, I think my earlier comment was misleading. The offline brute force was due to an insecure random number generator, which allowed an attack against B to recover b (and from there crack the 8 digit code). So, uh, ... I'm wrong on the internet. I think we've talked about this attack before actually :P

<comment><USER3> Ok, that makes more sense! There are some pretty huge systems that would be very, very broken if the attack you accidentally described was viable. :)

I agree with you that SRP is worth avoiding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This sounds like ephemeral diffie hellman. Is that still protected by patents? I wouldn't think so seeing we've had robust implementations in openssl for a long time now.

<comment><USER3> It's not ephemeral Diffie-Hellman.

<comment><AUTHOR> According to this [0] they are related ("SRP is related to Diffie-Hellman.").

[0]: [http://web.archive.org/web/20130407190430/http://chargen.mat...](http://web.archive.org/web/20130407190430/http://chargen.matasano.com/chargen/2007/9/7/enough- with-the-rainbow-tables-what-you-need-to-know-about-s.html)

<comment><USER3> They're related in that the derivation of session secrets is done through a simple modular exponentiation. Pretty much nothing else, from the generation of keypairs to the selection of groups to work in to the way parameters have to be checked, are the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The part I found interesting was "specifically designed to work around existing patents"

<comment><USER6> Specifically, Bellovin & Merritt's Encrypted Key Exchange (EKE).

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

The patent is expired now though.</comment></comment>


Bumblebees' 'clever trick' fools plants into flowering - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-52759804 <comment><USER2> One need not view this as "damaging" the plants. It is also a crude signalling mechanism. The plants need the bees in order to survive as a species. If they're able to feed the bees in times of famine, both the bees and the plants win.

Furthermore, a plant species that can help to feed bees during a pollinator- famine is a plant species that is going to get a lot of pollinator support.

<comment><USER3> I've heard that from an insect's perspective, witch hazel tastes terrible and/or isn't that nutritious.

But it gets away with it because it's the only game in town. Nothing else is blooming at that time, and if you haven't gone dormant (or woke up too early) it's witch hazel pollen or nothing at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bees never cease to fascinate me. The more I learn about them the more I realize we only understand a small part of their world. We still have tremendous things to learn about their society, how they cooperate, communicate.

Check this out about Japanese honeybees that I learned last month: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awoV5Wj9Iys](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=awoV5Wj9Iys) They will swarm invaders and buzz their wings creating enough friction and heat to kill the enemy. European honeybees, however, do not have the same instinct.

<comment><USER5> Bees are amazing and woefully underappreciated. I had a garden going year before last, and some bees would come and just take care of the pollination for me. Last year though, no bee bros.

Pollinating by hand _sucks_. Royally. Still considering maybe trying to raise a hive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder if we'll ever see indoor farms which grow fruits from stem cells, without the need for the rest of the plant.

<comment><USER7> I asked this some time ago and never found a satisfactory answer. There doesn't appear to be much research in this area either :/

<comment><USER6> I looked into it briefly a few months ago but I'm not a biochemist/plant scientist; there is a lot of research on growing human organs, not so much growing fruits.

I'm sure it's possible to trick a plant stem cell into turning into a flower, then fruit, but I think the main question is whether it's economically viable. At the end of the day you would have to bypass photosynthesis and introduce sugars from some external source to grow the fruit which is probably quite expensive and inefficient. I chalked it up to being a very obvious idea which Monsato would have a solution for if it was viable.

Interesting to think though that if you did it perfectly you could turn some weight in sugar + water + stuff into an avocado.

<comment><USER8> I worry that it's not as easy as just tricking some cells into growing into what they want - you'll likely also need to replicate appropriate flow of energy, nutrients and signalling chemicals - i.e. basically fake the rest of the plant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The title sounds like they are click baiting the flowers. Then I realized that was actually the case.

"You'll never believe the way these bees got this plant to flower! Unbelievable"

<comment><USER10> "Dandelions hate them"

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was recently cutting a path through an area that's been left go wild for 15 years. I've gone at it from both ends but there s patch in the middle that I'm leaving for now. It's an area filled with some kind of flowering weed that looks a bit like white bluebells only with much greater density of flowers. It's alive with bees and and I neither want to be stung nor want to deprive them of food. I figure a narrow path through it leaving the weeds at both sides once they've stopped collecting pollen this year.

</comment><comment><USER12> Could they be cutting holes in the leaves and inserting some sort of pollen solution (gathered from other plants) and when the non-flowering plant gets the chemical marker for "other plants are pollenating" then it tricks the plant into believing it it is time to flower?

I ask with no knowledge of this :) But I do remember flipping through a book a while back on chemical and environmental tricks to make plants flower in greenhouses (not just lighting signals)

<comment><USER13> It's possible that plants detect the chemical markers of the insects while they bite the leaves. A response to pests could be early flowering, to give the plant a better chance to complete its life cycle.

Chitosan is derived from chitin, and it acts in a similar way, it induces an immune response in plants, and makes them more vigorous. Plants treated with chitosan usually grow larger, flower earlier, and produce more fruit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm not sure it's damage or fooling the plants. The whole purpose of flowers is to be pollinated by bees.

</comment><comment><USER15> >"I think it's fascinating how much we still don't know about organisms that we think we know really well," said Prof De Moraes.

I'm always taken aback by these types of statements. The best scientists know that they know very little.

<comment><USER16> Knowing that you don't much is not the same as discovering new things you didn't know. If the"awe and wonder" weren't there, they probably wouldn't have chosen that field.

And it IS fascinating to uncover unknown unknowns

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I once saw this happening. Lots of bumblebees on tree leaves and flying around certain trees. I thought that they were eating something from the leaves. It seemed weird but I assumed it was a known behavior.

</comment><comment><USER18> The trick doesn't work if reproduced by humans - obviously it is misunderstood

<comment><USER19> This seems to be a symbioticaly developed messaging system. The bees need the plants and the plants need the bees: so the been message them in case they are having a hard time. Since if the bees die because of not enough pollen -> plants die also.

Bees probably release some special chemical through their saliva or whatever they have to message the plants that they are not some random animal eating it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> From TFA:

> However the team are keeping an open mind on whether the plants might be the > ones in the driving seat.

If that's the case, maybe the headline should read "bumbling bees tricked into working early by clever plants"

All joking aside, this seems like a textbook case of correlation having been established, but causation not so much (yet).

<comment><USER21> It's probably both ways. Neither evolved in isolation and flowers and bees have been doing it since ever.

<comment><USER22> Well, at least since the Cretaceous :-)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_plants#Flowers) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Evolution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee#Evolution)

<comment><USER23> TIL most dinosaurs never saw a flower :(

<comment><USER24> To be fair, you've never seen a forest of mushrooms. That might have been neat too.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Stretching the C64 Palette - <AUTHOR> http://www.krajzewicz.de/blog/stretching-the-c64-palette.php <comment><USER2> Off-topic, but I recently decided to program a forth compiler on a C64 (6502 cpu) and it's been both fun, and incredibly frustrating. It feels a lot like exapunks or TIS-100 from zachtronics. In fact, in some ways, the asm in exapunks is more powerful than 6502 asm!

It's been super fun and I would recommend it to anyone. The opcodes are designed for people and its super easy to learn. The perfect cure for the bullshit that software engineering has become since then.

</comment><comment><USER3> Palette stretching was important for a number of platforms. PC Engine (Turbo Grafx 16) had 16-color palettes from a total of 512 colors, which didn't leave much room for shades and gradients. And it showed in their flagship game "Ancient Ys Vanished" in 1989. While it was super impressive as an early CD based game with (sort of) motion video and CD quality sound, it's informative to compare it to "Dawn of Ys", released 4 years later (1993), which made use of dithering, raster and scanline timing tricks to improve the visual quality.

Title screen:

[https://cs11.pikabu.ru/post_img/2019/03/11/6/155229530917353...](https://cs11.pikabu.ru/post_img/2019/03/11/6/1552295309173537623.png)

[https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/387326-ys-iv-the- da...](https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/387326-ys-iv-the-dawn-of-ys- turbografx-cd-screenshot-title-screen.png)

Lilia:

[https://blog.gurkgamer.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/08/ys_01-...](https://blog.gurkgamer.com/wp- content/uploads/2014/08/ys_01-225x198.png)

[https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/387337-ys-iv-the- da...](https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/387337-ys-iv-the-dawn-of-ys- turbografx-cd-screenshot-something-bad.png)

Bar scene:

[https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/554866-ys-book-i- ii...](https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/554866-ys-book-i-ii- turbografx-cd-screenshot-sounds-tempting-but.png)

[https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/387336-ys-iv-the- da...](https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/387336-ys-iv-the-dawn-of-ys- turbografx-cd-screenshot-no-alcohol-censorship.png)

Dark Fact:

[https://cs10.pikabu.ru/post_img/2019/03/11/6/155229702414087...](https://cs10.pikabu.ru/post_img/2019/03/11/6/1552297024140878386.png)

[https://www.ysutopia.net/images/ys4pce09.gif](https://www.ysutopia.net/images/ys4pce09.gif)

<comment><USER3> Forgot the intros:

Ys 1: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr2M1523t6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pr2M1523t6s)

Ys 4: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUL7TIEvRQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bsUL7TIEvRQ)

Ys 4, part 2: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvSK4ErPcio&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bvSK4ErPcio&feature=youtu.be&t=597)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Meanwhile, in NTSC land, people were expanding the colour palette by generating interference that would be interpreted by NTSC TVs as additional colour information: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_artifact_colors](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Composite_artifact_colors)

PAL wasn't as amenable to this sort of endeavour, so platforms that were more popular outside the US tended to focus on effects like those described here - give the impression of more colour space even when it wasn't there. Efforts like 8088mph ([https://trixter.oldskool.org/2015/04/07/8088-mph-we-break- al...](https://trixter.oldskool.org/2015/04/07/8088-mph-we-break-all-your- emulators/)) that create much more colour than the hardware was nominally capable of are solidly tied to NTSC, and it's interesting thinking about how much the demo scene ended up split by the behaviour of their TVs.

<comment><USER5> Here in PAL land, though you'd already know this, you could get a related effect with some palette swapping. If you flipped between colours with the same luminance (pink and green, for example), you'd get an intermediate colour. Mayhem in Monsterland is an example of this that springs to mind.

<comment><USER4> Yes! [http://www.aaronbell.com/secret-colours-of-the- commodore-64/](http://www.aaronbell.com/secret-colours-of-the-commodore-64/) is a great writeup of this. This seems to have become popular much later than NTSC artifact colours, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm old enough to remember using a real C64, with a real 1702 monitor, when that, and its separated chroma/luma cable, was the hot new thing. And the colours were bright and vivid. They were thus on every C64 I ever saw in real life, whether with the older 1701 monitor or connected to a TV.

So why does every single emulator, and every article about the C64 use this super-drab pallette? Is this a case of "never mind what it looked like, we follow the spec" like apparently some earlier SID emulations that sounded nothing like a real SID chip?

<comment><USER7> Because one thing many emulators don't emulate (at least ZSNES does) is the brightness and tint controls that are on TVs and also the 1702.

In the nesdev forums there was some interesting discussion threads about trying to get an accurate NES palette. Someone digitized each color from a real NES using a capture card, but the discussion talked about how people's TVs of the day probably weren't scientifically calibrated; everyone had different tint and brightness settings on their TVs.

That being said something was always off about the red color in every c64 emulator, it never seemed that "grey" on any TV or monitor I ever saw.</comment></comment>


IPv6: It's time to get on board - <AUTHOR> https://code.facebook.com/posts/1192894270727351/ipv6-it-s-time-to-get-on-board-/ <comment><USER2> Someone needs to beat Amazon with a cat5 cable until they add IPv6. Right now it's barely supported at all, and they are the cloud as far as at least half the market is concerned.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wish Digital Ocean handed out reasonable prefixes instead of the 16 addresses they allocate per node.</comment>


Behold, the ACLU Amazon Dash Button - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/business/2017/02/behold-the-aclu-amazon-dash-button/#p3 <comment><USER2> hmm... doesn't every CC transaction have a constant size transaction fee of 10 cents or so? Saving up donations until the end of the month/year using some method of persistence and an aws lambda scheduled task might add up.</comment>


Turkey cracking down on Internet usage - <AUTHOR> http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/02/05/turkey-internet-censorship/5220339/ <comment><USER2> I lived in Turkey (Istanbul) for one year, made some good friends and was active in the Gezi Park protests. While the country is now highly polarized, all sides have some things in common which help explain these measures.

Turks typically have a feeling that everybody conspires against them. Not only against the country, but also against them personally. Americans and Jews are always among the prime suspects of any conspiracy.

The kemalists have nurtured a strong national identity with flag, anthem, the infallibility of leaders, language and territory. Criticism is simply not welcome, but the internet is full of it.

Istanbul, and let alone the rest of Turkey, despite the rich cultural past is not international or multi-cultural. It is a given that most people are inclined to distrust cultures they are not familiar with.

None of these factors are exclusive to Erdogan. That helps explain why internet censorship is prevalent in Turkey and does not cause much uproar at all.

Now the AKP movement is extra zealous in 'protecting' the people from sex and gambling. That does not help either.

* disclaimer: I tired giving a generalizing brief on Turks, plz don't take it personally.

<comment><USER3> Hey, thanks for that write up. It is an opportunity I can't resist to see someone who can give me a thorough and relatively objective opinion on a question that has been bugging me for some time.

Can you shed some light on the political movements in Turkey regarding its neighbors? How is the Ottoman period perceived. What are the population's general sentiment towards neighboring countries. What do they say about it in their HS History textbooks?

I'm born in the region and was always genuinely curious.

<comment><USER2> I cannot avoid generalizations in answering this and I am pretty sure any Turk would be more qualified to answer, but there it goes:

I don't think the political movements are really defined by views on foreign policy. Notable exception being Syria which grabs a lot of attention.

To the west Turks still see the Balkans as their hinterland. They feel a deep connection to the fate of the Bosnian Muslims and have yet to forgive the Serbs. They are not so fond of Greece (long history), but have a neutral attitude towards Greeks. Bulgaria is viewed an odd little brother from another father.

To the north, the wars with Russia have been long forgotten. Russia now represents a big economical opportunity. I wouldn't think that Russians and Turks are very compatible characters, but business is business.

To the east there are some Turkic countries with whom the Turks feel a spiritual connection, starting with Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan. They represent the ideal of the nomadic society from the historic homelands. Georgia is a bit like Bulgaria. Armenia, they would rather forget about. Too many open wounds. Iran is a dangerous country. Militarily mighty, unreliable and very different.

The south represents economic opportunities. The Arabs are basically walking bags of money. I was surprised by the deep connection the Turks felt towards the Syrians. They have been very welcoming towards the refugees.

About the Ottoman period. There is a feeling that Turkey's rightful role is to lead the region once again. Not that it means that the Ottomans sultans should make a comeback. Although one of the most popular TV series is set in the Ottoman era. People love the costumes and the court intriges.

I don't know how the history books teach about this period. Would be very interesting.

<comment><USER3> I really appreciate the answer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Many people here in Hacker News, Turkish and non Turkish tried to exploit this news as an oppurtunity to attack Turkish people by making some generalizations and talking about massacres, which are totally unrelated to the problem at hand.

They fail to realize that the Internet restriction practices are not specific to any one particular country. Similar practices are emerging in Britain, Ukrain and even in the USA.

If I was to talk about Internet restriction in the USA would I start talking about individuals in the USA or what kind of massacres took place in the past in America? How big a non-sense would that be!

We are faced with serious problems here in Turkey and most of those problems are artifically created and one-sided. The Internet Restriction law was proposed by only 27 parliament members and law's passed wo asking others. It's sure to die soon because it's created in a one-sided manner by a small group of blind people.

</comment><comment><USER5> Countries like China, Iran and now Turkey are just slightly ahead of the curve of what will come toward us.

While the progressive part of the Turkish population looks for help and support from the "Western civilization", the "Western civilization" struggles with internet censorship and privacy themselves.

The sense of superiority of this western society is really strange: when disapproving and rejecting this kind of developments in the Middle East, they pretend that is intolerable and they cite the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. But in the meantime, they themselves trivialize their own actions and policies regarding censorship and privacy breach that is getting worse.

Public opinion is just as schizophrenic. Such news is read with pity and denigration, without any realization that their own future is maybe not much better.

But hey, we are just much better and things like this will never happen here!

<comment><USER6> "They" are cracking down on "dissidents", while "we" are cracking down on "terrorists".

<comment><USER5> This is exactly what I mean. With a simple terminology trick, both are doing the same.

Do you really think that the domestic propaganda machine (of both) doesn't label these people as terrorists? How is Assange and Snowden treated? Were they terrorists?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wasn't this the country that wanted to be part of the European Union? When they said that, I thought they were going to take steps in the right direction. But years have passed and that's obviously not the case.

<comment><USER2> Relation status: It's complicated.

They pushed for EU membership when their economy was in shambles. It seemed like an economic necessity for which they were (sort of) willing to make changes.

The opinions within the EU itself were always diverse, but what counted is that Turkey was a strategic and economic asset. Moreover it was a place where the EU could 'do good' with their superior moral values (sarcasm intended).

The first contribution of the EU was to keep the AKP in power. Every previous Islamic party was either outlawed of removed from power by the military. Both the army and the supreme court decided against that, because that would mean Turkey would never join the EU (which they needed at that time).

Turkey dragged its feet in making changes, likely because they were not so convinced the EU has superior morality. Meanwhile Turkey rebounded economically and the role within the region grew. It also saw Romania a Bulgaria admitted into the EU while these countries did not even live up to the economic demands of joining.

When Erdogan took full control, several things happened. Corruption went rampant and civil liberties were restricted. The country is being islamized. These things led to the Gezi Park protests and a diminished confidence from investors. Funny thing is that the more progressive part of the population only now starts to realize that EU membership could result in better civil rights.

Meanwhile the EU keeps broadcasting mixed signals. They criticized Erdogan but let him get away with attacking and lying to him own people. France and Sweden are among the strongest advocates of Turkish membership. Sweden has the strongest civil rights tradition and France has the strongest separation of church and state. The idea still seems to be: "when they come into contact with our superior standards, they will change accordingly".

My opinion? That is an arrogant thought and it will not work. It did not work for immigration waves and it certainly won't work for 75 million Turks. The EU will not change Turkey, but Turkey will change the EU.

<comment><USER8> The EU commission (which is the unelected organisation that actually decides) simply wants power, so if Turkey wants to join and play Trojan horse, they will certainly let them.

Because of this, and regardless of the Turkey issue, can we please stop referrring to Europa, or the European Union as "democratic" ? It's not. Let's just stop pretending.

<comment><USER9> > The EU commission (which is the unelected organisation

What are you talking about? It's elected, maybe not by the people directly, but by their (elected) representatives. That's the same as saying that the US president isn't elected, because s/he isn't elected directly by the population.

> the European Union as "democratic" ? It's not.

Care to substantiate that claim?

<comment><USER10> In practice, the US president is directly elected by the population. Every state has a law declaring that their electors (the representatives that really 'elect' the president) will follow the majority vote counted within that state.

Granted, if you look at wikipedia it'll say its an indirect system, but that's only a technicality.

<comment><USER9> Ok, then I was wrong. I've previously heard that in theory, the electors could change their mind, so that's why the parties only nominated their most senior, most trusted members for electors.

<comment><USER11> You're technically right (the best kind of right) but in practice, that hasn't happened in probably 250 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems to be a calculated move by the Justice and Development Party (AKP) in response to two things:

\- Widespread dissent that was not publicly expressed suddenly became public in the gezi park events, and the internet was a huge catalyst in expressing dissent and disseminating information, as well as organizing protests (Long topic, more here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Turkey](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_protests_in_Turkey))

\- There has recently been a fallout between AKP and their longtime allies, the Gulen Movement (weird religious cult-cum-political-power [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%BClen_movement)). This has resulted in the Gulen people uncovering a ton of dirt on AKP members, including mind-blowing corruption scandals that include millions in cash being kept in shoeboxes in the personal residence of the owner of a national bank and important people being complicit, including the PM Erdogan's sons. AKP's response was to shuffle around 350 police officers to replace them with their own men, and unsurprisingly the police refused to carry out the prosecutor's orders for arrest. The prosecutor was also fired. The cabinet was reshuffled. A "judiciary coup" took place where they tried to change the laws to have the head of the judiciary elect the prosecutors, so they could elect their own prosecutors, so they could find prosecutors which would not indict AKP ([http://www.todayszaman.com/news-336883-erdogan-govt-rolls- ba...](http://www.todayszaman.com/news-336883-erdogan-govt-rolls-back- judicial-reforms-in-violation-of-eu-coe-rules.html))

Throughout this internal fallout, documentary evidence was often released anonymously on the internet (records of phone conversations, photos of documents, etc). AKP suddenly realized that it's not to their benefit to allow this.

(Long topic, more here: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_corruption_scandal_in_Turk...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_corruption_scandal_in_Turkey) and [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/opinion/the-filth-in- erdog...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/28/opinion/the-filth-in-erdogans- closet.html?pagewanted=all) and yet even more here: [http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/whose-turkey- is-i...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/09/magazine/whose-turkey-is- it.html?hpw&rref=magazine&_r=0))

The new legislation was suggested by 27 members of AKP, and no other members from other parties. Surprise, surprise! (Source: [http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasari_teklif_sd.onerge_b...](http://www.tbmm.gov.tr/develop/owa/tasari_teklif_sd.onerge_bilgileri?kanunlar_sira_no=145376))

edit:

More info on the new laws:

\- The Telecommunications Communications Directorate (yes, redundant name, TIB for short) head can immediately order content to be removed.

\- TIB can ask for any information they want and the hosting providers have to supply it, no due process needed (no DMCA safe harbour-ish clause)

\- You need permission from the TIB head to begin a questioning process about any TIB employee (i.e. abuse abounds)

\- Hosting providers must keep IP addresses for 1 year instead of 6 months

\- IP, DNS and URL blocking will be implemented (previously it was DNS only), but of course no one knows how they're going to acquire the hardware for deep packet inspection.

\- No hearing required for complaints about websites that allegedly involve a violation of personal rights. A decision is immediately made.

\- Hosting / Service providers must respond to requests in 24 hours.

\- The directorate has permission to "fight cyber war", which seems to be a patriot act-ish catchall phrase to do whatever they want.

Ridiculous!

</comment><comment><USER13> That's nothing new in that country, before free-internet was a hot-trend, Turkey used to genocide and massacre thousands of Kurdish people just because they wanted to speak in their mother tongue, and west was OK with it, because we needed Turkeys support during the cold war, the same situation continued after the cold war in other forms, Turkey and Iran use these kind of acts as an old and continuing process mostly for racial purposes. We can't compare this to the paradigm that exists in the US or EU.

<comment><USER14> And after the internet age, when the facts hit the people who were not even aware of it went "Oh shit, did our military really do this to those people?". If it wasn't for internet, most Turks would stay ignorant of the military power abuse in the Southeast, the way a regular US citizen didn't hear about Guantanamo Bay. So what is your point? Should Turkey degenerate more or should Turkey try to improve? If Turkey cannot improve, the few in power will abuse it, and this time even more people will suffer.

Orwellian control of the internet will not make power abuse go away, it will increase it.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1fwj66/u161719_t...](http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/comments/1fwj66/u161719_tells_us_all_why_surveillance_is_not_ok/)

This link has been just recently discussed here on HN and it seems like this will be the future of Turkey.

Turkey never was a hotbed of freedom and justice - but when injustice is made legal by law, then the shit is about to hit the fan soon.

Option if you have friends in Turkey like me - set up a VPN?

</comment><comment><USER15> The best analogy I can come up with is proverbial ostrich hiding his head when threatened. Long story short, the ostrich doesn't survive then again this is a myth purported by Pliny. But this does not hide the fact that this act is parallel to that.

</comment><comment><USER16> Curious if this will affect Put.io as they are based out of Istanbul.</comment>


AP FACT CHECK: Clinton email claims collapse under FBI probe - <AUTHOR> http://bigstory.ap.org/article/6ee62bc1899d45b1980f09fe750a7105/ap-fact-check-clinton-email-claims-collapse-under-fbi-probe <comment><USER2> With most of her email statements proven to be lies, how many other lies is she knitting at us?</comment>


Recommended Reading: ``Alan Turing's Electronic Brain'' by Various - <AUTHOR> http://verisimilitudes.net/2019-07-15 <comment><USER2> @here I am going through the discussion here and it strikes me that it does not take into account the basic principles that we discussed regarding "visual" representation. It's great to have all the ideas but they don't seem to address the crucial matters that were discussed in the dsds meeting yesterday and before.</comment>


A new use for StackOverflow - <AUTHOR> http://me.veekun.com/blog/2013/01/15/a-new-use-for-stackoverflow/ <comment><USER2> Would love to see some analysis done on other StackExchange sites. This potentially a really good market research tool as well.</comment>


Book "Exploring Mayan EDMS" available in pre-release format - <AUTHOR> https://forum.mayan-edms.com/viewtopic.php?t=1046 <comment><USER2> I'm not able to upvote this post. The upvote button is missing!?

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Getting messages that some comments are not showing up. Seems Hacker News has shadow banned comments on this post.</comment>


Ask HN: How can a brilliant hacker make the greatest impact on the world? - <AUTHOR>

Let's assume the hacker is really fucking good at hacking, and reasonably intelligent/capable at other stuff.
Here are the options I see:
1. Start a Startup - Everything I've read suggests that the founders (and first ~5 employees) of a startup will be spending a lot of their time on non-hacking stuff.
2. Join a big company like Google - How much impact can a single employee have at a big company? Particularly a junior one who just joins (regardless of hacking ability).
3. Industrial research lab like Microsoft Research - Hacking ability is usually a distant second compared to research ability as a requirement for these type of jobs.
4. Academia - Even more so than (3).
5. "Side-projects" - This seems like the most effective way to me, but it requires another source of funding to sustain yourself.
What am I missing? Where am I wrong? <comment><USER2> You make it seem as though those are all choices that you get to make yourself. The assumption 'really fucking good at hacking' rarely holds true though.

Once you've proven yourself then those doors will open.

For someone that's simply convinced they are that good but without a track- record the only options are (1) and (5), all the rest will require some form of proof beyond 'your saying so'.

<comment><AUTHOR> Let's assume those are all available options. Which one should he pick?

<comment><USER2> If 'he' were that good 'he' would know.

But assuming he is that good and through some freak of history perceives (1) through (5) as being exactly equally applicable I'd take (2).

Because that's the best place to learn that you're really not that hot after all. Some humility goes a long way towards becoming better, it will help you find teachers instead of thinking you know it all already.

Just speaking from personal experience here, when I got started in this field in the land of the blind in my backwater the guy with one eye was king. I had _two_ eyes, and was considered a pretty hot coder by those in my environment and I started to believe it.

Then, after another decade or so I met a couple of guys that _really_ could program and in a year I learned more than in the 18 years or so preceding that.

Now, with access to the vast repository of source code available on the internet you'd have to be either out of your mind or an undiscovered genius of very rare quality to describe yourself as such.

Most 'fucking good coders' aren't. They just haven't been out much yet, or they've just been writing and have not been reading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If "the hacker" is truly brilliant, at hacking, then he likely will be brilliant or smart at other things too.

Besides your options 1-5, think about things that are wrong or lacking in the world, and work on fixing some of them. That might require code, but most problems don't. Even problems that do require code are not saved by the code, they're saved by recognizing the problem and doing anything at all that's effective. Coders don't save the world; deployers of code and other resources save the world.

Your 1, 2 and 5 will build your chops, whether the first focus of those efforts are world changing or not. You also might benefit by working with someone who has a vision and has figured out how to execute on it.

If you take away the implied requirement that 1, 2 and 5 need to be code- focused, your first efforts might build chops and allow you to focus on problems rather than solutions in search of problems.

I'm not saying you shouldn't code, just open your mind.

</comment><comment><USER4> A hacker who is "really fucking good at hacking" wouldn't wait for an answer to "what is the best way to make an impact".

He would have _done_ significant things in one or more of (1) thru (5)(or even more options he thought of himself) and the _doing_ will teach him more about the "best way" than any amount of abstract theorizing about an essentially unanswerable question.

</comment><comment><USER5> Kiva's doing a good job of it. "Kiva's mission is to connect people, through lending, for the sake of alleviating poverty."

So try and think of ways to save lives systematically.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm interested in "leverage" in the sense of powerful tools, methods, etc., e.g. look at <http://www.vpri.org/html/work/ifnct.htm>

If you can help to _significantly_ improve the general purpose technologies (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_purpose_technology>) that are available (i.e. better than 10x, not little stuff) you'll potentially make a great impact.

</comment><comment><USER7> By doing what he does best, hacking on what he loves. The rest will fall into place.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can you fix cut and paste?

</comment><comment><USER9> _1\. Start a Startup - Everything I've read suggests that the founders (and first ~5 employees) of a startup will be spending a lot of their time on non- hacking stuff._

I would like a comment on this. Is hacking all and only about code? Isn't doing business another type of hacking? Hacking is all about doing something cool and different, right? Why can't a company hack business models? Like google for example.

I know after a certain size is attained by a company, business is just business. But why can't we have companies which hack business models in the time of there inception.</comment>


HTML5 Watch - Neven Mrgan chronicles interesting HTML5 implementations - <AUTHOR> http://html5watch.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> It would be nice if it stated browser compatibility in the posts. Half of the hacks don't work in Firefox 3.6.3 on Debian.</comment>


The Limits of Emacs Advice - <AUTHOR> http://nullprogram.com/blog/2013/01/22/

<comment><AUTHOR> I had no idea about impatient-mode. It looks awesome: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QV6XVyXjBO8>

Also, defadvice is great for fixing annoyances in various modes. It's really easy to use too. Hopefully they'll find some way to fix it for narrow/widen as well.</comment>


Area 120 – A workshop for Google's experimental products - <AUTHOR> https://area120.google.com <comment><USER2> This is just a sign-up page? That's not a substantive submission for HN. Here it's better to wait until a thing is actually available.

(It also unleashes the hounds of snark, as seen below.)

</comment><comment><USER3> Do you want more messaging apps? This is how you get more messaging apps.

The main appeal for Googlers is that participating in Area 120 gets you out of doing Perf for an entire cycle. That's actually pretty huge.

When this was first unveiled internally I don't recall anyone saying this was more attractive than just leaving and creating your own startup. It never even crossed my mind when I decided to leave and start a new project, I can't understand what the upside would be.

<comment><USER4> "...What the upside would be"

A very low risk great shot at potentially leading a Google product and all the associated upsides?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love that those guys working on the machine-learning haircut robot are so willing to eat their own dogfood. It's still got a ways to go before it's believable but I can see the potential.

<comment><USER6> >I love that those guys working on the machine-learning haircut robot are so willing to eat their own dogfood.

I sure wish I hadn't been drinking water when I read this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 2011: "more wood behind fewer arrows! Let's kill Labs"

2017: "argh! the wood is running away!! Let's resurrect Labs"

</comment><comment><USER8> Is this a parody?

      ("Google") which is focused on launching experimental products which are iterated quickly, and which may be discontinued at any time.

No, really?

<comment><USER9> I would think it's an accurate description.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I tried twice scrolling down that page and couldn't manage to read more than ten actual words. I think my eyes tried to escape my body in revolt.

</comment><comment><USER11> seems cool. But, in true Google style, has that whole "Let's stroke our profound selves off first" element to it.

</comment><comment><USER12> There's something about this that makes me never want to work at Google. I can't quite put my finger on what it is.

<comment><USER13> You can play on your own cool ideas while working here, but we own all the ideas and upside.

<comment><USER14> That is still much better than a code monkey who is managed and told exactly what to do.

<comment><USER15> Would you rather sell hours of your life, or sell your dreams?

<comment><USER16> If the alternative hinges on the odds of realizing those dreams successfully via the current startup ecosphere (and not getting fleeced by financial backers), I'd sell them. I'll always have plenty more where they came from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why would a Googler do A120 vs. leaving and doing a startup and potentially quick-sale back to Google?

(I guess access to Google infrastructure could be worth it for some projects, and for people who have large stock grants who want to vest them out for another 6-12mo before leaving)

<comment><USER18> Risk.

Area 120 has bounded reward, but the downside risk is measured entirely in opportunity cost. If your goal is a quick sale, the upsides may be comparable as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Can someone at Area 120 make bringing back Google Reader a thing?

I'm serious.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is the guy on the rhs of the 2nd photo of the slideshow working on an invisible computer? One would think that'd be the highlight.

<comment><USER21> He also has his right hand in his lap, and nobody opposite him. No idea what he's supposed to be doing.

[https://area120.google.com/static/images/home/hi/Home_3_imag...](https://area120.google.com/static/images/home/hi/Home_3_image_2.jpg)

<comment><USER22> It looks to me like he's waiting for something or someone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sure, make an area120 account github and we'll follow it.

</comment><comment><USER23> The assumption many have here is that all people build startups to get rich well truthfully thats what American start up scene has become. Reality is that most successful startups are not about making billions but solving a problem or multiple problems some people make a lot money solving those problems but most don't. Having a chance at solving a problem without bankrupting yourself and your family would be a good opportunity for many.

</comment><comment><USER24> Ads optimization as the reason for life.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'll throw out a lament. I wish Google had released that Robot Arm they built that could lift >10kg payloads. When I heard about it I was throwing money at the screen and wondering why nothing happened.

</comment><comment><USER20> If you put floating/moving photo filters on a page, at least let users drag them at will. The lack of control on this page is driving me nuts.

</comment><comment><USER26> Translation: Too many Googlers leave and go on to start their own companies. We're creating a playground where they can explore their ideas and we can keep the profits, as it should be.

<comment><USER27> Google pays well. Why not take the opportunity to swing for the fences without taking personal financial risk?

<comment><USER28> Because you'll forfeit your reward or upside for working hard on executing your idea, worse if it's successful where Google owns your IP and starts productizing it you've killed your opportunity to go start your own company around it.

<comment><USER29> But if you're not interested in starting a company, and instead want to work on interesting things while being paid very well, it sounds pretty good.

<comment><USER28> Your pay remains the same regardless. If you're not interested in any financial gain, sure it can be more enjoyable to spend your work hours on your own idea inside Google's cushy offices.

<comment><USER30> That's a strange assumption. I would think that any employee who pioneers a successful idea will land a leading role in the subsequent product development team and a bonus at least. Sure, the reward isn't as high as if you spun off your own startup but it won't be nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Does this mean open access outside of google or something?

</comment><comment><USER32> Can't believe this wasn't leaked...years ago?

<comment><USER33> It was a year ago. [https://www.recode.net/2016/5/20/11718792/google-120-area- in...](https://www.recode.net/2016/5/20/11718792/google-120-area-incubator)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> google releases a dumb marketing site, fun!

</comment><comment><USER35> So this gives people the opportunity to try Google products...

...that are even _more_ likely to to be cancelled without warning than normal Google products?

I'm positively quivering with anticipation.

<comment><USER36> Just curious, do you post the same response when Microsoft announces products or services?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsof...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Discontinued_Microsoft_software)

You can also add these to the list:

      Wunderlist
      Sunset
      Games for Windows
      Silverlight
      Zune
      Kin
      XNA
      PlaysForSure
      Flight Sim
      Expression Suite
      SteadyState
      Windows RT
      Windows Phone 7
      Forefront
      Front Page
      Money

Or Apple?

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

<comment><USER37> Some of the Microsoft products you listed have been around and successful for a really long time. I can only imagine some people being disappointed about Flight Simulator being dropped after about 24 years, but that's a very respectable product lifespan. When you look at Silverlight, that was very strategic to Microsoft, they put a lot of weight behind it, and them abandoning it after nine years isn't for a lack of trying. With Google it's more like floating an idea, that then people might get hooked on, for them to seemingly say: _nah, never mind_. Google probably has the numbers to back up these decisions, but for people that were buying into it, that's pretty sour, and it either has happened quite a few times with them, or they have a major perception problem around the matter.

<comment><USER36> Yes, some of those products and services that Microsoft has shut down do go back some way, but others such as Sunset and, the soon to be shut down, Wunderlist are very recent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> How delightfully vague.

</comment><comment><USER39> I couldn't spend more than 10 seconds attempting to read that website, what with all of the colorful shapes rushing this way and that.

How did we get back here in web design? It truly boggles the mind.

<comment><USER40> What's really annoying is that most browsers actually support an accessibility feature called "prefers-reduced-motion"[1] in CSS media queries to tell a site not to do this sort of thing, but Google don't appear to use it.

[1] [https://css-tricks.com/introduction-reduced-motion-media- que...](https://css-tricks.com/introduction-reduced-motion-media-query/)

<comment><USER41> Thanks for that link. For years, I've been arguing that animation is an accessibility issue, but the situation keeps getting worse. I hope that there is a way to enable that on Linux and Android.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is the most Hooli thing ever.

<comment><USER43> Shut up Dinesh.</comment></comment>


Why the alt-right can't build an alt-internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/8/21/16180614/charlottesville-daily-stormer-alt-right-internet-domain <comment><USER2> Are there reasons why p2p couldn't work here? Excluding active blocking.</comment>


Ask HN: What makes the perfect office? I'm building one.  - <AUTHOR> I run a web development agency with 18 people. The building we're looking at moving to will need extensive refurbishment, so we have a chance to spec out our office 'wish list' and then build that!<p>So: If you could completely design your office space (aesthetics, layout, furniture, lighting, flooring), how would you want it to be?<p>(We're a Rails agency, working in scrum teams of 2 or 4, doing some pairing but not full-time, based in London). <comment><USER2> Coming from a commercial real-estate consultant (as opposed to a programmer/startup guru) these are the things many companies would do well to consider when doing office fitout.

\- Don't put boardroom/meeting rooms against the windows with the best views, leave them internal and put your employees where the best views/natural light is;

\- Avoid a single monolithic meeting room and go for two smaller rooms with a common wall that can be pulled back. Large meeting rooms for >30 ppl at once tend to be under-utilised most of the time;

\- If the expected budget is more than US$100k consider bringing on a project manager - they will generally earn back their fees with keeping everything in budget and fixing potentially costly issues as they arise rather than 6 months later;

\- Don't try to cut costs on anything that an employee touches, sits on or uses i.e. chairs, desks, coffee machine etc. It is almost always a false economy to cut costs here;

\- Ask the landlord to contribute some money to the fitout (can't hurt to ask);

\- If you are going open-plan try to avoid offices around the perimeter windows as they will tend to block the natural light from getting into the main office;

\- Hardwood/concrete floors sound like a good idea but keep in mind they can be quite noisy in high-traffic areas.

<comment><USER3> Incredibly perceptive and amazingly employee-centric. I've learned a lot of this the hard way.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the comment - glad I can contribute something in my ultra niche of knowledge and experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I guess this is pretty different from person to person, but this would be my ideal workplace:

        - Small offices (1-2 people) with doors that close
        - Long, streight desks (for pair programming), height-adjustable (standing desks)
        - Many small "meeting" areas for ad-hoc meetings
        - At least 2 large monitors per workstation
        - Walls, cupboards, ... covered in whiteboard foil
        - Lots of plants

</comment><comment><USER5> I know this is sounds strange, but cubes can be nice from an operations standpoint. It gives you access to other cube mates fairly easily, which is essential in trying to keep stuff running.

While I would prefer a private or semi-private office, keep in mind there comes a point where you're growing and there's not enough offices. You either live with it for a while and you end up with new hires getting stuck in crazy places, or you have to move offices which is a pain.

Given the choice between sitting in an entranceway of 3 private offices (basically a larger room chopped into 3 private offices, with shared space in between), or in a cube, I'd pick the cube. That same business then decided that they needed cubes, so they destroyed 3 private offices, and stuck in cubes. Since the room wasn't designed for that, the cube arrangement was strange and not conducive to working together.

From experience, avoid whiteboard wallpaper. It gets trashy and it's hard to replace because it's glued to the wall. You also don't have a tray for your markers.

Height adjustable desks are amazing, having gone through an office upgrade that included the installation of them. My old fixed desk wasn't exactly the right height, so you have to make all sorts of other ergo adjustments.

<comment><USER6> "It gives you access to other cube mates fairly easily"

If those cube-mates have to spend a lot of time thinking about things, this can be very bad news indeed. I see it all the time, and I think DeMarco poked at it in Peopleware all those years ago. If it takes someone ten to fifteen minutes to get into a mental flow situation, holding the context of their task in their head and thinking about, a cube-mate leaning over to ask something they could have looked up for themselves in a minute saves that cube-mate one minute, and costs the interrupted thinker several minutes to get back into flow. I even see it reach the point where people who know they really need to think about something gather up their paper and disappear elsewhere in the building.

<comment><USER5> I agree with everything you said. People do disappear, WFH, and put up do not disturb signs. However, this is from an operations standpoint, where heavy collaboration is needed to get stuff done. It may not be good for a pure programming shop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Spend every penny on the chairs. Get really nice chairs, like crazy nice, and then get cheap desks (e.g. Ikea).

As far as lighting I would just say make it extra departmentalised. Some people prefer to work in the shade others prefer those horrible office lights. I would also look at air conditioning and how adjustable it is.

Nothing else matters because everything else will likely be changed as it is needed. Even if you decide on a layout, if it doesn't work people will change it down the road.

But seriously: Get nice chairs.

<comment><USER8> nice chairs is a good one, but here are some others:

1\. some people don't like keyboard trays, but I've had shoulder problems after several years of working without the keyboard at the right height. get them

2\. get plastic adjustable stands for monitor and keyboards immediately, not on user request. make it ergonomic, but you don't have to spend the big bucks

3\. some developers need special environments (i.e. less noise, less visual distraction), but some feed off of interaction. learn what these needs are and either make it happen or don't hire them, but don't find out too late. do not handle this with white noise. it may mean they can't co-locate to be as productive, and if that is a problem, you need to figure that out

4\. people sometimes need privacy. don't foster an environment that encourages people to take calls inside or meet in cubes, distracting others

<comment><USER9> A point on 3. Some devs know what they are doing and prefer working alone in a quiet area. A lot of other devs have no idea what they are doing and disparage any situation where people aren't practically sharing seats and doing each other's work. Why? because they want other people around them to answer their questions, to do their work, and solve their problems. They are not "feeding" off interaction. They simply don't know the job. Do surgeons only work in groups because surgery is such as social experience that they feed off the social energy which lets them really bro down and do some surgery? No.

The people who typically put offices together usually don't come from an academic background and they typically don't do anything by themselves. Ever. They go from meeting to meeting all day. They have no basis for understanding that some jobs require individual effort. They buy group B's pitch by default. So they make some really bad mistakes:

Open floor plan - great for people who need to ask a lot of questions. bad for people who know the answers and will get interrupted.

Face to Face seating - great for people who want to get other people's attention. bad for people who want to concentrate on hard problems.

<comment><USER8> Good points, but I work with someone that is very able, very smart, but is an extrovert. I've actually never worked with anyone that was an extrovert and didn't do the work on their own, but I've heard of them. Usually if someone doesn't know what they are doing, they don't want to let on about it. It just becomes obvious.

What I don't understand is that when I go to small tech startups, the layout is almost always like Facebook's: face-to-face in an open room. Sure it is cheap, but I agree it is hard for some of us to think in those environments. I think Microsoft's "everyone gets an office" is best from the introvertive, thinking developer's point of view. Unfortunately, that isn't enough to make them great. And cubes suck.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you are from the US, I highly suggest you go and take a look a the way WeWork has designed their offices.

Quite amazing, and people love it.

<comment><USER11> Found a tour of their offices.

<http://www.businessinsider.com/wework-labs-tour-2011-4?op=1>

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Fresh fruit stocked and a Blendtec/Vitamix for smoothies.

Herbal teas and teapots you can take to your desk.

Foam roller for the ailing back. Seriously.

Espresso machine.

I know this isn't layout but having these in your kitchen would be nice. I've thought a lot about this in the past because one day I hope to be in your position. Congrats on the new offices.

</comment><comment><USER13> Since I haven't seen anyone else mention it, ventilation! Fresh, clean, breathable air does wonders for mood. Good circulation also keeps people from getting sick and heating/cooling issues from being silly.

This is not a simple thing to address, or easily noticed in spaces before a wall is up.

</comment><comment><USER14> Go call up steelcase, I've recently learned yea the make office furniture but they spend a LOT of time and energy working on and thinking about how to set up offices. Read their 360 magazine which talks about office space setup you'll get some great ideas.

</comment><comment><USER15> I just watched the following video today: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cku6RJPIGG8>

It is about the Fog Creek offices, it's well worth the money if you are designing an office.

</comment><comment><USER16> Joel Spolsky had some good advice: <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/12/29.html>

</comment><comment><USER17> The task you are engaged in is called "architectural programming."

Along with a budget, it forms the design brief.

It is the sort of task that benefits from hiring a design professional.</comment>


Cars are killing us. Within 10 years, we must phase them out - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/mar/07/cars-killing-us-driving-environment-phase-out <comment><USER2> I've been driving around Africa for almost three years now, and every time I go into a city I can't help but think along the same lines as this article.

I see tens of thousands of vehicles belching huge clouds of black smoke, idling for hours at a time with nobody inside, or stuck in soul crushing traffic. Just the other day it took a hour to drive five miles with tens of thousands of vehicles packed in.

It's also really easy to see the direct environmental impact - any place that does oil changes or repairs tires is surrounded by a huge patch of jet black earth where the waste products are simply tossed on the ground. Used tires are piled high, and crashed or burnt out vehicles commonly litter the roadside. In the first world we hide all of that from sight, sometimes I think it's better to have it out in the open so we can be more aware of what is really going on.

<comment><USER3> > In the first world we hide all of that from sight

There's no hiding. The cars are much cleaner with lower emissions. We have industrial pollution laws so auto shops have to safely dispose of waste. We don't leave burnt out cars on the roadside. You can add chaos to anything to make that thing look bad.

Also I hope you see the irony in your comment starting with

> I've been driving around Africa for almost three years now

<comment><USER4> I don't think that's really "ironic," and I don't just mean as a pedantic "what is the definition of irony" thing. The easiest way to see the problems with, say, airline travel is to travel by airlines. I don't know about "Africa" (and, what part of Africa -- last I heard, Africa is a pretty big place...), but in most places in the U.S., like it or not, you would very likely not be able to make a living without a personal vehicle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I keep coming back to this same bug bear every time the topic of cars and pollution comes up, but... diesels.

There's a practice here (UK) of buying diesels for the increased fuel economy, then having the particulate filters removed (discreetly, leaving the casing in place to hide the work) to reduce maintenance costs. Most garages offer this as a service openly, and it's common practice.

The cars are very easy to spot as the exhaust belches huge clouds of thick black smoke every time they accelerate.

The irony of this is that a great many of the cars currently on the road here are dirtier than cars that were banned twenty years ago for that same reason. The point being that we're not just not fixing the problem - we're actively going backwards.

I don't take my son to school through the car park (the most direct route) anymore for this reason. Most parents drive 4x4s which they idle there while parked. The smell alone is eye-watering, not to mention the smoke.

The point is that people just don't care. They don't care about their own kids' health, so of course they don't care about anyone elses.

Anyone I've discussed this with offline think it's silly to be bothered by this or I'm over-reacting, because (and I don't have the science to back this up) the world's getting progressively more stupid and (ob)noxious over time.

<comment><USER6> The changes to the MOT test last year should result in that being a major failure:

      Your vehicle will get a major fault if the MOT tester:

        * can see smoke of any colour coming from the exhaust
        * finds evidence that the DPF has been tampered with

<comment><USER5> I saw this, but I was disheartened when I was told by a mechanic not long back that this too is seen as a bit of a joke - in that the cars are tested at idle and the DPF check is cosmetic.

Hoping for sanity, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I lived most of my life in capitals. I cannot but notice the pattern. Smog, asthma, bad skin, and other air-related maladies. Since to 'drop cars' is not just not feasible, the next best thing, which is already happening, is to switch to electric vehicles and continue phasing out fossil fuel(s) as soon as possible (which is NOT 'tomorrow').

Once electric vehicles technology and cost strike a good balance, then I believe most people would go for an elecric vehicle. Legislation/regulations also help speed things up.

<comment><USER8> Exhaust is a huge component of the pollution, but simply switching to electric vehicles isn't enough because you still have additional particulate matter generated by them - especially rubber particles from the tires.

We need to both switch to electric vehicles and significantly cut down on the number of vehicles on the road.

<comment><USER9> Noise is also a contaminant. The tyre roar from Q7 and X5 at speed is painful in my ears as a pedestrian or cyclist. But the drivers neither know not care in their insulated metal boxes.

And how many years of life are lost due to inadequate sleep as a result of 24/7 road noise?

Perhaps we need a regulation that interior vehicle noise needs to match external noise measured at kerbside.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> First of all: public transport sucks in too many places of the world. Going to work by public transport takes double the time and is anything but enjoyable because the trains are filled to the point where some people are happy to even get in on exceptional days. And lets not forget that if i miss my bus, the next one that makes sense to take is an hour later. No thanks. Second: If we ignore american car culture for a second, cars aren't too polluting. Cruise ships and some companies are way worse. Especially cruise ships are incredibly bad for the environment and should (in my opinion) be abandoned or improved drastically before i get denied a diesel car by the german government. Especially if petrol/gas production is worse for the environment than diesel. And third: electric cars can move the pollution out of the cities and somewhere else. Same with noise. Though battery production is an issue that won't move out of the way in the near future. Energy production, the distance and battery production make electric cars not viable for many people. Especially if you plan to go on vacation sometimes.

<comment><USER11> So:

1\. Ban cars, 2. Promote better public transport that meets needs, 3. Ban cruise ships and promote environmentally aware shipping, 4. Power the grid from sustainable sources, 5. Take holidays by public transport.

Yep, fully behind all that.

<comment><USER10> I was saying that there are more important issuea to be tackled first. Banning cars altogether is too extremist. And cars can be a hobby which you would be killing which is never a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> As each generation grows up more and more ingrained with the use of a car the likelihood of this happening decreases. Governments would be too frightened to take this away.

My father was the first person in his extended family to own a car, around 60 years ago. Car travel was a luxury. My mother used to go on holiday via train, something that is almost unheard of now in the UK.

At my children's school parents would rather spend the best part of an hour queuing for a car parking space, then queuing to get out of car park rather than go to the effort of walking in much less time.

People seem to be prepared to put up with the madness rather than walk / use public transport.

<comment><USER13> > As each generation grows up more and more ingrained with the use of a car > the likelihood of this happening decreases.

I doubt it.

> Traffic counts suggest that the number of miles cycled in 2017 – 3.27 > billion – is around 29% above the figure for 1997.

> Cycle use increases have been higher in some urban areas: in London, for > example, around 27,000 people cycled across the central London by cycle in > 1977 (both directions), compared to 184,000 in 2016 – almost seven times as > many.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I live in a small ish city and the air quality is much better than most cities but when I have to travel in to the city for work i end up coughing for the rest of the day. On weekends I avoid the city and by Saturday my cough is mostly gone and by sunday its totally gone only to come back on monday. Cars are the primary reason for me wanting to change to a remote job. Not only is riding my bike in to the city slightly terrifying but the damage being around so much air pollution is just too much to make it worth it.

</comment><comment><USER15> Better mass transit in cities is probably a good place to start. Do low-medium speed maglevs carrying 30,000 people per hour sound appealing?

[https://gbtimes.com/beijing-launch-first-maglev- line-2016](https://gbtimes.com/beijing-launch-first-maglev-line-2016)

[https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-driverless- maglev-t...](https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/china-driverless-maglev- trains/index.html)

<comment><USER16> 30K per hour doesn't seem like a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I agree it's a problem but I see no discussion of housing costs or the costs of completely redoing public transportation. Clearly the author hasn't thought this through. People drive because they can't afford to live where they ideally want to. In the US, public transportation is virtually non-existent. Without a solution to the housing and transportation problems, there's no way to get rid of cars and no one has even proposed a solution, let alone the author.

</comment><comment><USER18> Imagine the day where you could just chill at your balcony without any noise pollution thanks to EVs. Your mental health would benefit from that too.

<comment><USER14> EVs still make a lot of tire and wind noise. They also cause air pollution from rubber and brake dust. There is just simply no way to continue using cars they are not suited to modern cities.

<comment><USER19> That seems like a very strong statement. The air pollution from rubber and brake dust is minimal relative to the emissions from combustion engines. You seem to be arguing "there's no way to continue cars because we won't get them to 100% clean and silent". It's not that having quieter cities and no pollution are bad things, but having those as your goals eliminates many good options that address other laudable goals (like substantial reductions in pollution and noise from EV's).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think this article does a disservice to the cause for reducing CO2 emissions. It's unnecessarily hyperbolic and contains factual inaccuracies.

<comment><USER11> Not sure where you see inaccuracies. Unlike yourself it links and cites the claims made.

Doesn't seem especially hyperbolic either.

<comment><USER20> Indeed I checked one of his references where he says that it is cars that are the primary reason that CO2 emissions haven't reduced in the transport sector. The linked article says that it is airlines (increase of 2%) not cars (decrease of 1%).

<comment><USER11> Can you please link the piece that claims this - I see nothing to support this in the couple of links around transport emissions.

<comment><USER20> [https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions- fell-...](https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-uks-co2-emissions-fell-for- record-sixth-consecutive-year-in-2018)

"Demand for oil was also largely unchanged in 2018 (-0.3%). Within that total, demand for diesel and petrol both saw annual declines of around 1%, whereas aviation fuel was up 2%."

<comment><USER11> Even with a tiny change in relative proportions within transport, road vehicles still use vastly more fuel than aviation in the UK. Without absolute tonnage of emissions, and relative proportion of commercial and private, I can't see a way to invalidate his claim or prefer aviation as culprit. It _sounds_ perfectly reasonable and the least controversial assumption from data available: cars are the big majority of the largest fuel user, though commercial traffic may get low enough mpg to emit disproportionally large amounts.

<comment><USER21> And then there's this:

[https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships- create-m...](https://www.industrytap.com/worlds-15-biggest-ships-create-more- pollution-than-all-the-cars-in-the-world/8182)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Cars can't and shouldn't be phased out in rural areas. They're a necessity. And rural living is a necessity for all of society, without it agriculture will die.

So maybe a city-centric approach is the right thing.

</comment><comment><USER23> Damn, I thought I could afford a decent sports car for me in 10 years :)

</comment><comment><USER24> No.</comment>


The Computer Revolution Has yet to Happen - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/absurdist/the-computer-revolution-has-yet-to-happen-f1dbf983d477#.3czl0zgtl <comment><USER2> I'm going to say something a bit controversial here.

Most people are not creative. Its true. There isn't some horde of people who want to program but don't know it yet because they own a tablet instead of a computer. There isn't some horde of musicians that will never know it because their music comes from an mp3 instead of their own instrument. There isn't some horde of artists who will never know it because their images come from a camera instead of owning a paintbrush. Heck even on a web-forum where contributing content is as low friction as sharing links, only ~10% of users do it. And only 10% of that 10% actually make the content that's posted. 90% of people are happy to passively consume content.

I wish the author were right. I wish there was this huge hidden demand for a real computer revolution. I still think that when I buy a device I should actually own it (which entails freedom to modify). But let's face it idealistic nerd types. We lost. Most people are consumers not creators. Get over it, go to work, program _for_ them, and wipe away your tears with a stack of money.

<comment><USER3> I disagree. As soon as it became as easy to create video as it was to draw, people created video content, not just consumed it. When sharing (youtube) was easy, the levels of creation have grown unbounded.

The amount of media in all forms that is being created today is astounding. That's digital drawing

If coding was as easy as writing we would find at least as much growth there. I know dozens of people who have ideas that would try to code, if it was as conceptually easy for them to do as is writing a memoir.

Such a revolution could definitely happen.

<comment><USER4> Is programming really harder than writing a memoir? It seems to be the other way around to me.

<comment><USER5> IMHO,

Coding a simple mainentence script is equal to writing a diary entry.

Coding a CRUD web app is as hard as writing an average short story in a college writing class.

Coding an app that uses heavily system programming principles, concurrency and networking probably equal to MFA level creative writing and so on...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> To the author: I could not agree more. In the long term history of computing, I would hope this stage we are in now is not the height of the "revolution".

In my humble opinion, to which I am entitled, current Apple hardware is still well-designed like the Apple hardware of the past, but none of it resembles a "bicycyle for the mind".

These phones and tablets are "computers" but are programmable only by permission; they are consumption instruments that are meant to support some plan to dominate the communications, media, entertainment industries. Not my idea of a programmable, pocket-sized, networked computer.

All due respect to Apple and their wild commercial success, but looking to the future, I get more excited about my RPi or Teensy than I do about my Apple devices.

I have little interest in paying for a license to a bloated, complex, proprietary IDE (Xcode) and seeking approval from an "app store" when I can write ARM assembly from a netbook or laptop using a free and open source assembler and run it instantly on the RPi.

The revolution is yet to come. I hope. kparc.com/o.htm

<comment><USER7> Don't be silly- Apple gives Xcode away for free, it is not bloated nor complex, nor particularly proprietary (who do you think made LLVM?) and you don't need to seek anyone's approval to upload your software to github or to run it on your own device. You can write Arm assembly on your laptop and run it on your iPhone even easier than you can on an rPi.

You are really wasting time hating on Apple and spinning them (i you really are an apple device owner) since Apple is the one who broke open the mobile device so you could run software with out permission (Before you had to get AT&T for Verizons permission to put code on your phone) and who made high quality development tools and platforms available for free.

Apple is the one who shipped the Apple 1 with BASIC... and they haven't stopped.

<comment><USER8> XCode is not free. It costs 1 Mac. Given the price difference between the cheapest mac and the cheapest alternatives the cost of XCode something > $0

Posted from a mac

<comment><USER9> If we follow your argument to the logical extreme there is no such thing as free software because the computer to run such software almost always costs money?

(Unless you receive a computer as a gift or it is freely leased; but then that applies to Macs as much as any computer.)

<comment><USER10> The GNU toolchain (or whatever) is licensed to run on any hardware that you can possibly use it on, which will often be cheaper and more accessible than a Mac. Xcode requires Mac OS, which is only licensed for use on Apple hardware.

You can buy used Apple hardware fairly cheaply, but I think that post still has a point about relative cost.

<comment><USER9> I'm not suggesting that hardware can't be cheaper.

I'm saying that if you define free software as software that must be available on free hardware, then there is not much free software at all.

<comment><USER11> That's not his argument. His argument is that an apple computer is required for Xcode. An apple computer is a regular computer except that it costs more and comes with a bundle of software. Xcode is in the bundle. So... The price is indeterminable but definitely not $0. He hedged specifically against your reductio ad absurdem by mentioning the price difference.

<comment><USER9> The argument was made against the statement "Apple gives Xcode away for free."

They do give Xcode away for free. I didn't think that factoring a modern development computer into the price was a reasonable stance to take against that line.

<comment><USER12> Mac isn't _a_ modern development computer. It's a _very specific_ modern development computer, and not necessarily the best in terms of quality/cost.

We're getting unnecessarily deep into dissecting this single line anyway. The original poster's point was that Apple's hardware and software ecosystem, while of great quality, still isn't the "bicycle for the mind" because it's terribly locked down.

<comment><USER9> I find that argument to be bizarre. You can do computer science on paper.

As long as you can write programs and run them then who cares whether you compile them directly to the hardware or interpret them, or whatever?

Apple locks down its distribution platform. It doesn't lock down your brain from thinking or writing programs, and it doesn't lock down its computers from running them for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think minecraft fits the bill pretty well actually. Kids make all kinds of things in there, and it's not fragile in the way traditional programming is.

The article sort of gets hung up on form factor. Tablets are yet another window into the universe of computing, and there's a lot of creation happening.

I suspect that the real promised land will need VR for Lego-like construction of components and/or AI-assisted compilers enabling a sort of DWIM programming. As it is programming is just too fragile to be of interest to the "laity."

<comment><USER14> I thought of Minecraft too, and the other games that can be modded.

The ComputerCraft mod is interesting, especially a version where you can use a simple GUI inside Minecraft itself to create Lua scripts that control robots "turtles" and computers in the game world: [http://computercraftedu.com/](http://computercraftedu.com/)

A seven-year-old can make programs (maybe from smaller functions that they've already written) that will hopefully find the diamonds, build the houses, and manage the farms of their Minecraft life.

This seems possible because of the limited number of objects and actions in a Minecraft world, while Minecraft is still rich enough for plenty of experimentation, trial and error, and aha moments...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I grew up before the generation of kids who booted into basic-- I started programming with a soldering iron. I designed my first computer. Then I designed a video card for it. Then I had to write a BIOS for it.

Here's the reality though, Hypercard was a failure. People didn't use BASIC on the Apple II. some did, sure, but most didn't.

Most people are not programmers and not programming inclined. Apple gives away the tools you need to build software for your iPad or iPHone-- in the form of Xcode which is FREE FOR EVERYONE to use. It's one of the best tools out there-- when Microsoft was still charging thousands a year, Apple put theirs out for free (and of course, these days Linux and GCC and Ruby on Rails and the whole programming tradition of open source puts even more tools in people's hands.)

But heres the thing. Most people don't care. It's never been a better time to be a programmer.

But the vast majority of people don't want to be.

<comment><USER15> _But heres the thing. Most people don 't care. It's never been a better time to be a programmer.

But the vast majority of people don't want to be._

That just means the tools aren't done yet.

<comment><USER16> Hammers and screwdrivers are - I think - pretty mature tools. Still lots of people do not care for DIY and prefer to buy premade or pay someone else to take care of custom solutions.

<comment><USER15> Hammers and screwdrivers still require quite a bit of thought and planning. IMO, the tools of the "real computer revolution" won't be done until they're at least as effortless as the Star Trek holodeck ("computer, give me a table here, made out of metal").

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In my opinion the most powerful and useful thing a computer does isn't flappy birds or finding massive primes, but allowing people to communicate more easily. Everything the computer does on top of letting people tell things to other people half way across at world at the speed of light (or close enough) is just icing on the cake.

</comment><comment><USER18> There are many more people capable of programming their devices nowadays but I'd wager there's less programmers to each user now.

</comment><comment><USER19> Here's my newest favorite computer [http://museum.mit.edu/150/19](http://museum.mit.edu/150/19)

<comment><USER20> [https://youtu.be/IOiZatlZtGU?t=22s](https://youtu.be/IOiZatlZtGU?t=22s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> For the record, the title was taken from the title of AKay's 1997 OOPSLA keynote, which is well worth a watch.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oKg1hTOQXoY)

</comment><comment><USER22> more than a minority of specialists?

All of the software, apps, and services out there should tell you that it's more than this.

I've seen multiple articles talking about people as young as 10 years old creating apps. This wasn't possible in the 80s and 90s.

I'm still not sure why adblock was thrown in there. It has only made it more difficult for indy sites and thw average person to make money and is helping to create an environment where only large corporations can survive.

The same revolution happened with the music industry: unless you are signed to a major label, it will not pay the bills.

<comment><USER15> _I 've seen multiple articles talking about people as young as 10 years old creating apps. This wasn't possible in the 80s and 90s._

Yeah it was. Some of us started programming at 5 or 6 years old in the 1980s and 1990s. That doesn't mean we're better at it than people who start at later ages, but it does show that it was possible for kids to code (and I'm sure some even made money at it) back then.

<comment><USER12> And so it was in the late 90s / early 2000s. I first touched code when I was 6-7, but otherwise started seriously programming when I was 12-13. The _only_ thing you needed was a computer, a library in town, and parents who didn't limit your computer time very much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a programmer and tinkerer (hacker?) I cannot agree more with the sentiment of the article. And what follows is not a direct response to article, which I found surprisingly positive altogether, but more of a general rumination on my own relationship with 'computers' and what I often see happening among my peers as well.

I think it's important not to only see things as a 'computer specialist', especially if that perspective (perhaps rightfully) can lead to pessimism these days.

Throughout my childhood, the main reason why computers excited me was the promise of realizing all the sci-fi stuff I read about and saw on television: tricorders, virtual reality, video communication, voice- and touch-interfaces, zoom-in-and-enhance high-resolution maps, instant access to the knowledge of the world through some kind of AI (all voice-enabled, obviously).

And now, all these things actually exist (to a _large_ degree), and in a device that I carry in my pocket!

The child that I was did not for the most part care about _building_ these tools, or being about the _modify_ and _inspect_ them. He cared about _using_ them. And he's excited about the immense progress in what feels like a very short time.

This adult that I am, meanwhile, has a tendency to instead mostly complain about wifi-issues, siri not picking up on my commands, inability to install flux on my phone, app crashes, the new Google Maps interface, dropped Skype calls, the state of front-end development, and so on.

However justified that may be, I've found that focusing on what that kid wants and overcoming the issues that stand in the way has been a much better motivator than focusing on that adult.

To name a specific example. Based on the articles and discussions here I sometimes feel a bit... sad that I've mostly been working in web development since coming of age. Apparently we're reinventing the wheel badly, javascript is a pretty bad or at best mediocre language, html/css are terrible because they were not intended for app development, npm is a shitty package manager, and so on. Sometimes I even start feeling nostalgic for the good old days by proxy.

But then, when I finish a little journalling/project logging tool that scratches a personal itch, and I can instantly release that to the web and let my brother play around with it, or when I write a little bookmarklet that allows me to fold/unfold/upvote HN comments using the letters on my keyboard, well, then I feel good again.

Because then I remember that not that long ago I wrote a game in Delphi. It required trying to figure out how to so something based on random computer magazines and a single Delphi for Dummies book, it required waiting days for help from some dude in Florida who thankfully was happy to assist me. It required putting the game on a floppy disk and hoping that as it was passed along to my dad and his colleagues, it would somehow get into the hands of others.

That's when I get excited again about working with computers, and the progress we've made. And that's the mindset that makes it easier for me to try and think about ways to get my younger siblings and others as excited about _building_ and _tinkering_ as I am.

</comment><comment><USER24> _The Computer Revolution Happens_ , would be a better subject to discuss. This isn't something that is going to quit happening one day. It'll never stop happening.

</comment><comment><USER25> Indeed.

I am particularly excited about Intel/Micron's 3D xpoint technology, which will be on sale next year. Extrapolating the exponential rate of improvement in storage technologies, I wouldn't be surprised if we had persistent TB storage at SRAM speeds by 2040.

</comment><comment><USER26> This is gibberish. The programming tools on the iPad are already quite powerful - far better than those old basic powered micros.

There is also no reason to believe that XCode or the equivalent will not come to iOS now that the devices are nearly performant enough.

As far as a completely open system like Smalltalk goes - that was a wonderful world which I wish we lived in, but we don't - not because of Apple, but because of malware, black-hats, and cyberwarfare.

<comment><USER27> Apple does not have to open up the whole system - there are some good reasons for limiting the access of applications to the system part of the filesystem and the bare hardware.

However, Apple also very much limits the ability to run e.g. Squeak as an app on IOS, you might run it, but not download source code over the internet. And if you read the Anandtech iPad Pro test you can see how much software is held back by the restrictions on exchanging data between apps.

I am writing this as an Apple user and owner of several IOS devices. IOS was a huge accomplishment in touch UI usability, now it is time to develop the computing part to similar levels.

<comment><USER28> Ipad dumbs down personal computing by doing things in this way. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAghAJcO1o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTAghAJcO1o) (Alan Kay talk, 14-15min)

<comment><USER26> I love Alan Kay, but he's just wrong there.

And since the PC and Android are not locked down - why don't we see the magic there?

<comment><USER29> Windows 10 is a walled garden.

Android is Google's walled garden by default.

There is no magic in walled gardens.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Who are your favorite charities and why? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll start.

Water.org because without clean water there is no possibility of a good life.

Halotrust.org that does landmine removal in countries and helps people with prothesis. My tax dollars removed these people's limbs, this is the least I can as a sorry to US's use of cluster bombs.

And TheFood Bank, where my dollar can magically buy 4 dollars of food.</comment>