A Simpler Vim Statusline - <AUTHOR> http://www.blaenkdenum.com/posts/a-simpler-vim-statusline/ <comment><USER2> All these recent posts about peoples' "light" vim configs and they're complex as hell.

There is some advantage to installing pathogen, airline, and just leaving it. Notably, defaults take like three lines of vimrc and you don't have to make a blog post to remind yourself how to decipher it six months later.

Ironically, all the things this guy decries as "noise" I find fairly useful. There are parts I don't use, but selectively ignoring them is much easier than adding even more lines to my two-page vimrc which is already bigger than I'd like.

Sometimes simple is more clever than complex.

</comment><comment><USER3> Try emacs smart mode line [https://github.com/Malabarba/smart-mode- line](https://github.com/Malabarba/smart-mode-line)

</comment><comment><USER4> Setting up a gutter-sized band for displaying the column number ([https://github.com/blaenk/dots/blob/d928a76d802159960d8b2768...](https://github.com/blaenk/dots/blob/d928a76d802159960d8b2768c660919924e99e44/vim/.vimrc#L289-L314)) is a pretty neat idea.

I'm stealing that, except I'm using the gutter to show the buffer number.

</comment><comment><USER5> Speaking of simple -- the %M flag in 'statusline' gives you the + for modified files. No need to use an expression block.

I like to use the status line to keep track of buffer-local options that differ from the default setting. That's what [https://github.com/tomtom/tstatus_vim](https://github.com/tomtom/tstatus_vim) gives me.

</comment><comment><USER6> I switched from powerline, to airline, and then to lightline. I got tired of installing patched fonts (source code pro is available in many package repos). Powerline also seems a little too all-encompassing.

One thing I would love (I know, it's frivolous) is full color emoji in my Linux terminal, though that doesn't seem like it's coming any time soon.

<comment><USER7> I believe you could have emoji in your terminal with an oh-my-zsh plugin, if you use the zsh shell.

<comment><USER8> Unless I'm mistaken, full-color emoji aren't a property of the shell; they're a function of the terminal. Emoji are simply text, and it is up to the terminal to render that. (i.e., the application, be it the shell or Python etc. outputs an emoji code point, and the terminal renders that — potentially as full-color emoji if it or the font rendering layer knows what to do. Works quite well in OS X, where the font support is great.)

<comment><USER6> There are grey scale emoji fonts, but as far as I know there is no way to render full color images as fonts in X11.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can mods please add [2013] to the title.

</comment><comment><USER10> Wth people. Just set laststatus=0.</comment>


Good C# codebases to read? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I'm pretty sure this is a good one. [https://github.com/dotnet](https://github.com/dotnet)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://dotnetblogengine.net/](https://dotnetblogengine.net/)</comment>


The Best Albums of 2010, As Voted On By You (+ free streams) - <AUTHOR> http://gorankem.com/bestof2010

<comment><USER2> I'm actually a pretty big sucker for the mainstream, so it's nice to get a better feel of what people actually listen to. Not familiar with most of the albums, so I've been leaving the page up for the past day and letting the Grooveshark widget run. Good stuff.</comment>


Ask HN: What do you use for remote access? - <AUTHOR> Have you ever had to access a device or VM behind NAT and what would you use to do it? Say a raspberry pi running a web server. Would you use port forwarding or something else? <comment><USER2> Zerotier - [https://www.zerotier.com/](https://www.zerotier.com/)

Create a network with automatic IPv6 addresses and start the management access service (likely ssh) on the zt0 interface. then it "just works", regardless of NAT in between.

This is a completely userland solution however. You probably don't want to put real service traffic on it if you care about throughput. It's perfect for management however. (or just test it, maybe you can saturate your link anyway)

This works either by using the public servers for discovery, or you can set up your own dedicated endpoint(s). Either way, the traffic takes the direct route through the NATs, or within the local netowrk if possible.

<comment><USER3> Great solution. The website has a crazy jiggling photo that almost made me leave.

I was going to suggest something like teamviewer or just a vpn, but this is actually a pretty neat solution that I have not seen before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For VNC-style full desktop access, Teamviewer just works...it runs on Windows and Linux, is very fast, and (usually) doesn't need any special firewall/NAT rules set up. I believe on Windows at least, it can be used to establish a VPN as well.

Might be overkill if you just need to reach one particular service (e.g. HTTP(S)) though, in which case you could consider setting up a reverse proxy (e.g. using nginx) on a DMZ'd server?

<comment><USER5> Is remote access by TeamViewer established through the VNC protocol? I use RealVNC when I want to remotely control my computer but it's not as fast as I'd like in most cases. Also I'd prefer it if the connection between me and the server I'm connecting to was direct and wasn't being routed through the servers of a third party. I checked Wikipedia and it says direct P2P connections happen 70% of the time but I'm not so sure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I tunnel everything through ssh (both local and remote port forwarding) and in some cases for the exact use-case you have mentioned (web server running on a raspberry pi that is behind a NAT). It works for me.

I've never set up a VPN and I'm not too knowledgable about them. Should I set one up? I don't know. Toyed with the idea a few weeks ago up until I read this post on StackOverflow ([http://serverfault.com/questions/653211/ssh-tunneling- is-fas...](http://serverfault.com/questions/653211/ssh-tunneling-is-faster- than-openvpn-could-it-be)) - TLDR (VPNs are slow)

<comment><USER2> > TLDR (VPNs are slow)

I don't think that's correct. There are multiple kinds of VPNs and multiple things that slow them down. Specifically:

\- OpenVPN and other tun/tap handlers send more wrappers and suffer from slow userland networking

\- SSH tunneling sends the least amount of unnecessary encapsulation / wrappers

\- IPSec, wireguard and other services that do actual traffic processing in the kernel are likely to be faster than the rest, but still has some encapsulation overhead

On a slow link (sending things over internet) the packet overhead matters the most. On a local network, you should be able to saturate 100mbps even with openvpn without a lot of issues.

Out of those SSH is not a "real vpn". There's no persistence and you only get a point-to-point tunnel which needs to be started always from side behind the NAT. Also, you can't connect full networks, or make mDNS work with remote endpoints this way.

> Should I set one up?

If you need just a tunnel that you can set up on demand - probably not. If you need something more - you should definitely try a VPN instead.

<comment><USER6> OpenSSH has support for VPNs so you can connect two networks, although they do mention that for permanent VPNs you should use something else.

<comment><USER2> Right, they did add this recently! I haven't played with it yet unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The easiest to setup should be port-forwarding on the router. If you trust putting your server on the internet, then that's the way to go.

But it really depends on the use-case. HTTP from behind NAT - that's easy, just port-forward. If you're talking about SSH access, then you have a few more options that you might want to explore (port forward, or tunneling to an external host). If you're talking more than one host behind the NAT, then you have another set of possible solutions (reverse-proxy HTTP servers, SSH gateways, etc...).

Care to give us more information?

</comment><comment><USER8> IPv6. This allows my hosts to be accessible to the internet, even though they're behind routers/NAT devices.

<comment><USER9> Some pointers for a noob to follow? Thanks in advance.

<comment><USER10> Either the machine is routed to the internet because there's an IPv6-aware router properly set up with an ISP that provides a prefix, or you can create a 6in4 tunnel through a broker such as Hurricane Electric[0] or SixXS[1] (either on a router or on the machine itself).

[0]: [https://tunnelbroker.net](https://tunnelbroker.net)

[1]: [https://www.sixxs.net](https://www.sixxs.net)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was using a combination of a VPN and NAT rules to do so. Basically, machine A (the machine behind the firewall I want to connect to) would connect to machine B (a VPS or AWS instance - free tier micro instances are awesome for that matter!) using a VPN connection (pptp or openvpn or l2tp or whatever - pptp has the advantage of being super easy to setup and working out of the box on most linux distros. Not the most secured though, but to run SSH on it, it's good enough). I had a script to periodically check (every 1 minute or so) if the VPN connection was up and if not, try to reconnect. Then, I had some iptables NAT forwarding rules on machine B (let's call it gateway) to send all TCP traffic on a defined port to the machine A, port 22, using the VPN interface.

It had the advantage of being quite easy to setup for me as I'm quite used to setup VPNs and NAT forwarding rules (for having living in China, bypassing firewalls is almost an everyday routine exercise :) Also, it worked perfectly well and the performances were reasonable. I could access my server at home, in Beijing, behind a NAT, a dynamic IP and the country's firewall, from anywhere in the world. I was happy!

There are surely other (better?) ways to do it though, and the autossh/reverse tunnels option looks very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER12> Use case is important, to determine what resources+tools you have access to/can deploy.

However, assuming this device/VM runs "unix", and to K.I.S.S., use reverse SSH tunnelling. Once an SSH tunnel is established on your side, you can do whatever you want... e.g. tunnel VNC through for GUI.

You can of course add more layers of security e.g. non-standard SSH port, dedicated VM/server for the SSH entry point, refresh SSH keys regularly etc.

</comment><comment><USER13> The semi-standard solution is a VPN, e.g. OpenVPN or IPsec, to an external server.

<comment><USER14> I've got way more love for OpenVPN after learning that's how Tesla is having vehicles retrieve their firmware updates from the mothership.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> When I'm on the road, I use tinc from the server in my home office out to a bastion server I have in the cloud. Separate keys and passphrases, no ssh- agent to keep the passphrases around for anyone who gets their hands on my laptop. Super simple to set up, and hasn't failed me once in several years. I guess you could argue that tinc isn't the most secure option, but I'm not too concerned about somebody managing to be in the middle of that path. The bastion's the thing that has to be most hardened against attack.

</comment><comment><USER16> All you need is SSH and SSH config. There are a lot of tutorials out there, but I find many of them are based on older versions of SSH which lack a bit more sugar around proxying.

Essentially you will add a directive to SSH config for the NAT host, and the host that you want to access. In the directive for the host to access, you will specify that you're proxying through the NAT host.

You can then leave out all of the port forwarding options when connecting to the target host, SSH will pick that up from the config file.

</comment><comment><USER17> A very "low-tech" solution but Chrome Remote Desktop is very easy to setup and works well if you want to use an Android Phone/Tablet to connect to the device/VM.

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-remote- desk...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/chrome-remote- desktop/gbchcmhmhahfdphkhkmpfmihenigjmpp?hl=en)

</comment><comment><USER18> probably tmi but any / all of the following: \- SSH (direct or tunnels) \- VNC (usually over ssh or VPN) \- RDP (usually over ssh or VPN) \- VPN (openvpn or ipsec) \- MicroTik Router at home with site-to-site VPN to my DC and Office \- Mobile Hotspot (always a must when traveling) \- Last resort: Dial direct with 56.6kbps modem to DC when there is an internet uplink failure or DDoS attack.

</comment><comment><USER19> I usually use sshuttle. It requires you to be able to SSH into a box with Python that's behind the NAT, which is usually the router or something already exposed through port forwarding. On the client, it then uses iptables or pf to tunnel TCP and UDP through an SSH tunnel. No complicated network setup is required and it is easy to set up limited subnets for tunneling, for example.

</comment><comment><USER20> I use GateOne ([https://github.com/liftoff/GateOne](https://github.com/liftoff/GateOne)) running on a vps (served with https and htaccess). Sometimes all I have is web access (even SSH is blocked) and so I can login to anything from here. Works great on any device too.

</comment><comment><USER21> SSH for Linux or TeamViewer for Windows, there's also Hamachi for Linux which worked when I needed to use it once

<comment><USER22> Be sure to use 2FA on TeamViewer. 3 months ago accounts were bruteforced and thousands of PC's were hacked as a result of guessing the one-time-user- password (4-digits).

TeamViewers response was to bury their head in the sand until Ars interviewed them to which they said "none of this is our fault, 2FA is working fine, people being hacked is unrelated to TeamViewer".

In reality TeamViewer wasn't properly rate limiting or blacklisting IP's for making too many guesses at the one-time-password. They made no customer outreach to suggest using 2FA. They didn't acknowledge the attack for 2 weeks until the Ars article, aside from replies to emails saying they should talk to their local police department.

TeamViewer is still the best tool out there for remote access for Windows computers on corporate networks and personal use I find. However their handling of the attack was pathetic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I access through http/https using [Wetty]([https://github.com/krishnasrinivas/wetty](https://github.com/krishnasrinivas/wetty)) within a electron shell and it works perfectly!

</comment><comment><USER24> autossh and reverse tunnels. like this: [https://raymii.org/s/tutorials/Autossh_persistent_tunnels.ht...](https://raymii.org/s/tutorials/Autossh_persistent_tunnels.html)

<comment><USER25> Autossh is great, I use it all the time. I use "@reboot" in a non-privileged user's cron to start them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> ngrok

<comment><USER27> Sad to see this is the only mention of this great tool. Very good stuff - [https://ngrok.com/](https://ngrok.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Twilio - [https://www.twilio.com/stun-turn](https://www.twilio.com/stun-turn)

</comment><comment><USER29> SSHreach.me - [https://sshreach.me/](https://sshreach.me/)

</comment><comment><USER30> tor hidden services. slow, but secure!

<comment><USER2> Also impossible to properly firewall. By design you give the whole world the opportunity to send you traffic to forward. This does not work for any kind of professional deployment.

<comment><USER30> This depends on what you mean by "properly" and "impossible" and "professional" and "forward".

Many professional name-brand corporations use Tor daily.

The only ports opened are those you configure to have onion services. Port limiting is one of the major features of firewalls.

You don't get to control source IP ranges, but those aren't generally trustworthy on the open internet anyway.

Also, the traffic isn't "forwarded" \-- hidden services shouldn't be run on a relay, actually, so you're not forwarding anybody's traffic but your own.

Also, barring the recent attacks on discovery of onion services, connecting to a tor onion service allows you stronger security guarantees and MitM defense than TCP+DNS+IP routes.

<comment><USER2> > You don't get to control source IP ranges, but those aren't generally > trustworthy on the open internet anyway.

IP ranges are just another layer of security controls. They may be easily spoofed one way. They may be even spoofed in a two-way communication in some situations. But it doesn't mean it's a useless control. If you can filter more traffic you should and Tor makes that hard to achieve.

> Also, the traffic isn't "forwarded" \-- hidden services shouldn't be run on > a relay, actually, so you're not forwarding anybody's traffic but your own.

Even if you don't participate in the relay of traffic, you're still connecting to the nodes that can send you anything and you need to process it, because it could be traffic addressed to you. I said you may get traffic to forward (or random traffic in general) - it doesn't matter if you're going to actually do it or not. I wouldn't be comfortable running that service. This does not help to reduce your attack surface.

> allows you stronger security guarantees and MitM defense than TCP+DNS+IP > routes

It's a tradeoff. You're substituting tested routing mechanism should not be trusted (so we do the AuthN/Z in higher layers), for a relatively new routing mechanism which in duplicates some of the AuthN checking, but at the same time exposes and advertises a new service on your network. You may think it's better, I would disagree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> In the past I have used ssh port forwarding, LogMeIn Hamachi, and tinc. All seem to work ok.

</comment><comment><USER32> Port forwarding, reverse SSH tunnel or Tor onion service. All three for more reliability.

<comment><USER2> That's not how reliability works. If you use 3 different layers that the traffic needs to pass through, you have 3 different layers that can fail. That means less reliability, not more.

<comment><USER32> I obviously wasn't suggesting that.

<comment><USER2> It wasn't obvious to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I use tinc + mosh/ssh, and it's wonderful. I highly recommend it.

</comment><comment><USER34> Zerotier one

</comment><comment><USER35> Glad you're asking!

I built Wormhole Network [https://wormhole.network](https://wormhole.network) with the idea of making remote access very easy and as secure as possible.

Disclosure: This is SaaS and I've built it.

Wormhole builds an overlay network where you can run any L3 protocol really. By default we provide DHCP for IPv4 within the 22.214.171.124/24 (yes, just a /24 by default as it suits most users, it can be customised or even disabled under request). We have chosen this address space to increase the chances of non- overlapping with your own networks.

The advantage of running an overlay network like Wormhole are:

\- No need to open ports anywhere or do any inbound NAT or PAT. All traffic is outgoing. By default UDP, but the protocol would fall back to 443/TCP if needed.

\- The above means it works pretty much anywhere with an Internet connection that lets you browse the web.

\- Your devices' IP addresses inside Wormhole could be always the same, regardless of where they are. Think of migrating your servers to a new hosting? Keep the same IP. Do you team mates move frequently, work from home at times or even from their favourite coffee place? No problems, they'll keep the same IP address.

\- Full access between devices inside the network. It works like a real LAN. No need to open ports to reach out to your development server nor leave any other services reachable from the internet. You could lock down all inbound access from Internet to your servers and still reach them through Wormhole.

\- All traffic is encrypted. Note: We don't roll our own crypto. We rely on SoftEther's (see below).

\- No need to configure a VPN with your cloud/hosting provider, provision VPN hardware nor anything like that.

\- Multiplatorm Linux, Windows and macOS.

\- It all runs on free, open source software: SoftEther [https://www.softether.org](https://www.softether.org) so you can audit the software (and it's not ours, people are using it all over the world for VPN)

The architecture is based on central servers that route the traffic among the peers in your network, hence why full connectivity can be accomplished always with only outbound connections. It is important to choose in which server you want to create your connection, so the latency is as low as possible.

Learn more about us in our documentation section: [https://wormhole.network/docs/](https://wormhole.network/docs/)

We currently have a few hundred users and are looking into making the product better by listening to your feedback. We have a free tier without time or traffic limits, available in three regions (US East, Netherlands and Singapore); it just has user limits. No credit card needed to use it.

I'll be extremely happy to receive criticism, suggestions and any other feedback in general here or directed to pedro /at/ wormhole.network

</comment><comment><USER36> OpenVPN on the bastion host, and ssh over the VPN. If you don't control the bastion, then you need something that 'phones out' (could use a reverse ssh session for small scale stuff)</comment>


U.S. Government Launches $100M "Apollo Project of the Brain" - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-u-s-government-launches-a-100-million-apollo-project-of-the-brain/ <comment><USER2> 'Intelligence project aims to reverse-engineer the brain to find algorithms that allow computers to think more like humans'</comment>


A Powerful Tool SaaS Companies Can Use to Stand Out from Competitors - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketingthatsells.net/blog/a-powerful-tool-saas-companies-can-use-to-stand-out-from-competitors-a-detailed-guide <comment><AUTHOR> If you run a SaaS company, chances are, you got competitors. Tons of them. So how on earth are you supposed to stand out and attract the right customers? Today, I'll share a very powerful tool SaaS companies can use to stand out from competitors. Hope you all find this guide useful! :D</comment>


Ask HN: What happens if the entire world had only one bank and one currency? - <AUTHOR> Can a scenario like this be simulated using computers? <comment><USER2> I think the first question should be, is the currency debt based or equity based? We currently have debt based. And in reality anyone can start their own currency, any time they want, using the current rules. Many-o-times I thought the federal reserve needed a competitor. But to answer your question I would say yes it can be simulated on a computer. I would imagine it would be the same as using a single country.

</comment><comment><USER3> Before we go there you perhaps want to answer this - what in your opinion is the function of banks and of currency?

If there's a single currency, who gets to set it's value in terms of goods that it can be exchanged for?

If there's a single bank what is its function?

</comment><comment><USER4> Most probably this: Someone would create a second bank and a second currency.

</comment><comment><USER5> There sort of already is one bank, IMF</comment>


Android 4.0.4 (ICS) update for Nexus S AT&T - <AUTHOR>

Android ICS update to Nexus S finally pushed <comment><USER2> When?</comment>


The Painstaking, Secretive Process of Designing New Money - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcodesign.com/3063512/the-painstaking-secretive-process-of-designing-new-money <comment><USER2> I have a small collection of banknotes, among which include occupation bills from various powers during WW2 and bills just before and after a major switch in governments (before/after Russian Empire/Soviet Union, before and after the Iranian revolution, etc.).

One thing that's always been interesting to me with the new bills is how quickly new governments (invaders or usurpers) put in place new, high quality, currency. It's almost like, along with the artillery and occupation force, engravers are the next to be flown in and put to work.

> "The issue for us is it needs to be a security document . . . [but] it's > also a cultural document,"

I find the cultural document the most fascinating thing about collecting money. Governments tend to put on bills the most important propaganda they can think of. Important buildings, people, public works projects, cultural activities and myths. I don't care much about the monetary value of what I collect, but the place in history that money represents.

This new currency is definitely going to be cool to add to the collection.

<comment><USER3> > engravers are the next to be flown in and put to work.

To elaborate on your point -- stabilizing the currency is pretty much job #2, and one that is worked on in parallel with job #1, by different groups of people. The bills are often printed back home in the occupying country, and the occupiers often have time to prepare.

We see businesses start up, shutdown, or get acquired all the time, the processes are familiar. Countries going through similar cycles are fascinating because we don't really know the playbook. But it exists. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A note is clearly a proof-of-work currency concept. As stated, it takes months of work on expensive hardware. Anyone with better/more equipment can beat them but it requires an investment in a field where they have a huge headstart.

</comment><comment><USER5> Australia has had polymer banknotes for 25 years now. Canada just went polymer, using the same printing presses as Australia (the first Canadian 20s were actually printed in Australia until Canada could get their own printing presses)

As a world traveler, I'm always excited when I see countries that have gone to polymer notes - even poor ones - Guatemala years ago, Guinea now has a polymer note.

I'm still utterly shocked the US does not have polymer banknotes. Sometimes I think "because that's the way it's always been done" will be the end of moving forward in the US.

<comment><USER6> I'm european and recently got some new dollars because I was flying to Peru and had to spend a night in U.S.

I remember laughing out loud to U.S. funny-money. It's texture is closer to toilet paper than what I'd expect from the worlds most worshiped currency.

<comment><USER7> And all the bills look identical, have identical colors (although the latest series finally introduced some variation) and are the same size!

<comment><USER8> The "same size" has ADA implications for low-vision persons, so it's possible that'll change some time. It has some advantages, though, for places that handle cash to have it all the same size (cash drawers, wallets, vending machines, etc).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Few in the US seem to know this, but all ATMs in China have been recording currency serial numbers for several years now. It's an option on US ATMs and currency counting machines.

<comment><USER10> What is the significance of this? Tracking who has what money?

<comment><USER11> Purchases you make with cash you got from an ATM become traceable to your bank account.

<comment><USER12> That only works if every single shop/service tracks the serial numbers, otherwise you have no way of knowing if they were exchanged somewhere in between.

<comment><USER13> You don't need to step very far from cash in hand before this becomes not just viable but ridiculously easy. Just feed notes individually into your bank- approved combined till/safe/note scanner.

<comment><USER12> I think you understimate the effort of requiring everyone - from large chains to street food stalls - to always use note scanners.

Bank? How many people selling fruit from their cart even use banks for their sales?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Bill designs incorporate a lot of public features in order to help people figure out when bills are legit.

I do wonder how many non-visible features they hold back, in order to recognize the case when high-quality fakes have landed.

Does this actually happen, though? I mean, are there examples of hidden features on older currency?

<comment><USER15> I can't find the link now, but I remember reading an article stating there are three levels to this thing.

One, the obviously visible and known features, such that metallic strip many notes have. Know to both the users and would be counterfeiters.

The know but not obviously features, such as micro text or the things that become visible when seen under those purple lights (UV?).

Secret features only known to a very small select group of people in the money printing business. These are last resort identifiers of fakes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's the point when you can just counterfeit old ones?

<comment><USER17> Put simply, if you want to replace the currency in 2026, start doing it in 2016.

The existing notes are already difficult to counterfeit, though it has been achieved on occasion; this is primarily a defensive move by the Australian Reserve Bank to keep the goalposts shifting under the feet of would-be counterfeiters.

Banknotes have a limited lifespan, typically between 3 and 10 years depending on the handling characteristics of the denomination. At some point, old designs exit common circulation. At first, retailers will begin treating them with greater suspicion, then eventually stop accepting them even though they technically remain legal tender. Banks will still redeem old Australian banknotes at face value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> And than they break in low temperatures? (I find only anecdotal evidence, would like to see temperature cycling like sun + clear night in a car).

</comment><comment><USER19> Seems so old fashioned compared to crypto-currency.</comment>


TES Data Sharing Platform - <AUTHOR> Hi all,
We are soft launching our data sharing platform to the world and would appreciate feedback on the concept and the UI. Here's a quick video to explain what it's about https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DoeIlnuFEz4. Test it out at https://demo.tesdata.io/signup.
Thanks so much! <comment><USER2> If it meets the guidelines, this could make a good Show HN. [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)</comment>


Cannibal Acts – new pandemic short story from scifi legend maureen mchugh - <AUTHOR> https://bostonreview.net/arts-society/maureen-f-mchugh-cannibal-acts <comment><USER2> This is part of a bigger project called "Arts in the time of quarantine", which will release short stories like these for a month.

It's warming how projects like these exists to ease the necessary social distancing.</comment>


Ask HN - need some advice, I'm stuck - <AUTHOR>

Been a PHP dev for a 5-6 years, and a couple of years before that in Java.
Bored with corporate jobs,  but I feel stuck.  Last week I went to a job fair (though I have a job currently), I couldn't find many companies working in PHP.  Some who spoke to me intially, smirked after I told them I'm a PHP dev.  I'd like to learn something new, like Android or Rails, but I'm afraid I wouldn't be employable for a while (which I can't afford). I also thoroughly enjoy non programming tasks like market research, data analysis, product design etc.  But don't have any "real world" experience to show in these areas. Also, in my mid thirties, not sure how much that'd work against me.
Anyone in this situation tried something new? Did it work out for you? <comment><USER2> I started my career as a developer by learning PHP over a decade ago, it's still the language I know best, and I was even Zend certified at one point, but I don't describe myself as a "PHP dev," and neither should you. You're a developer, and most of your experience is in PHP. It's a subtle, but important difference.

I'm going to advise you to diversify your skillset, but first, if you really want to stay within the PHP world, find an agency (or start your own) that does a lot of work with either Drupal or Wordpress. They're not corporate, and there are plenty of them.

If you really want to get "unstuck," learn something new. Here's what you're going to do: find a hackathon that takes place a month from now (see [http://www.hackathon.io/](http://www.hackathon.io/) or ask Uncle Google), and register for it. Then spend the next month learning Android, AngularJS, Backbone.js, Python, Rails, or whatever your hackathon is based on, and then go to the event and use it.

Given that you already have a job as a developer, there's no reason for you to be unemployable, ever. If you have a corporate job now, I have a hard time imagining that you don't have some slack in your day that you could devote to trying out Android or AngularJS, as julianpye suggested; or Backbone.js, or Python, or Rails, or whatever. If you can't find the time at work, throw your TV off the roof of your house/apartment building and spend an hour or two on it at night.

Come back next month and if you're still stuck, post again and we'll talk. (But I'm pretty sure you won't be stuck.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, sounds like good advice.

How do I approach the agencies (for PHP or non-PHP)? Cold emailing won't work, no?

<comment><USER2> Google for a list of web design/development agencies in your area, and they should have jobs listed on their sites, which will let you know who's looking. Ignore the instructions for applying online and try to meet someone from the firms you're interested in, maybe at a meetup/drinkup/etc. If you want to be really guerilla, set up shop in a coffee shop near their offices for a couple of days and see if you can spot a couple of their employees, then strike up a conversation.

A portfolio will really help here. If you can put together a small site that shows what you've done before, that will help. The Drupal agencies (the better ones, anyway) will also probably want to see some activity on Drupal.org, but that's not necessarily a deal-breaker. If you do want to work on Drupal, go to some Drupal meetups, and make it your goal to be ready to apply for a Drupal job at the next DrupalCon in Austin next year (Drupal has a learning curve, you will need the time).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the advice. Been in the corporate world too long, I guess. Need to work on the portfolio.

I'll also try to get out of PHP. It would be nice to do something different for a change.

<comment><USER3> > _I 'll also try to get out of PHP_

That escalated quickly. :)

If you didn't know, Drupal's written in PHP, and the upcoming Drupal 8 uses the Symfony framework. I always recommend learning new languages, but there's no pressing need for you to get out of PHP to move forward!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> If someone smirked at me for knowing PHP, I'd gladly walk away from the conversation. Knowing a programming language (actually, knowing _anything_ ) is a positive thing. PHP isn't glamorous but it is widely used, popular, and effective at solving a goal.

That being said, I was a Delphi developer for 5 years out of school. There's a random little used language for you. I spent a year teaching myself iOS, brushing up on my PHP and javascript. I then tweaked my resume depending on the job I was applying to, regarding the order I listed the languages. Get someone on the phone/interview and explain to them how great you are from there.

Of course, in your mid thirties you might have less freedom to take an entry level job.

</comment><comment><USER5> You do have Java expertise, so Android would be a logical step. Try out Jetbrain's and Google's new Android Studio to leapfrog over the Eclipse experience. Alternatively learn AngularJS or a similar JS framework and use PHP to serve JSON to state-of-the-art single-page type apps. You can run such PHP scripts on the new Appengine for PHP, so you end up with a highly scalable solution that is also not bad in performance. I think the best way to progress is take something that you know and combine it with state-of-the-art practises or tech. Be glad that you didn't learn some of the technologies that developed over the past years (Rails for example is starting to get out of fashion since it is not so useful/overkill for JS apps) and leapfrog to the new ones.

</comment><comment><USER6> PHP is perfect to develop and sell your own web-related products (extensions, plugins, themes, integrations).

</comment><comment> antonio-R You can start some side projects in other language like Python or Ruby, do some coding, work on freelance gigs, and earn some experience. That way you will have something to use in a future interview.</comment>


Mashape, the Marketplace for APIs, Moves to Beta - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/hack/2011/06/mashape-the-marketplace-for-ap.php?sms_ss=hackernews&at_xt=4de7f7af5bac52bf%2C0 <comment><USER2> relevant: ReadWriteWeb readers can get fast-tracked access to the beta by using the code "RWW" to signup at <http://mashape.com></comment>


Is your system organized? - <AUTHOR> Is your system organized? Do you have all of your folders organized and clean or do you have junk all over and you just know where it is? <comment><USER2> Another thing I took for a friend is to number my folders.

For example, I would have 00_perso 01_projects 00_projecta 00_projectb

Somehow my brain is better at remembering the numbers than searching for a folder name. Using that for a few weeks, I realized that I actually started to organize stuff ore, because it was easy to find them.

Ex : gitconfig would be 00 01 .gitconfig My billing 01 02 02

etc. . .

Starting using that technique ended up making myself organized.

</comment><comment><USER3> When I was a kid I adopted a simple rule which has served me well. A folder should only contain all folders or all files. This forces one to reclassify until there exists a classification for everything.

YMMV.

<comment><USER4> I do the same thing - with the extra rule that directory names have their first letter capitalized - and files are always lower-cased.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I keep folder and files like I would code.

Folder - > class Files - > functions

This way I keep all my folders concise and relevant.</comment>


Bruce Schneier snears at IBM's NSA denials. - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/03/25/bruce_schneier_sneers_at_ibms_nsa_denials

<comment><USER2> The title of this submission: "Bruce Schneier snears [sic] at IBM's NSA denials"

The title of the article: "Bruce Schneier sneers at IBM's NSA denials"

The moral: If you cannot spell English words, don't inflict this fact on the public -- _copy the title of the article_.

1\. Drag you mouse cursor across the words you cannot spell.

2\. Press Ctrl+C (Copy)

3\. Open the HN submission form.

4\. Press Ctrl+V (Paste)

Another advantage is that this method requires fewer keystrokes than misspelling the words, and is suitable for those who want to minimize their energy expenditure. How do I know you're not interested in wasting energy? You can't spell.</comment>


Deep C (and C++) - <AUTHOR> http://de.slideshare.net/olvemaudal/deep-c

<comment><USER2> You might want to edit the title from Depp to Deep.

Otherwise, it sounds like Johnny Depp decided on a new career.

<comment><AUTHOR> So sorry, I edited the title. I think it was the German spell checker and Depp is an insulting word actually.</comment></comment>


Adam Smith Hates Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/12/adam-smith-hates-bitcoin/

<comment><USER2> Maybe, just maybe, it's not Adam Smith who hates bitcoin like this misleading title suggest, but Krugman.

The guy may have a nobel prize, but his strong leftist views seems to be clouding his judgement.

Never before in history was there anthing like bitcoin. It's not a commodity like gold - is is pure fiat money, fully based on trust. Hoarding gold or silver or any metal or rare thing was a bad idea because of the alternative uses which where then prevented.

There is nothing inherent to bitcoin that may hamper a "country to convert a great part of this dead stock into active and productive stock".

In fact, by reducing friction, making transaction costs almost negligible, it will help this very thing!

How could Adam Smith may have hated something that did not exist back then, and that many economists had previously advocated for - a single worldwide fiat currency.

The only real problem is for governments, who won't be able to use the seignorage tax anymore, ie inflation, ie printing money out of thin air at the detriment of currency owners, to coerce people to do things or lose money.

Bitcoin is a game changer, the end of a tyranny - the use of force to make people work, instead of being able to live with what they have without the fear that the government will decide to reduce the purchasing power of what one owns by 20% overnight, through inflation or plain just stealing (as in Cyprus) to "transfer that wealth", reverse Robin Hood style, to their well connected and too big to fall fat-cat friends.

Also, it's quite fun that a system based on trust, of the people, by the people, is not trusting the government. It's something the founding fathers would certainly be quite proud of :-)

EDIT: And to those who argue the amount of computing power and electricity to run the bitcoin network is insane, just think for a second about Moore law, or how much GDP goes to the finance sectors. IIRC it is around 10%. That sure is a whole lot of money for the simple job of allocating resources (currency, saving, investment, transaction, etc).

It seems ripe for disruption.

A bitcoin economy will be able to do the same job for a fraction of these cost, thus allowing capital to be best spent on other uses (say actually advancing technology, or building real stuff) ie human capital and physical capital, which according to mainstream economic growth theory (from Solow to Romer) is essential for economic growth - real economic growth.

If you have some data and some time to spend, draw a graph of the log of gdp per capital and the percentage of the gdp spend on the finance sector. You'll see a strange recent trend - less growth, and more gdp for the finance sector. I'm not arguing a causation, but that's some food for throughts.

Just like Gandhi say - first they ignore you, then they fight you, then you win. We are currently at step #2. I expect the heat against bitcoin to raise in the next weeks. It's a big threat for the current establishment cash cow. It's a blessing to anyone who can provide value.

<comment><USER3> The only way bitcoins are being generated is by wasting computer cycles solving problems that are of no use to anyone. Krugman's problem is not with the concept of bitcoin, but the process of mining.

I may not be an economist, but the method used for mining seemed.. illogical to me as well. If a bitcoin was released into the wild based on running real world problems like folding@home or something else it would have much more sense to _me_.

<comment><USER4> But you're both completely missing the point that mining for coins will become exponentially more efficient over time, with new mining techniques and hardware.

<comment><USER5> When more energy-efficient mining equipment is created, people buy enough of the equipment to use the same amount of power that they used to have. For example, one might replace a 300 W GPU with a 300 W ASIC miner. The total amount of mining is determined by the exchange rate; since the exchange rate is expected to increase due to deflation, the amount of power spent on mining is also expected to increase dramatically.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think his previous statements are also significant.

"[bitcoin] has fluctuated sharply, but overall it has soared. So buying into [bitcoin] has, at least so far, been a good investment. But does that make the experiment a success? Um, no. What we want from a monetary system isn't to make people holding money rich; we want it to facilitate transactions and make the economy as a whole rich. And that's not at all what is happening in [bitcoin]."

<comment><USER7> Your quote is relevant, but it's a shame he doesn't address the implied claim that bitcoin doesn't "facilitate transactions". And while it is relatively small in that use now, he really needs to make a compelling argument to why it won't work that way in the future.

Further, it's worth pointing out that Krugman endorses a monetary system that makes people poor, via inflating the money supply by printing funds to underwrite policies that benefit, primarily, politicians.

A currency whose supply is fixed, or whose inflation rate is constant and predictable (like bitcoin) is better for facilitating transactions.

When you have a variable (and often high these days- in the US money supply is up over %50 in recent years) rate of inflation, it wrecks havoc with prices and other signals causing malinvestment and worsening the economy.

Something that Krugman, to my knowledge, has never answered for.

\---

Since I am not allowed to reply to the person below me:

It's quite silly to to say that a limited supply of a currency is bad for it. There is little incentive to hang onto bitcoins. A simple example will prove this to you: The amount of computer you can get for a given amount of money improves dramatically every three years. You could just hold onto your money and buy a much better computer. Thus, relative to computers, the dollar is deflationary.... yet people still buy computers.

This is the kind of argument Krugman gives because he wants to excuse the inflation that has destroyed the dollar, and the economy.... but it is nonsensical. People still buy computers.

<comment><USER8> Uh, Krugman's whole point is that the capped supply is inherently deflationary so the incentive is to hang on to bitcoins, ie, not the best attribute of a currency.

<comment><USER9> When did the notion that a currency which loses value over time is ideal become orthodoxy?

There are plenty of legitimate arguments that can be constructed against the idea of an inherently inflationary currency too.

<comment><USER10> "Best to have a stable currency with low inflation" grew out of hundreds of years of observations in the history of human production, prices, and mediums of exchange, and what conditions have traditionally leads to periods of peace and prosperity in a region, and what conditions have led to war, revolt, famine, etc.

In short, empirically, wages and prices are sticky. We assume it has something to do with humans being stubborn, but don't really know why. However, until our imminent replacement by the kind robots, currencies must move if people won't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Krugman obviously don't know what he is talking about. The resources he is talking about are used to process the transactions between bitcoin owners. The mining is just a side effect.

How did a nobel prize winner made a so basic mistake on a topic that has been covered before by him so many times?

Bet one Btc that he did that on purpose.

<comment><USER12> Can you explain this in more detail for those of us who don't fully understand how bitcoins come in to existence, because it sounds like one of those things that violate some laws of thermodynamics, like the "hydrogen generator" that you strap to your car to increase fuel economy.

I ask because I know I've heard about people building huge computers with lots of expensive video cards for the purpose of mining bitcoins. Why would so much computing power be required to perform a simple task like processing transactions? Isn't there additional work necessitated by the intentional complexity of the mechanics of bitcoin mining?

I don't know very much about how bitcoins are mined, so I'm speaking from ignorance here, but I'm hoping you can see why the layman observer would need more of an explanation than "Because, of course!"

<comment><USER13> Rather abstractly Bitcoin is a scheme to solve the Byzantine General problem[1]. The problem is, how can we build a trusted history of accounting without knowing which nodes in the network are trustworthy. And the way Bitcoin does this is essentially by letting every miner vote with his CPU power and the history backed by the most computing power wins. Therefore as long as the majority of miners (weighted by their computing power) is honest, you can trust the accounting.

As to the question how Bitcoins come into existence, the miners are in control of the accounting and by design whoever "finds a new block," is allowed to create some Bitcoins (currently 25) out of thin air. The advantage of this is, that even if some very large miner is considering that he could try a 50+1 % attack, he has a strong incentive to stay honest because that way he earns half of the newly mined Bitcoins.

[1] <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_fault_tolerance>

<comment><USER14> > Therefore as long as the majority of miners (weighted by their computing > power) is honest, you can trust the accounting.

As computing power is a function of the expenditure of wealth, this is equivalent to saying "as long as you trust the people who have thrown the most money at having power over the bitcoin system are honest."

<comment><USER13> Never thought of it that way, but yes. However, those who have thrown the most money at Bitcoin are also those with the highest interest to seeing it succeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Krugman doesn't understand Bitcoin. The computing power expended on mining is used to secure the Bitcoin network.

There are many, many costs associated with securing the integrity of established financial networks too.

<comment><USER15> > The computing power expended on mining is used to secure the Bitcoin > network.

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure I understand it. Thanks.

<comment><USER16> Miners choose transactions which obey the network rules. They then "vote" on which transactions to commit by exerting computational power. To subvert this collective decision making process would require a computation power at least equal to the bitcoin network (bigger than any supercomputer). Therefore any such attack would be absurdly expensive, and we can consider confirmed bitcoin transactions to be secure.

<comment><USER14> > To subvert this collective decision making process would require a > computation power at least equal to the bitcoin network (bigger than any > supercomputer). Therefore any such attack would be absurdly expensive, and > we can consider confirmed bitcoin transactions to be secure.

There are plenty of organizations that, if they wished to mess with bitcoin, could easily afford more computing power than the bitcoin network (yes, even though that is "bigger than any supercomputer".)

Included in these organizations are ones (such as the US government) that have been accused by some of bitcoins proponents of being actively attacking bitcoin.

So why should we consider confirmed transactions to be secure?

<comment><USER16> No one considers them to be absolutely secure. Rather there is a calculable cost to subverting the network, currently measured in the millions of dollars and growing. Having the cost of reverting a transaction be $X,000,000 is sufficient for most purposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think Bitcoin is useful as an experiment in economics and monetary systems.

But the thinking is far from baked and opportunists are jumping on this so quickly that a lot of money is going to be lost, .com-style. Maybe not with Bitcoin, but perhaps with its successor. And a lot more money than the .com bust, because now we're not dealing with just "new economy" utopias, we're dealing with 100+ year ideological disagreements.

Just looking at the comments here, most people seem to have received their economic eduction from political rants and newspaper editorial pages rather than reading (and understanding) a few classics (Keynes, Marx, Minsky, Hayek, Schumpeter, or even Polanyi and Drucker).

This is not to say the profession of economics is noble or even has any real use to the modern world currently, given its problems. But we do have an economic system, and some people do seem to have a better empirical understanding of it than others. And I'm not seeing a lot of empiricism here - lots of emotion, angst, rebelliousness, armchair theorizing, and hope. That's a good way to start something, but it's not a great way for it to finish the way you want. Ask the Marxists.

</comment><comment><USER17> > _Whatever Kurgman says, it is good to keep in mind that he is an economist > turned partisan-politics hack._

Funny thing,I called MG Seigler a hack, and was attacked. Even PG came out of the word works to say he was "embarrassed" by the comment. Now we are calling Nobel prize winning economists hacks and asses?

The economic illiteracy of this place is what is embarrassing.

<comment><USER18> This should have been a reply. Attacking somebody else's comment by citing him in a new top-level comment is bad form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What is the opportunity cost for bitcoin mining using different techniques? (ie the next most valuable thing that can be done with the hardware). I would guess it is a small fraction of the value of a bitcoin. I'm pretty sure it didn't cost bitcoin's market cap of ~1 billion in computing resources to mine all of bitcoins we have today. I wonder what it did cost?

</comment><comment><USER20> I suppose he actually compared the costs of mining with the costs of minting paper money? Because that sure seems to missing...

<comment><USER21> How much does it cost to change bits of data on a computer? That's what happens with quantitative easing. Bernanke isn't calling up the printing presses to print $2 trillion in paper currency.

<comment><USER22> Central banks and central bankers don't work for free. How much is spent on normal banking infrastructure, cash security vans, fraud protection etc.

<comment><USER21> That's not how quantitative easing works. Quantitative easing doesn't fire up the printing presses. Bernanke can add $2 trillion into the system within 15 minutes, and no paper money is printed or manpower expensed aside from a few clicks on a computer mouse. Once you secure your financial system network, adding currency adds virtually no costs relative to the amount of currency you put into that system. You've already secured the network.

It's akin to Facebook's security system. It works the same regardless if it's 100 million users or 1 billion users.

<comment><USER22> My point is that fiat money systems have costs associated with them. I'm not arguing that the costs change if there is Quantitative easing or not.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Filtrbox Dials the Noise Way Down - <AUTHOR> http://webworkerdaily.com/2008/07/15/filtrbox-dials-the-noise-way-down/

<comment><USER2> Filtrbox's own FAQ describes Filtrbox as "a value-add layer between the millions of sources online and your browser or desktop," whatever that means.

At $200/year for the cheapest premium option, seems far too expensive. The free option limits you to just 5 "Filtrs."

I'm not sure what this is exactly. The linked article above makes it sound as if it were a glorified feed reader, but I signed up for a trial account and there's nowhere to import OPML. I can import Google Alerts, but that's it. More digging reveals I can import specific feeds, but not OPML, under the Account->Content tab of the dashboard (strangely not under the Sources tab where I first looked).

As a side note, the entire "Getting Started" instructions are all videos, with no text description anywhere that can quickly be skimmed or searched. I see videos as a fine complement, but not as the primary means of instruction since not everyone can always watch videos (e.g. no speakers/headphones/low bandwidth).

Finally, it takes the main filtrbox dashboard takes a while to load, as it is apparently one massive piece of flash.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for saving the rest of us time, dominik. Collaborative reading for the win! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The beta has been interesting, but the delay in aggregation and processing is irritating. I'm sure it could be very useful for marketing, relations, and communications departments of large organizations. Personal use is limited.</comment>


Finally, A Subway Grip Clean Enough To Lick... - <AUTHOR> http://news.discovery.com/tech/gear-and-gadgets/finally-a-subway-rail-you-can-lick-140319.htm

<comment><USER2> I needs to be mentioned that common antibacterial applications are not free of controversy.

One objection is that once you wipe a susceptible bacterial population from a surface, the resistant remainder now has the environment to themselves.

In other words, such straps could be a breeding ground for tougher, more harmful and highly resistant bacteria.

<comment><USER3> If the units used UV instead, they might avoid that problem.</comment></comment>


Recession not official, for some value of official.  But it's real. - <AUTHOR>

The Dow's in the shitter.  Unemployment's where it was in 1994.  Housing might as well be getting bombed.  Let's all acknowledge that no matter what the government (specifically the NBER) says, <i>we're already in a recession.</i> <comment><USER2> we've been in a recession for a while.

however, the government will almost never say we're in a recession currently. they will acknowledge that we were in one once we're out, but if they prattle on about how the current situation is bad, it will only make it worse.

which leads to us mistrusting them anyway. its a case of damned if you do, damned if you don't.

<comment><AUTHOR> >If they prattle on about how the current situation is bad, it will only make it worse.

I see how this could be the case, but I also suspect that having an accurate idea of how the economy is doing might help people. I don't think the consumer confidence index is something that should only be really, really high. If, for example, consumers realize they must tighten their belts, they may put less money on their credit cards, freeing capital so it can address the current credit crunch.

<comment><USER2> > If, for example, consumers realize they must tighten their belts, they may > put less money on their credit cards, freeing capital so it can address the > current credit crunch.

unlikely. the thing is, the credit crunch won't get fixed by people purely saving. if everyone saves, companies will find themselves in tougher times from small revenues, and although there might be more money to go around, the businesses won't be there to borrow it.

both businesses and consumers need to be in that happy medium of spending, saving, and borrowing to make the wheels turn.</comment></comment></comment>


Keystone pipeline shut after spilling 1.4M litres of oil in North Dakota - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-spils-over-1-million-litres-oil-north-dakota-1.5343509 <comment><USER2> I'm glad my country could externalize this cost for you. I'd like to thank the leaders I elected for selling me out to your shareholders.

</comment><comment><USER3> For those opposing pipelines, you're fighting the wrong battle. It will just go onto trains and trucks which burn oil to move oil, and are much less safe.

Some would argue we shouldn't be using oil in the first place now that we know the true cost. And those people are right. But when it comes to disincentivizing oil, I'd much rather see the externalities priced into fossil fuels through carbon taxes, ramped up incrementally over ten years. Let the market work its magic once the true cost is accounted for. People will switch so fast to greener alternatives it will make your head spin.

<comment><USER4> Agreed, but keep in mind that shipping via vehicles raises the cost which potentially lowers consumption and or production. Nothing inconsistent about both fighting for a tax and fighting to keep costs higher at the same time given uncertainty about the success of a tax.

<comment><USER5> Using vehicles is also much more risky. They've done studies before and accidents like the Lac Megantic disaster that blew up a town show that pipelines are safer compared to alternatives.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why don't these pipelines run in wider-pipes, which are typically unused, so that spillage from the inner pipe doesn't immediately leek into the soil? Or some other technical solution?

(Yes, I know the answer: It would cost more and oil execs and investors never go to jail for polluting.)

<comment><USER7> That would be very hard to engineer. (1)Pipes change size with heat. Getting the external empty pipe to reliably keep position over the smaller pipe would be tricky. (2) pipe inspections have to happen. In burried sections this may be a non-issue but wrapping all the valves and above-ground facilities in layers would make inspection problematic.

(3) the volume and speed of material in pipes is immense. The void space between pipe layers would have to run continuously for the length of the pipe. Any blockage or constriction would produce a water hammer effect, turning one leak into many. A cracked pipe is bad, but a double-layered pipe exploding because of a crack miles upstream is horrible.

What fills this void space? Air? Air plus hydrocarbon in an enclosed/hot environment?

<comment><USER8> It's not very hard to engineer. I used to design underground piping for locomotive fueling. In Nothern Canada where temperature differential is significant. In that case double walled piping is used and the temperature may vary greatly between the outer wall (ground temperature) and the inner wall (outside temperature due to fluid stored in an above ground tank).

They are fixed together in some places, and able to slide relative to each other in most places. Fixed points are located in the middle of straight sections and there are C-shaped "expansion loops" that allow the inner pipe to expand or contract relative to the outer pipe.

The outer pipe has a vacuum applied by a vacuum pump, and a greater than nominal vacuum leak indicates an issue.

Of course, it's expensive compared to a single pipe.

<comment><USER6> Your post makes me hopeful that this could be possible with some political pressure by public protests. Although - we should never underestimate the power of dark side^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H oil and gas lobby.

<comment><USER9> What does ^H^H^H^H^H mean?

<comment><USER10> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backspace#^H](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backspace#^H)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Nobody could have foreseen this.

<comment><USER12> I have relatives who live very close to this pipe spill. That these pipes leak was well known to everyone locally back when it was laid.

<comment><USER13> And no lawsuit emerged from that knowledge?

<comment><USER14> Situation normal. Corps run America including all the means of justice. I'm sure they were involuntary forced into an arbitration agreement by having the oil fall on their land and not putting it back into the pipe.

<comment><USER12> Yeah the farmers were pretty much forced to sell the land to the pipeline company. There wasn't a practical choice. The best you could do is to hold out for a somewhat better offer than the first one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Pretty unacceptable - in context this is 10-12 average swimming pools or ~8,800 bbls which I suppose is much less dramatic than 1.4m l.

<comment><USER16> "Pretty unacceptable" is how I'd describe the spill. 8800 bbls is 3.4% of what was spilled in the _Exxon Valdez_ accident[1]. This is in addition to the 1.07m liters in 2017, which the article also mentions.[2] So the pipeline has already spilled equivalent to about 6.5% of one of the worst human-caused ecological disasters ever.

1\. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill)

2\. [https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-spils- over-1-milli...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-spils- over-1-million-litres-oil-north-dakota-1.5343509)

<comment><USER17> In terms of volume spilled, the _Deepwater Horizon_ spill was much larger than the _Exxon Valdez_ : 4.9m bbls (579,000 metric tons) vs 290,000 bbls (31,000 metric tons).

<comment><USER18> Yeah, it could be much worse. That's a shit defense line though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For people who oppose pipelines, what is the safer alternative for transporting oil?

<comment><USER20> Discontinue the use of single use plastic and internal combustion engines.

<comment><USER21> Just like recycling bins, that's only the virtue-signaling parts of the story. It is vital to discontinue nearly all petrochem uses of fossil fuels and leave much of the rest of it in the ground. This implies:

\- massive expansions of renewables (doable since costs have dropped precipitously)

\- possibly temporary use of fission (replaced hopefully by fusion)

\- elimination of diesel-powered ships, replaced by electrical (battery) and/or nuclear fission (again hopefully replaced by fusion)

\- elimination of FF-powered air transport with electric-powered

\- derivation of reasonable amounts of polymers from recycled materials and plant sources

\- improved, efficient post-consumer recycling diverting a considerable fraction of the waste stream back into raw materials

Furthermore, it is necessary and possible to spend on the order of what was spent on the wars in Afganistan and Iraq on CCS to return GHGs to pre- industrial levels... if we don't do this, nothing else matters because we (and our progeny) will all be dead. We ought to examine:

\- ferrous ocean seeding of phytoplankton blooms

\- blooming the kelp over-proliferation between Mexico and Africa for harvest and subterranean/hadopelagic CCS

And to be consistent, the top two other major sources of GHGs should be minimized:

\- meat agriculture

\- clinker production (Portland cement / concrete)

<comment><USER22> The math to replace fossil fuels is staggering. Look at this analysis of what it would take to replace existing fossil fuel with net zero carbon alternatives by 2050 (11000 days from now). Here's the conclusions:

So the math here is simple: to achieve net-zero carbon dioxide emissions by 2050, the world would need to deploy 3 [brand new] nuclear plants worth of carbon-free energy every two days, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050. At the same time, a nuclear plant's worth of fossil fuels would need to be decommissioned every day, starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

I've found that some people don't like the use of a nuclear power plant as a measuring stick. So we can substitute wind energy as a measuring stick. Net- zero carbon dioxide by 2050 would require the deployment of ~1500 wind turbines (2.5 MW) over ~300 square miles, every day starting tomorrow and continuing to 2050.

Just consider the steel (coking coal) and cement needed to accomplish this.

source: [https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net- zero...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/30/net-zero-carbon- dioxide-emissions-by-2050-requires-a-new-nuclear-power-plant-every- day/#36b5a0a535f7)

Its a simple method and easy to validate on your own.

<comment><USER23> This analysis assumes that we can continue on the current consumption spree and growth in energy usage as before.

It has to be a combination and there will have to be painful adjustments to the current western lifestyle.

We need to find better ways of moving around, buy less stuff and produce food in better ways.

<comment><USER24> > It has to be a combination and there will have to be painful adjustments to > the current western lifestyle.

I feel quite confident in saying "that will never happen."

If you want to avoid a mass revolution from the people, you can't take away quality of life.

<comment><USER23> The taking of quality of life is a given anyway, there simply is not enough stuff to satisfy everyone. There are already large parts of the population in the US living in poverty and the middle class is being decimated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is the likely cause of this leak?

Someone cutting a hole in the pipe to steal oil? Structural supports of the pipe failing and the pipe cracking?

<comment><USER26> Usually age and inadequate maintenance, but I expect TC is within regulatory requirements. Usually Enbridge is making headlines with pipeline leaks.

There are very reliable testing methods that require shutting down the pipeline, and I understand there are some technologies available too, but both are 'too expensive'.

The position of petroleum producers is that the existing regulations are already too strict and burdensome to justify the capital cost and risk of building new pipelines. They aren't doing themselves any favors and may need to get used to lower margin business.

To me, the growing demand for petrol, the age of the existing pipelines, the relaxed regulation, low popularity of new pipelines, and the relatively low margins in the current market are a recipe for disaster. Populism is only making it worse (drill baby drill vs shut down all the pipelines), such stupidity makes my head hurt.

<comment><USER27> They won't get their new pipelines at all if they keep getting spills in the news

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm sure the EPA, which is run by a man who was previously a lobbyist for oil companies, will handle this without a hint of corporate bias.

</comment><comment><USER29> One of these spills happened near where I live they always do a great job of cleaning up the EPA sees to it.I know it's probably not the normal and probably rare but they actually revitalize the area that got the leak here it was a garbage mess with trash and junk and they had to clean it up and make it a wetland so it's actually better off now.

</comment><comment><USER30> This one will probably take longer to reissue because it is both underground and in a sensitive natural area

</comment><comment><USER31> For those interested in the math; it leaked about 1.5% of one day's total transfer.

<comment><USER26> The percentage is rather meaningless without a clue as to how much the daily transfer is and the time-frame is completely arbitrary. You have easily picked 100% of 21.6 minutes of transfer, by the week or by the decade.

Leaks used to be reported in barrels, but the numbers aren't nearly as dramatic. I assume the media learned that headlines with 'millions of litres' get far more clicks.

<comment><USER32> It's 300,000 gallons or 8806 barrels of oil, which makes it smaller than the October 3 accident in Texas nobody here was interested in: [https://www.ksstradio.com/2019/10/hopkins-county-diesel- spil...](https://www.ksstradio.com/2019/10/hopkins-county-diesel-spill-in- miller-grove-2/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> 1.4M literes = 1400 m^3 = a square the length of 12 meters?

<comment><USER34> I think you mean cube.

<comment><USER33> I think you're right. I'm not good at math translations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The same pipeline that the Native Americans protested, some of which are still in prison.

<comment><USER36> Why they are in prison? I'm not very familiar with the US laws but I thought that you would not get in trouble in the US for this.

<comment><USER37> For destroying infrastructure, interfering with its construction, the use of fire in doing so, illegal possession of a firearm by a felon... It wasn't all speech and trespassing.

<comment><USER6> They're in prison for defending their ancestral land and burial grounds from foreign colonist occupiers, which not only have taken it over but are now destroying it and its waterways with leaky oil pipelines.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brian-armstrong That's a lot of damage!

</comment><comment><USER38> Dfr

</comment><comment><USER39> Shocker. No really ally, a shocker that an oil pipeline would fal and cause horrific pollution. No one could have foreseen this as a result.

All hail he magnanimous and great corporation.

<comment><USER40> I don't understand this statement. You think the corporation wanted to lose 1.4M L of oil?

The alternative is this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaste...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lac-M%C3%A9gantic_rail_disaster#The_route) which was 7M L and dozens of deaths.

<comment><USER41> You mean where people KNEW that kind of a car was a risk and tried to get it removed from use but oil and rail companies valued their profits for than safety?

From your link:

> Even before the Lac-Mégantic accident, attempts were made to require > redesign or replacement of existing cars in the U.S.; these were delayed > amidst fierce lobbying from rail and petroleum industry groups concerned > about the cost.

I don't see why we should be forced to accept this risk when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay to do it responsibly?

<comment><USER40> Should car companies stop making cars because they profit off of the death of 35,000 people per year in the US?

As a cyclist, I don't see why I should be forced to accept the risk of cars when the companies that profit off this risk won't pay for separate bike lanes.

Everything in life has risk/reward. What is the alternative that is a more palatable risk/reward?

<comment><USER41> I think there is something to the idea that car manufactures should bear some of the cost of the risks associated with the vehicles they sell.

When they bear less of the risks to pedestrians, cyclists and the environment, they don't do anything to minimize those risks and even do things to accentuate those risks when doing so will increase their profits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> < Applying extreme self-control to keep myself within HN's rules by not quoting "The Front Fell Off" >

<comment><USER43> As long as it's taken outside the environment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Some perspective: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States_in_2019) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_pipeline_accidents_in_the_United_States)

I'm not sure why this appears to be interesting for HN. Are there obvious problems/possible improvements with the way pipelines are currently built, or does it cater to general anti-oil sentiments (= political)?

<comment><USER44> Because Keystone is in the name, and the keystone XL pipeline has been on Canadians, and Americans minds for about a decade now, that's the only reason this is getting attention right now. the proponents for pipelines will see this as a reason to finish Keystone because they believe that it will be safer. Others will argue that a larger, newer one will only increase the risks of a larger spill. It's been a big talking point in Canada more recently with the Trans mountain pipeline as well.</comment></comment>


Uber reported to have made an error tuning perception system - <AUTHOR> https://ideas.4brad.com/uber-reported-have-made-error-tuning-perception-system <comment><USER2> Extensive discussion of similar article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014807](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17014807)</comment>


Ask HN: Anyone know a good Joomla guy? - <AUTHOR>

I've got a woefully out of date Joomla site with a few moving pieces that no longer make sense to me 3 years on.  Would like to find someone to upgrade anything that needs to be upgraded, move it off shared hosting to Linode, and then install a new module or two.  Contact info is in my profile. <comment><USER2> Sent you an e-mail.</comment>


Ask YC:  Users don't like creative founders, right? - <AUTHOR>

If your startup has users, they probably like what you have done as is.  In particular, they would not appreciate any major changes no matter how clever/creative/useful you think they are.  About the only thing you can do that they will not complain about is to improve speed.  Is that about right? <comment><USER2> I would say that is very wrong.

Check this article that was submitted earlier [http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/02/gmails-humble- begin...](http://googlesystem.blogspot.com/2008/02/gmails-humble- beginning.html)

Gmail had nothing when it launched, but kept on adding features as the need from user arose.

This is generally the way to go, I think that the way you describe is stalemate at best, and disaster at worst.

<comment><AUTHOR> By "users", I don't necessarily mean early adopters. When you get significant traffic (or non-technical traffic), your user base will be much more reluctant to change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No, users used to love it when we introduced new features.

<comment><USER4> If you incrementally add one new feature then any existing user may or may not use the new feature. But what happens if you radically overhaul a site, changing its style, changing the items, style and placement of the navigation and improving but changing core functionality?

<comment><USER5> Can you not throw away what's bad and keep what's good during your overhaul?...

<comment><USER6> It's generally really hard to throw away stuff, even if it's bad. Users get used to things in the UI even if it's bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the title should be changed. Your question is not about creative founders, but rather system changes.

I think most users accept, like, and even expect some evolution in your startup's product or service. The thing most users don't like is when you change something drastically, when it already worked well.

Justin.tv comes to mind. When they started, their site was about 4 pages, with the home page hosting the video feed and a few others for information. This worked for those who were interested in watching Justin and crew doing whatever it was they were doing. I remember the day they radically changed the design and layout of the site. The entire background changed, some buttons were missing, others were added. They had prepared viewers already, but the initial reaction was largely negative.

The reason for this change was to shift the direction of JTV. Users would browse through hundreds of feeds instead of only one. They would even publish their own feeds, and the site was redesigned to accommodate this.

This was a major change in direction for those who were watching originally, and many didn't like it. What JTV had before worked for what they wanted to do: Watch Justin. Now it became more difficult, but JTV took a calculated risk in making the change, and I think in the end it payed off because what they have now serves more people in more ways.

The difference is between improvements and overhauls. Improvements are expected and encouraged. Overhauls are only for radical changes in direction or to fix something incredibly broken. If it was broken, your users will thank you in the end, it it's a change in direction, you're taking a risk, and good luck with it.

</comment><comment><USER8> Think on Flickr, it started as flash game online and it's the best site on imaging on the net. Thats creative change. And the community acepted it very well.

</comment><comment><USER9> I find the only startups that I'm being drawn into are the ones with creative founders. The two that come to mind are Wesabe and now TipJoy, both are sites that launched when they had built enough to be useful, but still have a lot of interesting potential. You can just look at Google's share price if you want proof that users love potential and expect change and improvements.

<comment><AUTHOR> Google's products don't change much in terms of UI/features. They innovate more on the technology behind the scenes.

<comment><USER9> I think that speaks to their creativity, keeping things simple for the user takes a lot of creativity. I can't speak to your experience, but for me anger about change comes from three sources:

1\. The small but sometimes vocal group that hates all change. 2\. People who don't need the extra features and who now have more work to do for the same results. 3\. People who are using my programs a little differently than I intended, and whose functionality I broke.

With the sometimes exception of #1, if I'm honest with myself, these are all problems caused by my lack of creativity not my users dislike of it. Your experience may be entirely different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Iterate as much as you can, and have a sweet feedback/response system created. Then you'll know that what you're making is something they want, because a bunch of people probably requested it. Also it makes your users feel more involved which is especially important in the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER11> Nope. New features win. Users love 'em. Especially when they actually requested them in the first place (we get 10-20 suggestions PER DAY).

The statement, "...they would not appreciate any major changes no matter how clever/creative/useful you think they are" seems to indicate that you might think the best source of ideas is you-- not your users.

IMO, the majority of ideas that you implement should come from your users. If you have a great idea that didn't come from your users (and you have an active/vocal userbase) you should ask your users what they think of it before you implement it.

</comment><comment><USER12> Adding features is pretty safe territory but there's frequently going to be a certain amount of backlash when you _change_ something, even when you're trying to improve it. It's scary how outraged users can become really. Announcing changes in advance and giving the option to use the old version can reduce the number of death threats :-)

</comment><comment><USER13> Where on earth did you come up with that idea?

<comment><AUTHOR> I have observed in multiple contexts that users generally don't like change.

There are probably several reasons for this:

* understanding change requires mental effort

* users have already evaluated your service once and don't want to keep reevaluating it

* users bring their physical world expectations online (e.g., imagine buying a sports car that is then transformed at some point into a family car because the manufacturer decided it would be a good idea)

<comment><USER13> I think that, at least during a startup's early-adopter stage, the userbase is comprised of exactly the people who thrive on change (especially change for the better), so even if your hypothesis is correct, you may have a window of opportunity to make some aggressive improvements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "they probably like what you have done as is"

If only.

Frankly, I have trouble remembering a single time that has ever happened to me.

</comment><comment><USER15> "halo effect."</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to learn physics? - <AUTHOR> I have a good foundation in mathematics and I'm interested in learning about physics. What's the best way to learn physics from first principles? <comment><USER2> Here is a guide made by Nobel laureate Gerard 't Hooft: [http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index....](http://www.staff.science.uu.nl/~gadda001/goodtheorist/index.html)

Or, to learn basic physics in a structured and rigorous way, you could take this course (but it's quite expensive): [http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/modules/s217](http://www.open.ac.uk/courses/modules/s217)

</comment><comment><USER3> Get a few lower division (first few years of undergraduate) textbooks and start reading. Work the problems at the end of each chapter. Ideally find books with solutions or at least the answers, so you can work these problems until you understand them. When you get stuck, find someone you can go to, or consult other texts which often give a slightly different, often very helpful, point of view. Also ideally, you would have access to a library so that you can get a few texts.

Personally, I believe the best way to learn anything hard is by enrolling in a course. Having some kind of commitment, and looming consequence, forces you to work through the inevitable tough patches. You can also get a lot of help from classmates, and or learn a lot from helping classmates. They can also be a social support network.

Regarding your comment in the thread, you might want to make sure that it is physics that you want to learn. Physics is more the study of how things are, the nature of reality, rather than 'why' reality is a certain way. There are not many satisfying answers to questions like "why does light have wave and particle properties", but this might be semantics. Physics explains a lot about what we observe. I get a lot of pleasure out of knowing why the sky is blue, how a rainbow is formed, etc. My BS in Physics is an excellent foundation for what I do now, which is radar oceanography.

</comment><comment><USER4> [http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/](http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/) All free and ready for you to enjoy!

<comment><USER5> I would recommend the Feynman lectures for advanced undergraduates in physics. I don't think a beginner would be able to fully appreciate them. That said, if you've got great math skills, it might be worth a shot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think it depends on what value is expected from obtaining the physics knowledge...that is solving engineering problems is different from astronomy is different from becoming a more well rounded individual. The best approach to each entails different levels of formality as does the best approach to each for each individual.

What about physics interests you?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm curious about how the universe works and want to understand why things are the way they are.

<comment><USER7> That's quite vague. Best to start at the bottom and work your way up. As in take the undergrad route until something tickles your fancy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you're still in college/university, enrol in an undergraduate introductory physics course. If you don't have time for that, go to the library and borrow whatever text book it is they use for those courses. Alternately, just browse the physics department shelves in the library and read whatever book catches your fancy.</comment>


The Essence of Nearly Anything, Drop by Limpid Drop (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/05/dining/05curi.html <comment><USER2> It seems like this process would have applications beyond the kitchen, eh?</comment>