It's time: bring Dart to Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.grobmeier.de/bring-dart-to-android-03062014.html <comment><USER2> So, the author's justification is that Apple now has Swift for iOS, so Google should bring Dart to Android.

In my opinion, Swift, although great for shepherding more devs onto the Apple platform, fundamentally directs us further away from the fabled 'write once' dream. Introducing Dart to Android would just further this back-and-forth between proprietary platform holders.

And Microsoft, once again, is left utterly bemused, as it decided to focus away from proprietary languages and allow people to write native apps in JavaScript. But now people are excited about Swift, so is vendor-specific languages what people wanted all along?! How confusing.

<comment><USER3> I think people, or at least people like me, want languages that don't suck to develop in. Write once is great, but being able to spit some code out without really old language cruft getting in the way would be nice too. Objective-C was written forever ago. I don't want to type 30 character method names and write 6 lines of code to do simple "map" operations. Swift and Dart make these things better. They are hopefully fast enough to also not make the end product not suck too. I've worked at at least a handful of companies doing both iOS and Android and they've all done multiple versions of the same app; these write-once libraries and projects just don't do it well enough IMHO.

<comment><USER4> The long method names really have nothing to do with Objective-C, and all with Apple's naming conventions...which are the same with Swift.

<comment><USER5> Plus intellisense means its a solved problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd say "Bring Scala to Android" would be more comparable? Bring Clojure and I'd say you're stealing a lot of developers away who think Swift is a half measure.

<comment><USER7> Clojure already runs on Android, it's just dog slow.

<comment><USER6> Google didn't bring Clojure to Android, some 3rd party did, and slowly. Scala appear to have the same story I think? (Large startup lag?)

If you want functional on Android, I'm betting F# is the premiere method today performant enough to write real apps in.

<comment><USER8> Performance is not just about the language; Scala and Clojure can be just as fast as Java on the Oracle JVM or OpenJDK. The Android Dalvik VM is just incredibly ineffective at optimisation compared to a real JVM, and Google has done little to improve it. Things might change with the new ART VM, however.

<comment><USER7> Clojure's startup time is super slow even on the JVM. Here's a good analysis of why: [http://nicholaskariniemi.github.io/2014/02/25/clojure- bootst...](http://nicholaskariniemi.github.io/2014/02/25/clojure- bootstrapping.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Or Google could just embrace Scala. You can already use it to develop on Android, it already has all the good stuff Swift has (and more), you can use all the existing ecosystem because of the compatibility with Java.

Having it officially pushed by Google would mean better tooling and more Scala-ish APIs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Although I _love_ Scala, I don't think it will work as a primary language for an app platform such as Android. Idiomatic Scala is just too alien for most people to comprehend quickly.

The beauty of both Swift and Dart is that they are very "light" languages. You can read a piece of Swift/Dart and see what it's supposed to do immediately. Most people with a JS/Ruby/Python/Java/C# background can immediately see what's going on, and probably quickly pick it up. Yet they still provide productive modern language features. Scala's learning curve is much greater.

<comment><USER10> Swift vs. Scala: [http://leverich.github.io/swiftislikescala/](http://leverich.github.io/swiftislikescala/)

Yes, Swift is pretty much missing the FP parts, but isn't that an argument about familiarity, not simplicity?

<comment><AUTHOR> My argument was also about familiarity. The imperative subset of Scala is really familiar to Swift, you're absolutely right (+1 for posting that comparison). However, real-world Scala is different. With powerful trait-based OO programming, its functional style with routinely chaining monad after monad, and implicits everywhere. It's incredibly powerful, but not an accessible language for an app platform as large as Android's.

<comment><USER10> People can always stick to a style they are comfortable with.

It's perfectly possible to use code which uses "powerful trait-based OO programming, its functional style with routinely chaining monad after monad, and implicits everywhere" without having to know that part of the language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not sure if Dart is the answer, but Google definitely has to do something about it's "language problem" on Android. Especially with Apple introducing a modern language in Swift. It's a shame that all of the great JVM languages don't easily work on Android or they wouldn't have the problem.

<comment><USER11> I think it makes very much sense for Google to start pushing Kotlin. It runs on JVMs. It is compiled. It's a simple language to migrate to for Java developers, but provides more convenience than Java 8. It does not have the impedance mismatch with Java that some of the other new JVM languages have. Moreover, it's well-supported by IntelliJ and consequently by Android studio.

<comment><USER12> That would be neat and a very pragmatic choice, but I'm not sure that Kotlin provides enough of an advantage over Java to make migrating worth for a significant amount of Android developers. Scala goes a step or two further, but the overhead (cognitive and at runtime) are a problem too.

<comment><USER10> Agree. Kotlin is pretty much Java 8 with Scala syntax. It's neat, but mostly useless.

If Google wanted to stay conservative, they could just support Java 8, but if they wanted something considerably superior ... well, Kotlin is not participating here.

But hey, Google sucks so much at programming languages (see Go and Dart) that I don't expect that they do anything that makes sense for developers.

<comment><USER11> _Agree. Kotlin is pretty much Java 8 with Scala syntax. It 's neat, but mostly useless._

It does contain many features people have been asking for in Java for years, but that Java 8 does not provide, such as: properties, mixins, type inference, pattern matching, operator overloading, etc.

Also, I assume that JetBrains would be open to other features that Google would like in a Java-replacement.

At any rate, all JVM languages, including Scala are going to be limited by the VM and bytecode. So, you'll have to live with type erasure, without your own value types, etc.

<comment><USER10> > Also, I assume that JetBrains would be open to other features > that Google > would like in a Java-replacement.

I could totally understand that, it would probably their last and only chance to get some users.

I don't want to sound harsh, but their situations must be quite dire right now. The language is still stuck in some 0.x-land (unlike Ceylon), Java 8 shipped with most of their features already, they are unable to compete with better languages (like Scala) and the tooling and IDE situation looks pretty bad, too.

> At any rate, all JVM languages, including Scala are going to be > limited by > the VM and bytecode. So, you'll have to live with type > erasure, without > your own value types, etc.

Because having a VM with value types and working Generics is such an impossible feat that no one managed to implement it? I guess not.

No one is preventing them from supporting a superset of the class file format which allows value types and better Generics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why Dart and not Go? And isn't Dart's performance more in line with Javascript than Java? Android needs something that has better performance than Java, not worse, but also easier to learn and use to appeal to a broader range of developers, _especially_ new developers, that will be growing up with Android in many countries.

<comment><USER14> Dart is more performant than Java says this benchmark: [http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/05/Dart-Java- DeltaBlue](http://www.infoq.com/news/2013/05/Dart-Java-DeltaBlue) However its of course reasonable to ask for Golang on Android.

<comment><USER13> A lot of Android developers don't like Java because of its syntax. Dart seems _very_ similar in syntax to Java (which I assume was intentional, but the wrong thing to do)...so not much improvement there. No wonder Dart hasn't been getting anywhere near the excitement Go has received.

What Android needs isn't just a slightly better Java that isn't owned by Oracle, but something more like Python that has the performance of C++, for the next generation of developers. If they're going to deprecate Java in Android and cause everyone a lot of grief over it anyway, they might as well do it right, and for something truly _exciting_ to make people rally around it.

<comment><USER14> Actually I think Dart has a lot of benefits in terms of syntax compared to Java. I am working with java since 2001, so I can tell. If you are interested to briefly look at it, you can do that here: [https://www.dartlang.org/docs/synonyms/](https://www.dartlang.org/docs/synonyms/)

Dart makes me excited, when i am honest :-)

<comment><USER10> Well, comparing with Java is aiming a bit low, isn't it?

Compare Dart's "shorter alternative" of a bog-standard class ...

      // Shorter alternative
      class Person {
        String name;

        // parameters prefixed by 'this.' will assign to
        // instance variables automatically
        Person(this.name);
      }

... with something more modern:

      class Person(val name: String) // Done.

<comment><USER15> Let's remove the comments for a more visually fair comparison:

      class Person {
        String name;
        Person(this.name);
      }

vs

      class Person(val name: String)

Ok, you save a line. I don't think that's a big deal. Also, the Dart version is very clear about what's a field or not. The first example I found of Scala classes on their site is this:

      class Point(xc: Int, yc: Int) {
        var x: Int = xc
        var y: Int = yc
        def move(dx: Int, dy: Int) {
          x = x + dx
          y = y + dy
        }
        override def toString(): String = "(" + x + ", " + y + ")";
      }

With text that says `x` and `y` are the fields. What about `xc` and `yc`, I thought those were the fields?

Another thing I like about Dart is that the possible variations on the constructors fall into place, consistently:

No constructor args:

      class Person {
        String name;
      }

Optional constructor args:

      class Person {
        String name;
        Person({this.name});
      }

Super call:

      class Person extends Animal {
        String name;
        Person(this.name) : super() ;
      }

The short Scala form may do that as well for all I know,

<comment><USER10> > Let's remove the comments for a more visually fair comparison:

It was not meant to be unfair, I just took an existing example. If the Dart devs thought they needed the comments to make it clear what happens, then it's a decision I respect.

> Ok, you save a line.

Three.

> With text that says `x` and `y` are the fields. What about `xc` and `yc`, I > thought those were the fields?

For standard classes, the compiler just does what you tell him:

If you write that you want a "val", you get an instance value, if you write a "var", you get an instance variable, if you write nothing (like in this case), you will usually get ... nothing.

That's perfectly clear in my book.

> Another thing I like about Dart is that the possible variations on the > constructors fall into place, consistently:

In most languages, allowing a constructor which forgets to initialize things is considered a compiler/language bug.

(And having more than one constructor is pretty much considered to be an anti- pattern in Scala anyway.)

> Super call:

In Scala:

      class Person(val name: String) extends Animal

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think Swift to Obj-C is more like Scala to Java. Google should probably bring Scala to the Android ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER17> Why not go? Or make Dalvik handle Clojure fine?

</comment><comment><USER18> Google has a problem in the form of two platforms: Chrome and Android. I believe they will merge. Android will be Web.

\- MobileChromeApp[1] converts Chrome Apps into Android apps. Developed by Googlers.

\- Web Components enable modular, re-usable code. Polymer[2] is backed by Google.

\- AngularJS[3] is a modern UI framework for the Web and is backed by Google.

\- Dart[4] is a new language, with tools and libraries, for scalable Web app engineering from Google.

\- AngularDart[5] is Angular on Dart.

\- ART[6] is a new Android runtime that leverages LLVM, opening the possibility of offering alternative front-ends for Android other than Java.

\- Sundar Pichai runs both Chrome and Android.

\- The rumored Hera project is supposed to marry Android to the Web.

Dart + Angular + Polymer + ART = new Android Development

My bet is that the future of Android is Dart, Polymer, and AngularDart.

[1] [http://github.com/MobileChromeApps](http://github.com/MobileChromeApps)

[2] [http://www.polymer-project.org/](http://www.polymer-project.org/)

[3] [https://angularjs.org/](https://angularjs.org/)

[4] [https://www.dartlang.org/](https://www.dartlang.org/)

[5] [https://angulardart.org/](https://angulardart.org/)

[6] [https://source.android.com/devices/tech/dalvik/art.html](https://source.android.com/devices/tech/dalvik/art.html)

</comment><comment><USER19> ART seems to be the future runtime on Android. Since it has an LLVM backend it would be interesting to investigate LLVM IR bitcode as the "code" format used in the apk. This would make Android development technically possible feasible a number of languages. Microsoft has already done this with the CLR.

What I am not clear on is how this would integrate with external libraries. Would you need LLVM IR based "shared libraries/dll's" for this to work? Google could provide LLVM IR bitcode (.o) files for the Android platform, and the llvm compiler/linker could reference those (this would be equivalent to the DLL's used in the CLR). Open source apps could do the same, but I am not sure how third party vendors feel about providing IR bitcode for their products. The optimized LLVM IR (bitcode) would then become part of the apk.

Since ART does install time compilation, it could take the optimized LLVM IR in the apk and generate native code for that specific device.

</comment><comment><USER20> > I like it. Even more than Java' which I used for a long, long time. Even > more than PHP' which I used since I started with web programming. Even more > than JavaScript, with which I am happy to work with.

Those aren't the greatest references to praise a language with. While these three languages are obviously very popular, I thought they were widely considered to be poor examples of language design:

* Java is extremely verbose. I wasn't aware of this when I first learned Java, as it was one of my first languages, but having recently returned after, I was surprised at how repetitive doing anything is. (Though I'm personally quite a fan of the platform design and consistency of Java, which I find very clean and intuitive.)

* JS and PHP, while both being major driving forces behind todays (and yesteryears) web, are renowned for their inconsistent design.

</comment><comment><USER21> Golang would be sweet on Android. It'll still need to run on top of the Java runtime but that's not too bad given that ART will be the default rather than Dalvik.

That's not to say Java is as bad as ObjC however ;) But something less verbose and more modern like Golang will be a great option to have.

<comment><USER22> Go is a great language.

...but to be fair, writing UI and graphical applications has never been it's strong point, and still is not.

Although you can write NDK applications which steal the raw graphics context to do whatever they like (mandala, xamarin, unity, etc.), tapping into the android UI layer is significantly slower and more complex.

Given that the NDK website still says:

        In general, you should only use the NDK if it is essential to your
        app—never because you simply prefer to program in C/C++.

I'm pretty skeptical Google is going to push anything based off of it as a first class citizen, ever.

(That said, the upcoming I/O has what, 4 or 5 slots devoted to NDK related things; clearly despite the android team, at least someone is paying attention to the fact that people use it. _A lot_. So you never know~)

<comment><USER21> Right, but I was thinking of Golang as an optional language that you could use to build parts of your app - the ones that require concurrency, performance etc. and can leverage Golang's strengths. So instead of writing C/C++ you would write Go code. You would still use Java for the UI part - that's not bad at all - you have memory safety, maturity, Garbage Collection and some time later even some of the cooler JDK8 features. No point in throwing all that away.

For that usecase may be Google can extend ART to convert Go code into something that plugs into the ART and outputs something that can be mixed with the AOT compiled Java code.

<comment><USER23> I doubt it will ever happen, at least in the near future.

The ticket for Go support on Android is open since 2012 and no one from the Android team seems to care.

The Go team has reopen the discussion of, maybe, trying to add support for it in the 1.4 release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I don't understand (this is not a rhetorical device, I honestly don't understand) what makes mobile development so different from desktop or server development, where choice of OS != choice of languages. On a Linux server, I can have Perl scripts interacting with Python scripts interacting with MySQL stored proceedures interacting with applications written in C, and use Bash scripts to automate the whole thing. On Windows, I can use applications written in C, C#, Java, Python and a host of other languages, and for the most part not care or even notice what language they were written in. Why do so many of the new development platforms (Android/iOS/HTML5) embrace this "one or two languages" paradigm?

<comment><USER23> It is no different from the desktop, actually.

Just go look what were the official programming languages from the OS vendors, along the computing history.

What you have lacking is that nowadays, thanks to opensource, outside OS vendors, companies see little value investing into compiler development.

So very few companies produce compilers the mobile OS.

As a result you are left with the open source community, with very few resources tackling these issues.

This all leads to the situation, where the only production quality compilers are the official ones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Dart is a great idea!

About the other languages/plateforms :

Scala/Clojure/Kotlin... already work on the JVM...so they work on Android.

Go is nice.But devs want explicit classes, generics, ... go has no generics.

ChromeOS :a wide range devs dont want to deal with web techs,and neither WebOS or FirefoxOS has proven they are a successfull plateform.Android definetly is.

But I dont see google replacing all the toolchain the JVM provides anytime soon.The only thing they could do is design a language that runs on it and provides the tooling for that.Now can Dart run on the JVM?

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd like to see some comments on how Java falls short. I always felt that it had an undeserved bad rap. One way in which it was _very_ bad is terseness - but that's getting much better today with better type inferencing and lambdas.

<comment><USER9> It is getting better indeed, but there are still features lacking that force you to write code that is much more complex that if you had them.

<comment><USER26> Such as? (Not doubting, merely interested.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Probably the best move for Google would be to write a super fast WebView implementation. This will let the huge mass of web developers to use JavaScript at a speed comparable to Java.

</comment><comment><USER28> In terms of priorities, I'd think replacing JavaScript with Lua on the browser would rank higher -- it would at least make a lot more developers far happier.

</comment><comment><USER29> I am ok with this as long as they give us golang on android first.

</comment><comment><USER30> Or perhaps Google should bring ChromeOS to cell phones and deprecate Android.

<comment><USER31> It would be complete insanity from a branding perspective to take an absolute blockbuster brand like Android and to deprecate it in favour of ChromeOS which hardly anybody has even heard of outside the tech scene. Android has a name recognition on par with some of the biggest brands out there.

<comment><USER30> Branding and marketing are a minor detail, and almost completely decoupled from technical issues. They could figure out something clever... or something simple like calling it Android 5.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How Do You Optimize Google Play Store Listings? - <AUTHOR>

I have just launched my app into the Android Play Store and know that there are some tricks to get it to rank well so that people find it?
What should I be focusing on?
My app: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.betalystfootballbettingtips&hl=en_GB <comment><USER2> haha for the first few years on PLay store you could use KW density to game the internal search . I found this amazing given it was the app store from a search company. I had a product ranking next to Facebook for a couple years before they fixed this :)

These days it's more the standard quality stuff. Start with good naming criteria and description text. Then get lots of downloads, good reviews, continuous users etc. App quality will strongly reflect in your position.

Overall you've entered a very competitive area. Unless this app offers a distinct benefit so people clamor to it organically you're going to have to buy your exposure.

Do you know the expected financial value of a download? If not work this out. Then decide how much margin you need to make and then get spending if the numbers stack up. These days tricking you way to the top aint going to work in this category.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Any help much appreciated!</comment>


Yet another introduction to yacc - <AUTHOR> https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/yaity <comment><USER2> I was really proficient at yacc/bison before, but a while back I completely changed toolset and now use exclusively Ragel [0] for all my parser needs.

Ragel allows you to make partial parsers and all kind of useful things; it's also a LOT easier to integrate in codebases.

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

</comment><comment><USER3> webcache if bounced via Not Secure label - [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https:...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/yaity)

</comment><comment><USER4> Stop using yacc. Seriously. There are _much_ better tools out there.

<comment><USER5> "Stop using yacc!" I am fascinated by this sentiment. I have seen it before in HN comments. This is almost as amusing as the "eradicate C" campaign.

To check whether this HN commentary has any basis in reality, I have been passively compiling a list of all the software I find that uses yacc or bison.

I have been reassured of how prevalently it is used. Not only is it found throughout bases of popular UNIX distributions but it is also being used in third party programs, some of which are popular among HN readers.

If you do not like yacc/bison and there are "better" tools available to you I cannot see why you would try to persuade others to stop using it. Strange.

Based on my research so far, yacc/bison is still popular amongst programmers who actually write and distribute open source software.

How popular it is amongst programmers who comment on HN is another matter. Perplexing.</comment></comment>


Intel Exiting 5G Modems - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.intel.com/news-releases/intel-modem-statement/#gs.639at4 <comment><USER2> Intel couldn't make WiMax work right (too power hungry and low speed), their attempts to build an LTE chip have fared worse than Samsung and Qualcomm, to the point that they are a full 5 years behind their competitors, and their cable modem chipsets (Puma 6/7, used in the Xfinity converged gateway) are fatally flawed and DoSable with a few Kbps of traffic, while having horrible bufferbloat.

At this point I think Intel's entire advantage over the past two decades was being on the bleeding edge of silicon processes, paired with a middling silicon design team and good firmware devs that could patch most flaws in microcode.

The process lead has disappeared, and when working with RF frontends (LTE, WiMax, cable modems, WiFi) their ability to cover up implementation errors in the driver is limited.

Intel's prospects for the next few years look dim in this context, given the tens of billions wasted on the aformentioned forays into making radio chipsets and the declining revenue of their legacy CPU market paired with serious manufacuting constraints that have hamstrung their supply chain.

<comment><USER3> To me this is kind of strange, I thought Intel had a good reputation as far as Ethernet and Wireless drivers were concerned. Certainly much better than (old) Broadcom, Realtek, Ralink, ST and the like.

<comment><USER4> On Ethernet, Intel is known for their little frills, stable line of NICs. That said, they have not been a leader since the jump to 10Gbps. Their 10Gbps line eventually came along and is solid, but it was a few years behind everyone else. That same story seems to be repeating itself at every new ethernet standard over the past decade.

Come to think of it, the last decade has been really bad for Intel. They no longer have a node advantage. They no longer have a performance advantage in any market space that I can think of outside of frequency hungry low-thread applications (games).

Their WiFi chips are good, but second tier. Their Modem chips are third tier. Their node is mostly on par with the competition, for now. Their CPUs are trading blows with AMD. Their ethernet chips are a generation behind. Optane is is a bright spot, but we'll see how they squander that.

The next big diversification play by Intel is GPUs, I have no idea how that will pan out.

<comment><USER2> Optane will be squandered by limited CPU support and slim software support :c

Optane is a neat idea, but the severe change in software architecture combined with only select CPUs even supporting it will limit uptake outside FAANGs or organizations with really specialized needs.

<comment><USER5> Databases will love Optane. There have been companies showing how much they are willing to spend on database hardware and software for ages. I'm not sure that will change any time soon.

<comment><USER6> Not so sure about this. World is increasingly moving to distributed scale out databases. Once you go that way consensus algorithms and rpc costs dwarf disk io speed.

<comment><USER7> Not everyone is building apps which need to be "web scale". Optane has the potential to significantly raise the performance ceiling of a single-master database. I bet there are a lot of companies who will happily drop six figures on Optane systems if it saves them the complexity of managing a distributed database.

<comment><USER8> The niche where your present requirements are big enough to benefit from Optane and your future requirements are small enough to not need to go distributed is pretty narrow.

<comment><USER9> Finance, healthcare, and enterprise systems.

I'm not sure it's really a niche.

<comment><USER8> I've worked for a company that was willing to spend that kind of money on monolithic database servers. They were a top-100 website though, and this was the best part of a decade ago (and thus e.g. in the pre-SSD era).

They were also scrambling to move all their services away from use of that database in favour of a horizontally scaled system that could grow further.

The query rate that can be handled by a single conventional server are pretty monstrous these days. You'd have to be simultaneously a) maybe top-50 website level load (I'm well aware that there's a lot more than websites out there, but at the same time there really aren't _that_ many organizations working at that scale, much as there are many that think they are) and b) confident that you weren't going to grow much.

<comment><USER9> The real world is much bigger than websites/apps.

<comment><USER8> It is, and I acknowledged that. But it gives a sense of the scale involved. Just as there are very few websites/apps that need to handle, what, 2000 requests/second (and simultaneously don't intend growing by more than a factor of two or so), systems that need that kind of performance in any other field are similarly rare.

<comment><USER9> Not really, it's also not necessarily not needing to grow but not everything can scale in the same manner as Netflix or Facebook.

Financial systems especially trading platforms need to ensure market fairness they also need to have at the end a single database as you can't have any conflicts in your orders and the orders need to be executed in the order they came in across the entire system not just a single instance.

This means that even when they do end up with some micro-service-esque architecture for the front end it still talks to a single monolithic database cluster in the end which is used to record and orchestrate everything.

<comment><USER8> That is indeed one case where a large single-node database makes a certain amount of sense (though it's not the only solution; you need a globally consistent answer for which orders match with which, but that doesn't have to mean a single database node. Looking at the transaction numbers I'd assume that e.g. the busiest books on NYSE must be multi-node systems just because of the transaction rates). But fundamentally there are what, 11 equity exchanges in the US total (and less than half of those are high-volume). And the market fairness requirements are very specific to one particular kind of finance; they're not something that would be needed in healthcare, general enterprise, or most financial applications. Like I said, niche.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another commenter (metildaa) said Intel is 5 years behind the competition on their 4G LTE technology.

I can't reconcile that claim with PC Magazine's tests of the iPhone XS's mobile performance: [https://www.pcmag.com/news/364116/iphone-xs-crushes-x-in- lte...](https://www.pcmag.com/news/364116/iphone-xs-crushes-x-in-lte-speeds- but-still-falls-short-of)

The PC Mag author, Sascha Segan, says repeatedly that the iPhone XS at worst only slightly trails the Galaxy Note 9 and other high-end phones with 2018 Qualcomm SoCs. To quote directly:

> Between the three 4x4 MIMO phones, you can see that in good signal > conditions, the Qualcomm-powered Galaxy Note 9 and Google Pixel 2 still do a > bit better than the iPhone XS Max. But as signal gets weaker, the XS Max > really competes, showing that it's well tuned.

> Let's zoom in on very weak signal results. At signal levels below -120dBm > (where all phones flicker between zero and one bar of reception) the XS Max > is competitive with the Qualcomm phones and far superior to the iPhone X, > although the Qualcomm phones can eke out a little bit more from very weak > signals.

We could say this is all Apple tuning the phone's antenna array and materials, but I find it extremely unlikely that would have compensated for "5 years" of Intel lag - back then LTE was _several_ times slower in theory and practice.

We could also say this is just Apple giving Intel all the secrets of modems that Intel couldn't figure out themselves. That could be more plausible, but again I'm doubtful, since Apple would have little incentive to hoard those secrets and then loan them to Intel instead of using them to build their own chips. Unless of course Apple stole those secrets from Qualcomm or someone else...?

<comment><USER11> > Another commenter (metildaa) said Intel was 5 years behind the competition > on their 4G LTE technology.

Why didn't you just reply to their comment?

<comment><USER10> They made the same claim in 2 separate comment threads and I was unsure which to reply to.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678579](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678579)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678578](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19678578)

<comment><USER12> Ah, the many headed hydra joy of threaded discussions, chop off one head and four more appear!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It is really amazing how much money Intel has thrown away chasing "mobile" dollars. First, they squandered billions trying to make mobile Socs, now the last part of the company that can get inside a cell phone is throwing in the towel as well. While Intel was doing all of this, it managed to squander away its core manufacturing competency as well. I have a feeling Intel will be the next HP, sliced and diced for parts - none of which resemble the company at its best.

<comment><USER13> I think the problem is that they believe they "squandered" supplying the iPhone CPU. They stated that mobile CPUs would never sell in quantity, so they weren't interested. Missing that boat, they've believed the need to be in front of mobile at any cost.

I think Intel failed to realize that they had made the right call with iPhone: their very culture isn't about being innovative, but providing microcode flexibility at high instructions/watt. They had a chance to define servers, and still do. They should have been all over the whole spectre/meltdown/timing security issues and owned creating a secure server chip. Instead, they've fretted away so many options that they never had a chance to win.

My two cents.

<comment><USER14> Intel owned a big slice of the embedded ecosystem well into the 90's. They threw that all away to focus on high margin Pentiums.

<comment><USER15> it seems like a regular business error ..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm wondering if Apple decided to settle with Qualcomm, and Intel scuttled a presumably low-selling business, or did Intel abruptly close the business prompting Apple to suddenly settle?

Given that the settlement came in the middle of court arguments unbeknownst to the lawyers, I'm thinking the latter.

<comment><USER2> Apple was Intel's only LTE modem client, Apple did everything they could for years to give Intel the secrets that made Qualcomm's modems so performant, yet Intel was still a half decade behind in modem sensitivity, leaving a huge gap betwewn Intel and Qualcomm/Samsung.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Surely in regards to the current top post on HN: [https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/qualcomm-and-apple- ag...](https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2019/04/qualcomm-and-apple-agree-to- drop-all-litigation/)

<comment><USER18> Could you explain how that's related?

<comment><USER19> Apple currently buys 4G modems from Intel and presumably Apple is shopping for 5G modems. If Intel no longer makes 5G modems then Apple needs to buy them from Qualcomm. Or it could be the reverse: if Apple has decided to buy 5G modems from Qualcomm then Intel has no customers for its 5G modems and thus decided to cancel them.

<comment><USER20> It is not like Qualcomm settles with Apple to get into Apple's cellphones, it is a concession made to make them _drop_ Intel and still pay them royalties after Apple finishes its own modem.

Apple been poaching Qualcomm's top radio engineers for years ...for work in their Chinese RnD centre (no non-compete enforcement there)

<comment><USER21> Non-competes are not enforced in California.

<comment><USER20> Well, they might be other reasons then. You don't normally haul a poached top tier employee from a first world country to China.

My speculation is maybe their talks with Huawei were more fruitful than known to the public.

<comment><USER22> Wouldn't it be suicide for a pro-privacy company to put Huawei gear in it's phones? Normally I would figure consumers just aren't that privacy-conscious, but with the current national security climate around Huawei, I think many more people are aware of the massive risks they pose.

<comment><USER20> To begin with, work on physical layer of 5G NR is to big extend Huawei's and ZTE's effort as part of 3gpp

Who will be your first option for supplier of 5G PHY chips other than standard's original authors?

<comment><USER22> Qualcomm, I suppose. I personally think it's more likely that Apple wants to make its own. One thing it does do well is custom fabrication and optimization, which is why iPhones run better with less RAM than Androids and can have good battery life. I think they may be sick of the trouble caused by 3rd-party suppliers in this department.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> gjsman-1000 Early this morning: Apple and Qualcomm abandon lawsuits. Late this evening: Intel announces leaving modem business.

Coincidence? I think not!

<comment><USER11> It's a coincidence unless you have any information to prove otherwise.

Edit: apparently the very wise HN users would rather downvote a call for evidence and upvote a feels goods conspiracy theory. stay classy HN.

<comment><USER23> Fastest way to get downvotes is to complain about them

<comment><USER24> This is of topic. How do you downvote a comment? Is it disabled for new users or user should have specific karma?

I have been here for years and I have decent karma I think

<comment><USER23> Based on this post [1] you need 500 karma

[1} [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381148](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381148)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The cellular modem market has absolutely crashed in the last decade. Broadcom, ST-Ericsson, Nvidia and Intel have all left the market. I may be forgetting someone.

That leaves basically just Qualcomm and Mediatek (on the lower end) left. Huawei and Samsung have something too. Apple and Samsung will have to make their own modems now, if they don't want to be dependent on Qualcomm.

This is certainly not good for competition.

<comment><USER26> Sony? [https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201601/16-008E/inde...](https://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/201601/16-008E/index.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Some vindication for the oft-maligned SemiAccurate site.

Article five months ago: [https://semiaccurate.com/2018/11/12/intel-tries-to- pretend-t...](https://semiaccurate.com/2018/11/12/intel-tries-to-pretend-they- have-5g-silicon-with-the-xmm-8160/)

<comment><USER28> More like "veryaccurate" am i right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Big companies dont fail due to external forces, they fail because of internal dynamics. Everything apart from x86 is a hobby at Intel. Also think they are addicted to high margins and expect that a substantial portion of cost of a device goes to Intel components.

</comment><comment><USER29> Cellular technology is hard and complex.

I remember Broadcom thought "no problem, we churned out Wifi solution with 50 people so how hard can this cellular thing be for us?"... Well, they crashed and burned.

You need massive teams of people who know what they are doing to build cellular chipsets with the necessary software stack.

</comment><comment><USER30> Stock is jumping after hours, not surprised as modems really aren't a core competency of Intel.

</comment><comment><USER31> Good for iPhone users, now that Apple & Qualcomm are in the bed again; they will get decent 5G experience (or) at-least what everyone else is getting.

<comment><USER32> It's probably too late for this year's iPhone though, unless engineering teams have been working behind closed doors of both companies expecting this to be the case.

<comment><USER33> I very much doubt 5G iPhones were ever something we would see in 2019. The network deployments aren't there yet, and Apple won't have two SKUs for their flagship 2019 model to hedge their bets with 1st gen modems like other manufacturers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Next year Intel will be hit harder when Apple announces Macs based on its A series ARM chips and transitions its entire Mac line to it by 2023 or 2024. This move by Apple will also prompt other PC manufacturers (a lot more than before) to move to ARM if Microsoft continues to play along well on ARM.

Seems like Intel's future is bleak, and the company may have to be broken into pieces.

<comment><USER35> Apple switching to Arm would be near impossible given many people run windows on apple and other non-apple programs that won't be able to be emulated fast enough on Arm. Steve Jobs might try that leap but Tim Cook won't want to scare anyone off from the Apple ecosystem.

<comment><USER36> Apple already did that transition multiple times. And running Windows on Apple hardware is not something that Apple cares about.

<comment><USER37> I am still disappointed that the menu item for Boot Camp to "log off and boot into Windows" never made it into the OS.

<comment><USER33> IIRC it was there in betas for a while. Typically when a feature was pulled from OS X betas it was either because it was too broken to make the release date, or patents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if the timing of this announcement was determined by the timing of the Apple/Qualcomm settlement. In particular, if Apple encouraged Intel to delay this announcement until they reached a settlement with Qualcomm, to get better terms with Qualcomm.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm disappointed by this news because Intel was the only mobile modem manufacturer who was competitive (or nearly competitive) to Qualcomm in North America. Without Samsung, without Chinese OEMs, Qualcomm is unfettered in its monopoly here.

<comment><USER32> Mediatek isn't far behind. If they were to put actual decent CPU's in their SoC's (which is just a matter of licensing - switching out one ARM CPU for another isn't too hard), I think they could take a big share of Qualcomm's market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I keep hoping intel will fix bufferbloat across all their lte/cablemodem/dsl/etc gear. It would improve their end user experience enormously. I even know a few folks that would help....

</comment><comment><USER41> So earlier Apple and Qualcomm reach détente. Then Intel announces exit from the 5G modem space, meaning Intel isn't a viable alternative to Qualcomm as supplier had Apple and Qualcomm not made nice. Interesting timing of statements...

...but, Intel mentioned the IP they still retain in the 5G space. What's the over/under on Apple licensing Intel's IP and bringing modem dev in house (keeping in mind that would take a couple years at best to payoff) vs making a best case scenario of a working relationship with Qualcomm and using their tech?

<comment><USER32> I suspect this is the case.

Apple will have purchased IP and maybe entire teams from Intel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Surely due to the recently top post on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19674218](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19674218)

<comment><USER43> I thought it was the Qualcomm Apple settlement? [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19676499](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19676499)

Surely it can't be a coincidence. Though the weather thing might not be either, but if so this was a very well coordinated response.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> What a coincidence that intel released this after Apple issued the press release about Qualcomm. Seems like Intel had some weight lifted up off their shoulders.

</comment><comment><USER45> I like how the forward-looking statement disclosure is longer than the press release itself.

</comment><comment><USER46> Well now I get why Apple settled its lawsuits with Qualcomm suddenly or Qualcomm might have asked for a lot more money interesting how Intel announces this a day after the Apple and Qualcomm settlement

<comment><USER22> I'm sure Apple told Intel to hold the press release or they would sue them for breach. I can't really blame Apple hear; Qualcomm can be nasty and Apple wasn't wrong to not give up a huge advantage.

<comment><USER32> I doubt Qualcomm was unaware. Lots of rumours spread within an industry but never make it out onto the internet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone know what they mean by

> "...and Other Data-Centric Opportunities"

What does Data-Centric mean? Specifically, Data-Centric platforms that they keep referencing?

<comment><USER48> [https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2017/02/10/intel-c...](https://www.bizjournals.com/portland/news/2017/02/10/intel- ceo-we-are-a-data-company.html)

Not sure if that is still true after Krzanich out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Intel should buy Nvidia, drop their internal GPU efforts, and focus on regaining their CPU lead. It may be a futile effort, with the end of Moore's law and Dennard scaling making their previous approach less appealing, but they've got to try. Then again, if they bought Nvidia, they'd probably try to put an x86 inside the GPU...

<comment><USER50> > Intel should ... focus on regaining their CPU lead.

I think they are focused on that. They've been trying to bring their 10nm process to market for years. It's now 3 years past their initial projections. Moore's exponential curve is certainly dead, the big question now is whether performance will improve linearly or something worse.

<comment><USER51> Performance can still increase exponentially on average. There are still undeveloped ways of hyper-performant computing, such as chemical, biological (bacterial), DNA-based, optical, maybe quantum... and of course we would start replacing silicon with graphene once its production finally takes off, which should lead to 3D chips. Spintronics is another very interesting field.

<comment><USER50> > There are still undeveloped ways of hyper-performant computing ...

Agreed, but none of the technologies have reached the marketplace, and it's entirely unclear how long it will take for them to develop. If it takes decades, any exponential curve is toast.

<comment><USER51> That is not true. You can't claim that. I'm saying that _on average_ it's going to be exponential - e.g. even if it takes 100 years, the jump will be so huge it'll be an exponentially large step.

<comment><USER50> > on average it's going to be exponential - e.g. even if it takes 100 years, > the jump will be so huge it'll be an exponentially large step

I would not call that an exponential, it's a step function. It's entirely possible that human innovation over time will be look more like a series of step functions than a continuous exponential. The problem with step functions, of course, is that you can't easily predict future growth based on past growth, as you can with an exponential.

E.g., when quantum computing comes, it will surely be significant, but if it takes 10, 100, or 1000 years to make a breakthrough, it's not at all clear that the timing will happen to coincide with the exponential that we have been on for the last 50 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> OMG this is huge, I can't fathom how a company with such level of engineering and talents can't/choose not to do it. At one point it's bigger than the bottom line or any other considerations, it's for the moral of the whole company.

<comment><USER53> At some point the size of the business becomes it's largest performance factor. It loses the ability to use talent and to understand which risks to take.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> obvious movement, intel have been sucking at modem design and performance compared with its rivals on LTE

</comment><comment><USER55> Yet again, INTC + RF == 0.

</comment><comment><USER56> When Intel repeatedly says they're going to continue making the modems for the iPhone up to 2020 but now have shown themselves to have been blatantly lying, clearly this has to be illegal or at least warrant an investor lawsuit right?

<comment><USER33> You don't believe the 2019 iPhones (which will be the flagships until Sept 2020) will contain Intel LTE modems?

<comment><USER56> Did you read the linked news piece before commenting? It says it directly there:

> "The company will continue to meet current customer commitments for its > existing 4G smartphone modem product line, but does not expect to launch 5G > modem products in the smartphone space, including those originally planned > for launches in 2020."</comment></comment></comment>


Learning Ruby Metaprogramming - <AUTHOR> http://ruby-metaprogramming.heroku.com/ <comment><USER2> I've found this single page to be an excellent reference on Ruby metaprogramming:

[http://weare.buildingsky.net/2009/08/25/rubys- metaprogrammin...](http://weare.buildingsky.net/2009/08/25/rubys- metaprogramming-toolbox)

</comment><comment><USER3> An excellent online course for learning Ruby metaprogramming by Satoshi Asakawa.</comment>


Sex workers fear violence as US cracks down on online ads: 'Girls will die' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/apr/10/sex-workers-fear-violence-as-us-cracks-down-on-online-ads-girls-will-die <comment><USER2> I hate to use the <current year> argument but it's really sad that in 2018 we're still trying to make voluntary sex work illegal when every studies show that it 1) doesn't work and 2) makes everything worse for everyone involved. Also, the fact that the very president is known to have used prostitutes and that Washington politicians are well known to be big customers makes this hypocrisy really infuriating.

<comment><USER3> it's also just an absurd restriction from a perspective that values individual liberty. "my body, my choice" "consenting adults" \-- all that goes out the window when it's sex for cash? it makes no sense.

<comment><USER4> Governmental attempts to suppress "immoral" but natural human behavior has been tried for thousands of years and has never worked. I.e. attempts to stop:

* drinking

* gambling

* prostitution

* drugs

* adultery

* homosexuality

* lending money

* black markets

<comment><USER5> Lending money?

<comment><USER6> I suggest the book Debt: The First 5,000 Years. Almost all early religious entities, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, condemned the concept of using money to make money as immoral. The belief was that money was meant to exchange debt, not make people wealthy off that debt.

Today Islam still holds this as a majority view in many places (not universally). I'm simplifying it a lot, so I really recommend the book. There is a strong correlation between debt and guilt. In Christian doctrine, they're very interchangeable (forgive us our debts/sins as we forgive those who are indebted to/have sinned against us).

Guilt, Sin and debt are the same word in many ancient languages, including old English. Guilt and debt are still the same word in German.

<comment><USER7> I thought that Judaism had some sort of exception that allowed usury in the case of lending to non-Jewish people. This was why many banks back then were run by them.

<comment><USER8> My understanding is that a lot of banking was jewish simply because of their legal system. You could reasonably expect a jewish bank to obey a jewish court decision, even if that court was on another continent. This lent an otherwise unheard of level of credibility, and allowed jewish banks to network like no other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's really sad to hear about sex workers fearing for their very lives, let alone their livelihood. These are some of the most disadvantaged and vulnerable members of society. Their lives could be so much better if we moved towards Netherlands/German-style legalization. Instead, we seem to be going in the opposite direction.

I wonder who exactly the opponents of sex-legalization are trying to "protect". Trafficking victims? They will be vastly better served by a well regulated workplace. The sex workers themselves? I think this article debunks that myth. The Johns? Hah, there's a good laugh. The criminalization of the sex industry seems like Prohibition all over again.

<comment><USER10> >Trafficking victims? They will be vastly better served by a well regulated workplace.

why?

<comment><USER11> I think the obvious answer is because they could complain to the police if they were under threat. Of course, it being the obvious answer doesn't preclude it being nonsense, so feel free to tell me why I'm wrong.

<comment><USER12> I think the more obvious answer is that if the market is well-regulated and above-board, there is no need for the shady unregulated black market where kidnapping and human trafficking are things that happen.

<comment><USER10> Then why are the Netherlands "a source, destination, and transit country for men, women, and children subjected to sex trafficking and forced labor"[1]?

[1][https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2017/271251...](https://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/countries/2017/271251.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just legalize it already! It's been proven time and time again across many countries around the world that legalizing and regulating prostitution creates a safer environment for the girls AND the customers.

<comment><USER14> Prostitution is abhorrent to the women's rights movement -- it is another tool of oppression.

Women are having sex with men whom they otherwise wouldn't have sex with -- we should be removing the need for sex work rather than accommodating it. Sex "for survival," child prostitution, sex trafficking -- none of these go away when the stigma and illegality are removed and if anything it gets worse because clients just automatically assume their sexual partner isn't (for example) a victim of sex trafficking.

<comment><USER13> Ah no. If you listen to the sex workers who are generally WOMEN they advocate for legalizing and regulating sex work. Because they want a safe environment to work in.

By making sex work illegal you are preventing people in the industry from going to the authorities to report all the things you are against. You will never stop prostitution by saying it is illegal, all you are doing is allowing the criminal elements to thrive. If you care about preventing sex trafficking and child prostitution you need the help of people in the industry to ensure organized crime can not operate with a cloak of silence.

<comment><USER14> How is prostitution different from rape, where sexual autonomy is removed by economic force rather than physical force?

<comment><USER15> How is having a job different from slavery, where personal autonomy is removed by economic force rather than physical force?

<comment><USER16> Abolish the wage system!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think the missing discussion is that some bad law exists, but that SESTA/FOSTA is not that bad law: Websites should not be immune to prosecution for intentionally facilitating criminal activity. Section 230 is a bad thing and it going away is a good thing. Headlines I've seen like "sex workers are the canary in the coal mine for free speech" are not really accurate, because this is about activity which _is and has been illegal_ , not suppressing speech.

The problem is that there's no good reason for prostitution in general to be illegal in the United States. While I have no interest in partaking in such activity myself, I realize that the sole interest in banning it appears to be religion... something which cannot and should not govern our country's laws. I'm a Christian, but I don't think Christian views should be the determining factor in our legislature... that's the Constitution's job.

<comment><USER18> >the sole interest in banning it appears to be religion

If you can't think of any moral hazards around prostitution, then I don't believe that you are trying very hard.

>I don't think Christian views should be the determining factor in our legislature

Is Christianity the only moral system that looks poorly upon prostitution?

<comment><USER19> There are plenty of moral hazards around prostitution, and banning it outright makes all of them _worse_. It makes the women involved criminals and deprives them of legal protection when they're abused.

The only reason to make prostitution a crime is if you think prostitutes themselves are committing evil. That is 100% a religious position with no rational support.

<comment><USER20> How does your comment fit with children being drugged and forced into prostitution?

And then adults being drugged and forced into prostitution?

And then adults feeding a drug addiction?

At which point of this ladder do you start to say "no, this is where we need to make it illegal"?

<comment><USER21> > How does your comment fit with children being drugged and forced into > prostitution?

That's already illegal. You've just made discovering it harder.

> And then adults being drugged and forced into prostitution?

Also already illegal. You've made discovering it harder.

> And then adults feeding a drug addiction?

That's actually none of your business.

> At which point of this ladder do you start to say "no, this is where we need > to make it illegal"?

There's no need since you don't actually solve coerced prostitution by making it illegal.

<comment><USER18> >That's already illegal.

Maybe we should just make one singular law that says "be nice".

Hey, I bet you could make a religion out of that!

/s

Saying there is already a law that covers something is disconnected from reality, or at least disconnected form language and the way that humans communicate.

For instance: "drugging people is illegal". You haven't defined "drugging" or "people" in that case. Is it drugging a person when a school nurse gives a child a acetaminophen? You're definitely changing both their physical and psychological state, and are in some way establishing a relationship of dependence.

This is why we have more than one law, and why we don't base our laws on religion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Two attempted kidnappings yesterday:

[https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Teen-girl-young- woman-e...](https://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Teen-girl-young-woman-escape- kidnappings-in-12819197.php#photo-11304920)

FTA: "Just two hours earlier, in what police said was an unrelated incident, a 19-year-old woman was walking just three blocks away from the kidnapping when she was dragged into a car by a group of two men and two women."

The northeast mission remains a center of drive-by prostitution. Hard to read these stories without speculating this is an indication of what's to come thanks to SESTA/FOSTA.

Can't believe that Kamala Harris supported this. It's not helpful to say this is a reasonable law and that prostitution's illegality is the problem. In the world we live in it is and will remain so.

That makes this a bad and dangerous law.

</comment><comment><USER23> > Donald Trump is expected to sign the law this week, but sex workers across > the country told the Guardian they were already suffering consequences. > Craigslist shut down its personals section, and federal authorities seized > Backpage.com, releasing an indictment this week accusing its founders of > money laundering and "facilitating prostitution". The list of charges did > not include trafficking.

And just a reminder this law was 100% unnecessary to prosecute Backpage.

This was purely puritanical bullshit designed to hurt sex workers in the US that are here legally. They just needed a "cause" to sell to rubes.

<comment><USER24> Just like SOPA wasn't necessary when they took down Mega Upload by arresting people accross the world without SOPA or any of the proposed bills that followed....

<comment><USER23> It is almost like they are lying about the need for more power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I've wondered if a solutions is to allow prostitution 'brothels' as legitimate businesses by those prosituting like Amsterdam or in a legalized Red Light District or even operate as semi government owned and taxed like they do weed (still in the works) and alcohol in ontario canada.

It would take out all of the danger and illegality as for example one doesnt go into shady corners or connections to buy cigarettes or alcohol like weed because its legalized and policed correctly.

</comment><comment><USER26> It's interesting seeing all the men supporting 'sex work' when it is the woman who is left to deal with the repercussions of her body being used and abused for money. The real problem is not the crack down, but the social forces that make women feel like this is the only source of income available to them, and the dirtbag men who take advantage of them. This does not boost my opinion of internet "intellectuals", nor of the HN community who seem largely in favor of taking advantage of women in this way.

<comment><USER27> Sex work is work. Just like a job in a mine or on an oil rig it might be an unhealthy, dangerous job with serious health repercussions. But it's a job nonetheless.

Would I prefer a world where men didn't have to waste their health in mines and women theirs in prostitution? Sure, I'm all for a UBI. But it is hypocrisy to treat these professions and the health implications they have as any different.

<comment><USER26> Mining is a legitimate need. Men don't need prostitutes. What men need is to treat women as equal human beings, and not a vessel for their lusts.

<comment><USER27> You make it sound as if lust was something bad. Interesting.

Sexual intercourse is as much a necessity as is mining. More so, I'd say. Humans are not mining machines, they are reproduction machines. To deny this is to deny human nature. Also, sex in and in itself has nothing to do with respect or disrespect. It's simply a physical act.

<comment><USER26> It is. Lust makes one person dehumanize another person and use them as a tool for their own pleasure. Anytime we dehumanize each other it is bad, regardless of the negative consequences, of which there are many (broken families, STDs, domestic violence, child abuse, etc.)

<comment><USER26> Consent is not a magic wand that makes all actions moral.

And yes, brokeness will be with us for all time. So, your solution is to just allow things to get worse? Sometimes you have to take a hard stand on things to help people not destroy themselves.

<comment><USER27> It's not as if there were any absolute moral values. And if everybody involved can give informed consent, why should that not be enough?

<comment><USER14> Self-control and empathy are absolute moral values, there are many but these two form the core of the civilizing process. A society where these two are absent is a society of anarchy and self-destruction.

To imply that all social norms and taboos are moot in the face of individuality is to imply that the individual is the core atom of humanity and it clearly is not -- it is the family.

<comment><USER27> Self-control and empathy are very useful moral values if you want to have a stable and peaceful society. I agree that they are 'good' moral values.

That doesn't make them absolute.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> another headline: Drug dealers fear violence as DEA existing. Drug dealer is also dealer!

</comment><comment><USER26> What kind of 'feminist' community is HN when men want women to let strangers abuse their bodies? 'Feminist' men are merely cads taking advantage of women using politically correct language. Anyways, if this is the sort of 'pro- women' environment HN wants to foster, count me out.

<comment><USER27> You make it seem as if there was an universal feminist agreement that sex work should be illegal.

It's not. There are plenty (female) hard-core 2nd-wave feminists that are all for legalization of prostitution, citing self-empowerment, economic empowerment and the acceptance of female sexuality.

<comment><USER26> You fail to distinguish between what people who call themselves "feminists" want, and what actually is in the best interest of women. If feminists suddenly started saying forced teenage marriages to abusive old men was in the best interest of women, they'd be wrong. Same in the case of prostitution.

<comment><USER27> Sorry, but now you've lost me.

You say -- to paraphrase -- 'the True Feminist only speaks what's good for women and only I decide what's good for women'. That's not an argument, it's a dogma.

<comment><USER26> Say your kid decided it is best for him to eat ice cream all day and play in the street. Who actually knows what's best for him, you or the kid?

This is not particular to feminism. If we can clearly see someone choosing a self destructive lifestyle (i.e. drugs), even if it is what they really want, our responsibility is to help them get out of it.

<comment><USER29> If your brand of feminism has you comparing adult women to children incapable of deciding what is best for themselves, I think you've lost the point somewhere.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I learn about SSL/TLS through code? - <AUTHOR> I learned smtp via a mock email server implementation (in c#). Similarly is there something that can help me learn SSL/TLS. I have no previous knowledge of pki and encryption... <comment><USER2> You better follow popular SSL blogs to learn about SSL/TLS.</comment>


BBC hands out tiny Micro Bit computer to thousands of children in the UK today - <AUTHOR> http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-03-22-bbc-hands-out-tiny-micro-bit-computer-to-thousands-of-children-in-the-uk-today <comment><USER2> Amongst other languages, it runs microPython. Documentation here: [http://microbit- micropython.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index....](http://microbit- micropython.readthedocs.org/en/latest/index.html)</comment>


Apple Plans Web Radio Challenge to Pandora - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/09/07/technology/apple-plans-to-challenge-pandora-in-web-radio.html?_r=2&hp

<comment><USER2> This looks a lot like the behavior of a certain Redmond based company 15 years ago.</comment>


Show HN: Helvetica Neue – Sortable / Filterable Hacker News Built with Firebase - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/helvetica-neue-native-hacker/id931789125?ls=1&mt=8

<comment><USER2> I like how it looks! Odd name though, maybe..?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah - it is. It's really an inside joke. It abbreviates to HN. And Helvetica Neue is the default font of iOS and OS X.</comment></comment>


Apple-Samsung verdict form requires jurors to answer 600 questions - <AUTHOR> http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/For-Apple-Samsung-Jury-More-Than-600-Questions-3807591.php

<comment><AUTHOR> The SJMN has a copy of the 20-page verdict form. I must say I have my doubts about the utility of the adversarial process in situations like this. In an amusing irony, the last question on the form concerns 'patent exhaustion.'

[http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21362502/document- app...](http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_21362502/document-apple-vs- samsung-jury-instructions?source=pkg)</comment>


Please Stop Attacking MIT's Network - <AUTHOR> http://blog.achernya.com/2013/01/please-stop-attacking-mits-network-in.html <comment><USER2> As I'd mentioned on an earlier submission about W3C's site being inaccessible:

A cool thing about Aaron's activism was that it involved building things, circumventing censorship, and spreading information, rather than sabotage and denial-of-service.

<comment><USER3> Its not black and white. Sure Aaron built things but he also threatened to destroy JSTOR's business model. Likewise a DDoS may seem destructive but if it causes MIT to have better Ethics and Leadership as a result then its well worth the discomfort. If theres a bug in your system you sometimes have to replace some lines of code to make it better, this isn't destruction its just change.

<comment><USER2> If the effect of a 'protest' is to prevent people from accessing online information that they'd like to access, it goes against Aaron's anti- censorship views.

Every bully wants to 'discomfort' their opponents into changing. Those who use DDoS are more like the federal prosecutors -- making 'destructive' threats, expecting change through punishment -- than Aaron.

<comment><USER4> And how did that work out for him by the way? I head they've dropped their lawsuit?

Also, if DDoS is "destructive" then copying a file is stealing.

<comment><USER2> How did it work out for him? For Aaron's causes, his constructive rather than destructive approach worked fairly well, creating change and earning wide awareness and respect.

I wish he'd stuck it out; had there been a trial (and possibly sentencing), the public would have learned many of the same lessons about overzealous prosecution, the JSTOR project, the CFAA, the obsolescence of copyright, and importance of open access. Plus, he'd still be with us.

I also believe Aaron's causes with regard to copyright and censorship will succeed in coming decades, easily within his natural lifespan, and he would have helped them succeed faster, so I'm sad he'll miss it.

DDoS is destructive (unlike any amount of copying) because it disables access and functionality and effectively censors content by blocking individual learning and communication. It causes more resources to be be wasted on paranoia and layers-of-defense. It causes a hardening of positions and growth of suspicion. It is much easier to portray Aaron's supporters as 'vandals' if they help by actually committing vandalism. (I'd guess that as an 'applied sociologist', Aaron understood this well.)

That these DoS effects are often temporary is no defense: it's destroying people's freedom-to-communicate for a time... and the early death of a young person should remind you that ultimately all we have is time.

<comment><USER5> I regretfully disagree with you, in regards to the case playing out actually being helpful to the cause. The public, by and large, doesn't give a damn about this kind of thing.

His suicide, tragically, appears to have helped the cause - the media loves the wild speculation and gossip that it brought about. So while his end goal may now stand a chance of coming to fruition, he won't be around to witness it.

The number of things that went wrong in order to generate this outcome is just astonishing. While I knew nothing of Aaron or his cause prior to this happening (see? media effects _sigh_ ), I at least hope the public outcry brings about what appears to be some much-needed change.

<comment><USER6> I fear that this martyrization of him sends a weird message. His struggle wasn't very appreciated before his death and first now it "seems that people listen to him".

<comment><USER7> That's an interesting reflection. Time will tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> To me this feels a bit like a lunch counter cook complaining all these black people showing up in his restaurant are causing him extra work.

The whole point of a protest is to put pressure on the system your trying to change. Start a walkout/go on strike if you dont want to deal with the problems the organization you're working for caused.

The school only gets power from its students. Without the students there is no school. You have more power then you think. Take a stand, make a difference.

<comment><USER8> >To me this feels a bit like a lunch counter cook complaining all these black people showing up in his restaurant are causing him extra work.

Are black people notorious for eating or something? That kind of came out of left field, there.

<comment><USER3> Yeah I was comparing a DDoS to lunch counter Sit-ins of the 60s. During the civil rights movement blacks and other protestors would overwhelm a restaurant taking up all the space at the counter until the owners agreed to meet their demands. It's a proven non-violent protest that works and is very similar to what DDoS does, except instead of human bodies filling up a restaurant you're using http requests to fill up a server. Sorry for the lack of context in the original post.

<comment><USER9> The significant difference is that when the owner gets unhappy about it, it is trivial to figure out who to talk to to get the problem fixed.

The same is not true of DDoS attacks.

<comment><USER3> Thats a good point. But It all depends if you block your IP address or not. If it was a legal form a protest that people didn't have to worry about going to jail for you could easily make your information known. Problem is the government doesn't understand technology and will label you a hacker instead of non-violent protestor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The other great protest is that any HS senior (or grad student applicant) who has an offer from MIT and from another comparable school (Stanford, CMU, etc.), tell MIT no, and tell them why you're saying no.

I suspect if 5-10 people who got MIT "yes" did this, MIT admissions and the MIT President would go batshit.

(You can do this even if you were on the fence about MIT, or even if you intended to go somewhere else anyway.)

Anon should promote this plan to HS seniors on the admissions boards and other forums likely to be frequented by top school applying seniors.

<comment><USER11> Given how many applicants MIT gets I do not think that 5-10 people would be enough to seriously upset them. Don't forget they can just get a couple more students with perfect SATs if they want. Furthermore, like the author said, it wasn't MIT as a community that went after Aaron, it was the administration.

<comment><USER10> 5-10 who write means hundreds more who feel the same but didn't write

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My guess is someone wants to "send a message" to MIT and so they're attacking the most vulnerable, most exploitable part of MIT's infrastructure: a non- critical system run by student volunteers. I doubt it's anything personal against Alex or other MIT students.

Imagine if a thousand members of Anonymous staged a non-violent protest at MIT, marching across campus. This would inconvenience some students, possibly even prevent them from attending class. Should this protest be condemned as an unconscionable attack on students? Of course not. It's a perfectly acceptable form of civil disobedience. Why shouldn't this extend to online protests via DDoS?

<comment><USER8> Why is it perfectly acceptable to inconvenience people from their studies? Man, this kind of attitude makes me want to encourage harsher penalties on people who pull this bullshit. You do your movement no favours when you inconvenience the same people you want on your side.

<comment><USER13> You must not live in the US, as we have freedom of assembly here

<comment><USER14> There seems to be a common misunderstanding of what protest rights you have in the US. The first amendment does not give you the right to protest anything, at any point, in any manner that you want. In fact, the government has a duty to protect my rights if your protest in infringing on them. The Occupy movement is another group that completely failed to understand that fact. You are legally allowed to protest, but preventing someone from going to work or class is a quick way to get your protest shutdown. I don't think it is unreasonable to extend that same logic to DDoS attacks.

<comment><USER12> Civil disobedience is illegal by definition. DDoS attacks are illegal. Marching down the middle of the street is illegal. But are these acts immoral?

<comment><USER14> If they seriously infringe on the rights of other individuals, then yes I think they are immoral. Putting your own political motivations (no matter how righteous) above the rights of others is a selfish act.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I do not condone the attacks that may be occurring. However, if you are trying to get someone's attention- it makes more sense to get the attention of the students rather than the administration. Today's MIT students are tomorrow's death-ray designers, robot-maintainers, and policy makers. They are tomorrow's administration- and they may not have made up their minds yet about ethical issues of intellectual property or the nature of doing and sharing science. It doesnt make sense to target the administration of today. They have already made up their minds.

<comment><USER16> As a first guess, MIT students are very unlikely to react to someone causing them trouble by become more sympathetic with the people causing them trouble.

Especially if the message of the attackers is "people who break into the network shouldn't have the cops called on them." (Although we should wait for Hal Abelson's report to find out what happened behind the scenes.)

<comment><USER17> I couldn't disagree more. These are MIT graduates, highly intelligent people, not some slack jaw locals.

They are fully capable to look at the issues and take moral responsibility for the University they are part of.

How can an intelligent person support a organisation by being part in it, then take no responsibility for what it does.

Yes I know the commoners do this all the time for their entire lives, but being better educated (However you do it) is about moving on from this simplistic me me me mentality and looking at the total issue.

<comment><USER16> I really hope "better educated" and "looking at the total issue" isn't code for "agrees with me."

<comment><USER17> No, it's meant as a 'don't drink the coolaid' and think just because you are part of something you are A. Right B. Don't have to accept any responsibility for the organisation you are part of.

If MIT did something wrong and you go to MIT you are responsible for being part of that organisation. No one is forced to go to MIT.

Take responsibility for who you support, be it a university, club or a job.

If you think MIT did nothing wrong, then say they did nothing wrong. Don't say I'm a member of MIT but nothing bad(= short internet issues) should happen to me cause I'm just one of the many in this organisation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Please let me read your blog page without needed to turn on lots of javascript. The page is blank without whitelisting JS content.

<comment><USER19> Seriously? Still on the disable-JavaScript kick? _scratches head_

<comment><USER20> Yeah, how silly to disable anonymous remote code execution by default. ;) Flashy pages that eschew compatibility and separation of concerns (even accessibility, seo at times) are the new standard, get used to it.

Would you accept a Word.doc that required scripting to display itself? Shouldn't the response to a non-visible blog post be WTF?

(Strangely enough, I am able to read the page w/o js, but responding in general to this type of comment I see on HN frequently.)

<comment><USER21> I wouldn't accept the word scripting because I don't trust their security model; I expect there to be a very high chance of getting a virus from MS Office scripting. I see a very low chance of getting a virus from js; there have also been 0-day exploits from <img> tags, why do you feel OK with images enabled?

<comment><USER20> There have been hundreds (thousands?) of javascript exploits. Javascript is also a major component in user tracking. Go to a news site and you'll see a dozen trackers most likely against your wishes, reducing privacy and performance. It's a hostile internet out there.

Hostile images may exist but they are an order of mag. or two less common of a threat. Of course, where to draw the line is subjective, but the idea that blocking js by default is silly is misguided, imho.

<comment><USER22> Can you link to a recent (for any reasonable value of the word) remote code execution vulnerability with JavaScript? Because my observation has been that RCE through codecs has been a much bigger vector for compromised systems.

<comment><USER23> Why does it have to be specifically RCE? Here are some lists of Firefox's and Chrome (fixed) security vulnerabilities. Browse the lists and you'll find plenty of critical issues related to Javascript.

[http://www.mozilla.org/security/known- vulnerabilities/firefo...](http://www.mozilla.org/security/known- vulnerabilities/firefox.html)

[http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2009/08/stable- upda...](http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2009/08/stable-update- security-fixes.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I feel like this guy could not miss the point by much more distance. How much of a shell do you have to live in to think "well sure, someone died after fighting for the rights of millions of people, but jesus, you people are going to inconvenience us for a few hours? this is just ridiculous!"

<comment><USER25> So after someone important to me dies, I can come over to your place and annoy you for a few hours? What exactly does that accomplish?

Lumping everything connected to 'MIT' together as the same evil thing is shortsighted and counterproductive.

<comment><USER26> I'm beginning to wonder if all the people preaching this 'Aaron died for your benefit so now you must suffer' line are Catholics.

Taken to the extreme, this line of reasoning is what makes certain terrorist groups think killing random civilians is acceptable. After all, if you're a citizen of a country then you should be held personally accountable for all the perceived crimes perpetrated by your government, right?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't go to MIT, but a commenter on a previous article about this said that MIT's network had been having trouble for weeks. That is, before the Aaron Swartz tragedy. Is there some other reason why someone would be DDOS'ing MIT?

<comment><USER28> That was me, I think, and I believe we now know that they are uncorrelated (although I'm not paying as much attention to all of this as I should). If I recall correctly, the symptoms from a few weeks ago were with the ISPs MIT connects to, not internal to MIT's own network.

<comment><USER29> I've noticed some really weird blips with ISPs in general in the past several months. Nothing I can pin down, but my working knowledge is incredibly low, so I don't know the tools. For instance, I run a Mumble server on a Linode, nothing special, and last night, all of my SF/BayArea friends had a storm of disconnect-reconnects. I didn't have time to diagnose at the time, but I doubt I would have found anything either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I suppose the one silver lining is that this could be useful data for MIT admins to locate weaknesses in their network.

<comment><USER16> It's not supposed to be a hardened network that freaks out whenever anyone connects to it.

Or is that the goal? To make MIT stop being so open?

<comment><USER31> I think that's a false dichotomy. It's possible to make the network and the attached services more resilient to a DoS without making it less open.

<comment><USER32> Maybe they could, I don't know, filter out requests from certain malicious MAC addresses? Start dropping packets from the wrong IP address? Surely _that_ would suffice, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> why should they stop? MIT has blood on its hands. maybe you should email your schools president for an apology? maybe all the students should? Why are you the victim? why are students of MIT the victim? there is only 1 victim here and its nor you or the students of MIT.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm just getting a blank page - is that what others are seeing?

<comment><USER35> Yep, totally blank page. JS enabled, no plugins, no caching, Chrome Beta 24 from New Zealand. All HTML loads fine.

There's an uncaught TypeError in common.js:40 (looks like jQuery.browser isn't getting defined?) which seems to cause the blogger object to not be created, breaking classic.js and gadgets.js nearly immediately.

Ridiculous

<comment><USER34> Yeah - you're absolutely right. It's to do with this line:

       http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1/jquery.min.js

It seems Google API's have upgraded this particular URL to point to 1.9 which deprecates jQuery.browser. Technically they need to update their template to use something like:

       http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.8.3/jquery.min.js

<comment><USER35> Sounds about right - i'm glad browser sniffing is going away. Not sure what's up with blogger's testing team - maybe everyone's busy helping out with the GAE outage?

Next question - why doesn't everyone get the blank page?

EDIT: By your profile, i'm guessing you're also in NZ - Looks like they might have just pushed the update out to only parts of their CDN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I think it is B.S. when hackers take down an easy target for no apparently good reason.

I respect those that take chances to risk their freedom for the good of humanity. For example, if a government were lying to its people about something that was negatively impacting them or their future, and only bad was coming from that information being restricted, then I could not argue with those that took on risk to release that information. I could not support doing anything illegal, but I would at least respect it. But, busting on MIT has no value I can see, and in-general attack-oriented hacking is just as bad as the Cobra Kai.

</comment><comment><USER37> Can we just all calm down? there isn't proof(I haven't seen one yet) that proves that it was DDoS'd, nor do I believe that anyone has come forward to claim it. So why jump to assumptions. When you say,RIP it means to let a friend rest in peace. If any problems are faced by MIT, it shouldn't be blamed on well-wishers of Aaron. Posting it on YC, seems ridiculous to me, as if its a clear accusation, and if its posted here, anyone who did it would just stop.

Indeed it does raises eyebrows, the timing of this, but lets not jump to conclusions without solid facts.

-1 for this article. Sorry Sweettea, No offence meant.

</comment><comment><USER10> Would there be any legal problem with essentially "hellbanning" those responsible from any online service you operate (with the possible exception of E911, etc.)? If we find out who at MIT was responsible, as well as Ortiz and Heymann, refusing to allow them to create accounts, or putting their accounts into a horrible tarpit with no outside connectivity, would seem like a much better form of protest than DDoSing MIT.

</comment><comment><USER38> still cant believe this school pushed for jail time

</comment><comment><USER17> This cause is trying to change the access across the world for scientific articles and you're complaining for a short period

"A few class websites are inaccessible, a few friends' blogs are down, and web development is a bit annoying"

That's the most selfish thing I've seen today.

No argument why this form of protest won't work just it interrupts your current lifestyle.

And IMO it will help, it keep momentum and adds publicity to the other means also going on.

<comment><USER39> > This cause is trying to change the access across the world for scientific > articles and you're complaining for a short period

Many MIT professors make their academic articles freely available on their lab websites. As Anonymous continues to attack the MIT network, they are making it more difficult for members of the general public to access academic articles. This isn't about open access. It's about exacting revenge for Aaron Swartz's death. Unfortunately, it's targeting the wrong people.

> No argument why this form of protest won't work just it interrupts your > current lifestyle.

MIT students would support an effective protest that interrupts their lifestyles, but attacking student-run websites won't work because the only people who suffer are students who have to clean up after you. The people responsible for Aaron Swartz's prosecution couldn't care less.

<comment><USER17> >"They are making it more difficult for members of the general public to access academic article"

Given what may happen if change can be made is this really anything? This is how most of the mostly 3rd world student/academics live 100% of the time for most articles.

They are not attacking students sites AFAIK they are attacking the MIT network I really doubt the Faculty are not seeing this and thinking.

This is an attack for unproportionately persecuting someone for trying to free up scientific information. I don't see it as revenge for his death.

DoJ won't change, but academics might.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Now you know why I hate anonymous

<comment><USER41> You hate everyone and nobody then. Peaceful protest to raise awareness in my view.

</comment></comment><comment> guard-of-terra The new blogger does not let me to zoom in by the means of ctrl+. It's so pathetic that I don't understand why people use it. You can turn that off can't you?

Back to the content of an article: Aaron suffered for nothing, but the student thinks that he should be extempt from suffering for nothing. What makes him think so? Life is pain.

He should be feeling shame right now, excruciating one, but instead he tells other people what to do and don't.

</comment><comment><USER42> fuck you MIT! fuck you, fuck you, fuck you.

<comment><USER43> Given that eloquent pair of sentences, I must ask: what do you know about MIT?

<comment><USER42> well, in this case, enough to know that the organization should suffer shame.

so, i do apologize if i upset you, and didn't intend to speak to _everyone_ associated with the organization.

in other cases, i would admit that beautiful and wonderful things have come from _individuals_ at MIT...but that is not the context within which my eloquent pair of sentences were made.

however, in this case, it seems that academic snobbery and/or greed was a contributing factor to the suicide of a great individual, and that is enough for me to make my comment.

:)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If the students have failed to vehemently distance themselves and protest to the administration, or even quit MIT for somewhere else, then they are just as guilty. Their attendance abets the status quo. Especially since it's a private university.

Quit whining.

<comment><USER45> Does this mean Americans that haven't protested or denounced their citizenship are just as guilty for the sometimes awful things the American government does?

<comment><USER44> Fortunately protesting at the ballot box allows Americans some measure of escape from culpability for the actions of the US government, however most are still responsible having voted for Democrats or Republicans, the very ones who have put into place many of the policies that are ostensibly so objectionable.

The fact that people find it impossible to keep their hands clean is a fact of life and of human nature, but that shouldn't just excuse everyone. It should be a reason to try for better.</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft's AI Twitter bot turned racist after 15 hours on Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-deletes-racist-genocidal-tweets-from-ai-chatbot-tay-2016-3 <comment><USER2> I really hope that when we build true AGI, we at least won't initially let it learn from sources such as Twitter or Youtube.</comment>