Bedrock Linux - <AUTHOR> http://bedrocklinux.org/ <comment><USER3> Honestly, at first I wasn't too surprised by this, but as I thought about it some more, it's actually pretty damned impressive. Boiling it down a bit, would it be fair to call this a "more universal AUR/yaourt"?

<comment><USER4> Well, it differs from AUR/yaourt in quite a number of ways:

\- With AUR, you need someone to maintain the package. With Bedrock Linux, you can use packages aimed at other distros without alteration.

\- With Bedrock Linux you don't need to compile anything - you can grab the binary package straight. Or you can compile if you want - with Bedrock Linux, you can use AUR/yaourt/packer/etc from Arch or portage from Gentoo, if you wish.

\- With Bedrock Linux, the special stuff is integrated deeply into the system. AUR/yaourt is optional on Arch - on Bedrock, if you ignore the Bedrock- specific subsystems you'll have an _extremely_ minimal and near useless system.

\- Bedrock Linux's design results in some neat side-effects for things like robustness against broken packages/clients. I completely fubar'd the /lib -> /usr/lib move in my Arch client on Bedrock, and most if not all of my Arch packages broke. However, the core system continued to work, and I could still use packages from other distros. So I installed whatever packages I cared about from Debian Sid for the time being. Then, later, I blew away my Arch client and installed it again fresh with the /lib -> /usr/lib move completed. There really isn't an equivalent with AUR as far as I am aware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The approach of Bedrock Linux is very interesting. It makes use of Linux- specific features like bind mounts and tries to unify several linux distributions into one meta-distribution, which gives the framework for the multi-distribution operations. They could also use namespaces for a more strict separation of clients, but that's a detail.

The idea to move completely to musl is a little bit utopistic, because musl libc is in a very early phase if you want to compile any piece of software of the base system with it. It's mostly C99/C11 and POSIX compilant, but there are several GNU-specific libraries missing, and in a world which uses GNU userland on Linux it's not simple to overcome that limitation.

The mentioned /etc problem seems to be the same problem as solved by ip- netns(8). Take a look at the source if you need further information, it's based on other bind mounts.

But I don't think Bedrock Linux is the next-generation approach for Linux distributions, or rather software distributions in general, though they don't claim that. I'm working on my own Linux distribution since about a year and it's based completely on a ports tree, as known from FreeBSD, but with a simpler code base and simpler Makefiles. At the moment, I'm trying to create a stable commit, which will build without issues in several configurations, but that's hard work, especially because Linux or rather the Linux userland is mostly a ghetto™ (you won't get information about much low-level software).

But I think, as you should noticed, that Bedrock Linux has a right to exist, but it won't be the next-generation approach.

<comment><USER4> > The approach of Bedrock Linux is very interesting. It makes use of Linux- > specific features like bind mounts and tries to unify several linux > distributions into one meta-distribution, which gives the framework for the > multi-distribution operations.

Not just "several" \- we're going a bit more ambitious and aiming for most if not all.

> They could also use namespaces for a more strict separation of clients, but > that's a detail.

We're purposefully avoiding separation of clients. Everything should interact as closely as is possible to how it does normally in other Linux distributions. If a user wants isolation, something like LXC or OpenVZ could be utilized on top of Bedrock Linux just as it could on top of any other distro.

> The idea to move completely to musl is a little bit utopistic, because musl > libc is in a very early phase if you want to compile any piece of software > of the base system with it. It's mostly C99/C11 and POSIX compilant, but > there are several GNU-specific libraries missing, and in a world which uses > GNU userland on Linux it's not simple to overcome that limitation.

We want the core to be fairly minimal; it really should be just enough to bootstrap the other clients. The vast majority of the system should, ideally, be acquired from clients, which can use whatever libraries they want. The missing GNU-specific libraries and other limitations of musl aren't hitting anything we need in the core. If we find we need something that can't be provided by musl, we can always switch tracks or double back in a future release.

> The mentioned /etc problem seems to be the same problem as solved by ip- > netns(8). Take a look at the source if you need further information, it's > based on other bind mounts.

At the moment we've got another plan for remedying the /etc issue which is well underway. I'm using an early version of it right now with surprisingly little trouble. A very deep investigation of possibles uses for namespaces/cgroups is planned for the future.

> But I don't think Bedrock Linux is the next-generation approach for Linux > distributions, or rather software distributions in general, though they > don't claim that. ... But I think, as you should noticed, that Bedrock Linux > has a right to exist, but it won't be the next-generation approach.

I'm not really sure what you mean by that. I'm not really sure how "generations" work with operating systems. It solves a certain set of problems, and has a certain set of limitations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is very exciting.

I cannot count the times that I've wanted this "one specific program" which isn't available in my distro's repo, which also depends on a version of a library that is also not available in my distro's repo. Will definitely take a look at this.

Kudos.

</comment><comment><USER7> "a rock-solid stable base yet still have easy access to cutting-edge packages ..." This sounds really nice in theory and I hope they can pull it of, but I can't see how that can work.

<comment><USER8> I guess they mean: system packages which are stable, but apps that are bleeding-edge.

<comment><USER7> And I still can't see how that would work. Some apps need the latest libraries latest kernel or something, so without "bleeding edge" system core some apps won't even run. There are always workarounds to that but those cause more harm than good.

Still I will keep an eye on Bedrock hoping they come up with something cool.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm the founder and lead dev. We don't have a good document up about how it works because the under-the-hood because it has been changing quite a bit from release to release. However, it is finally starting to stabilize - I plan to have a whitepaper up (and maybe a video presentation) explaining how it works around January with the next release.

A quick explanation: Bedrock utilizes a number of virtual-filesystem manipulation techniques (chroot(), bind-mounts, a number of our own home-grown virtual filesystems such as a specialized union filesystem) to redirect filesystem calls that could potentially conflict. If two packages need different versions of a given library and they both go to read the library with the same path, they'll be transparently redirected to different files. However, Bedrock doesn't "contain" things as one would typically expect with something like chroot(); the packages can all interact like they typically would. Things which need to be the same for different packages to interact are the same. You can, for example, have an RSS feed reader from one distro launch a web browser from another distro to download a PDF which is opened in a PDF reader from yet a third distro, if you'd like. You can have the majority of the system's packages be from a very stable distro like Debian or RHEL but still get cutting-edge packages from something like Arch or Debian Sid, and have portage compile packages from Gentoo, and still get library compatibility with binary blobs aimed at Ubuntu.

This all works - I'm running it now as my main system and have been long before it ever went public - but it still has a lot of rough edges.

Hope that clears things up.

<comment><USER7> Thank you for the explanation. It sounds to me that even if I want to use a package from a stable release like debian, there's another layer possible bugs. That said, I really like the idea. Wish you guys the best of luck and I'll be keeping a close eye on the progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In this distribution, are shared libraries really shared, or duplicated?

<comment><USER4> If I understand what you're asking: duplicated.

What Bedrock Linux _does_ , from a high-level point of view, is intercept filesystem calls for things that would conflict between two packages and redirect them to something unique per client. So if you have two files that each need mutually exclusive versions of a given library placed in the same path, and they both try to read that path, they'll get different libraries. However, if they try to read something that needs to be the same for interaction (say, a file in /tmp), they'll both see the same file.

The system that picks what is shared between clients and what is kept separate is not very fine-grained; it is broad things like /lib and /usr which are kept separate and unique per client, and things like /home and /tmp that are shared. Or at least that is how it is intended - it is configurable, and in theory you could make it much more fine grained and share libraries and what not. However, that's not recommended.

So yes, as you've likely figured out, Bedrock Linux will eat a fair bit of disk space; you'll likely have multiple different copies of things like glibc on your system. There's no reason a de-dup'ing filesystem couldn't free up space. If you're short on disk space, Bedrock Linux probably isn't the idea distro for you.

<comment><USER9> I would be more concerned with the RAM these libraries consumed. Some may just use code pages, but others may use large amounts of BSS.

<comment><USER4> That's also a very legitimate concern. On systems with limited RAM - or disk space - one should either limit themselves to a relatively small number of clients/packages, more likely, prefer another operating system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very cool, but I'm happy with Arch.

<comment><USER11> How do you know if someone uses Arch Linux?

Don't worry... they'll tell you! (BTW I use Arch)

<comment><USER12> This joke has to die.

For the 100 or so readers of this article who may be archlinux users, 1 will say so and the joke is alive and this reflects badly on the archlinux community as a whole - who are not elitist schmucks or evangelists for archlinux. There is those who mention they use ArchLinux, so what, whats the big deal?

Why not make the same joke for anyone who mentions that they run macosx or some other apple product?

<comment><USER13> So I take it you are an Arch user?

<comment><USER12> You mad bro?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This strikes me as a terrible hack. Yes, I've run into all of the problems this is trying to solve, but if this is what is necessary to fix them, I rather build my packages from source (or use *BSD and ports/pkgsrc).

<comment><USER4> One of the requirements on Bedrock Linux is the requirement that it can be developed and maintained by an individual - me. I've gotten plenty of help but I've been firm that in case the help dries up the project never grows out of the scope of what I can do alone. Another requirement is that the project actually get to a usable state - I actually want (and now have) what Bedrock Linux promises; I don't want it to remain some theoretical academic solution. Finally, it should stabilize - I don't want to have to maintain forks of anything, or continuously work against the tide of changes in the rest of the F/OSS world. Given that, I don't think there is a completely aesthetically pleasing way to go about doing what Bedrock Linux aims to do.

There are potentially cleaner approaches, but they require immensely more manpower than I could seriously consider mustering. There are options such as writing _and upstreaming_ new system calls to implement some sort of union- filesystem/chroot() mix, which, based on past attempts to upstream a union filesystem into the kernel, won't happen. Other approach is to altering/packaging _every single_ package I am interested in - <USER2> proprietary software - so that they play nicely together. Nix/NixOS is making an admirable attempt here, but they don't have the manpower to package enough things. For now, Nix is, sadly, academic.

Personally, I find that while it isn't the simplest system from a high-level design point of view, Bedrock Linux's approach is by far the most practical solution to the problem I aimed to remedy. And it works, and I'm running it now. It is certainly not for everyone or for every use case. I made it for my own uses, which it serves admirably. Enough people seemed interested that I made it available publicly. You're welcome to continue using whatever software stack you prefer - I don't intend to snag everyone. Or even very many people. I'm happy to be the only one using it. However, I do aim to share if there are others out there interested in it.

<comment><USER15> I was wondering if this was influenced by Nix. I believe they're really on to something with that system, but it's tremendously tricky to use at this point in time.

<comment><USER4> Bedrock Linux wasn't influenced by Nix. When I started working on what ended up being Bedrock Linux, I wasn't familiar with Nix. Both projects are going about things in _very_ different manners. Nix's is a lot cleaner, but will take a lot more manpower or time to get to the point where I could use NixOS as my primary system. I agree that they're on to something - I'd love for Nix project to take off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Interesting. Which kernel does it end up using? Could it handle packages which wants a special kernel or different modules for different kernels?

<comment><USER17> "Any one that won't let Bedrock's tools and clients complain" is the answer - I know nothing about what the author's hinting wrt his future plans, but my impression's that the current release's a fairly light layer of mostly shell- scripted userland tools with only one needing compilation ("bedrock chroot"); Kernighan would be proud. (Those who treat the Unix Haters' Handbook as a source of design maxims would simply conclude a runtime built upon an introspectable and introcessionable language would obviate the need to marvel at the engineering involved here. The initial effort involved here, to be fair, is orders of magnitude less.)

<comment><USER18> introcessionable? Google doesn't know that word, you get to define it.

<comment><USER17> Gah - typo - "intercessionable" is the word; I've taken its use from the the Art of the Metaobject Protocol. (Thanks for the double-checking.) It's a usage that doesn't bear much relation to its others, but it's fairly easy to define: if introspection queries internal state, intercession changes it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Tell me this though. Someone who will install Bedrock Linux is most likely a more advanced linux user. Would they not just compile from source instead of installing this disto? Should I install a whole different distro just to get pre-packaged software? I think not.

<comment><USER4> > Tell me this though. Someone who will install Bedrock Linux is most likely a > more advanced linux user.

True. We're not targeting the user-friendly crowd for the foreseeable future.

> Would they not just compile from source instead of installing this disto?

Compiling from source does not provide all of the benefits that Bedrock Linux can provide. For example, Bedrock Linux lets you do things like use Gentoo for the vast majority of your system but, if you want a package _now_ and don't want to wait for it to compile, you can just grab it pre-compiled from another distro. Then later compile it if you want and remove the pre-compiled version.

> Should I install a whole different distro just to get pre-packaged software? > I think not.

There are people out there who like the flexibility that Bedrock Linux provides, but Bedrock Linux isn't for everyone. If you're 100% satisfied with whatever software stack you're using, I certainly encourage you to stick with it.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for responding. Was not trying to rag on the work you have done. It is very intriguing to see the work you have done, however I am just not sure about the targeted audience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I just remembered what else this reminded me of: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_%28Unix%29](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe_%28Unix%29)

<comment><USER20> I used Masscomp's version of this, it was sort of neat. They did it (if I remember correctly, long time ago) with a symlink that contained an environmental variable.

/usr/lib -> /usr/$UNIVERSE/lib

or something like that.

It was a little disgusting having the kernel grok env vars but it worked quite well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Interesting... I will need to try it.

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm the founder and lead developer. Don't hesitate to pop into our IRC channel (#bedrock on freenode) if you have any questions or trouble diving into it. Do keep in mind it is still alpha and has some rough edges (most notably the installation procedure, which is about as manual as you can get), but we're working on resolving such things in future releases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> very nice. what are some of the wider/long-term implications of this?

</comment><comment><USER23> it made my day. I'm ready to dive. :)

<comment><USER4> Hi, I'm the founder and lead developer. Don't hesitate to pop into our IRC channel (#bedrock on freenode) if you have any questions or trouble diving into it. Do keep in mind it is still alpha and has some rough edges (most notably the installation procedure, which is about as manual as you can get), but we're working on resolving such things in future releases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> how could it be possible since not any relative new version of kernel can be claimed rock solid stable?

<comment><USER4> Bedrock Linux is relatively kernel-version-agnostic. You can go ahead and use just about any kernel from any major distro and it will most likely just work. So, if you want, you can use an older, proven kernel. My desktop still runs the Debian Squeeze kernel, I think.</comment></comment>


Cyber Squatter Holding Author's Web Site Hostage, Demanding He Read Manuscript - <AUTHOR> https://www.wweek.com/arts/books/2020/01/30/a-cyber-squatter-is-holding-portland-author-patrick-dewitts-web-site-hostage-demanding-the-writer-read-his-unpublished-manuscript/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a pretty clear cut case--the author needs to file a UDRP on the domain name, and show that the domain name was registered in bad faith.

This is exactly what the UDRP process is for. I'm always surprised when people say they don't know about domain disputes and UDRP.</comment>


Workers have daily smile scans - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/japan/5757194/Workers-have-daily-smile-scans.html

<comment><USER2> I think I need to install this on my workstation. :)</comment>


Palantir Responds to Labor Department's Discrimination Lawsuit - <AUTHOR> http://fortune.com/2016/10/14/palantir-discrimination-lawsuit/ <comment><AUTHOR> From page 29 of [1]:

"The Committee is concerned that OFCCP has lost its focus on identifying and addressing real employment discrimination and is imposing excessive compliance burdens on contractors. More specifically, OFCCP appears to prioritize specific quota results rather than equal consideration and opportunity because of its reliance on statistical analysis in evaluating contractor hiring practices. OFCCP should focus on actual discriminatory treatment instead of presumed discrimination based solely on benchmarks that may not be uniformly applicable. Strict and exclusive use of statistical significance tests effectively requires contractors to use a quota hiring system in violation of the Civil Rights Act to avoid adverse impact claims by OFCCP. The Committee is also concerned about reports that OFCCP is increasingly subjecting contractors to overly broad and unnecessary document and data requests as well as unreasonably numerous and lengthy compliance reviews. The OFCCP is directed to cease utilization of this de facto quota system for evaluating hiring practices and to report within 120 days of enactment to the Committees on Appropriations of the House of Representatives and Senate on steps it is taking to enforce non-discrimination standards on a more fair, case-by-case basis focused on evidence of actual discrimination rather than on statistical generalizations and quota benchmarks."

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt74/CRPT-114srpt74.pdf](https://www.congress.gov/114/crpt/srpt74/CRPT-114srpt74.pdf)</comment>


Handblock – Block Ads and Trackers for iOS 9 - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/app/id1041598777 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks. This is my new content blocker application for iOS 9 called Handblock.

But, what exactly is Handblock?

Handblock is an advanced content blocker for iPhone & iPad running iOS 9 which provides for the best browsing experience!

It's blocking ads, tracking url's and cookies from Safari and increases up to 5X browsing speed and battery life of your device. Handblock installs directly on Safari for iOS and needs no additional setup.

Feel free to make comments and suggestions for Handblock and we'd be happy using it!

Official website: [http://handblock.e-papadakis.gr](http://handblock.e-papadakis.gr)

</comment><comment><USER2> What gives this app a speed advantage over Purify or Crystal?

<comment><AUTHOR> Handblock includes the most updated & smart ad blocklists and disables all tracking javascript scripts instantly. Scripts combined with ads play a big role on app loading time.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Simulating an Availability Zone Outage in AWS - <AUTHOR> I'm looking to simulate a full outage of an Availability Zone in AWS and wondering if anyone has a suggestion on the best way to do this.
Netflix has a tool called Chaos Gorilla that sounds perfect, but they never released it (only the Monkeys).
The other option I thought might work would be to adjust the routing table, so that all of the subnets in the target AZ are black holed. Any other suggestions? <comment><AUTHOR> A Netflix staffer suggested disabling one or more availability zones in the ELBs: [http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/elb/disable-...](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/cli/latest/reference/elb/disable- availability-zones-for-load-balancer.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> My AWS representative just suggested removing the security groups from different layers of the stack as this results in almost immediate loss of network connectivity. It's also inherently scriptable, so it looks like a good option.</comment>


Don't Buy Anyone an Echo - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/dont-buy-anyone-an-echo-1820981732?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_twitter&utm_source=gizmodo_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow <comment><USER2> > You don't need an artificially intelligent robot to tell you about the > weather every day. Just look outside or watch the local news or even look at > your phone.

I stopped reading here. This is FUD, or scaremongering, or _something_.

The truth is the reason the Echo family (and others) have seen such success is because they approach the virtual assistant problem from, in my opinion a novel and underutilized, place: the home appliance.

Sure I can pull out my phone (or is it charging on the nightstand?) to check the weather, but I can ask my Echo while I'm tying my shoes and by the time I'm done grab a jacket if necessary. It's so natural.

I have bought Echo dots as gifts for family and friends -- there seems to be a 50/50 split between the primary use being for music or home automation. It's far less kludgier than using a phone to turn your lights on and off. What if you have guests?

Lastly, when I travel I find myself missing the utility of being able to simply ask a question in the middle of another task, hands free. I've heard that some hotels are installing Echos, I think that's great.

Overall I think they're a great value add to my life -- I could buy a new phone for almost a thousand bucks and I barely get any noticeable improvement (and the improvements are usually along the lines of things _actually working_ the way they are supposed to).

For $30, an Echo is a steal.

<comment><USER3> > It's far less kludgier than using a phone to turn your lights on and off.

Why can't you just stand up and, you know, flick the light switch? This kind of nonsense puts me in mind of "Wall-E". Fat, inert humans being hauled around on hovercrafts, their every need tended to by a watchful panoply of machines. If someone in my family gives me an Echo/Alexa/whatever, it's going in the trash.

<comment><USER4> >Why can't you just stand up and, you know, flick the light switch?

Because it is more efficient to yell at Alexa "Turn off the bathroom lights" than stand up, walk to the bathroom and turn them off.

Or better yet, having all your lights and things turning on as you walk in the door. Or having Alexa wake you up by turning on your lights slowly.

Or baking something and telling Alexa to set a timer. No more having to type into Google "20 minute timer" then remembering to keep that tab open and your sound on.

<comment><USER5> No more having to glance at the clock on the wall (or the stove, or the microwave, or whatever) and mentally noting "in 20 minutes, it will be half- past".

<comment><USER6> And then forgetting because that tricky synchronisatiin problem from work pops into your head and you wander off...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This quote about half way down largely unravels this article's central point:

> microphones only send recordings to the servers when you use the wake word.

This is a fact we can verify with tools like Wireshark. Their other point about "open microphones" largely ignores smartphones which all have open microphones and a baseband operating system which can activate the microphone to spy (which the NSA did[0]).

Their point about existing hacks targeting the Echo is also largely unraveled by a quote further down:

> This particular exploit only worked on devices made before 2017 and required > the hacker to have physical access to the Echo.

Essentially if you disassemble an Echo and reprogram it, it will do something else. Compelling stuff...

[0] [https://www.wired.com/2014/06/nsa-bug- iphone/](https://www.wired.com/2014/06/nsa-bug-iphone/)

<comment><USER8> Perhaps only tangentially related, but your comment reminded me of one of my favorite quotes from Charles Babbage, regarding his analytical engine:

> On two occasions I have been asked, — "Pray, Mr. Babbage, if you put into > the machine wrong figures, will the right answers come out?" In one case a > member of the Upper, and in the other a member of the Lower, House put this > question. I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas > that could provoke such a question.

[https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Charles_Babbage)

<comment><USER9> Note that Babbage has the wrong end of this.

Part of Google's success is realising that yes, your goal needs to be that the right answer comes out when asked the wrong question. If you type "Rebecca Editor of Star Newspaper" it doesn't matter that's not how she spells her name, or that she was never editor of the Daily Star, nor that she's not now editor of anything at all, having been effectively promoted, Google correctly determines that you probably want results about a famous British woman named Rebekah Brooks.

There's an SF story, I thought it was a Multivac story but a list of those doesn't find it for me, where the world computer has been making "mistakes" and the technicians trying to diagnose it eventually realise its "mistakes" are actually causing humans who've disobeyed its instructions to fail. The computer has been tasked with improving efficiency, and disobedience results in inefficiency, so it has arranged for those who are disobedient to be unsuccessful. It isn't murdering anybody, but maybe they'll go bankrupt or miss out on a promotion and so the overall inefficiency is reduced.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I thought it was amusing that a mere two weeks ago, this exact same author wrote a review of an Echo-enabled speaker entitled _The Best Bluetooth Speaker Now Works With Alexa and It 's Amazing_.

[https://gizmodo.com/the-best-bluetooth-speaker-now-works- wit...](https://gizmodo.com/the-best-bluetooth-speaker-now-works-with-alexa- and- its-1820549358#_ga=2.115804230.1748931467.1512493496-1635615934.1510354171)

<comment><USER11> From _" If you can afford it, and you like your friend a ton, the Blast is a great addition to anyone's life."_ to _" Think long and hard about buying an Amazon Echo or a Google Home for your friends and family. They might not like it. In my opinion, they shouldn't."_

Ugh. This story really was just written to be controversial clickbait. Utter lack of journalistic integrity.

<comment><USER12> Do journalists only get to represent a viewpoint they honestly hold? Surely part of the role is to cast arguments/positions that they don't hold themselves.

You can write a promo putting yourself in the position of your standard demographics, you can write an opinion piece, the chances they'll coincide aren't that high.

Online sometimes I push a viewpoint to be more extreme, or take a contrary position in order to shed light on, and develop, my own belief/position. [I'm doing it now!]

<comment><USER11> > _Do journalists only get to represent a viewpoint they honestly hold? Surely > part of the role is to cast arguments /positions that they don't hold > themselves._

Typically a journalist's job is to report without bias (to the extent possible). They might present others' viewpoints as well as factual information, but they shouldn't be presenting their own viewpoint in the guise of objective information. At least this is what I think.

For op-eds, obviously the expectations are different. But I think it's pretty shady that we have an op-ed here presenting the Echo as a terrible idea when two weeks ago the author was touting the same thing as amazing in a review. Best case it means that the author is intentionally being provocative and presenting an opinion he doesn't hold simply because it'll get views. Sensationalism is not a hallmark of quality journalism. Worst case I'm left to believe the positive review was purchased, which is even worse.

<comment><USER13> > report without bias

That isn't possible. Everything contains bias. The simple choice to report a particular story instead is a bias against the other stories left unreported. The duty of a journalist is to disclose their bias when it might affect the story, so people can interpret their report with the proper context.

Reporters are not mere stenographers that repeat official statements and press releases. They choose what they feel is important enough to report on and give their _interpretation_ of the facts _as well as_ their opinion about the facts (which should be properly labeled as op-ed).

> presenting the Echo as a terrible idea when two weeks ago the author was > touting the same thing as amazing in a review.

People can change their mind about a product. Maybe the author learned about the risks from comments made on the review.

> Best case it means that the author is intentionally being provocative

You're seeing what you want to see, not the best case which is simply that the author learned more and change their recommendation. (however, it would be good to clearly state that this change in the beginning on the article)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The french privacy council just issued an official warning regarding cloud- based voice assistant. They recommend switching them off when not using them, and telling your friends you have one when the come over!

Not sure they will be GDPR compliant if it continues like that..

[https://www.cnil.fr/fr/enceintes-intelligentes-des- assistant...](https://www.cnil.fr/fr/enceintes-intelligentes-des-assistants- vocaux-connectes-votre-vie-privee)

</comment><comment><USER11> > _We do know that Amazon will hand over your Echo data if the gadget becomes > involved in a homicide investigation. That very thing happened earlier this > year, and while Amazon had previously refused to hand over customer data, > the company didn't argue with a subpoena in a murder case._

Bullshit. Amazon fought the subpoena up until _the defendent_ essentially said "whatever, give them the whatever recordings you have". The linked article even says this.

This whole thing is luddite fear mongering. There are legitimate reasons to worry about IoT devices, but mostly not for the reasons outlined here.

</comment><comment><USER15> > I am here to say that smart speakers like the Echo do contain microphones > that are always on, and every time you say something to the speaker, it > sends data back to the server farm.

Yeah, you're here to tell lies then, unless you have some sort of evidence that this happens that we don't know about. Unless someone says "Hey Google" or "Alexa," ain't nothing happening. When Google found out a small number of Home Minis might accidentally do this because of a hardware bug, they responded by immediately crippling the physical button on every device.

Amazon and Google do plenty of terrifying stuff with privacy; there's no need to make up new stuff in order to write a fluff piece.

</comment><comment><USER16> > The newfound privacy conundrum presented by installing a device that can > literally listen to everything you're saying represents a chilling new > development in the age of internet-connected things.

I say this every time these home assistants are discussed: this is not new. There are no new privacy implications whatsoever, unless you're one of those very few people who doesn't have a cell phone. The vast majority of us have had devices that can literally listen to everything we're saying for _years_ now, many of us for _decades_. And to make it worse, we _take them with us outside_ , they're not just in the home.

Why do home assistants awake this privacy fear, but nobody cares about cell phones listening in on you? I seriously do not get it.

<comment><USER17> I've turned off "hey Siri" on all of my devices. Primarily for battery life. You can't say everyone's for their phones listening to them.

<comment><USER16> And you know that this actually stops it from listening to you how, exactly?

<comment><USER18> I'd assume because they don't want the liability. Believe it or not most companies take this sort of thing very seriously and don't want to open themselves up to lawsuits.

<comment><USER16> Why doesn't that logic also apply to Amazon promising not to transmit anything unless it hears the trigger word?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Isn't this the problem with _everything_ connected to the internet now? Facebook is recording your ex-stalking, your phone is recording every place you're traveling, email servers have your private messages, Google now has your photos, and your ISP knows what porn and political sites the people in your home are viewing.

Yes, the echo and other voice-recognition devices have certainly upped the surveillance ante, but this is not a new problem unique to this technology. We have no privacy whatsoever online in any way, shape, or form. Everyone laughed at all the poor suckers who got caught using Ashley Madison, but imagine the blackmail material these companies we have trusted since the dawn of the WWW could have on their users.

</comment><comment><USER13> The important part that everyone seems to be ignoring is Kyllo v United States[1]. When new technology is involved, the 4th Amendment's protections against searches is present _if and only if_ the technology "is not in general public use"[2]. If a technology becomes common and familiar to the public, _a warrant is no longer needed_ to use it to see "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[3]

The details of how your internet microphone works doesn't matter, because it's not thoe microphone that you should be worrying about. If these devices are in "general public use", you no longer have an expectation of privacy from the technology itself (not any particular product). The police in Kyllo v United States brought their own infrared camera.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyllo_v._United_States)

[2] [http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme- court/533/27.html](http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html)

[3] Ibid.

</comment><comment><USER20> I use mine almost exclusively for playing music. I just bought a second one and found they can sync play (which makes for a nice whole house audio solution for cheap). They also function as in house intercom.

I have no concerns over privacy. My web browsing habits and phone leak far more personal data to google.

<comment><USER21> > I have no concerns over privacy.

And that is your right. Where I have problems with this attitude is the question wether all those around you, family or guests you might have over, feel the same way. They're also impacted by this decision, yet they get no say in it.

<comment><USER22> Spot on. You might choose to live without a smartphone and other devices but your peers are putting you under corporate surveillance without asking your permissions.

<comment><USER20> Almost everyone I know willingly puts themselves under corporate surveillance (credit card?, cell phone?, license plates on car?, web browser?, cable tv?, netflix?, shopper rewards and discounts?).

If you were in my house Amazon wouldn't even know it was you talking.

<comment><USER23> _Almost everyone I know willingly puts themselves under corporate surveillance (credit card?, cell phone?, license plates on car?, web browser?, cable tv?, netflix?, shopper rewards and discounts?)._

Still, everyone should be able to decide which corporate 'masters' they trust. For instance, Netflix may be surveying my watching habits, but I trust them more than Google and Amazon. They can only collect a small subset of data (viewing habits) and it least they get the majority of their income out of subscriptions. Over time, I have started making more principled choices of who I want to give my data and who not.

I don't think it is fair to ask that because I share data with Netflix, I should also be willing to share data with Google or Amazon when I visit you.

Unfortunately, this is only going to get worse. For example, there are a lot of cloud connected cameras with exploitable vulnerabilities. My parents had such a camera and I asked them to cover or disconnect it when I visit them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> There's a line between genuine useful products and extras. Smartphones for all of their addictive games and chat bots are still very useful.

A smart speaker isn't so useful that the tradeoff in privacy is worth it.

I think a lot of people are starting to have a tech hangover. We're not turning into luddites and embracing FUD, we're just tired of the major tech co's telling us that every new gadget is life changing when they aren't.

</comment><comment><USER25> I dunno about the _utility_ of these, but before you assume they send every single bit of data back to the mothership...

Remember that we've seen them fail horrifically just because a few too many were activated at once due to commercials.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think the author is right, for the simple reason that it's irresponsible of us as technologists to support a product like this. We're training an entire generation that it's a good idea to pay companies money so that those companies can wiretap your most intimate moments. I just have a huge problem with that.

</comment><comment><USER27> Personally, I'm considering getting an Echo or Google device simply to help contribute to turning "voice as the user interface" into a solved problem.

We've thought we were close for 50 years. Siri was cool for a couple years but I want to move beyond the 5 year old.

For those who truly hate these solutions, Mozilla is crowd sourcing a solution. Perhaps it will help to get us there.

[https://voice.mozilla.org](https://voice.mozilla.org)

Once the problem is solved, we can move it completely offline. For now, I'm excited that Google and Amazon have turned this into a race.

<comment><USER28> I tried the Mozilla voice recognition through the Firefox addon. It was unusable, the recognition of words was very poor.

I really want an open source version, but there's not much point if it is not usable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> As a partially disabled veteran, screw that. Getting up to turn off the lights can be challenging. Also, being able to turn off the TV, AppleTV, speakers, SteamLink, and other appliances for the entertainment center with a phrase saves not only electricity, but is really convenient when the kids are being little shits. With home assistant running on a pi locally, I can automate the ever loving shit out of my house. All those dangerous hue lights turn off slowly late at night and on around sundown. The cool porch lights for the holidays are turned off through zwave, probably a disastrous protocol that should be avoided because it can be controlled by hackers through SDR and Pringle cantennas /s. I get that there are security implications, but the ability to have things be automated has saved me the painful experience of moving to turn off a light when we wanted to watch a movie. Someday I'll own my own home, then even the wall switches will be zwave!! 🧐🧐

</comment><comment><USER30> I personally think any battle to prevent widespread adoption or use of always- on listening devices is fruitless. The only option is to provide safer alternatives with the same functionality.

My opinion is that the proper way to deal with the privacy implications of this are to come up with better alternatives - open-source voice assistants and entire ecosystems that do everything locally _and_ that are easy to setup by Joe Shmoe. More in-depth auditing by security experts to see exactly what data is being sent from these devices back to their servers. Privacy laws that will take a company down and send people to jail when violated. Encryption on everything that can feasibly be encrypted.

The truth is that I have succumbed to the utility of my Google Home (and the enormous amount of fun I get from having it interface with Home Assistant), but I'd like to be a part of whatever the front line is in making sure these are as privacy-conscious as possible.

</comment><comment><USER31> Opinion aside, you're dumb to buy an Echo or similar device now. Why? Because people who really really don't want one will be receiving them as gifts in about 3 weeks. Those are going to end up on eBay for nearly nothing. If you actually want one, wait a month.

</comment><comment><USER32> I feel these type of commentary often times achieving exactly the opposite of what it advocates, if it ever achieves anything. Maybe because the TL;DR is buried midway through the post, or because the actual reasons to dissuade buying an Echo is nothing new (Privacy and Security? and to be fair, there indeed is something new in the post that I didn't know about, regarding Echo data being used in a homicide investigation). At the end of the day, the impression left in an average reader's mind might be: nothing to see here, but maybe buying an Echo as a gift is a neat idea...

</comment><comment><USER33> Better get rid of all cell phones for the exact same reasoning, except it's a listening device that follows you around.

</comment><comment><USER34> If someone else is running code you can't read on your device where you don't have root, it is someone else's device.

Failing this, we rely on the hope that companies can make more money off protecting our privacy than they can from exploiting our data. It remains to be seen which will win in the marketplace.

</comment><comment><USER35> How are articles of this quality still shared and passed around? I honestly couldn't tell you if this was written by a 25 year old or a 14 year old. The hyperbole, reciting already known security concerns/risks and the teen-like language used throughout... There's nothing of value here.

</comment><comment><USER36> I like the Echo and I'll admit that there are privacy concerns. What do you think are ways to mitigate those (besides hitting the mute button)?

I was thinking about monitoring the outbound data (to detect voice streaming). What tools would you use for that?

<comment><USER37> Wait... does hitting the mute button solve this invasion of privacy?

<comment><USER38> So all you need is another robot that can hit the mute button for you when you give it a less sophisticated audible command?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The future of these devices will be such that the speech recognition can be placed in local only mode, and queries will be erased immediately after.

</comment><comment><USER40> Everyone already owns smartphones, which are at least as bad as home assistants in term of privacy, so what's the point of this paper ?

</comment><comment><USER41> > You don't need an artificially intelligent robot to tell you about the > weather every day. Just look outside or watch the local news or even look at > your phone.

This sounds like someone who's never actually lived with an Echo (which, being gizmodo, wouldnm't be surprising).

Being able to think of a song I remember from my childhood, say it, and have it play while I cook dinner is _magical_.

</comment><comment><USER42> Watch the documentary "nothing to hide"

</comment><comment><USER43> The only thing that I've seen a smart speaker do that seems remotely useful is finding a phone. For everything else, I can just ask my phone.

<comment><USER44> My Echo is near my kitchen, and I mostly use it when I am doing stuff there. So I can tell it to play my news briefing and get the weather while I make my coffee in the morning. I can listen to music, set timers, and convert units when I am cooking and may have touched raw meat. The speaker is also much better than my phones, so its nice to be able to tell it to play specific songs, playlists, artists, or stations when I want to listen to music.

<comment><USER43> I do literally none of those things. I prefer TV to radio, have measuring instruments in the right units, and my oven has an easy to use timer that will even shut the oven off — no smart plugs required.

<comment><USER11> > _my oven has an easy to use timer that will even shut the oven off_

Mine too. I literally never use it because turning off the oven is not the timer's job. An external timer is much more friendly, because often the thing I'm cooking still needs 5 more minutes, or needs to be basted again in 20 minutes, etc.

<comment><USER43> When that happens, I easily add another 5 minutes to the timer.

<comment><USER11> No. If your timer turns off the oven, you turn the oven on and then set a timer. Much more annoying than just setting the timer.

<comment><USER43> The controls are right next to each other, unlike with a separate timer and oven. You're trading one annoying thing for an even more annoying thing. With voice-only control, you add the annoyance of dealing with voice confirmations on top of that and have no way to glance at a timer and see how much time is left.

<comment><USER11> > _The controls are right next to each other, unlike with a separate timer and > oven. You 're trading one annoying thing for an even more annoying thing._

I fail to see how it's more annoying to _not_ have the timer incorrectly shut off the oven. Coupling oven functionality to the timer just makes the timer less convenient. Using it to time basting etc is far more annoying and you essentially just can't use it for, say, timing something on the stove.

> _With voice-only control, you add the annoyance of dealing with voice > confirmations on top of that and have no way to glance at a timer and see > how much time is left._

"Alexa, how much time is left on the timer?"

You lose the ability to look directly at the timer, but you gain the ability to check the timer when you're in the pantry, or across the room with guests or playing with your kids.

<comment><USER43> My oven timer has an option not to turn off the oven in the rare cases when I don't want to turn off the oven, but I can see this is going nowhere. You use timers differently. You apparently want to know the time left in another room more often than you want to know the time left in the same room, like I do. Maybe you have measuring instruments in the wrong units, too. To each their own.

<comment><USER11> > _Maybe you have measuring instruments in the wrong units, too._

Maybe this makes you feel superior but it also makes you look like a prick. This is completely unrelated to the topic.

<comment><USER43> Maybe calling somebody a prick makes you look like a prick. Now I'm in the same boat as you, so you don't have to feel so bad about yourself.

I was referring to the first comment I responded to, where neaden said they use their Echo for unit conversion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> That article read like a Linkedin post.

</comment><comment><USER46> No worries, mate. I won't.</comment>


Cable television was perfect and we ruined it - <AUTHOR> https://theoutline.com/post/8253/cable-television-was-good <comment><USER2> In now days normal people does not watch TV in real-time. Timeshifting is one of best feature of modern digital television. Just pick what and when to watch with fast forward the ads.

</comment><comment><USER3> Only someone who either was dependant on the profits from, or has never actually watched cable television that they had to pay for, would claim it was perfect.</comment>


In the Lava Mountains - <AUTHOR> http://englishrussia.com/2013/04/19/in-the-lava-mountains/

<comment><USER2> More information and a less fluffy title would have been welcome. I'm just as interested in impressive photos of volcanic activity when it doesn't pretend to have something to do with Tolkien's (admittedly very good) books.

<comment><USER3> A search for volcanoes in Russia turned up this article, which has more information:

<http://rt.com/news/volcano-erupts-russia-kamchatka-810>

 _"Torrents of lava are coming down the magnificent slopes of Plosky Tolbachik, one of the biggest volcanoes in Russia's Far East region. The volcano 'woke up' in November last year - after more than thirty-five years of being dormant. ..."_

A short video of the eruption can be found here:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9908...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/9908916/Spectacular- eruptions-and-lava-flows-at-Russian-volcano.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nit-pick: The "real" "Mordor on earth" is Mt. Tongariro on the north island of New Zealand. The 3-4 day trail around Mt. Tongariro and Mt. Ngauruhoe is one of New Zealand's spectacular "Great Walks." If you have the opportunity to visit New Zealand, you should take the time for at least one of these walks.

[http://www.tongarirocrossing.org.nz/the-lord-of-the- rings.ht...](http://www.tongarirocrossing.org.nz/the-lord-of-the-rings.html)

<comment><USER5> Been there, did (some of) that, it really is an amazing hike.

<comment><USER6> The crossing itself is done in a day and photos don't do it justice. Looked a bit ho-hum to me until I was there.

Probably only one tiring bit (Devil's Staircase?) then the rest is pretty straightforward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A full set of photos is available here [1]. It looks to be the Tolbachik complex in the Far East of Russia.

<http://lusika33.livejournal.com/36315.html>.

<comment><USER8> Really nice to be able to get at the full-sized (albeit watermarked) versions. <http://lusika33.livejournal.com/> has all of the lava albums and much more!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the initial fluffy title ;) I just found the initial title a bit lame, but I mainly posted it on HN because it reminded me some Mordor scenes...

I found this pictures amazing and it's very impressive how close the guy stand from the lava.. I guess that the air is pretty cold but I m surprise how close the guy stand from the lava.

For the one who know and remind Haroun Tazieff (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haroun_Tazieff>), he was always very well protected in his documentaries

</comment><comment><USER9> These photos are breathtaking -- the sort of thing that makes one feel small in a colossal and complex world. It is the landscape of Milton and Dante come to life, beautiful and terrifying, ferocious and serene.

But, Dude. Really? Standing on a curved precipice over a river of fire? You are absolutely fucking insane.

</comment><comment><USER10> Seeing photos like these always serves as a reminder to me of the wonders present on our own planet just waiting to be explored. It really puts this concrete and glass jungle that I call 'home' into perspective. I need a vacation.

</comment><comment><USER11> Nice pictures, but... It's so much more awesome to view an eruption in person. Especially when the lava fountains are visible from 25+ miles away. Standing nearby a 1500 foot lava fountain is truly a humbling experience. (Kilauea)

</comment><comment><USER12> Is this North Dakota after all the fracking?

</comment><comment><USER13> I seriously thought that this was going to be about the unbreathable air and destroyed environment in and around Norilsk...</comment>


Google to splurge $82M for airport facility - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/02/08/google_private_airport/

<comment><USER2> The HN title is misleading. What the article is stating is that Google is essentially building its own FBO [1] at the airport. There won't be any additional runways, nor control towers. Just a small (relative to commercial terminals) terminal and space for Google to store their planes at.

A little bit of background for people who aren't pilots / have never flown private before: if you're not flying commercial, you fly out of a Fixed Base Operator at the airport. These are usually on the other side of the airport from the commercial terminal, and are responsible for filling up planes with gas and providing hangar or tiedown space. They usually have a nice lounge area with flatscreen TVs, comfortable seating, and a pilot's lounge with computers that can be used to file flight plans and check weather. Some of the nicer ones go so far as to have beds for pilots who are doing a layover, and offer amenities like free snacks, and movie rooms. These FBOs have (in almost all cases) no TSA security - you just walk out to your plane and hop in. This is infinitely nicer than commercial air travel. The people at the FBO actually want to earn your business and treat you nicely, going out of their way to help you!

In this case, Google is just contracting with an existing FBO to build a new building with a lounge area, and building out more hangars to store planes, both of which will be exclusively for Google's use.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fixed-base_operator>

</comment><comment><USER3> > The plan calls for an $82m extension to the San José International Airport > with hangers [sic] ...

An airport in a closet? Or did they mean _hangars_?

Next question. Where have all the proofreaders gone?

<comment><USER4> _Where have all the proofreaders gone?_

The same place the investigative reporters have gone. We get what we deserve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Google's executive jets – of which is has at least eight – carry very few people in great luxury, with the larger aircraft in the Chocolate Factory's fleet coming equipped with double beds"

Chocolate Factory? What the hell is going on with this article?

<comment><USER6> It's The Register's friendly name for Google, and comes from -- I think -- Willy Wonka's chocolate factory, an impenetrable monolith where nothing was what it seemed and anything could happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Misleading title, forgot the 'exec enclave'. Google is purchasing a lease for hangers and terminal space. They are _not_ buying an airport.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is it an extension to San José International Airport, or exclusive airport for google? How does that work out? I am confused by "The companies would be granted a 50-year lease and pay an estimated $2.6m in annual rent, along with an estimated $400,000 in fuel-flow fees and between $70,000 and $300,000 in new taxes."

<comment><USER4> I believe this means they are paying rent to the city for the land, which explains why San Jose is excited that it would bring in revenue.

I'm inferring the city is the recipient of rent, because the statement about rent is lumped in with fuel fees and taxes, which are already doubtless going to the city.</comment></comment>


Annoyed by Restaurant Playlists, a Master Musician Made His Own - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/23/dining/restaurant-music-playlists-ryuichi-sakamoto.html <comment><USER2> _"The color of the wall, the texture of the furniture, the setting of the room, wasn't good for enjoying music with darker tones."_

First world problem.

My favorite source of background music is "radiocoast.com". Not because it's that great, but because someone figured out a way to beat the music industry. He got a collection of background music records made for the Seeburg 1000 and 2000. Seeburg was a jukebox maker in Chicago. As a sideline they sold background music devices which played a big stack of special records over and over - 1000 or 2000 songs. They bought the rights to the music, and their own orchestra recorded them. So they had full content ownership. The records had a nonstandard groove width, a nonstandard diameter, and a nonstandard hole size; DRM, the early years. They were not copyrighted and predate the "no formalities" copyright law. So anyone with the records can legally distribute the music. Which "radiocoast.com" does.

<comment><USER3> > First world problem.

Why is that wrong for first-world people to tackle first-world problems? Just because you don't believe in a particular piece of psychology doesn't necessarily have to make it untrue.

Seriously, it's quite annoying to see problems dismissed just because they're "first world problems". Comfort is important and we're proven to process things subconsciously.

<comment><USER4> Nobody said it's wrong. Everyone has the right to choose the kind of problems he/she would like to solve.

<comment><USER5> Just using the phrase "first world problem" by itself has negative or dismissive connotations. No one uses it to express that something is positive or even just neutral.

<comment><USER4> I see it as dismissive but not negative. Somebody charges you a fee to help you decide on a super car. Good for them and good for you! Yet I will decide by myself if I care or not. For sure if things do not work out the worst it can happen is that you end up with a random super car. I just can't make myself to care enough about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not a good restaurant playlist if it doesn't have Massive Attack or Bonobo!

The thing that drove me bonkers when I used to work in restaurants was the monotony of listening to the same 2-3 hour playlist on repeat all day, every day. Certain songs still trigger me if I hear them today. They're fundamentally linked to the restaurant and I always feel a flood of memories when I hear them.

<comment><USER7> I am dating myself here but there was a period of _many years_ where trendy restaurants seemed to be competing to see who could play the most tracks by the Gypsy Kings.

<comment><USER8> I feel like we're _still_ in the 15+ year era of Kruder & Dorfmeister on repeat at every trendy restaurant and bar ...

<comment><USER9> Any specific tracks?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I expect to be a lonely voice saying that I actually dislike music playing in the background anywhere I go. I'd rather hear white noise or just the background noise that's present. This will sound a bit nutty, but I've always felt that music is trying to "tell me how to feel" in a sense...as if it's trying to hack my brain and influence my mood. (I'm personifying the music...or perhaps mistrustful of the motives of those playing it?) If a "happy" piece of music is playing then I feel like I'm being influenced to feel happy. If sad/melancholy music is playing I feel like there's an outside influence that's trying to induce me to feel sad. Long story short I find background music to be incredibly distracting and somewhat frustrating.

<comment><USER5> I agree, but I think more in just a noise level sense. If I'm among the first few to arrive at a restaurant or bar, and it's nearly silent, I don't find that desirable, so some music is nice (or, as you suggest, some white noise, though that might be weird). But once there are enough people in a space to achieve a comfortable background din, the music should just be shut off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> _I would prefer that music not [be] the result of algorithmic computation._

This is the problem with so many playlists, automated DJs, and the like. You get the monotonous "best hits" compendiums or ham-handed, jarring mixes with no sense of flow.

This is one of the reasons why I ditched Amazon Music. Many of them seem to be programmed by algorithm ... or by people who have no idea what they are doing.

<comment><USER12> I've been pleasantly surprised to find that there are a number of music podcasts that satisfy my music needs on a weekly basis. A number of artists I like have weekly "radio" broadcasts that curate music that's caught their ear. (I listen to mostly electronic music though, so YMMV for other genres.)

<comment><USER13> Yes, me too. If you're interested, my current list is:

\- A State of Trance with Armin Van Buuren (though recently he's started adding much more talking so I'm close to dropping it)

\- Club Life with Tiësto

\- Hardwell on Air

\- Corsten's Countdown

\- Afrojack: Jacked Radio (this one is really hit-or-miss for me. I skip maybe half the episodes)

As an aside:

\- the "Song Exploder" podcast is a fascinating view into what goes into making music though that one falls into the "Talk" category

\- I love the old "Timeless Mixes" by the (now defunct) DJ River. Which are helpfully all available as a podcast, so once in a while I'll mark a few of them as unplayed so my player will download them and add them to the playlist.

<comment><USER14> I'm a big fan of "Vocal Vibes" by Richiere, "Mellomania Vocal Trance Anthems" by Pedro del Mar, and "Uplifting Only" by Original Uplift. Found all of them through the Digitally Imported / DI.FM streaming service.

<comment><USER15> DI.FM doesn't get enough attention. I subscribe, and have found so much music I love through the service. I'll even occasionally buy individual tracks, through other channels - I think I read somewhere DI.FM was going to start offering music sales but only to US customers initially.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, it's a great service. Used to be $50/yr, and they recently bumped it to $70. Given that I listen to it anywhere from 5-15 hours a day, I'd say I'm still getting my money's worth :)

That subscription also gives you the same higher streaming quality for DI.fm's sister services for Jazz Radio, Rock Radio, and RadioTunes (which has a great assortment of channels ranging from jazz to decades music to world and ambient).

The app and site let you mark songs as favorites and review a list of songs you've favorited, but there's no obvious way to purchase those. If they added direct purchases, I'd happily go pick up a bunch of my favorite tracks through them.

<comment><USER15> I had no idea about those other sites, thanks for bringing that to my attention.

Is there a way I could have discovered that from the DI.FM website? Or did they tell me in an email I didn't read when I went premium?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sakamoto is one of my all time favorite composers. If you like stripped down, bare piano music you should check out his BTTB (Back to the Basic) album. It's my go-to relaxation spin.

<comment><USER17> Definitely a great musician and I don't think most people in the US realize how influential Sakamoto and YMO were worldwide, and how famous they are in Japan. I did not know until recently.

Sakomoto, Haruimi Hosono and Yukihiro Takahashi created not only several seminal YMO albums, but also dozens of solo albums and projects with a sound that often preceded American and European music by a few years. They are credited with laying the groundwork for techno, electro pop, and dance music. Also, Sakomoto's influence can be heard in 8 and 16 but Japanese video game music from the 80s and 90s. I'm fact, Yuji Naka is Sega even said he started programming after being inspired by YMO's electronic music. Ryuichi Sakomoto offering to make a playlist for your restaurant is about like having George Harrison or David Bowie offer to do it.

<comment><USER17> Sorry about the typo cluster - I meant '8 and 16 bit' and 'In fact', and 'of Sega'. It's distressing to think I proofread that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> As an aside, I think there has been some interesting trends in the playlists used in public businesses, and mostly for the better.

For example, a few years ago I noticed that Walgreens would generally have pretty good pop music playing. But what was most striking was the songs were not hits, or perhaps older hits, even though most were from major label productions.

I have surmised that companies providing these playlists might be able to negotiate better deals with the publishers, directly, giving the publishers (and writers) an opportunity to monetize their back catalog.

<comment><USER19> In the UK the broadcast station Virgin Radio used to use "classic album tracks" as its strap line. It was a really good way to dive deeper into the back-catalogues of bands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Alas not a single mention of if these songs required a whole different set of licenses to play. The act of changing the song list can lead down to a confusing licensing set as there's at least 4 different licensing authorities, each covering a differing set of songs.

<comment><USER21> Confused. Do restaurants have to pay to play songs?

<comment><USER6> Yes, legally restaurants have seperate licensing requirements and can't just use Spotify for their music.

In reality, most small restaurants and cafes just use Spotify. Bars and larger restaurants tend to be a bit more fastidious in getting the correct rights.

<comment><USER22> Yes, this is because, a small restaurant can use just Spotify or another music service and not have to pay the license fee. This doesn't apply to larger establishments. ([https://www.restaurant.org/Manage-My- Restaurant/Operations/R...](https://www.restaurant.org/Manage-My- Restaurant/Operations/Regulatory-back-office/11-questions-about-music- licensing))

<comment><USER22> Now that's a funny drive-by down-vote.

Normally (rant mode on) it is my opinion that most drive-by down-votes are by lazy cowards who think someone's opinion is wrong, but is unwilling to debate (probably because their counter-argument is rather weak, honestly). Too much of this and you get the atypical "mob mentality" typical on most social media networks -- most of which have become intellectual wastelands, replaced by feel-good quick-dopamine-hit memes all focusing on whatever "side" the social media collective has embraced. (Counter-narratives and counter-opinions, beware.)

But this doesn't quite fit the usual pattern. In this case, I must have misinterpreted something, perhaps. But someone is not willing to say what is incorrect.

Interesting! Because, the alternate view is that I'm absolutely right, and the downvoter just had a weird beef with Spotify or restaurant.org. Hard to tell. It's a social media downvote after all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> (somewhat off-topic)

in school, i took a wonderful class about computer music, taught by the eccentric composer and charismatic professor Dr. Rodney Waschka III. he dedicated one class to the topic of royalties and the three major artist guilds. we learned that any business that wants to play the radio will usually just pay subscriptions to all three guilds rather than keeping track of royalties owed to individual artists.

when Waschka organized campus concerts in this niche and highly academic field of art, these concerts would naturally be performances of pieces written by himself and his colleagues from other universities... so the university paid royalties to Waschka and his colleagues, who would then use the money to commission each other to compose new pieces.

</comment><comment><USER17> Music selection is a big deal for spaces where people plan to spend social time. I think the reason a lot of places get it wrong is because they are simply not operated by people with good musical taste who understand how important it is to other people.

Starbucks employs music curators: [https://www.fastcompany.com/3067250/meet- the-music-nerds-beh...](https://www.fastcompany.com/3067250/meet-the-music- nerds-behind-the-tunes-you-hear-at-starbucks)

I saw an article recently which told a tale of trendy coffee shops featuring where obscure but desirable music selected by expert hipster curators. Supposedly, some ask employees to track the number of people they see using Shazam, that being considered a sign of success. I have spent a lot of time in coffee shops while traveling, and I do recall hearing a few songs which stuck with me that I couldn't find any trace of on the Internet, even after asking in the specific subreddits for the bands related (a unique cover of the Cure, for instance). That certainly doesn't happen at Dunkin Donuts. Unfortunately I've been unable to locate this article.

</comment><comment><USER24> I always would love to have a curated playlist by someone like Ayreon to "just listen to great music", and not those boring playlists on spotify. Back when I in my teens and the golden age of MP3 was upon us I had more time to do this myself, but nowadays I am getting a bit lost on it all (not enough time to "just discover").

Nice to see this guy tackled the issue (even if for another setting).

</comment><comment><USER25> This reminds me of a bar I used to frequent that had an electronic jukebox. It was quite the redneck place, and the music was accordingly heavy. Every once in a while my friends and I would go to the jukebox and select a full length record of Concierto de Aranjuez that lasted like 25 minutes. It toned down the raunchy atmosphere and made the place quite enjoyable.

</comment><comment><USER26> If you're looking for sophisticated but understated dinner music you could do a lot worse than Lenny Breau's "Guitar Sounds". You probably have to torrent to get it but it's worth the effort.

<comment><USER27> hell yea, lenny breau was an unbelievable talent. and very often forgotten when people talk about great guitarists.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a copy of the playlist made by the nytimes: [https://open.spotify.com/user/nytimes/playlist/2YY3rAwm9tldN...](https://open.spotify.com/user/nytimes/playlist/2YY3rAwm9tldNhlBmuMqgY)

</comment><comment><USER29> If others agree with the author's opinion, it makes the case for curation like Apple Music launches with and has been touting as a differentiator.

<comment><USER30> The best music curation I experienced was a service called Songza, which was acquired by and absorbed into google music. I still have a subscription to google play music, even though the songza playlists had gotten hard enough to find at one point that I stopped trying.

This article & discussion was enough for me to stop working briefly and go research whatever happened, and apparently Peter Asbill is still at Google and I should try again.

Update: holy shit, yeah.

<comment><USER31> Any recommended playlists? I'd like to check some out, but Google music doesn't specifically tag the Songza playlists

<comment><USER32> Try random play. It'll spin up a thematic playlist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Spotify needs a location-based check-in system where an users' tastes vote for piped music play, and/or some way to vote on the next song: like a distributed, semi/automated what was turntable.fm.

<comment><USER34> Check out Rockbot. My gym uses it to crowdsource the next few songs. If you're not at a location that uses it you can tune into their HQ and play music for their employees presumably. Unfortunately you can hear it yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Why is this on hacker news?

<comment><USER36> > On-Topic: Anything that good hackers would find interesting. That includes > more than hacking and startups. If you had to reduce it to a sentence, the > answer might be: anything that gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.</comment></comment>


Why you should (almost) never rewrite your software - <AUTHOR> http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/2596/Why-You-Should-Almost-Never-Rewrite-Your-Software.aspx

<comment><USER2> I was just having this exact conversation with one of the teams I advise. Well done!</comment>


The (Programming Language) Hat - <AUTHOR> http://www.drmaciver.com/2011/06/the-programming-language-hat/ <comment><USER2> There's a comment on the article complaining about the hate for Perl -- I agree with its sentiment but not the way it characterizes so-called "brain damaged" people.

Modern Perl is really a very different language than what people tend to think of when they hear the word "Perl". It has a real OO layer (Moose), a mature set of web frameworks (Plack), and generally-accepted best practices that ensure code is just as readable and maintainable as Python or Ruby.

If all you know of Perl is hacky one-liners for munging logfiles, skim a copy of the book Modern Perl: <http://onyxneon.com/books/modern_perl/index.html> . You might just learn something.

<comment><USER3> The fact that Perl's OO "layer" has a name isn't very reassuring, even if it is a nice solid name like "Moose."

<comment><USER4> CLOS has a name. It's CLOS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would add:

        The Lisp hat: basically a yarmulke; i.e. a ) on your
        head.

<comment><USER6> The Ruby hat is very short and made of pleated tartan. On top it has tentacles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I read another article of the form "If language X were a Y, it'd have property Z", I might throw myself off of a bridge.

<comment><USER8> If programming languages were hacker news comments this one would be common lisp.

<comment><USER3> Humorless, unappealing, but hard to disagree with?

<comment><USER8> Contains just about everything, so I don't have to come up with a specific justification for the comparison. ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A true gem from the comments thread on the article:

"The PHP Hat: Designed to fit on your head, but actually only fits on your knee."

<comment><USER10> Nah the PHP hat is an ugly beanie knitted by your gran that keeps your head really warm. But isn't totally comfortable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'd say that the COBOL hat would be one of those thin-brimmed fedoras from the 60's, but that's just too cool for COBOL. COBOL doesn't get a hat that was worn by Frank Sinatra.

<comment><USER12> I'd go for the green eyeshade:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Visorlayout.jpg>

Anachronistic, looks absolutely silly if worn today, and was probably only worn by uptight number crunchers even back in the 60's.

<comment><USER11> Good call on the green eyeshade.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> What's the Hatter hat, then?

<http://esolangs.org/wiki/Hatter></comment>


Architecture for a distributed app store (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://dspace.mit.edu/handle/1721.1/41756

<comment><USER2> Interesting, nice foresight. Remind me of my college days when I could design stuff like DDoS resilient distributed voting systems without the burden of having to build and test it (although I would not have gotten away with that in my MSc thesis), truly understanding the issues, or being in a constant inner-struggle over the purpose of computer science.

</comment><comment><USER3> the paper is at [http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41756/22623331...](http://dspace.mit.edu/bitstream/handle/1721.1/41756/226233316.pdf?sequence=1)</comment>


Uber's Secret Weapon What Future Founders Can Learn from Ryan Graves - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/life-learning/uber-s-secret-weapon-6966ada226d5

<comment><USER2> Three comments. All praising the article with two words. All from accounts created within a span of ten minutes. One with the name of one of the article authors.

I smell some kind of rat.

Look, I don't have any problem with the article itself. But the comment pattern looks _very_ suspicious...

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know about the three commenters, but I have no connection with Ryan or the company. Very interesting that HN might be worthy of being gamed.

<comment><USER3> Hacker News is a forum run by a startup accelerator - some people take it _very_ seriously.

<comment><AUTHOR> I do too, but thought I was in the minority relative to much bigger sites. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great article!

</comment><comment><USER5> excellent read

</comment><comment><USER6> nice article!</comment>


When Will We Run Out of Fossil Fuels? Likely, Never - <AUTHOR> https://shubhamjain.co/2020/06/06/when-will-we-run-out-of-fossil-fuels-likely-never <comment><USER2> A key takeaway is that Peak Oil isn't about "peak supply", but "peak demand."

</comment><comment><USER3> The stone age didn't finish because we ran out of stone. The oil age won't end because we will run out of oil.

There are a lot of hydrocarbons left to burn. But chemistry can only take us so far. For us to colonize the galaxy we need order of magnitude denser energy sources.</comment>


Were there ever 12-, 24-, 48-, etc. bit processors? - <AUTHOR> https://retrocomputing.stackexchange.com/questions/12794/were-there-ever-12-24-48-etc-bit-processors <comment><USER2> Do you mean register size? BUS size?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-bit_architecture](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1-bit_architecture)

And check out the box in the upper right area that is titled "Computer architecture bit widths"

There are pages for: 1 2 4 8 12 16 18 24 26 28 31 32 36 48 60 64 128 256 512

Also check out Forth CPUs

And why stick to binary?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ternary_computer)</comment>


Gmail Down Again - <AUTHOR> http://duncan.co/gmail-system-status-gmail-down-again/

<comment><USER2> Off topic, perhaps, but to add something other than "me too" to the discussion, can we talk about this: <http://imgur.com/KfBxO9U.png> ?

Can we all just agree this is a bad idea and stop doing it?

<comment><USER3> I closed the page immediately. I wish I hadn't given him the page views.

Imagine you're sitting at your desk, clearly reading something. Someone walks up to you and starts talking about some inane topic with no consideration for the fact that you're obviously engaged in something. That's how I feel every time a website does this.

Even if the content is great, I close the page. I know it's probably wrong, but I judge the author/website based on their willingness to do something so rude. I refuse to give them any more of my attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Yes its Down. I am getting Error 502 (Server Error) in India.

<comment><USER5> Working fine for me in India

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> 40 minutes after, working fine for me (Europe West).

</comment><comment><USER7> No problem here, so probably limited downtime again.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Are you too facing problem with Gmail?

<comment><USER8> If I were, I wouldn't be discussing it here on HN.</comment></comment>