Give Some To Get Some: Karma Makes Your HotSpot Connectivity Social - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/14/give-some-to-get-some-karma-makes-your-hotspot-connectivity-social/

<comment><AUTHOR> The Verge has better description and size of device: [http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/14/3078382/karma-4g-pay-as- yo...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/14/3078382/karma-4g-pay-as-you-go- clearwire-network)</comment>


Ask HN: Is Communicating with your hairdresser a problem worth solving? - <AUTHOR> I recently moved to a new city and I faced an issue of describing the haircut I want to the hairdresser. Its hard to explain what I want so sometimes I show him a picture of my previous cut, but even that's not very accurate.
Even when I don't move cities, I often find that my hairdresser doesn't always "get it right". Do you guys think this is a problem worth solving through tech? Please share your thoughts. Thanks! <comment><USER2> I would say not for men (but maybe for women?) - I mean, I (man) have been ordering the same thing (5 on the back and sides, scissors on the top) for the last 30 years pretty happily, and most of my friends have a similar "standard" haircut they always ask for i.e. "short back and sides"

I know many hairdressers won't actually accept pictures (this might just be a weird thing in my local area though?) because too many people end up upset that they dont look exactly like the celebrity in question.</comment>


Why games will take over our lives - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/05/games.schell/?hpt=T2 <comment><USER2> Sounds like quack talk to me. What about that virtual reality I was promised in the 90's.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think he is using a very broad definition of "game". Jesse Schell would say that HN is a game where we are all trying to win by desperately pleading to be voted up.</comment>


Rape victims among those to be asked to hand phones to police - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-48086244 <comment><USER2> Wikipedia suggests [0] at least 1 rape accusation in 50 is made baselessly and with malicious intent. Maybe a further 4 in 50 are likely to be mis-identified situations with no crime occurring.

On the one hand, those numbers aren't high. On the other hand, these numbers are high enough that the police should be diligent exploring all available avenues of evidence. They should be tactful, discreet and empathetic as they do so.

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

<comment><USER3> I wouldn't trust Wikipedia if I were you.

There are various studies that look into this. Some of them work by examining police reports and looking at cases where the police concluded the woman was lying. These routinely give a figure as high as 50%. In interviews with individual policemen and policewomen, when asked to estimate the false reporting rate they also ballpark it at 50%.

The 2% number is outright fraud. Try and find the original source for this figure and you won't be able to - others have tried. It gets repeated endlessly anyway because it suits the feminist cause to make false reports look extremely rare, but the 2% figure correlates with nothing. For instance the FBI's own figures show _at minimum_ an 8% false reporting rate, which is much higher than for any other crime, and that's based on DNA tests alone. When the cases discarded by the police even before that are taken into account (e.g. because the woman admitted the next day she was drunk and hadn't really been raped, a surprisingly common occurrence) the rate climbs much further.

See here for a writeup:

[https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex- as...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/oct/7/false-sex-assault- reports-not-rare-reported-studie/)

Unfortunately what you see in this space is rampant manipulation of the figures. For instance it's common for a woman retracting her claim (i.e. saying she wasn't raped after all) to not be considered a false accusation, although there was an accusation, and the woman later decided her accusation should not stand. We can see a user in this thread stating that a woman admitting she lied is not sufficient evidence that the accusation was false - it's apparent that such people are desperate for the narrative to hold up, but what standard of proof _would_ be sufficient for them? Of course in extremely rare cases someone might file a claim, and then retract it, whilst having been correct originally. But very often claims are retracted because the accuser realises an investigation will reveal that they're lying.

<comment><USER4> If this comment is going to be downvoted and flagged, someone needs to step up and provide a reason. The source is a good one; there's nothing inflammatory in the tone of the comment, and facts are provided. Let's discuss these things, not cover them up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 'The woman who accused Allan said he had raped her multiple times over a 14-month period, and that she did not enjoy sex with him.'

'But the text messages show her directly contradicting these claims. In one message, she wrote "It wasn't against my will or anything." She also continually asked him for more sexual encounters and discussed rape fantasies.'

Note: this woman's anonymity is still preserved, and she has apparently faced no punishment whatsoever. The UK seems to have a flexible attitude as to whether a false rape accusation should be considered a crime.

[https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/11/liam-allan-falsely- accu...](https://thefederalist.com/2018/01/11/liam-allan-falsely-accused-rape- accuser-almost-got-away/)

<comment><USER6> > The UK seems to have a flexible attitude as to whether a false rape > accusation should be considered a crime.

This isn't true. False accusations of rape are more likely to be prosecuted than rape.

<comment><USER5> This case alone demonstrates it is true, and apart from this case there are other similar cases where no action was taken. Granted, it would be spectacularly embarrassing for the CPS/DPP if the accuser in the case had ended up being prosecuted herself, which is perhaps the explanation for the egregious neglect of justice here - I'm not sure how it is possible to get much more open and shut than clear evidence explicitly stating that what was accused never took place.

<comment><USER7> You're extrapolating an entire country's legal culture on sex crimes from a single editorialized reading of a single case; and at that, it's targeted toward Joe Schmo's quick glance at the days news over a morning coffee, not to serve as any kind of legal briefing.

<comment><USER5> "It wasn't against my will or anything."

<comment><USER6> So in your mind she definitely lied to the police and it's inconceivable that she lied in her text messages?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Funes- I really don't know what could make someone who has been the victim of such a heinous crime not hand over their phone if they are being honest in their accusations. Not having your phone for a month beats keeping your rapist unpunished in all cases, doesn't it?

Maybe I'm missing something here, so I will welcome any comments that could shed some light on that. There may be cases that I'm not contemplating which could prove me wrong.

P. S. An anecdote: one of my relatives is an attorney; he had a case which had been resolved as a false rape accusation just because they found evidence in the accuser's WhatsApp chats. It turns out she had been discussing with her mother how they would proceed to incriminate her alleged rapist so they could benefit economically from the trial. She wasn't prosecuted afterwards, which is the norm in my country.

<comment><USER8> Self nude photos that can be leaked.

Logged in accounts to a few sites. Ssh/pgp keys.

A Bitcoin/Ethereum wallet without password.

Secret drafts of midterms we will administer in the university.

(I actually only have two of the four.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > police and prosecutors say the forms are an attempt to plug a gap in the law > which says complainants and witnesses cannot be forced to disclose relevant > content from phones, laptops, tablets or smart watches

This isn't a "gap in the law" at all: it's protection against incriminating yourself. It's especially horrible that police are trying to push those involved in sexual assault trials to give up their liberties…

<comment><USER10> >This isn't a "gap in the law" at all: it's protection against incriminating yourself.

So someones life should be ruined if you falsely accuse them simply because you shouldnt be allowed to incriminate yourself?

<comment><USER11> Self incrimination is not the same as a false accusation.

Imagine if the person raped committed a different crime, unrelated to the rape, for which there was evidence of that on their phone.

In order to report the rape, they have to self incriminate themself for that crime as well? In this scenario any drug user, prostitute or other criminal has no protection from the law against being raped.

<comment><USER12> Or even more simply, even if there's no "other" crime: it's my personal data. I have a right to privacy.

<comment><USER10> You also have an obligation to help the police solve the crime you reported by providing all and any relevant information.

The issue is that people don't always know what information is relevant / they think stuff is too minor to mention.

You wouldn't go to a doctors appointment and then say my body is private you cant examine me and expect them to go off just the info you provide. If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private. You assume he has a good medical reason that he wants to do that and you let him confirm that you are healthy.

<comment><USER13> "If the doctor asks to stick his finger up your rear to check your prostate you don't say er no thanks that's too private"

If you don't want your doctor to stick his finger up your butt, then that's exactly what you do. They don't have a right to finger your prostate, even though it might be beneficial to you.

<comment><USER14> Yes, but then you don't get to be checked for prostate cancer.

<comment><USER12> That's 100% correct, and 100% not the conversation we are having.

If you don't want a medical procedure, even if it would be beneficial to you, you can refuse it. It is your right (at least in the US).

<comment><USER15> And like the doctor that cannot diagnose you with appropriate information, the police can't prosecute the accused without potentially backing or detracting details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's prompted this is a couple of high profile cases recently where evidence from the complainant's phone has come up at the eleventh hour and exonerated the accused, wasting large amounts of taxpayer money and needlessly persecuting the innocent.

</comment><comment><USER17> 'Fake' rape reports are a growing problem and the cases I have seen haven't resulted in any punishment for the accuser. I mean, obviously this isn't the best solution to the problem, but it's by far the easiest and cheapest for the taxpayer. It's evidence that would probably be required for the case in court anyway, right?

<comment><USER11> No- the prosecution does not have to search for and provide evidence that may exonerate the defense, that would be ridiculous.

<comment><USER18> They don't have to search for it, but they do have to provide any exonerating evidence they discover in the course of their investigation.

That's part of "discovery", and cases have been thrown out because prosecutors concealed exculpatory evidence from the defense.

<comment><USER6> It's what happened in the Liam Allen case which triggers this new guidance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> All I can say, is that when I was 19, I was falsely accused of rape. It was terrifying as a prospect even before fully knowing all the following results that would happen.

First, you're in prison for a crime you didn't commit. Second, you're unable to get most jobs after prison because of the sentence. Third, you have to register for the rest of your life and deal with harassment or worse from vigilantist neighbors. Fourth, you aren't allowed to even live in a lot of places as a former felon and sex offender.

If a false accuser goes far enough to actually see a trial and they're found to be lying, they absolutely should at the very least have to register on the sex offender registry as a potential risk to _ANY_ future partners even if they don't see jail time when convicted.

Edit: I've also been on the victim side of this... being falsely accused was far, far, far worse.

Edit 2: The accuser doesn't _have_ to turn over their phone... beyond that, I'd be fine to see an immunity from all but a specific list of felonies against any evidence found on the phone. I understand the risks against personal liberty and would prefer some protections... but it's too easy to get a false conviction. How many people every year are convicted under false accusations, and only accusation without evidence?

</comment><comment><USER19> > "We seem to be going back to the bad old days when victims of rape are being > treated as suspects."

It's tiring and in fact dangerous to see some groups continuously campaigning for women reporting rape to be blindly believed.

Being accused of rape is devastating it is just that the police should start with a neutral stance and try to assert the plausibility of the accusation.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely, I agree. The presumption is innocent until proven guilty and the problem with sex crimes is even the accusation can completely destroy someones life regardless even if they are later found to have been innocent.

In reality it is no different from ANY other crime in that there needs to be evidence that a crime has actually been committed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This seems broadly in line (but less intrusive, and less protective of defendant's rights) with what has always been US practice in that no one is immune to being compelled to provide evidence except for very specific privileges.

Not only can police/people ask for this information in the US (and the British use appears to be purely voluntary but with potential impacts on prosecution if it does not), but also either the prosecution or defense can issue subpoenas or secure court orders for evidence in the possession of victims or other parties.

</comment><comment><USER6> For a Barrister's view: [https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/11228239278042275...](https://twitter.com/BarristerSecret/status/1122823927804227586)

</comment><comment><USER21> The case this stems from seems to have had problems due to historical Tory cuts to police budgets by Theresa May when police was her responsibility as shown in the Analysis section here: [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk- england-42873618](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42873618)

<comment><USER5> Don't try to pin this on the Tories - it was generally acknowledged to be the DPP's fault: [https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/20/mps-criticise- dp...](https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jul/20/mps-criticise-dpp-alison- saunders-collapse-rape-trials)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Would the entirety of the phone's contents become evidence that prosecution and defense can both look at to support their case?

Also, if a victim/accuser refuses blanket consent, can they still make _certain_ content available as evidence? Eg, text messages but not tinder or browsing history.

These things are always minefields.

<comment><USER23> I can't speak to the U.K., but in the U.S., the answer is: it depends.

Typically, a search warrant will be limited in scope, whereas a consent search will not be. In fact, law enforcement is usually trained to ask for consent to search _even if they have a warrant,_ because it precludes a lot of legal issues. For example, if they are executing a search and they see something out in the open that suggests some other crime but isn't conclusive, and they want to search for more evidence related to that other issue, they are supposed to seek another warrant unless an exception applies (e.g., exigent circumstances). If they have consent to search the house (or car, or ...), then they do not need to stop, and they do not need to worry about the evidence being excluded if the judge disagrees that there were exigent circumstances.

For this reason, I think a lot of the reactions in this thread against compelled evidence are misplaced. A victim is much _more_ likely to implicate herself or himself in collateral conduct in a consent search than they would be if the evidence were compelled. A search warrant, for example, would likely be limited to text messages between the alleged victim and the alleged perpetrator... and _not_ include, e.g., text messages between the alleged victim and her/his drug dealer.

Defense access will depend on discovery rules, which vary widely between jurisdictions. Either way, it won't be admissible in court unless a judge rules that it is relevant to the case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This won't help if a woman making a false accusation simply deletes the exonerating messages. If they used encrypted/ephemeral messaging, the phone/app company can't turn them over either. If the victim is lucky they'll still have their own copies.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here's the actual guidance from CPS: [https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/handing- over-mobile-phone-da...](https://www.cps.gov.uk/cps/news/handing-over-mobile- phone-data-rape-prosecutions)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm disturbed by the increasing focus on the prosecution of rape. We need much more focus on rape prevention than what I'm seeing.

I think the current adversarial climate just deepens the problem.

</comment><comment><USER26> Would the accused also be forced to hand over their phone? My initial impulse is that if we're going for equity, the same policy should be applied to both. I'm also assuming that there is an implicit accusation of false accusation by the originally accused.

<comment><USER6> If the accused says "it was fully consensual and I have messages on my phone that prove it" then yes, they would hand over their phone. This is the context in which the victim's phone would be searched.

If the complainant said the phone was used during the rape to record the act then the phone would be seized as evidence.

> I'm also assuming that there is an implicit accusation of false accusation > by the originally accused.

This is the difficult balancing act the police have to do: they have to treat complainants with respect and robustly investigate the alleged crime, but they have to hold open the (small) possibility that it didn't happen like the complainant says.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Clickbait. The prosecutors will only request the phones to be handed over when _they 're expected to contain evidence that's "relevant" to the case_ \- possibly, evidence that might exonerate the defendant. Even in the U.S., prosecutors are in fact not allowed to withhold exculpatory evidence; it must be disclosed, according to the law.

</comment><comment><USER28> Alleged rape victims.

[Edit] Why is this flagged? Pre-trial, they're an alleged victim – not a victim.

<comment><USER29> I don't think that is correct, because the question before the court is not whether or not the person is a victim. The question is whether or not the accused committed the crime they are charged with.

If the accused is convicted, we can infer that the accuser was indeed a victim. However, if the accused is acquitted, we _cannot_ infer that the accuser was not a victim--we can only infer that if they were a victim, they were victimized by someone other than the accused.

(There's also some fuzziness in here because of the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard from criminal cases).

Your observation would only be correct in judicial systems in which an alleged victim has to undergo some sort of trial or hearing at which they must prove that a crime occurred against them before the system moves on to finding and trying someone for perpetrating that crime.

<comment><USER30> > However, if the accused is acquitted, we cannot infer that the accuser was > not a victim--we can only infer that if they were a victim, they were > victimized by someone other than the accused.

Hm? I suppose that an overwhelming majority of rape allegations are made against one or more specific persons. If the accused are acquitted, the rape either didn't happen or cannot be proved because there are no witnesses and no evidence of it (which is in itself rather suspicious).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> what some say: "but victims will stop coming forward" (upvote, upvote, upvote)

what others say: "but false accusations, indictments and convictions will also stop" (upvote, downvote, downvote)

what some reply: "are you sure that is really a problem" (upvote upvote upvote)

how frustrating, especially when nobody can reliable quantify anything or reliable prove anything

<comment><USER32> And BBC journalists can't be bothered to explain even roughly what the current law is. Just copy-paste a few quotes, waffle a bit (don't forget to hit return twice after every full stop!) then move on to the next story.

<comment><USER31> When I was in another commonwealth country, Australia, I found that newspapers would often dance around uncomfortable issues to the point where you wouldn't even know what they are talking about.

That was very odd to me. Who, what, why, when, where and how was just missing from articles like with Myanmar immigrants, or sexual assault solutions.

This BBC article reminds me of that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> A gross invasion of privacy if I've ever seen one. A person's phone contains their most private thoughts, conversations, photos, etc. and victims are now expected to bare it all to police if they want a trial? What has the UK become?

If the plaintiff's case is so weak that it could be discounted by a text message, then the jury should be ruling not guilty either way.

<comment><USER34> I think if you want to accuse someone of something as serious as rape then you should be prepared to back that up with access to all your data.

<comment><USER7> Why stop at rape accusations? Why not theft, or hit and runs? How about whenever you accuse anyone of any infraction, you have to hand over all your digital data to law enforcement?

Oh I bet you'd never want to be subject to that, yet you want to make a special rule for one kind of accusation.

<comment><USER32> One kind of accusation? Do you mean the kind of accusation in which the only evidence that a crime ever took place is the statement of a single witnesses? It doesn't seem unreasonable that you'd want to investigate the credibility of the witness in such cases. I certainly wouldn't stop at rape accusations.

However, I think I'd prefer to see a court, rather than just the police, decide what data should be obtained/requested and how it should be used.

I suspect that in some of these cases the police think it's a hopeless case and are looking for a justification for dropping it. They are perhaps thinking: if this person really wants us to prosecute, then, OK, we'll do it, even if it seems hopeless, but if they won't even fully cooperate by letting us examine their phone then we really can't be bothered any more because we've got lots of better cases to be working on.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How were the super bowl led torches synced? - <AUTHOR> My guess is via each volunteer's phone. Anyone with a better guess? <comment><USER2> I'd be tempted to think they decided to solve the logistics challenge instead of the technical one. So instead of trying to build a generic piece of hardware that detects its own position and lights up accordingly, each torch was unique (or configured via software to be unique, even if at "runtime") and configured specifically for its exact position on the field.

If each torch is designed for it's own show, then the only thing that has to be synced is the exact time to start. And in comparison, that problem is trivial to solve with known constraints (as opposed to triangulating hundreds of devices with < 1ft precision in addition to actually synchronizing the devices)

<comment><USER3> so are you saying all those people are not some random spectators of the show but super bowl crew? Or random spectators who guarantee that they wont move from their predefined position?

<comment><USER4> The audience was doing choreographed moves during certain songs, so it was not random at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is done by shining bright Infra Red lights high in the stadium down onto the crowd. We cannot see Infra Red light ourselves, but the lights/torches the crowd holds can detect the infra red light and respond when they see it by switching on and showing visible light we can see. Thus all the lights the crowd have can be commanded to light up at the same time, or turn off at the same time. In advanced situations the infra red lights can trigger mass synced colour changes in the lights the crowd holds, exactly the same way an infra red remote control commands a TV to do different things. Cheap and effective tech.

<comment><USER6> There's got to be more to it than that. Even with a really tight beam you'd run into all sorts of "Am I in the spotlight or not" problems, especially with the torch flailing around while someone dances (illuminance detected would be all over the place).

Looking at this video

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYDSguhC4FQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fYDSguhC4FQ)

It seems advanced patterns only turn up when people are in a roughly grid arrangement, and no one moves out of their spot except at predetermined times (obviously everyone is in on the choreography here). There are also dark periods after people finish moving around and "get in place". It looks like they are doing some degree of calibration. The torches my well have IR lights on them too that can be individually addressed to quickly calibrate every torches position, sorta like marco polo. Break it into quadrants and you could do it even quicker.

It could be simply overhead IR lights, but gah, they are doing something really special to get those well defined sharp edges.

Besides all that, everyone could just have assigned spots that they memorized. It's obvious they practiced, and arranging a bunch of people on a field quickly and fluidly is nothing new.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> PixMob ([https://pixmob.com/en/](https://pixmob.com/en/)) has been used in past superbowls to create similar effects, which aparently uses IR.

<comment><USER8> Yes, PixMob also produced synched LED bracelets for Taylor Swift's most recent tour. Here's a video of that in action [1] and a video showing various events they've been at [2].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2hNcJeeDsM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2hNcJeeDsM)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYnaMaKj27M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYnaMaKj27M)

<comment><USER9> Those weren't localized to seat location, like that of the super bowl show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Didn't see the Super Bowl, and can't comment on the technology used, but I've been looking into Xylobands, [http://xylobands.com/](http://xylobands.com/), that have been used by Coldplay in some of their concerts.

Technically, that's a LED (monochrone, later they used multicolor LEDS) with a radio receiver. Radio transmitters were installed throughout the stadium, controlling specific LEDs to go one or off.

See [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JficYgaK8j8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JficYgaK8j8) for some background video and the use in the song Charlie Brown in the Mylo Xyloto tour.

</comment><comment><USER11> Maybe it was this guy? [https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5pouv4/18_months_ago_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/5pouv4/18_months_ago_i_didnt_know_how_to_code_im_now_a/?ref=search_posts)

<comment><USER12> If I was preparing to show off my tech at the Superbowl, in front of 100 million people, I wouldn't be doing an AMA a few weeks before.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm curious how the one commercial knew the score was 21-3 ... Did they record a bunch of versions which covered most possible scores? Did Fox dub in the score right after halftime?

<comment><USER14> It was a live commercial: [http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/news/companies/snickers- live...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/01/25/news/companies/snickers-live-super- bowl-commercial/index.html)

<comment><USER15> FWIW, link above has auto-playing video with sound.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The company that makes the torches is Glow Motion. It's RF tech, but they're not super-specific about how it works. They do say it only requires one antenna, so it's doubtful they were triangulating the location of each device.

[http://www.glowmotiontechnologies.com/how-it- works](http://www.glowmotiontechnologies.com/how-it-works)

It's the same company that did the illuminated kinetic beach balls in Drake's recent tour.

Source: [http://livedesignonline.com/super-bowl-li-2017-halftime- show...](http://livedesignonline.com/super-bowl-li-2017-halftime-show/super- bowl-li-2017-halftime-show-photos)

</comment><comment> fury-s12 [https://github.com/jamrader/XTAudioBeacons](https://github.com/jamrader/XTAudioBeacons)

maybe

<comment><USER17> That sounds like something out of a Bond. (Pun intended)

I'd be really interested in how far this can work effectively. Could we build solar phone booths in a forest that will flash a light (to make them easy to find) if they hear an warning siren from the rangers? Maybe also if someone is yelling in pain so they know where to call for help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Could anyone here explain what happened? Didn't see it and tried to find it on Google/Youtube, but only this thread shows up. What effect are we talking about?

</comment><comment><USER19> Was wondering the same thing. Either each volunteer was in a predetermined location with specific uuid'd torches or there some newfangled rfid/bluetooth location tracking to within one foot or so that I want to know about. My money's on the later, can't trust 100s of people to be where you told them to be during a live performance who aren't professionals.

<comment><USER20> Why do you say that they weren't professional dancers?

<comment><USER21> No Spandex

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Imagine you had all the torches lifted up in the air throughout the entire duration of the show. As long as the 'human' stays in place, and as long as you know the uuid of each device; you can make any shape you desire.

</comment><comment><USER23> Wifi? I've worked on something similar:

[http://magicshifter.net/](http://magicshifter.net/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I don't know exactly how the torches look, but I can imagine they have an indoor GPS setup in the stadium. Couple that with a position-dependent program that each torch has. The actual program can be started, paused or stopped using an RF signal of some sort - so the torch actually knows its position and just sets itself to what should be running on the virtual, stadium sized display.

</comment><comment><USER25> Maybe triangulation with beacons?

<comment><USER26> This is what I would assume. They weren't perfectly synced (although very close), so it appeared to be some sort of localized position detection.

<comment><USER27> They weren't perfectly synced, so I would assume the field audience just all pressed the "go" button at the same time (indicated by handlers with headsets, presumably)

Much simpler than localization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Maybe Bluetooth paired with phones

</comment><comment><USER29> Infrared.

</comment><comment><USER30> Is this honestly not trivial in 2017??? Given this didn't have to be perfect, there are 3-5+ ways to do this.

<comment><USER31> Don't be shy, what are the 3-5+ ways? Some of us aren't even familiar with the superbowl LED torches never mind the tech behind them.

Try to avoid faking surprise to make yourself sound smarter too, it doesn't work.</comment></comment>


The Comprehensive Terminal Guide - <AUTHOR> http://writingconfederation.wordpress.com/2011/05/18/the-comprehensive-terminal-guide/

<comment><USER2> Might want to try being more accurate with the title next time. I was hoping for something actually about terminals/terminal emulation.

<comment><USER3> Seriously. It's effectively deep voodoo; to talk about it properly you kind of need to know a fair bit about things evolved in the 70s-80s.

In some ways the best part of the Unix Hater's Guide is that it chronicles a lot of the history of those early systems that still live on in the guts of our computers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have - what I would consider - very basic terminal skills. I'm comfortable moving around, modifying configs, downloading and moving files, changing permissions, adding users, installing things with a package manager, and have a healthy fear of the rm command. I was sad that this article taught me nothing.

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought it was going to be a guide about wiring terminals -- completely disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Comprehensive." That word does not mean what you think it means.

</comment><comment><USER7> What, no man -k (or apropos)? Without apropos, I'd still be running random commands I found in [s]bin directories.

<comment><USER8> Hey writers live for revisions :) Wouldn't be surprised to see it show up in a while. You did leave a comment--yes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Only thing I learned from this was that you can add an ampersand (&) to the end of a command to launch a program (such as one with a gui) without tying up your terminal window.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> To all that have commented so far: Maybe I should have specified that this was supposed to be a beginner's guide to using the terminal.. I apologize for the confusion. And as for not knowing what "comprehensive" means, here is the dictionary definition: "Complete; including all or nearly all elements or aspects of something..."</comment>


Stay in the Game - <AUTHOR> https://www.albertbridgecapital.com/drew-views/2019/6/17/stay-in-the-game <comment><USER2> I love rescue stories.

Here is a favorite of mine (brief):

[https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/1604951280.html](https://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sfo/1604951280.html)</comment>


The Facebook Papers, Part 1: The great unbundling - <AUTHOR> http://www.recode.net/2016/5/9/11610100/the-facebook-papers-part-1-the-great-unbundling <comment><USER2> The big media made this choice themselves [1]. Recode in particular [2]. So they should own up to their past decisions.

1\. [http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment- sectio...](http://www.cnn.com/2014/11/21/tech/web/online-comment-sections/)

2\. [http://www.recode.net/2014/11/20/11633104/a-note-to- recode-r...](http://www.recode.net/2014/11/20/11633104/a-note-to-recode- readers)

</comment><comment><USER3> In reality, this actually has very little to do with Facebook and has a _ton_ to do with mobile. Even if Facebook didn't exist, I have little doubt that media companies would be seeing falling recirculation—it's intrinsic to the platform.

On another note, does anyone know what this quote is referring to?

> Newsrooms have been supported by billionaires and test-prep businesses for > more esoteric reasons than this.

<comment><USER4> It refers to the Graham Holdings Company which used to own The Washington Post, still owns Slate, and also owns Kaplan.

<comment><USER5> They also owned a cable company for revenue stability reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Could human upvotes of HN stories influence the dispersal of an atomized story across algorithm-driven social networks? HN loads quickly on mobile and HN comments provide social context for media stories, while the HN front page drives traffic from a tech-literate audience.

</comment><comment><USER6> It would be nice if Facebook had some incentive for sharing ad revenue with large publishers, the way YouTube does; that seems like that would give at least some companies a way out of this hole. Is there any chance that someone like a Buzzfeed would have enough leverage to broker this sort of deal?

<comment><USER7> The big difference between Facebook and YouTube is that YouTube has the content directly within their application, whereas with Facebook, users are still going directly to the original site to access the content. So in your example, BuzzFeed is still getting money from all the ads on their page when somebody follows a Facebook link, but Beyonce wouldn't be getting anything from a YouTube view without the revenue sharing.

But this could all change if instant articles catch on.

<comment><USER8> My understanding is that publishers can put their own ads in the instant articles, too. Unless that possibility is revoked, they still get ad views per article view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This feels a lot like the deep linking arguments that have been around for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER10> I've just never enjoyed using Facebook. I tried, I instantly despised it, and have never looked back. It seems like a vast time sink with almost no value that isn't better derived elsewhere.

<comment><USER6> This type of reply always appears on posts _mentioning_ Facebook, let alone about the product. Yet the fact still stands: billions of people around the world use Facebook every month. I personally find the stock "I don't use Facebook" comments off-topic and tiring. Facebook's effect on society is worth having a reasonable discussion about, whether you use it or not.

<comment><USER11> It kind of reminds me of the "I don't own a TV" person from the 90's - i.e. whenever a group starts a discussion about their favorite TV show, that person let's it be known how much better their life is without TV.

<comment><USER10> "TV" is an entire medium. Facebook isn't. The difference between someone not finding use in a single site or service, vs. writing off the entirety of what an entire a/v format can delivery over decades isn't really similar.

<comment><USER12> Maybe the comparison is made more in terms of the contemporary context for each medium, instead of in a pure 1 to 1 relation.

Nowadays I would say that Facebook is more of a "format" of sorts than "just a service", in that it has tremendous power to sway the opinion of large groups of people all over the world, kind of how the TV was a "format" with a lot of impact during its time.

Maybe in the past you could've argued the same in e.g. a comparison between TV and theaters (or other previous format). Maybe people more used to going to the theaters could've made the same comparison saying that TV is just a "show in a box" and it's not delivering the same impact as a play.

I could even make the same distinction between Facebook and say Snapchat. To me, when I use Facebook, "at least" I can get some interesting stories, some interesting discussions among friends (very seldom but they are there), vs Snapchat which to me looks like "just a service" to take pictures, but I'm pretty sure that a teenager could give me a full dissertation on how Snapchat is much more than just a service and is instead the prime communication media of their time.

My point being that I believe you might be biased due to age or due to being born with the TV as the main world-wide reaching medium vs today's kids for which that medium is now FB/Snapchat/whatever the new thing is, even though in strict terms you are correct in saying that FB is a service (i.e. it's "just a webpage") but in the end, taking account the contemporary context for that, it's really much more.

<comment><USER10> I don't have any problem understanding why people enjoy and use Snapchat, or Twitter, or a number of other social media apps and sites. Facebook in particular however, has always seemed like a place that people go to spend time that ultimately makes them unhappy.

<comment><USER13> See, I don't care for Snapchat. Always thought it was a dumb idea sold on a false premise ("oh, but you are safe because the image is gone immediately!", like anyone but their engineers know exactly what's going on at the storage level.) But that's me, some of my friends love it and spend hours doing face swaps and sharing mustached pictures.

So, to each their own. The fact that you don't like Facebook doesn't mean you can dismiss it any more than I can dismiss Snapchat. Just look at the numbers mentioned in the article. We couldn't care less about these systems, and yet there they are. I guess that's what everyone here is trying to say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Shame on all of you here that use fb, build apps or services on it. You do know better, yet help them continue with their behaviour as mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER15> This comment is not productive. Using facebook doesn't mean you support the company. It just means that your friends hangout there and you don't have choice.

It's the same as in college when your friends all went to a particular place to eat by default and since you want to remain friends with them, you have to go there regardless.

<comment><USER16> Of course you're supporting the company. They benefit from you being on there, and therefore they earn revenues from that.

<comment><USER17> Would you say living in country X is also supporting country X her wrongdoing because otherwise we back to the argument "we don't have choice."

By the way, having a FB because friends are on is not a choice problem. It's simply because some people find FB convenient to connect with their friends.

<comment><USER18> Choosing convenience is still a choice. Many of my friends are probably on Facebook, but I neither know nor care. That doesn't mean I can't keep in touch.

<comment><USER17> Right, I meant to say "no you do have a choice" to his "no sometimes we don't have a choice."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


CoreOS introduces Operators to streamline Kubernetes container managemen - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2016/11/03/coreos-introduces-operators-to-streamline-kubernetes-container-management/ <comment><USER2> A link to the blog post would be more descriptive and insightful.</comment>


How to Solve the Android Fragmentation Recently Reported by OpenSignal - <AUTHOR> http://testdroid.com/news/solving-the-fragmentation-in-android-world

<comment><USER2> Google hasn't managed to solve the fragmentation of Android and it will be challenging for everyone. Google luck with it!

<comment><USER3> No single company, nor even ecosystem can 'solve' it. OEMs keep pushing new devices, with their own legacy stuff on those, likely we aren't seeing fragmentation be solved anytime soon.

<comment><USER4> It could be somewhat solved if vendors didn't provide operating system and didn't lock in their lagging version.</comment></comment></comment>


ILLIAC I Programming Manual (1956) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://bitsavers.trailing-edge.com/pdf/univOfIllinoisUrbana/illiac/ILLIAC/ILLIAC_programming_Sep56.pdf

<comment><USER2> I wish I could find the part written by J.E. Robertson. I took several graduate level courses from him as an undergraduate in the mid '60s. He became the world expert on division. He found that if you recoded to the redundant base -1, 0, 1 then number encodings could be found that had lots of zeros which he could optimize over and speed the division up. There were other sequential configurations he did special things with as well. You wouldn't believe the amount of theory he deduced from studying the redundant encoding problem and its application. The result was SRT division. He was the R and I can't remember who S and T were.

SRT division was implemented in the Illiac II.

<comment><USER3> SRT is named after Sweeney [1], Robertson [2], Tocher [3], which came up with the idea independently of each other. There is also a 1956 paper by Nadler said to have a similar algorithm, but it seems impossible to find.

[1] [http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102632302](http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/catalog/102632302)

[2] [https://archive.org/details/newclassofdigita82robe](https://archive.org/details/newclassofdigita82robe)

[3] [http://qjmam.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/3/364.full.pdf](http://qjmam.oxfordjournals.org/content/11/3/364.full.pdf)

<comment><USER2> Thanks. [3] is essentially the outline of the first course I took from him.

It didn't occur me that SRT division might have any recent relevance, ancient history and all that, but Google tells me that the Pentium floating point bug was in fact a buggy lookup table for SRT division and that it is still apparently in use in microprocessors today. I wish he could know that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The context:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ILLIAC)

"ILLIAC I was built at the University of Illinois based on the same design as the ORDVAC. It was the first von Neumann architecture computer built and owned by an American university. It was put into service on September 22, 1952.

ILLIAC I was built with 2,800 vacuum tubes and weighed about 5 tons. By 1956 it had gained more computing power than all computers in Bell Labs combined. Data was represented in 40-bit words, of which 1024 could be stored in the main memory, and 12800 on drum memory."

The interesting information from the manual is that the computer had 40-bits fixied-point arithmetic, directly calculating only numbers between -1 and +1. If was certainly very demanding programming it.

Another interesting detail: the puritans still didn't influence the name of the number system, they write about "sexadecimal" coding, and interestingly use "0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 K S N J F L." Why "K S N J F L"? I don't know.

And a really fascinating detail: it was not only punched tapes and stuff: it had a 256x256 pixels CRT as an output device too. Sample on pg. 12-9

<comment><USER5> I just had to search for it.

From: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORDVAC](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ORDVAC)

"Unlike the other computers of its era, the ORDVAC and ILLIAC I were twins and could exchange programs with each other."

"Instead of the sequence A B C D E F universally used today, the digits ten to fifteen were represented by the letters K S N J F L (King Sized Numbers Just for Laughs), corresponding to the teleprinter characters on five-track paper tape."

<comment><USER4> The info you quote is a description and not the answer. The whole alphabet is on the page 9-5. I still don't know why there isn't some "order" in encoding (like it is now in ASCII, that would still result in the encoding for 10 to be A and not K. and it's not a USTTY [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baudot_code) there is K == 01111) but I'd expect they must have had some reason.

<comment><USER6> It looks like they took the ITA2 telegraphy code, which has the numbers in normal order but the letters in typewriter order, and re-sorted it so that the letters are alphabetical. That would explain the scrambled numbers, but not the punctuation or "K S N J F L".

<comment><USER4> The letter codes of ORDVAC and ILLIAC are clearly not ITA2 / USTTY. So we still don't know why they have been selected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Reading this manual really brought me back to the time when being a programmer was probably closely tied to being a mechanic of the machine. We take computing for granted today but it must have been amazing to see first-hand how physical inanimate objects come together to build intelligence.

<comment><USER7> It still is, if you work with embedded systems and other lower-level stuff.

 _but it must have been amazing to see first-hand how physical inanimate objects come together to build intelligence._

Many CS curricula still start with building a CPU out of basic logic gates (and for those who haven't done this before, this is certainly a recommended exercise - make a simple CPU in a logic simulator that can run a short program). The first time you see how it all works seems like magic, then you remember that everything just fits together logically, and realise that it isn't magic after all.

<comment><USER8> A resource for going from NAND to a running program (Tetris in this case): [http://nand2tetris.org/](http://nand2tetris.org/)

<comment><USER6> A bit less flashy/more old-fashioned, Niklaus Wirth's 2013 edition of Project Oberon covers an FPGA-based CPU, operating system, compiler, tiled window manager and text and vector graphics editors. No Tetris though. [http://projectoberon.com/](http://projectoberon.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Mirror on archive.org: [https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_univOfIlliIACILLIACpro...](https://archive.org/details/bitsavers_univOfIlliIACILLIACprogrammingSep56_10672625) (as the Dropbox link is down)

<comment><USER10> Dropbox link is now up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Dropbox is returning a 509 status code on the file, but I can't wait to take a look at this. My interest in this specific machine comes from its important place in the history of computer music with Lejaren Hiller's Illiac Suite:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0njBFLQSk8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0njBFLQSk8) [http://ems.music.uiuc.edu/history/illiac.html](http://ems.music.uiuc.edu/history/illiac.html) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiac_Suite](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illiac_Suite)

</comment><comment><USER12> The Computer History Museum has a number of physical artifacts from the ILLIAC II, III and IV, including a number of the logic modules: metal chassis units that held from 3 to 8 vacuum tubes that performed a single function.

[http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/search/?s=illiac&...](http://www.computerhistory.org/collections/search/?s=illiac&t=objects&f=physicalobject)

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting. 7.3 seems to be a very early instance of the xor swap trick, albeit with addition and subtraction as group operations.

</comment><comment><USER13> Bitsavers.org Link (where there is even more cool stuff):

[http://bitsavers.trailing- edge.com/pdf/univOfIllinoisUrbana/...](http://bitsavers.trailing- edge.com/pdf/univOfIllinoisUrbana/illiac/ILLIAC/ILLIAC_programming_Sep56.pdf)

<comment><USER14> Thanks! We changed the url to that from [https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12852544/serve/ILLIAC_pr...](https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/12852544/serve/ILLIAC_programming_Sept56.pdf).</comment></comment>


Real or Photoshop. Test Your Powers of Observation - <AUTHOR> http://landing.adobe.com/en/na/products/creative-cloud/69308-real-or-photoshop/?ref=webdesignernews.com <comment><USER2> Site doesn't work on iOS. I guess I'm fortunate that Adobe can't inflict their ... effluent ... on me.</comment>


RIM unveils BlackBerry OS 6 with iPhone-like multitouch - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/27/rim_unveils_blackberry_os_6_with_iphone_like_multitouch.html <comment><USER2> Worst. Demo. Ever.

Seriously, its nice that people have touch screens, but I really REALLY think that video was horrific.</comment>