Golua – A Lua 5.3 engine implemented in Go - grey-area https://github.com/Azure/golua <comment><AUTHOR> Amazing. Microsoft releases an open source implementation of a Lua VM written in Go. I feel like I'm in the twilight zone!

<comment><USER2> Microsoft is also responsible for Go's support on VSCode.

And they just released an Azure Go SDK earlier this year.

<comment><USER3> Both of which make sense, as they're integrations to other Microsoft owned and operated platforms.

How go and lua fit into their product line I'm less sure of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In case you are wondering why this exists, there is a discussion here: [https://github.com/Azure/golua/issues/36](https://github.com/Azure/golua/issues/36)

<comment><USER5> > The VM is designed differently (I'm encouraging Brian to write a blog post > about this), but in a nutshell it is designed for better error handling and > for adding a debugger

Looking at the VM, they implement function calls by recursively re-entering the VM in Go. The VM implements neither tail calls nor coroutines, and I don't see how they could implement the latter without some serious refactoring.

Perhaps by adding a debugger they mean they implemented the VM such that they could repurpose existing Go debuggers, which is why there's a 1:1 mapping between the Lua call chain and the Go runtime call chain.

<comment><USER6> This was open sourced very early. It is being built with the intent of supporting Helm v3 and by open sourcing it early it enables other Helm maintainers to get involved and to import it into Helm v3 early.

I expect more docs, details, and improvements will be coming

<comment><USER7> You mean this helm: [https://helm.sh](https://helm.sh)?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Based on my experience porting Wren's interpreter to Go, I would expect this to be about 3x slower than a C interpreter (without JIT). But someday I hope to be pleasantly surprised.

I don't believe Go has been optimized for compiling an interpreter, so perhaps there is low-hanging fruit, should the Go team decide that it's a priority.

<comment><USER9> Go was originally intended as a systems level language, suitable for writing extremely efficient servers, dealing directly with raw bytes where needed, therefore enabling writing code at both high and low levels. VMs typically take advantage of the lowest level of code that their language supports to be as efficient as possible. There's no reason Go code can't be as fast as C++ code with enough time for optimizations, and there's no reason a VM written in Go has to be slower than any other low-level program written in Go.

<comment><USER10> Go's native GC is specifically targeted for Go. To be performant, one would want GC targeted towards the language to be implemented.

<comment><USER9> Only if you're using Go's native GC as the Lua VM's GC, which isn't the only option.

<comment><USER10> I have to confess, I've been thinking of implementing Smalltalk in Go, using its native GC as a very unoptimized GC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder what sort of VM monitoring will be available. Something that was interesting with HekaD's lua integration was the ability to monitor CPU usage and evict bad actors. Can it see and perhaps even limit?

This was something I was wondering about with Cloudflares isolate implementation as well. I read that in node/v8 you can inspect an isolates CPU usage, but no way to limit it apparently? If you start out with 1/2 of a CPU but your program gets squeezed down to 1/1000 as more isolates are added or existing isolates use more time you could be in for a big surprise as your program no longer performs adequately, perhaps to the point of not functioning properly at all.

<comment><USER12> Isolates are limited to a single thread. There's no built in way to throttle an isolate's CPU usage, but you _can_ manage the thread it belongs to. Which means isolates aren't inherently worse for CPU contention than processes would be, you just need to roll your own throttling instead of using something like cgroups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Funny that luac is called:

[https://github.com/Azure/golua/blob/24b0595f74412f2f249fbdb3...](https://github.com/Azure/golua/blob/24b0595f74412f2f249fbdb38bb5efa2c349a07e/lua/state.go#L332)

Isn't this a pure Go implementation?

<comment><USER14> You should read the source you are linking to instead of being needlessly snarky.

The function you call emits IR, and it's doc block says:

        // EmitIR compiles the Lua script similarly to Compile but instead
        // uses the long listing options to capture the compiled IR dump.
        // EmitIR returns the Lua bytecode encoded as a string or any error.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Rust has good bindings for PUC Lua, but this looks like it could have several advantages over Rio's runtime. I did a quick search for any Rust bindings to Go libraries but haven't found any yet. I opened an issue in rlua to discuss bindings to golua, even though that would definitely be a separate project, but we have discussed there before other Lua runtimes. If anyone else is interested in using this library in Rust, here are those issues:

[https://github.com/kyren/rlua/issues/100](https://github.com/kyren/rlua/issues/100)

[https://github.com/kyren/rlua/issues/39](https://github.com/kyren/rlua/issues/39)

Edits.. Resources found so far:

[https://users.rust-lang.org/t/can-rust-interface-with-go- lib...](https://users.rust-lang.org/t/can-rust-interface-with-go- libraries/4292/3)

[https://medium.com/learning-the-go-programming- language/call...](https://medium.com/learning-the-go-programming- language/calling-go-functions-from-other-languages-4c7d8bcc69bf)

[https://github.com/softprops/shiplift](https://github.com/softprops/shiplift) (okay, here's a Rust interface to Go)

<comment><USER15> shiplift uses an API. Looks like calling Go from Rust is never done. I would guess because of the huge performance hit at 3 orders of magnitude worse than C (according to the users.rust-lang link above). Will still be interesting to see how Golua impacts the wider Lua ecosystem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> May I point at my own implementation: [https://github.com/arnodel/golua](https://github.com/arnodel/golua)

</comment><comment><USER17> Would this allow Lua code to directly use Goroutines, and take advantage of Go's features for concurrency and parallelism?

I'd love to see a high-level language like Lua (or Python, Ruby etc.) with good threading support. Building a language runtime in Go might be a good way to get that support more easily?

While I'm wishing for things, could I have good single-threaded performance too? This would likely need a JIT, which unfortunately doesn't seem possible in Go at the moment [0].

Maybe I should give up on my desire for a high-level language and just use Go itself, where concurrency, parallelism and good performance are all available today...

[0] [https://github.com/golang/go/issues/20123](https://github.com/golang/go/issues/20123)

<comment><USER18> You have various lisps at your disposal, with my favourite Guile offering a full working Concurrent ML implementation instead of the almost-CML offered by Go.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is great, since I've been meaning to do some stuff in Lua instead of JavaScript (mostly Functions-like stuff that require simple scripting). Having more options is always nice.

<comment><USER13> There are a couple other Lua implementations in Go that exist for a few years though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> It is interesting to think of Go as a C replacement, and both CLua and CRuby gets an implementation in go. [1]

Are we going to see GoPython and GoJS?

[1] [https://github.com/goby-lang/goby](https://github.com/goby-lang/goby)

<comment><USER21> There is also already a Python-implemented-in-Go[1] and a Python-to-Go transpiler[2] — albeit both somewhat limited.

[1] [https://github.com/go-python/gpython](https://github.com/go- python/gpython)

[2] [https://github.com/google/grumpy](https://github.com/google/grumpy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does anyone know of any example code anywhere? I can't seem to find any public examples of someone embedding/using this.

Edit: seems there is an open issues for adding some of this [https://github.com/Azure/golua/issues/15](https://github.com/Azure/golua/issues/15)

<comment><USER6> It was quietly open sourced earlier this week at an early state so we could start looking at importing it into something else ([https://helm.sh](https://helm.sh) v3). You likely will not find any examples, yet. It's not release quality quite yet so there will likely be changes as it becomes production quality.

I'm amazed people found this already. The team over there who owns this is excellent. I expect it to work nicely once they have had a little time to get everything together.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Heres an old project I wrote with some sample code for the C binding library. I tried the go versions and always found the c binding faster.

[https://github.com/rickcrawford/go-lua- test](https://github.com/rickcrawford/go-lua-test)

</comment><comment><USER24> I see that contribution is guarded by CLA agreement. I often wonder: if I don't want to sign a CLA, couldn't I just fork the whole repository and keep going on my own?

<comment><USER25> Yes you can. The restriction is on what can be put into this "upstream" version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't want to be "that guy" but I think its a valid question to ask- why didn't they write this in ... ... .... Rust?

I think go and rust serve two somewhat different use cases- go being for distributed computing in a nutshell, and rust for fast running programs. And I think Rust would have been a better choice

Edit: looks like everybody and their dog has a Lua engine now- maybe I'll create one in rust

<comment><USER27> I think you got it backwards. Go is good for toy-interpreters, compilers, programming languages in general. Pretty bad for distributed computing though, Rust is definitely better for that use case if your only choices are Rust and Go.

<comment><USER28> Rust's type system is derived from the ML variants, and as such is fantastic for writing compilers and interpreters. ML stands for "meta language", ie. it's named after how good it is at writing compilers in.

<comment><USER2> Kind of, I prefer the productivity I get from the GC in ML language variants.

Having done some compiler related work back when we had Caml Light, OCaml was still called Objective Caml and Mirada was being turned into Haskell, I don't see what I would gain from having to deal with the borrow checker.

<comment><USER28> You don't really gain anything from the borrow checker in this case, but you don't really lose anything either if you're used to it.

It's the ADTs that are killer compared to Go.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, but then why Rust and not another ML variant?

<comment><USER28> The discussion here is between Rust & Go. My point is swaping the GC for the borrow checker in order to get ADTs is a net win to me.

If we're veering off into hypotheticals that don't have anything to do with the question at hand, I personally write compilers and interpreters in Rust rarher than another ML because my use cases tend to be worst case latency sensitive enough that a GC is a non starter.

<comment><USER2> Fair enough, thanks for replying.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Doesn't Apple Buy Intel? - <AUTHOR>

I saw it here: https://twitter.com/asymco/status/260181615911776256
and I think it makes total sense.
Update: here's why.
Currently Apple is doing well with chips designed in-house on their mobile devices. It's not a stretch to believe that they would like the same thing to happen on Macbooks and Mac Pros.
Buying Intel obviously will benefit them in that they'll have finer control on the chip designs for these non-mobile devices than what influence they have now.
The alternative is Apple leaving Intel platform by championing some ARM architecture, which means they'll spend a lot of resources playing catch-up with Intel designs. I believe this situation not only isn't good for Apple, but also bad for the whole industry. <comment><USER2> For one, all of apple's best-selling products use ARM chips. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A4>

Macs sell well, but most of Apple's revenue comes from iPhones and iPads.

Buying Intel would require spending most of Apple's fortune, they're just not important enough to Apple to be worth it.

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be stupid of Apple to do so, because they have no core competency in running a semiconductor business. Apple's margins will be much better if the design and outsource the chip fab, rather than bringing it in-house. Apple purchasing Intel would also cause a large problem for the market since nobody really wants to buy from a competitor.

<comment><AUTHOR> Acquiring Intel doesn't mean replacing it's business operation. What if Apple kept Intel running as is, but merely use their designing and manufacturing ability to get better chip for their hardware?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A. My understanding is that at this point Intel isn't that good at making mobile chips which is what Apple needs -- my other guess is that you'd also get into some government concerns about a monopoly

<comment><USER3> Intel basically owns the mobile chip market, they're in a significant portion of the non-Apple smartphones.

<comment><AUTHOR> Apple is the biggest player in the mobile market, they aren't using Intel chips in iPads or iPhone/iPod Touchs. Kindle Fires have TI chips in them. The best selling Android smartphones from Samsung/HTC/Motorola all use ARM chips. Only of late, a couple of small mobile manufacturers announced that they are releasing Intel-based devices along side of their ARM devices.

I don't see what market Intel owns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Please God no.

<comment><AUTHOR> Can you provide your reasoning?

<comment><USER6> He just added not infront of all your logical arguments.

I will add that it makes no sence at all for Apple to buy Intel.

<comment><AUTHOR> I did not provide any arguments above. At this point this thread is nothing but a bunch of 'yes' and 'no's.

See my update in op.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Europe calls for every phone to use the same charger - <AUTHOR> http://gizmorati.com/2014/03/14/europe-calls-every-phone-use-charger/

<comment><USER2> That's some really shoddy reporting. Shame on you, "Ryan Burgess"! But what else can we expect from a news site that rips off the name from two better ones (Gizmodo and Technorati)?

Original sources instead of badly regurgitated crap:

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-11-75_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_MEMO-11-75_en.htm)

[http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news- room/content/2014...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news- room/content/20140307IPR38122/html/MEPs-push-for-common-charger-for-all- mobile-phones)

Quote:

> What was the process leading up to a solution?

> To tackle this issue the European Commission gave phone manufacturers an > ultimatum in March 2009: __to voluntarily adopt a common charger or be > subject to mandatory EU legislation __. As a result in June 2009, Europe 's > major mobile phone manufacturers agreed in close co-operation with the > Commission services to adopt a common charger for data-enabled mobile phones > sold in the EU. A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) - signed by 14 > manufacturers - committed the industry to provide charger compatibility. In > the course of 2011, European consumers will be able to purchase a standard > mobile phone charger for all data-enabled phones - including smartphones - > sold in the 27 EU Member States.

So everyone except one manufacturer standardised on Micro USB back in 2009. Apple wouldn't play ball, so in order to compel them the directive finally had to be established.

</comment><comment><USER3> My son's iPhone physically (and probably electrically) fits a USB, but the phone requires that it receive some Apple only signal from the charger, or it refuses to charge. It's one of the reasons his phone is often dead. The regulators need to kill this kind of hostile behavior.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hopefully they will standardize on something free and open.

</comment><comment><USER5> "It would seem the charger of choice would be the Micro-USB as of now, though who knows what the next big thing will be."

Forcing everyone to use a government-sanctioned standard is a good way to prevent the next big thing from happening and succeeding.

<comment><USER6> Yes, every electricity utility company should mandate its own electric plug, and limit you to their model of matching TV and washing machine. Don't ever think of taking your washing machine with you when you move to another state.

Honestly? MicroUSB has been the next big thing. Before, you had to toss out your charger when your phone broke; now you can keep it and don't need to shell out for an extra charger if you have a perfectly servicable one.

Of course, Apple products are special, so you're only good if you buy this: [http://store.apple.com/de/product/MD820ZM/A/lightning-auf- mi...](http://store.apple.com/de/product/MD820ZM/A/lightning-auf-micro-usb- adapter?fnode=3c) (Does this count as the next big thing?)

<comment><USER7> The main reason why Apple's solution is special is because it is intended to charge both phones and tablets.

The only real problem with it is that it is proprietary and not standard. Other than that, it is clearly superior to MicroUSB.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I feel like this comic is very appropriate: [https://xkcd.com/927/](https://xkcd.com/927/)

<comment><USER9> Not really. They're not creating a new standard, but forcing everyone to use the same one; whether it's the best one or not.

<comment><USER10> I'd like to add that from the perspective of the EU, and I'd say also from the perspective of most citizens, it is irrelevant which charger standard is better.

In the bigger picture, it is much more important that there be only one type of charger, standardized in form and function.

Sometimes, being less of a hassle counterbalances technical shortcomings.

If the average EU citizen is anything like me, somewhere in their living space you can find two bins: One for an assortment of non-interchangable (and in part obsolete) chargers and one for broken headphones.

<comment><USER11> I can confirm the bin thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Finally. I hope this law will be is US, too

</comment><comment><USER13> Will this commoditize the charger market to the point of more knockoffs?

</comment><comment><USER14> This won't reduce waste unless chargers are sold separately.

</comment><comment><USER15> Micro USB isn't already a de facto standard?

<comment><USER16> Ask Apple.

<comment><USER17> Like the 30 pin before it lightning is their de facto standard. Which is nice because the cable I got with my air fits my iPhone and will fit my air 3 electric lightness too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> so cool

</comment><comment><USER19> Finally someone really tackling the big issues of today.

With the help of the state, maybe we can stop headphones from falling out of our ears and put a stop to unopenable plastic packaging!

~~

This seems pretty unenforceable, and Micro-USB seems to be taking over anyway.</comment>


Mythbusters does the 4 Way Stop Vs Roundabout - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OvoFjirrgYA <comment><USER2> I finally got a chance to visit a couple roundabout heavy countries this past year and absolutely love them.

Growing up in the U.S. 4-way stops are terrible congestion sources, nobody follows the rules (right of way), and it's generally an irritating experience with all the stopping and going. In my local area there are two interesting stretches of road, on the first there are three close proximity 4-way stops. Traffic is always messed up on them.

In the other stretch, there used to be an intersection with only a stop on the access road and then a 4-way lighted stop. In the evenings, traffic heading towards the intersection would back up for 10 miles or more and take an hour to cross the intersection. They decided to replace both intersections with three roundabouts and _poof_ , they haven't had a traffic issue in years despite more than tripling the number of cars on the same road.

American's still don't do them quite right, they're usually too tight or we put lights all over them defeating the purpose. In a proper roundabout country, they're amazing, traffic moves pretty steady, everybody knows what's going on, they don't really ever feel threatening and if you miss your exit it's a pretty easy trip round back to it.

I think at some scale level, they start not to work as well as the American solution though (big highway exits and interchanges). Some of the really large ones I drove through _were_ more problematic in terms of getting traffic through, even if navigating was still better. The American method moves more traffic, but at a loss of driver clarity in many cases.

</comment><comment><USER3> For people who just want to know the results:

385 cars in 15 minutes for the 4-way intersection

460 cars in 15 minutes for the roundabout

</comment><comment><USER4> Roundabouts can be too big or too small. The worst types are the retrofitted ones in tiny inner suburban streets installed as hazards to slow through traffic and the huge ones on massive lopsided intersections with more than 4 exits where you can't see the other side. Inbetween on light to moderate traffic intersections they are absolutely brilliant. They are a floral centerpiece at the heart of some Aussie country towns.

One problem with them is that the large well functioning ones maximise the traffic through the intersection and drivers maintain a lot of their speed. It can be very difficult for a pedestrian to cross at them, particularly with children, compared with a traffic light.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice show!

Also the research shows that roundabout are much safer: [http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/CCA99A33.pdf](http://www.ite.org/traffic/documents/CCA99A33.pdf)

[http://www.ce.udel.edu/dct/publications_files/Rpt.%20199%20R...](http://www.ce.udel.edu/dct/publications_files/Rpt.%20199%20Roundabouts.pdf)

Quote: "In instances where roundabouts have replaced other types of intersection control, the benefits in terms of safety have been remarkable and many examples can be found in the literature."

</comment><comment><USER6> Roundabouts also become more efficient when you add additional lanes like they do in Australia. Stop signs work best only on single lanes of traffic and things break down if there is more one lane per side.

</comment><comment><USER7> Don't Americans have roundabouts?!?

Anyway, curious about which has more accidents.

<comment><USER8> Yes, they are called "traffic circles" here. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traffic_circle)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> So, a few days ago, I drove in the USA for the first time.

Until then I'd never seen a 4-way stop. I never knew such a thing existed.

It took me a while to work out what the heck to do. As an Australian I am used to one direction having stop signs, meaning that the other direction has right of way.

But then I come across stop signs in both directions and I've suddenly got people in other cars looking at me expectantly while I try to work out what the hell I am meant to do.

We have roundabouts in Australia and yes, they are definitely smoother.</comment>


Facebook urged to pause Libra crypto-currency project - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-48688359 <comment><USER2> Conspiracy theory time: Facebook knows they can't do this legally across the world. They're announcing it beforehand in an attempt to get permissions in like 10 jurisdictions tops, with a soft deadline that's going to be used as an excuse to get those permissions as soon as they can (or, at least, faster than they would otherwise).

For the other 200ish jurisdictions, they won't bother. Why act proactively when they can launch a currency, hope that it catches on, and then act re- actively once other jurisdictions with less power catch on to what's happening. Western governments will get what they want before the projects kicks off, and everyone else... well, who gives a shit about everyone else? Certainly not Facebook's shareholders.

<comment><USER3> but to play the devil's advocate, why should a service which proportedly offer a benefit to the user of that service be disallowed to be offered? If a country's citizens chose to use libra, it must be because they found it useful, and the country should not have permission to prevent it.

If it was exploitative, then presumably the users would not choose to use libra.

<comment><USER4> >If it was exploitative, then presumably the users would not choose to use libra.

Unless one actually believes in the existence of homo-economicus and also has never previously encountered a history book, I have no idea how someone would draw such a conclusion.

<comment><USER5> What's exploitative about a cryptocurrency?

<comment><USER6> It's not a crypto currency in the p2p sense. It's federated, and the servers are run by the initial investors. It's world-Venmo.

1\. All the interest from the reserve (which isn't all hard cash but also low risk securities) goes to the investors. No ability to create your own bank offer interest and compete.

2\. Undercuts sovereignty. The HN crash may laugh but ask Yanis Varoufakis what it's like when you can't do your own monitary policy. Would you rather deal with the IMF or Facebook?

<comment><USER4> >Would you rather deal with the IMF or Facebook?

Now that is a genuine dilemma. I'd say the IMF, purely because there is enough historic data to use Bayesian inference to guide you in doing the opposite of what they advise.

edit - Better the devil you know, in other words.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Look, it does not matter to me whether this uses blockchain or not. Such discussion won't even be productive.

Facebook has not been the best steward for its main feature the News Feed, leading to fake news, mass misinformation, not to mention their heavy use of psychology to keep people hooked.

I refuse to trust them something similar won't happen with Libra.

<comment><USER8> This. Currencies only work if people have confidence in them. They also need to have confidence in the institution backing them. In no way should anyone have any confidence in Facebook.

On top of this, in most economies, deposit taking institutions are backed by Reserve Banks. Facebook could die in 20 years. Do we want to trust it will still exist? If it collapses can you recover your money?

There are so many issues, they haven't even come close to addressing even a small portion of them.

Caveat emptor!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It is amusing watching big US tech giants trying to launch payment platforms to solve problems the rest of the world has forgotten about.

> "In time, we hope to offer additional services for people and businesses, > such as paying bills with the push of a button, buying a cup of coffee with > the scan of a code or riding your local public transit without needing to > carry cash or a metro pass,"

You can instantly and securely send up to £100,000 for free between any UK banks, and contactless payments are EVERYWHERE here - I've even seen a begger with a chip and pin machine - let alone paying for coffee or a bus fare without cash.

<comment><USER10> Have you been to any of countries in the world with dysfunctional banking systems?

India immediately comes to mind, many African nations likely would find this incredibly useful. Just because it isn't useful to YOU doesn't mean its useless.

<comment><USER11> For consumers India's banking system has seen a large number of fast online payment systems. Yes, they have problems especially in rural areas but for the people that would be target group of Libra they are well served in India. In fact, India and (as far as I know) many African countries have far more advanced digital payments systems for consumers than many European countries.

International transfers are still an issue (at least from India to abroad) but this is largely a regulatory issue on foreign remittance than a technological one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Honest question: how is this different to a website having a means for users to buy tokens, and then either give those tokens to another person on the site or trade them with another user?

I can buy reddit gold and then gift that gold to someone who amuses me with a comment or a post, and the only difference I'm seeing is that reddit keeps my money and only gifts virtual gold to the funny guy. Is the only difference with Facebook's Libra that when I give the Libra to someone else they can cash it our for 'real' money?

Apologies for the question if I am missing something obvious.

<comment><USER13> > Is the only difference with Facebook's Libra that when I give the Libra to > someone else they can cash it our for 'real' money?

That's a pretty big difference! It's the one that makes Libra a currency.

<comment><USER3> > It's the one that makes Libra a currency.

it doesn't. Currency needs to have one other property - the legal requirement that a party accepts it as payment. For example, i cannot force a shop to accept my gold coins as payment (they could choose to accept it - but it's not a legal requirement). However, if i offered cash, they are legally required to accept it as payment.

Facebook can make this a pseudo requirement by virtue of network effect, but it isn't the same as currency with legal tender status.

<comment><USER14> US federal reserve notes don't meet your definition - they can be legally refused for purchases, it's only debts where you can't refuse them. In a purchase scenario, where there is no pre-existing debt, a dollar is no more legally privileged as a payment method than pocket lint.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I get the impression from the article that no lawmakers had knowledge of the protocol. I hope Facebook does not plan to introduce this "sneakily" without taking into account laws and the financial issues this can introduce.

Honestly, I really hope this project is stopped as soon as possible. Facebook already has way too much influence in our lives. It controls news, messaging and relationships with others, and it has not been managing them in a responsible way. Why would anyone let this company control money too? What happens if Facebook causes a financial crisis? Who will be controlling them? Who will they be accountable to? What happens if Facebook goes bankrupt? Libra is a project with way too much risk for the benefits it offers.

<comment><USER16> You don't have to use Libra, or Bitcoin, or Ether, or...

<comment><USER15> This is not another app. This is Facebook saying that they want to create a widespread currency, not just a payment system. And I don't need to use it to become affected by the monetary policy of the behemoth that Libra could become.

<comment><USER17> Ah, not in my backyard

<comment><USER15> Do you care to expand?

<comment><USER17> People having terrible economic backyards may want to move near you. Yet you say they should be stopped because they ll ruin your view.

[it doesnt have to be facebook's currency, any cryptocurrency could have major monetary policy implications]

<comment><USER15> >People having terrible economic backyards may want to move near you

Nothing to do with that. Facebook is saying that they have a new lawnmower that could improve some lawns, and I'm saying to stop it because Facebook has shown that it does not care about anybody's lawns but their own, and their lawnmowers could very well accidentally release asbestos to screw users and non-users alike.

>any cryptocurrency could have major monetary policy implications

Yes. However, up until now no cryptocurrency has had the full backing of a behemoth such as Facebook. Facebook could very well use their power to act as a bank and as a financial actor bypassing regulations put in place to avoid problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >If Libra wants to be a big player in the UK's payments system it will have to be regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority and show that it knows who its customers are and that it has strong anti-money-laundering controls. Existing money-transfer firms say complying with all the rules can be an onerous and expensive business.

Similar deal in Japan. They'll need to ensure nobody using it is in a gang, is a terrorist or might be politically exposed. In a lot of cases they'll be required to collect identity documents. They'll also need to cease offering service to any flagged individual across their entire platform.

<comment><USER19> _> In a lot of cases they'll be required to collect identity documents._

This may very well be the major reason for Facebook to introduce & maintain the cryptocurrency.

The "real name" policies were tried across the social media, with the expectations of both higher civility, and also faster, more complete build-up of personal data gathering/social graph build-out for advertising etc. The policies failed for obvious reasons.

However if Facebook was legally mandated to obtain & keep personal identification data due to handling of the cryptocurrency, and also at the same time able to track transaction of the users, it would have an unprecedented look into even more connections between people.

Tracking money shows business connections, family connections (think allowance for kids, gifts, etc.), and also social connections (think hanging out with friends, splitting bills with Venmo, etc.).

<comment><USER20> That's never going to fly in the EU, the regular will simply insist that they keep all such data entirely separate, even if that's very impractical for them to do.

<comment><USER19> ...after 5 years of hand-wringing and investigations. By which time Facebook would have had made out like mad bandits.

Plus they really can white-wash the data; as per the announcements, not only Facebook but also other major entities would hold the ledger. You can easily imagine Facebook buying (or getting for a nominal $1) processed data from the other entities. No user data would change hands, "merely" well trained AI models.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is not the first cryptocoin, or stablecoin or anything that has not been released before. It's hard to take these reactions as anything other than politicians grandstanding for popularity points.

<comment><USER21> Do any of those released before, even in their wildest dreams, have a chance of being as widely used and having as big an impact on ordinary people as Libra?

Facebook is not attracting political and regulatory attention not because what they are doing is new, but rather because they have a realistic chance of doing it on a much larger scale than we've seen so far.

<comment><USER17> Bitcoin was supposed to have dominated the world by now. Apple pay could potentially be in 1.4 billion devices. Google pay could potentially be in 2.5 billion devices. I dont remember much political theater when these were rolled out, that's why i believe this is just posturing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Are they afraid? What happens the next time the pound takes a massive tumble down (again) during a Brexit like event? People might decide to convert their money from pounds to Libra's. The Libra is based on a basket of currency's, much like the SDR governments use. It's potentially MORE stable than the pound. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_drawing_rights)

<comment><USER23> Why would they convert into a currency owned and controlled by a private company? A private company proven not to really care about morals?

While it could absolutely be that the £ tumbles there are a number of stable currencies in which £ could be exchanged if people are worried that it loses value (that's value in relation to other currencies). ¨ The concept is called FOREX[1] and is not exactly new or revolutionary.

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

edit : wrong word

<comment><USER22> > Why would they convert into a currency owned and controlled by a private > company

Because if a bank runs the risk of failing (like BOTH of mine did in Holland) people freak out. Their bank accounts are suddenly a liability. If there is a fast and easy way to transfer money out of the banks, that would be a big plus. Even if you were to purchase dollars, they would still sit on your bank account.

<comment><USER15> > Because if a bank runs the risk of failing (like BOTH of mine did in > Holland) people freak out

Most EU countries have had deposit guarantees for a while (even before the crisis). It's an EU-wide rule since 2014 [0]. Would FB have that? Doubtful, as the deposit guarentees are provided by the governments that are in control of the currency.

> If there is a fast and easy way to transfer money out of the banks

What bank do you use that does not allow you to withdraw money?

0: [https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking- and-...](https://ec.europa.eu/info/business-economy-euro/banking-and- finance/financial-supervision-and-risk-management/managing-risks-banks-and- financial-institutions/deposit-guarantee-schemes_en)

<comment><USER24> > Would FB have that?

According to them, yes: [https://libra.org/en-US/about-currency- reserve/#the_reserve](https://libra.org/en-US/about-currency- reserve/#the_reserve)

<comment><USER15> It's not the same. A deposit guarantee is given by a third party, so that if Libra goes under or mismanages things I still cannot lose my money (up to a certain limit).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> A week ago every blockchain and cryptocurrency article on HN was full of comments declaring the whole technology a huge ponzi scam that only con- artists and idiots used ("look at this NIST blockchain workflow [smug face]"[0]).

Now blockchain is the most powerful monetary technology ever created and governments and regulators must put a stop to it immediately!

It's incredible what can change in a week.

[0] [https://i.redd.it/uu0qg8t28tq11.png](https://i.redd.it/uu0qg8t28tq11.png)

<comment><USER26> This isn't a "blockchain" discussion, this is a discussion about an application of blockchain. It's clear that this isn't just a cryptocurrency, but a bank using the cryptocurrency label to avoid regulation - thats why it needs to be stopped.

You should read the comments in this and the announcement article (still on front page since yesterday) as it seems you are confused.

<comment><USER25> A week ago the pitchfork commenters would say anyone that uses blockchain is clearly an idiot because a centralized database is superior in every way.

Suddenly everyone is agreeing that blockchain technology has value! I'm just so shocked

<comment><USER27> No, the issue as GP says is that they are using crypto as a label to avoid regulation. They are using a _" but it is a decentralized blockchain"_ argument to try to avoid all the regulations they can't/don't want to meet. This whole association is really just a new banking conglomerate. That wouldn't pass muster without full compliance. This is just the normal "try to skirt the laws" startup mentality so you can create exploitable margin over your competitors that actually follow the rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Until tech firms start taking responsibility of ensuring that their platforms are robust and cannot be misused, I am not convinced of Libra. Putting the blame on people using the technology is incredibly naive on their part, frankly because it is human nature to exploit something. They need to start operating from a position of 'how can this be misused' not from a position of 'let's make this cool thing and expect some ideal world out there to embrace it and then think about problems as they arise'.

And this is just 1 part of it, the other part is assurances that this data will not be used to further interests of all the validators. I am curious on what is the value proposition pitched by FB to attract validators, besides what is given on the public facing websites. The fact that you have government institutions is to have a body that is removed from profit making goals, and thinks about the society in the long term. Sure, there are corrupt politicians, but not all of them are. Europe seems to have the right mind with regards to tech firms. What is it that fb and other investors look to get out of this thing?

</comment><comment><USER29> If Maxine Waters is against it then it is probably a good thing. And why is one Facebook even batting an eye at one lawmaker?

<comment><USER30> It's both Republican and Democrat calling for this holt and testimony. [https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/maxine-waters- call...](https://www.nationalmortgagenews.com/news/maxine-waters-calls-for- halt-to-facebooks-cryptocurrency-plans?utm_campaign=alert-c- Jun%2019%202019&utm_medium=email&utm_source=newsletter&eid=12a6d4d069cd56cfddaa391c24eb7042)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Considering Facebook is either dead or dying in the tech savey under 40 market who is this aimed at? How many 55 year old boomers are going to exchange their known fiat currency for magic Facebook bucks?

Also any note yet or the scope of this? Will it be pushed to Instagram and what ever other garbage Facebook peddle?

<comment><USER32> You're aware that Facebook owns Instagram and Whatsapp right? It's by far the number one social networking company for people under 40.

<comment><USER31> > Will it be pushed to Instagram and what ever other garbage Facebook peddle?

I literally reference them owning Instagram in my post, Whatsapp i forgot about admittedly/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Why would the US be against this?

The current US dollar holds power globally largely thanks to the oil trade. As the world moves away from oil, surely you'll need a replacement reason for us to keep wanting the US dollar?

Libra would be a geopolitical coup.

<comment><USER34> I agree with all of that, but still have fear about how unhinged the us could become in that scenario. No matter how unhealthy, uneducated, disrespectful of the judiciary & rule of law, and xenophobic the population grows, the government has always valued stability. A big part of that is the USD's place as the defacto world-currency, stabilised by its place in the global energy sector. Even when I haven't liked where they were headed, I've always felt like America had a steady hand on the wheel. For the first time in my life I feel like that may change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Let's face it: the traditional world is shitting their pants.

The disruption of 'money' was already on the table with all the cryptocurrencies. And now powerhouses such as Facebook, Visa and MasterCard, Uber and Lyft, eBay, and Spotify stand behind this new Libra.

I would shit my pants too.

</comment><comment><USER36> Even though I hate Facebook, but most politicians do such things only to get featured in the news. They neither understand nor even care about what they are talking about.

</comment><comment><USER37> ...that point where the policymakers realize "Oops this cryptocurrency stuff is not going away on its own". Next step: Pass some laws to shut it all down. (EDIT: To be clear, I don't agree with this, but this is what's going to happen).

<comment><USER26> It being crypotocurrency isnt the issue here.

The problem is that this isn't the same as a proof of work system - it is proof of stake - with the "burden" of proof put on facebook and its partners. This means that they can simply "create" currency with no oversight or proof of reserve.

In short, it works EXACTLY like a central bank, but it's not regulated. This is extremely dangerous for consumers.

<comment><USER37> My point is: The trend in financial services and payment systems regulation is going in the complete opposite direction of the kind of features that would make crypto interesting. Decentralization, Anonymization, etc are all things that the policymaker has been actively working to combat.

<comment><USER26> This isn't decentralized (its overseen by facebook and partners). It's not anonymous either (in order to participate in the network you need identification).

This is a bank, albeit using the cryptocurrency label to pretend it doesn't need regulation.

<comment><USER38> This is _exactly_ the point stakhanov is making.

<comment><USER26> I dont read it as that.

> "Oops this cryptocurrency stuff is not going away on its own". Next step: > Pass some laws to shut it all down.

> Decentralization, Anonymization, etc are all things that the policymaker has > been actively working to combat.

The reason policymakers should want to regulate this is because it is a bank - not because its decentralized or anonymized (because its not)

<comment><USER37> Well: Either it _is_ crypto, in which case policymakers are going to dislike it because of how crypto is linked to these aspects that policymakers dislike. Or, if they called it crypto when it's not really crypto then that play clearly backfired because instead of lessening the regulatory scrutiny it's actually increasing it.

Either way, I think my point is valid: Cryptocurrency is in this state of limbo where it's something that policymakers dislike but they haven't yet gotten around to making the laws that say so. I can't see into the future, but I am hereby going on the record by saying that this is something I am expecting will happen. And facebook entering the scene serves as a catalyst to accelerate the lawmaking. Them kind of saying "hold on a sec..." is what I see as this process kicking off right now. Will be interesting to see whether it holds true or not.

<comment><USER39> > ... haven't gotten around to making the laws that says so.

Huh?

The SEC is very clear that most crypto currency is a security. The laws are on the books. That deranged Reddit people imagine the laws don't apply to them in no way changes that.

Similarly, Facebook appears to be proposing that they become a bank, then putting some lipstick on to suggest they're not a bank. The laws are on the books about how banks are regulated.

The argument here is "does claiming you're not the thing you obviously are work as a tactic to avoid regulation". Clearly AirBNB and Uber got away with it, so Facebook is hoping they can, too.

<comment><USER37> The question of whether or not a bitcoin or whatever is a security is only the tip of the iceberg of regulatory questions that someone might ask about cryptocurrency. How does anti-money-laundering regulation apply to it? Does a cryptowallet need to come under FDIC insurance? How does the Volcker Rule apply to someone who takes deposits and also engages in trading around a cryptocurrency? etc etc etc Large parts of the law are written on the basis of the assumption that currency is actually a dollar bill printed on paper, or a number in a bank computer with a very narrow sense of what is and what isn't a bank. Those definitions are being blasted wide open, and asking the law a bunch of questions about cryptocurrency often resolves to "it does not compute..."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rapidshare limits volume for premium users; kills anonymous downloading - <AUTHOR> http://rapidshare.com/news.html

<comment><USER2> Goodbye Rapidshare, hello Mediafire.

(Don't you love it? Every time one of these services realizes there isn't much money in being a free host for pirated files to the world, another takes its place!)

</comment><comment><USER3> Where does it say that they are killing anonymous downloading?

Also, they have always limited the volume for their premium users-- the article actually states that they are changing the limits.

The headline seems to be based on an egregious misreading of the blogpost...

<comment><USER4> "Files that are stored completely anonymous can now only be downloaded 10 times. Thereafter an error message will appear."

You're right that the title is slightly inaccurate though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The sound of a million pirates crying out in pain...

</comment><comment><USER6> rapidshare, zshare, sharebee, how many of these can exist? i mean if rapidshare goes down, just use one of the dozens of others no?

</comment><comment><USER7> RIP Rapidshare.

</comment><comment><USER8> The more of these warez/porn hosts that die or weaken the better...</comment>


Good time for the managed cloud platforms? - <AUTHOR> I would like to open a discussion on managed cloud platform projects - do you think this is a good moment for them?
Render just won the TechCrunch edition.
I also run this type of project myself - www.haiku.dev - we have just applied to YC and we are in a hatch by DigitalOcean.
Let me know what you think! Very grateful if you take a look at Haiku.
Best wishes! <comment><AUTHOR> [https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/04/and-the-winner-of- startup-...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/04/and-the-winner-of-startup- battlefield-at-disrupt-sf-2019-is-render/)

</comment><comment><USER2> I wonder how to position this type of service. As a competitor to "big clouds" or as a service that fills a certain niche?</comment>


It Makes Sense for Some People to Subscribe to AOL - <AUTHOR> http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/it-makes-plenty-of-sense-for-some-people-to-subscribe-to-aol/

<comment><USER2> I had really high hopes for FiveThirtyEight. I really enjoyed the work of their roster of writers previously and respect Silver's work in both the political and sports arena.

All that being said the format has left a lot to be desired. My criticism unfairly is less about this article (though I found it to look largely like an ad with very little substance... in fact legitimizing some of the offerings as being valuable services is somewhat dangerous).

I love the in depth statistical analysis of sports and popular and culture. It's a really cool space. Pop culture and sports daily blogs also are very popular. The problem is that producing high quality versions of the former in the latter format has proven to be a very difficult exercise. The articles come off as shallow and border on slideshow/buzzfeed/BleacherReport type content.

I hope they figure it out. But despite the great roster it hasn't cracked my must reads.

Did I just hijack this?

<comment><USER3> Since it was promoted as something similar to Grantland under ESPN's umbrella (semi-autonomous site run by an individual with strong creative control) I thought it would be able to cherrypick individuals who were not just competent with data, but also writing. After the first couple months, I kind of gave up. Even when a piece is interesting, the quality of the writing has been disappointing.

It also irks me a bit that one of the guiding principles in Nate Silver's manifesto was that they would not chase the news, but would take their time to provide different insights than other outlets. Instead, it feels like they're constantly chasing the story of the day or yesterday.

Finally, a disappointing number of articles feel half-finished. As if one of their staff writers had an idea, ran with it for a while, then got tired and stopped at their first set of results. Sometimes I take that as a challenge and go scrounge up more data to try and pull together what else is going on, but most of the time I just end up not caring.

They still have a handful of lengthy and interesting pieces, but they're rare enough that I only check the site maybe once a week. Conversely, I check Grantland 10+ times a day, because their writers are engaging whether it's basketball stats or pop culture junk.

<comment><USER2> Having done some work with sports data in the past (with some pretty "viral" results) I know that roughly 75% - 90% of the ideas I started with ended up just not being compelling once I looked at the data.

When the pressure is to get something out every week (or more frequent) then sometimes you will have to use one of those bad ideas.

We tried to come up with something weekly and it took a TON of time (trial and error). We ended up abandoning our little blog after moderate success due to the time demands of getting quality content regularly.

It's kinda funny. I have the exact opposite reaction to Grantland. They take a tremendous amount of time and effort on long form pieces but lack any statistical or data compelling pieces. I would rather Grantland do what FiveThirtyEight does (well written quick hit posts) and FivethirtyEight do what Grantland does (well researched long form infrequent posts).

It's all backwards.

<comment><USER3> Wait, what? No statistical data-compelling pieces? You would have to completely ignore a bunch of articles by Zach Lowe/Kirk Goldsberry (basketball), Bill Barnwell(football), or Rany/Jonah Keri(baseball, I don't follow that as much.)

Rany was one of the baseball prospectus guys, and Barnwell ran with football ousiders, both groups that developed a bunch of the advanced stats used in the sports now. It's not always the most advanced stuff, but they certainly bring compelling data to the table (Barnwell in particular), they just don't hit you over the head with it as it tends to be more embedded in the text rather than presented in a graph (except Goldsberry, he's a graphical dude by profession/professorship).

<comment><USER2> Yeah, you are right. They have done some substantial pieces and may not go as far as I would like, but certainly are beyond where most sports sites would venture.

I mostly follow Basketball pretty well. Zach does a great job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> ...and in an ironic twist, people poke fun at the portion of their market who is just afraid to go online... given the revelations that have come to light over the past year or so, perhaps the rest of us who aren't afraid, should be. :P

</comment><comment><USER5> The author of the article completely missed the part how many distressed babies the 2.3 million subscriptions are paying for. This would have made the article much more interesting.</comment>


Table of keyboard shortcuts - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_keyboard_shortcuts

<comment><USER2> This is a vivid list of keyboard shortcuts. Wikipedia is such a great help. I don't even have any idea of this: Inverse (Reverse Colors) Mode.</comment>


Temperature Anomalies by Country 1880-2017 - <AUTHOR> https://www.flickr.com/photos/150411108@N06/30562013098/in/photostream/ <comment><USER2> The historical temperature data sets were not generated by a well designed sampling scheme. Instead, they are a function of where people decided to live, travel, measure, record, and store temperature levels. You might want to repeat my little exercise from a few years ago and see where the most recent years' measurements come from.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h95uvT67bNg)

The data set is here: [https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php](https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/ghcnm/v3.php)

IIRC, it took about a hundred lines of Perl to generate that animation of temperature station locations in the definitive global historical temperature data set.

When you are watching the animation, note when specific regions of the world make an appearance in the data set and the relative importance of measurements from specific countries.

I do not draw policy conclusions from these observations. However, I am frequently annoyed by official and unofficial visualizations which completely gloss over the sample selection and observational continuity problems in the historical record.

<comment><USER3> > The historical temperature data sets were not generated by a well designed > sampling scheme.

I'm curious where this opinion comes from? my understanding is the sampling takes a lot into account including the heat island effects. Your blanket claim does not come with any proof, so I'm curious where it comes from.

<comment><USER2> >> The historical temperature data sets were not generated by a well designed sampling scheme.

> _I 'm curious where this opinion comes from? ... my understanding is the > sampling takes a lot into account_

There is no sampling. We have an incomplete census of measured temperatures. Where humans decided to measure and record temperatures and which records survived were not determined by a sampling scheme.

Even if the record were complete, it would be subject to selection biases.

Just looking at the locations of temperature measurements in the definitive historical data set should drive this point home. Two, three, four hundred years ago, humans did not say "let's figure out a representative sampling scheme for accurately measuring global climate change." The current record is a function of where humans chose to live, work, produce, and travel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> In 20 years the changes are huge. Seeing the data in this perspective is really scary, I don't understand how can there be countries ignoring this.

<comment><USER5> It is really a shame that nuclear power was demonized so early in its technological development by the same people and groups that are now advocating drastic reductions in fossil fuel consumption. It's not like global warming was not understood in 1980. If society had another 40 years of nuclear tech advancement under its belt, I'm sure China and India would be installing massive nuclear power infrastructure instead of a coal burning power plant a week (and India is just getting started).

<comment><USER6> I used to think the same thing, that it was supposedly environmental groups that stopped nuclear.

However, after investigating the history more closely, it appears that nuclear construction projects were boondoggles even before Three Mile Island. Economics, not activism, is what killed nuclear in the US.

Nuclear has always been marketed under a lie, that its cheap, and perhaps too cheap to meter. In reality, well engineered projects are insanely complex, requiring huge material and labor costs during construction. And then there's maintenance.

People always talk about regulations driving up costs for nuclear, but they never talk about inappropriate regulations that drive up costs, meaning that the high costs are necessary.

And when you think about the design of the things, there's no reason to think it should be cheap: the nuclear is merely a heat source, which still requires the massive amount of machinery needed for steam turbines. The only part of the thing that's potentially cheaper is fuel, but to handle that fuel you've got to have massively engineering and equipment efforts.

This history of nuclear is always glossed over by its boosters. It's really expensive, and if we didn't have better options now, we should build it anyway. And we _should_ have built a lot during the 80s like France did.

But today, grid storage is far cheaper than nuclear, and it makes no sense at all to ever build a new nuclear plant. Let's keep existing ones running until they're replaced with other carbon free sources, but for new investment, current nuclear tech is dead. New SMR, maybe maybe some day if it's cheap, but we shall see in a few decades, it's not available today like storage, wind, water, and solar are.

<comment><USER5> I would like to read a good book on this issue. Any recommendations? Preferably a book written by an historian.

My current understanding is that the economics did not work out because: power company borrows x billion in capital to build a nuclear power plant, interest rates in the 80's are in the double digits, activists tie up the startup of the power plant for 5-10 years doubling the cost due to interest, power company finally drops starting the plant altogether and the public eats the loss.

Of course there are all sorts of complications to what really happened, like power consumption rates going up like crazy while AC is adopted and power companies thinking that the trend would continue forever, which didn't happen.

Have something you want to believe and you can find a narrative to fit it. This is a really hard trap to avoid and I'm sure I fall in it often.

<comment><USER6> I don't think you've fallen into any narrative trap, unless you're in the industry! And I'm sure I'm more susceptible to them than you are, based on your comment.

While regulation certainly didn't make anything easier, and can probably be blamed for some percentage of the failures, there's a loooot more to the story. As you point out, incorrect demand predictions, and long term planning set during a time of plenty can require cancellations too.

I wish I had a more authoritative book from a disinterested historian, but the best I've found as a summary is the classic 1985 Forbes article[1], which I found through Wikipedia's list [2] of cancelled projects, the list that initially made me think, "huh, TMI can't be blamed for that one, or that one..."

[1] reprint on a blog, with some weird commentary about Gore on top which can be ignored: [http://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes- article-r...](http://blowhardwindbag.blogspot.com/2011/04/forbes-article- reference-nuclear.html?m=1)

[2] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_re...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cancelled_nuclear_reactors_in_the_United_States)

Love to hear of any sources you might have too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What surprised me was that ironically reduction of acid rain aerosol particles is actually accelerating the effect of global warming [1], [2].

As a result, there are some who are arguing about the use of it for climate engineering [3].

I would be against climate engineering, but in the case of aerosol, given the history of volcano eruptions of the past and that we are facing an irreversible trend, this is something we need to seriously consider before it's too late.

[1] (scroll to the Aerosol graph) [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the- wo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the-world/)

[2] [https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_aerosols....](https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/cli_aerosols.html)

[3] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injectio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stratospheric_aerosol_injection_\(climate_engineering\))

<comment><USER8> There was a recent study that concluded that the loss of sunlight under such a scheme would have a large effect on agricultural yields: even if it succeeds to stop the rise in temperature, it would be net-negative at least in regards to food production.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Even though I was expecting the increase at the end, the severity and suddenness of the 2000s is shocking.

</comment><comment><USER10> What if you'd make it so that "normal" (non-anomalous) was defined like it is today (rather than how it was 1880)? Would that make the animation look like it's gone from super bad to super good?

</comment><comment><USER11> If anyone is staring at this wondering what it is, it's a video, there's a play button in the middle of the page.

<comment><USER12> lol - thanks. I actually was confused thinking it was a pretty useless info graph since it only showed 1880 (duh)

<comment><USER13> Even more confusing, I noticed the "next" arrow first - there's a second page with a slightly modified animation (that caused me to first think it was a series of images).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It wasn't clear in legend, what is the "normal", average of 1880-2017?

<comment><USER15> We don't really know what the "normal" temperature is, the climate is a very dynamic system without any obvious fixpoint.

Here they've chosen to take the average over 1951-1980 and use that as the reference.

<comment><USER16> What exactly was the rationale behind picking this period?

<comment><USER17> The middle of that period represents "the good old days" for old farts like me, I'd suppose.

<comment><USER15> There was also a sizeable cold anomaly during war2, or it might simply be that the data-set gets spottier the further back you go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Might be worth a visit here [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/faq/) if you want some context.

</comment><comment><USER19> Scary. I assume these cannot be attributed to some weather cycle the Earth goes through.

I'm wondering though, would it be possible to correlate these anomalies with some other metrics? Say for example human produced CO2?

</comment><comment><USER20> For people in the US -- NB that this is in celsius, not Fahrenheit. 2°C is roughly 3.6°F

<comment><USER21> It's exactly 3.6°F, right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Other visualizations of change in atmospheric temperature: [https://www.climate-lab-book.ac.uk/spirals/](https://www.climate-lab- book.ac.uk/spirals/) and [https://xkcd.com/1732/](https://xkcd.com/1732/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Looks like anomalies are becoming the new norm

<comment><USER23> Anormalies?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I find data that chooses 1880 to be extremely counter productive. This [1] is an image of longterm temperature estimations from NASA. When somebody sees this they're inclined to ask themselves why exactly do these sort of data start at 1880? It misses the critical cyclical pattern of temperature changes and starts at the lowest low possible to present a misleading picture indicating complete clarity of a linear pattern. To be clear I think we're almost certainly playing a significant role in the current rate of temperature changes, but presenting misleading data completely removed from context is a really great way to completely undermine faith in everything you say.

[1] - [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_te...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Global_temperature_relative_to_peak_Holocene_temperature,_based_on_ocean_cores_\(NASA\).png)

<comment><USER25> You think there is a conspiracy to supress detailed global temperature measurements that were taken before 1880? It's interesting that we have ways to estimate global temperature before 1880, but that marks the start of modern record keeping.

It also has the advantage of showing the blip of very high US temperatures in the 1930s. People also complain about bias if those extremes are left out.

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure my personal opinion is relevant, but the answer to your question is no. But understanding the typical patterns of climatic change is absolutely critical for making an informed opinion. These sort of presentations prevent a misleading snippet of climatic activity that is taken out of the critical context of typical patterns. Consequently it seems intentionally geared towards trying to provoke people into responding in an ill informed fashion.

And while I suspect this is well intentioned, I also think it's more likely to backfire than to help produce positive change. Poisoning the well [1] is very much a thing. When information is presented in a way that can be shown to be very misleading, it tends to make one question the integrity of all other data even when it is presented in as forthright a fashion as possible.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What is the color and size scale here? It could be deeply misleading, for example if it's a linear scale counting number of anomalies in a bucket (like number of +2.0 anomaly measurements in a given country).

From the upper right, it seems like it's I guess the average per year per country, placed in bins for -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ... except how were the bins constructed? In reference to global temperature in some specific year? Country-average in some specific year? Very hard to read or know the significance of it.

I hate visualizations like this for exactly this reason. The video hits me in the gut and makes me want to believe the final two decades of data are alarming, but it's not clear at all what statistical claim is being measured, and how unlikely that specific claim would be under some counterfactual distribution.

I'm not denying (or confirming!) the implication of the data. Just pointing out that this is sort of like "ooh shiny" shallow attention grabbing, which IMO does more harm than good.

Statistical visualizations should not feel like they have an agenda in the idiosyncratic choice of axes, scale, colorbar, etc. It's just not clear to me here that it's not got one.

<comment><USER27> The intent of this visualization is to hit you in the gut. If you want something more concrete, there's plenty of it out there. We can have both kinds of things.

<comment><USER28> Manipulating data to "hit you in the gut" amounts to propaganda, of which people can be (rightly) wary, regardless of the veracity of the ultimate message.

<comment><USER29> A lot of things are propaganda. Showing a crying immigrant child is propaganda. Showing a picture of mourning fireman on the day of 9/11/2001 is propaganda. In each case we may want to debate what the picture is trying to say and whether it is appealing more to the emotions than rational debate. Or not. It depends.

On the other hand, when someone sees the firefighter and says "What a propaganda. These pictures never bother to present a concrete evidence that two planes hit WTC," then we kind of know rational discourse is over, which is what's happening with climate denialism.

<comment><USER26> > "On the other hand, when someone sees the firefighter and says "What a > propaganda. These pictures never bother to present a concrete evidence that > two planes hit WTC," then we kind of know rational discourse is over, which > is what's happening with climate denialism."

Let me state first that I do believe climate change is real and urgently needs to be given increased attention to find a solution.

But, secondly, your comment falls completely flat, and in my personal view, you are espousing something that is truly far, far more dangerous than even climate denial.

You're attempting to say that a rational analysis of _entire patterns of propaganda_ is equivalent to no longer participating in the rational debate. You're trying to say that anyone who does not agree there is intrinsic credibility to the data-eliding emotional appeals must themselves no longer have credibility in the discussion.

This essentially lobotomizes our best and only chance to solve problems like climate change long-term, which is to use science as a constraint on political gamesmanship.

When you say, "... then we know rational discourse is over" you're just falling right into politicians' hands, who want to continue politicizing the issue while not actually doing anything about it that doesn't happen to also serve their short-term profit interests, and figuring that if younger generations have to inherit a wasteland and figure out how to live in it, that's not their problem, and they'll happily consume now, while the getting is good.

Your type of meta-comment is the most frustrating to me in this whole debate, because you seem self-aware enough to know better.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Check Widening in LLVM - <AUTHOR> http://www.playingwithpointers.com/check-widening-in-llvm.html <comment><USER2> If you know Ruby more than you know LLVM and want to see a practical example, I gave a talk about the same idea in the context of Ruby [http://chrisseaton.com/rubytruffle/deoptimizing/](http://chrisseaton.com/rubytruffle/deoptimizing/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why "discard the current runtime frame, and resume execution in the interpreter" rather than jump into a compiled but unoptimized version of the function?

<comment><USER4> You could do the latter too, and that's what V8 does for example (at least until they roll out the interpreter).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup. The "obvious" downside to that is that you'll burn CPU cycles and memory by generating and keeping around a slow-but-correct compile for every function.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Fascinating stuff! Reminds me very much of swift's guard statement.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes they're definitely close, but I don't know if there are subtle differences in semantics between what we have in LLVM and what Swift needs (since I'm not familiar with Swift).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Now if arr.length is 1 then we'll deoptimize to the interpreter with false > as the value of 0 u< arr.length

How so? Why does the test change?

<comment><USER7> The optimizer recognizes that the variable `condition` and the condition with the guard's if-statement are the same (edit: inverses actually), so within the if-statement's body, it can assume that `condition` is false. But when other guard cases are merged in, that's no longer the case.

In other words, the general optimization is to convert

        bool A = condition();
        if (!A) { f(A); }

to:

        bool A = condition();
        if (!A) { f(false); }

i.e., that we can assume an if-condition is true within the body of that if- statement. The problem is that the check-widening _reuses_ the body of the if- statement: the code

        bool A = condition();
        if (!A) { f(A); }
        bool B = condition();
        if (!B) { f(A); }

is converted by check-widening to the first snippet above, which then becomes the second. Sanjoy's observation is that guard-widening is _almost_ correct (we still want to pursue this route) because `f` (the deoptimization escape) is really what we want to call in both cases, but we just need to get the value of `A` right by somehow letting the optimizer know that we're reusing the if-body and that it can't assume anything about the condition that got us there.

Also, this is really really clever and I enjoyed the post, OP!

<comment><USER6> Thanks. I think I understand, but would have liked to see the lowered version with the reused/rewritten condition.

<comment><AUTHOR> Is this what you're looking for: [http://www.playingwithpointers.com/check- widening-in-llvm.ht...](http://www.playingwithpointers.com/check-widening-in- llvm.html#final-example) ?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Suggested Reading List - <AUTHOR>

What books would you all recommend regarding entrepreneurship?<p>I've recently read Rework, Escape from Cubicle Nation, Four Hour Work Week and Crush It. <comment><USER2> If you haven't seen it before, you should check out the personal MBA reading list:

<http://personalmba.com/best-business-books/>

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the mention, Daniel - I'm the guy who created this list. If anyone is looking for pointers to great books about specific business topics, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction.

<comment><USER4> Where can I suggest books? I didn't find "Founders at work"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm trying to read as much as I can about the topic too so here's what I'm reading:

-Books-

Lifecycle of a Technology Company by Edwin Miller

The Game by Neil Strauss (you laugh but it's basically all about getting more confident)

Rich Dad Poor Dad by Robert Kiyasaki

The 21 Irrefutable Laws of Leadership by John Maxwell

They Call Me Coach by John Wooden

-Magazines-

Entrepreneur

Fast Company

BusinessWeek

Fortune

Money

Inc.

-Websites-

Hacker News

Fred Wilson's Blog (www.avc.com)

FoundersSpace (www.foundersspace.com)

A lot of these titles are more focused on leadership or business in general, but I think a successful entrepreneur should have a general knowledge of a lot of stuff out there. I'm sure that I'm forgetting some, and these don't include the books I've got for the MBA program I'm taking. I'd have to dig those up, but I can post the titles if you'd like.

[Edited because the formatting was really screwy]

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm currently working my way through Derek Sivers list: <http://sivers.org/book>

I would also recommend reading PG's essays: <http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> I would definitely recommend the following books:

\- How Breakthroughs Happen: The Surprising Truth About How Companies Innovate by Andrew Hargadon

\- Micro ISV by Bob Walsh

\- Smart and Get Things Done by Joel Spolsky

\- 4 Hour Workweek by Tim Ferris

and here is one that I used in school that has great intro level information on a variety of topics.

\- The Portable MBA in Entrepreneurship by Andrew Zacharakis (check the spelling)

</comment><comment><USER8> DELIVERING Happiness by Tony Hsieh is an incredible book, especially concerning their customer service focus. (If you're especially interested in their culture, they give their culture book away for free at request).

Also, Founders at Work by Jessica Livingston is a great book with some great insights by early entrepreneurial efforts.

</comment><comment><USER9> Founders at Work is a Must read for anyone here. Written by Paul Graham's Wife and really captures how a Startup Life is like. Plus the people she interviews are epic,Max Levchin, DHH, Steve Wozniak, PG, Evan Williams (before Twitter, a must read), etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> Try this 10 Must Have Inspirational, Motivational, Business & Startup Books for WebGeeks [http://webgeekph.com/resources/10-must-have-inspirational- mo...](http://webgeekph.com/resources/10-must-have-inspirational-motivational- business-startup-books-for-webgeeks/)

</comment><comment><USER11> I dont think its a good idea to strictly focus on one subject when it comes to reading. It will be good for your brain to take a break from thinking about entrepreneurship and think about something fictional. Therefore, I suggest you add Fahrenheit 451 to your list.</comment>


Wikipedia founder backs site's systems after extortion scam - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/06/wikipedia-founder-backs-sites-systems-after-extortion-scam

<comment><USER2> He's proud on how they dealt with a minor extortionist when PR agencies are free to contribute to any entry, provided they declare their competing interest! What to say?</comment>


Startup Payscale - real time market compensation data - <AUTHOR> http://www.startuppayscale.com

<comment><AUTHOR> check out the results and add your (anonymous) data to the survey!</comment>