Show HN: Inventr – My new startup - <AUTHOR> Landing page is > http://inventr.org
Submitted in Ask HN first, someone mentioned I should also post here.
Hoping that over time the Inventr boards ask more complex questions especially around problem solving and better giveaways.
Each Inventr has their own publicly available profile which shows their Inventr status, each brand has their own Inventr page (click on a board to get there).
Sharing is built into the platform with the option to share an idea once submitted for as many upvotes as possible.
Business model likely to be subscription based version for the enterprise to drive change, problem solving and innovation.
We were featured on product hunt in mid December. https://www.producthunt.com/tech/inventr <comment><USER2> This is something that deserves the name "Startup". Someting new, fresh and inovative that can server the common good. Where ideas and new views can be implemented and shared! Worth to look at and Worth the time you spend on the site and with the service! Something with potencial. Great! Thumb up and good luck!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks man, took ages to build!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Clickable: [http://inventr.org](http://inventr.org)</comment>


Kontena: The Developer Friendly Container and Microservices Platform - <AUTHOR> https://kontena.io/ <comment><USER2> Not super familiar with the containerization community, but it seems a bit late to get into the container orchestration game and build a completely new platform. Why not build this as part of the Kubernetes ecosystem?

In the FAQ[1], I see the "in fact, we planned to use Kubernetes for scheduling in Kontena as well", but I don't the reason behind the decision not to do that.

[1] [https://github.com/kontena/kontena/blob/01e4db3aa37d349f3fb2...](https://github.com/kontena/kontena/blob/01e4db3aa37d349f3fb29709ef1ff4e32fd83e05/docs/faq.md)</comment>


First interactive Kindle content available - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.com/shuffledrow

<comment><AUTHOR> Another game here:

<http://www.amazon.com/everyword></comment>


Statistical Reasoning - <AUTHOR> https://lagunita.stanford.edu/courses/OLI/StatReasoning/Open/info <comment><AUTHOR> This course does not include videos, which makes the learning process more effective and distinguishes it from other courses.</comment>


AngularJS isn't MVC, it's SDC - <AUTHOR> http://nathanleclaire.com/blog/2014/03/15/angularjs-isnt-mvc-its-sdc/ <comment><USER2> The author has just renamed MVC to match the terminology that Angular uses. It's still the same thing.

Model is used to manage data from a web service, Angular calls it a Service (or Factory).

Views output the markup injected into the DOM, same as a Directive.

Controllers bind the Models and Views, and just so happen to have the same name in Angular.</comment>


Guitars can imitate any instrument – this man proves it - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/music/guitars-can-imitate-any-instrument-this-man-proves-it-1.5120344 <comment><USER2> This news article is a YouTube description with 85 ads and poor user interface. Why not just post the video?

<comment><USER3> One reason is because the HN algorithm automatically penalizes any submission from the youtube.com domain. (This fact is a secret)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> ... with an assortment of household items, effects, and a looper pedal. Still, impressive. I can barely make guitar noises with a guitar.

</comment><comment><USER5> Electric violin (by e.g. Ed Alleyne-Johnson) [1] imitates the guitar, as do Infected Mushroom's synths (cover on guitar [2] [3]).

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

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2dWd2ssfA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jb2dWd2ssfA)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmkl1ym9pr4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmkl1ym9pr4)

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe not "any" instrument, considering all the ones imitated except for the bagpipes (which were questionable) were of other stringed instruments.

</comment><comment><USER7> Misusing a guitar (the finest musical instrument in history) to imitate the Scottish pipes (the least musical instrument of torture yet devised) would be illegal in any just jurisdiction.

</comment><comment><USER8> very cool but didn't hear any woodwinds or brass instruments

<comment><USER9> On the Flash Gordon soundtrack, Queen does very well with fanfares that would usually be played on trumpets, but instead played on electric guitar. Not that they sound like trumpets. It just sounds awesome!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> That's impressive!</comment>


Show HN: Wotop – Web on Top of Protocol - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nishitm/wotop <comment><USER2> Well done!</comment>


Bitcoin's Value is Decentralization - <AUTHOR> http://paulbohm.com/bitcoin-decentralization/

<comment><USER2> The question isn't "Is BitCoin's value non-zero?" As a general critic, I freely say up front, yes, it's interesting and has some non-zero value. I won't even say I'm "admitting" it, because it was never my contention otherwise. But merely establishing that there is some aspect with a non-zero value isn't interesting. The question is, do the positives outweigh the negatives, and if so, do they outweigh them enough to fulfill the stated goals?

You can make anything look great by considering only the positives, you can make anything look terrible by only considering the negatives. The question at hand is about the balance, not whether BitCoin has any positives at all.

<comment><USER3> I think you're confusing the Bitcoins' value with the value provided by the open source code implementation which has been open sourced.

The code can be forked and used to power another coin system, let's call it Webcoin, which will have the same properties. The cryptographic, decentralized and uniqueness properties are therefore a value of the code.

The value of Bitcoin is related to this specific implementation, i.e. the marketing that caused people to put their money in this specific fork of the code and permitted early adopters to cash in.

At some point in the future, a country might choose to use the code to power its own currency system and to back it with the economic activity performed within (which is taxed via taxation). That would give intrinsic value to the coins; today Bitcoins is just marketing implemented on top of a well-written open source decentralized code-base.

<comment><USER2> "I think you're confusing the Bitcoins' value with the value provided by the open source code implementation which has been open sourced."

No... no, I don't think so. You seem to be using "value" as a synonym for "property", which is not at all how I meant it. I meant it as, errr, value. Both the code and the BitCoin network have positive entries on their value balance sheets, but I don't know that their total is positive, or that it will be positive enough to work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This doesn't really follow:

> Bitcoins have intrinsic value if they enable desirable interactions that are > not possible without them.

Yes, any fiat currency has the 'intrinsic' value of enabling some kinds of interactions that are not possible without them. For example, hard-to- counterfeit pieces of paper have an intrinsic value. The problem is that such things are often substitutable: the real value of most paper currencies comes, circularly, from the fact that we've decided to settle on _this_ set of hard- to-counterfeit pieces of paper, not a different one. That's why it's fiat currency, because its value as currency fundamentally derives from the fact that people have agreed to use it as currency.

The same applies for Bitcoin; the general idea could be a good one, but Bitcoin is not the only possible implementation. If we settle on this implementation over others (perhaps because it was first), it is for reasons closer to fiat money than for reasons advocated by "hard money" proponents that they have value.

<comment><USER5> can't help wondering how much of gold's value is derived from the fact that, circularly, people think it has value.

or for that matter, any human activity's.

<comment><USER6> You implying that there are things that have intrinsic, non-(social|market)-determined monetary value?

<comment><USER7> I don't think he meant monetary value, he just meant value.

The gold in the plating on my headphone jack has intrinsic value to me, measured nebulously in its quality and reliability. It has value to me, but it has no value to the market. My demand for gold-plated headphone jacks is currently zero and my headphones will never be a part of market supply. Supply/demand cancel out, so the market ignores me, and I ignore the market. But the value is still there.

Intrinsic value can indirectly affect the market by increasing demand. Obviously, at some point in the past, I had demand for a gold-plated headphone jack, and the market supplied it at a specific rate of exchange.

The question is, how does the value of intrinsic properties of gold, such as its ability to conduct electricity, compare to the value derived entirely from social factors, like its history as a medium of exchange and its current status as a trading commodity?

Social value is not intrinsic value, but it's still real value. The fact that everyone agrees something has value means I can trade it. We're getting extremely close to monetary value but not quite there yet. In theory, the socially-determined value of a currency could be measured in the same abstract life-enhancement unit as real intrinsically-determined value, and this unit still doesn't have to be money.

Monetary value isn't necessary until you actually participate in the market. And so I guess there is a couple of questions:

(a) If you could come up with a unit to measure all value, how does the intrinsic value of gold compare to the social value of gold?

(b) How does the intrinsic value of gold's effect on its market value compare to the social value of gold's effect on market value.

<comment><USER6> Sorry, I don't subscribe to the intrinsic value theory.

<comment><USER7> If the context is strictly investment, intrinsic value (aka "wealth") is not an especially useful concept. If your context is marketing, it might be more useful, though questions like the one asked of gold, and similar in the context of bitcoin, are mostly an intellectual curiosity. And either way, there is yet no known way to measure intrinsic value.

For example if you want to compare the value of a solar-powered calculator in 2011 to the value of a viking longship in 1011, market value doesn't work because the markets are simply not compatible. But there is still value there, both relative to people of the time and in an absolute sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Their method of decentralization seems pretty costly though, and that cost will not abate over time, since the costliness is what makes it work. If widely adopted, I don't look forward to the day when a large percentage of all computing resources in the world is spent meaninglessly churning bits in the name of a decentralized system.

<comment><USER9> _Their method of decentralization seems pretty costly though, and that cost will not abate over time, since the costliness is what makes it work. If widely adopted, I don't look forward to the day when a large percentage of all computing resources in the world is spent meaninglessly churning bits in the name of a decentralized system._

Every market has friction and costs associated with its security. This is fundamentally no different than a bank hiring a security guard. If someone comes up with a solution to this problem which lacks this cost, it would of course be preferable, but no one has yet done so.

<comment><USER5> So... if I want to settle a $40b transaction, like a big merger, in <24h with bitcoins, assuming the level of fragmentation you could expect if bitcoins became ubiquitous in everyday transactions, what kind of server farm are we talking about?

<comment><USER9> It could take years before the block chain is long enough to dissuade a double-spend attempt for a transaction that large, where you have a single party single-handedly accounting for a significant fraction of spending on the network. So for a single $40b transaction, perhaps bitcoin is infeasible (or at least must be combined with traditional mechanisms like reputation, courts, etc.), but for a million independent $40k transactions, they can all be confirmed in a matter of hours for only a few hundred thousand dollars worth of computation, total.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Given recent events I take it we're no longer emphasizing stability and security as features of bitcoin. I jest, clearly _decentralization_ is the new killer feature. Money quote:

"Bitcoin makes it feasible to pay for internet relays that anonymize or reroute traffic - that is, it makes it easier to remove central control and fight censorship"

And who doesn't want to fight censorship amirite? Surely there are no negative repercussions to letting people reroute traffic anonymously.

<comment><USER11> _Given recent events I take it we're no longer emphasizing stability and security as features of bitcoin._

I understand where such a snarky statement comes from, but let's take a step back. Bitcoin has generate such enormous debate because it is not clear to anyone---security researchers, economists, or otherwise---what Bitcoin entails. It has some desirable properties, some undesirable properties, and has, imho, made people think a lot about the concept of fiat currency and how to go about extending the advantages paper currency has to the "digital domain" (and I use that phrase loosely).

I think it is great that lot of people are looking at Bitcoin in many different angles and since this is the first of its kind, I am sure people and society (including governments) will learn from pitfalls (security, economics or otherwise) to build a better system tomorrow. So let's not attack people who are trying to explore what Bitcoin gives us and what it doesn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Distributed DNS is something that's being tried with namecoinds, not really taking off I think.

<comment><USER13> author here: the cool part is that it's theoretically possible now. i have no idea whether it'll take off.

what do you think, are there gonna be sufficient incentives in the future to decentralize certain services?

<comment><USER14> > what do you think, are there gonna be sufficient incentives in the future to > decentralize certain services?

You bring a very good point, one that I hadn't considered at all.

Although I'm not sure, I think the "work from at least 50% of honest nodes" is an issue. The more demand you have to create work for decentralised services, the more you split and weaken said services.

For example, if x is a major player with 33% of workin one decentralised system, they are more likely to have > 50% in smaller systems. So they would have power in smaller systems being able to usurp them at will.

One way around this would be to have a lot of players in each system, such that it would only be realistic to have a few % at a time (each). However, this again would most likely be undermined by any state actors who would ultimately be able to produce much more than anyone could if they wanted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wasn't this obvious? Wasn't this what everyone was saying when others were discussing the size of the economy and the size of transactions it could handle and threats from the government...

It's the first time people can actually truly freely trade without fear of monitoring or tracking. Of course that's its value.

</comment><comment><USER16> Huh? What was the author smoking when he wrote this as I want some!</comment>


Ask HN: Your favorite resources to improve critical thinking, imagination? - <AUTHOR> Recently I worked with someone who was able to do design, think of corner cases, think of performance etc all in his head before he wrote a single line of code, for a complex piece of software. Most of the other people I've worked with people who write smaller pieces of code, test it out, refine it and repeat the process (including me).
This might sound strange, but my question is: Is it possible to develop this skill? What resources, exercises can you recommend for this purpose? He is able to analyze problems almost completely in his head/imagination, without using whiteboard or paper! <comment><USER2> Anything that helps you develop your inner world would be helpful. Win Wenger's book _The Einstein Factor_ was my introduction to the field of personal development.

[http://winwenger.com/einfact.htm](http://winwenger.com/einfact.htm)</comment>


ClosureBox: Send a message to anyone, vent with no consequence - <AUTHOR> https://box.dealingwith.it/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is a tool I made for myself to vent out, you basically write out a message to anybody. it doesn't go to them and the site doesn't store any of your data, and its helpful if you're somebody who had a ton to say and didn't say it all.</comment>


Ask HN: Tools for Remote Music Tuition? - <AUTHOR> Hey,<p>Does anyone know of any tools that would be useful in teaching music remotely? Sound quality is obviously a big issue. But there are other more subtle challenges in teaching music remotely. Here's a paper on the subject https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318776141_A_new_medium_for_remote_music_tuition <comment><USER2> How about a multi angle camera switcher controlled by a foot pedal? I think open broadcaster studio could pull that off relatively easily. Or how about a 4 way split view?</comment>


Apple Watch Pixels - <AUTHOR> http://prometheus.med.utah.edu/~bwjones/2015/07/apple-watch-pixels/

<comment><USER2> Sub-pixel rendering on a pattern like that must be complicated?

<comment><USER3> Sub-pixel rendering isn't really worth it on high DPI displays like this. It also doesn't work that well with iOS's CoreAnimation compositing model. Blending sub-pixels properly across transparent layers in particular is difficult.

<comment><USER4> Does the apple watch downscale like their phones? Can apple implement subpixel downscaling? It seems like an easy win if already downscaling abbreviations if you can do it in hardware.

<comment><USER5> Hardware gets a flat image. It can't differentiate between foreground text and background. It has to be done by the compositing layer.

<comment><USER4> I'm not convinced that is necessary. Here's my first thought. If I'm given a higher resolution image and am to downscale, knowing it will be displayed on a particular screen, then I would sample the blue pixel not from the "center of the pixel" but from the position of the blue dot in the screen. Similarly for red and green pixels. Couldn't an approach like that give subpixel precision?

<comment><USER6> If you're guaranteed that the image is displayed properly aligned to pixel boundaries _, then doing that might do something, but it 's probably not worth it.

_Which it probably will be, but it's certainly not guaranteed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "I am infinitely more comfortable with an Apple device collecting personal information than I am with some of the competing products from other companies"

<comment><USER8> I couldn't help but notice that quote, either. I wonder why the author found it necessary to put that in on an article about the pixels of the Apple Watch? I don't see that information doing much besides inciting a flame war.

<comment><USER9> It's a footnote. I guess the author is going for a "stream of consciousness" around Apple watch pixels. (Don't get me wrong, I don't think this is a positive contribution to the article)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So it's a PenTile display [0].

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

<comment><USER11> From what I've seen, PenTile appears to be mainly a cost-reduction trick that works well for displaying photographs and other images with gradual variations, but looks horrible for text and sharp, straight lines. A similar pattern has been used in cheap cameras for many years:

[http://www.dansdata.com/images/cdv350/screenb560.jpg](http://www.dansdata.com/images/cdv350/screenb560.jpg)

The Apple Watch pixels are not in the traditional stripe pattern, but there's still 3 distinct subpixels for each pixel and they're arranged in a square pattern. The unequal subpixel sizes are due to OLED brightness fade; the blues wear out the fastest, while the reds last the longest:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Disadvantages](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OLED#Disadvantages)

<comment><USER12> Don't the latest Samsung phones (S6) still use pentile? I don't think those look bad at all.

<comment><USER13> They look fine now because the resolution of the screen is so high. Previously you could definitely notice issues with it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Watch the First Trailer for Star Wars: The Force Awakens Right Here - <AUTHOR> http://kotaku.com/watch-the-star-wars-force-awakens-trailer-right-here-1664245656

<comment><USER2> I would suggest changing the link to the youtube video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erLk59H86ww](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erLk59H86ww)

</comment><comment><USER3> The Millenium Falcon... nice.</comment>


Here's your chance to email the NSA review panel - <AUTHOR> http://icontherecord.tumblr.com/post/60323228143/review-group-on-global-signals-intelligence

<comment><USER2> Aren't all your emails going to them anyway?</comment>


America's Attempts to Build Nuclear-Powered Aircraft (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://nationalinterest.org/feature/americas-crazy-attempts-build-nuclear-powered-aircraft-13352?page=show <comment><USER2> > America's Crazy Attempts to Build Nuclear-Powered Aircraft

My father worked on the nuclear plane. When you asked him, it was cut off because of crazy hippies. Jane Fonda was at fault. What would happen when it crashed? Just be careful that it doesn't crash.

Crazy, indeed.

<comment><USER3> That's reminiscent of programming safety through best practices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's too bad that low levels of radiation cause cancer, because otherwise you could build all kinds of cool nuclear-powered stuff.

Obviously strong radiation will necessarily do damage. But the mechanism by which low-level radiation causes increased mortality over decades is quite complex, and could possibly be disrupted. There's no fundamental reason why medicine couldn't prevent all cancers. In that case radiation will become like most other hazards: OK as long as you limit exposure.

If so, it'll be awesome to ride around in hypersonic nuclear jets.

<comment><USER5> Ionizing radiation is not selective about which molecular bonds get hit and broken up. There is no way to deal with the potentiality resulting billions of different molecules and their effects (the order of magnitude is probably way to low).

It is the same thing with transmutations caused by neutron radiation. If the proton count of the atom changes, the moecule that it is part of has to change as well. Again, there is no way to counter all the possible results of this process.

And finally, even if we countered the effect in humans, the wildlife would be similarly exposed, but without any treatment to counter the effects.

Directly fission powered airplanes are simply a pipe dream.</comment></comment>


John Tye: the kinder, gentler, and by-the-book whistleblower - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/08/meet-john-tye-the-kinder-gentler-and-by-the-book-whistleblower/

<comment><USER2> Posing him as an opposition to Snowden is not right, because Tye was only able to blow the whistle himself because of Snowden's leaks. "Tye said he never would have even learned about 12333 and NSA capabilities short of Snowden's own actions." He's a part of a new generation of whistleblowers and leakers, none of which could have done what they do without Snowden. Not to overly lionize Snowden, but it just goes to show that once the dam develops a crack, it's not long before it's gushing.

</comment><comment><USER3> Without documentation the government can just deny everything the whistleblower says and spend their time discrediting them. The only reason anyone is taking Tye's disclosure seriously is because of the documents Snowden provided.

</comment><comment><USER4> _> People can disagree with [Tye's] views, but [the government] should be holding him out as the ultimate national security whistleblower, because he's doing it the right way."_

In my opinion Russ Tice deserves that title. Like Tye, he lacks document evidence. However, Tice's claims have been by far the most damning thus far, even more so than Snowden's (in my opinion). Tice was not merely briefed by the NSA, but held a senior position there.

Tye however does an admirable job of hammering home the point that minimization procedures come into play _after_ collection [on US persons] has taken place, during the accessing of the collected data. This is a hugely important detail that most of the reporting on Snowden material has either overlooked or bungled.

</comment><comment><USER5> Unfortunately, those calling for a "more legal" Snowden don't hear much about this guy _because_ he isn't sensational enough to be mobbed by the media.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

<comment><USER6> > Slow and steady wins the race

I feel Snowden's approach may get of shock and awe from the media, but in the end, it will result in witch-hunts rather than real change.

<comment><USER7> It's a bit more complex than that. Tye, the whistleblower would still be Tye, the non-notable government employee had Snowden not down what he did. Just as Snowden was influenced by Assange, Tye was influenced by Snowden. Whistleblowers of all stripes are desperately needed to bring the government to heel.</comment></comment></comment>


Moving the Redis community on Reddit - <AUTHOR> http://antirez.com/news/95 <comment><USER2> I think Reddit is a great center for a lot of community action, but for people who only sign up for redis, I wonder how they feel about all the default subs.</comment>


Linux.fm - <AUTHOR> http://www.linux.fm/

<comment><USER2> It'd be better without the preamble at the top of each file...

</comment><comment><USER3> what the hell... seriously... this his hilarious... I'm gonna put it on in the office tomorrow!

</comment><comment><USER4> Sadly, this is more interesting then most of the podcasts I listen to on a regular basis.

</comment><comment><USER5> whahahahha this is great <3

</comment><comment><USER6> Epic win.</comment>


Game Theorists Crack Poker - <AUTHOR> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/game-theorists-crack-poker/ <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8858280](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8858280)

<comment><USER3> (no relation to submission.)

I prefer this title (Game Theorists Crack Poker), article (sciam), and our thread here, and wouldn't have clicked the other one if I had seen it. (and didn't read it now that I did open it:). the ieee one is one block of text without subsection titles, and starts with the 'All your poker chips may soon belong to the computers' which made me want to close it.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm missing something:

        "But Bowling and his colleagues have demonstrated that their algorithm always wins in the long run."

So how does it fare when its opponent is the same algorithm ?

<comment><USER5> Yet another article[1] stated that if playing it's self the bot with the better hands/chance 'won' in the long run.

[1] [http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/this-robot-is-the- bes...](http://motherboard.vice.com/en_au/read/this-robot-is-the-best-limit- texas-holdem-player-in-the-world)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> \- We are talking about HULHE only. If the game were no limit and 9 players the numbers presented in the article regarding possible states grow, by a lot. AFAIK there is no bot that could break even against a table of decent players playing NL. "Crack Poker" seems an overstatement to me.

\- The articles states the bot always wins in the long run but most correctly this bot can break even at worst scenario. I mean, if you face it against itself they can't both win in the long run.

<comment><USER7> > AFAIK there is no bot that could break even against a table of decent > players playing NL.

While it's true that NL ring is far from being solved in the same mathematical sense the HULHE has been, there exist very good bots that can certainly beat a table of decent players, and perhaps even world-class players. There were a number of scandals with ring NL bots on UltimateBet and other online sites, with huge samples showing solid win rates at midstakes.

There is also pokersnowie:

[http://www.pokersnowie.com/](http://www.pokersnowie.com/)

and here is a huge thread about it from when it first arrived on the scene: [http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/131-Poker- Theory/topics/...](http://www.deucescracked.com/forums/131-Poker- Theory/topics/602161-Time-to-learn-PLO-low- con?page=9&per_page=15#post_5292271)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is Oskari Tammelin of Buzz tracker fame (audio software): [http://www.jeskola.net](http://www.jeskola.net)

Links to some counterfactual regret minimization code is on his site here: [http://www.jeskola.net/cfr/](http://www.jeskola.net/cfr/)

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm disappointed, was hoping for more -- this is "cracked" for heads up limit only, and even then I have my doubts. But would like to know more or play against it or see some code or something...

<comment><USER10> You shouldn't have your doubts. The pros stopped playing even inferior bots a long time ago in HULHE. We're talking 5 years ago.

I have very little doubt that this bot cannot be beat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sounds like they've developed a very good bot, but I don't believe it's possible to ever completely "solve" an imperfect information game.

<comment><USER12> It is proven that for heads-up poker there is a Nash equilibrium, so it is indeed possible.

<comment><USER13> Do you have a good resource I can read about that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> HULHE has been known to have very strong bots[1] for many years, mainly thanks to the University of Albert and the research they have done.

There is the Computer Poker Competition that is held every year too[2].

Everyone I know has been staying away from HULHE for awhile, preferring either HUPLO or HUNLHE instead.

1: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_(poker_bot)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polaris_\(poker_bot\)) 2: www.computerpokercompetition.org

<comment><USER15> HULHE SNG's especially.

Short stack NLHE too.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> [http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/](http://poker.srv.ualberta.ca/)

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm very curious to read the paper if anyone can find it posted online.

<comment><USER17> [https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04](https://pdf.yt/d/qv-O9AwQuV1Kjb04)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article mentions randomness, incomplete information, and how often to bluff, but I don't see anything about tells. Unlike humans, computers are excellent at hiding their bluffs and their excitement at holding a royal strait. Hiding tells doesn't matter in checkers or chess, but it's essential in poker.

<comment><USER6> Tells, in the sense of ticks and such, are mainly ignored by good poker players. The board situation is where the info is at. A good player won't go thinking "its sweety! he could bluff", but instead "his range based on previous hands on this position is X so I estimate a chance Y for him to bluff".

Computers do have a great advantage by ignoring the whole psycho layer and focus on data only.

<comment><USER19> That's not true. I played and studied poker for a many years, and I will say for certain that physical cues is a huge part of live games, and definitely not ignored by good players.

<comment><USER10> It's not ignored, but it's not a 'huge part' of the game.

It's one of thousands of factors that weigh in, and in my mind, one of the least important factors.

I've played several million hands of poker fwiw.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Building Real Time Analytics APIs at Scale - <AUTHOR> https://blog.algolia.com/building-real-time-analytics-apis/ <comment><AUTHOR> tl;dr:

No redhshift, clickhouse or bigquery. Use citus extensions for postgreSQL - HyperLogLog (HLL)and TopN - to handle billions of searchers per day across thousands of customers. Data pipelines are written in 'GO', run on GKE/K8S for orchestration using Google Pub/Sub for communication across services.</comment>


Hubble spies curious galaxy moving a little closer - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2019-05-hubble-spies-curious-galaxy-closer.html <comment><USER2> As the article mentions, this is most likely due to the rotation of the cluster. Throwing some numbers out there:

The Virgo cluster is 60Mly away which is ~20Mpc (mega parsecs). Hubble's law [1] (v = Hd) tells us that for every 1Mpc away an object is, the expansion of the universe causes it to move away from us at about 70 km/s. So 20Mpc -> 1400km/s.

The true velocity is actually about 300km/s less than this because the local group is being pulled gravitationally towards Virgo. (If you are interested, this movement of the local group towards Virgo is the largest component of the earth's motion relative to the CMB. Some of the others being the earth's motion around the sun and the sun's around the milky way).

The velocity dispersion of large clusters is known to be on the order of 1000 km/s, so its not surprising that one or two objects whose orbits happen to be bringing them towards us are net blueshifted.

The long and the short of it is that this is more of a cool curiosity than evidence of something crazy going on.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law)

<comment><USER3> Ah, well. There goes my theory of galactic dark matter propulsion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps the group is rotating rapidly in space, as it seems like other galaxies in the cluster are redshifted?

<comment><USER5> This is essentially what the article says.

<comment><USER4> > Astronomers think that this blueshift is likely caused by the cluster's > colossal mass accelerating its members to high velocities on bizarre and > peculiar orbits, sending them whirling around on odd paths that take them > both towards and away from us over time. While the cluster itself is moving > away from us, some of its constituent galaxies, such as Messier 90, are > moving faster than the cluster as a whole, making it so that, from Earth, we > see the galaxy heading towards us. However, some are also moving in the > opposite direction within the cluster, and thus seem to be streaking away > from us at very high velocity.

I don't think this quite amounts to "the cluster is rotating"–it only seems to imply that certain galaxies are orbiting at high velocity rather than the cluster as a whole.

<comment><USER5> AFAIU physics, there's no such thing as a rotating cluster of bodies in space that doesn't amount to _just_ orbiting.

<comment><USER6> I would imagine that rotation implies the objects are all orbiting in roughly the same direction (eg. Clockwise) counterclockwise). It's possible that a group of objects (likely captured) would be orbiting in a very disorganized way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> And so it begins. Most scientific revolutions start with "that's odd". I would imagine this has significant implications for the current model of the expansion of space.

Edit: On second thought, galactic mergers are a thing, so perhaps not as significant as I thought?

<comment><USER4> The Virgo Cluster is pretty far away, so if anything from it does merge with our galaxy anytime soon I'd think it'd be because it was moving in a collision path rather than the two being gravitationally attracted together (as the Milky Way and Andromeda are).

<comment><USER8> > ...(as the Milky Way and Andromeda are)

Very neat, I never knew this

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_co...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda%E2%80%93Milky_Way_collision)</comment></comment></comment>


A Developer's 1000km Stroll - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@shyal/i-went-on-a-1000-km-solo-walk-in-vietnam-for-29-days-and-you-should-too-c9aaca7a7645 <comment><USER2> Did you notice any changes in your fitness? I want to do el-camino, but am not sure how 4 weeks' break from running will affect me.</comment>


HTML5 Wayland Compositor - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/udevbe/greenfield <comment><USER2> the year of the linux desktop finally! (on another OS... in my browser..)</comment>


2-for-1 Executive Order's Effect on Fisheries Management - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national-international/trump-executive-order-affect-nmfs-regulation/ <comment><AUTHOR> ...and it's down. Google Cache: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IQfOUB...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:IQfOUBrf06UJ:https://www.nationalfisherman.com/national- international/trump-executive-order-affect-nmfs- regulation/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

"All fisheries that take place in federal waters require regulatory action to open and close season, set catch limits, modify conservation and management measures, or adjust participation eligibility requirements... In many cases, multiple regulations must be enacted each year for a single fishery and that is a good thing – American fishermen depend on active, science-based management to ensure that their individual operations and their industry are economically and environmentally sustainable."</comment>


A Sketch of a Theory of The Early Modern Witch Hunts - <AUTHOR> http://oxonomics.typepad.com/oxonomics/2008/09/the-economics-o.html <comment><AUTHOR> I normally avoid posting economics articles as they often boil down to philosophical differences between various factions, but this just seemed interesting.

Hopefully there won't be any "flaming" ;-)

<comment><USER2> Slippery Slope!</comment></comment>


Amazon Cloudfront down - <AUTHOR>

in Australia anyway. Everything including cloudfront.net <comment><USER2> It's up for me.</comment>


How I Got 400% More Users by Putting in the Effort - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/d6bacc366642

<comment><USER2> Beautiful design btw.

Hey, I've spent a lot of time on social marketplaces from p2p and b2c over the past two years. I can share with you some insights as to the obstacles/marketing challenges you will face.

I've done everything from p2p white-label partnerships with institutions or fb ads to ppc to on-the-ground (spent 100,000+ on various efforts); built every functionality under the sun. at the end of the day, your business is going to be based on a true growth marketing strategy that will work with core features that resonate with users.

Let me know if you want to chat.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, any advice is always appreciated!</comment></comment>


Autify – driving UI overlay - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/tech/autify-driving-ui-overlay <comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys, so I just launched my newest startup Autify. I'd love to hear your feedback. Autify about gesture based smartphone controlling.</comment>


Firefox 79 - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2020/07/firefox-79/ <comment><USER2> Android version comes with a completely new design, and empty "What's new" section in Google Play gave no indication it's going be such a major change.

Even more importantly, it has overridden data collection preferences after the update. Check "Settings > Data collection". I had to disable "Marketing data" and "Experiments" toggles. Not cool!

<comment><USER3> I suspect that approximately no one reads that "What's new" section, and they know it. Even Google just leaves it with whatever happened to be in the field in summer of 2018 when they stopped updating it.

<comment><USER4> It's infuriating! Netflix even goes as far as condescendingly saying "don't you worry about this kind of stuff, you worry about what to watch next". It's ridiculous, if you're gonna require patch notes they must either be part of the app review, or be optional from the start!

<comment><USER5> I strongly agree, especially since I hate 95% of the changes they make. Netflix has the most user hostile design of any media app that I use. I'm still a subscriber for now, but it will be the first one I cut.

<comment><USER6> > Netflix has the most user hostile design of any media app that I use

Personally I give that award to Spotify.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, Spotify feels like a really cluttered small shed in the backyard; like I have to step over all sorts of crap to get what I'm after, and every day the stuff is cluttered up in a slightly different way and somebody randomly hangs a big Michelle Obama poster or some other crap from the ceiling once in a while. Very annoying. Desktop app is mildly more tolerable than mobile.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> For me, Fenix on Android is the worst update ever. I use Firefox as my main browser on Android since almost 10 years and my whole mobile workflow depends on the awesome Tab Queue-feature (new tabs from other Apps like Twitter/Slack/Mails are opened in the background).

With Fenix, Mozilla decided to just abandon that feature. Issues are closed, it got removed from the feature list [1] and further questions are ignored. I fully understand that you can't keep every feature everywhere, but this was THE main benefit of Firefox (besides ublock) for me and if you look at GitHub/Reddit/Twitter I am not the only one.

Now I have to stick to an outdated browser because of an (for me) completely unnecessary, degrading update :/.

[1] [https://github.com/mozilla- mobile/fenix/issues/470](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/fenix/issues/470)

<comment><USER9> More missing features:

\- Recently closed tabs (AFAIK "Undo close tab" currently fakes it by not actually closing the tab until the "Undo close tab" popup has disappeared)

\- The Firefox share target that actually gave you a choice whether you'd like to open the page in Firefox directly, merely bookmark it or use Sync to send it to some other Firefox instance without having to actually open the page in Firefox first

\- Add-on support that isn't limited to a few blessed "Recommended extensions"

\- viewing local HTML files is not possible (although admittedly Google hasn't helped there, either, by vastly complicating file system access in recent Android versions, and their purported replacement method is absolutely unsuitable for HTML files that depend on additional resources such as images, styles, scripts, other HTML files etc., but in the end it was still Mozilla's decision to disallow it completely right now)

\- about:config

\- View source

\- bfcache is broken

\- cannot force-refresh a page

\- the tab import from the previous versions drops all the session history of those tabs, i.e. it only imports the currently viewed page, but you can no longer go back or forward

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For Wayland users DMA-BUF video textures are now used when the Video Acceleration API (VA-API) is enabled.

I personally saw a number of regressions[0] on Debian testing for video playback on the beta releases for 79, but it largely seems to have settled down now.

[0] particularly this one: [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1643855](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1643855)

(Copied from my comment on the submission for the official release notes)

</comment><comment><USER11> Firefox releases come out every 6 weeks. It helps to put something in the title that explains what's interesting about this one.

<comment><USER12> Hopefully they changed the address bar back to be non-Chromeified.

<comment><USER13> Haven't used it in a while, but when I did it was always easy to switch the behavior (for a power user, and I think the omnibar is much more appealing to non power users as it's visually simpler, big, and easier to click — unifying the search and address bar _is_ what you're talking about, right?).

<comment><USER12> Its not easy to switch back anymore and breaks a lot of functionality if you do. But its crazy that you have to accept serious UI/UX changes to get security fixes too.

<comment><USER13> What functionality does it break?

> But its crazy that you have to accept serious UI/UX changes to get security > fixes too.

It is sad, but it basically seems par for the course for big, semi-commercial software. I don't like Mozilla, but I appreciate them making an alternative to the massive Chrome near-monopoly that's not only just as fast and lighter but competitively easy to use for normal people. I personally switched to Waterfox years ago, and Pale Moon not long after that. It receives some security fixes slightly after FF (they're fixed after Mozilla publishes the issue), but some of them are not applicable ([http://www.palemoon.org/releasenotes.shtml](http://www.palemoon.org/releasenotes.shtml)) . Overall, to me then Pentadactyl is worth worse than that, and I think you might love the UI.

<comment><USER12> > It is sad, but it basically seems par for the course for big, semi- > commercial software

I totally get why they do it too, Im a big Mozilla fan and have been for a long time. Im glad there is browser competition, I love their take on Add-ons and allowing the user to make decisions for themselves. They are fighting the good fight, Im just expressing my opinions on things I don't like, but Im still going to use FF. I did stop upgrading with version 76 because it was just too much change and disruptive enough for me to downgrade and turn off the installer.

Ive never seen Pentadactyl, Ill check it out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Highlights:

\- Return of shared memory between parts of the same page (including web workers). Parallel processing becomes more efficient, good for complex apps and games.

\- Time-traveling debugger of sorts: search for "restart frame".

<comment><USER15> See also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23910775](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23910775)

<comment><USER16> Or not, because that's just FUD.

`dom.workers.serialized-sab-access` is the flag they've put in so that way they can disable concurrent execution of JS threads that share memory in case a novel cross-process attack shows up. Spectre is purely an in-process attack and the whole article that comment is attached to is about the work they did to enable shared memory while defending against Spectre. `dom.workers.serialized-sab-access` does not affect Spectre. It appears to be intended for preventing a novel cross-process attack from leveraging shared memory in other processes into becoming a high-resolution timer.

Also note that threads that have access to shared memory in Firefox 79 also have access to the full high-resolution performance.now(), and flipping dom.workers.serialized-sab-access doesn't affect that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "The reference-types proposal is now supported. It provides a new type, externref, which can hold any JavaScript value, for example strings, DOM references, or objects."

This is exciting! It opens up faster possibilities for wasm apps

</comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if we could try something new and have all discussion related to Mozilla or Firefox as a whole, including comparisons to other browsers, privacy, and how much battery it uses on macOS in just one thread so people can collapse it.

<comment><USER19> Post an "Ask HN" on this, perhaps, and request those who know more or have direct experiences across versions and browsers to weigh in?

<comment><USER18> No need, it comes up every time anyways. Just looking to find a more productive outlet for that discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Every few versions I would check Firefox on macOS just to see if they make any progress with battery drain.

And... Firefox 79 with one active tab is taking 6x more energy than Safari with 20+ tabs.

[https://imgur.com/a/LyhnbKZ](https://imgur.com/a/LyhnbKZ)

Maybe it is better on other OSes, but on macOS nothing beats Webkit in terms of performance.

Not to mention the home page bloat - Firefox is starting to look like cnn of browsers.

<comment><USER21> home page bloat? person woman man camera tv?

Care to share more details?

<comment><USER20> I mean this:

[https://imgur.com/a/aYutjsO](https://imgur.com/a/aYutjsO)

Having to see mentions of Nazi camps on my home page or seeing a notification for Facebook containers although I don't use Facebook. All that bloat being enabled by default is troublesome and goes against very principles Mozilla advocates.

<comment><USER22> It is two clicks to remove that entire "Highlights" section.

<comment><USER20> I think you missed the point of "behavior enabled by design". Of course I can remove it, as can someone who just stepped into a pile of poo clean their shoes. We'd just prefer that the pile of poo didn't exist by default.

<comment><USER22> No "principle Mozilla advocates" says that the start page should default to blank.

<comment><USER23> It should not default to ads, at least.

<comment><USER22> Very little of the content on the default start page is ever paid advertising. AFAIK it's a few of the Highlights, sometimes.

<comment><USER23> So they look like ads, which erode trust from users, and they don't even get paid for them. That just makes it more stupid.

<comment><USER22> They're mostly thumbnails of Web sites people have recently visited or visited frequently, i.e. they look familiar. I don't think they look like ads to most people, and I certainly wouldn't conclude they do without actual data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Thumbnails are buggy. Auto complete doesnt work in some cases. No tab reordering, open in new tab order is weird. Home page is worse. No addons... lots of other small annoyances.

And worst of it, no about config. I dont like the direction mozilla is taking. Do they have any reasoning for no abour config.

This is quite a downgrade, I think I am switching to another browser on mobile.

</comment><comment><USER25> Completely rewamped Android.

Feels very snappy. Upgrade was a breeze. Only one addon that didn't work, hope full addon support is back soon.

<comment><USER26> All of the add-ons I use are now unsupported. It's extremely frustrating and unwelcome for them to break things like this.

<comment><USER27> Eh.. They had to: probably they will add more robust support of extensions in the future, but for now they had to re-implement some basic browser functions + add something new to attract new customers (like "Collections").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> For me, "Restart stack frame" is probably the biggest impact I've seen in a while.

</comment><comment><USER29> Same question as the last time [0]: I see the benefit of wasm extensions and I see how to enable them in "manual" compilation (for rustc, -C target- feature=+bulk-memory), but I didn't yet find a documented way of using them in wider used setups like wasm-pack. I'd love to try recompiling a full project with these features, but I just can't find out how to do it.

The release notes say "The wasm-bindgen documentation includes guidance for taking advantage of externref from Rust", but I didn't yet find anything about it there either.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23690406](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23690406)

</comment><comment><USER30> I would hope the key presses required to use the native search among opened tabs had changed.

\- Ctrl-L to go to the address bar

\- release Ctrl (otherwise, the next keypress fail)

\- Shift-6 to type "%" in the address bar

\- space

\- [your query and hit tab/enter to navigate results]

The last bullet is a close to ideal, native search among open tabs and make it so smooth to find an opened tab among dozens. But the key presses necessary to get there? Who can use that without weekly hospital stays for finger RSIs?

I love firefox. If someone, somewhere reads this, please please please think of simpler key presses to use this nice, already built functionality.

(I know non-native extensions provide similar feature. But native would be so cool and stable, especially that it's already built).

<comment><USER31> What keyboard layout are you on that puts % on 6?

<comment><USER30> That was Shift+5, not 6. Thanks for pointing that out :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> In 78 they've added a persistent Google search as a top line in URL bar drop- down list. I couldn't find it documented anywhere neither in release notes nor in help topics.

Does anyone by chance knows how to remove it?

<comment><USER33> about:preferences#search

aka Menu > Options | Search | Search Suggestions > Provide Search Suggestions

<comment><USER32> No, it's not suggestions. Suggestions are disabled.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> A lot of good WebAssembly stuff in there. WASM threads, bulk memory ops are big performance wins, and reference types huge for DOM interoperation.

</comment><comment><USER35> Firefox 80 is scheduled to come with vaapi for X11 which will be a major release for those with distro like PopOS or those that use i3wm

</comment><comment><USER36> This update has, for the first time in over 10 years, rendered Firefox pretty much unusable for me on Ubuntu: Both the URL and the search bar are completely broken - neither autocomplete nor searching via google/DDG works. The only way to open a URL is to type it in full. Not cool. I guess I should move to ESR.

</comment><comment><USER37> does "better source map for SCSS" means that devtools will show scss variables ? big if true

</comment><comment><USER38> Doesn't contain a fix for the tearing on Windows 10 with Hardware Graphics Scheduling.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's a small thing, but I have found the usage of the logical and/or/null to be much cleaner.

a ??= 3;

(It would be even nicer if it could mean the same thing in PHP.)

</comment><comment><USER40> Sweet! This update fixes the issue where you weren't able to play videos on Firefox 78 with the MacOS Big Sur Beta.

</comment><comment><USER41> Anyone using something other than Firefox or chrome?

<comment><USER42> Safari. Works great.

<comment><USER41> Meh, that requires trusting Apple. No thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The summary section could use work.

</comment><comment><USER44> > Firefox 79.0 released with master password renamed to primary password

Jeez...

</comment><comment><USER45> Have they reverted the godawful address bar change yet?

</comment><comment><USER46> Firefox, current, is really slow on video rendering. Youtube on 1080p kinda freezes at times. Same video works perfectly in Chrome

Im on Win10, this happenened on win8.1 aswell.

<comment><USER13> Are you sure it's not just YouTube? Alphabet's arbitrarily changed YT's behaviour based on the browser's UA string in the past, and used deprecated APIs only implemented in Chrome.

<comment><USER47> Youtube was updated to the v1 quite some time ago with a fresh Polymer version

>Polymer.version

3.4.1

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> meanwhile chromium has async stack traces since 2017 [https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/05/devtools-r...](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2017/05/devtools- release-notes)

<comment><USER48> TIL. Thanks for sharing.

I also didn't know Chrome could emulate different levels of slow network.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I've tried Firefox about once a year for the past five years and always immediately go back to chromium. Scrolling is always broken out of the box on all platforms I've tried (Linux and macOS).

Edit: trying again, the macOS track pad seems ok but scroll wheel behavior is different. Firefox requires 2-3 times the scrolling distance and transitions slowly to the final scroll destination. Chrome does not.

Edit 2: I'm almost positive it's smooth scrolling. Some people hate it and some like it. This reddit thread sums up: [https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/5zoa1t/do_you_use_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/5zoa1t/do_you_use_smooth_scrolling/)

<comment><USER50> Never encountered this, same platforms. What do you mean by broken?

<comment><USER49> If I were to guess I think it has something to do with "smooth scrolling". The behavior is scroll the mouse wheel three clicks/times to move the page.

Expected behavior is move the wheel at all and the page moves.

Also on a track pad the page should move in sync with your fingers. It doesn't in Firefox.

<comment><USER51> That's what happens on a clean install on Windows or MacOS. You might want to reset any custom settings and remove any extensions to see if it still reproduced.</comment></comment></comment></comment>