Sleep hacks: How to Become an Early Riser - <AUTHOR> http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/05/how-to-become-an-early-riser/ <comment><USER2> A very useful advice from the "40 Sleep Hacks" from Sleepwarrior:

 _"Whether you wake up from SWS (Slow Wave Sleep, or deep sleep) or just have a hard time getting up, you can't trust yourself to be rational at this time. Self-discipline does not work in a cognitive fog. If you have the habit of pressing the snooze button in the morning, it's not because you lack self- discipline. It's because even if you did have self-discipline, the self- discipline wouldn't work in your unconscious fog.

Upon waking up you rely heavily on habits and automation. Spend a few minutes during the day to program proper wake-up habits into your psychology's auto- pilot system. The procedure:

1\. Start by following your bedtime routine – brush teeth, put on pajamas, etc.

2\. Lay down in bed, set alarm for 5 minutes later.

3\. Relax, pretend to fall asleep.

4\. When the alarm goes off, immediately sit up, turn it off, take in a deep breath, then jump out of bed.

5\. Walk out of the bedroom.

6\. Repeat this a few times for the next few days.

If you do this correctly, you brain will be trained to follow a routine upon hearing the alarm. You'll wake up on auto pilot, no matter how tired you are. Works eerily well. Kinda scares me to realize our brains thrive on automation, and not so much on things like... you know... free will and self-discipline."_

You can find it here, if you are interested: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1953834>

<comment><USER3> _you brain will be trained to follow a routine upon hearing the alarm. You'll wake up on auto pilot, no matter how tired you are._

I did this every morning in high school. It also helps to immediately take a shower. I never understood why my peers would just go back to sleep and I didn't, but I suspect this is why.

<comment><USER4> I think there are many ways to jumpstart your system like you do with your shower. For me, it's a tall glass of water. I do have a (single) cup of coffee later on in the morning but right when I get up, get to my desk (work from home), i down a glass of water as I check HN, email, etc. It really starts me up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5>
      If it's taking you more than five minutes to fall asleep each night, you aren't sleepy enough.

Some of us aren't fortunate enough for that to be true.

      If you simply go to bed when you're sleepy and then get up at a fixed time, you'll cure your insomnia.

Possibly true for some people, but it's an incorrect generalisation - certainly isn't the case for me.

<comment><USER6> One of the signs of a sleep disorder or significant sleep deprivation is if it takes you less than ten minutes to fall asleep most nights.

<comment><USER7> I think you're affirming the consequent. Being able to fall asleep quickly does not imply a sleep disorder.

<comment><USER6> I said it's a sign, that there's a correlation, not that one causes the other. It's one of the questions that doctors will ask when diagnosing a sleep disorder, there are others. By itself, it's meaningless. It might just mean you've been in the military.

If you want to impress people by pulling out big words, at least pull them out in appropriate situations.

<comment><USER7> No need to be condescending. I prefixed my post with "I think" because I was thought, but wasn't sure, that you were implying causation. Specifically, you used the word "if", whereas other wordings would have been more neutral.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> During my 20's I always used to have headaches and colds. I used to go to sleep somewhere between midnight and 1am. I'm a night person. At least that's what I told myself.

When I was about 28 I did an experiment. For one week I'd set my alarm for 6am and get up straight away. After a week I was used to it and kept doing it. It turns out I'm a morning person! I get my best work done straight out of the shower between 6:30 and 9am. I can fit an entire days work into that space.

Headaches and cold are gone too.

(I'm 38 now).

<comment><USER9> As you age your sleeping habits change.

Maybe you actually _were_ a night person at 25 and naturally changed to a morning person as you got older.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10>
        Another problem is that you're assuming you need the same
        number of hours of sleep every night, which is a false
        assumption. Your sleep needs vary from day to day.

Dear lord. No joke; this blew my mind. I think I have intuitively understood this for ages, but I never really consciously stepped back and thought about it before.

It's so important, because it's deceptively easy to get a complex about sleep times: "Oh God. I'm only going to get 6 hours of sleep tonight! Noooo!" Well... for many (me included) it's not such a giant catastrophe if you don't do it all the time. Owning that, both intellectually & emotionally, is a pretty big deal.

</comment><comment><USER11> _I read that most insomniacs are people who go to bed when they aren't sleepy._

When I began reading I assumed this was coming from a person who has not really suffered insomnia. Real insomnia (chronic sleep deprivation) is very hard to deal with. It's not like trying to go to sleep when you're not tired. It's like being so tired that your brain is "buzzed" and your body cannot fall sleep... you just continually get more and more tired stretching you thinner and thinner. It is absolute torture.

<comment><USER12> Exactly. I don't suffer from chronic insomnia, but I occasionally go through bouts of difficulty sleeping, and my experience is exactly like you describe. I am completely exhausted, my brain "hurts" (by which I mean any form of input, whether that be reading, computer/tv, music, audio books, etc are all too much to handle), I'm uncomfortable and restless but also too tired to get up, etc. Not to mention that after an hour or two of this, the anxiety starts to kick in (especially if you have anything important the next day), which if uncontrolled makes things much worse in a hurry.

Describing it as going to bed when you aren't sleepy is almost insulting. Thankfully in my case it's relatively rare, but I've seen enough to know that chronic insomnia can't be far from living hell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I saw a link on hacker news to this article on how to sleep five hours a day[1]. Since following this advice, my life is really much better. Like Steve I set a fixed wake up time (5am) and go to sleep whenever I'm tired. I use a lamp that slowly turns on leading up to 5am and always get out of bed right at 5am and immediately make tea first thing. Then I use the computer or read in front of the 10,000 lux lamp. I probably don't do every single thing in the blog post, and I'm actually sleeping more like 6 hours a day, but still less than before.

I was never a morning person before either and I always had tremendous difficulty waking up. Part of the problem is that I knew as soon as I got up I had to start getting ready for work. By waking up long before I need to get ready, I actually have something to look forward to every day, some nice relaxing time reading, having breakfast, etc. This has been the most important factor in making it work and making it a truly positive change.

1: [http://blog.ernestsemerda.com/2010/08/06/sleep-5-hours- night...](http://blog.ernestsemerda.com/2010/08/06/sleep-5-hours-night/)

</comment><comment><USER14> My latest sleep hack has been to get a girlfriend who has a "proper job" [1] for which she needs to wake up at the same time every morning.

If I'm woken by an alarm clock when I'm on my own it's very easy for me to hit snooze / turn it off and go back to bed without fully waking up.

When my girlfriend gets up in the morning I'm usually wide awake as I'll have had a conversation etc... and then it's easy to stop myself going back to sleep.

[1] as opposed to working for myself where I can get up any time I please

</comment><comment><USER15> I must say this article helps me; I usually work from 11 am to about 3 am, but I notice that after 15:00 I'm less productive. So i'm trying this now.

About the 'longer than 5 minutes to fall asleep'; I have noticed, most of my life, that when it takes me longer than instant to fall asleep, I won't be asleep for many hours. So for me, the author makes a lot of sense. When I go to bed when I'm not completely ready to fall asleep, I can do whatever (assume sleeping position, close eyes, relax, whatever) just to be wide awake 2 hours later. So I have two modes; fall asleep instantly, or read a book for 3 hours. The latter usually turns into reading a book completely and sleeping too little.

So i'm trying this method now and see where it leads me. Thanks for the post.

<comment><USER12> At least in my case, there is such a thing as going to bed when you are too tired. Some days if I miss my sleep window, I get "too tired to sleep." That probably doesn't make much sense as described, but I know at least some people can relate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What was wrong with the original title? Why add "sleep hacks" to the front of it?

</comment><comment><USER17> The biggest barrier for me going to sleep at a reasonable hour is the required ritual just before going to bed. Brushing my teeth, flossing, taking a shower, changing into bed clothes.

From now on, I'm going to try this: \- Brush my teeth, floss, etc. a couple of hours before the predicted bed-time. This will have the bonus effect of reducing needless midnight snacking. \- Shower in the mornings.

There is something liberating about being able to just "go to bed" without dreading the logistics.

Not sure if I'll bother with the fixed wakeup time, too.

</comment><comment><USER18> I recently had the problem of being too ambitious in setting an alarm and snoozing and sleeping in. My solution has been to be less ambitious and set it at a reasonable time (7am instead of 6:20) and move the alarm a minute earlier each day. A month will give me 30 minutes, which is great.

This is all a slow return to normalcy after a new kid.

Another trick I use it to put my alarm (my iphone) across the room. If you have to get up to turn it off, then you're more likely to stay awake.

</comment><comment><USER19> Steve's posts about polyphasic sleep are way more interesting: <http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2005/10/polyphasic-sleep/>

Also he notes later in his sleep logs that being a vegan and having absolutely ZERO caffiene are what make his system possible. If you have any caffiene at all, his system wont work.

</comment><comment><USER20> Hope this doesn't sound like an ad, but Philips makes a very interesting alarm clock: "Wake-up light" that gradually increases its light so your body thinks it's sunrise. One model slowly dims so your body thinks it's dawn... May work for someone.

</comment><comment><USER21> The biggest difficulty is when you have an externally imposed irregular schedule -- flying through time zones regularly, waking up for maintenance windows or other night operations, plus going to all-night parties.

The "get up at a fixed time" is the best way I've found to deal with this, but the problem is I am definitely below normal functioning on some days. Driving when sleep deprived is probably a similar risk to driving drunk, so there are times when waking up at 0546 after going to bed at 0400 means the best course of action is to take a taxi, work from home on tasks where you can't break things, or just take the day off to play games.

</comment><comment><USER22> Just two days ago I accidentally found a way to trick myself to switch to a morning schedule. Drank a large quantity of beer one evening, fell asleep at 9 or 10pm, woke up at 3am. I couldn't fall back asleep so I stayed up another 7 hours before I had to be at work yesterday. Last night I went to bed at 10pm again (sober), and woke up a couple hours ago at 6am. I kind of like the morning, and hope I can keep it up.

I normally have pretty bad insomnia (the idea of falling asleep in 5 minutes sounds hilariously far-fetched to me). And I _really do_ go to bed when I'm sleepy. It just doesn't happen.

</comment><comment><USER23> This article is a coincidence for me - since I started working from home full time, I've been going to bed at 4 - 5 AM and getting up at 2 PM every day, but I actually managed to pull off 11 PM - 6:30 AM for the last few days. I've been much more productive and felt a lot better about myself, so yeah - it's a good idea!

If you're on the 5 AM - 2 PM thing, an easy way to force yourself into a normal cycle (or at least the way that always works for me) is to do an all nighter and go to bed at 10 PM or so the next day. Just for god's sake remember to set an alarm ;-)

<comment><USER24> Even more important than setting alarms is actually getting up when they go off. A really bad habit to get into is the habit of sleeping through alarms. Never set an alarm unless you need to get up, and always get up when you set one.

<comment><USER23> Very true - there have been times when I've woken up hours late and found my alarm deactivated, with absolutely no recollection of turning it off. The things one can do while asleep are amazing..!

<comment><USER25> So the perfect setup would be to use your work as alarm, and then wake up and find the work done ? ;-)

<comment><USER23> I think you're on to something. This must be how the IE developers get things done!

<comment><USER25> And they really do !

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Best way I've ever found to switch to early rising is to go to Europe for a couple of months, then stay as jetlagged as possible upon returning. I did that last summer and I'm still mostly getting up at 7.

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm a ridiculous insomniac. I use melatonin supps to help normalize sleep patterns -- one 5 mg pill at 9 or 10 pm and I'm toast by midnight at the latest.

</comment><comment><USER28> I switched my alarm to use the radio. Listening to the morning talk show (Bob and Tom show, nationwide) gets my mind going and helps wake me up.

<comment><USER29> I used to find a TV useful to wake up, by setting an alarm on it to turn on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Have kids.

Surprisingly effective. Also encourages development of other positive character traits.</comment>


More Developers, More Problems - <AUTHOR> https://singaporedatacompany.com/blog/more-developers-more-problems <comment><USER2> This seems so wrong but looking at my working history, there seems to be an element of truth in it. Nice work.

</comment><comment><USER3> Great writing. Correlates from my experience with sales people; less is better.</comment>


Second Life for Enterprise: Yup,It Died - <AUTHOR> http://nexus.zteo.com/blog/2012/03/15/second-life-for-enterprise-yup-it-died/

<comment><USER2> Unsurprising. Linden Lab's support system is notoriously awful (and political).</comment>


Some new thoughts on the "atomization of conversation" - <AUTHOR> http://redeye.firstround.com/2008/05/some-new-though.html

<comment><USER2> There's always something notable, engaging, and refreshing when people are this transparent. You can only tell when they share the hardships.

</comment><comment><USER3> This link gamed the HN system! look at who voted it up?

<comment><USER4> There is nothing suspicious about the voting on it.

<comment><USER5> Is there any way we as the users can look at who voted for an item?

<comment><USER4> I think people might be afraid to vote for controversial stuff if votes were public. Probably that's why there's such a long tradition of secret ballots.

<comment><USER5> That's what I wanted to know. The great-grand-mother-post gave the impression that it might be possible.

But I realize now - it was not addressing ordinary users in the first place.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Watch the exoplanets dancing - <AUTHOR> http://pierre-jean-maurel.fr/2015/12/12/le-ballet-des-exoplanetes/ <comment><USER2> Nice. Just the standard warning: Most of the detected systems have a big planet very close to the star, because they are easier to detect, not because they are so overwhelming abundant.

(More info, for example: [https://web.njit.edu/~gary/320/Lecture10.html](https://web.njit.edu/~gary/320/Lecture10.html) )

</comment><comment><USER3> Beautiful and poetic

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Google's Nexus 6P boasts the future of Android smartphone cameras - <AUTHOR> http://www.networkworld.com/article/2997240/mobile-wireless/review-google-nexus-6p-smartphone-camera-android.html <comment><AUTHOR> Cameras are the tipping point between good and great phones. Until now, only the most expensive Android phones and iPhones had great cameras. Google's new Nexus 6P smartphone tips the camera scale toward Android, bringing great photography to mid-range Android phones.</comment>


Ask HN: Script Library Generator? - <AUTHOR> I am looking for a way to make a simple, searchable script library site (internal network only) for knowledge sharing purposes. One use case is when an ad-hoc SQL query is written, the script can be placed in a wiki-like thing and used by various analysts.
I have been looking at static site generators, but most seem to be blog oriented, and don't fit the "bunch of small objects" format this will eventually grow to. As a Python shop I find MkDocs [1] easiest to start with, but when we reach dozens of various scripts, I am concerned it will get unwieldy.
Any recommendations? Something written in Python, Go or Perl would be optimal as those are the languages we can best contribute features and fixes to.
[1] http://www.mkdocs.org/ <comment><USER2> [http://twiki.org/](http://twiki.org/) is written in Perl and can be installed in-house.</comment>


DOCKER SWARM PAR L'EXEMPLE - nodejs-news http://www.it-wars.com/posts/virtualisation/docker-swarm-par-lexemple/ <comment><AUTHOR> First time I see French on HN but luckily 1) I can read it, 2) the commands don't need translation :-)

Interesting tutorial.</comment>


Hosts file ignored on Windows with DNS over HTTP enabled in latest Firefox - <AUTHOR> I created a security bug on Mozilla's BugBounty but I thought it would be good to inform HN users. Here is the copied text from the bug:
I use https://github.com/StevenBlack/hosts to add ads, malware, social media, etc to my hosts file in order to stop the pervasive tracking by adtech and social media companies. With the latest Firefox (stable) 74.0 and the default settings of DNS over HTTP thru cloudflare my hosts file is ignored. Even though facebook.com is supposed to route to 0.0.0.0 I am still able to resolve this in Firefox (but not via ping or any other hosts respecting software). This seems like a major issue and people should be aware of the risks of this default setting being enabled.
So basically Firefox now completely ignores your OS settings, and sets up a proxy by default. <comment><USER2> I think that it ought to be configurable. If you do not specify a DNS proxy in Firefox, then the operating system's DNS should be used. If it does have its own service activated (which it shouldn't; this should be a part of the operating system instead and not part of Firefox), then it makes sense it won't pay attention to the hosts file (although then they would have to add their own implementation of such thing, perhaps with there own hosts file, which might just be a symlink to the operating system hosts file if that is what the user wants).

</comment><comment><USER3> I consider this logical behavior by Firefox.</comment>


A minimalistic chat-room written in Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://www.odin.tk/

<comment><USER2> You should allow the user to change their unique id to some unique username by clicking the unique id in the top right corner

<comment><AUTHOR> That's what I'm going to do next. Thank you.

<comment><USER2> Also, a top down chat (input at bottom, messages scroll up) would be easier to read, etc</comment></comment></comment>


Is her iWatch Bigger? - <AUTHOR> http://prntscr.com/t4m01r <comment><USER2> I think Ms Garten has petite wrists and has the series 5 44mm watch.

I have 55mm wide wrists, the 42mm case looked big on me.

Big watches are fashionable, perhaps Ms Garten prefers a bigger screen.

I have the chime app on my phone that beeps duo tones on the hour which is all I need.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Is the iWatch of Yael Garten - Director of Siri Data Science & Engineering - bigger than the actual models?

</comment><comment><USER3> No? This is an odd submission.</comment>


Making Sense of Super Smash Bros. Melee - <AUTHOR> http://planetbanatt.net/articles/ambistats.html <comment><USER2> Interesting article, but this stood out to me.

 _It frustrates me to see people in the smash community treat measures like elo as "the truth" because they "don't have any human input". This simply factually incorrect - these so-called objective measures have as much human input as anything else, codified into the constants and design choices of their algorithms. Designing these things is as much an art as it is a science, and the choice on how to weigh placements, upsets, losses, consistency, peaks, and the like are all just that - choices, made by a human sitting in a chair with Sublime Text 3 open._

I feel like this is applicable nigh everywhere. From social media timeline sorting, to industrial processes, to Melee rankings. Using an algorithm doesn't eliminate the human element from a system, it only abstracts it away.

<comment><USER3> There is a large contingent of radical empiricists in machine learning who assume "big data + automation = truth", especially on HN, and this is a message they need to hear more of.

People have been advocating radical empiricism in some increasingly uncomfortable contexts recently, and I hope it's just that it's the only thing they were taught and the only way they know how to think about their craft. The alternative is that an increasing number of people really do want machines to triumph over human judgment and morality.

<comment><USER4> This might be a case where classical econ ("social choice") can give some helpful perspective. Arrow's impossibility theorem is the most famous impossibility result in this area; it says that no algorithm can take in a set of rankings (e.g. match outcomes) and produce an aggregate ranking in a way that satisfies a small set of fairness criteria. This is classically interpreted as saying that any aggregation method must be "unfair" in one way or another.

<comment><USER5> > Arrow's impossibility theorem is the most famous impossibility result in > this area; it says that no algorithm can take in a set of rankings (e.g. > match outcomes) and produce an aggregate ranking in a way that satisfies a > small set of fairness criteria.

Ignoring the parenthetical "e.g. match outcomes", this is a correct description of Arrow's impossibility theorem. I don't see how match outcomes could possibly be an example of a set of rankings in the sense of the theorem, though.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that was unclear. I'm thinking of a match outcome between teams A and B as a partial ordering on all the teams. Classically Arrow's deals with only total orderings as input -- I'd been thinking that it extends to partial orderings, but hmm, I'm not sure what research says about if we restrict the inputs to be just pairwise orderings/outcomes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > For our purposes, Bloodgood serves as a great example of "closed pool" > rating abuse. You get inflated ratings by being the best player in your > playerpool, even if your playerpool is a relatively weak one.

In Melee there people that end up as local kings that don't do well in nationals. There are also people that are exceptionally good on a national level but simply don't travel (aka "Hidden Bosses").

Nintendo is very hands-off with Melee so tournament organization remains in the hands of the community. There is no single major overseer of Melee tournaments. Anyone can hold a tournament and throw the bracket onto Challonge or Smash.gg. I imagine if ELO was implemented as part of seeding, people would start gaming the system.

> The way seeding gets done is that players get placed into broad tiers, and > then those tiers are then fed into pools, attempting to avoid region > conflicts or repeat matches from recent tournaments.

This is where the human-in-the-loop part of seeding shines. Mid-tier players are entering national tournaments for the experience. They will not win, and their reg fee is essentially donating money to the winner's pot. But what they gain from the experience is tournament matches with players that they are not familiar with. Many of them will only get two games in-bracket, so it's a huge waste for them if they end up playing against buddies from their own region.

The community actively polices good seeding. There is often an outcry if say too many Nor Cal players get shoved on the same side of a bracket.

<comment><USER7> Hidden Bosses always get exposed at nationals because no matter how good or talented they are, they will get destroyed by players who are used to competing against other national threats. We've encouraged our local hidden boss (#1 in TN) to attend more nationals, but work schedules get in the way. Just like in chess, Melee is only profitable if you are one of the best in the world, and life gets in the way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I also play chess at a competitive level (>2000, Expert in the US) and play Melee at a low competitive level (playing in local meetups, winning a few matches). I've had many arguments about ranking systems, ELO, etc with my fellow Smashers, and I reached similar conclusions. This is a great writeup.

There are huge differences between the Swiss system used in chess (which works great for ELO, since seeding is done by rating and players are not eliminated) and the double elimination system used in Melee tournaments. I don't think it's possible to have an objective ranking system in Melee because of the intricacies of this issue (seeding influences final placement, low-seeded players will hit a wall where they lose to high-seeded players earlier, etc).

<comment><USER8> And Elo, optimized for pencil+paper calculations, is obsolete for computer games. Glicko supersedes it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Am I old? For a second there, I thought they were talking about _Melee_ ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melee_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melee_\(game\))), "... a simple man-to-man combat boardgame designed by Steve Jackson, and released in 1977 by Metagaming Concepts."

(With _Wizard_ ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_(board_game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizard_\(board_game\))) and _The Fantasy Trip_ ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantasy_Trip](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fantasy_Trip)) (Yay, 1970s!), _Melee_ made up the best fantasy role playing game. The only competition is the Hero system; GURPS is definitely a victim of the second- system effect.)

Edit: Yes, I'm apparently old. I'll return you now to your regularly scheduled discussion.

<comment><USER10> How complex is TFT? 1980 is a bit of a nexus for RPGs with too-many rules (e.g. the first edition of rolemaster was published that year).

<comment><USER9> Fundamentally, it is (was?) very simple---the basic rules were in two pocket games. Characters had three basic characteristics, strength (also a proxy for endurance and damage tolerance), dexterity, and intelligence, plus skills and assorted other

The TFT wiki page says, " _A revival of TFT and associated MicroQuest adventures is underway at[http://www.darkcitygames.com.*"](http://www.darkcitygames.com.*") The "Legends" rules ([http://www.darkcitygames.com/docs/Legends.pdf](http://www.darkcitygames.com/docs/Legends.pdf)) [PDF] there look a lot like the basic mechanics of TFT.

I managed to miss Rolemaster, although I liked the titles, particularly "Claw Law." :-) But I know what you mean about complexity; too much "realism" leads to things like Ben Sergeant's Car Wars cartoon (lower left, here [https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/HSYAAOSwTglYlP-b/s-l300.jpg](https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/HSYAAOSwTglYlP-b/s-l300.jpg)): "My goodness! 08:00:06, already?"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> ELO is a stochastic gradient descent approximation of logistic regression.

You can do much better just by actually running the logistic regression over the games. In this framework, incorporating any per-game bias such as the characters chosen is a trivial variable to add to the model and fit jointly.

Our ranking systems are holdovers from a time when the calculations had to be done by hand. If the whole set of games fits in ram, there's no need to use ancient optimization methods.

<comment><USER8> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system)

<comment><USER11> Even that is still assuming you can only update parameters once per game, and only for the players in the game. If I've played a large number of games against someone, and the win-rate is 50/50, and then that player plays in a tournament, my skill should move up or down in accordance with their performance in that tournament.

<comment><USER12> Not necessarily. At least I don't know how this works in smash, but in competitive fencing I'd see people go 50-50 consistently locally, but one would always do _drastically_ better at nationals, year after year after year.

Right like there are A rank fencers, and then there are A rank fencers who actually have a shot at placing on the points table.

I'm not sure why.

<comment><USER13> If you told me these facts about a random video game I'd guess the following:

\- A high rank player can consistently execute a strategy that wins against the majority of players most of the time ("beats the meta")

\- The above has a counter strategy, but this strategy often fails against the majority of the players ("loses to the meta")

When these two players meet, they go 50-50, but have very different results in tournaments. Alternatively, one player is generally bad but exploits a particularly hard to observe weakness in the first.

I know nothing about fencing, but I suspect something similar is going on here.

<comment><USER12> Yea I suspect you may be right. The ones I saw who did better in tournaments tended to have more controlled, standard style. Nothing too fancy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> A very interesting read. I only somewhat follow competitive Melee, but the lack of a formalized "chess-like" ranking system has always been interesting to me. I was surprised about the author's discussion about the double elimination system. I don't know much about ranking systems, but I must imagine by now someone has developed some sort of system that supports double elimination. All-in-all a very interesting and well written piece.

</comment><comment><USER15> Title would make more sense if it was "Making Sense of Super Smash Bros. Melee". Not everyone plays this game.

<comment><USER16> OK, we've added that. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > You can also try predicting it match by match and use percent chance to win > (which is what online chess clubs like ICC use), but this leaves a lot to be > desired in practice and also simply misses the point entirely: ELO is > structured around players having a roughly equal number of games each > tournament, and double elimination means that placements and number of > matches played are always different. ELO, and it's commonly used variants > like Glicko-2 or trueskill simply aren't well-suited for the format used in > Melee tournaments.

I can't follow this argument; the point of doing this match-by-match and percentage-to-win -wise is exactly so that the number of games and placement do not matter. You won a round against someone with higher ELO? Your elo increases, their decreases. Doesn't matter if this was one game out of 20, or three.

<comment><USER18> Essentially, it rewards players who lose early over those who lose late. In a double elimination tournament, two people, one in losers and one in winners at the same point, the loser will play 2x the games of the winner.

So if a player wants to optimize for ranking, its actually in their best interest to throw round one of a tournament, play more games, and have their skill update more times.

The number of games matter because with more games you have more chances to win and update your score.

<comment><USER6> This exactly. I play an online game that uses ranking, and your best bet for breaking a 1500 is actually playing the game at odd hours when there are only a small amount of players online. Because of the distribution of the player pool, you're more likely to match with lower-ranking players (as there are limited number of similarly-ranked players). Then you slowly but surely creep up your ranking with very little risk.

<comment><USER17> 'Breaking a 1500' and maximising rating are way different goals though. If you want as high a rating as possible, playing lower-rated players is probably not going to get you there - you're only getting a small increase per game.

<comment><USER6> But you're taking on less risk. If you play other people around your ranking it's easy to actually lose.

<comment><USER17> Sure; you're reducing variance at the cost of reducing expected gains in ranking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Has this been tried?

(1) Figure out a matchup discrepancy matrix

e.g. Peach vs Puff winrate is 0.43

(2) Use an Elo head-to-head variant where the Elo update function takes matchup discrepency into account

e.g.

\- A vs B has an expected 0.9 winrate

\- A is Peach and B is Puff

\- Elo update is done expecting A to have a winrate of 1 - (1 - 0.9) * (0.5 / 0.43) = 0.884

<comment><USER18> The problem is that the matchup disparity matrix is difficult to derive. For example, Puff-Fox is widely considered to be fox favored, possibly as much as 60/40 (this is fairly big, peach-icies, a ridiculously bad matchup is considered 70-30, and peach-puff, considered near-unwinnable, is 80-20, yes these ratings are bad) in general. However, Hungrybox, the current rank-1 player, plays puff, and has a positive winrate over something like all of the top 20 Fox players in the world.

The next best Puff player is #38, and doesn't have any wins against top 10 foxes. Is HBox just the best player ever, consistently winning a "bad" matchup, or is Puff a better character than people commonly believe? Who's to say?

<comment><USER19> > The problem is that the matchup disparity matrix is difficult to derive.

Well, TFA had no bones about calculating one.

> Is HBox just the best player ever

The current data says pretty definitively, yes.

If other players can learn how to get his winrates vs Fox, then the matchup matrix would end up reflecting that. The matchup matrix doesn't need to reflect the perfect ("objective") state of the matchup, just the current one.

(The system I'm talking about would look more suspicious if HBox _wasn 't_ considered the best, because it would probably put him at #1 anyway.)

<comment><USER18> What is TFA?

I didn't do a good job of clarifying what I meant. Hbox is obviously the #1 player right now. The question is if he's just totally on another level of every other player, or if we're underestimating puff as a character.

Note that this is a really deep question. There are strong arguments (parry) that in the "20XX" _yoshi_ would be the most viable character right after fox. Given that, is Amsa overrated because he's underperforming how his character should, or underrated since he's overperforimg the "average" Yoshi player?

The system you describe basically just ends up rewarding above average players who use unusual characters. Should Abate be ranked top 20? Probably not, but considering how much he outperforms the "average" luigi (same thing for Amsa, does he deserve to be, say, top 10), he probably would be.

<comment><USER19> TFA is slashdot slang: the f'ing article

It really depends on what you want the ranking to mean.

If you want it to mean: "If all the players in the world played in a tournament, what would the expected result be", then a normal Elo-like rating system (e.g. glicko-2) should be fine, because all the data available is from real tournaments, and it's not really feasible for players to strategically dodge bad matchups to pad their ratings.

But one criticism TFA has of this method is matchup discrepancy. I'm not sure that's _actually_ important (players choose their mains freely), but if it is can't you just correct for it?

I think you're right that this correction would create an undesirable result. That just means that the matchup discrepancy criticism isn't good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What about a ranking system similar to Tennis or Downhill skiing? It basically awards points for tournament results (rewarding active, top-placing participants), unlike chess where all ranked games count.

<comment><USER21> I personally was thinking this too. I think the main obstacle to this is that there is no main organizing body for melee.

Because anyone can host a tournament, that makes it very tricky. You can assign a points breakdown for points for the top 64/128 based on number of entrants, prize money but that could inflate people's rankings for doing well in an easy region.

For example, there are very few top 100 ranked players in Europe. Under this system, the 4th-8th best players in Europe could get a huge rankings boost over American counterparts that perform worse in American tournaments where there are many more skilled players. Tennis benefits from that fact that top 50-100 players are usually required to play in most major tournaments. There's not enough money in melee for that to even be a possible requirement for players. (Another example would be small strong regions like Florida or SoCal would be treated equally to weaker regions like Texas/Arizona for local events)

Invitationals would also throw things off, as they often have a large prize pool, but only 16 players invited. With melee, these would need to be treated as an exhibition (worth no points) which would probably lower the stakes for players, lower seriousness, etc. or only sanction certain well known invitationals which might reduce outside investment in Melee.

Another common complaint to this is how it favors seeded players. Although this would have some impact initially, I think this would level off over time once an official ranking was adopted by all tournaments and individual tournament organizers lose seeding powers. In fact, I would expect this to be even less of a factor than in tennis, since in tennis being a top 100 player gets you auto invited to most major tournaments. In smash, anyone can compete at any major tournament, regardless of rank.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> A little OT but I'd like to know what part about getting map info is too difficult to automate. Are they lacking the recordings or what? I'd love to see the maps included in the dataset.

<comment><USER18> Yes, most matches aren't recorded (at Genesis 5, a recent tournament, there were ~1400 Melee singles entries, for ~2800 matches. Of those, maybe 10% were recorded, most of those among the top 128 players attending.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I actually implemented glicko-2 as an 'elo' system for my school's competitive melee group.

This is making me reconsider, although one thing of note is that you choose to play who you want in our setup.

Overall I think this leads to fair rankings, since 'worse' players lose to 'better' players most of the time. As such, the people we think should be in the top and bottom spots have them at the end of the season.

<comment><USER24> One thing I noticed when I did the same thing for my region is that players wouldn't enter tournaments if they were just going to sandbag, because they didn't want to hurt their ranking.</comment></comment>


Earth Sets a Temperature Record for the Third Straight Year - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-record.html <comment><USER2> At the time I write this post :"What I Wish I'd Known About Equity Before Joining a Unicorn" has over 220 comments and 509 points. This post has 80 points and 81 comments.

I know there is not much to say in response to this fact really - and HN is a tech news resource, but it saddens me that this topic garners less interest than making money. Like money will save us from the effects of this?

"...as the century progresses, the temperature will rise 8 degrees centigrade in temperate regions and 5 degrees in the tropics."

According to Lovelock, this is just the start of a 100,000 year journey into the unknown for the planet. Just the start.

Based on the current data, I think the predictions James Lovelock made 11 years ago were quite modest.

[http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html](http://www.jameslovelock.org/page10.html)

<comment><USER3> Humanity causing its own end is a heavy topic. And it is a hopeless topic considering the new leadership in america.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The temperature has been increasing for the last 130 years. But what does the average 130 period look like? What is the average variance for 130 year periods over the last 100k years?

Imagine looking at the daily closes of a stock price, then trying to judge if the tick data from the last 5 minutes constitutes a meaningful trend.

We just don't have the data to prove it yet. With that said:

Should we stop polluting? Yes

Should we research renewable energy sources? Yes

Should we try to save energy and get more efficient where possible? Yes

Should we aim to reduce energy usage per person over time? Absolutely not

Energy use per capita is effectively our standard of living. Sure we might be able to keep making CPUs use less energy, but there will probably never be a way to make heating/cooling a house or manufacturing physical products a magnitude more efficient. Our only solution to make the world better is to increase energy production.

<comment><USER5> Imagine somebody a hundred years ago saying:

"Should we aim to reduce calorie intake per person over time? Absolutely not. Calorie intake per capita is effectively our standard of living."

...well yes it was, until some day it wasn't any more.

Energy per capita is only a proxy for standard of living. You can build a well-insulated modern house that needs a fraction of the energy required to heat a 1930's house with similar size, but nobody will say the person living in the modern house is poorer for that.

Compared globally, access to technologies that allow the same convenience with less energy is a better indicator for our standard of living.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here are the graphs to the actual data: [https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/](https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/)

I never understand why these article don't just provide you with the sources where this data was captured...let alone the actual data used. I guess we are just suppose to "believe" them?

<comment><USER7> Thanks for tracking this down. It would be one thing if journalists on the science beat were generally accurate and reliable, but they get so much stuff wrong all the time.

edit: Do you (or anyone else) know why they choose their zero point the way they do? If the graph is going back to 1880, why not just call that the zero? The closest year I could find that was at 0 was 1972 at +0.01C. Is it supposed to be based around when the satellites started taking measurements or something?

<comment><USER8> Zero represents the 30-year mean of the years 1951-1980, i.e. some representation of a recent baseline climatology. Choosing 1880, or any other year, might skew perception positively or negatively.

From the Earth Observatory [0]:

> The period of 1951-1980 was chosen largely because the U.S. National Weather > Service uses a three-decade period to define "normal" or average > temperature. The GISS temperature analysis effort began around 1980, so the > most recent 30 years was 1951-1980. It is also a period when many of today's > adults grew up, so it is a common reference that many people can remember.

[0] [http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/deca...](http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I find it very unlikely that we'll "solve" this problem. At best we'll just deal with the effects and survive accordingly.

1\. The majority of the world isn't even on par with say, France, in terms of their contribution to this problem. It's only going to get worse as they develop (finally).

2\. Those living in the countries that contribute the most aren't going to pay the price, figuratively or literally. Would you take an 80% paycut to eradicate this problem? Probably not. Would you not have children (who will comparatively consume, and therefore contribute far more than 3rd world children)? Probably not. This line of thinking is obviously a part of the problem.

<comment><USER10> There's a third reason that I've thought about for a while. I call it "it's better to reign in hell."

Extreme poverty is worse than most natural disasters. I wouldn't be surprised if infant mortality is substantially lower in a developed nation _during a category five hurricane_ than it is in a poor nation during calm weather. It's better to reign in hell.

The benefits of development may actually outweigh the cost of, say, losing one's coastal cities.

<comment><USER11> You're going against the narrative there ... no amount of progress is worth sea level rise.

<comment><USER10> I wasn't saying it's a good thing, just that it's a fact. Wealth brings the luxury of caring about the environment. Poverty is absolute desperation. If you are dirt poor the only thing that matters is not being dirt poor.

This is also why what I call "abstinence based" solutions to environmental problems are doomed. This refers to the use of shame and ideology to convince people to accept a lower standard of living. Telling people to forego the benefits of energy consumption is going to work about as well as telling them not to have sex.

The only solution to climate change is large scale renewable and/or nuclear energy sufficient to economically replace fossil fuels. All else is futile.

<comment><USER12> I kind of agree, in that it's not an individual action problem but a collective action problem. You want to reduce emissions in the aggregate, you need something like a carbon tax which encourages people and companies at the margin into making the choice that emits less carbon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A link with nice plots: [https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/18/science/earth/2016-hottest- year-on-record.html)

In short, the temperature record of 2015 is beaten last Wednesday; the record of 2014 was beaten in 2015. So, we've had three record years in a row.

</comment><comment><USER14> This issue solves itself once South Eastern US states are submerged due to global flooding and thus lose the electoral votes.

<comment><USER15> I think that there will be a lot more carnage (and I don't use that word lightly) associated with climate change via extreme weather well before there's really substantial sea level rise.

Specifically, I think there's a chance that, worldwide, it will get more difficult to find places that basic food crops can be grown with sufficient reliability, due to extremes in heat, cold, storms, drought and flooding.

According to the data I've seen, on a worldwide average, this hasn't started happening yet, but it already happening in some regions.

<comment><USER16> The Russian and Canadian permafrost tundras will be incredibly productive farmland once they thaw. The main food problems will come near the equator, where people tend to be poorer. They'll lose farm land as well as fish stock in the oceans.

<comment><USER15> Indeed. That's been the traditional wisdom, which I was also on board with for a long time.

What I'm concerned about is 'weather weirding'. On average, everything gets warmer, but because there's a lot more overall energy, the highs get higher, and the lows get lower, along with more extreme rain/flooding, along with more extreme drought. And, of course, a lot more intense storms.

I hope I am wrong, and it seems like the analysis of this line of thought is just starting to ramp up.

Anecdotally, it's why, for example, we got something like 10 or 12 '100 year' and '500 year' weather events in the US in 2016.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> But it's cold outside, and the politicians keep telling me it's not true!

<comment><USER18> We just had a 60 degree F day in mid January in Northern New England. While I like being able to go outside with no coat and I like that the snow melts faster, that is dang warm for my part of the world in January.

My favorite is trying to explain to people how climate change can produce more snow not less and that doesn't mean it is not getting warmer... it means that the air is warmer and because of that can hold more moisture and thus larger more severe precipitation events.

So I've read, I'm not a climate scientist.

Actual quote I hear multiple times per winter: "Look at all that snow! Global warming my ass!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Somewhat dated (2015) but useful visualization for factors driving climate change and global warming: [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats- warming-the-wo...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-whats-warming-the- world/)

<comment><USER20> The money quote from that site: "Atmospheric CO2 levels are 40% higher than they were in 1750".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I think it's a shame that legislation on climate change seems to be the expediting/forcing factor behind getting companies to improve their products and services.

It seems to me that Fortune 500 businesses have been especially slow taking advantage of computing developments over the last 10-15 years. I feel like there is so much potential for them to be better for the environment by more efficiently creating better products - and I can't understand how they would pass up on such opportunities. It's better for them because these improvements could lead to better product (competitive advantage) and marketing superiority (earth friendly!).

Maybe I'm naive or maybe Jevon's Paradox makes it all useless.

</comment><comment><USER22> Obama on the clean energy revolution

[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/scien...](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2017/01/06/science.aam6284.full)

</comment><comment><USER23> How many years in one year, this sort of news comes every few months.

<comment><USER24> Got links to back that up? I suspect you're confusing "hottest year on record" news with stuff like "hottest April on record".

<comment><USER23> Just check the following Google news results and scroll back to see how frequently this sort of news is being churned out [https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf...](https://www.google.com/search?q=hottest+year&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=hottest+year&tbs=qdr:m,sbd:1&tbm=nws&start=160)

<comment><USER25> It seems that all the results about 2016 are from yesterday. Can you provide examples of this is the hottest year not in January, the month the data is presented?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This youtube channel has a lot of videos by scientists regarding global warming.

[https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos?sort=p&shelf_...](https://www.youtube.com/user/1000frolly/videos?sort=p&shelf_id=2&view=0)

One video that HN readers may enjoy, given it's mathematical nature is a talk given by Dr. Murry Salby [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM)

I hope you'll actually at least watch the one by Dr. Salby to perhaps see why some of us are not as convinced as the rest of us about this issue.

<comment><USER27> Please keep your conspiracy theory propaganda off of HN. You're a danger to the world we live in. Ty.

<comment><USER26> Why don't you want HN readers to watch the video at [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM)

This is a scientific lecture, given by a professor. I found it very interesting. Why does it threaten you so much?

<comment><USER28> Hello pdx.

You wrote: "Why does it threaten you so much?"

This is a classic aggressive move, no-one has claimed being threatened, they have instead pointed out useful information about this obvious fraud.

As you have been on HN indeed a while, may I ask you that you justify this "Why does it threaten you so much?", or go away?

Thank You

<comment><USER26> You don't need to say "I feel threatened". Who the hell says "I feel threatened"? The fact that there is so much anger and gnashing of teeth is evidence that a worldview that does not include AGW must be viciously and immediately attacked. I find that fascinating.

<comment><USER29> By "I find that fascinating," do you mean "I interpret that as meaning people who believe in anthropogenic global climate change are closed minded and unwilling to entertain opposing viewpoints"? Because if so, that's not at all what's happening here. What's happening is that people are unwilling to devote an hour of their time to an untrustworthy actor peddling a viewpoint that is heavily pushed by those who have the most to lose from a global switch away from fossil fuels. There are so many reasons _not_ to bother watching this video, and the best reason you can come up with is "it's interesting".</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


First Mover Disadvantage - <AUTHOR> http://getventure.typepad.com/markpeterdavis/2007/10/first-mover-dis.html First mover advantage is commonly cited as being a strategic opportunity. This is largely because by being the first company to bring a new concept to market you will have a unique opportunity to create barriers. However, being the first mover also has several key disadvantages that first movers should be aware of and try to manage... <comment><USER2> German saying: It's the first bird that gets the corn, but it's the second mouse that gets the cheese.</comment>


What makes the US health care system so expensive - <AUTHOR> http://theincidentaleconomist.com/wordpress/?p=9006 <comment><USER2> Unfortunately you won't find the answer here. In part the problem is we are comparing ourselves to Europe, which is still very similar to us.

The real answer is that we are extraordinarily unhealthy. We now assume that we are supposed to have an assortment of health problems that must be alleviated by drugs or costly medical interventions.

One remarkable example to demonstrate this point is that we assume humans are required to have dentists and orthodontists pull and shape their teeth for them to come in correctly. Of course, that is not the case- such a creature could not survive in the wild and there is ample evidence to the contrary: <http://journeytoforever.org/farm_library/price/price8.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> I have a hard time believing the main cause is overuse of medicine although it's a likely contributor. I was in a car crash a couple weeks ago, went to the ER, waited 8 hours without seeing a doc, gave up and went home. Just got the bill for $1,000. $1,000?! to sit in a waiting room without seeing a doctor! Prices at hospitals are unconscionable and divorced from reality. No one asks what things cost and so the hospitals take advantage.

<comment><USER4> Are you going to contest that?

<comment><USER3> Nope. My insurance is picking up the tab, so I have no incentive to. I did however get my copay waived.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Earlier discussion, two days ago: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1747202>

(There are other posts in the same series, to which the one linked here is the introduction. At least one has been submitted to HN, but hasn't attracted any comments.)

</comment><comment><USER6> It's a silly thesis. For one thing it confuses cause and effect.

For another, compare the per capita GDP of Norway, which is higher than the US's and Norwegian health outcomes, which are also better.

I'm left wondering; what about the current situation so appeals to the blogger that they attempt to make it an inevitable outcome of being a really rich country.

</comment><comment><USER7> For the temporally challenged, the linked articles are all already up.

</comment><comment><USER8> Our crappy food supply.

</comment><comment><USER9> Simple: Americans, pious and sinful as they are, don't want to go to hell. Hence their money flows towards churches and healthcare.

<comment><USER10> _...pious and sinful..._

You cannot be serious, are you?

<comment><USER11> Please don't fee the trolls. Evo, you know that.

<comment><USER10> Ha, yeah thanks for the reminder...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Vulnerability in Hangouts Chat: how Electron makes open redirect great again - <AUTHOR> https://blog.bentkowski.info/2018/07/vulnerability-in-hangouts-chat-aka-how.html <comment><USER2> Electron definitely offers a developer some real foot cannons - of this there is no doubt.

But to be fair, it also offers some great security capabilities, ala Chrome, like Content Security Policies and a seriously solid sandbox that has had untold (wo)man-centuries of work put into keeping it isolated from priveleged contexts.

Yes, you need to be _very_ careful about stepping over the holy line, but this really isn't that different from the kind of common sense barrier we've all learned to maintain between a web server and a browser client. If someone accidentally throws an API key into some browser js, you're in trouble. This kind of mistake gets made sometimes (even at high levels) but for the most part, any serious developer will know how to enforce a hard line between the server and the client—it's table stakes.

A simple approach for Electron is to keep the bulk of your application in a browser window with nodeIntegration: false and then set a strict CSP on the root html doc. In this way, most of your code and most of your dependencies will be isolated from the os and the network, and you can carefully whitelist the exceptions. That's actually pretty damn hard to do yourself in a purely native app.

In short, if you take some time to learn best practices, you can make a pretty damn secure app with Electron. If you can't be bothered, then yeah, your users will be in real danger, but they'd be in just as much (or more) danger if you made similar mistakes in native code.

I have tried to do a good job building a secure Electron app with EnvKey[1], a tool for managing configuration and secrets with end-to-end encryption. All the client-side code is open source[2] and has its security choices documented[3]. Feel free to take a peek if you're interested in seeing a live example!

Oh, and since one's perfect, please post an issue or a PR if you spot any problems. I will owe you a beer :)

1 - [https://www.envkey.com](https://www.envkey.com)

2 - [https://github.com/envkey/envkey-app](https://github.com/envkey/envkey- app)

3 - [https://security.envkey.com](https://security.envkey.com)

<comment><USER3> I see in your comment history that you are against using C at least partly because it is unsafe.

Why then are you here defending Electron despite a similar foot gun that can only be avoided by "being good", much like C?

Seems contradictory to me.

<comment><USER2> I don't recall ever writing that I'm against using C. I wouldn't go for C in many situations since go and rust are available, but it's certainly the right tool for plenty of jobs.

<comment><USER4> In the right hands, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think it's worse in Electron because the JavaScript code runs in a more privileged context. At least, from my brief run-in with using Electron as a developer, it felt like Node.JS strapped to Chromium, in such a way that all JS code was not sandboxed.

The person who wrote this article seems more concern with phishing, but I don't think the RCE was as big of a leap as they think it was.

<comment><USER6> Electron has a feature that enables you to run js such that it can't talk to Node.js. Maybe they were doing that?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> First, kudos to the researchers and the team for working with them on this. Glad to see cooperation and not just chest thumping.

It is stories like this that kind of make me more of a curmudgeon, though. I feel like we are just finding new ways to retread old problems.

<comment><USER8> At least the old problems imply old solutions. _The user, as shown in the gif above, cannot know that (s)he is on a fake page because the address bar is missing._ An easy solution is to include the address prominently displayed.

I'm surprised that Google didn't see this coming though.

<comment><USER9> Yeah having the current URL in an address bar could definitely help. It would also be nice to add a previous button and maybe some tabs, a proper history manage… wait.

Personally I simply prefer to open those "apps" directly in my browser (you can even "pin" them). It saves a lot of RAM, you don't have such nasty security issues and most of the features are still there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is anyone else getting annoyed by the "make X great again" meme?

I've been seeing it everywhere after the Trump campaign, and after the 100th time I saw it, it started making me want to vomit.

<comment><USER11> IMO if it's uneelated to actual politics it just comes accross as lazy and stupid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Yet another argument for Electron to burn in hell.

</comment><comment><USER13> Can we make "makes X great again" not great again?</comment>


Show HN: Set an Automatic Alert with a Tweet – Get a Tweet When It Happens - <AUTHOR> http://www.gethooksapp.com/create_alerts_using_twitter.html

<comment><USER2> This is super interesting. I assume you're doing this through a few different APIs?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we are using APIs and agreements for the content.

We also have an API (private beta for now) for developers to use the content and/or create alerts for our mobile app

So the first product we build with our API is this one, looking forward to find out if it's something useful. What do you think?</comment></comment>


Supercoder 2000 Keyboard - <AUTHOR> http://www.gizmodiva.com/home_gadgets/supercoder_2000_keyboard_is_designed_for_nerds.php

<comment><USER2> Only REAL coders use the Supercoder 2000.

</comment><comment><USER3> The "done" key is superfluous.</comment>


Brand New App Looking for your feedback - <AUTHOR> http://friendscan.me

<comment><AUTHOR> Friend Scan Me is a new way to add friends to your social networks in the real world. Description Simplify your real world life contacts by translating your social networks into a QR code.

Others can scan your QR code and add you as a friend instantly! No more fumbling with email addresses or spelling names, just scan, confirm, and you're done!</comment>


The Real Problem With China - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/business/economy/12leonhardt.html?hp

<comment><AUTHOR> IP theft continues to be a growing problem in China, I was reading a report that almost 60% of applications running on Asian computers are pirated (compare this to 20% in North America.)

Here's the report if you're interested: [http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2009/studies/09_Piracy_Stu...](http://portal.bsa.org/globalpiracy2009/studies/09_Piracy_Study_Report_A4_final_111010.pdf)

I'm beginning to wonder if this is something we can continue to count our politicians to work on or if we need to address as a community. It will be interesting to see the stats in coming years due to the trend toward proprietary app stores and SaaS.</comment>


Show HN: Maccy – lightweight open-source clipboard manager for macOS - <AUTHOR> https://maccy.app <comment><USER2> This is awesome. Thank you for making this. This is the list of clipboard manager apps I've been using, and ClipManager/Clipy are bugged on macOS, and Pasta is pretty limiting + UI does not have the ideal simplicity.

\- [ClipManager]([https://github.com/naotaka/ClipMenu](https://github.com/naotaka/ClipMenu)) \- [Clipy]([https://github.com/Clipy/Clipy](https://github.com/Clipy/Clipy)) \- [Pasta]([https://getpasta.com](https://getpasta.com))

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks nice.

I use the clipboard manager built in to [Alfred]([https://www.alfredapp.com/](https://www.alfredapp.com/))</comment>


Ask HN: Would this be useful to you? - <AUTHOR>

I've tried ~20 different ad networks in the course of making several small apps, so I thought I'd flesh out the list into a full blown directory of ad networks. I thought this might be useful so that people can more easily discover different networks to try for their own apps.
Initially I'm gathering the following info for each network:
- Ad types provided (display/contextual, video ads, offers etc.)
- Platforms specifically supported (iOS / Android / Facebook etc.)
- Direct link to publisher sign-up page
- How you get paid (PayPal? Western Union?)
- Screenshots of ads / publisher dashboard if it's a network I have an account with
Useless? Useful? Foobar? <comment><USER2> It would be moderately useful. One simple way to find a list of ad networks is to just go through what AdWhirl, for example, supports... The MOST useful information, by far, would be an easy comparison of which ad networks pay the most, but that's also the most difficult to do, since it changes over time and can vary from app to app.

<comment><AUTHOR> One option would be to have recent examples of CPMs other people are getting, but how to get people to share this information?</comment></comment>


Computational Mathematics Inspired by ISAAC NEWTON – TEST ONLINE( Heru.com.br ) - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> Strong encryption and method that REPLACE THE BINARY TREE</comment>


Scientist infected with computer virus - <AUTHOR> http://news.techworld.com/personal-tech/3224739/scientist-infected-with-computer-virus/?cmpid=TD1N1&no1x1&cmpid=sbycominatorrplant <comment><USER2> This is extremely silly. Some academic has a chip implanted in his forearm (probably an associate of "Captain Cyborg"), has said chip infected with a computer virus, then uses the chip to deliberately infect a Pee Cee with the same virus.

Of course this sort of thing will work, he carefully managed all the probabilities. This sort of material is far better dealt with by "The Register" and/or "The Inquirer" rather than a stodgy trade rag type of website.</comment>


Amazon Shopping for Office Space in Manhattan, Proving HQ2 Haters Right - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/business/2019/05/amazon-new-york-city-office-space.html <comment><USER2> I hope after the utter trainwreck that is Foxconn in Wisconsin every local government is being more skeptical of these corporate welfare deals.

I'm really tired of seeing fancy corporate lawyers outfox local politicians over and over again, somehow always getting a new record-breaking welfare incentive plan while structuring the contracts such that they have a hundred loopholes and never have to actually do anything for the money. This keeps happening at small and large scales all over the country, and it needs to stop.

<comment><USER3> At least an Amazon HQ is believable.

Foxcon's Wisconsin plans, tv panel manufacturing, then turned into a spread out series of research centers never seemed believable.

The Wisconsin Republicans stopped bragging about the details the last election....but still tried to make it more difficult for the state to get out of after the election...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wouldn't read too much into this. It doesn't prove anything. AMZN has been in NYC for a while. I'm sure this is simply for growth.</comment>


Part 2 of our Chrome Web Store analysis: Category breakdown, ratings, authorship - <AUTHOR> https://extensionmonitor.com/blog/breaking-down-the-chrome-web-store-part-2 <comment><AUTHOR> Some highlights:

\- The most popular category is "Productivity" accounting for ~40k extensions and 676M installs

\- Google itself authors 155 extensions accounting for ~133M installs

\- A single publisher has accumulated ~72M installs across 618 published extensions</comment>


How ISIS Produced Its Cruel Arsenal at Scale - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/10/world/middleeast/isis-bombs.html <comment><USER2> For a more detailed story on how they ran their manufacturing, regarding armored vehicles in particular, there is a fascinating story about The Workshop

> The facility would perform a wide variety of overhauls and upgrades on > nearly all types of armoured fighting vehicles in use with the Islamic > State, ranging everything from installing multi-spectral camouflage on tanks > to the up-armouring of AFVs and even constructing modular turrets for > installation on four-wheel drive vehicles such as the Toyota Land Cruiser.

[http://spioenkop.blogspot.se/2017/08/armour-in-islamic- state...](http://spioenkop.blogspot.se/2017/08/armour-in-islamic-state-story- of.html)

That blog has several really interesting articles about DIY armour and fighting vehicles.

<comment><USER3> Excellent source.

I'm impressed by the variety of tank modifications!

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I don't see why we need a defense industry. Obviously the boutique market is handling demand just fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Some of this is pretty patronising. Amongst the advanced techniques they are surprised Islamic State are able to apply they include 'even affixing written instructions [to weapons]'. It shows you how much people have underestimated them when they are writing articles about how they can write notes and stick them on things.

<comment><USER6> Doing so consistently for standard weapons indicates a certain level of bureaucratic organization.

<comment><USER5> Well that's what I mean. People seem absolutely dumfounded that these people are able to form basic bureaucratic organisational structures. They aren't simple people. Many of them have higher education from western countries. They're running their military using the same techniques we do, all the way from similar formal tactics on the ground up to social media PR operations. Them being able to write notes on weapons is the least of our worries.

<comment><USER7> _They 're running their military using the same techniques we do_

Well, of course they are. American Green Berets ran an extensive "train the trainer" programme in Afghanistan, bootstrapping the precursors of the Taliban into a military that could take on the Soviets.

Then once the Soviets were gone, the factions turned on each other, which meant, they continued to practice and refine what they have learned. An ISIS equivalent of a Drill Sergeant probably isn't too different from his Western counterpart...

<comment><USER6> That's the Taliban in Afghanistan. ISIS grew out of the very different Iraqi context.

The real origin of ISIS's organizational skill is the disbanding of the Iraqi military in 2003 - a totally unnecessary decision on the part of the US that played a big part in the ensuing chaos in the country. Lots of military officers from the old regime, disproportionately Sunni, out of a job, and none too picky about the specific ideologies of the groups that would advance their sectarian interests, transferred their knowledge to groups like AQI, the ancestor of ISIS.

<comment><USER8> The disbanding of the military was part of the DeBa'athification doctrine. It also banned all members of the Ba'ath party from public employment, including the various affiliated corporations. Private jobs were surprisingly hard to find, given the stigma and the whole war thing.

So not only the military knowledge, but the people that know how to run the factories and the people that can handle the logistics of such a thing. Not to mention teachers, medical staff, and similar posts.

<comment><USER9> It seems like it was one of the dumbest decisions in history. Had they kept the first admnistrator, Jay Garner, who wanted to have elections in 90 days, you might have had everything Bush stated he wanted - a democratic country in the Middle East. It would probably have fallen into Iranian influence anyway. The decision to go for Paul Bremer who chose to disband the Baath party, all of its members, and delay elections, might eventually be remembered as one of the greatest geopolitical mistakes in history.

<comment><USER7> They did a ton of other stupid things around the same time. Like changing the flag for example - all that meant that the old flag became a rallying point for the rebels. You would think Americans of all people would realize how potent a symbol a flag is. Then they set up headquarters in Saddam's old palace...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Western Governments: These terrorists are coming to get you !

General Population: But, but why ?

Western Governements: Because they want to take away your rights and freedoms, of course !

[Proceed to do exactly that ...]

<comment><USER11> That's still way too tame.

> "War is essentially an evil thing. Its consequences are not confined to the > belligerent states alone, but affect the whole world. To initiate a war of > aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme > international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains > within itself the accumulated evil of the whole."

[http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common](http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/judnazi.asp#common)

Remember embedded journalists? Remember "Mission Accomplished"? Remember people being accused of "supporting Saddam"?

I'm not excusing ISIS, they are responsible for what they do. It's "just" that plenty others, still welcome in polite company, are responsible, _too_. Without that war of aggression built on lies, there would be no ISIS, not at this scale. That is how ISIS came to produce a "cruel arsenal", as opposed to, say, a generous arsenal of peace and nation-building, like drones with which to kill "fun-sized terrorists" ( [https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a- dron...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/nov/18/life-as-a-drone-pilot- creech-air-force-base-nevada) )

<comment><USER12> It is dark to wonder how many of these failures that perpetuate evil in the world may have been intended? When Eisenhower warned of the creeping power of the military and its network, was that what led to these circumstances today? Like the War on Poverty has shown, bureaucratic inertia is a more powerful force than the good nature of people. Crazy world. We've inherited technology capable of solving the scarcity problem of food, housing and basic needs but still find a way to create more BS and misery in the world.

I hate the modern idea that "doing that which is in your best interest is acceptable. That was very true of the average war-age male during Nazi Germany. The radical ideology, as was mentioned above of ISIS's origins, likewise probably played a secondary supporting role to the economics.

Killing people for profit is not OK: [https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is- worried-...](https://theintercept.com/2016/09/09/wolf-blitzer-is-worried- defense-contractors-will-lose-jobs-if-u-s-stops-arming-saudi-arabia/)

<comment><USER11> > It is dark to wonder how many of these failures that perpetuate evil in the > world may have been intended?

One person's intention is another's incentive, so in-between that, I don't think it's dark at all. "Iraq For Sale: The War Profiteers" ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYa_3oh1-s4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pYa_3oh1-s4) )

You might say "Cheney's buddies" profited from destroying and murdering, they also profited from "rebuilding", and then the very people who helped create the mess get even more air time to give their expert opinion, as seen in the Daily Show's "Now That's What I Call Being Completely F __king Wrong About Iraq " ( [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzzWr32srk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqzzWr32srk) ).

Hitchens can call comparisons between Haliburton and Islamism "purely frivolous" and outright orders one to "drop it", like in video linked in the sibling comment, but such a bald assertion can quite easily be countered with "no, it's not" and "make me". I prefer to remember the Hitchens that still had spine and priorities (namely the priority of the actions of oneself and one's allies being more important than those of people we don't support or even oppose), as seen for example here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3nAoTev- RE&t=1h20m00s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D3nAoTev-RE&t=1h20m00s) .. the whole thing is interesting, and quite a stark contrast; he used to advocate for putting out fires with water, later he started cheerleading for pouring oil on them. I like the man too much to let him get away with that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Suddenly one day how did this "ISIS" spring up so well organized with great "PR" work. While they were plying their trade in Syria, they didn't seem to know that their sworn enemies lived just across the border. Wonder why they never really attacked that country.

<comment><USER14> Because the IDF would have annihilated them. It's far easier to pick on haphazard regimes, who are generally incapable of organizing strategic defensive efforts.

Beyond that, ISIS was more about power and wealth than it was about ideology. The ideology was just a vehicle.

<comment><USER15> > Because the IDF would have annihilated them. It's far easier to pick on > haphazard regimes, who are generally incapable of organizing strategic > defensive efforts.

Then why do I read an article like this in Jerusalem Post, quoting WSJ:

[http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating- al-Q...](http://www.jpost.com/Middle-East/Report-Israel-treating-al-Qaida- fighters-wounded-in-Syria-civil-war-393862)

They even quote Assad:

"Some in Syria joke: 'How can you say that al-Qaida doesn't have an air force? They have the Israeli air force'," Assad told Foreign Affairs magazine earlier this year. "They are supporting the rebels in Syria. It is very clear."

> ISIS was more about power and wealth than it was about ideology. The > ideology was just a vehicle.

ISIS/AQ/Whatever-name-their-master-gives-them is a project to destabilize Syrian government that didn't want to play along with plans of the US empire for the Middle East. Quick summary of a FOIA document obtained by Judicial Watch:

[http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly- declassified-u-...](http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/05/newly-declassified- u-s-government-documents-the-west-supported-the-creation-of-isis.html)

BTW, this document was produced in August 2012 by DIA (Defense Intelligence Agency; basically, Pentagon's Intel Agency). At that moment, guess who was its chief: Gen. Michael Flynn. Yes, that Flynn you now see in the media.

EDIT: A video of Flynn:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y274U7QIs&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6Y274U7QIs&feature=youtu.be&t=8m11s)

<comment><USER14> My apologies for being ignorant of these sources, and even just for failing to have the imagination to think about that scenario. I will do my homework better next time. Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Now called WasWas.

According to the prime minister of Iraq's announcement on Twitter a few days ago, "Iraq's armed forces have secured the western desert & the entire Iraq Syria border...this marks the end of the war against Daesh terrorists who have been completely defeated and evicted from Iraq".

Can we have the name Isis back now? Or at least call them Daesh, they hate that name.

</comment><comment><USER17> They left out the part where the CIA gave them all their weapons.

<comment><USER18> Source?

<comment><USER19> He/she is probably referring to this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone)

Which is and isn't relevant.

<comment><USER13> Or maybe something like this: [https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/831858/Iraq-ISIS-US- Mos...](https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/831858/Iraq-ISIS-US-Mosul-Nouri- al-Makiki-United-States)

<comment><USER19> All sorts of wrong in the linked article - the source is dubious at best.

""The same way, ISIS was created to counter the Iraqi stance, which did not agree to blockade Syria, was against no-fly zones in Syria and against American military bases.

"The Iraqi society is against foreign military bases on the country's territory coming back to Iraq and setting up bases here."

The Iraqi official also claimed that it was the country's military that were mainly responsible for driving ISIS out of Mosul."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>