Swift + libuv (powers async IO for Node.js) - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/stevestreza/status/655992589728874496 <comment><USER2> Provided that swift was created for doing ios gui work, which i think deals a lot with run loops, i wouldn't be surprised if the first server side technologies we see with that language are based on event loops.

Yet, after having tasted go channels, i can't help but think that it would be so wonderful to have the same kind of tool ( or even something closer to erlang actors) for concurrency along with such a fantastic language as swift...

Anyone knows of people experimenting with those ideas anywhere ?

<comment><USER3> There is a cool project I found called Venice you might want to check out: [https://github.com/Zewo/Venice](https://github.com/Zewo/Venice)

<comment><USER2> Really cool ! Thanks a lot, i'll definitely watch that. Now all we need is a good db access layer, and swift could be a language of choice for web api development right now.</comment></comment></comment>


Forking, The Future of Open Source, and Github - <AUTHOR> http://redmonk.com/sogrady/2010/04/01/github/ <comment><USER2> You can't just mix and match patches automatically. Someone has to resolve merge conflicts. There is a cost to this: developer time.

Distributed version control systems are being so successful because they allow developers to more easily do what they have been doing all along anyway (take Linus' job, for example).

I don't think there is a major paradigm shift here; just a revolution in tooling. There will still always be a main line. That main line will not be "distributed", even if the way that changesets get there might be.

Most of us will only be using releases taken from the main line. Forks will carry on happening from time to time, but just like now most will work to avoid them because of the inefficiencies that result.

<comment><USER3> For me it has been a revolution. No language, framework or concept has changed my development process more in the past decade.

I have been able to contribute patches (both code and documentation) to many projects where I otherwise would have not had the time or energy to bother contributing.

Sure, my previous attitude may have been selfish, but if it took an hour to fix a bug in a library that I am using for a throwaway script, I am not going to spend another hour subscribing to mailing lists, emailing developers and then persuading them that my patch is worth merging.

In GitHub I just fork, push my patch, and notify the owner of the original repo. If he chooses to pull in the patch, that is his problem. If anyone else who is having the same problem wants to use my repo, they can do so.

<comment><USER2> I agree with you - my experience has been the same. In the past you'd have had to work out a patch by hand and then perhaps publish it somewhere, which was a pain to do and so didn't happen often.

Now the tools have improved making this much easier and so is happening much more everywhere. I have personal branches of the Linux kernel and a dozen or more libraries, _and_ can keep them up to date easily.

But the process remains the same. Your fork is no doubt invaluable to you, but unless the original maintainer pulls your patch, your fork is likely to be a dead end in terms of development - except perhaps for the odd person who needs to fix the same bug and finds your patch.

My point is that the development model has not changed. The maintainer can still optionally pull in your patch, or not. Most users will continue using the maintainer's releases. If the maintainer drops the ball then there will be a fork - but that would have happened in the past anyway.

Distributed version control _has_ been a revolution - but a revolution in tooling, not of the centralised release model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> About the only useful thing the Apache Software Foundation can lend your project is their imprimatur of enterpriseyness, though that comes with a lot of bureaucracy to back it up.

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM", and the ASF practically _is_ IBM!

<comment><USER5> Wow. Are you seriously complaining about that? One day someone's bitching that open source is for commies and can't make you any money and then another someone's complaining that the open source companies that _do_ make money are TOO enterprisey!

<comment><USER6> Being dissatisfied with the status quo is one of humanity's best and worst traits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Fork" is a poor choice of verb for what I think he is describing/dvcs/github allows. More like experimental branch this dudes gonna do his thing on and if it's good we'll absorb it into the "main" project. Which, btw, has been going on forever, git[hub] just makes it easier.

A Fork means there's irreconcilable differences and the dev base is splitting into 2-3 camps, old mainline, new forkers, people who leave in disgust over lack of coop.

<comment><USER8> Sure, it _used_ to mean that, in the days of CVS.

But a github-style fork is a fully independent project in theory, it could go anywhere. It doesn't have to reintegrate. It might out-speed the main project and come to replace it. It might change emphasis and shoot off on a tangent.

It's not really the same thing as having a copy of the source and making some private changes.</comment></comment>


Kharkovchanka, Antarctic off-road vehicles made by the Soviets - <AUTHOR> https://boingboing.net/2020/07/03/short-documentary-about-kharko.html <comment><AUTHOR> Amazing that they designed and built this very novel vehicle in 3 months! Built in the 1950's and still being used 50 years later.</comment>


Internet firms' legal immunity is under threat - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/business/21716661-platforms-have-benefited-greatly-special-legal-and-regulatory-treatment-internet-firms <comment><USER2> And yet phone companies and postal services aren't liable for what people send using their services. The big difference of course is that digital services are much closer in effect to being a broadcast service, and the costs are much much lower than phones or snail mail.

So to say that these policies are exceptionalism is bending the truth, when in fact it is a faulty, leaky, middle ground between old world information transmission systems; private (phones), semi public (snail mail, think spam, political pamphlets), and public (mainstream media).

We live in an imperfect world and this is yet another example. The pendulum will nevertheless swing the other way for a while.

<comment><USER3> >And yet phone companies and postal services aren't liable for what people send using their services.

Phone companies and postal services don't directly profit from the contents of conversations, letters, and packages. Google, Facebook, and so on, directly profit from the content, not from providing the service.

<comment><USER4> Counter: if your phone service was free, but you had to listen to a pre-call ad every time you answer the phone, do you think the phone company is now liable for damages caused by the content of the call?

<comment><USER5> You mean from all the broken windows from having chucked my phone because of the crappy ads?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The article regards this change as almost a foregone conclusion, while mentioning that "Internet activists and the firms themselves may deplore" the loss of §230.

If you're reading this and you're in one of these categories, you can do something rather than just deplore the change. For example, get your company to write or sign on to amicus briefs in §230 cases explaining why not being liable for user activity is important to you.

Also, all different kinds of organizations can endorse or advocate for

[https://www.manilaprinciples.org/](https://www.manilaprinciples.org/)

</comment><comment><USER7> The immunity must be limited to sites that are neutral, in the same way that non-political religious organizations are tax-exempt. Why? Because to claim that a site isn't responsible for a user's content is fine, until the site starts editing, censoring or weighting certain points of view. When the site loses its neutrality it ceases to be a conduit of content and instead becomes content. Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional.

<comment><USER8> > The immunity must be limited to sites that are neutral, in the same way that > non-political religious organizations are tax-exempt. Why? Because to claim > that a site isn't responsible for a user's content is fine, until the site > starts editing, censoring or weighting certain points of view. When the site > loses its neutrality it ceases to be a conduit of content and instead > becomes content. Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view > is, I feel, an abridgment of free speech and I believe it is > unconstitutional.

1) Yeah that works great until someone uploads content about children being sexually abused and you can't take it down because taking it down is a non- neutral action (censorship).

2) Same, but non-consensual pornography of someone's ex.

3) Same, but advocating a clear and immediate desire to commit violence.

4) Same, but "fighting words" (a well known exemption when said to someone's face to free speech protections).

5) Same, but obscenity.

There are some very, very massive flaws of that nature with your position and I'd continue but I think you are getting the idea. Such things don't _only_ impact the speaker and therefore create a situation where the provider should (in theory) censor them.

Similarly, such things have been ruled to be outside of the bounds of "free speech" in the US by the judicial system.

<comment><USER9> Liability is not the same thing as a court order. If you sue someone for libel and win, and the libel is hosted on YouTube, YouTube can't say "nope, Section 230" and keep hosting it. The court can order them to take it down. YouTube just doesn't owe you any damages, you have to take that up with the user.

> Indemnification from liability for a specific point-of-view is, I feel, an > abridgment of free speech and I believe it is unconstitutional.

That would be the case if the government was deciding who could be indemnified based on content, but that isn't what's going on.

Consider what you would be doing to search engines. Their entire purpose is to sort content by relevance. There is no opinion-free way to do that, otherwise every search engine would have exactly the same results. You want to impose liability on Google and Bing because they index the whole internet and the internet has bad stuff on it?

<comment><USER10> > You want to impose liability on Google and Bing because they index the whole > internet and the internet has bad stuff on it?

Yes. If you found some, i don't know, child pornography, say, lying in the street, then went around showing it to people saying, "hey, look what I found", that would be considered illegal/repugnant/stupid, right? Why should that same action analogized to the digital domain be any less illegal/repugnant/stupid? I don't think it is.

<comment><USER11> Analogies are often useful tools to explicate things by relating them to already understood concepts but utterly useless to make useful proofs or arguments because it oversimplifies to the point of uselessness and misses the ways things differ.

These arguments via analogy are so worthless, so without substance that it is usually a massive waste of time to try to explain to the originator the ways in which the analogy differs from reality so I will simply ask you to come back with an argument based on reality instead.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Previous periods of overbearing law enforcement in the face of rapidly changing technology imho had a lot to do with the flourishing of open source and the multiplication and widespread adoption of federated protocols. Subsequent changes in the political environment (not least the collapse of Soviet-style communism and the end of the Cold War) led to a moderately happy marriage between convenience and consumerism in which the web flourished and provided wins for both consumers and capitalists.

I feel the emerging need now is for lean protocols and tools that allow us to effectively filter unwanted content and to view and manipulate metadata structures, both inherent and emergent. If you're looking for inspiration in places other than the commercial sphere, much interesting work on digital ontologies has been emerging from the EU in recent years.

<comment><USER13> > If you're looking for inspiration in places other than the commercial > sphere, much interesting work on digital ontologies has been emerging from > the EU in recent years.

This sounds interesting - do you have any recommended reading / websites here you would suggest?

<comment><USER12> Here's a few links to get started, but I haven't kept up to date with the field for 2 ro 3 years so they're probably not ideal.

[http://www.semantic-web- journal.net/system/files/swj329_0.pd...](http://www.semantic-web- journal.net/system/files/swj329_0.pdf)

[http://www.mirelproject.eu/members.html](http://www.mirelproject.eu/members.html)

[http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/sites/all/files/EuroVocConfe...](http://eurovoc.europa.eu/drupal/sites/all/files/EuroVocConference_Opening_Speech_by_GSarto.pdf)

I got really into semantic web stuff for a year or so several years back. I was disappointed that SW doesn't seem to have gone anywhere but I still think there's a lot of great work being done that's worth people's attention.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I was briefly concerned before dismissing this all as absurd. Surely we aren't more likely to hold tech companies responsible for the actions of their users than we are to hold gun manufacturers responsible for theirs.

<comment><USER15> There are reasonable(-ish?) people who do hold gun manufacturers accountable for what their products are used for. That's not absurd at all.

<comment><USER11> It is actually pretty absurd. If you think guns shouldn't be in the hands of most people and guns lead to bad things happening its still ridiculous to go after people for manufacturing legal products just because most of the US wont let you ban them. The desired end astoundingly unlikely and doesn't justify the nonsensical means.

Worse the lawyers involved in such things no that all it serves to do is to suck up money from suckers to enrich the lawyers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > The argument that they do not interfere in the kind of content that is shown > was a key rationale for exempting them from liability.

It seems like this might be the "correct" point; at least when considering "who" is responsible for content - that the degree to which you (the service provider) picks and chooses content is the degree to which you are responsible for the effects of showing that content.

In an ideal implementation, such a link also correlates with organizational size: FB of today can both afford to be liable for the content shown, and can afford the work to be responsible about it. FB when it started could not.

A better example might be Tinder - When it started, would it be reasonable for Tinder to police its users for asshole behavior? Now that Tinder is established, it is reasonable for them to _not_?

</comment><comment><USER17> _it carried over to service platforms_

No, it never did, Uber just made that up. The whole basis of this article is plain false, no other words for it.

(Dito Amazon, who have brazenly been selling and even _shipping_ electronic waste that passes no basic safety standards. No uttering of "marketplace seller" changes the legal reality.)

<comment><USER18> A bit clearer with the full quote:

> Although limiting liability online was intended to protect sites hosting > digital content, it carried over to service platforms

<comment><USER19> The intent of TFA is clearer, but it's still false. AirBnB and Uber didn't get some legal limitation of liability, they just started doing something new and asserted that they weren't liable. Turns out some jurisdictions agree, and others don't. But nobody thought that Common Carrier or the CDA exemptions applied to cars or apartments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> If they shred the legal immunity, the only platforms remaining will be the giants. It would be the ultimate moat for Facebook, Google, etc.

I've been waiting for two decades for the monsters in DC (and their many accomplices) to legislatively make it impossible to wake up in the morning with a normal business idea (not talking Napster here) and decide to just build it without having to go through an endless parade of legal/political/regulatory/licensing concerns. It doesn't appear to be far away now, the government monster is always hungry, always expansive, always looking to dig its claws into any bastions of free movement.

My suggestion to younger entrepreneurs out there: get it while you can. This glorious period of having so much freedom to create/build - no permission required - will probably seem like a distant fantasy in another decade. There is no scenario in which they aren't going to add more and more friction to the process, putting themselves in-between you and building things online as just another layer of control.

<comment><USER21> Why would this necessarily mean they're getting rid of all legal immunity? I think we have plenty of examples outside of the digital world where legal immunity is maintained.

The digital world currently has an excessively powerful version of this -- even when they're not neutral, they're still immune, which definitely needs to be fixed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What is the reality that taking away the legal immunity could really happen? Wouldn't the community, non-profits and big internet companies lobby against this, call up all their congress and senators like just how we stopped SOPA and PIPA?

Cases like this are the few I'd approve of corporate lobbying for(which I'm usually against personally). I do not like the idea of censorship myself. Is someone posting hateful stuff? Unfollow or block them. I feel like censorship should be used in rare cases.

</comment><comment><USER23> > GOOGLE, Facebook and other online giants like to see their rapid rise as the > product of their founders' brilliance. Others argue that their success is > more a result of lucky timing and network effects—the economic forces that > tend to make bigger firms even bigger.

(Take it easy with that down arrow button :) but yet others see their rapid rise as sponsored fronts for Intelligence.

[p.s. & I would be delighted to be presented with thoughtful replies that show /why/ the above view can not possibly be true.]

<comment><USER24> I think people are down lying you because your comment adds nothing to the discussion. Not because they necessarily disagree with you.

<comment><USER23> How could you possibly say that it is not relevant to OP?

If the handful of uber social network platforms are in fact run by intelligence, then /minimally/ articles such as OP are whitewashing these platforms. More fundamentally, they are just herding us to accept corporate "champions" that may in fact be under the control of unaccountable arms of the same corporate-statist regime.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Well this would only help incumbents, the little guys are unlikely to ever be able to police user content at scale or at cost.

<comment><USER9> And it's not just the hosts. Consider what this does to a host's incentive to take on a small customer. If you're a small entity you wouldn't be able to find hosting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So this is pushed by DRM freaks, who dream about censoring everything, and making others pay for this abusive policing.

<comment><USER27> There is an old french word for DRM laws: patente.

The ancester of patent.

Edicted by the authoritarian delusive king known as Louis XIV (a probable model of Kim Jung Il) when printing came. The purpose was to control publication in exchange for oligopoly on content. To make colonial wars, Louis made an awful amount of debts that would take centuries to pay.

It resulted in France being under-educated (price of books where 300x what they costed), making the church, the editors, the king and the authors/artists happy.

Until a wild theater and colporteurs appeared ignoring the administrative borders and leaking the contents in cheaper ways. They shipped the contents coming from all Europa but forbidden on the local territory. Boring pamphlets about the possibility of living in a world where the random of birth would matter less than merits.

Then, from Jacqueries to Jacqueries, one day, the 90% that couldn't live because of an excessive fiscal pressure on the poorest while the richest did not wanted to pay asked for the convocation of the Third State to discuss the fiscal equity problem ... somewhere around 1789.

History may not repeat itself, but is sure does have some hiccups...

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Whta's the difference between Communications Decency Act and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indemnity)

</comment><comment><USER29> Why do people have to quote fake news like it's an invented problem? I guess there could be some disagreement on the scope of the problem, but there's inevitably a better-trained person in this world who will be researching and becoming a subject matter expert on this in the coming years on it's effects and breadth.

<comment><USER30> It essentially is an invented problem, which was immediately abused by both sides of the political spectrum, so an absolute version of it is hard to nail down.

There's little or no proof I've seen that shows any significant number of people actually believe the stuff on small sketchy sites in question originally - and then the term definition got expanded to seemingly include any slightly misinformed MSM article.

<comment><USER31> There's some proof, in the amount of shares (non-ironic ones) that these websites would get on Facebook.

The abuse of the term is infuriating because the "fake news" websites are so clear cut, there shouldn't even be a debate. Some websites just make up facts to write a story, as their main source of stories. And there's no way CNN, Breitbart, MSNBC, any of them fit the claim.

<comment><USER32> In hindsight, the term Fake News wasn't a good one. "Organized [foreign] disinformation" is both more descriptive and would have been less easily appropriated and diluted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> You shouldn't be liable for what your users say and do.

You sure as hell should be liable when your buggy crappy software costs people money.

</comment><comment><USER3> There is some absurdity in the safe harbor provisions that cover people outside of US legal jurisdiction and also that provide protections even when the provider has no actual business relationship with the customer or even any idea who the customer actually is.

I've felt that an argument could be made that safe harbor provisions should only apply when the service provider can provide an actual identity associated with an account and that that person is within US legal jurisdiction.

<comment><USER8> > I've felt that an argument could be made that safe harbor provisions should > only apply when the service provider can provide an actual identity > associated with an account and that that person is within US legal > jurisdiction.

1) How would they be able to verify that identity for a reasonable cost without being opened up to a DDoS vulnerability against their finances?

2) What happens when every country does it based on local jurisdiction and the internet gets balkanized?

<comment><USER3> #1 is like asking "how can this industrial chemical company be profitable if they can't just dump their waste in the sewers?" If a business model is only profitable because they can externalize some of the problems associated with that model, it does deserve certain scrutiny and those who are harmed by the model should have some recourse.

#2 has already happened.

<comment><USER8> > #1 is like asking "how can this industrial chemical company be profitable if > they can't just dump their waste in the sewers?" If a business model is only > profitable because they can externalize some of the problems associated with > that model, it does deserve certain scrutiny and those who are harmed by the > model should have some recourse.

I'm not aware of any other business that is legally required to record every customer and link them to RL identities. You can still buy things with cash.

So yeah, that is a terrible and blatantly false analogy.

You are basically saying "Everyone has to be a subscription service with verifiable identities."

Why are you on a site you believe morally shouldn't exist?

> #2 has already happened.

Not in the Western world.

<comment><USER3> >I'm not aware of any other business that is legally required to record every customer and link them to RL identities. You can still buy things with cash.

Go buy a gun sometime. Or non-prescription cold medications that contain pseudoephedrine. Or prescription medications. Or auto insurance.

However, my response was not about identities specifically, but about whether society should really care if the things that it requires organizations to do as a prerequisite of doing business are inexpensive. Sometimes we make the judgment that it really is worthwhile to require a pharma lab to spend half a billion dollars before we let them sell their new pill to the public.

>Not in the Western world.

Do you not consider Europe as part of the Western world?

[https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/french- go...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/21/french-google-right- to-be-forgotten-appeal)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The FBI faked an entire field of forensic science - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2015/04/fbi_s_flawed_forensics_expert_testimony_hair_analysis_bite_marks_fingerprints.html

<comment><USER2> I'm puzzled as to why this story didn't get more upvotes.</comment>


A simple knowledge base platform with command line access, written in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ok-borg/borg <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN, one of the authors here.

Just wanted to specify that the github descriptions talks about "bash snippets", there is nothing specify in the codebase that's related to bash :))

You can install this tool yourself any time, web frontend, api and terminal client, and populate it with any content.

We are using our own live installation ([https://ok-b.org](https://ok-b.org)) for bash snippets, because we find it such an obvious usecase (we are goldfish when it comes to bash snippets, haha).</comment>


Livestream gets into hardware & launch encoding device - <AUTHOR> http://store.livestream.com/products/livestream-broadcaster

<comment><USER2> I suspect this is going to change society considerably.</comment>


U.K. Lawmakers accuse Facebook's CEO of leadership failure - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-ceo-mark-zuckerberg-humiliated-by-damian-collins-committee-2019-2 <comment><USER2> Facebook's market valuation, active user count, and other normal metrics of success for them don't appear to have been negatively influenced in any meaningful way despite the crap they've been subject to for the past 2+ years. Regardless of if Facebook is overall "good" thing to have around, from the perspective of Facebook's shareholders Zuckerburg has been a great leader for the company.

<comment><USER3> The same can be said about oil companies profiting from climate change. Or any other industry practice that harms consumers/society while raking in profits.

And this is exactly why it needs regulation.

<comment><USER4> May be. However lawmakers don't roast oil execs. It seems to me like there is a lot of kabuki theater here and if law makers want to do something to improve social media, there are better ways to get Zuckerberg to co-operate than this method

<comment><USER5> _> there are better ways to get Zuckerberg to co-operate_

I think you misspelled "compell".

Regulatory compliance is not a matter of cooperation.

<comment><USER4> I don't think the requirement that the CEO appear in a public deposition is part regulatory compliance( usually good faith). If Facebook is not in regulatory compliance, I am sure they will be fined millions.

<comment><USER6> probably need to be fined billions to get them to take it seriously

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm wondering when the flashpoint will be when a standing government is publicly given the finger by a megacorporation. It's happening quite often these days through wishy-washy sideways explanations and question dodging worthy of the very government members that are doing the questioning, but eventually corporate executives will get to the point that they no longer find that they NEED to do such things, daring the world's presidents and parliaments to do anything to stop them.

At that point, I think society will need to question where they have given power: to the governments through taxes and laws, or to corporations through willful dollars and convenience? After all, what power does a body have if not granted it by the people (at least ideally)?

<comment><USER8> At which point the megacorps will discover that governments command actual loyalty and a monopoly on force. Corporations only have such massive power because institutions of government have abdicated their responsibility to control them. Maintaining that status quo requires business to at least pay lip service (and sometimes money) to the supremacy of government.

<comment><USER9> The point which GP refers to, where corporations find they will no longer need to pay lip service, is precisely the point where governments lose that monopoly of force.

I think we have a lot to learn from how generations of infighting for control of the Roman empire led to the disintegration of civic society that allowed the Christian church to fill the power vacuum. The transition from the Principate, during which Emperors still paid lip service to the Senate, to the Dominate, where the pretense was lifted, was made possible because centuries of factionalism had destroyed the foundations that allowed checks and balances to be enforced.

<comment><USER10> In addition: consider that "force" also relates to actions online. A government may be able to arrest employees of a company on its soil, but consider the consequences of Google turning off gmail/google access in the UK. Not parity, but that power is real and something governments should be worried about.

<comment><USER7> I imagine more the reams and reams of data that Google (and the rest of FAANG) has stored on each and every citizen, including those elected to power. They could utterly destroy virtually anyone sitting in office politically with a few keystrokes.

<comment><USER11> That also goes the other way what does 5 Eyes have on those in FAANG?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> British lawmakers accuse Zuckerberg of spectacular leadership failure? Hmm...

It's not that I don't agree, it's just a funny accusation coming from them.

<comment><USER13> "It takes one to spot one". They must be speaking from their own experience/mastery of the subject.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm intrigued by the incentives that Zuckerberg would have to show up to a hearing like this..

1\. What is the legal risk of not showing up? What are these lawmakers likely to do against him or Facebook? Can they compel him to personally testify?

2\. What would be the moral obligation of showing up to answer questions? What does he owe them, really?

3\. What is best for the financial interests of the company? What good would come out of sending Zuck out?

I assume his decision was mostly directed by the answer to number 3, but the others are curious thought experiments.

<comment><USER15> It's a hard question. We live in tumultuous times... a more left wing government could use Facebooks' contempt for all against them, harshly.

<comment><USER3> Could you please elaborate on how the political leaning of the government could affect this situation?

<comment><USER15> In the US, the political will to clamp down on telecom and entities like Facebook just isn't there, because they tend to benefit from it and that type of end to end regulation isn't in alignment with their broader interests.

A more left wing US administration and Congress would be able to make sweeping changes that would heavily impact Facebook. The FCC has regulatory powers that could be expanded, legislation could enact something like the former fairness doctrine, etc.

The global power of the federal government is not well appreciated.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for clarifying, I was initially confused because the article is UK/EU- based where such differentiations aren't as prevalent.

<comment><USER15> I think they feed each other as the US/UK wouldn't allow for serious sanction of a major US company unless political conditions get much worse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's so awkward seeing Mark Zuckerberg try to navigate all this and mostly failing, despite being a generally smart guy and all that.

I've heard once you get in power you'll be surrounded by 1). Ppl who are just like you because we as humans prefer that and 2). Ppl who flatter you very convincingly because we as humans also prefer that.

This can be a very dangerous situation to be in. You think everything is alright while outside the world flails and rages.

Who in the world is advising Mark Zuckerberg?

<comment><USER17> I suspect Zuckerberg's failures have little to do with a lack of intelligence or poor management, but with the fact that Facebook has unprecedented power and size, and the only possible solutions to fix the problems Facebook presents, (massive regulation, or breakup) are not possible for him to suggest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not a Zuckerberg sympathiser, but whatever he is doing is a really stressful job.

Scaling is hard, and everyone fails a few times on the way.

Still, these UK lawmakers taunting him is extremely ironic.

<comment><USER19> A select committee is distinct from government, and Theresa May's inability to organise a piss up in a brewery. They are carefully bipartisan. DCMS committee currently has an equal number from Labour and Tories, and one SNP. Committees are equally happy to lay into government.

As has been the case for 40 years (some might claim 200) or more, the Tories would prefer to put the Tories before anything trivial like "the National Interest". Brexit was guaranteed to be a dumpster fire from the moment Cameron put a referendum in the manifesto.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> There is no failure. It is FB business model.

</comment><comment><USER21> UK government with its shady GCHQ, and all-around general incompetancy isn't realy someone to be trusted to understand and act on such nuanced issues.

The UK government and its organizations have had history of extra judicial killings(Esp during the Troubles), and stockpiling nuclear weapons, morally the stuff that FB is being called out for isn't even on the same scale.

</comment><comment><USER22> Edit: Ignore my post. Original title is longer than the max title length for posts.

The post title doesn't match the article's title. The post is "Zuckerberg roasted by lawmakers, accuse him of spectacular leadership failure", but the article is "Mark Zuckerberg humiliated by group of lawmakers, who accuse Facebook's CEO of spectacular leadership failure."

The internet archive goes back to 23 minutes after the article was originally posted [0], and it still has the current title. The original poster editorialized the title.

[0] [https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.busin...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190218130633/https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook- ceo-mark-zuckerberg-humiliated-by-damian-collins-committee-2019-2)

<comment><USER23> Except that title was too long by 30 chars. There's an 80 character limit on titles, if you didn't know.

"So if the title does not fit, you must edit it".

<comment><USER22> I didn't know that. Thanks for letting me know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's not leadership failure. It is what Facebook IS fundamentally as a company. There are no rules. They proven it time and again. There is no real will to do anything differently.

</comment><comment><USER25> Usual british arrogance. THE USA ARE NOT A BRITISH COLONY. The opposite might very well be true tho.

</comment><comment><USER26> Kettle meet Pot, Pot meet Kettle.

</comment><comment><USER27> To be fair, UK lawmakers are _very_ familiar with leadership failure these days.

</comment><comment><USER28> _The UK 's Digital, Culture, Media, and Sport Committee on Monday released its report on disinformation and "fake news" following an 18-month inquiry, which took in evidence from 73 witnesses._

 _The report called for urgent regulation of Facebook — including an independent UK body to stamp out harmful or illegal content — and skewered Zuckerberg for refusing to give evidence to the committee three times._

I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns about Facebook, but this isn't it. The UK government seems bound and determined to increase it's censorship foothold.

Can anyone in the UK comment on how these types of things are received by regular citizens? Are you concerned that your government is cracking down on content with censorship left and right?

<comment><USER29> "I almost closed my browser tab at "fake news". There are legitimate concerns about Facebook, but this isn't it."

That's one of the main concerns about Facebook (aside from privacy).

Anyone can post any kind of fake story with tremendous reach and no accountability or traceability.

[https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the- bigges...](https://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/30/read-all-about-it-the-biggest-fake- news-stories-of-2016.html)

<comment><USER28> CNBC pretending like this is a big deal _is_ fake news.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I think all kinds, on both political isles, walks of life, etc. Would genuinely enjoy an official "Roast of Mark Zuckerberg" streamed live and hosted by Jeff Ross.

With all proceeds of the stream / adverts given to the EFF or CitizenLab et al.

<comment><USER30> Pls commend or DM if you'd be interested in contributing to a crow-funded campaign for this.

I'd bet we'd surpass the crowd-funding records set by Star Citizen...

Could be a whole new kind of "public justice by civic discourse for charity"? lmao

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can we please, please, as a culture, quit treating the idea that someone was 'roasted' or 'embarrassed' or 'wrecked' as if it's news? If you're a news source, tell me the facts supported by salient and educated opinions about important situations. Leave the comedic commentary to John Oliver.

</comment><comment><USER32> I don't want to take the part of Zuckerberg nor Facebook, but "spectacular leadership failure" from UK lawmakers after two years trying to get out of EU is a bit funny.

<comment><USER14> Why do you think they are so enraged at Facebook? Cambridge Analytica and the data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for the UK's "Leave" campaign.

<comment><USER33> > Cambridge Analytica and the data they stole through Facebook was pivotal for > the UK's "Leave" campaign.

Source?

update, pls see my comment before downvoting: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19192463)

<comment><USER34> Isn't this in the actual report that we're supposedly discussing even though none of us has read the whole thing?

<comment><USER33> > Isn't this in the actual report

Ok found the source referred in the report [https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two- brexi...](https://www.upguard.com/breaches/aggregate-iq-part-two-brexit)

I still don't see where it says "Cambridge was pivotal to brexit."

It links it to something called "AggregateIQ" not Cambridge. Am i reading this wrong?

<comment><USER34> They're linked: [https://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk- news/2018/mar/31/aggregateiq-canadian-tech-brexit-data-riddle-cambridge- analytica)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Skylake's Linux power management is dreadful you shouldn't buy until it's fixed - <AUTHOR> http://mjg59.dreamwidth.org/41713.html <comment><USER2> For what its worth Microsoft has struggled with power management on mobile skylake as well - [https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/microsoft- surface/62772/micr...](https://www.thurrott.com/mobile/microsoft- surface/62772/microsoft-will-not-fix-power-management-issues-with-new-surface- devices-until-next-year) . There have been multiple firmware upgrades but if you look at /r/surface on reddit multiple people (myself including) still have issues with power management and sleep on the skylake surface pro 4's.

<comment><USER3> It is nice when your devices appears to always be on. But lets be real, my windows tablet isn't a phone.

So, I disabled InstantGo/Conected Standby on my dell tablet, and the battery now runs for days. I charge it once a week or so, unless I start playing games on it (in which case the battery only lasts for something like ~3/4 hours). That device gets pretty heavy use for book reading/ netflix/ web surfing.

The downside is that the power button is stupidly placed next to the volume buttons. So I frequently hit it instead of the volume button and that results in a ~5-10 second hibernate/resume sequence. I've been considering how hard it would be to physically cut the lead to it and the useless "window button" and PtP solder the windows button as the power button. (I haven't found any software solutions for reversing them).

<comment><USER4> Isn't there an option in Control Panel "Change what happens when I press the power button"?

<comment><USER3> The button does what I want. I just want it somewhere that is tactilely (is that a word?) different than the volume buttons. I have the same problem with kindles, I hit the power button instead of the volume buttons. This is one of the things that apple got right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can personally confirm this. I bought a brand new Dell XPS 15 with Skylake (i7) in December. I installed Linux on it (kernel 4.3), and it has been a power management nightmare from day 1. I've only ever gotten 2 hours from the battery. I just sent it in because it powercycles at random now, never making it past the Dell splash screen anymore. When I run the hardware diagnostics, sans hard-drive, it dies in the middle of one of the processor tests.

Other people have been pointing out that Windows is struggling with Skylake as well, and I've heard the same.

Skylake was touted by Intel as being one of their proudest achievements in power management to date. My guess is that their changes were so drastic that the software didn't keep up.

Edit:

I do have an NVMe hard drive, which does seem to cause some issues, for reasons passing understanding.

<comment> UVB-76 Perhaps this explains why Apple have been so slow to get their Skylake MacBooks to market.

I was disappointed other OEMs had beaten them to it, but it looks like they just dumped hardware on the market without suitable software. Apple obviously take responsibility for both.

<comment><USER6> "..it looks like they just dumped hardware on the market without suitable software"

Intel has been doing this too with the NUC. If you go on the Intel forums, you'll find people having serious problems right now with Skylake NUCs [1].

Even the previous generation of NUCs (that were released over a year ago) _still_ have major bugs with Linux. For example, there's a BIOS bug that reboots the machine instead of shutting down. They've known about it for at least 5 months now and it's still not fixed [2]. And it seems likely to affect all versions of Linux, not just some obscure variant.

[1] [https://communities.intel.com/docs/DOC-110236](https://communities.intel.com/docs/DOC-110236) [2] [https://communities.intel.com/thread/88822](https://communities.intel.com/thread/88822)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am planning in buying a 4690K

LOTS of people keep nagging me that I should go for a Skylake instead, just because it is "newer" and "better because it is new"

I really don't understand that logic.

Beside the thing pointed in the article, Skylake has other problems:

Win7 don't work properly in it (and Win7 is the last Windows to emulate old DirectX versions correctly on Windows itself).

Skylake wasn't design to support analog video at all, something that is still common in third world countries, specially as people keep using old monitors that never break, and are frequently superior to almost all reasonably priced new monitors.

Skylake doesn't support OSX (and there are people with reasons to want that).

Skylake uses DDR4, that in third world might not be even available for sale, or might have some insane prices (2, 3 times the DDR3 price).

Skylake has a couple bugs, and more might pop up in the future.

except in US and maybe some EU countries, the price to build a Skylake system is higher than the speed benefit it gives compared to Haswell (usually at most 10%, frequently less...).

EDIT: I would also like to point out that Devil Canyons has been reported to work with DDR3 up to 2666 with no issue, some mobos allow Devil Canyons to go up to DDR3 2800 without erroring or being unstable.

The thing is, those DDR3 can ALSO reach much lower latency than similar bandwidth DDR4, the few DDR3 vs DDR4 benchmarks done so far, show that usually there is no difference, and when there IS a difference, is usually DDR3 winning.

<comment><USER8> Will the inclusion of HEVC/H.265 decoding in the integrated graphics be beneficial?

On an older MacBook Pro I have with Intel HD Graphics 3000, the fans go beserk on video that my iPad handles with passive cooling without even becoming warm.

I can imagine the codecs used on everything you encounter on regular sites will quickly begin to expect optimizations built into Skylake.

<comment><USER9> Yeah why is that? My Macbook goes nuts like a hair dryer on full when playing a youtube video, where the giant ipad with the same dimension and resolution video is all _yawn_.

<comment><USER10> I had this too, on Chrome on my MacbookAir 2012. Then I found this: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/h264ify/aleakchihd...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/h264ify/aleakchihdccplidncghkekgioiakgal)

Google pushes his VP9 format so hard, it serves it to its chrome users on Mac, where it cannot be hardware-accelerated... This is ridiculous, especially when it serves H264 when browsing on Safari!

I installed this app and switched to H264 for all videos, bringing in HW decoding, and since then my autonomy tripled when I go on Youtube binge.

<comment><USER11> It's a bit of a chicken and egg problem.

Hardware vendors won't support VP9 until it has some usage, and it won't get usage until it has hardware support.

VP9 has some serious space savings, so it's extremely beneficial for Google to use it when possible, and many users will appreciate faster loading video at a higher quality.

Unfortunately they can't know when you'd prefer to have a more efficient decoding experience, so they rank their codecs and use the "highest" one available.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Intel: _" Long term reliability cannot be assured unless all the Low-Power Idle States are enabled."_

Does that mean if you run the CPU too much, it will die quickly? Is there some low limit on time at full power? Electromigration problems, perhaps?

<comment><USER13> _Electromigration_

That would be my bet. They probably assumed based on typical workloads, a certain percentage of the time, the part would be asleep. Which is generally a reasonable assumption for non-server parts.

More sleep means less activity, and less heat (which accelerates EM)

<comment><USER12> The desktop Broadwell CPU was supposedly canceled because they had lifespan problems.[1] Overclocking sites report that Skylake processor life suffers badly when overclocking is attempted. Now Intel is effectively saying their CPU is intermittent-duty only. Intel may be having serious problems with electromigration.

Is this the limit for CPU speed and transistor size?

[1] [http://wccftech.com/intel-debating-commercializing- broadwell...](http://wccftech.com/intel-debating-commercializing-broadwellk- binned-alleges-italian-report/)

<comment><USER14> _Now Intel is effectively saying their CPU is intermittent-duty only._

That's really disturbing if true. Poor power management has resulted in devices being warmer than they need to be and shorter battery life, but that seems trivial in comparison to the hardware actually being damaged. IMHO I would consider it a _flaw_ if a CPU did not last effectively forever at full load --- older OSs which lacked any sort of power management basically kept the CPU in this state all the time, and there's plenty of old hardware around and working to show that it isn't unrealistic.

It seems they're heavily sacrificing lifespan for performance, which is attractive to (most) users and also builds in some planned obolescence, but it's sad that what was once considered to have indefinite lifetime is now almost a consumable. To use a car analogy, this is like moving from a conservatively designed engine that lasts hundreds of thousands of miles but only produces 100HP to a top-fuel dragster engine that can produce thousands of HP but can't run at full power for even a minute without destroying itself.

<comment><USER15> Can you imagine a future where we get so used to producing microprocessors this way for so long that another consideration for long-distance space travel becomes "but will the CPU still work when the rover gets there"?

<comment><USER16> Presumably Intel is having electromigration problems with their chips because the feature size is so small-- 14nm. Space hardware tends to use rad-hard chips, which use bigger transistors. Curiosity apparently uses the RAD750, which has a 150nm feature size, and can be clocked up to a blistering 200MHz.

<comment><USER12> And costs a blistering $200K.

The US applies export controls to radiation-hardened ICs, which has resulted in a dearth of rad-hard ICs. Nobody wants to run a silicon on sapphire fab any more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is literally the best timing ever. I was going to place the order for my XPS 13 yesterday but ran into some banking trouble. Then on my way to the bank today I was browsing HackerNews on my phone and now I'm conflicted if I should go through with the purchase or try to find the older model.

Does anyone have a reasonable guesstimate as to how likely it is that this gets fixed, because it sounds to me (from this thread) that there is a flaw in the design of the chip and this won't be fixed so easily.

<comment><USER18> Or the worst, I've ordered a XPS13 some days ago ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I was thinking of going AMD for my next system. This post solidifies that decision. Hopefully when their next-gen arch is released [1] it won't be as buggy as Intel's -- which seems like a fairly low bar.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_%28microarchitecture%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_%28microarchitecture%29)

<comment><USER20> I've just build AMD system for myself based on FX 8320 and so far I love it. I am developer and I am constantly running multiple applications (http server, db, multiple chrome tabs) which are using multiple cores. FX series also supports VT and many other features [http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD- FX-8320](http://cpuboss.com/cpu/AMD-FX-8320) on top of that usually mobos are supporting 32/64GB RAM even in cheaper boards, and it's enough for casual gaming, not bad for used £90 CPU with CM Hyper 212 EVO cooler

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Note that several commenters on phoronix[0] are saying that they are not having any problems (along with the commenter on this thread[1])

[0] - [https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest- phoron...](https://www.phoronix.com/forums/forum/phoronix/latest-phoronix- articles/865131-well-known-linux-kernel-developer-recommends-against-buying- skylake-systems#post865131)

[1] - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11492693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11492693)

<comment><USER22> Yes, the behaviour between desktop and mobile parts is very different on current Intel. You'll only see this on mobile - I'm sorry for not having made that clear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> A few semi-relevant notes: * We've bought multiple Dell XPS 13 laptops with Windows off Amazon because the same spec there was roughly $400-500 cheaper than buying the XPS Developer Edition from the Dell website. * We tried running Linux on a Dell non-XPS Skylake Core i7 laptop and it was having many kernel panics. A quick Googling revealed people with a Skylake chipset having a similar issue. * I noticed just a couple days ago that Dell has updated their XPS Developer Edition laptop to Skylake. One difference I see on the site is it ships with Ubuntu 14.04 SP1. I haven't read much about SP1, other than it looks like it's about a year old.

So yeah, I'm still buying XPS laptops with 5th gen chipsets because we've had issues with Skylake.

<comment><USER24> Keep in that the XPS units often have Broadcom wifi chipsets while the developer edition units have Intel. Much better Linux driver support for the Intel cards. The Precision 15" now comes in the same chassis as the XPS and has the Intel chipset (and other goodies)

<comment><USER25> This x1000. Always get the Precision 15" over the 13"...the hardware is just better suited for Linux. The Sputnik team has to take chassis from other Dell products and support them as manufactured...this is why the XPS 13 DE has Broadcom. I have a XPS 13 DE from last year and I wish every day I would have just ponied up and gotten the 15.

But keep in mind that Dell is releasing their drivers into upstream kernels, so if you are on 14.04, you should be using the LTS Enablement stack in order to avail yourself of the latest firmware with stability improvements (this is how I fixed the Broadcom Null pointer bug).

[https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack](https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Kernel/LTSEnablementStack)

You don't have to use the LTS Enablement Stack if you installed with newer service pack .isos.

The 15" also has Thunderbolt which is a must if you want to have a reasonable docking solution for a Linux laptop.

<comment><USER26> So _thats_ what LTSE is. Saw it in the compatibility table for the TB15 thunderbolt dock.

Which, I really can't tell if it'll work or not. Really need to plug a 4k monitor into it.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, LTSE is how you can keep upgrading your kernel while staying on the LTS releases of Ubuntu. Granted you are limited to the kernel versions of the previously released Ubuntu version and there is a slight delay between when a new version is relased and when it becomes available to LTSE, but overall I have found the stability to be good.

From what I found out (if I remember correctly), I have great confidence that Thunderbolt docks should work well with Linux kernel 3.19+. But take this with a grain of salt since I ended up with the 13 DE and therefore only have a mDP and couldn't try a Thunderbolt dock.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _Skylake 's Linux power management is dreadful you shouldn't buy until it's fixed_

Why is this phrased as being an issue with Skylake, rather than an issue with Linux? That is, why not "Linux's power management on Skylake is dreadful and you shouldn't install it until it's fixed?"

Also, as someone who is running a custom compiled Linux 4.4 on Skylake, what's the best way to check what idle state is being used? Idle stats with 'powertop' shows the majority of idle time being spent in C8-SKL. Is this the same as the PC8 he's talking about?

<comment><USER28> >"Linux's power management on Skylake is dreadful and you shouldn't install it until it's fixed?"

Because Linux is sometimes the only option. No other OS has the same options as far as containerization.

<comment><USER29> Ok so this is completely wrong. Both FreeBSD and the entire Family of OpenSolaris derivatives offer:

\- Superior "container" support to Linux (more secure, better tested, better designed, not a hacky bolted on thing like Cgroups.)

\- Their source code, they are Open Source

Or did you actually just mean to say "Only Linux has Docker"?

<comment><USER30> 1\. Reference to this superior "container" technology? (geniunly interested to read about it).

2\. Source access to the OS don't mean squat unless you're you can grok OS code. Also how is BSD open source different to Linux's?

<comment><USER31> They're likely referring to Solaris Zones and FreeBSD Jails.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I got my Asus UX303UA(which won over the dell xps13 option) - i7-u6500 last week. I installed Linux Mint(MATE edition, though I use mainly i3wm). After upgrading to kernel 4.5 I get 8-9h of battery with normal use ( Vim, firefox several tabs, rails/node/redis/postgres server running...), even longer if I'm on-off the computer. I'm really happy with it so far.

Besides, I could add +4GB RAM and replace sata HDD with SSD.

</comment><comment><USER33> This reminds me of something.. Oh, right. Baytrail support. that's still lacking as well, and that's also a C-state issue.

</comment><comment><USER34> [https://gist.github.com/ciokan/1bb8a5a23e00d1f4344b04d88debc...](https://gist.github.com/ciokan/1bb8a5a23e00d1f4344b04d88debc59c)

Good or bad? Have no idea what C8 should say that's why i'm asking. Dell XPS 9550 ubuntu 16.04

<comment><USER22> Well, that's better than most people are seeing - getting deeper than PC6 may involve some graphical things. So the question now is why you have such different results to me. Can you paste the output of sudo lspci -vvv somewhere, along with cat /sys/devices/virtual/dmi/id/bios_version ?

<comment><USER34> lspci: [https://gist.github.com/ciokan/9b0c9b310ecb62b2b2d2cdeacb5f8...](https://gist.github.com/ciokan/9b0c9b310ecb62b2b2d2cdeacb5f8d18) bios_version: 01.01.15

<comment><USER22> Thanks, I'll try to replicate your PCI configuration and see if I can trigger any behavioural changes.

<comment><USER35> I think I'm seeing a similar usage on my 9550 here [https://gist.github.com/shadeslayer/4184b49505d817a9a60d5b0a...](https://gist.github.com/shadeslayer/4184b49505d817a9a60d5b0a2ee83513)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I guess with all the pressures and cost cuts in QA you'd be better off sticking to Haswell Gen machine for next few years. Which are perfectly fine by the way - Haswell Xeons for your workstation and anything around the i7-4xxx for your laptop will do you fairly well for next 3 years or whatever it takes for Intel to put out a power efficient, stable and well supported part.

</comment><comment><USER37> Seems a bit exaggerated. I now have a Yoga 900 running 4.4.0-18-generic. It's fine to work through the entire day (6 hours).

The only thing that's still causing hiccups is the combination of Wifi and Bluetooth on the same chip which doesn't play nice if I for example stream spotify to my bluetooth speakers. However, that has nothing to do with Skylake.

</comment><comment><USER38> Interesting since I continue to be impressed by my skylake's low power consumption. I built a desktop (arch linux kernel 4.2 - 4.4) a few months back and my killawatt generally show 25-35 watts. Thats way below my old desktop. Its also plenty cool.

<comment><USER39> As mentioned by the article, this applies to mobile version of the cpu only (so laptops, etc.) It does not affect desktop versions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I had an HP skylake laptop that overheated last month, then refused to boot, running ubuntu. Had constant issues when resuming from suspend, would sometimes refuse to start, or would lose wifi.

Now wondering if it's connected.

</comment><comment><USER41> Anecdotal, but I've been running Ubuntu 15.10 for a few months on a Dell XPS 15 (9550), and with kernel 4.4 everything works flawlessly.

When idling, power consumption is 8W, and powertop shows 30% C8 and 70% C10.

<comment><USER42> Hmm... 8 watts sounds extremely high to me. My Broadwell laptop uses less than 3 watts when idle, and most of that is the display. Even my old Ivy Bridge MacBook Air from 2012 idles at 5W. Is there some peripheral responsible for the higher idle on your system? Maybe a hard disk or dedicated GPU? I'm curious about what's causing the difference.

CPU/GPU power usage: (≈1W) [http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%20201...](http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-13%20at%2020.05.54.png)

Total power usage: (2.9W) [http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%20201...](http://geoff.greer.fm/photos/screenshots/Screen%20Shot%202016-04-13%20at%2020.07.33.png)

<comment><USER41> You were right! I barely use it on battery so I never investigated.

I installed tlp and system went down to 5.5W idle with normal programs open. On fresh boot as low as 4.9W.

Turning the screen off shaves 2.5W, and disabling the wireless card saves ~1W.

I suspect the SSD + HDD are making part of the difference.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> OK, it's broken and doesn't work. I'm getting over 10 hours battery on a Skylake laptop, but it's broken and doesn't work.

<comment><USER22> Intel's documentation says that long-term reliability of the hardware isn't assured in this configuration, so yes, it's broken.

<comment><USER44> This is so frustrating, especially when you buy a $3000+ laptop (which is a lot for a laptop in Croatia) only to have to find this shit out on your own, because it's a very specific thing you need to Google.

And it is even more frustrating that people complain it's Linux's fault because it "works fine on Windows" (no it doesn't actually[1]), when hardware vendors suck up to Microsoft and have a "oh yeah whatever" attitude towards linux users most of the time.

And then people ask themselves why Linux runs better on "old hardware" because it takes _years_ sometimes for all the shit to be ironed out. Ugh! So annoying.

Sorry for useless rant.

Edit: Hardware vendor shaming needs to be a thing. Most of the time this types of things go "quietly" and this is why nobody at the "management" level cares.

[1]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11153940](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11153940)

<comment><USER45> Intel actually provides a lot of code to the Linux kernel. At least as of a year ago they were the top contributor to it: [http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news- media/announcements/2015...](http://www.linuxfoundation.org/news- media/announcements/2015/02/linux-foundation-releases-linux-development- report)

<comment><USER44> Yes, and that is really great, but it would be even greater if they adequately supported their newer & "consumer-level" (for a lack of better expression) hardware as well.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Arm's Cortex-A76 CPU Unveiled: Taking Aim at the Top for 7nm - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/show/12785/arm-cortex-a76-cpu-unveiled-7nm-powerhouse <comment><AUTHOR> GPU details: [https://www.anandtech.com/show/12834/arm-announces-the- mali-...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/12834/arm-announces-the- mali-g76-scaling-up-bifrost)</comment>


A discussion about Time Series databases - <AUTHOR> Databases seem to be a favourite topic on here. Whenever a discussion arises people always put forward their favourites.
With this in mind I recently created a spreadsheet to compare every free and open source time series database I could find.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sMQe9oOKhMhIVw9WmuCEWdPtAoccJ4a-IuZv4fXDHxM/edit#gid=0
Here's a link to the blog that discusses the results:
https://blog.dataloop.io/top11-open-source-time-series-databases
Looking for feedback from anyone interested in this topic. <comment><AUTHOR> Spreadsheet link:

[https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sMQe9oOKhMhIVw9WmuCE...](https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1sMQe9oOKhMhIVw9WmuCEWdPtAoccJ4a-IuZv4fXDHxM/edit#gid=0)

Blog Link:

[https://blog.dataloop.io/top11-open-source-time-series- datab...](https://blog.dataloop.io/top11-open-source-time-series-databases)</comment>


Gender, Race, and Age Inclusive Makeup Recommendations Through Facial Detection - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/BelloFacialDetection/ <comment><AUTHOR> For Bello to be inclusive for all genders, ethnicities, and ages where anyone can use our technology to pamper themselves and show self-love. We strive to deliver consistently accurate and detailed results to our customers and to take into account their needs, dreams, and wants.

Steps to get beautified:

Step 1: Like our page and click the blue "Send Message" button located in the top right of this screen. Step 2: We will send you a quiz where you answer questions like, "What is your favorite/least favorite feature on your face" and "Do you prefer drugstore or high-end products"? Step 3: You send us a picture and from there we run our facial detection software on your picture. We gather information like your skin tone, age, eye color, blemishes, etc. Step 4: We send you personalized feedback, products, and advice based off your picture and the quiz. This can include eyeshadow colors that will make your eyes pop or tips to deal with under-eye baggage</comment>


Triumph of Nerds: Steve Jobs & Bill Gates (1 of 3) - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2part_triumph-of-nerds-steve-jobs-bill-ga_tech

<comment><AUTHOR> Part 1: [http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2part_triumph-of-nerds- ste...](http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2part_triumph-of-nerds-steve-jobs- bill-ga_tech)

Part 2: [http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x2part_triumph-of- nerds-s...](http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x2part_triumph-of-nerds-steve- jobs-bill-ga_tech/video/x2pb2a_triumph-of-nerds-steve-jobs-bill-ga_tech)

Part 3: [http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x2pb2a_triumph-of- nerds-s...](http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x2pb2a_triumph-of-nerds-steve- jobs-bill-ga_tech/video/x2pbgf_triumph-of-nerds-steve-jobs-bill-ga_tech)

</comment><comment><USER2> I like pirates of silicon valley better,

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xflXMZL2stU>

</comment><comment><USER3> I also totally recommend Download: The True Story of Internet, It is a 4 part series.

[http://www.tv.com/download-the-true-story-of-the- internet/sh...](http://www.tv.com/download-the-true-story-of-the- internet/show/75254/summary.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> The website claims it was recorded in 2006 which I have a slightly hard time believing.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's from 1996: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triumph_of_the_Nerds>

<comment><USER5> Crazy to think that in 1986 Bill Gates and Steve Jobs were already considered to have triumphed. In hindsight, they had only just taken their first few baby steps in business!

<comment><USER6> Seems like you have misread. It's 1996 not 1986 :)

But the 1990s were the most intense with OSes getting better GUIs and computers getting cheaper (actually getting more personal) :)

<comment><USER5> Gah. :) But the going's been good since 1996 too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The machine that changed the world <http://ei.cs.vt.edu/%7Ehistory/TMTCTW.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> I have this on VHS somewhere...

</comment><comment><USER9> This is great! i recommend 'startup.com' too, a great little documentary.

<comment><USER10> I never heard of that one, thanks for the recommendation!</comment></comment>


Why SAFE notes are not safe for entrepreneurs - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/08/why-safe-notes-are-not-safe-for-entrepreneurs/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER2> I've heard similar sentiments expressed through the Valley grapevine, but IMHO, they're misplaced. The culprit isn't SAFE notes, as a deal structure. The culprit is entrepreneurs who treat SAFE seed rounds as an inexhaustible piggybank that will tide them over until Series A.

Founders need to realize that if they had to take 3 seed rounds over 3 years totaling $2M in capital to get to a pre-money valuation of $5M, that's _really bad_. Your investors might as well have invested in Google stock. In previous fundraising climates, that would've been a dead company, so still owning 25% after that is an improvement, at least insofar as owning a slow-growing small business is an improvement over being an employee.</comment>


Inspectors discover poor standards at 28 mental health units - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/sep/25/inspectors-discover-poor-standards-at-28-mental-health-units <comment><AUTHOR> Providers of healthcare in England have to be registered with the Care Quality Commission. The CQC inspect and regulate provider organisations.

In England the Department for Health and Social Care funds NHS England+Improvement. NHSE+I gives money to local NHS Clinical Commissioning Groups who commission most healthcare. NHSE+I also directly commission some specialist healthcare services. Commissioners (CCGs and NHSE+I) are forbidden by law from preferring a type of provider -- they are not allowed to say "we want to commission NHS providers".

There is a lot of private provision of specialist MH services in England.

These specialist services include:

        6. Adult secure mental health services
        8. Adult specialist eating disorder services
        32. Tier 4 child and adolescent mental health services
        55. Gender identity development service for children and adolescents
        56. Gender identity services
        74. Mental health service for Deaf children and adolescents
        78. Neuropsychiatry services (adults and children)
        98. Tier 4 specialist forensic mental health services for young people
        102. Severe obsessive compulsive disorder and body dysmorphic disorder service (adults and adolescents)
        116. Specialist mental health services for Deaf adults
        124. Specialist perinatal mental health services
        126. Specialist rehabilitation services for patients with highly complex needs (adults and children)
        133. Specialist services for severe personality disorder in adults
        141. Veterans' mental health complex treatment service

We're seeing a lot of abuse in "Specialist rehab" settings, but also in "secure" settings and tier 4 child and adolescent settings.

There have been a number of scandals about "care" provided in these settings (Winterbourne, St Andrews, Whorlton Hall, etc etc).

CQC have recently been re-inspecting these places, and have down-rated many of them into "requires improvement" or even put them into special measures.

Most of them are funded by the NHS, but they are private, not NHS providers. We do see abuse in NHS settings (notably, St Andrews is known to be an abusive hell-hole) but it's far more common in private provision.</comment>


Liquid air 'offers energy storage hope' - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19785689

<comment><USER2> Surely you would need energy to chilled the Air to Liquid?

</comment><comment><USER3> Important to note, which the article does not, that substances which are gaseous at room temperature are chilled to liquid using excess energy (i.e., energy produced at night). These liquids are stored chilled in vacuum- insulated canisters. These liquids are then brought up to room temperature when needed, and their expansion into gas drives a turbine. Presumably, no external power sources (or only waste heat) is used to warm the gases.

<comment><AUTHOR> I dunno I thought there outline covered that:

" The process follows a number of stages:

1."Wrong-time electricity" is used to take in air, remove the CO2 and water vapour (these would freeze otherwise) 2.the remaining air, mostly nitrogen, is chilled to -190C (-310F) and turns to liquid (changing the state of the air from gas to liquid is what stores the energy) 3.the liquid air is held in a giant vacuum flask until it is needed 4.when demand for power rises, the liquid is warmed to ambient temperature. As it vaporizes, it drives a turbine to produce electricity - no combustion is involved "

There is even a mention of using waste heat from other sources to expand the gas further.</comment></comment>


Show HN: ScreenFocus. Working with multiple monitors made right - <AUTHOR> http://www.apptorium.com/screenfocus <comment><USER2> $4.00 seems too low to make ongoing support and maintenance economically viable. It seems too high to compete with free. For the target market segment, the economic value of the app is probably hundreds of dollars a month and the alternative solution of writing it themselves is probably thousands of dollars of potentially billable time...anyway, my random advice is don't be embarrassed about charging meaningful money and don't try to price the app to entice people who really want it to be free. Price it for people who will value it based on ROI. The target market is people with the money to spend on an Apple computer and multiple monitors. There's plenty of money in that market.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your comment! We made 50% off for start, so the final price is $8.

What is the price that is fair in your opinion?

<comment><USER2> I don't really think that there's a general concept of fair price. I'll come back to the idea that the typical user for your product has probably spent several thousands of dollars on their system. Because the context is productivity, the value of your product to them is not tied to being cheap. It is tied to making the person more productive. For the target user, how much is staying in flow worth over the course of a year?

It isn't a consumer app. It's not going to sell a million copies over two years. Maybe at $4.00 it sells at thousand copies. That means supporting a 1000 users for $4000. At $40.00 maybe it sells 80 copies. $3200 to support 80 users isn't great, but those 80 users made a hard decision based on ROI not low cost. It means that they are more likely to be happy with what it does and live with what it doesn't do. Because all it needs to do is what it says it will do for those users. And $40 is not a lot of money for a productivity boost. $400 isn't either...but that might be stretching it.

Anyway, at $40.00-$400.00 it makes economic sense to talk to every customer, and for what they paid they will not find it objectionable. Anyway, this is something with very low network effects. One user buying it doesn't add value for the next person buying it. Raw numbers of users don't really matter. At best, there's word of mouth benefit from users. That means the product and experience need to be really really good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks. That really made me thinking!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I've been using Haze Over for years now. [https://hazeover.com/](https://hazeover.com/) Does this do anything differently than Haze Over?

<comment><AUTHOR> Haze Over dims everything but current window. ScreenFocus focuses the entire screen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just realized this is OS X only! I want this for Ubuntu and I'll give you $30 for it. :)

<comment><USER5> I feel like this could be built fairly easily.</comment></comment>


Hackers steal 8 GB of data from Italian anti-cybercrime unit - <AUTHOR> http://www.net-security.org/secworld.php?id=11336

<comment><USER2> Am I the only one who thought "8GB, how underwhelming..."? In this case including the actual ammount of data stolen in the headline takes away from the impact of the story.</comment>


Aakash tablet goes on sale for Rs 2500 online - Yahoo - <AUTHOR> http://in.news.yahoo.com/aakash-tablet-goes-on-sale-for-rs-2500-online-.html <comment><USER2> I wonder how much these are when imported into the US?

(argh, I was in India about a week ago... what poor timing)

</comment><comment><USER3> "Cash on delivery" .... now how do I send it as a gift?

</comment><comment><USER4> UbiSlate 7 (its updated version) needs more press IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER5> direct link: <http://www.aakashtablet.com/></comment>


Configurable User Models in Django 1.5 - <AUTHOR> http://procrastinatingdev.com/django/using-configurable-user-models-in-django-1-5/#more-976

<comment><USER2> The whole USERNAME_FIELD / REQUIRED_FIELDS thing feels clunkier that it should be.

Isn't defining REQUIRED_FIELDS redundant, since this information could be introspected from the fields?

<comment><USER3> I'm the author of the feature, so I figured I should give some explanation.

REQUIRED_FIELDS is used internally in one place -- in the createsuperuser management command. When you run that command, you are prompted for the minimal set of fields to create a user object. REQUIRED_FIELDS is that list of fields.

Could this be used elsewhere? Sure. A model form, for example, could use this list as the minimal data to create a user object.

Could this be replaced with some model introspection? Possibly. On my first pass through, this is exactly what I tried to do. And the code got messy really quickly.

At a first approximation, any field with blank=False and no default is essentially "required". However, what about BooleanFields? BooleanFields have an automatically default to False, but that doesn't necessarily mean that False is an appropriate value. And what about custom fields that use the same "built-in default" pattern?

There's also a possible edge case where a field strictly isn't required (e.g., it's blankable) but from a business logic perspective, you always want to have a value.

Ultimately, I came to the conclusion that the mess was worth it. That said, I'm not 100% opposed to cleaning it up. Essentially, if someone can make createsuperuser work without the need for REQUIRED_FIELDS, and the code is robust and isn't a mess, I'm willing to look at the patch before 1.5 final. However, I'm not planning on looking at this problem myself.

<comment><USER4> "I'm the author of the feature ... "

Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm really looking forward to using this, but very much dreading getting us migrated over to it. I expect we'll be spending some quality time with south, and lots of mucking with our relational fields.

<comment><USER6> We recently did this, and it's not that big of a deal. In our case, a 30-line sql script did the job (mostly related to renaming fk fields in other tables, and re-creating indexes and constraints). More than happy to share, although it's very specific to our app of course.

<comment><USER7> I'd be really interested to hear about the actual migration. That's what I thought this article was going to be about, instead of just how to use the feature.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Creating the admin part for the new User model is quite a bit of work. You will have to not only create a new ModelAdmin but also create new forms and/or views for all the CRUD operations.

<comment><USER3> The amount of work involved is entirely dependent on how different your User model is. If you've got a model where the username is even similar to the normal Django User, you don't need to redefine anything - you can use the existing forms and ModelAdmin.

If your model uses a different identifer field (e.g., email, rather than username), or doesn't share common fields with the default User, then yes, you'll need to redefine some forms. That shouldn't be too surprising, though -- if you've created a model that's nothing like Django's default User model, it shouldn't be surprising that you need to do some work to support it.

However, you shouldn't need to redefine any views, and the forms that need redefinition are fairly simple -- a fully worked example is in the docs.

On top of that, those forms and ModelAdmin definitions should be extremely reusable - it will be easy to package an "email-based" user model for reuse between projects.

<comment><USER8> I was trying to extend AbstractUser with just one extra field and realised that it was not easy. But then you are correct that it is how rest of Django works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is it possible now to allow easy email/password login ? Anyway i found that app user profile declouped from the admin user profile made sense too.

<comment><USER3> Yes - that's the primary goal of the change. However, there's lots of other possibilities, too. The point is to make the definition of the "User" model as flexible as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> HTML5 form tags plz Wish we can get input type="email" required instead

<comment><USER11> Until HTML5 gets into core, just use django-floppyforms.</comment></comment>