Soundcloud for the Desktop - <AUTHOR> http://www.soundnodeapp.com/ <comment><USER2> For me, the main allure of the a desktop app is the support for media keys.

For those interested, there is a Mac app called BeardedSpice that maps the media keys to a variety of websites (Youtube, SoundCloud, BandCamp, etc).

[https://github.com/beardedspice/beardedspice](https://github.com/beardedspice/beardedspice)

<comment><USER3> There's also a chrome extension "Media Keys by Sway.fm"[1]. It can scrobble to last.fm and pause videos/music in other tabs when you start playing something else.

[1] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/media-keys-by- sway...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/media-keys-by- swayfm/icckhjgjjompfgoiidainoapgjepncej)

<comment> l-p Or Keysocket which is FOSS (Apache license).

[https://github.com/borismus/keysocket](https://github.com/borismus/keysocket)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hey,

How does this comply with SoundCloud's API Terms of Use? [https://developers.soundcloud.com/docs/api/terms-of- use](https://developers.soundcloud.com/docs/api/terms-of-use)

More specifically:

> Unacceptable Use

> use of the SoundCloud® API to aggregate and stream User Content from > multiple users into an on demand listening service;

I've built similar things in the past ([https://github.com/MeoMix/StreamusChromeExtension](https://github.com/MeoMix/StreamusChromeExtension)), but using SoundCloud's API for such a project always seemed off-limits from a TOS perspective.

<comment><USER5> Well if it is off limits then SoundCloud should really hire this guy ASAP. As a new SC user I much prefer desktop clients to web browser applications.

<comment><USER6> I hear this all the time for various webapps and I'm curious about why. Is it because you want to be able to cmd/alt-tab rather than ctrl-tab to the window?

<comment><USER7> Why _not_ prefer native apps to webapps? Better performance, a better fit into the OS's look-and-feel, and ability to interface with other OS-wide features such as accessibility and automation etcetera.

Although, Soundnode doesn't seem to be a true native app, as others have pointed out.

<comment><USER8> Ideally web app and its data is instantly accessible anywhere, not just on your desktop. They bypass any possible install restriction (or AppStore restriction, which is why Apple is deliberately keeping Safari in 2010).

The look & feel argument is total bullshit at least for me. Every native app I am using is completely different. The only consistent look & feel is with ms office apps like excel, word and powerpoint.

Performance is also a lot about how and who wrote the app rather than if the app is native. It's just harder and requires a lot of knowledge to make javascript app perform well, but it's not some impossibility.

And yes, standards are still creating too high level APIs and it takes forever to gain more and more access to the same things native apps have. But that will get better due to extensible web manifesto.

<comment><USER7> > Ideally web app and its data is instantly accessible anywhere, not just on > your desktop.

Where the data resides is not a distinction between web apps and native apps. See Apple's bundled apps, like Notes, Contacts, etc.: you can access the same data via a website or through native iOS/OS X apps.

However, one advantage that native apps have when it comes to accessing cloud data, is that you can _still_ access and update that data _even when you have no connection to the internet._

> which is why Apple is deliberately keeping Safari in 2010

What do you mean with this?

> The only consistent look & feel is with ms office apps like excel, word and > powerpoint.

This sounds like you are primarily a Windows user, where indeed, MS Office apps seem to be the only ones that share a consistent look-&-feel among them. Even Windows' own applets vary wildly in how they present basic UI elements (like toolbars and Control Panels.)

The overall situation, while with its own unique flaws, is much more coherent on OS X, across all vendors.

> Performance is also a lot about how and who wrote the app rather than if the > app is native.

True, but web apps will always be removed from the underlying OS's "metal" by at least one degree, no?

<comment><USER8> > Where the data resides is not a distinction between web apps and native > apps.

Huh? The data is only accessible to native app after you have installed the app on a device. If you only ever use your own one desktop, then it's probably hard for you to see this. Can you even try to imagine that you cannot just install arbitrary native app on let's say, your friend's device to access your data? But you can easily "install" a web app, since technically it's just a website like this one.

> What do you mean with this?

[http://nolanlawson.com/2015/06/30/safari-is-the-new- ie/](http://nolanlawson.com/2015/06/30/safari-is-the-new-ie/)

> However, one advantage that native apps have when it comes to accessing > cloud data, is that you can still access and update that data even when you > have no connection to the internet.

[https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/12/background...](https://developers.google.com/web/updates/2015/12/background- sync?hl=en)

> True, but web apps will always be removed from the underlying OS's "metal" > by at least one degree, no?

Not always now that Web Assembly will be implemented by browsers. (Not to be confused with "asm.js", see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebAssembly))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting! I've been using Soundcleod[0] for a couple years now which is basically a Fluid-style browser wrapper (with support for media keys).

[0]: [http://soundcleod.com](http://soundcleod.com)

<comment><USER10> I've also been using this for a couple years now. Using it now in fact!

Soundcloud's UI has gotten much better within the past year, enough so that it feels fine to use as a dedicated desktop app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Okay, so I ran it with my backup account that I'm using to download stuff for free (those songs that require you to follow certain people on SoundCloud to get access to the download link), and I noticed something strange: apparently, I'm following the SoundCloud user named Flying Spaghetti Monster.

I then went to SoundCloud, logged in with the same account, opened up the list of the users I'm following, loaded until the end of the list, pressed Ctrl+F, typed in "fly", and no matches were found. I then went ahead and typed "spa", again, no matches were found. Then, I have started to be a bit suspicious about the app. Then, I started typing "Flying Spaghetti Monster" in the search bar on SoundCloud and immediately realized that I am indeed following a user named "Flying Spaghetti Monster", even though I absolutely don't see it through the list of the people I am following.

Talk about a bad user experience. I'm definitely not going to use their official website again.

</comment><comment><USER12> I haven't checked Soundnode App yet, but any attempt to sanitize the way you interact with SoundCloud should be appreciated, because SC web UX is bad.

Soundnode App UI looks nice. I'd add screenshot for each main view on app's home page, even if they're all similar, though. UX remains to be tested.

The only (apparent?) downside is that this app seems to be a bundled web app with web browser. I'm not that fond of such solutions. But. If it wasn't open source and GitHub page wasn't shown there, then there is a high chance I would not notice that it's built like that, at least from screenshot alone.

Writing SoundCloud client is on my ToDo list, as it would be a good way to brush up and enhance my Qt skills. Maybe I'd finally embrace QML along the way, as I'm postponing QML tinkering for far too long I guess. I'm also considering fiddling with PyQt5, as it could possibly quicken prototyping, but I'm not sure about it in my case, as I have only minor Python experience and no PyQt experience at all (well, it's like incentive to change that). There is also SoundCloud python package, so going python way is quite tempting, but I always prefer native compiled apps over scripted ones.

<comment> V-2 What do you find so bad about UX of the SoundCloud web app?

<comment><USER12> Allow me to answer by pointing to what I wrote some time ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7854080](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7854080)

(Oh, it's already ~2 years since I first thought about writing my own SC API front-end. Time sure flies...)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> On GitHub here: [https://github.com/Soundnode/soundnode- app](https://github.com/Soundnode/soundnode-app)

<comment><USER13> Interesting, I had figured they had used something along the lines of [http://electron.atom.io/](http://electron.atom.io/)

<comment><USER14> NW.js is very, very similar to Electron

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The app starts by showing the login and therefore requires to be registered first. However, on the official website I can listen without registering. An API requirement I guess. A regular user will probably be registered anyway.

But the login looks exactly like the official page. So is this just a wrapper for the website or do they actually add value ?

</comment><comment><USER16> I've hoped for a long time that SoundCloud would release an alternative to iTunes to capitalize on the many podcasts on their platform. iTunes is such a goddamn POS, and I wish a private company would take up the challenge, at least when it comes to podcasts.

</comment><comment><USER17> If you are on windows and want a native app:

[https://www.microsoft.com/de- de/store/apps/clouder/9wzdncrfj...](https://www.microsoft.com/de- de/store/apps/clouder/9wzdncrfj3zv)

Used it for some time and is very nice.

</comment><comment><USER18> Awesome! I'm aware that there are plugins for Chrome to capture media keys, but they never seem to work right and intercept the keys when I don't want them to. This fixes that problem of listening to my stream and having to navigate to that tab when I don't like a song.

</comment><comment><USER19> Looks great! Out of interest, does this take advantage of any native features via node or could it also be a website?

I'm curious if the motivation of making a desktop app was just for the "installed app user experience" or because it was needed to access some API.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm hoping it works natively with an xbox controller. Until now I've used Kodi's soundcloud app for my HTPC, but I'd prefer a proper app.

</comment><comment><USER21> I have waited so long for Spotify to add a feature where you can add a Soundcloud track to a playlist. I guess i have to use this until (if) that happens.

<comment><USER22> You could download the Soundcloud tracks into a directory and add the directory to Spotify.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Works well, but I cannot figure out to browse the likes of follwers and followees, which is one of my main ways of discovery. So back to the website.

<comment><USER24> Be great if you could order artists by number of friends/followers who like them...

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Does it use SC API's ( guess not )

or does it scrap / manipulate the sound cloud client ?

is it allowed ?

<comment><USER26> Why do you guess not? It says it uses Souncloud API in the first paragraph on GitHub's readme. [1]

[1]: [https://github.com/Soundnode/soundnode- app](https://github.com/Soundnode/soundnode-app)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Anyone know if there's something like this for Bandcamp?

<comment><USER28> Nope, unless there's an underground trade in API keys. [1]

Wonder what happened.

[1]: [https://bandcamp.com/developer](https://bandcamp.com/developer)

<comment><USER29> Can't someone just steal the API key in a currently authorized app?

<comment><USER30> Indeed you can, and preferably you'd use the key of an official phone app from them, so that they can't just invalidate it without releasing a new one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Can't open osx version

<comment><USER15> No problem on my system - Air, 2012, OSX latest</comment></comment>


DATADOG got hacked? - <AUTHOR> We've faced a nightmare weekend and ran into a locked account at AWS. After more than two days they told us that our key at DATADOG got compromised?
--
Hello XXX,
Thank you for reaching out for your patience. I'm reaching out to you in behalf of my colleague David as he is currently off shift. Regarding this issue the EC2 team have new information, and they mentioned that spot instance requests are block due to a compromised key in your account. An email regarding this issue was sent on Tuesday, July 12, 2016 at 4:26 PM PDT from email@example.com to the email firstname.lastname@example.com whit the following Subject "Informational Message Regarding Security Incident at Third Party 'Datadog' [AWS Account: X]"
Here is the information regarding the compromised key in your account XXX: Type: Access Key Pair Credential: XXX IAM User: datadog
To rotate access keys, you should follow these steps: 1. Create a second access key in addition to the one in use. 2. Update all your applications to use the new access key and validate that the applications are working. 3. Change the state of the previous access key to inactive. 4. Validate that your applications are still working as expected. 5. Delete the inactive access key.
Here are some resources that you might find useful:
[1] https://blogs.aws.amazon.com/security/post/Tx15CIT22V4J8RP/How-to-rotate-access-keys-for-IAM-users [2] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/IAM/latest/UserGuide/best-practices.html#rotate-credentials
Once these actions are taken please update the case so we can reach out to the EC2 team and they can remove the blocking for spot EC2 instances. If you have any questions or concerns regarding this issue please let us know we will happy to further assist you. Thank you!
XXX Amazon Web Services
--
Are there anybody else out there with the same issue? Maybe the DataDog team could provide their perspective? We're now sitting on the additional AWS costs. <comment><USER2> Ilan with Datadog here.

On Friday, September 30th a number of Datadog-AWS shared customers received an erroneous email notification from AWS about compromised AWS access keys associated with Datadog. AWS intended to reach out to shared customers that had been lax in deactivating and deleting access keys associated with the 7/8/2016 Datadog breach ([https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/2016-07-08-security- notice/](https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/2016-07-08-security-notice/)). AWS accidentally sent out a standard compromise notification to the original list of shared customers. False positives abound! You can validate this error by contacting your AWS support contact.

As recommended in our original communication, if you have not you should deactivate _and delete_ any service integration credential shared with Datadog on or prior to 7/8/2016 immediately and for AWS transition to Role Delegation as outlined here: [https://help.datadoghq.com/hc/en- us/articles/210376966-Revok...](https://help.datadoghq.com/hc/en- us/articles/210376966-Revoking-AWS-keys-and-enabling-Role-Delegation-for-the- Datadog-AWS-Integration)

The AWS communication was made in error. If you received the initial message you should have also received a retraction. Customers that have been lax in deactivating and deleting these access keys will receive additional communication directly from AWS.

</comment><comment><USER3> Did you make that key public at any time? Its fairly easy to leak keys on github that get picked up by automated bots. AWS is very good about covering charges from account 'hacks'

I wouldn't jump to conclusions on Datadog unless you can verify they only had access to the key.

(Just went through a key leak with AWS)

<comment><AUTHOR> 100% definitely not! It's a specific IAM key only for the use of DATADOG.</comment></comment>


Password Hashing Competition - <AUTHOR> https://password-hashing.net/report1.html <comment><USER2> I'm no cryptoexpert but I was under the impression that slow password hashes were best, as they are harder to generate rainbow tables for and brute force the algorithm. Many of these algos are put aside for being too slow or praised for speed, and CPU/GPU optimization seems to be a big goal.

<comment><USER3> It's not necessarily "slow is best", but rather minimizing the ratio between how fast your production server can calculate them multiple hashes while under load, vs how fast your attacker can crack them on dedicated hardware.

Which, for example, is why something based on SHA3 is bad, because your typical server is just going to be doing SHA3 hashes via CPU. Except SHA3 was chosen to be ASIC-friendly, so your attacker will be able to calculate SHA3 faster than you. As long as the attacker has no faster calculation method than the one you're using, the absolute speed doesn't matter. This is why scrypt, bcrypt (and to a lesser extent pbkdf2-hmac-sha256) are doing well, because running them on GPU or ASIC isn't meaningfully faster than the CPU implementation the defender is using.

All that's left at that point is making it as expensive as possible for them to parallelize their attack. Which is what scrypt and other things attempt to do -- require as many non-CPU resources (memory, hd space, etc) so that the attacker's parallelization cost is also maximized.

(Personally, I've been playing around with the idea of incorporating random accesses to a 2-tb file of random data, so that the attacker would have a HUGE amount of data to steal before my hashes would work. And they'd have to establish shared access to all the CPUs/etc they're attacking with)

<comment> floody-berry yescrypt has ROM capabilities [1], which function like your large file idea.

[1] [https://password-hashing.net/wiki/doku.php/yescrypt#read- onl...](https://password-hashing.net/wiki/doku.php/yescrypt#read- only_lookup_table_rom)

<comment><USER3> Ooh, that looks interesting ... and not just for ROM feature. They've packed a TON of things into there. Even SCRAM support!

I'm really intrigued by one of the planned features... "Hash upgrades to higher cost settings without knowledge of passwords". I can think of a way to implement that alone, but to pack that all in with those other features will be really impressive. And would be a huge boon to systems w/ infrequently logging-in users.

<comment><USER4> "Hash upgrades" have been added with the just-published v1 of the yescrypt submission to PHC. There is not yet an implementation of an "upgrade this hash" function (also, hash encoding needs to be finalized, including encoding of the upgrade count parameter), but now it's a matter of writing this additional code outside of the actual password hashing code (already capable of computing possibly-upgraded hashes).

Unfortunately, with memory-hard schemes such upgrades involve an efficiency loss in terms of normalized area-time, and there's a tradeoff between granularity of upgrades and efficiency. For Catena (another PHC finalist that supports these), the time granularity is 2x to 3x, with efficiency down to 33.3%+ of non-upgraded hashes (after many upgrades). For yescrypt, it's 4x to 5x granularity and 60%+ efficiency, respectively. (I felt that 33.3%+ is just not good enough - in my opinion, it's usually better to postpone the upgrade until 60%+ can be achieved rather than upgrade early and prevent it from ever being achieved. The next easy step would be 77.7%+, but the granularity would be too high.)

At the same time, support for ROM access frequency tuning (and thus for ROM- on-SSD, as opposed to ROM-in-RAM) has been dropped from yescrypt for now. The rationale is that builtin ROM-on-SSD didn't make enough sense without also having a ROM-in-RAM (in use cases for the former, the latter would also be easily affordable, including complexity wise, and would provide significant extra defense), and supporting two ROMs at once would be further beyond the comfort level for complexity of a hashing scheme in PHC (yescrypt is already somewhat beyond the comfort level). Support for two ROMs along with access frequency tuning might be re-added in an extended revision of yescrypt for specialized use cases at a later time, but this will be outside of PHC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Are there any pure Python implementation of these algorithms? I am looking for something that would work with Google App Engine.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how these compare with bcrypt and scrypt. Anyone have any insight?

<comment><USER4> Differently! The goal of PHC is to improve upon the current state-of-the-art, which includes bcrypt and scrypt, but there are many tradeoffs involved. A scheme that is better in one aspect might be worse (or just different) in another.

These finalists try to improve upon scrypt (increase attack/defense cost ratio or/and avoid cache-timing side-channels while building upon ideas from scrypt and more): Argon, Catena, Lyra2, yescrypt, and maybe POMELO. Ditto for some non-finalists: Gambit, RIG, TwoCats. (Arguably some other non-finalists fall in this category as well.)

These finalists include bcrypt-like components or properties while being scalable (to a varying extent) to larger than bcrypt's memory usage: battcrypt, POMELO, Pufferfish, yescrypt. And a non-finalist: TwoCats. Unlike bcrypt itself, battcrypt is likely to be implementable in scripting languages that offer native Blowfish.

These finalists are totally different from bcrypt and scrypt, not trying to improve upon them nor even be on par with them: Makwa and Parallel. They are for different applications than bcrypt and scrypt. Parallel can be said to try to improve upon PBKDF2, though.

As to more specific comparisons, with benchmarks and cost estimates for various settings on various types of hardware, this goes beyond a comment reply like this (or I'd need to focus on one PHC candidate, like mine, which would be unfair). It is a topic for the PHC discussions list and for materials included with each PHC candidate (some do include various numbers or/and claims to this extent).</comment></comment>


Big Bounce Simulations Challenge the Big Bang - <AUTHOR> https://www.quantamagazine.org/big-bounce-simulations-challenge-the-big-bang-20200804/ <comment><USER2> I despise the big bounce because it's dogmatic in origin. "It makes sense that the universe just bounces instead of 'coming from nowhere'!"

Every time cosmologists looked, the universe got bigger and suggested growth. The big bounce at no point in history ever looked right. Moreover, the big bounce kicks the bucket down the road. It ultimately has the same metaphysical issues.

I find the reasoning poor as well. "I don't like inflation" != "The universe ends in contraction". Yes, it's proven difficult to explain CMB smoothness, but this doesn't mean the big bounce is a better candidate than other non- empirical ideas.

I'm confident truth will be far stranger than big bounce fiction.

<comment><USER3> The metaphysical issues are unavoidable because whatever the theory we come up with or, I think, whatever the reality is, it can only fall within 2 possibilities:

\- Infinity: There is no beginning and something always precedes the 'current' step (e.g. the Big Bang occurred out of something)

\- Discontinuity: There is a beginning. Everything suddenly started out of nothing.

While both options are hard to grasp for the human mind, the second one, which is the standard Big Bang also sits very uncomfortably with Physics' concepts and is the more 'disturbing' of the two. I think that's why people have been looking for alternatives to the standard Big Bang theory.

Infinity, is still unfathomable but at least it is easier to fit Maths and Physics around.

Even adding God to the mix still leads to these 2 options, because if the Universe was created by 'God' it implies that the Big Bang is not the beginning and that something (God) pre-existed. The idea that we might be in a simulation is equivalent to a creator God, just more hi-tech.

It really seems to me that these alternatives, infinity or discontinuity, are inescapable.

<comment><USER4> Well, there's the Marvin Minsky answer. He believed that there is no difference between a possible universe and a real universe. Think of the difference between an algorithm that only exists in theory and running the algorithm on a computer. What do we add to the result by running it? We don't change the result, or grant it any greater validity in a metaphysical sense. The answer was always going to be the same and always will be the same. Minsky thought that our world is simply a possible world, but to suppose it is 'real' or not doesn't change anything and more than doing a calculation makes the result correct. It simply is.

It's similar in some ways to the concept of block time, in which there is no progression of time. The universe simply exists and the perception of the 'present' is an illusion. Similarly for Minsky the perception of reality or existence is an illusion.

<comment><USER5> > It's similar in some ways to the concept of block time, in which there is no > progression of time. The universe simply exists and the perception of the > 'present' is an illusion. Similarly for Minsky the perception of reality or > existence is an illusion.

Labeling something an "illusion" like that seems like a massive cop-out, made by a mapmaker to avoid confronting the fact that their maps don't fully represent the territory. Fossils weren't illusions, and I don't think the present or existence are illusions either.

<comment><USER6> If a surgeon pokes your brain in the right place, that desk in front of you will disappear. You aren't experiencing reality directly, as per Plato's Cave. Reality seems precisely to be an illusion.

<comment><USER7> The desk is still there, as confirmed by outside observers. If you are blind, is everything you touch non-existent?

<comment><USER6> How do you know about "outside observers" other than through a model you formed in your mind by data received through your senses? "Objective reality" is just another shadow on Plato's wall that can be extinguished.

<comment><USER8> Nihilism is neat until you realize it makes not testable predictions. So sure, everything could be totally an illusion and your brain is hooked up to a computer somewhere (or it is a computer). That's a metaphysical claim that's not falsifiable and doesn't even make any useful predictions.

That's not particularly relevant to a discussion about science and the Big Bang. In science we assume that multiple measurements by multiple people of the same phenomena gives us a good idea of the behavior and whether it matches our models. Our models will likely forever be incomplete but throwing our hands up in the air and trying to say "yes, but do we _really_ know that" doesn't seem helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Both theories are somewhat incomprehensible for normal human beings. The idea, that everythinw we know _just came into existence_ at some point is as shocking as trying to think of something that has no beginning and no end. We humans are inherently bad in dealing with these terms.

<comment><USER10> _The idea, that everythinw we know just came into existence at some point is as shocking as trying to think of something that has no beginning and no end._

It's only an issue if you think about space and time as separate things. I find it makes (a little) more sense when you understand that time is a function of spacetime. Therefore if you're happy with space not existing prior to the big bang (which people do seem to be OK with) then _automatically_ time didn't exist either, and hence 'before the big bang' ceases to be a problem.

<comment><USER11> This is what gets me. I can imagine no space and no time. But in a reality without space and time, by definition, nothing happens. There is nothing to act or be acted on. There is no timeline by which to order cause and effect. But the Big Bang posits that, in fact, something did happen: space and time began. The most incredible event imaginable occurred in the most impossible circumstance. It just doesn't compute for me. It's much easier for me to imagine that time is just turtles all the way down.

<comment><USER12> > The most incredible event imaginable occurred in the most impossible > circumstance.

Think of time as "it prevents everything happening at once". Before there was time, nothing prevented everything happening at once, without space nothing prevented everything happening in the same place, so everything happened at once and in the same place. That everything happening made so much noise that it created space and time in a very big bang.

<comment><USER13> What is that "something" that is happening all at once? In my naive understanding of cosmological theories is they seem to end in probabilities (e.g., eternal inflation) that emerge from a kind of (oxymoronic) "chaotic static", but what does that mean for this to "happen all at once"? That statement seems to imply there's no degree of freedom through which something can occur (at least casually).

I suppose the question comes to, what is time? I imagine "time" to be a degree of freedom through which something can change. I understand some see time to be related to entropy, and that it's an emergent property of this thermodynamic property but this seems too limiting. It would seem entropy is more-so an explanation for the arrow of time, but not time itself.

If time is defined as the dimension through which something can change then should time not be fundamental to any cosmological theories that extends beyond the Big Bang?

<comment><USER12> > What is that "something" that is happening all at once?

Not "something". Everything. Like "What is possible to happen? Everything is possible". If you can't divide that possibility by time period, everything possible will happen with probability of 1. How improbable is that universe will happen during 1 trillion years? Very improbable. But if you can't tell in how many years universe will happen, it just will exist.

> but what does that mean for this to "happen all at once"

If you don't have time to make difference between two things happening one after another, they will happen both at the same exact "time".

> If time is defined as the dimension through which something can change then > should time not be fundamental to any cosmological theories that extends > beyond the Big Bang?

The problem is, time depends on local state of space. More energy/matter in a chunk of space means time is slower relative to other chunks of space. So when you try to go into past with mass in chunk of space increasing into infinity, that time notion breaks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Many comments here address an important issue: the human mind has a hard time making sense of both an eternally existing universe, as well as something- from-nothing. But most of the issues stem from presupposing physicalism. It's understood even by staunch physicalists that choosing this metaphysics is ultimately arbitrary[1].

There's another way to approach all this. Start by asking: _what 's the one thing I know for certain?_ It's hard to say any more than _it certainly seems like something is happening._ Investigate this sheer fact of "seeming." See what the seeming is like _before_ you apply any metaphysics on top of it. What happens when you do this extremely precisely?

Suppose that the _correct_ metaphysics is that you are ultimately the primordial ground of being, that (paradoxically) weaves itself into apparent realities. What we think of as _physical reality_ is just one instance. It transcends parameters like time and causality, but can give rise to them of its own will. Being the primordial ground of being, nothing logically prevents you from knowing this ultimate truth directly and unequivocally (unlike if you were really just a human).

As it so happens, the preceding paragraph describes _how_ you would (re)arrive at this knowing. Or at least, that's what's suggested by various mystical traditions. As far as I can tell, there's definitely something to it.

[1] "There is no way to distinguish between the scenarios by collecting new data. What we're left with is our choice of prior credences. We're allowed to pick priors however we want. [...] We have every right to give high credence to views of the world that are productive and fruitful." —Sean Carroll, The Big Picture (p.91)

</comment><comment><USER15> I have never heard about Big Bounce before, honestly, but the illustration at the top of the article basically made sense in a heart beat and I'm impressed how simple yet how much of the idea it conveys, apparently, correctly. Kudos to the visual artist, usually these scientific illustrations used to explain a weird or novel idea are over the top.

<comment><USER16> I vaguely recall hearing of this from a different field of study.

[https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~goyal/age_of_universe.php](https://www.cs.ubc.ca/~goyal/age_of_universe.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Anyone else when they think about the origin of Universe for a long time, start to wonder how the hell do we even exist and get a feeling like a panic attack? I don't really know how to accurately describe the feeling. Its a very weird sensation. It only happens when I think about the origin of Universe. And its very very hard to arrive at that state. Requires a lot of concentration. I must have experienced it like less than 5 or 6 times in my life so far.

<comment> maze-le It is called existential anxiety, it shows that you are able to contemplate about your own insignificance in contrast to the grand scheme of things (universe, all of existence, etc.). We all have it on one level or another, I used to have it when looking into a dark cloudless night, realizing that all of the little dots I can see out there could technically be orbited by another planet that bears life, inhabited by millions or billions of other lifeforms that could be able to feel and think.

Usually it is nothing to worry about, except when you get obsessed by it and it starts to control aspects of your life because you build a worldview around it or try hard to avoid it or explain it away: then it is called an existential crisis. But what it really means is that the mind gets overwhelmed by the fact that the universe is orders of magnitudes more complex than what the self has ever encountered in our daily lifes. Our brains have evolved so that bipedal apes that migrated from forests into the steppes can survive and cooperate in groups. It was never meant to be confronted by questions of this dimension, but yet here we are.

You can make your peace with it, and embrace it. It can also be a source of endless curiosity, spirituality and creativity.

<comment><USER18> I remember learning the term "existential crisis" long before I ever experienced it. Then after floundering mentally for a long time, I suddenly connected the two, and the realization that so many other people throughout history have had the same exact feeling - so much so that there's a term for it which is almost a cliche - made me feel a lot better for some reason.

I decided to accept the Douglas Adams perspective: In an infinite universe, an infinite number of seemingly improbable things will inevitably happen, including a random number of particles ejected from astronomical explosions collecting together in one spot in such a way and for just enough time to create life as we know it, and for some of that life to think, "Why am I here?", before entropy rips all of it apart again a cosmic blink later. We exist because in an infinite universe, all things that can happen will happen, including you. There's even a universe in which a god did in fact create everything... which is an interesting question: How do we know if we're in that universe or not?

<comment><USER19> Have you heard of these somewhat disturbing concepts:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann_brain) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortalit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality) ?

<comment><USER18> "Theoretically, over an extremely large but not infinite amount of time, by sheer chance atoms in a void could spontaneously come together in such a way as to assemble a functioning human brain."

That's fantastic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The universe always having always existed makes slightly more sense to me than it just popping out of nowhere. Sure, from the Big Bang onwards the inflation theory seemed to make sense but it didn't explain how everything could magically erupt out of nothing or what caused said eruption when nothing existed prior to it. For all the crap that religions get for believing in nonsense, I always felt the Big Bang was a scientific parallel.

<comment><USER21> That's just our own minds applying their own adaptive heuristics to the universe, though. We're used to dealing with systems that have a history, because that's what allows us to avoid the tiger lurking in the dark. But there's no particular reason to think that kind of evolved thinking should be scale free, through time and space.

Why is a universe that has always been in existence, cycling through different states, any more sensible than one that pops into existence only to ultimately fizzle out? Both require the presupposition of some kind of uncaused system. Gathering evidence pointing toward one or the other is key.

I do think that the Big Bang maps better to Western religious cosmogony (matter was created ex nihilo) and Big Bounce to philosophical materialism (matter is the fundamental substrate of the world), but that shouldn't bias a scientist against the Big Bang.

<comment><USER22> In this territory, a lot of arguments of the form "This does seem to be the obvious conclusion based on our human thought ,but that is a mere delusion/illusion" \- the implication is that someone has an ultra-insightful way to see through the illusion. They don't ; they just seek a little bit of self-edification and ego-stroking by suggesting as much. Arguments of that style are incredibly weak "It only VERY POWERFULLY SEEMS SO" is actually an admission that an unbiased person would reach the conclusion being rejected. The scientific community clung to the steady-state model of cosmology for nearly a century before embracing Big-Bang theory - this was due to philosophical attachments rather than any sort of evidence - these sorts of motivations are still at play today. They mocked and derided those who advanced alternatives until the evidence became so overwhelming that it could no longer be denied.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Sir Roger Penrose and Dr William Lane Craig had an interesting discussion[0] that included him talking about the Big Bounce (around the 50-minute mark).

[0] [https://youtu.be/9wLtCqm72-Y](https://youtu.be/9wLtCqm72-Y)

</comment><comment><USER24> As I have long suspected, though computer science is a subset of mathematics, cosmology is actually a subset of computer science.

<comment><USER25> They're both variations on information theory.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This seems at least superficially similar to Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology theory.

Anyone here able to weigh in on that?

</comment><comment><USER27> There's some interesting theories about what was happening before the big bang in the Joe Rogan interview with Brian Greene [https://youtu.be/FHAA_1Guxlo](https://youtu.be/FHAA_1Guxlo)

</comment><comment><USER28> It is also worth nothing that cyclic cosmogony was envisioned more than two millennia ago in Hinduism.

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

</comment><comment><USER29> Most human questions about the origin of things assume that the default state must be Nothing.

Why can't it be Everything?

i.e., instead of imagining the Universe as a white dot on a black canvas, how about thinking of it as a black dot on a white background?

</comment><comment><USER30> My biggest problem with the big bang is why didn't the incredible density of energy (it hadn't cooled enough for matter) just turn into a black hole?

The big bounce avoids this particular problem.

<comment><USER31> Inflationary theory. Someone more educated on the topic can pine in, but my lay understanding is that the output of some form of primeval radioactive decay (Big Bang) caused a phenomenal rate of spacial expansion, which caused space to expand faster than the rate of gravitational collapse in those first moments.

<comment><USER30> It's not the rate of gravitational collapse you have to beat, it's the speed of light.

Although I guess that makes sense. After all it's spacetime, not space. So if the expansion rate is higher than the speed of light, then you don't have the black hole problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> TL:DR; despite the title, mostly the theory challenges inflation (which itself was originally partly an attempt to answer predictive flaws with earlier cyclic theories) - the big bang itself is countered in so far as a "single point" state is not required.

With this continuous (eternal?) contraction and expansion, I'm reminded eerily of a heart beating, or _something_ breathing...

</comment><comment><USER33> I thought the universe is too big as to contract again?

<comment><USER34> The results don't necessarily tell us about the future- but that there may have been a bounce in the past.

As far as being too big, that's not quite it. Everything is moving away from each other because of the big bang, but astronomers realized that hey, gravity should be slowing that down. So they tried to measure the deceleration of the expansion of the universe. Instead they found it's accelerating.

There's a lot of theories as to why, but right now it's just called "Dark Energy" because no one really has a full understanding of it. Space itself seems to be stretching out, becoming larger.

Will the acceleration of expansion continue forever? Maybe someday it will slow and reverse? No one is sure yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The bing bang is way too accepted in the mainststream: in reality there is no concrete proof for it.

Therefore we can either: a) Fit the models to fit the data. b) Invent more physical phenomena to make it fit the data (quasi particles in physics).

There is nothing wrong in doing that, but there is severe arrogance of saying that "the bing bang happened" where in reality we just have a hypothesis.

And even "the most widely accepted by CONSENSUS" hyptothesis doesn't make mean is actually TRUE.

It's perfectly fine to make new theories, but at the end of the day we simply don't know enough: and yet the mainstream/every kid believes in the the bing bang to the extend as religous people believe in God.

<comment><USER36> There was very much a prediction of the Big Bang, before it was strongly supported by experimental evidence. This is what Penzias and Wilson got the Nobel prize for. Their accidental detection of the Cosmic Microwave Background matched a prediction by Gamow, and others previously, and it was also used as evidence to rule out solid state theory. Does that mean it's the whole story? Of course not necessarily, and the Big Bounce isn't necessarily incompatible with these observations. However, I don't think the idea that the universe rapidly expanded at some point in the past is under any doubt.

So this wasn't a model fitting the data. In fact it was an _accidental_ observation which agreed with a model that had been suggested much earlier. The fact Penzias and Wilson weren't even looking for it makes it even more unbiased. Wilson, I believe, was also a solid state person (as were many prominent physicists in the 20s and 30s).

<comment><USER37> Do you mean "solid state" or "steady-state?"

<comment><USER36> Oops, yes, I meant steady-state! :)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Mixed martial arts fan site - CombatPicks.com - <AUTHOR> http://www.combatpicks.com/ Combat Picks was built to be a fun tool for MMA fans to make predictions/picks on fights.  The site was built by two people (1 design - 1 code) over the course of about a month.  I don't have any plans for monetization - we really just built the site as MMA fans to be able to provide a fun service to other people.
http://www.combatpicks.com/
We have lots of improvements in the pipeline - i'd love to hear some feedback/ideas on what we can improve. <comment><AUTHOR> Combat Picks was built to be a fun tool for MMA fans to make predictions/picks on fights. The site was built by two people (1 design - 1 code) over the course of about a month. I don't have any plans for monetization - we really just built the site as MMA fans to be able to provide a fun service to other people.

<http://www.combatpicks.com/>

We have lots of improvements in the pipeline - i'd love to hear some feedback/ideas on what we can improve.

</comment><comment><USER2> Just out of curiosity - how do you get the data for this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Wikipedia

<comment><USER3> I'm a big MMA fan and a Web developer.

Are you only pulling Strikeforce and UFC events? Are you thinking at some point pulling from more sources? For instance, Sherdog's event calendars and the like?

This is also very nice that was recently featured on MiddleEasy: [https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aHBsM3NmMG41bXVybW...](https://www.google.com/calendar/embed?src=aHBsM3NmMG41bXVybWc4dm0zZmNqNG1rc2tAZ3JvdXAuY2FsZW5kYXIuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbQ&gsessionid=OK)

<comment><AUTHOR> Right now i'm only pulling Strikeforce and UFC. Since the events are updated manually i don't really have the time right now to research and maintain cards for so many promotions. Perhaps with the use of something like mechanical turk it could be made manageable without breaking the bank.

I was trying to avoid scraping sherdog since i'm not sure of the legal ramifications of doing so. Felt a little bit safer using wikipedia.</comment></comment></comment></comment>