'Bubble Boys' Cured in Medical Breakthrough Using Gene Therapy - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-17/-bubble-boys-cured-in-medical-breakthrough-using-gene-therapy <comment><USER2> I am an adult living with a primary immune deficiency and this is quite surreal. Dr. Jennifer Puck, on the left in the photo, is my doctor at UCSF. Let me just say that she is an incredible doctor.

I've had a vague hope in gene therapy for many years, but have never really believed I would live to see it come to market as a real treatment.

I've told my family many times that "maybe gene therapy will be the fix". Today is the first day I've actually believed those words.

<comment><USER3> Although it may be a first for this specific SCID (X-linked), there are other SCID forms that have successfully been using this gene therapy approach for a little while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The actual study is here. It's a remarkable achievement: [https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1815408](https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1815408)

No CRISPR/Cas9 was used in this study.

We'll have to wait and see if any of the patients develop hematologic malignancies (blood cancers).

I predict we'll see dozens of papers like this in the next few years. Sickle cell and thalessemias are low hanging fruit.

<comment><USER5> CRISPR has much better targeting than lentiviral gene editing, so it should have much lower rates of cancer too.

<comment><USER6> The incredibly vast sphere of gene-to-gene interactions is very poorly understood.

Anything changed in the DNA can have completely unforeseen consequences because genes and their products influence expression of other genes.

Which genes does each gene influence? Directly or indirectly? To what extent (strength of up- or downregulation)? Only under specific conditions? Only if 3 other genes are present and not regulated in a different manner?

I have done some computational gene interaction analysis by building regulatory interaction networks in Cytoscape using sequencing and expression data based on specific research [1].

My subjective impression is that messing with genes is little but an unpredictable endeavor at this point. The gamble may pay off but I don't think anyone can honestly tell you something about long-term effects in each individual.

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503487/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3503487/)

<comment><USER7> I think i'd take the gamble over living in an isolation room for my entire life

<comment><USER8> It doesn't really matter whether you would or would not take the gamble; it depends on whether the FDA would be willing to let you.

(I'm not saying this as some kind of rrrgh-gubmint-bad thing. It's pretty normal for the government to have authority over what gambles are acceptable to offer in what circumstances, and which ones are exploitative and detrimental to even offer; this is the logic behind, for instance, regulations of _actual gambling._ )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> St Jude is an amazing place. All patients treated for free. Incredible research taking place funded by charitable donations.

</comment><comment><USER10> The pricing issue of gene therapy is quite interesting. A comparable treatment which is licensed now (Zolgensma, Novartis), has an estimated price tag of $2 million [1].

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-07/gene- ther...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-07/gene-therapy-was- hailed-as-a-revolution-then-came-the-bill)

<comment><USER11> Interesting indeed. Would you say that this is price is unreasonably high? If I am reading the following article correctly, the target patient population for Zolgensma experience an average of 4.2 hospitalizations a year with a mean cost of $150K per hospitalization (2012 dollars and rates)

[https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41669-018-0093-0](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s41669-018-0093-0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is great news. But it says they've licensed it to a small pharmaceutical company, whose shares are now up 400%.

There are a number of "miracle cures" out there for genetic disorders that have been effectively discontinued or that have insanely high prices. I'm concerned that future articles about this breakthrough will be in that vein.

Hopefully not, but that's my fear.

<comment><USER13> How does that work? Why license to a small company instead of selling yourself?

Also, how are people aware of these small pharmaceutical companies and future breakthroughs like this without insider trading? Meaning, some people profited handsomely on this deal, how did they make it happen if not luck or insider trading?

<comment><USER14> You're asking a lot of important questions and I'll take a stab at answering them.

The discovery of a new molecule or invention of a new method for treating disease is about 5-10% of the effort required to bring a drug to market. Yes, it's clearly not possible to bring a drug to market if it has not been invented, so it's essential to the process, but the difficulty shepherding this new thing through to commercial approval is fraught with difficulties. Universities and hospitals don't have the right talent to do this, nor do they have the resources or the risk tolerance so they sell some of the future gains to a company through licensing for money now. This is how almost all drugs are developed now-a-days, through licensing deals from the inventing parties. This brings the drug to market a lot faster, helping patients more quickly, and reduces the risk of development failure which would prevent patients from getting the drug.

On your second question, the biotech space is small and the number of investing analysts are also small in number. This means you can get a sense of the entire space by following a handful of people on twitter or by email. If you're in the business, you knew who's working on what. Biotech is unlike high-tech in that you need capital to do the work. Making an app can be done by a single person in their apartment. Making a drug requires millions of dollars, special lab equipment, the right people, being in a hub, etc.

In terms of insider trading, the SEC has strict rules on trading on non-public information and compartmentalizing this kind of information to a small group of people who have their trading accounts basically always watched by regulators. Every year a number of biotech employees go to jail for insider trading, so it clearly happens but the SEC is really vigilant on pursing it. The people who profited from this are likely the employees of the company and the investors. They didn't need insider trading as much as they needed to be in biotech, live in the Boston area, want a job working on gene therapy, and work for the company. It's like asking how did people make money off Facebook, or any other company that started-up and made it big.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is absolutely incredible!

Does anyone know if this can help GSD? My cousin has it and it's an absolutely horrible disease, her childhood was robbed and her parents' lives upended [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen_storage_disease](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycogen_storage_disease)

<comment><USER3> My guess is that it would be difficult because you have to kill off/weaken the existing problematic cells to allow the new ones to take over with these therapies.

This is manageable when you're treating a white blood cell disease as you can live temporarily without these cells and they regenerate frequently.

But if all you need are some cells to produce more of an enzyme and can produce it in sufficient amounts to manage the existing cells producing the bad enzyme, you might be in luck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > X-linked severe combined immunodeficiency, or SCID

This is poor phrasing. There are non X-linked SCIDs.

<comment><USER13> What's your level of experience with this subject?

Where can I learn more about gene therapy as well as CRISPR/Cas9?

Specifically seminal papers?

Where can I learn more about the business aspect of it? Industry, projections, opportunities, etc.

Thanks in advance!

<comment><USER3> Not a ton. This seems like a good backgrounder:

[https://primaryimmune.org/treatment-information/stem-cell- an...](https://primaryimmune.org/treatment-information/stem-cell-and-gene- therapy)</comment></comment></comment>


Obama Will Veto CISPA Unless Changes Are Made - <AUTHOR> http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/obama-will-veto-cispa-unless-changes-are-made <comment><USER2> Note to poorly-informed HN readers: the conflict playing out here isn't --- IS NOT --- between the GOP which wants intrusive monitoring of Facebook and the Obama camp which wants government to keep its grubby paws off private data.

Instead, what's happening is that policy people in the Administration believe we need _extensive further legislation and rulemaking_ to ensure that computer systems which are in any way "vital to the national interest" are kept "secure", where a final definition of "security" is sure to rest on "XXX hours of $400/person/hour time from a Raytheon or Lockheed subcontractor".

Restated†:

The GOP:

* Wants Government to keep its hands off private networks

* Does not currently see "cybersecurity" as a subject worth increasing Executive power over (possibly a side effect of who controls the Executive)

* Is, true to form, pursuing a policy of finding minimalistic ways of allowing private industry to self-regulate the problem away

* Is marginally more likely than the Democratic Administration to want to concede privacy concerns to private industry and away from end-users in the service of this goal

The Democratic Administration:

* Generally believes itself to be at (undeclared, cold) war with China over information systems

* Believes Government intervention is going to be required to protect utilities, communications, military, and trading exchange networks

* Is marginally more likely than the GOP to want to enact rules regarding information privacy that protect end-users from private industry --- but _not_ from the Government.

The animating concern regarding CISPA to HN readers is privacy. You should be aware that privacy is a third- or fourth- tier concern of both factions in this policy debate. The real concern is: does private industry tackle the "China hacker problem" itself, or does the Government step in?

Excepting that the only mechanism the government has to add security to any network (private, public, or military) is to purchase blocks of Raytheon hours, I don't even disagree with Obama: the security of many networks that are _prima facie_ vital to the public interest are not only a shambles, but continue to degrade in quality as rounds of purchasing and infrastructure upgrades continue to execute without any serious attention given to software security quality. Look at the "Smart Grid" for the most obvious example, but there are more, such as SCADA networks that are "modernizing" into web-based systems with circa-2005 levels of application security. The Administration is not wrong that CISPA doesn't go far enough --- and again: that is the central conflict here, that CISPA _does.not.go.far.enough_ \--- but they have no effective mechanisms to bring to bear to improve the situation either. Their vantage point implies a bonanza for giant government contractors like Lockheed and SAIC.

Be careful what you wish for, especially if all your opinions about CISPA came from EFF. For the first time, my perception is that the EFF is running with this CISPA issue not out of genuine concern over policy, but because it's a vehicle for fundraising off Internet rage. And look at the result: stories where the Democratic Administration looks like a white knight. Wow, is that ever the opposite of what's actually happening.

† ( _and please note I'm a dollars-donating supporter of the Democratic party; I support public schools and believe in single-payer health care --- but party identification is unavoidable here and vital to understanding what is happening_ )

<comment><USER3> The United States government has spent and will continue to spend untold millions understanding these threats and studying the situation and techniques. In addition they are targeted by both more numerous and more advanced attacks than any group in the private sector by far.

Without a doubt no organization in the world knows as much about cybersecurity as the United States government, and up until now all of that knowledge has been held from the private sector behind many layers of classification. Don't you feel that it could be beneficial for the public to have a path for the two groups to work together?

<comment><USER2> The "US Government" isn't a coherent whole when it comes to information security, so I find your comment hard to respond to. However:

"Without a doubt no organization in the world knows as much about cybersecurity as the United States government"... I've been a practitioner in this field since the early '90s; I know not one other practitioner who shares that opinion.

<comment><USER4> Honest question: do you think there's a group/organization that knows, on balance, more about "cybersecurity" than the NSA?

<comment><USER5> Yeah, the parent makes the point not to conflate the NSA with 'the US Government'. There's the adage that a team is only as good as its least able member - guess that would apply to the US Government's knowledge of IT security.

<comment><USER6> Whereas that may apply in terms of effectiveness, the opposite applies in terms of knowledge.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> ... or until he caves, yet again.

<comment><USER7> Why was that downvoted? The guy has a track record. He was dead-set against telecom immunity, before he voted to support it (back when he was a senator). He was for repealing the Bush tax cuts until he wasn't. He caved on budget negotiations when he agreed that the deficit was the biggest budget problem. He was all for closing Gitmo until he wasn't. He was against signing statements until he got into office. His record on civil liberties (domestic spying, FOIA, strip searches -- he argued for the majority opinion, domestic use of drones) has been in stark contrast to the sort of things he was saying when he was a candidate.

I think he has proven that statements beginning with the words "I will" must be taken with a large grain of salt. In fact, with CSIPA you can already see it happening -- the weasel words to note are "in its current form".

How can you believe his progressive-leaning statements any longer without being completely naive?

<comment><USER2> I downvoted it because the comment was content-free. "Backs down" from what? What's the likelihood that a random HN commenter intends to communicate support for the 2012 White House "Cybersecurity" agenda with a comment like that? Epsilon.

As for your "in their current form" innuendo: that would be clever, except that the Administration has for several years communicated loud and clear what their agenda is on this subject. That it is surely something you will not approve of (likelihood that random sampling of HN readers will go apeshit over what the Obama Administration wants to do vis a vis cyberspace: 99.999%) doesn't make it "weaselly". They've been anything but weaselly on this topic.</comment></comment></comment>


How to avoid runtime errors on drones using SPARK (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.adacore.com/how-to-prevent-drone-crashes-using-spark <comment><USER2> This is good writeup but very misleading title. Article essentially describes using SPARK to avoid runtime errors in firmware such as overflows. But that is far cry from avoiding drone crashes. You can do lot of these things with sophisticated code analysis (although not all of it). But the thing is that it doesn't solve the primary issues of _algorithmic_ errors or even errors that might occur because of things like timing issues or sensor noise. Of course, it doesn't do anything about obstacle detection and avoidance. I would imagine that very small number of crashes occurs due to runtime errors in firmware.

There have been lot of other work going on for verifiability for realtime firmware code. For example P programming language: [https://github.com/p-org/P](https://github.com/p-org/P). But still it doesn't tackle the issues mentioned above that causes majority of crashes.

<comment><USER3> > it doesn't solve the primary issues of algorithmic errors

SPARK does more than described in this post, and you _can_ indeed use it to verify correctness properties of your algorithms. If I remember correctly, it interfaces with Why3, which is itself a platform for interfacing with many many provers like Z3, Vampire, CVC4, etc.

SPARK does more than just "sophisticated code analysis". If you ask it to.

<comment><USER4> Still, I don't think you can use it to avoid (physical) crashes due to an incorrect algorithm, simply because theorem provers work on a cognitive basis but control systems operate on continuous fields (i.e. transfer functions defined over the complex numbers).

<comment><USER3> Believe it or not, people working on theorem proving are aware that computers use finite arithmetic, and they take this into account. Yes, floating-point computations are hard and painful to verify. But no, it's not _that_ easy to hand-wave away the whole field :-)

<comment><USER5> Honestly, it seems floating point computations are, by some measure, possibly _pretty old at this point_ in the formal methods world! Intel has been investing in formal verification of its floating point units since at least the 90s when FDIV hit them, and this was when the tech was way worse than what we have today!

Hell, CompCert -- which you can download today -- already has a proven adherence to IEEE-754 floating point, implemented by specifying IEEE-754 semantics in Coq, then using that to create a proof the compiler correctly preserves the semantics of IEEE-754 during the compilation process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Took me an entire 3 paragraphs to realise it's not Apache Spark :D

But, an impressive inter-project post!

<comment><USER7> Yup. We have officially ran out of words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Impressive blog post for a 5th grade student!

<comment><USER9> Maybe it means fifth year at university?</comment></comment>


The Removal of AirFloat and AirFoil [from the iOS App Store] - <AUTHOR> http://devblog.thefamoussoftwarecompany.com/some-thoughts-on-the-removal-of-airfloat-and-airfoil/ <comment><USER3> Apple develops a technology called Airplay that it licenses to 3rd parties. Developers reverse-engineer the technology and sell apps that circumvent Apple's licensing model. Apple removes those apps from their store.

I am not the least bit surprised.

<comment><USER4> Airfoil, at least, was developed _long_ before Apple had any sort of third party licensing model. Reverse engineering for interoperability is completely legal and ethical.

<comment><USER5> There's 2 parts to AirTunes (the part of AirPlay that Airfoil and AirFloat use), Sending and Receiving. Up to now, AirFoil only used the AirTunes protocol to SEND streams to AirPlay devices. If you reverse engineer the protocol you can send to any AirPlay device. No problem.

It's harder to make an AirPlay receiver, because iTunes won't send anything to an AirPlay receiver that doesn't encrypt the request with the proper private key.

You can only get this key legitimately by licensing AirPlay from Apple (which is why all AirPlay compatible speakers are licensed by Apple).

Someone managed to extract the private key from an AirPort express by removing the flash chip and reading it externally. They then published this "stolen" key on the web. Prior to that, it was impossible to make anything that would receive AirPlay streams from iTunes, even though the protocol was widely understood (it's basically just RTSP).

A bunch of open source implementations on other platforms (PC/Mac/Windows) were released.

Rogue Amoeba's AirFoil speakers for Mac/PC included this functionality. However, up until this last update, they never included it in their iOS application. Their stated reason for this was they couldn't figure out a revenue stream to make this work (AirFoil implements it's own music transmission protocol. You bought the Mac software for $20, then got the receiver software for free. Under this model, making the free product able to receive streams from iTunes without the Mac software would have cut out their revenue producing server from the picture). The latest release included this AirPlay receiving feature as an in-App purchase. Since they've had the code to do this for a while, and it seems like this method is probably preferable to most users and therefore likely more profitable, the delay seems odd.

My speculation is, they've been using the "stolen" key, and were hesitant to draw attention to themselves by trying to get software using it approved on the app store. Eventually potential profit won out, and they went for it. It got approved by the (probably) less technically savvy app review team that doesn't know about the requirements of a licensed key to make AirPlay reception work. It was noticed later by some Apple engineer who is familiar with the protocol and was then pulled.

Since the private key is necessary to make this feature work, they either needed to license it or use the "stolen" AirPort Express key. If they licensed it, I don't think Apple would be pulling it. Since Apple does license this to people, it would be unfair to their licensees to turn a blind eye to people using the "stolen" key. If it became apparent they were letting it slide, it would lead to a proliferation of unlicensed (potentially crappy/flakey) devices that might not meet Apple's quality standards.

I think the speculation about Apple wanting to include something similar in a future iOS release is irrelevant here. Maybe they would, but I think this reasoning seems more likely.

<comment><USER6> > There's 2 parts to AirTunes (the part of AirPlay that Airfoil and AirFloat > use), Sending and Receiving. Up to now, AirFoil only used the AirTunes > protocol to SEND streams to AirPlay devices. If you reverse engineer the > protocol you can send to any AirPlay device. No problem.

How do you know there's no problem with AirPlay sending?

Other than Apple's past behavior (which, as shown here and many other places, is no guarantee of future results) I'd have thought the correct assumption is that Apple wouldn't want anything to do with unlicensed implementations of either side of the AirPlay protocol.

<comment><USER5> That's a good point... I based my assumption on the fact that they require a private key for receiving, but not sending.

I guess that doesn't necessarily prove anything...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you find yourself using Apple's private key (or private "anything") this should be a clear signal that your innovative energy should probably be spent elsewhere - seems like common sense to me.

Also, if you start trying to convince yourself that your app does not violate the guidelines because there are other apps do what you want to do, even though your intuition tells you that your app will be rejected, spend your energy elsewhere. Apple has no concept of "precedent" in making their decisions (nor should they or could they), and they make clear that the existence of another app doing what you do is not the basis for a successful appeal.

I'm not saying don't push the boundaries of the guidelines, but if you do so, understand it to be a business risk. And if Apple turns around and rejects your app, accept it as a cost of doing business on the edge, and don't act like Apple is to blame for the risk you took and take your sense of persecution public.

AirPlay is a strategic technology for Apple - it is going to become more and more important in the next year. Any moves Apple makes to protect this technology are first and foremost going to be motivated by ensuring the best, most consistent possible experience for the end user - their interests rest with the whole device ecology and how those devices interact. The motivation is not crushing third-party implementations because they don't want to compete with them or because they want licensing fees (which are trivial to them) - <USER2> is because they don't want hacked implementations screwing up the end-user experience, especially for non-geeks.

</comment><comment><USER5> When I posted my reply regarding AirFoil a while back, the article wasn't loading... now that it is, you can see the developer actually explains Apple's stance and gives an example of why they do what they do.

He says: "But then something remarkable happened. Apple approved Air Speakers – an app that enabled you to stream audio to your iOS device from iTunes and iOS devices. Using the private key of the AirPort Express. Sadly it was a horrible app. Synchronization wasn't even implemented, so the audio was hopelessly out of sync, when sending audio to multiple devices."

I believe this is why Apple requires you license AirPlay. Not so they can make a quick buck (I'm sure the license fees are trivial to Apple), but so they can make sure things that work with AirPlay don't behave as the author claims the AirSpeakers app does.

They later claim that AirPlay implemented the key to stop piracy; "The encrypted stream was initially implemented in order to protect the transfer of DRM-encrypted iTunes Music Store audio content," but doesn't back this statement up. I think they implemented the key requirement to enforce their licensing. I can't back this up either, other than it explains Apple's actions better than his theory. The licensing isn't there as a profit center, but to give them some quality control so that AirPlay doesn't get a bad reputation for being difficult to use or unreliable.

The thing that doesn't make sense is that supposedly Apple rejected this for using private APIs. This doesn't sound like the case.

It'd be interesting to know what the AirPlay licensing terms are like, and whether or not the AirFloat developer or Rogue Amoeba approached Apple to license AirPlay (I'll guess no).

</comment><comment><USER8> _All was working out great, and in the first month I had 100 downloads and the reception was phenomenal. Only five star reviews on App Store._

Is that a typo? Really only _100_ downloads? If that's true then the app store is even more of a crapshoot than I thought.

<comment><USER9> It's only a crapshoot if all you do is drop your app in the store and assume that people will find it by magic.

<comment><USER8> I've heard several very successful iOS devs say that they basically did exactly that.

I think the secret is finding a rich but unexplored niche but of course that's getting more difficult over time.

<comment><USER9> The thing about crapshoots is that sometimes you win.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder at what point the removal of good and innovative apps will piss enough iOS developers off that no new good apps will get created...

<comment><USER11> What is good and innovative about stealing Apple's private encryption key ?

<comment><USER6> First, as far as I'm aware, there's no allegation that either this developer or Rogue Amoeba was responsible for extracting and publishing the key in the first place.

Second, I think the point is that some developers did good and innovative things with the key. By itself, I'd call extracting and publishing the key a mundane technical challenge, nothing more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Cached version from Google:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6tI7UJT...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:6tI7UJTrdhMJ:devblog.thefamoussoftwarecompany.com/some- thoughts-on-the-removal-of-airfloat-and-airfoil/+)

</comment><comment><USER13> Developing for Apple not only means that you are at the mercy of their changing whims, it also means you are making their platforms more powerful for them so they can continue to abuse their market power.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why not run an app on the mac that serves streaming aac over http and give the user a link to open in mobilesafari? It seems to me that that would sidestep the whole issue.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't get the point of these iOS apps. I use (and love) AirFoil to send music from my MBP to my AppleTV to have my computer stream music to my TV system's speakers. But who would want to have something sent TO their iPhone?

<comment><USER15> I have an old iPod touch constantly plugged in a wall socket and hooked up to speakers in my bedroom. Running AirFoil on it allows me to play anything from my computer/iphone/ipad/etc. . Normally you'd use an airport express for that, but since I had that old iPod touch lying around, I figured it was better to recycle the device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > _I had implemented a usage reporting tool, that I used to track how my > customers was using the app._

Would you just look at how causally he mentions this. _FUCKING HELL_.

</comment><comment><USER17> I was noticing a distinct lack of apps that are airplay capable. Sad.

</comment><comment><USER18> i guess you are using hostgator as your host. (Error establishing a database connection)

</comment><comment><USER19> Presentation matters, spelling matters, basic grammar matters. People will not take you seriously if every other sentence is less well constructed than if someone were dictating to the computer in speech form.

Seriously, every other sentence has fundamental mistakes. Writing skills matter, hugely. Downvotez ahoy! (Pressing the down arrow improves your English skills for sure!)

</comment><comment><USER20> It's what happens when you let MBAs and lawyers make the decisions engineers should be making.</comment>


MongoDB and DataStax, In the Rearview Mirror - <AUTHOR> http://blog.couchbase.com/mongodb-and-datastax-rearview-mirror

<comment><USER2> My problems with Couchbase:

\- Completely opaque administration. The company charges for support ($5k per production node per year!), so perhaps unsurprisingly the log output is unreadable (similar to a binary stacktrace). Forget about diagnosing cluster issues on your own.

\- Bizarre failover behavior. In every test scenario I've tried, if any single node goes down my application becomes unresponsive (even if it can see other nodes that are up). This could be a problem with the .NET driver, but it's hard to tell.

\- Weird performance. Usually Couchbase is fast, but sometimes my application will go into what looks like a busywait loop and consume 100% CPU while trying to contact the Couchbase cluster. Again, possibly (probably?) a driver issue, but it makes me hate dealing with Couchbase.

\- Ten bucket limit. Ostensibly for performance reasons, but cannot be over- ridden. Even if I'm running a non-production cluster where performance isn't critical.

At this point we're looking at switching to Redis. At least it's widely used and easier to administer.

<comment><USER3> Hi, thanks a lot for posting this! I have been thinking about using Couchbase Server for a mobile project because I like the mobile client component they have. I'm particularly concerned about the "opaque administration" issue - have you had to actually pay the company [1] for support because the log output is so bad, or did it just slow down your debugging process.

[1] I have nothing against paying for support, but this is a personal project

<comment><USER2> I don't have a problem with charging for support either, but Couchbase (for us) is just a memcache replacement, so that price is too high to justify.

Without support the "debugging process" consists of blindly trying random things to fix the problem before giving up and moving on to something else.

<comment><USER4> The 'community' edition is free, can you run that in production? Agree on the crazy logs it generates.

<comment><USER2> We only run the community edition (everywhere). We could legally use the enterprise edition in QA, but it wouldn't make sense since production must be community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Given that Couchbase is very aware of my criticism of the last time Thumbtack benchmarked C* vs Couchbase, it's significant that no mention is made of efforts to have both systems do durable writes. It looks like they made the same mistake a second time: [http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/how-not-to- benchmark-cassan...](http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/how-not-to-benchmark- cassandra-a-case-study)

(Update: the Couchbase pdf says that they used "the fastest consistency and durability modes available for the particular database" as cover for benchmarking different things... but even that wasn't done right; no mention is made of setting durable_writes=false in Cassandra.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, writes are not durable until fsync. That's true for MongoDB, Cassandra and Couchbase Server. That being said, Cassandra demonstrated great write latency. The issue was read latency.

<comment><USER5> Of course they are not durable until fsync; that is why having an upper bound on how long that will be is important.

Out of the box Cassandra defaults to an upper bound of 10s. Couchbase defaults to no upper bound at all -- you can lose arbitrary amounts of data on power loss. That's a huge difference.

Since Couchbase does not support a time bound on fsyncs, there are two ways to make a fair comparison: make both systems fsync before acknowledging any write (commitlog_sync: batch in Cassandra and persistTo: master in Couchbase) or give Cassandra an unlimited durability window like Couchbase (durable_writes=false at the keyspace level). Of the two, the former is a lot more reasonable in real world scenarios, but the latter is at least more defensible than apples-to-oranges.

<comment><AUTHOR> As can Cassandra. It depends on how much data is still in the page cache. I do agree both systems can be configured for immediate durability. However, we went with the default values as most people (and most databases) do not sync on every write. It is too much of a performance cost.

<comment><USER5> Cassandra _cannot_ lose more than 10s of data because it will slow down writes as necessary to make sure it does not. That's why comparing to a system that allows arbitrarily high data loss is unfair.

People can and do run Cassandra with full durability. When people understand the tradeoff between performance and data loss on power failure, you'd be surprised how often they'll chose real durability. (And by batching concurrent writes into the same fsync, the penalty isn't nearly as high as it would be in a naive implementation.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you place a maximum amount of data in that 10s window? If not, it too is arbitrary. I do think batching concurrent writes is nice.

<comment><USER5> Of course "limit by time" and "limit by data" are interchangeable; in practice "limit by time" is easier for operators to reason about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "To deliver the highest write performance, Couchbase Server writes to an integrated, in-memory cache first. Then, it synchronizes the cache with the storage device for durability."

Comparing the write speed of non-durable writes against the write speed of durable writes is the same bullshit tactic that MongoDB first utilized a few years ago. Why don't we just add /dev/null in there too?

We're also apparently using 2 replicas however is the write being confirmed prior to the replica? From Couchbase documentation: "When a client application writes data to a node, that data will be placed in a replication queue and then a copy will be sent to another node. The replicated data will be available in RAM on the second node and will be placed in a disk write queue to be stored on disk at the second node."

So a write in Couchbase only guarantees it has been written to RAM on the 1st node. There's no fsync nor replica-writes occurring at the time of write_success=true

<comment><USER7> I'm intrigued as to how one can possibly justify calling that a "write".

<comment><AUTHOR> Because the data is written to a data structure before the write completed. You can "write" to a cache or to an in-memory database. Databases, relational or NoSQL, write to memory first whether it is to an application managed cache or an OS managed cache (i.e. page cache).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh boy, this is rich. From the original source: _It is always part of our process to invite vendors to provide configuration suggestions prior to testing and to share our methodology and preliminary results with each of them before we write conclusions. We will add any updates here should there be any before the final report is released._ [http://blog.thumbtack.net/new- benchmark-preliminary-results/](http://blog.thumbtack.net/new-benchmark- preliminary-results/)

It's pretty irresponsible of Couchbase to post this on their blog given that statement. The benchmark is EXTREMELY limited in scope. Crucially, it's mostly about raw speed in a fairly artificial set of use cases. They only used one size of record for for christ's sake.

I'd say more, but I'll hold off till the final report.

</comment><comment><USER9> When are we going to be finished with raw speed tests? I get it that faster is better. But I've always been a believer that good design will get you farther than choosing one software/hardware/infrastructure over another.

Also, I get the comparison of MongoDB and Couchbase. But why Cassandra from DataStax? It's a completely different technology with entirely different strengths and weaknesses. There are certainly overlapping use cases, but it seems like an odd comparison.

The better comparisons would seem to be comparing Couchbase to vanilla CouchDB and Cloudant's version of CouchDB. I guess you could throw in MongoDB, but MongoDB and CouchDB have different strengths and weaknesses. Raw speed alone doesn't exactly leave any technology in the rearview mirror.

<comment><AUTHOR> Performance is a reflection of architecture. Better performance, better architecture. That, and you can never downplay performance.

<comment><USER10> Really? ... Really? I didn't know my local file server that I SCP things too is better architected than S3.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good point. After all, most interactive applications read and write data from local files via SCP and S3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Benchmarks are almost always not able to really provide a generally useful picture. When you see the _actual_ database performance difference, is in your company, fighting for latency, in a given, specific use case, with a given writes durability and safety requirement. Every developer that really tried hard to optimize an application latency or performance knows how you end hitting the details, and very specific and database-dependent tradeoffs. TL;DR: pick databases after doing tests and simulations for your specific use case.

</comment><comment><USER12> That's odd. I was under the impression that DataStax Java drivers had knowledge of the cluster and so weren't sending requests to random nodes.

[http://www.datastax.com/doc-source/developer/java- apidocs/co...](http://www.datastax.com/doc-source/developer/java- apidocs/com/datastax/driver/core/policies/TokenAwarePolicy.html)

<comment><USER13> You actually have to use it though. TokenAware is one of many policies most of which can be layered on top of one another. Just depends on how they had the driver configured.

<comment><USER5> Token aware is the default now, but Thumbtack benchmarked with the two year old Thrift client instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> You know what would be a nice twist, if database vendors added jepsen runs to their benchmarking mix.

<comment><USER15> FoundationDB did just that: [http://blog.foundationdb.com/call-me-maybe- foundationdb-vs-j...](http://blog.foundationdb.com/call-me-maybe-foundationdb- vs-jepsen)

<comment><USER16> That is pretty cool. I'm surprised that foundation doesn't get more press.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > ...while keeping most of the working set in RAM

So if the benchmark's about data being served from RAM, how come Redis isn't a part of it? #onlyasking

<comment><AUTHOR> Most of the data is read from memory, not all of it. All of it is on disk too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Does anyone know if Couchbase can be used as a TB sized data warehouse? Seems a bit difficult since it seems all keys must be stored in memory.

<comment><USER19> At my previous company we experimented with a 12 node cluster (128GB per node) used as a datastore. At one point we had over 1 billion keys. This was back in the 1.x version where they persisted data into sqlite files so each file would have 100+ million rows in it. Persisting data took forever. Rebalancing took forever.

When it worked, it was very fast. When you lost a node, things went bad. The java client would lose it's mind trying to cope with an outage. We ended up writing a connection pool were we could just recreate our connections when we detected a node went out.

That said, it was the best distributed NoSQL solution we tried and might have improved a lot since I last used it.

<comment><USER18> really helpful info. thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> OH HERE YOU GO, I found that impartiality you dropped on the floor

</comment><comment><USER21> Just wanted to point out that this "we are writing to memory only" thing in Couchbase doesn't apply to CouchDB. CouchDB will fsync the data to the disk by default.

[http://couchdb.readthedocs.org/en/latest/config/couchdb.html](http://couchdb.readthedocs.org/en/latest/config/couchdb.html)

You can then disable that if you don't care but it. So don't confuse Couchbase's policy with CouchDB (Couchdbase it seems has gone the way of Mongo here).

Also couchdb writes in append only mode and will let you crash restart your server without corrupting your data.

</comment><comment><USER22> A response from Jonathan Ellis, via jancona: [http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/how-not-to-benchmark- cassan...](http://www.datastax.com/dev/blog/how-not-to-benchmark-cassandra-a- case-study)

<comment><USER5> (That was a response to a different benchmark, also done by Thumbtack, but it looks like it applies just as well to this one. See my comment at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7944226.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7944226.))

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> i don't understand - Couchbase took 1ms per operation without durability configured, ie. in memory. What took so long? Or is network roundtrip included?

>However, MongoDB implements a single lock per database (link). MongoDB nodes are limited to executing a single write at a time per database.

that sounds like a nightmare. Are they for real?

Looking at the results - durable configs, MongoDB and DataStax, have 3ms latency with 25K and 75K ops/sec. Are they using HDDs or SSDs? As a reference point - 5 years ago I was hitting 3.5ms on 15K disks on Oracle, at 20-30K ops/second (durable).

>*Couchbase sponsored this study.

priceless.

<comment><AUTHOR> Network roundtrip included.

Regarding MongoDB, they are. They say MongoDB 2.8 will have document level locking.

No durable configs in this benchmark though. All databases fsync'd after writes. The servers had SSDs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why no units on the plots?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good catch. Latency is in milliseconds. I'll have to fix that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Any mention of TokuMX?</comment>


Who uses git-rebase before / during / after code reviews?  - <AUTHOR>

we are evaluating the range of github-a-like tools and are hitting a fairly common blindspot - a review will have (in-line) comments and they not only make up useful info for the submitter but also useful organisational knowledge - if the submitter rebases their code as part of review process, those comments can / do get lost / get harder to find / vanish<p>Anyone got any similar experiences? <comment><USER2> Github keeps the refs for pull requests separate from branches and tags. For example, you can fetch pull request #123 into a local branch called pull-123 with: `git fetch origin refs/pull/123/head:pull-123`.

When you open a pull request from a branch, Github creates the separate pull request refs to track changes to that branch. I'm assuming they have some kind of after-receive hook that updates the ref whenever you push.

However, if you _close_ the pull request (or delete the branch, which automatically closes the pull request), then rebase the branch locally and force push your branch, the pull request will not be updated, and you still see all the comments and historical data.

You can then open a new pull request from that branch, and go through the code review process again. If you mention #123 in the description of the new pull request, it'll create a link at the bottom of the discussion on the original, closed one. This helps keep the separate discussions tied together if you're coming back later and want to see all revisions of this branch.</comment>


Show HN: Web components to create OS-like web apps - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/victorqribeiro/FOS <comment><USER2> Something similar - [https://aaronos.dev/AaronOS/aosBeta.php](https://aaronos.dev/AaronOS/aosBeta.php)

<comment><AUTHOR> well, I kinda feel silly right now with so many similar projects

<comment><USER3> You shouldn't, just because there are similar projects out there already doesn't mean your implementation is barred from being of value, be it (re-) sparking a discussion or solving certain aspects more effectively (unless maybe you outright copied from other projects which i doubt you have)

<comment><AUTHOR> Nope, no copies. This is (at least I thought it was) an original project. The idea was to create new web components little by little and use them as building blocks. Like fos-bar, for example, it's a generic bar that can be used on the fos-desktop or the fos-window.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> i'm bummed that everyone is coming here to basically post links for similar projects...

...but that is what i am doing :(

[http://www.marianopascual.me/](http://www.marianopascual.me/)

i think it's worth posting, though. i still find little things that blow me away (most recently: it has a screensaver), and afaik i don't think it's a widely-known website. i've always been kinda obsessed with the idea of making an OS-style website, but this killed the dream for me as i simply will never be able to come near this particular demonstration.

that being said... your project might be the thing that helps me reach whatever eureka! moment i need. i poked around the github a little and i'm already excited at the modular principle used - it makes the webpage-as-OS concept far less intimidating, seeing the various components broken down into their respective pieces. most of the code i've ever peeked at is always at an extremely polished level that makes it too nebulous for someone at my very modest level of experience to use as a concrete inspiration/example. thanks for sharing!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm glad you liked it. When I decided to go forward with this project I knew that there was OS-like homepages all around (I even posted a link down bellow, windows 93), so I knew people like the concept. What I thought I was contributing is a way to crate your very own OS-like homepage with just HTML and CSS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Have you (also) seen [https://www.os-js.org/](https://www.os-js.org/) ?

Nice btw

<comment><AUTHOR> I had not. I do remember a fake windows 95 I guess that runs entirely on the browser, I wanted to make something along those lines but generic, hence the web components.

<comment><USER6> What about the real Windows 95 that runs in your browser using WebAssembly?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, that is kinda bad ass, but I was referring to this one:

[https://www.windows93.net/](https://www.windows93.net/)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Facebook launches petition feature, its next battlefield - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/20/facebook-community-actions/ <comment><USER2> > Community Actions could unite neighbors to request change from their local > and national elected officials and government agencies. But it could also > provide vocal interest groups a bully pulpit from which to pressure > politicians and bureaucrats with their fringe agendas.

Or, hot take here, Facebook really doesn't care too much what the petitions are about, but is mostly interested in gathering more data on its users' political beliefs so they can allow domestic and foreign campaign spending groups to better target advertisements meant to change or reinforce those beliefs (or suppress civic participation of those with such beliefs) and increase FB's total share of campaign-related ad spend.

<comment><USER3> So bots and fake accounts now have a direct line to influencing local politics.

<comment><USER4> Regular hat:

The immediate solution to this (assuming the feature stays) seems to be a stricter sign-up / verification process that ties your account closer to your real-world identity before you can use political features like this, to make bots and fake accounts more difficult to create and/or influence politics through these direct lines.

Tinfoil hat:

Fortunately (or unfortunately), that's also a step closer towards (but not at, yet) the verification necessary to start, I don't know, actually voting through Facebook. I wonder if giving bots a direct line to local politics would actually result in people/lawmakers _begging_ more verifiability to Facebook accounts, instead of Facebook trying to implement such a process/feature without the inevitable backlash they'd no doubt get if they said "you can now link your social security number to Facebook!". Being verified as a real human on Facebook ultimately helps Facebook get closer to a potential goal of giving petitions (or votes) on Facebook more weight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've given up on the idea that political engagement on social media can make society better. It seems to be a one-way ratchet toward political extremism, because it encourages people to immerse themselves in communities that respond with adulation whenever someone sinks deeper into their ideological wing and respond with cold silence whenever someone hesitates or questions the wing's narrative.

In case this isn't already obvious, I don't think it's a coincidence that we are in the midst of a global crisis of populist uprisings, most of which leave their countries worse off than they were before.

This is not only going to have the direct effect of intensifying the above, it's going to be mined for data used to crank up political ad targeting to partisans on Facebook. It should be fought, violently. It is poison enacting the slow death of democracy.

A good form of effective action would be to create and popularize to the top of the list a petition like 'Dismantle Facebook' or 'Fire Mark Zuckerberg'.

<comment><USER6> > _It seems to be a one-way ratchet toward political extremism, because it > encourages people to immerse themselves in communities that respond with > adulation whenever someone sinks deeper into their ideological wing_

It's more nefarious than that. Social media lets you curate not only your message, but who sees and gets to react to your message. Anger is–by far–the most viral emotion. (Second place, if I remember correctly, is awe.) Previously, deploying anger in politics was constrained by the opposition objecting. But if they see your message long after your base has reacted, that's no longer a problem.

In a world with Facebook, if you want to get people to show up to a rally, you piss them off. How? Take exaggerated pot shots at a totem of your enemy.

The irony is all sides are hiring–and friendly with–similar people at similar lobbying and activist engagement shops. But on the ground level, hyper- targeted AE is (a) an effective way to re-position policy priorities (particularly at the state and local levels) and (b) more cost and time effective than traditional door-to-door knocking.

<comment><USER7> Your comment explains well the anger against Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This does seem like something of a hostage to fortune, I can't imagine how they intend to moderate it. Obviously people are going to poll their echo- chamber in support of toxic ideas.

Even more alarming for Facebook, what if their polls come to be seen as having legitimate democratic force - what Government is going to be comfortable with that?

I suspect a dogmatic belief in the goodness of Facebook triumphed over reasoned reflection on the likely uses of this feature.

<comment><USER9> People are going to poll their connections in support of all kinds of ideas.

Some of those ideas will be perceived as toxic by some while some others will be perceived as toxic by others.

I think that it's a strange idea to argue against collaboration with the argument that everyone can do it. As if there were something immoral in providing unmoderated collaboration.

I'm sharing your second criticism though. The feature is probably designed to gain legitimacy by being the petition platform people actually use. Would be very unwise for a bueraucracy to allow anything like that provided by a private company.

<comment><USER8> You are correct, 'toxic' is a value judgement, I should have said extremist.

One problem is that it will be impossible to know if a Facebook poll is representative; most likely it will not be, and will instead be taken mostly by people who already have similar views to the author of the poll.

However, the polls may help convince users their views are actually mainstream (even if the "mainstream media" is ignoring them). Such users may feel free to take an even more extreme position if they believe their current views are actually about average. This is one mechanism Cass Sunstein has identified for driving extremism is groups.

Voting isn't intrinsically democratic or empowering for voters - North Korea has elections. Presenting informed people with meaningful choices is what matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just what we need from a platform known for manipulation of users: For them to enter the field of politics.

<comment><USER11> > Just what we need from a platform known for manipulation of users: For them > to enter the field of politics.

From Facebook's perspective, the solution to every problem is more Facebook.

<comment><USER12> Including too much Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> In the UK at least we already have official petitions - the UK one is [https://petition.parliament.uk/](https://petition.parliament.uk/)

This is the ONLY one that impels the UK government to debate, and ultimately vote on each petition (providing the petition has garnered enough signatures).

However a LOT people in the UK use the change.org system, which has absolutely NO legal standing, and they get upset when the government ignores them. I can see this Facebook system being exactly the same. If Facebook REALLY cared about fair democracy, they'd just highlight and link to each countries existing online petition systems (if one exists) instead of building their own system. Of course they can't data mine the official petition systems can they...

<comment><USER14> Isn't it true that not a single petition on the UK gov website has resulted in a change in the law? Isn't it also true that most petitions are quickly dismissed with the claim that the topic has already been debated?

The petition system actually just made me think how futile and dysfunctional this [bourgeois, if I may use the word] democracy is.

<comment><USER13> Alas, yes and yes. :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What happens when, say, Iran wants and - legally - requests the identities of everyone that supports the "Democracy in Iran" group?

<comment><USER16> I don't think facebook is very used in Iran, at least it was blocked in 2015.

The interesting question is what happens when Turkey asks for the members of a "justice for unfairly sacked teachers" petition, or Saudi Arabia asking for the supporters of the local "End discrimination of Shia" petition.

<comment><USER17> Yes, Facebook is blocked in Iran, but that doesn't mean that it's not being used. Just about everyone I met in Iran was on several supposedly blocked social media platforms, mostly through dodgy VPNs. Apple isn't allowed to sell phones in Iran either, but I've never seen so many second-hand iPhones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > _Facebook is purposefully trying to focus Community Actions to be more > narrowly concentrated on spurring government action than just any random > cause._

So you can't use this feature to ask FB to fix problems with its own platform? My first thought about this feature was: well, most organizations can ignore these petitions, but at least we can use them to get FB to quit doing bad/annoying stuff. Apparently not!

<comment><USER19> What if we started a FB petition for the government to regulate FB?

<comment><USER11> > What if we started a FB petition for the government to regulate FB?

You'd motivate this months-dormant user to engage with the platform for a few minutes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well, at least this will hasten their death. Hopefully people are leaving FB because of their toxic "political discussions" (more like insult-flinging), and with this crap, they'll stay away even more from it, because every time they log in, they'll see Wendy is telling them to support her cause of vegan lipsticks, or similar.

<comment><USER15> >Hopefully people are leaving FB because of their toxic "political discussions" (more like insult-flinging)...

If that were the case, reddit should be suffering the same mass exodus plight but - it seems to me - that people (predominantly in the states) revel in that sort of behaviour.

<comment><USER21> One could argue that the anonymity of Reddit in addition to the mods encourages a civil discussion

<comment><USER10> People aren't exactly nicer to each other when they're anonymous...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting approach from facebook, though its has its issues.

Its nice that they make it easier to get involved in local issues, for example adding bins to a park. However, if you do not like this, you cannot voice your concerns in the comment section of that petition, that is restricted to supporters of the petition. So you have to create your own "Please dont put bins into the XY park"

<comment><USER23> Yeah, that's a problem with petitions in general; they're really only useful for demonstrating _some_ minimum level of support or public interest in a particular issue.

They can't be used to gauge public opinion on anything remotely controversial, both because they're heavily influenced by selection bias and because it's much harder to express opposition to a petition than it is to express support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> And how are we supposed to trust the results and privacy?

Also I'm not on fecebook and don't want to create a user account, please don't force me to create one.

<comment><USER25> The point of this feature seems to be that Facebook knows the signatories are real people, which makes the petition more valid. Allowing votes from outside the FB user graph would defeat that.

<comment><USER24> The problem is that FB is a business, not a public service providing proof of identity. It is wrong to force people to get into a commercial agreement with a private company to carry out civic duties. Same issue as authorities publishing only word documents that can only be read with MS Word.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> A petition feature provided by a centralized proprietary system that has an history of censorship and selling political data doesn't seem like a good deal.

But again, most facebook users don't even think about that kund of issues, so it might work.

</comment><comment><USER27> Also on the hn front page today:

Decidim: Free Open-Source participatory democracy for cities and organizations

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18952328](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18952328)

</comment><comment><USER28> It feels like no matter what Facebook does, its brand will impede the efforts of any new product they build. TBH, if I were Snapchat, I'd see this as a huge opportunity, since I'd doubt Instagram would get into the political space.

Another option for Facebook would be to have something similar to Google X, where projects can eventually spin out to separate companies and own their brand.

<comment><USER29> Snap has its own brand to think about, it wouldn't bother trying to enter this arena. People don't talk politics on Snap, mainly because they skew younger and because it's photo-based, not text-based.

<comment><USER28> Cardi B did a video on Instagram about the government shutdown that got a lot of attention. I wouldn't count it out for Snapchat. Besides, no one thought Facebook was going to become a tool for politics when it first came out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Similarly to indignant FB posts, reshares, and likes, petitions do jack squat in the real world. So this seems right up FB's alley.

<comment><USER31> They serve the very important purpose of giving citizens a feeling of agency. Without this, motivated citizens of democratic republics would have to resort to concrete action, eventually resulting in revolutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> The general sentiment of the thread is pretty negative. I'd offer the contrary and say that this (provided that it's moderated with some integrity) feature is one of the great potentially empowering uses of the platform. Bringing people together and connecting them to other likeminded individuals who would otherwise be strangers, I love that.

<comment><USER33> >provided that it's moderated with some integrity

Given what I've seen on and from Facebook, I would be absolutely shocked if that happened

>Bringing people together and connecting them to other likeminded individuals who would otherwise be strangers

Yet another avenue for bigots and the uninformed to receive support in their social media echo chamber

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I want a block all petitions feature.

</comment><comment><USER35> Facebook is already full of pointless petitions (at least it was the last time I was on there), it makes sense they'd want to bring this functionality in- house.

</comment><comment><USER36> Why not full-on elections?

<comment><USER37> Because then we'd actually have to use Facebook.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> That's interesting. I see that Facebook develops more feature to support different initiatives (FB groups, charity pages) and even petition pages.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm predicting they will acquire change.org

<comment><USER40> They probably tried, failed, and are building their own petition platform now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Er... did anyone see the movie Circle? I'm pretty hard to creep out, but this seems to be walking down that path...

</comment><comment><USER42> Disrupting Democracy 2.0</comment>


Reddit gay gamers to fight Gaymer trademark - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-01/25/reddit-gaymers <comment><USER2> Smells like a shitstorm brewing. I'd advise him to walk away from this one quietly. There's a real risk of invoking the wrath of Reddit's Internet Hate Machine on this issue. All it'll take is a few links to hit the front page and this could very suddenly become a lot more hassle than a trademark is worth.

<comment><USER3> Or license it to them for $1. The subreddit can then put a (R) sign next to it and say "Used under license from Chris Vizzini / gaymer.org". With some ingenuity, Vizzini could work with them to turn it into a community brand and make gaymer.org the central hub. Trying to fight the community rather than work with it is inconceivable!

<comment> tech-no-logical as someone who follows /r/gaymers I can say that this will _never_ be accepted by that community. the cease-and-desist mr. vizzini sent was seen as a sort of declaration of war, and mr. vizzini's posts on reddit only added to that feeling.

<comment><USER3> A classic blunder. Never get involved in a trademark war with Reddit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Vizzini went on to add, "I had an idea 10 years ago, made it happen, put the > money and hours into it, the idea picked up steam and I trademarked it. > That's how the system works."

Holy shit. You're building a community, not a product. The two operate _very_ differently and you're going to get nowhere if you treat it like a commodity. He should do the smart thing and license the trademark to /r/gaymers.

</comment><comment><USER5> I side with Vizzini on this one. He trademarked it plain and simple and shouldn't be stripped of his trademark. I hope the Reddit community members lose this one.

It's not like the guy demanded they stop using the term, he even let them use his trademark on their subreddit. But for some people that's just not enough.

Best wishes to Vizzini.

\---

> "The issue I have is when the Gaymer name is used. It takes 10 years of my > work, money, blood, sweat and tears and directs it to another website. Trust > me, there were many tears. When you have no idea about PHP/SQL and you have > to figure out how to fix a database, you will end up in tears."

Yeah, I'd be pissed if some random internet mob wanted to strip me of something I built.

\---

<comment><USER6> A trademark is a legal monopoly on a name. The issue isn't whether he worked hard or not, it's whether he deserves to have a legal monopoly on the use of the word "Gaymer". As much as you argue "he trademarked it plain and simple" these people have the right to say "we don't think there should be a legal monopoly on that word, plain and simple."

People should really think twice about what they try to remove from the public domain. It's a bit selfish and arrogant to think you can own words like "Gaymer".

<comment><USER7> Completely agreed. It was incredibly selfish of Bill Gates to trademark "Windows", just like it was arrogant for Steve Jobs to trademark "Apple". I eat apples all the time! I look out windows all the time! These trademarks offend me.

These words should not be trademarked. Plain and simple.

<comment><USER8> Sarcasm doesn't make a poor comparison into a good one.

The arguments for invalidity here are: (1) generic use, that 'gaymers' is in customary use in online communities to mean a gay gaymer, and (2) descriptiveness, that it's a combination of two descriptive words that are both characteristics of the relevant class (i.e. communities of gay gaymers).

Neither of those is true of "Apple" for computers. Both'd be true of "Apple" for _apples_ (i.e. the fruit) -- so if Apple started selling fruit, they wouldn't be able to register "Apple" as a trademark for that class of goods.

"Windows" arguably _is_ descriptive of MS's OS, though not as strongly as "gaymers" is for gay gamers. Thing is, "Windows" now has _acquired distinctiveness_ : everyone associates it with Microsoft's operating system, as opposed to other systems which also use windows. That gets around descriptiveness (and customary use). That's not true for gaymers: "gaymer" clearly isn't exclusively associated in the average gaymer's mind with Chris Vizzini's site (as opposed to /r/gaymers, or just gay gamers in general).

(N.B. IANAL, and in particular I'm only familiar with EU trademark law. I'd be surprised if US law was that different, but I don't know for sure, so the above may not be accurate for US law).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't know whose side to take. Someone educate me?

Bandaid is trademarked and people use it all the time, xerox too.

Was the reddit group formed before 2007 ?

I noticed the other day my pillow has a trademark on the word "Jumbo". Where are the people getting upset about that?

Oh I see now from the EFF release:

 _As today's petition notes, the term "gaymer" had been in widespread use for years before Vizzini applied for a trademark. In fact, there's even a GaymerCon conference._

<comment><USER10> > Was the reddit group formed before 2007 ?

In early 2011, /r/gaymers had a mere 600 subscribers [1] so it was likely formed some time in 2010.

Custom subreddits were added in 2008 [2] which is thus the earliest possible point that /r/gaymers could have been founded.

However, there is certainly what I as a lay-person would call prior art.

There's a Yahoo! group for "gaymers" founded in 2000 [3].

        [1] http://web.archive.org/web/20110226103548/http://www.reddit.com/r/gaymers
        [2] http://blog.reddit.com/2008/01/new-features.html
        [3] http://games.dir.groups.yahoo.com/group/gaymers/

<comment><USER9> Ah well then no trademark should be allowed then.

That's obviously where he got the domain name idea then and did a trademark the following year.

Remember the days when you could find a word that wasn't registered as a domain?

Even the fact he went for the .org leads me to believe the .com had to be in use already. Yup, registered and paid parking since 2002. Interesting he didn't bother to try to use the trademark to grab the .com

<comment><USER11> Prior art is irrelevant for trademarks -- a trademark doesn't have to be unique for you to use it. There was an item called a "macintosh" before the name Macintosh was trademarked. The word "dropbox" had been used in file sharing software long before the YC startup existed. Even the creator of gaymer.org doesn't claim to have invented the word "gaymer."

You can claim a trademark as long as no one else has already claimed the same name in the same context. Once you have established the trademark, you can prevent others from using that name, even if they have been using it for a long time.

Note that the "same context" is why there's unlikely to be a conflict with Gaymers Cider. In particular, the gaymer.org trademark only applies to social networks.

(IANAL, so I may have some details wrong here.)

<comment><USER12> > Once you have established the trademark, you can prevent others from using > that name, even if they have been using it for a long time.

You can prevent others from using it _in the field the trademark was registered for_ to identify a _product or service_ not approved by the trademark holder.

Most statements of trademark law being ridiculous for allowing people to "own" common words hinge on ignorance of these details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Thanks to the EFF and everyone involved in this. Reddit itself is being very helpful in this, too.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hmmm... is the trademark domain and/or country specific?

Because there's a cider company in the UK that has a claim to that name going back well over 150 years.

<comment><USER15> It's a different "category". Like Apple (hardware) and Apple (records), it was okay for them to share the name until Apple (hardware) moved into the music business.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I suggest people also read the trademark holders recent post on gaymer.org

[http://www.gaymer.org/index.html/_/site-news/help-save- gayme...](http://www.gaymer.org/index.html/_/site-news/help-save-gaymer-erase- the-hate-r72)

<comment> tech-no-logical ... wherein mr. vizzini is the hero who personally wrested the term 'gaymer' from the evil claws of the bigoted internet. there's enogugh references from before 2003 to prove that this is a load of bs.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best Fortran to Look At - <AUTHOR> My summer internship involves fortran. I'm wondering if there are any really good example codebases I should look at to prepare. <comment><USER2> I'm not a Fortran person and can't give you a real answer. I can suggest some things to help narrow down your search.

Do you know if the code base is in Fortran 77, Fortran 90, or something more recent? It doesn't make sense to look at code base which uses a lot of Fortran 2008 features if you are going to be using F90.

Which field will you be working in? If you are going to work on fluid dynamics it may not make much sense to look at an astrodynamics package.

My limited search found a few places you might look at where people asked something similar to your question:

[https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2758635/writing- robust-a...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2758635/writing-robust-and- modern-fortran-code)

[https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/2328/are- there-o...](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/2328/are-there-open- source-scientific-libraries-which-use-modern-fortran-with-oop)

<comment><AUTHOR> It's all relatively new code. Fortran 2003 and newer.

<comment><USER2> Looks like no one else is going to answer. It's rather far from the usual topics covered on HN.

As I said, I can't answer this topic either. I did find [https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/8319/learning- fo...](https://scicomp.stackexchange.com/questions/8319/learning-fortran) which has more suggestions about resources, including [http://www.fortran90.org/](http://www.fortran90.org/) . There's also [https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2758635/writing- robust-a...](https://stackoverflow.com/questions/2758635/writing-robust-and- modern-fortran-code) .

The author of the new book "Modern Fortran: Building Efficient Parallel Applications" is on HN, and posted about it at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16700789](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16700789) . The discount code has since expired.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can have a look at the github repo ([https://github.com/rabbiabram/awesome- fortran](https://github.com/rabbiabram/awesome-fortran)). I would recommend pFUnit, which is fairly new, compared to the rest.</comment>


It doesn't pay to be the computer guy - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2009/11/22/the-computer-guy/ <comment><USER2> One of the best choices I've ever made was to stop using windows. I did this in the early part of 2002. I swtiched to linux and MAC. I can get things done in all 3 os's and when I was using Windows XP, I liked it. My XP machines were kept clean and fast and i knew my way around. I'm not an OS bigot or a Stallmaninte, I just took a job that was all unix and windows became cumbersome.

As XP receded into my rear-view, I found that I was able to start telling people "Oh, Windows, I don't know anything about that because I haven't used it since 2002. Sorry, I wish I could help." Now I can tell people I'm a computer guy, have a short conversation about the cool parts of the job, dodge the home computer questions in seconds and move on. Bliss.

<comment><USER3> I've noticed this is slowly becoming me. I actually don't know my way around Windows 7! It bothers me sometimes when I can't answer a question about someone's home computer (although I could still figure it out if pressed), but friends and family are less expecting of free tech support these days because I'm more willing to say "I don't know, sorry."

They probably assume I'm bad at my "computer job" (programming) by now though...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I recommend that people go one level deeper than this. Keeping things running smoothly is the lowest level requirement of IT work, not a major accomplishment.

The really great IT folk that I know spend 5-10 hours a week on trouble tickets, keeping things running, etc. The other 30-40 hours are spent on projects, improving the business. And those projects get visibility.

So you have the guy in the corner who is so good that everything runs smoothly, and nobody knows he is there. Or the guy next to him who chooses to do that... and then even more.

Guess which guy really deserves more recognition?

<comment><USER5> Not sure I've ever experience this (having worked in dozens of large and small outfits). Usually IT is split between operations and projects; The project guy(s) being software oriented, the ops folks being hardware/network.

It's rare to see someone who has command of both remain in IT... if you have that skill set you can easily be a hired gun for much more (or run your own company/startup).

... which is the point of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The system's running smoothly, so why am I paying IT?" "The system's down again, so why am I paying IT?"

<comment><USER7> Heh, the life of the systems person.

Employee, "How do I know I'm doing a good job?" Manager, "Nobody is complaining."

If people can't be bothered to understand how the folks in operations are making their lives easier, then they probably should not be judging their contribution. Everyone has an opinion of course.

If you work in an operations group (and especially if you are working for me :-) you should have two things on your plate at all times:

1) A situational awareness of how things you are responsible for are going.

2) Project(s) for providing either data or analysis on how things are going.

It helps if you understand a risk model about things and can prioritize your attention using that model. (if system x breaks the product for the company stops earning revenue == high priorty, system z breaks and nobody will notice for a day or two == low priority)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I used to work in a factory. We had a big sign that said: " _n_ days without an accident." There would be parties and bonuses if there were long stretches without major accidents, injuries and fuck-ups.

We're programmers and hackers--why, exactly, can't we implement something like this in an afternoon, but for computer safety? <http://www.panic.com/blog/2010/03/the-panic-status-board/>

Oh yeah, we're all _Professionals,_ not tradesmen. It's a mentality thing. "Production" work isn't as highly regarded.

<comment><USER9> I rather like the idea of a "n days without a fuckup" sign, though I suspect if I were to make it for the office visiting clients might not always see the funny side..

<comment><USER8> [http://www.aestheticapparatus.com/detail.php?uid=C7A668&...](http://www.aestheticapparatus.com/detail.php?uid=C7A668&subsection=Merchandise&status=yes)

Signs can be switched...

<comment><USER9> I can't help but feel that _n_ would, far too often, have to be reset to 0 every time we forgot to make the switch before somebody arrives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This weekend I was interrupted during a _shower_ (twice!) because an in-law couldn't get something on an iPad set up for mother's day.

I had a good laugh about it, but it just goes to show that people expect you to know everything about every technology, at a moment's notice, for free, and love helping.

It's just not the same for other professions (you wouldn't ask your neighbor the plumber to install a new sink for you for free while you go off and run some errands).

I think there's some combination of "he's a computer _genius_ so it's a breeze for him!" and "he _loves_ working with computers so he doesn't mind!" which leads people to think that it's ok to ask for 'help' without even marginal compensation.

<comment><USER11> I agree it's odd, and I've long since passed the point of finding it tedious, but I don't think it's completely groundless. When I was a teenager, I _did_ like helping random people I knew fix computer problems, and I think that's prevalent in a way that teenagers who enjoy fixing plumbing isn't. It was a mixture of liking that I had some skill that people valued, and enjoying some of the problem-solving and learning aspect of trying to track down bugs and solutions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This seems to come up quite often and my answer is always the same: Make sure they notice you.

I went years being un-noticed except during emergencies until I learned to make sure all my accomplishments were known. This is easily done by simply informing your manager of your progress often. The thing is, managers actually -like- being informed on a weekly (or even daily!) basis! So now you're not only getting credit for how hard you work, but also getting kudos for doing such a good job with 'communication' as well.

Blow your own horn a bit. It's not as taboo as you think, and your boss will actually appreciate it. (Enthusiasm is another side-effect, too. You will appear to have it, even if you don't.)

<comment><USER13> > The thing is, managers actually -like- being informed on a weekly (or even > daily!) basis!

This. As a coder, I like to be left alone and allowed to focus on the same thing for long periods of time. Interruptions break my train of thought, and task switching is mentally costly. Thus, out of courtesy, I used to make a habit of leaving managers undisturbed except during designated weekly meetings or via the occasional email if something important came up.

It took me a long time to realise that managers are not like coders. Being informed makes their job easier - especially when you're ahead, but _especially_ if you're falling behind.

<comment><USER12> That's a good point! I tend to treat others as I want to be treated, and it's hard for me to remember that that's not always best.

The golden rule should be 'Do unto others as they would prefer' instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> wh-uws I always get frustrated when I read articles like the one mentioned in this one (Specifically the "10 reasons why it doesn't pay to be a computer guy" on) because there are several items at play here that always seem to be invisible to the authors:

1) Being able to say no is an important skill

Especially when it comes to being asked to use your computer related skill.

If you can't or don't want to help a person SAY THAT! I personally do happen to like troubleshooting. I get some kind of twisted pleasure out of figuring out an edge cases or why a program, operating system, or device doesn't work. Its fun for me.

But if that's not you then let people know so that you and they don't have to be frustrated.

2) if you don't make people realize your value some people just won't

Many talented "computer guys" are introverted people who haven't learned to defend their worth. Of course what you do is important!

 _Could they have gotten it fixed without you?_

</comment><comment><USER14> I think it totally depends on what kind of _computer guy_ you are. A product company with a web/IT product is as good as its IT/dev team. In fact, most times business itself doesnt know what the next big thing should be.</comment>


Drug Submarine Seized In Ecuador Is Huge Leap For Smugglers  - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128315848 <comment><USER3> That's the problem with wars - they lead to arms races.... The sooner western governments start looking into the development of safer recreational drugs (ie no worse than alcohol, and preferably with low dependence), the sooner we can get rid of drug lords, drug wars, and all the killing and suffering that goes with it. Stupid stupid stupid....

<comment><USER4> The problem is that you don't want more recreational drugs in your country. Alcohol is already a problem, so is tobacco, do we really want to add more?

It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords. They will continue to sell different kind of drugs, because whatever you legalize, there's going to be a market for different kind of substances; and they will simply flood the market with cheaper, not health-approved, substances.

An example of it is illegal cigarettes smuggling caused by the rise of cigarettes prices.

There is an example of a country devastated by "soft" drugs, it's Djibouti (<http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djibouti>) with Khat (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khat>).

You really don't want your whole workforce getting just enough to buy Khat and spend the day stoned or do you?

No silver bullet.

<comment><USER5> /It's naive to believe that legalizing drugs will damage drug lords./

This is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in weeks on the internet, and believe me, that counts for something.

How can they flood the market with cheaper substances? There is little reason a kilo of cocaine should cost much more than a kilo of coffee (ok maybe 5 times more than that because of lower yield per square cultivated meter). Still, the profit in the drug trade comes _directly_ from it being illegal - i.e. the premium that users pay is a risk premium for the producers, traffickers, whole-sellers and retailers. Making production legal would not only make the product much much much safer but it would also reduce profit margins by so much that the people currently employed in this economic sector would be pushed out of the business by regular pharma / foodstuffs companies almost overnight. Along with it, the corruption, assassination and many of the other externalities would disappear, at the same speed.

<comment><USER6> Criminal gangs make good money selling tobacco and alcohol, which are legal basically everywhere. Sure not as much as illegal drugs, but still good money. Claiming legalization will destroy the illegal drug trade is just as naive as believing legalization will have no effect.

<comment><USER5> ... well yes because of the market distortion that the taxes on them produce. The only reason people smuggle them are to evade taxes. If you're going to legalize and then tax it so high that it will still cost the same as before the legalization, of course the negative side effects will continue to exist.

<comment><USER6> Do you honestly believe that the government would legalize drugs and then not use the opportunity to increase their budget by heavily taxing them? In fact one of the main argument I keep hearing for legalization is that it will bring in all kinds of tax revenue.

<comment><USER5> Of course it will be taxed, and probably at a higher rate than other products. The trick is to tax it at such a level that fraud (smuggling) is contained within acceptable bounds. For example, normal VAT here in the Netherlands (only country I know the rates of by heart, I have no reason to believe that it's significantly different in the rest of Western Europe) is 19% ; cigarettes are taxed at close to 300 % (VAT + excise). Yet still smuggling cigarettes is a relatively small problem, which indicates that this level can be borne by the market.

Note that I support nor advocate 'sin' or 'health' taxes, be it for moral or utilitarian reasons, I'm simply saying that even at 300% the amount of people that turn to the black market is fairly small. But even when taxing them at normal rates (VAT only) they would already bring in money - everything is better than the 0 they bring in now, or negative if you take into account the costs that arise from situations that exist _only_ because drugs are illegal.

(edit: added missing half sentence)

<comment><USER7> Seeing the sales of cigarettes on reservation that do not honor state taxes and the number of customers buying, I would say paragraph one is not completely true. Smuggling is happening, it is just from a legal source.

<comment><USER5> I don't understand - yes there is smuggling, but on a small as I indicated. In Western Europe (the area I restricted myself to in my post) most of the fraudulent import comes from Eastern Europe and Russia, so yes they are bought legally there and then imported. Likewise, a fair number of people drive to Luxembourg where the tax rates are lower.

I take it that you mean that (Native American or Aboriginal?) reservations have autonomy when it comes to taxation and that they leverage that to attract tobacco customers from outside the reservation. Which makes sense, but I'm hard pressed to believe that it's a significant amount of total consumption. My back-of-the-envelope calculations (based on estimates of the World Bank and 40% of the EU population smoking 10 cigarettes a day) say that in the EU on less than 10% of all cigarettes smoked, no taxes have been paid. Which is not that much.

Of course if you have numbers that show that in the case you indicate the percentages are different I'd be interested to learn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cocaine_Cowboys> is a good documentary on the drug trade that has an interesting portion on the use of submersibles in the drug trade. That documentary came out in 2006 and it showed how drug runners had already evolved past these vessels by using containers shaped like driftwood logs and attaching them by long ropes to fishing vessels. The driftwood containers had gps trackers on them so when the coastguard came close they would sink them with the rope attached and another ship would pick them up later. I think its available on thepiratebay.

<comment><USER9> You don't even need GPS trackers on the containers. Just note the GPS location at the time you cut the rope. Have a transponder aboard that listens for a specific signal before it starts transmitting. Such devices would be cheap to make and might be harder to detect than GPS devices which broadcast location signals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Both this submarine and the semi-submersibles they had earlier have crews. It'd be very interesting if they can develop something completely autonomous. E.g. a 10 meter tube that navigates by GPS, occasionally surfaces to get its bearings, and has enough diesel for a ~5000km ocean voyage.

You could program that to zig-zag across the ocean and land on a beach somewhere, where you could extract the cargo, refuel it, and send it back.

<comment><USER9> There have been oceangoing robots designed to move with very little power by exploiting buoyancy and gliding on dive planes. Swarms of such small drones could be exceedingly hard to detect and could be made cheaply in large numbers.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwater_glider>

The practical range of these things is literally ocean-spanning. Program these on roundabout courses and land them in random places on the coast. They would be very hard to track.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how much they would pay for some of the old Soviet diesel subs - <USER2> are properly to expensive to scuttle after one trip, but they can properly carry a lot more than these homemade ones, and they would be better at evading radar too.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but the US Navy might be inclined to deal a tad bit differently with a bunch of russian subs approaching the US shore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I did a little digging around a little more than a year ago when I had read about the narcotics submersibles.

With this step up to full submarines I'm thinking that the people using these can now have them built in almost any location next to the sea around the world.

Somalia would seem to be a good place to build, no government to sieze them.

<comment><USER3> Well, yes and no - you need a decent chink of infrastructure to build a submarine - you know, not having your engineering staff murdered, important supplies stolen, that sort of thing. It's hard to supply the sort of protection needed to guarantees these basic conditions when you're a long way from your support base. Of course, if a Somali warlord wanted to get in on the submarine-building business, he'd probably be able to make a decent amount of money. But I bet you could get the same service from a shady shipyard in Shanghai or somewhere similar for a lower price...

<comment><USER13> "a shady shipyard in Shanghai"

Thank you for giving me the title of my next novel. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Prediction: market forces will collide. As electric cars become more widespread, and lithium-ion batteries get cheaper, we'll get to the point when it will be profitable to run such subs entirely on batteries. Such subs wouldn't be disposable, but they could be exceedingly hard to detect.</comment>


Levi Felix, a Proponent of Disconnecting from Technology, Dies at 32 - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/12/us/obituary-levi-felix-digital-detox.html <comment><AUTHOR> Digital Detox [1] is an interesting idea. I think that we, as a species, still don't have a great handle on how to use technology without being consumed by it.

[1] [http://digitaldetox.org/about/](http://digitaldetox.org/about/)</comment>


History of Computing: Discovering Interactivity - <AUTHOR> https://technicshistory.wordpress.com/2018/12/13/discovering-interactivity/ <comment><USER2> This is neat. When I think of interactivity, I think of Lisp, Smalltalk, APL, and Forth.

However, this article goes back a lot further and shows all the stuff they we're up to at the dawn of the computing era.

<comment><USER3> I suspect FORTRAN and LISP play their parts here. This is well within their timelines.</comment></comment>


Why the Clean Tech Boom Went Bust - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/magazine/2012/01/ff_solyndra/all/1

<comment><USER2> Previous submission of canonical URL with 50 comments:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3495208></comment>