Show HN: Oathkeeper – Cloud-Native Identity and Access Proxy - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ory/oathkeeper <comment><AUTHOR> The idea of the ory ecosystem ( [https://github.com/ory](https://github.com/ory) / [https://www.ory.am](https://www.ory.am) ) is to build a reliable, cloud native suite of tools which allow you to solve simple and complex IAM (identity and access management) use cases. Each service works standalone, but you can obviously combine them all.

The Oathkeeper proxy is one piece of the puzzle which basically takes incoming HTTP requests, evaluates them on a set of rules (e.g. authentication of credentials used, checking if the user has the right permissions, transforming the session data to a e.g. JWT) and either grants or denies access.

Other services include, for example, ORY Hydra ( [https://github.com/ory/hydra](https://github.com/ory/hydra) ) which is an OAuth2 & OpenID Connect (certification pending) server that you can put "on top" of your existing user management.

While most developers opt to build these systems (permissions, user management) themselves, it is our vision to build a reliable, broadly adopted set of OSS tools that get you started quickly and that scale well as the requirements of your organization change.

Everything we do is build on top of open standards, we do not want to reinvent the wheel (unless nothing exists wrt to open standards). So everything in this ecosystem integrates well with existing systems.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask.

ps: New account because I lost my password and didn't set up a backup email. Stupid me.

<comment><USER2> > _solve simple and complex IAM_

really great. please comment on the intersection with auth0. clearly there is some overlap, it would be great to have a concise explanation.

> _we do not want to reinvent the wheel_

IMHO, were I you I would not shy away from that. Existing wheels are oval in shape. Of course where you have to interoperate, you are limited.

> _ps: New account because I lost my password and didn 't set up a backup > email. Stupid me._

Well you just lost me. You are developing IAM components and you can't get basic password management correct? email has nothing to do with it, we are well past the point where password managers are de rigueur, certainly for anyone involved with security matters.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Well you just lost me. You are developing IAM components and you can't get > basic password management correct? email has nothing to do with it, we are > well past the point where password managers are de rigueur, certainly for > anyone involved with security matters.

The password in my password manager is not correct. No idea how that happened, maybe it was overwritten by accident or I copied the wrong one during account creation. Since I had to reset my FF profile it was no longer stored in the FF password manager, so I had to recover it from KeePass, which well - didn't work out so well. Since I do use a password manager, it's impossible to recover it as I have no idea what the password is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm currently looking how to protect internal websites used within our company behind github oauth (we're a small company and we all have a github account connected to the company's github organization). Would this or one of the other tools that are part of the ory ecosystem work for this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this could definitely solve that. Another service which might be well suited for this specific task is: [https://github.com/bitly/oauth2_proxy](https://github.com/bitly/oauth2_proxy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just wrote a simple proxy myself that takes an OIDC authenticated user and forwards the request to backend servers if their session is valid. It only took me two days to get this proxy functionality up and running, but of course the main application itself was handling all of the authentication, authorisation and session stuff already.

It's good to know there's an option to do this in the future for projects that don't have all that groundwork done already, if this is easy to set up – at least initally – without having to include all the parts of the ecosystem.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The day is coming to an end here, I'll try to monitor this thread but in case you don't get an answer from me any more, you will definitely get one in the community forums or chat by tomorrow:

\- Forums: [https://community.ory.am/](https://community.ory.am/)

\- Chat: [https://discord.gg/PAMQWkr](https://discord.gg/PAMQWkr)

Thank you all for the awesome discussions!

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm really excited to try this out. Microsoft's Azure App Proxy is a great technology, but it has licensing constraints that make it difficult to use with all user personas.

</comment><comment><USER6> Do you have a Slack? I'm interested in OIDC and have some questions and interest in the user management component that is mentioned to be in the works.

<comment><USER7> They have Discord [https://discord.gg/PAMQWkr](https://discord.gg/PAMQWkr)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Are you aware that this project shares a name with an extremist group[0]? I'm not sure how concerned you are about that, especially if you're not American, but I'd want to know if it were one of my projects.

[0][https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist- files/grou...](https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist- files/group/oath-keepers)

<comment><AUTHOR> It is extremely important to be sensitive to extremism of any kind, condemn extremist practices, beliefs, and views and take a stance against extremist ideologies.

We do not share nor endorse extremist views nor "values", nor have anything to do with extremist groups whatsoever. We have not heard about them (Oath Keepers) before.

We'll discuss a name change internally & with the community.

ps: It also shares the name of the sword from Game of Thrones and is a wordplay on OAuth :)

edit:// Forgot to thank you for raising awareness on this.

<comment><USER9> Just to clarify, are you speaking for the team to condemn extremism in general, or the specific belief in upholding the U.S. Constitution within the U.S., or something else?

Maybe I should pay attention to the discussion with the community when that occurs, but I'm interested in which "values" you take issue with. Care to share here?

<comment><USER10> "Upholding the Constitution", among the far right, is dogwhistle for supporting white supremacy or other regressive policies. There's even a fringe political party called the Constitution Party that draws its planks not from the Constitution, the Federalist papers, or other constitutional scholarship -- but the King James Version of the Bible.

<comment><USER11> Upholding the Constitution _can_ be a dogwhistle for various malign ideas. But there are _also_ people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law. There are people who see executive orders (whether by Bush, Obama, or Trump) as not the way the country is supposed to be governed, and worry about the constitutional legitimacy of those orders. Probably the majority of the people who worry about such things are conservatives; my feel is that the majority (at a minumum) are not concerned about such issues as a cover for white supremacy.

Note well: I take no position on whether Oath Keepers is using "upholding the Constitution" as a cover for white supremacy.

<comment><USER12> >But there are also people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law.

And those people are incorrect. It's incorrect to believe that all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any basis in, study of, or respect for the Constitution.

The alternative would be to pretend to know in all cases what an eighteenth century philosopher would decide about an issue of law in the context of modern society.

<comment><USER11> If you'll re-read my post a bit more carefully, you'll see that the word "all" is nowhere in it. Nobody (that I know) believes that " all modern Constitutional law and Supreme Court decisions are the result of judges and lawmakers simply making up whatever interpretation they like without any basis in, study of, or respect for the Constitution." I suppose that bit of hyperbole might serve to make my original statement seem less reasonable; if you did it deliberately, you're putting words in my mouth to try to discredit me, which is pretty scummy.

> The alternative would be to pretend to know in all cases what an eighteenth > century philosopher would decide about an issue of law in the context of > modern society.

No, the alternative would be to _know what they said the rules are_.

(Now, I will admit that deciding how the rules they agreed on apply in a specific situation can be very complicated. But I trust "let's look at the rules and see how they apply" more than I trust "interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary"[1]. The former view makes the Constitution the final law; the latter makes policy the master over the Constitution.)

[1] From the Wikipedia article on "Living Constitution". The quote was marked "citation needed". If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.

<comment><USER12> >No, the alternative would be to know what they said the rules are.

Problem is, parts of the text are maddeningly vague, and they didn't exactly agree in their politics, so a single, simple, objective and provably correct interpretation of those rules is not always possible.

>If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.

I _do_ think that's an accurate statement. I disagree with 'people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather _just saying what you want and calling it the law._ '

One can disagree with the doctrine of a 'living Constitution' but there is more nuance and thought put behind the rationale than some conservatives want to admit. Both sides believe, in good faith, that what they're doing is upholding the Constitution.

>The former view makes the Constitution the final law; the latter makes policy the master over the Constitution.)

I prefer to see it as the former making the Founding Fathers the master over the Constitution, the latter making the people the master over it. The Constitution is a legal document, not the word of God, and nothing in the Constitution explicitly requires that it be interpreted according to strict originalist intent, so interpreting it either way is equally valid, and equally a matter of politics.

<comment><USER11> Well, the former makes the people of the Founding Fathers' generation the master over the Constitution (they ratified it). The latter makes the people of this generation the masters over it.

> Problem is, parts of the text are maddeningly vague, and they didn't exactly > agree in their politics, so a single, simple, objective and provably correct > interpretation of those rules is not always possible.

True.

>>If you don't think it's an accurate statement of how some judges view the Constitution, make your case.

I do think that's an accurate statement. I disagree with 'people who see, for example, the "living Constitution" jurisprudence as not actually upholding the Constitution, but rather just saying what you want and calling it the law.'

The original statement was "interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary". Deciding that "the original meaning is unacceptable" is _exactly_ "deciding what you want and calling it the law". It's deciding, on the basis of what you think policy should be, what the Constitution should have said.

Let me put it this way: Trump may, before he's done, nominate three Supreme Court justices. Do you want _those_ justices to decide based on what _they_ think is "acceptable as a policy matter"? Or do you want them to be bound by what the text says?

> One can disagree with the doctrine of a 'living Constitution' but there is > more nuance and thought put behind the rationale than some conservatives > want to admit.

I will admit that - for at least some of those who hold that position. Others... their behavior seems to indicate that they want to rule over the Constitution, not to faithfully interpret it.

> so interpreting it either way is equally valid

Is it? We don't accept that reasoning with contracts, why should we with the Constitution?

(That is, if you have a contract, and you try to interpret the terms in ways that are outside the bounds of the words of the contract, a court isn't going to care how much you see the contract as a living document. They also aren't going to care how much you care about original intent. They're going to care about the words on the paper. I've seen it happen in court, with one side arguing creative meaning plus intent, and the other destroying them with the actual words.)

Nice discussion. I'll leave you the last word; I'm out for the next two days.

<comment><USER12> >Let me put it this way: Trump may, before he's done, nominate three Supreme Court justices. Do you want those justices to decide based on what they think is "acceptable as a policy matter"? Or do you want them to be bound by what the text says?

If I support decisions by previous courts, such as Roe V. Wade and Obergefell v. Hodges, then the intellectually honest position would be to concede that whomever Trump nominates has the right to do the same. I may not like it, but I do believe that is the Court's prerogative.

I don't think it's harmful to consider updated interpretations of the Constitution _per se,_ although particular decisions can do harm even when they correctly reflect the attitudes of the time (as with Plessy V. Ferguson and segregation.) But then, obviously wrong interpretations can also be reversed. I think that we're a stronger democracy for being able to ask these questions, and consider the Constitution as evolving philosophy as much as a legal document, than if we were prevented from doing so.

>Is it? We don't accept that reasoning with contracts, why should we with the Constitution?

Well... the Constitution isn't a contract. If it were, it would be far more precise and verbose in its language, and you wouldn't have entire bodies of scholarship around the meaning of a comma.

But here we are in 2018, in the age of the internet, global surveillance, 3d printed guns, genome sequencing and a thousand other things the Founders would probably never have conceived of. If we remain bound only by the original intent of the original definition of the words of the Constitution when interpreting challenges and questions of Constitutional law, then I'm afraid the result is going to be that Constitution becoming less and less relevant to modern society.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon Alexa and IFTTT integration - <AUTHOR> https://ifttt.com/amazon_alexa <comment><AUTHOR> Oh - or has this been around since 2015?

Amazon just emailed it out like news...</comment>


Pass the Payment Choice Act - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/09/pass-payment-choice-act <comment><USER2> It is important to consider that cash is not "free" to accept and handle (consider the needs for safe storage and depositing, as well as losses due to skimming and other forms of theft). The overhead in handling cash, for some business sectors, greatly exceeds the transaction costs associated with credit and debit cards. An option that preserves privacy but doesn't have the overhead of cash is needed.

<comment><USER3> > An option that preserves privacy but doesn't have the overhead of cash is > needed.

How about this?

1\. Only require certain businesses to accept cash. Make sure this includes some classes of business that most people have fairly reasonable access to. Grocery stores and convenience stores, for example.

2\. Require those business to sell prepaid debit cards for cash. The debit cards must have no extra fees for purchase. A $20 debit card for example would cost $20 cash. No ID is required to buy these cards.

3\. The debit cards would be subject to the normal processing fees upon use.

4\. Other business can choose to not accept cash, but they must access the prepaid debit cards, and cannot charge any fees for them that they do not charge for other non-cash payment methods.

<comment><USER4> Prepaid debit cards are straight out as they all require people to assent to a lengthy contract simply to use them, promulgated by the same companies dragging their feet on privacy preserving digital payments (20+ year old technology at this point). Until we get widespread private payments that are accessible to all without appeasing banks, preserving the basic option of cash is important.

<comment><USER3> That's for reloadable cards. You can by a preloaded non-reloadable card anonymously for cash and use them without signing any contract.

<comment><USER4> Without physically signing anything, yes. But non-reloadable cards still come with a long nastygram purporting to give away your rights to privacy, recourse, etc. Who knows how many of the terms would hold up in court, but by the time you're there you've already lost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Having now read the bill[1], I'm interested in the legal theory that would make it Constitutional. It's not limited to interstate transactions (would defeat the point) or retail establishments engaged in interstate banking through their payment processors.

What authority does Congress have to regulate whether a retailer in Wisconsin has to accept cash rather than only checks from local banks?

[1] [https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house- bill/2650...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house- bill/2650/text)

<comment><USER4> IMO this seems like more of a clarification of existing law than actually new law. The only ambiguity has been "legal tender for _all debts_ ", where the businesses' argument is that they can revoke an offer based on how someone intends to pay. As things currently stand, one would be in the right to go into a "cashless" store, consume an item that was for sale, say you forgot your credit card, and offer to settle up in cash.

<comment><USER3> > As things currently stand, one would be in the right to go into a "cashless" > store, consume an item that was for sale, say you forgot your credit card, > and offer to settle up in cash.

First you would have to successfully argue that there is a debt. The store might argue that you stole the item you consumed.

It all depends on how you fit what happens in a store to the offer/acceptable view of contracts.

Is it:

1\. by putting the item on the shelf with a price tag, the store is making an offer to sell it at that price, and

2\. by picking it up you have accepted the offer, forming a contract and now you owe the store for the item?

Or is it:

1\. when you bring the item to the cashier you are making an offer to buy the item at the marked price, and

2\. when the cashier rings you up the store accepts your offer?

Even if putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is an offer, rather than an invitation to treat, I believe I've seen at least one case that said that picking up the item isn't enough to accept--the offer is accepted and the contract formed when you actually pay. So even then consuming the item before paying would be theft.

<comment><USER4> I don't see the argument how putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is _not_ an offer, but IANAA. There is a specific item, marked with a specific price, able to be taken by a specific customer. This is also why sections of items get physically covered eg sale displays before the sale starts, alcohol on sundays, "non essential" items during covid shutdowns.

> _Even if putting an item on a shelf with a price tag is an offer, rather > than an invitation to treat, I believe I 've seen at least one case that > said that picking up the item isn't enough to accept--the offer is accepted > and the contract formed when you actually pay. So even then consuming the > item before paying would be theft._

Picking up the item clearly isn't enough to accept an offer, otherwise the store could insist that you pay instead of being able to put it back! That's actually why I said to consume the item, as it's an action indicating explicit acceptance. If the intent is to eventually complete your end of the contract, then it's not theft.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Forcing people to accept dead trees is a silly solution to this problem.

There are real issues in the credit card system, including: 1) huge cost of credit card transactions (they are about 2) lack of privacy options 3) disproportionate burden of credit card fees on the poor (the rich get great rewards, which is a kickback from credit card companies).

The number one thing that could be done to make things better is to force credit card fees to be borne visibly and directly by customers at all times. This would force people to generally seek lower cost options.

The number two thing would be to ensure there is a standard for any competing card network to come along and plug in.

With these two things, you would ensure low cost processing options and the ability to compete on privacy features.

<comment><USER7> Limit credit card fees by law to some amount that easily covers the actual transaction costs and then some, but does not leave endless room for crazy stuff like kickbacks that effectively eat up 80% of the fees and thus clearly expose that the real cost of transactions can't be more than 10-20% of the fees. There you go - Problem solved! No more "tax on the poor", but cheaper prices for everyone.

There's even been a model for that for over five years in the European regulation regarding this topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As long as companies can specify that exact change is required, I'd by ok with this. Having to break $100 bills adds a lot of stress to small business if they can't validate them.

<comment><USER4> As someone who makes it a point to pay in cash (pre-pandemic), I wouldn't have a problem with the ability to balk at $50 or $100 bills (even though fifties are the new twenties). It should probably be stated as a percentage of the transaction though - let's say a business could refuse to give change more than 20% of the total. That's restrictive enough that businesses would be free to adopt the strict policy (total has to be at least $84 to pay with a $100), or relax a bit to something reasonable (say $70 for a $100).

edit: Thinking about it, a fixed ratio wouldn't work well, otherwise you'd need to spend $17 to guarantee paying with a $20. Good thresholds might be $80/$35/$10 to reflect the increased incentive to pass larger counterfeit bills.

<comment><USER9> The problem isn't (always) giving a lot of change, it's being able to verify that the larger bills are genuine.

None of the fast food establishments near me will accept anything larger than a $20 and I'm positive there are folks going in there and ordering $40+ worth of food.

<comment><USER4> The same thing happens with credit card fraud though. Insisting on small bills doesn't solve the possibility of giving away free product. Ultimately, the restaurant's incremental cost of providing $40 of fast food is pretty low. The main worry is giving out significant real cash in change.

<comment><USER10> I thought fraud was on the bank for amounts over ~ $20 (which is why restaurants don't bother to check signatures/ID for typical purchases). They _are_ on the hook for chargebacks and low-level fraud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The EFF says that being underbanked is the problem for people at the heart of this matter. So why doesn't it work on making more banks and credit cards available to those people? Harder, and more root cause, than just advocating for cash to be accepted, I guess?

<comment><USER12> You can dream of a utopia or you can change the world one step at a time.

<comment><USER11> By promulgating laws that don't solve the real problem but put responsibilities and costs on others to not-quite fix it?

<comment><USER13> A big problem with card only businesses is that they prevent people who don't have a bank account from buying. Sure, one could buy a reloadable or prepaid debit gift card, but those cost extra money just to activate.

By keeping out people with no accounts, you're excluding a large part of the population: children and poor people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Furthermore, when consumers are forced to pay for goods and services in > cashless transactions, they (as well as the businesses where they shop) are > also often forced to incur added expenses in the form of network and > transaction fees.

I don't understand this part. The vendor sets prices and knowingly forgoes cashless transactions. Surely they can be trusted to make an informed financial decision without this regulation (the arguments regarding cash-only customers and privacy are separate issues).

</comment><comment><USER15> I get the argument (and counter arguments), but regardless of where one stands, can we all appreciate the irony of the Electronic Frontier Foundation making an appeal for paper fiat?

<comment><USER4> Yes, the irony. But it's coming from the same place as technical people being horrified by the wanton adoption of Internet of Trash devices, and preferring simple appliances. We know there's a proper way (privacy preserving digital payments), and until it's there, we'll reject ersatz alternatives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> _" How can you stop data thieves, data brokers, and police from snooping on your purchase history? Pay in cash."_

What's Apple Pay's privacy and security story?

I know that I should know this. Apologies.

I had understood that Apple Pay does some kind of token exchange, instead of sending PII and account details over the wire. So this stops all the "edge" attacks, like card skimmers.

Are there any solutions (currently) that keeps Home Depot, for instance, from leaking or reselling my PII when I pay digitally?

<comment><USER17> Network Tokenization (Apple Pay/Google Pay) exchange a token unique to {card, device, merchant}. This token is sent from device, to merchant, to acquirer, to card network, and to issuer without the need to resolve token to PAN in the middle (unlike PCI tokenization most payment gateway provides).

AFAIK, three parties that are aware of a purchase history of tokenized cards are: Token Service Provider who provides the token, Token Requester who offer the tokenized service (Apple/Google in this case) and a card issuer. Apple Pay for example, uses First Data as its Token Service Provider. (I'm pretty sure Google Pay does as well)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > This cohort disproportionately includes people of color and people with > lower incomes.

You know what disproportionately affects people of lower incomes? Other people imposing extra costs for doing businesses with them.

I bet that the business refusing cash know a lot of a heck more about the added expenses of dealing with cash _in their own business_ than me.

This type of action could easily backfire making products more expensive for people who need it the most.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't like the "unbanked" basis for these anti cashless arguments because they'll just solve that problem.

</comment><comment><USER20> Cash has its own problems though - it's much easier to use it to avoid taxes, launder money, etc. when using cash.

Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity at all times is a human right and we should always work towards it at any cost, when really I think most people agree it's more of a privilege that should only be available under certain circumstances (in your own home, for example).

<comment><USER21> > Privacy zealots act like perfect anonymity is a human right and we should > always work towards at any cost

Why have an original take when you can argue against a ridiculous straw man?

<comment><USER20> I have yet to meet a privacy advocate on HN that doesn't want police detectives to have an impossible job. If you disagree, please share how you believe detective work is compatible with strong privacy.

And if you are about to say "as long as they have a warrant..." keep in mind that the warrant is likely to access privacy-violating information that should not have been collected in the first place (according to privacy advocates).

<comment><USER22> They asked you to comment more substantially, not build more strawmen.

<comment><USER20> The first part of my top level comment comment was the substantial bit. Feel free to respond about problems I raised about cash. The second half is a complaint against the pro-privacy fear-mongering that pops up so often on this site ("Pass this act or the evil police are going to snoop on us!")</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Solving climate change idea, and question, high speed train - <AUTHOR> Im seeing many friends traveling by air and renting a car at their destination, and these air travels are usually 3-4h by air but take 6-8h door-to-door, about 2000km if done by road. By car it would take on average 24h of continous driving to go north to south in Europe. Ridiculous.
Why dont we have high-speed trains in Europe which can load cars and go 250-300km/h and the trip would be done in 6-8h at most? Cars are limited to 150km/h and humans cant drive more than 3-4h anyway. Driving 9h continous would still only reach 1350km. High speed trains going average of 280km/H would do this in quality-time of 5h.
How can we improve the quality of high-speed train travel in EU? Offer this "take your (electric) car with you" would kick any air-offer off the table.
Why has train travel been so undeveloped for past 20 years in all of EU? <comment><USER2> The same reason why cell phone roaming in the EU was such a desaster before the regulation. It's too many different players (each country has one ore more railroad companies).

Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such high speed tracks would by far be greater than for any other player just operate an airline. At the same time, the demand for climate friendly travel is not high enough, given that everyone acts selfish ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dilemma#Public_goods)).

Politicians say that air traveling should not be _cheaper_ than railroad traveling. However, I expect that they will come up with regulations which just makes flying as _expensive_ as railroad traveling.

<comment><AUTHOR> All good points. Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better than Euro-crats?

Reading a bit more on this, seems EU had proposed already 1996 a common European signaling system as you say to integrate the various railroad companies diverse ssytems, and a bunch of other directives for a EU high speed rail. And yet in 2019, France still of course runs their own, Sweden their own with a ERTS type 2 on some lines, and many others not advancing at all since 1996.

Different signalig/control systems, different electrification systems, and some small gauge differences in Ireland and Spain.

> Thus, the upfront investment cost of unification, planning and building such > high speed tracks

How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost? Tax the air-lines and put the money in pan-european high-speed rail, from Lissabon to Tallin, Amsterdam to Athens.

<comment><USER2> > Why can Japan and China do it? Are their politicians better than Euro-crats?

They both are individual countries, so they don't face that problem.

> How can we put pressure on EU to do this despite high cost?

If you tax air-lines first, and then use the money to build an alternative, even in the most optimistic scenario, you'll end up in a situation where long- distance travels become substantially more expensive at least for a few years. Climate activists claim that long-distance travels are not a human right, but ironically, free movement is one of the core values of the EU. And making travels more expensive would exclude more people than today from exercising their right as a EU citizen.

The only realistic option to make the switch from air to train a meaningful option for long-distance travels, would be to 'internalize' the environmental costs, i.e. a CO2 tax (or certificates). However, to calculate this in a fair manner, this would become so high, that you would face a tremendous economical recession.

To me, it never made sense to spend so much resources (brain, time and money) to reduce emissions, because we cannot go to zero and we have already polluted the planet. Wouldn't it be wiser to spend all this money to "repair" the damage we've already done? Maybe solar panels with artificial photo synthesis? Or GMOs with a higher rate of carbon storage?

<comment><AUTHOR> We must do both. We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more- and-more-if-you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides. And use the taxation money to invest in scrubbing, cleaning and more efficient ways of travel such as high-speed trains.

Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to others, its not fair.

<comment><USER2> > Pollution of any kind is just externalizing, out-sourcing the costs to > others, its not fair.

That's way too simple, imho. Things come with side effects, usually. Of course, we should not pollute more than necessary, but the fact that there /is/ pollution is just a side effect of having

      - a civilisation
      - an economy
      - better overall health (and, thus, more humans)
      - ...

This all makes it possible to pay for welfare. In that sense, collecting taxes would be just externalizing the costs (of being dependent on welfare, thus being unproductive) to others.

The question, if we should do both is not a question of what sounds more fair, more justified or whatever. If it would turn out that "repairing" is more cost-efficient than "preventing", then why bother with the least effective measure?

> We can achieve zero emissions. Its really simple to tax-more-and-more-if- > you-pollute in whatever form be it air or pesticides.

Some emissions are simply unavoidable. E.g. producing meat produces methane. So, taxing it would certainly bring down the demand for high-emission products (because of their now higher price) but as long as these products still exists, you won't go to zero.

<comment><AUTHOR> I doubt fish, pigs or goats produce any methane in any significant amount. Meat can be produced without polluting, it doesnt have to be cows. The cost still has to be payed though, even if it is so low.

Even so, just because some pollution would be hard to stop doesnt mean we shouldnt strive to tax it and every polluter anyway.

Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and the other is not.

<comment><USER2> > Compare a country such as Albania producing all its electricity by > hydropower and Netherlands which is still burning coal. Both are > civilizations and nice place to live with welfare, yet one is polluting and > the other is not.

And now compare the standard of living in both countries. Or their GNP. Or their healthcare systems.

I'm not saying that they're better of because they burn coal. But I'm saying that using energy is causing so much positive side effects, i.e. that we _have_ an economy. It's just hard to attribute the negative side effects to one "polluter".

Again, with the same argument you might as well stop taxation, because it imposes costs on those who are productive to pay for those who are unproductive. However, upholding civil peace through a welfare system might be of higher value than 'punishing' the less productive people for their lack of capabilities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Because in EU, to reach the consensus or any agreement on anything, between all countries and then to review that 1000 times through million of EU Commissions, takes decades :)

They first have to love each other, to have common goals and then maybe something will happen. Right now most of the EU countries are there because of the cheap loans, donations, cheap work force and free exchange of resources. Once that flow is stopped, EU will be the past. EU is simply not operating as a one unit, it's not balanced union, that's why I think there has to be some mindset change in order to move the EU forward and to bring big projects to reality.

</comment><comment><USER4> > Why dont we have high-speed trains in Europe which can load cars and go > 250-300km/h and the trip would be done in 6-8h at most?

We kind of do, it's just not very common. You can take the train from hamburg to vienna with your car for example, and I know there are a few other lines.

You can also simply take the train and rent an electric car when you get to your destination, seems easier and more convenient to me. I don't think the future of "solving climate change" involves owning private cars, even electric, and carrying it around in trains, there is no way this would be scalable to the amount of people traveling by plane.

> Why has train travel been so undeveloped for past 20 years in all of EU?

The real problem is that plane tickets are so subsidised than it's nearly impossible to make the other means of transportation competitive, and in the end that's all people care about, money.

If you want to travel inside France or Germany (for example) you're good, but as soon as you cross borders and don't want to go your destination country's capital you're doomed. Taking the train from Berlin to a major TGV station next to my hometown takes 9 hours and cost 150 euros. By plane it takes 3 hours total and cost <35 euros. I'd take the train if it was half of its current price.

The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ...

<comment><USER2> > The only way to "solve climate change" is to simply not travel as much, no > more romantic weekends in Rome or 4 days trips to mallorca, &c ...

That's exactly what I talked about in other comments. To you, these 4 day trips are the most wasteful usage of resources. To others, it may be the over- consumption of fashion. To a single person, a weekend in Paris could mean the world, maybe because it saved their relationship and prevented a burn-out or....

If you extrapolate that argument (and if you don't, you'd need to explain where to stop why), you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world and yet would still have a huge environmental debt of the co2 we've already blown out. Not to mention 8 billion human beings which produce co2 and methane per their bare existence.

Humans, in general, react to immediate rewards (which is why addictions are a thing at all). So it would be nearly impossible to build climate policy upon abdications without risking revolts.

All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. The solution to car accidents was not less traffic, but better cars. The solution to food shortage was not caloric restrictions but better agricultural tech (also worldwide, humans are suffering less and less from hunger), the solution to IPv4 shortage was not restriction, but a better protocol. The solution to handicaps in humans was not euthanasia, but development of medical devices. All that aimed at enlarging the space of possibilities. Why should it be different for emissions?

<comment><USER4> > Why should it be different for emissions?

Because we clearly don't know how to do it properly. And individual wishes are not important when we talk about the future of mankind. It's all fun and games when we talk about one dude, multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is just no way to make it work.

> you would end up in a carbon-free pre-industrial world

Cut off the worst causes of pollution, what's hard to understand ? We don't have to go back to a pre industrial world, we simply need to adjust the balance, we're clearly fucking it up right now. Just don't spend 4 weekends a year 1000km away from your home, stop shipping fruits from the other side of the world, don't drive a V8 when you can drive a small 3 cyl car, don't eat meat at every meal / every day, don't buy the next iGadget as soon as it's released. Are any of these going to seriously impact your well being ? nope.

It's not like getting shitfaced on a beach in Ibiza or taking pictures of the Eiffel tower is going to deeply change your life (because let's be honest 5 min, the majority of travel is for leisure). If you put personal needs above everything else we're toast, 8b people living like the average American would destroy the world in a few years. Travel is a luxury, not a right, people need to understand that, it might be cheap money wise but you're selling away the future of mankind.

> All human (civilizing) action is aimed at enlarging the space of > possibilities.

Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like that.

<comment><USER5> > Remember all the ancient civilisations that expanded too quickly or were not > able to sustain their lifestyles ? I'm sure they were thinking just like > that.

What makes you think, this civilisation is collectively going to behave more sensible? We (broadly) accept the idea of evolution in biology. I'm pretty sure this works well on sociology, too. Or, put differently: We _will_ fuck it up. If it's not the climate crisis, it will be something else. Or: In a world where one nation alone has enough weapons to literally nuke the whole world, it is a strong bet to say that we'll be doomed on pollution.

> multiply that by 8b and you're doomed, there is just no way to make it work.

I believe the the 8bn are a problem on its own.

<comment><USER4> Yes we will fuck it up no matter what, that's why we have laws, you can't run straight pipes on a car, you can't burn the furnitures you don't need anymore, you can't kill someone, you can't throw mining byproducts into rivers &c. Why couldn't we limit the amount of plane travel people are allowed for leisure ? Ban imports of unnecessary goods ? limit product cycles (Do we need 200 new models of phones per year ?) ? Prevent subsidisation schemes ?

Nobody expects the individual to care for the planet or to even to be interested in the topic, that's why we rely on higher authorities to enforce laws.

8bn isn't a problem in itself, the hard cap is at least 50% more. The problem is that we live like there is no problem and that we deify "technology" as if progress just happens by itself and will save us if we continue in that direction. It's a textbook definition of wishful thinking. Somehow anything short of the status quo became "getting back to the middle ages" ...

<comment><USER5> > Why couldn't we ...

Steps involved:

      - Convince people that it's necessary ("do we really need it?")
      - Find a commonly accepted measure ("how much can I personally still travel")
      - Prevent loop holes ("But my neighbour has been to Mallorca recently")
      - Put laws into power. Globally (And one small country won't join the stuff and you'll end up full of envy at the point before, but on a higher scale).
      - Enforce the law. Globally. Fight corruption.

Sure, we could... But try to limit gun posession in the US, or speed limits in Germany. Whatever people feel will reduce their freedom will make them oppose.

If your idea is to implement all this democratically, it's a very weak selling point for politicians. If you pitch it, you're even missing the pain point. Most people do care way more about their next weekend than about the "future of mankind".

> 8bn isn't a problem in itself, the hard cap is at least 50% more.

Also a strong claim. What is it based upon? If we cannot scale the western life style for any of the 8bn, even if we could technologically, we're already behind the hard cap. It's not just "feed" them all, it's making them all "happy", reducing "envy" etc. More people, more conflicts.

8bn is a number this planet has never seen before (like it has never seen before this amount of pollution), and yet you claim that this "experiment" can be enlarged by 50%?

> Somehow anything short of the status quo became "getting back to the middle > ages"

According to climate science, ~0.6t - 1.2t is the annual budget per person, if you want to stop climate change[0]. Now, look at this map[1]:

Below 1 tonne per person is the lightest colour on this map. Compare the living standard of these countries to the middle ages and you'll come close.

[0]: [https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-a-persons-average- carbo...](https://www.quora.com/What-should-be-a-persons-average-carbon- footprint-per-year-if-we-want-to-reduce-and-stop-global-warming)

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_di...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita#/media/File:Co2_emissions_per_capita_our_world_in_data.svg)

<comment><USER4> > 8bn is a number this planet has never seen before (like it has never seen > before this amount of pollution), and yet you claim that this "experiment" > can be enlarged by 50%?

no no no, if we lived _sustainably_ Earth could handle way more people. Right now with 8bn we're already way past the equilibrium point, we both agree on that. That's what we get when some people consume their life carbon quota every single year.

> If your idea is to implement all this democratically, it's a very weak > selling point for politicians. If you pitch it, you're even missing the pain > point. Most people do care way more about their next weekend than about the > "future of mankind".

But then again what's your alternative ? Wait until "technology" saves us ? If the human race prefers autodestruction over self restraint, let it be... You better start planning the pitch you'll give to your grandchildren now though, this one will be much more of a hard sell than mine.

<comment><USER5> > But then again what's your alternative ?

I don't wish for an alternative to "sustainable" living, just to be clear. Only I doubt people will voluntarily give up all the amenities of our unsustainable way of living.

> Wait until "technology" saves us ?

Is that really too far fetched? Like "technology" saved us from food shortage [0], bacterial infections [1], horse manure [2] and so much more.

Technology like airplanes also saved us from being unable to leave our home town in a lifetime.

Today's problems are mostly side-effects of yesterday's solutions, often accelerated by greed and selfishness.

> If the human race prefers autodestruction over self restraint, let it be.

Maybe the next iteration of intelligent life on this planet is less selfish and more sensible? Less prone to social traps [3]?

> You better start planning the pitch you'll give to your grandchildren

That's not a pitch. If that happens, it's more like "We fucked it up, we're going to die. End of the story". Nothing someone needs to buy. No one "pitched" the demise of the Ancient Rome to the people. It was just inevitable, yet painful.

> this one will be much more of a hard sell than mine

It would be a more fateful talk than yours, but your's is a big one to sell:

"We've identified a bunch of problems, like nuclear weapons and climate change. Climate change is the only thing, YOU personally can do something about. So, yes, you would be able to buy an iPhone every year, watching TV on a big plasma while bbq-ing pulled beef and fly to any beach you can dream of just to get plastered with cheap beer over there, BUT we take ALL this away from you to save the planet. You can emit only as much CO2 as the poorest people in the world do. Yes, we try to reinvent all this stuff from scratch, but in a sustainable way, but this could take ages - if it happens at all. We don't really believe in technology, which is why we need to take it away from you NOW, but we hope for the best.

The nuclear weapons and stuff, you ask? Yes, we talk to the world leaders. They are unregenerate at the moment, but YOU will join us for the good cause, won't you?"

My point here is not that we would not be better off, if we all lived sustainable. But taking a single threat to humanity out of a big list of threats and conventionalise the one with the solution imposing the biggest cuts on an individual level, to the most detrimental one, might do more harm than good.

And, according to science, every cut above these 0.6-1.2t per capita per year would just delay the catastrophe to the grand-grand-children. So, yes, this would sound a bit like "middle ages" to most people.

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

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

[2]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_horse_manure_crisis_of_1894)

[3]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_trap)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Coastermelt Part I – a silly reverse engineering project about laser robots - <AUTHOR> http://vimeo.com/110257380#1

<comment><USER2> This is great. Usually my ADD gets the best of me and I end up just scanning through videos, but this one really had me captivated. Looking forward to Part 2.</comment>


Show HN: Hot Apps Nearby – Find out the most popular new apps nearby - <AUTHOR> Download on Play Store: http://bit.ly/HotAppsNearby
-
Find out the most popular apps in your nearby region!
* Completely anonymous - no authentication needed
* Complete privacy
* Discover new cool apps that are hot in your region.
* Install new apps directly from Play Store
* Most Play Store apps are free to download!
* Hot Apps Nearby is also 100% Free
Hot Apps Nearby are in the following social media:
* Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/hotappsnearby/
* Twitter: https://twitter.com/HotAppsNearby
And in the following discussion posts:
* XDA-Developers: https://forum.xda-developers.com/android/apps-games/app-hot-...
* Android /r/androidapps: https://www.reddit.com/r/androidapps/comments/79sdt3/dev_hot... <comment><USER2> how does it work ?

<comment><AUTHOR> The app Hot Apps Nearby collects a list of installed applications on the phones that have it installed. Then, _anonymously_, it saves that information with a location and shares these with people around.

Then you know every app's popularity in phones (users) nearby - of course, users that also have Hot Apps Nearby installed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> What did you use as a backend?

<comment><AUTHOR> I will generalize and answer about all main technologies involved:

1\. Hot Apps Nearby uses Firebase as a Backend,

2\. Kotlin & Android Studio 3 (Native Android App),

3\. Github Pages for the landing page ([http://hotappsnearby.download](http://hotappsnearby.download)), tracking pixels with Facebook and events with Analytics to optimize advertising

4\. Namecheap for buying the domain.

5\. Adwords, Facebook Ads.</comment></comment>


BlackBerry's bet on connected cars pays off - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2018/12/20/tech/blackberry-earnings-john-chen/index.html <comment><USER2> at least they are doing something with QNX

<comment><USER3> yeah, I really want to see them Open Source this OS... It'll go nuts if they do I'm sure.</comment></comment>


What Sean Penn Teaches Us About How Not to Chat with a Fugitive - <AUTHOR> https://theintercept.com/2016/01/12/sean-penn-el-chapo-opsec/ <comment><USER2> We've been working with journalists on high risk stuff like this for years and while I think this article is a OK starting point it really doesn't do the problem justice.

There are ton of things, especially related to physical security tradecraft for journalists, which need to be highlighted when dissecting this. Sometimes, I feel the digital surveillance aspects of this are starting to crowd out the very basic stuff - physical surveillance awareness, compartmentalisation, need-to-know of his activities, 3rd party awareness, and insider threats...the list goes on.</comment>


Did the NSA help kill UWB? - <AUTHOR> http://www.cringely.com/2014/05/15/nsa-help-kill-uwb/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=nsa-help-kill-uwb <comment><USER2> It's interesting to me that the startup managed to send data _through_ a cable network's system, successfully, and the cable network didn't even notice the "noise".</comment>


An Incremental Approach to Compiler Construction (2006) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://schemeworkshop.org/2006/11-ghuloum.pdf <comment><USER2> I love this paper! I built my compilers course out of the ideas in it:

[https://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/~jpolitz/cs75/s16/index.html](https://www.cs.swarthmore.edu/~jpolitz/cs75/s16/index.html)

I think the incremental approach is terrific, because it allows you to get to a program the emits assembly and builds a working binary in week one. The first thing this does is give a concrete example of what "a compiler" is. The second is to provide a great foundation for discussing static vs. dynamic and what decisions are made at compilation time vs. runtime, without needing a full implementation. These concepts are not obvious (e.g. when can and should a check for unbound ids happen? What about divide by zero, or overflow, or type mismatch?), and deserve to be carefully taught and considered.

This lets the course build up a new feature, from front-to-back, each week or two, and consider its implications on the whole pipeline each time.

<comment><USER3> Looks like a very a nice course! The notes are protected by a Swarthmore login page, but the videos are not; are the notes meant to be inaccessible?

<comment><USER2> Thanks for asking! There's a public mirror of a bunch of the starter code at:

[https://github.com/compilers-course-materials/](https://github.com/compilers- course-materials/)

The lecture notes (as SVG/source code) are at:

[https://github.com/compilers-course- materials/cs75-s16-lectu...](https://github.com/compilers-course- materials/cs75-s16-lectures)

in particular.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find it a little amusing that it claims "toy compilers are too simplistic and do not prepare the novice compiler writer to construct a useful compiler", and then chooses Scheme, effectively bypassing the whole process of parsing... which IMHO is half the fun of writing a compiler.

Seeing the elegance of recursive descent (and refactoring it into table-driven operator-precedence) and how it can turn recursive structures like expressions and statement blocks into linear sequences of instructions is something I think everyone writing a compiler should experience.

However, I agree with an incremental approach, and that is nothing new; personally I think Jack Crenshaw's tutorial series (started in 1988) is one of the best:

[http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/](http://compilers.iecc.com/crenshaw/) (original 68k version)

[http://www.pp4s.co.uk/main/tu-trans-comp-jc- intro.html](http://www.pp4s.co.uk/main/tu-trans-comp-jc-intro.html) (x86 version)

It's interesting to note that Jack doesn't specialise in compilers, nor computer science for that matter, yet his explanations are far clearer to me than many of those who do.

<comment><USER2> > how it can turn recursive structures like expressions and statement blocks > into linear sequences of instructions

I think this is one of the key concepts in a compiler, yet I don't think it has much to do with parsing.

Parsing (in a compiler) is the act of taking a linear sequence of characters or tokens, and turning them into a rich AST structure.

The back end of the compiler is what takes this recursive structure and flattens it out into a linear sequence of instructions that "mean" the same thing as the tree.

Parsing is critical, of course, for building a working compiler. But I think not focusing on surface syntax gets to the key recursive-to-linear insight you mention more directly!

<comment><USER5> > and turning them into a rich AST structure.

This is not a necessary step, and is specifically not done in a lot of simpler compilers. E.g. most "Wirth-type" compilers never build an AST.

There are lots of good reasons to build ASTs if you want to do complex analysis and optimisation, and it simplifies the presentation of some things, but calling the code generator module straight from the parser in many ways makes the direction connection clearer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Maybe related, Essentials of Compilation: An Incremental Approach:

[https://www.sharelatex.com/project/5637a774990f556d48bab667](https://www.sharelatex.com/project/5637a774990f556d48bab667)

"Abdulaziz proposed an incremental approach in which the students build the compiler in stages; they start by implementing a complete compiler for a very small subset of the input language, then in each subsequent stage they add a feature to the input language and add or modify passes to handle the new feature [...] This is the textbook for the incremental version of the compiler course at Indiana University"

<comment><USER2> Thanks, this a terrific reference that I hadn't seen!

I see a few interesting contrasts with the my course off the bat:

\- I skipped forcing students to implement uniquifying variables early on. I wanted to get from source to assembly as quickly as possible, but this may have been a worthwhile step to force, since it teaches some valuable lessons.

\- I had them implement ANF (AKA flatten in those notes) in a different style, because I was used to it. The style in that textbook is better (Ranjit Jhala at UC San Diego also pointed this out when he taught a version of the course), where an expression is turned into a list of bindings and a final expression, rather than using a continuation-passing ANF algorithm as I did.

\- The linked book has instruction selection with semi-abstract addresses followed by a "patching" phase, to avoid instructions that, say, move from stack location to stack location. This is cool, but is a few more steps than I wanted to get into for the simplest compilers. I didn't pursue as structured an approach, and instead gave a simple description to the first few "compile" functions we wrote:

        Generate a list of instructions that gets the "answer"
        for this expression into EAX

This avoided detailed discussion of instruction selection, abstract vs. concrete addresses, etc, in the beginning, and just made students generate some instructions that work. We quite quickly after that needed to start talking about issues of clobbering other expressions' state, and finding unique locations for variables, but then those just became constraints on "getting the answer into EAX" correctly. In fact, I found that repeating the mantra "get the answer into EAX" was a nicely actionable way to go about generating instructions, and letting students get started when we introduced a new feature (to compile it, we need to get the answer into EAX!)

After we'd done this a few times, we had the shared vocabulary to realize that answers don't _always_ have to go to EAX (the compiler can be parameterized over where the current answer should go), and not every constant's value needs to flow through EAX in order to get to its variable's home, etc. But these were refinements on top of our dead simple strategy.

Just some thoughts I had while perusing the first few chapters here. Thanks again for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is this preceding work to the tour de force that is the Chez Scheme incremental like 40+ Scheme compiler. I mean, Cisco bought it, probably to hide it from us all. It must be worth something.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os7FE3J-U5Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Os7FE3J-U5Q)

[http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/1589](http://lambda-the- ultimate.org/node/1589)

[https://github.com/akeep/nanopass- framework](https://github.com/akeep/nanopass-framework)

<comment><USER8> Not true. Chez Scheme has been released as free open source software: [https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme](https://github.com/cisco/ChezScheme)

<comment><USER7> As someone pointed out, yeah, open-sourced _after_ bought. There used to be variations. One, compiled, Chez Scheme, and the latter interpreted with none of the benefits of the compiler design but still fast and well desiged in relation to other Schemes, Petite Chez Scheme. The latter was freeware, the former, neither free/open nor freeware.

It was never clear why Cisco bought it. Rumors persist ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've just realised that I have confused this paper with another paper, which I think was from the racket people and involved what they called "nano-passes". I think I've actually glossed over this paper many times for this reasons.

I'm not interested in writing a scheme compiler (there are several good ones out there already), but this looks like it has a lot of useful techniques I can pilfer.

</comment><comment><USER10> Prior submission with good comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10785164](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10785164)</comment>


Is Apple a candidate for acquisition? - <AUTHOR> http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/24/wall-streets-infinite-loop-the-tragic-tale-of-apples-valuation/ <comment><USER2> I think this is another way of looking at the "Steve Jobs Risk Premium." (what's the opposite of a premium?) Apple's stock price is not highly valued relative to growth and income, making the company undervalued. The best argument for this undervaluation being rational is that people think that all of the magic comes from Steve Jobs.

I think Jobs is a good leader, but the Magic is more widely distributed than that, and this means that Apple is probably a good buy.

While nobody may be able to raise the cash to do a complete acquisition of the whole company, the same financial metrics that make this appealing (if you could raise the cash) make the stock appealing for those who can raise the cash to buy only $3,000 of the company, or $30,000 of the company, or whatever fraction.

Personally, I'm being irrational. When Apple was $13 a share and had $6 in cash, I thought it was a screaming buy, but didn't invest because of fear. Now that failure then is holding me back, as investing now would be confirmation that failing to do so then was a mistake. I felt Apple was outside my circle of competence... but that was a rationalization.

That Apple is the most valuable tech company in the USA is a rationalization that somehow they must go down in value. I don't think that is wise.

<comment><USER3> _"But the Magic is more widely distributed"_ still relies on magic to justify Apple's market valuation. It's bascially a "this time the rules are different argument," - the sort of argument that historically precedes the bubble's burst.

Considering how Apple came to their current position doesn't provide much reason for optimism that they can repeat their success of the past ten years (hence the talk of magic). Apple got where they are by leveraging commodity MP3 players into an entire product line of Pods, Pads, and Phones based upon being an early mover in the post Napster music business (and with the app store they even managed to sell a fair number of Macs to iPhone developers). The importance of Napster's demise towards Apple's success should not be underestimated.

Apple could encounter such good fortune again, but it is difficult [of course] to see anything in their current product portfolio, the regulatory environment, or the logistics of digital content delivery that offers similar opportunities [again of course].

Looking deeper, the dearth of new iPad competitors may be more indicative of the size of the actual market for slate devices than an indicator of the shortcomings of Apple's competitors - e.g. the slate type device my UPS driver carries indicates the sort of dedicated device design which benefit businesses and some of the shortcomings of Apple's vision within a business model. Magic doesn't cut it.

<comment><USER4> Given that Google has not even existed as long as Steve Jobs has in this second coming, there is no reason to think they can do anything consistently ever ... or learn from their mistakes in they way Apple has done better than the great majority of companies.

You could apply your negative reasoning to most tech companies in this new Dot Com Bubble.

Fact is, Apple has been through positive learning curves.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Resources for critical thinking and communication skills? - <AUTHOR> I have a strong desire to improve my critical thinking and analytical ability. I am aware of a few cognitive biases but not so much on how to actively combat them.
Maybe I should have started another thread too but I felt like critical thinking would be useless if I can't communicate my thoughts well.
What resources have helped you in either area? <comment><USER2> Critical thinking books vary widely in quality. They often get bogged down in long catalogues of fallacies and categorical logic (which, while interesting, is not as useful as sentential logic and some elementary strategies in first- order logic).

One of the shortest, simplest, and most reasonable books I have encountered is "A Rulebook for Arguments" by Anthony Weston, now in its fifth edition.[1] It's about 118 pages long, and is broken up into two basic sections: the first deals with general argument-rules, and then looks at some common sorts of inductive arguments in detail, as well as some common deductive argument- forms; the second deals with how to develop an extended argument, as well as how to compose argumentative essays and oral arguments. An appendix has brief treatments of some common fallacies.

The Rulebook does not have exercises, which some might find useful. But it is brief and to the point, written for the learner in mind, and its presentation is supported by strong examples. The advice for composing and presenting arguments tilts to the academic side of things, but is still generally applicable. The point of this book is to start you down the path of not merely appearing to be a competent reasoner, but to help you increase your analytical ability, and then to persuade others by means of stepping through a carefully reasoned argument.

[1] [https://www.hackettpublishing.com/a-rulebook-for- arguments-4...](https://www.hackettpublishing.com/a-rulebook-for- arguments-4137)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you very much. Short and to the point fits my learning style,sounds likea decent book to start with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> So, imo, cognitive biases, that you mention, are distinct from 'critical thinking'.

One needs to be aware of the implicit & explicit biases, but that's not the same as the ability to think critically.

I would argue the first step is to understand how people in general think, and in particular, how one thinks.

For understanding "how" we think, with a clear focus on the biases and pitfalls, one very useful reference is "thinking fast and slow" [1]

Critical thinking requires logical / rational thinking (not necessarily the same thing) and (I think) also requires one to think of the issue from multiple perspectives and try to identify all the factors / drivers.

That, I think, would come from empathy and a deliberate attempt to systematically identify all variables. So, at some level, the skills one picks up as a scientist. But I don't know of any single book that lists them..

So, at some level, a lot of business model analysis frameworks maybe useful; for instance, Porters 5 forces [2], SWOT analysis, etc.

Finally, to be able to think critically, one also needs to be self aware. Perhaps meditation can help with that, but reading & digesting some of the philosophy classics may also help (Seneca, Bhagvat Gita & Upanishads, Kant). But these become tasks for a lifetime!

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11468377-thinking- fast-a...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/11468377-thinking-fast-and- slow)

[2] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter%27s_five_forces_analy...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porter%27s_five_forces_analysis)

(Edit: added last 2 paragraphs on business analysis frameworks and self awareness, and links)

<comment><USER4> +1 for Thinking Fast and Slow.

There was a discussion on HN recently [0] about cognitive biases. Readers provided some better links than the OP, but it's all worth a read.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16875497](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16875497)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've mentioned it before, but I'll recommend them again: _Crucial Conversations_ and _Crucial Accountability_ (they're almost the same book).

They might not be the communication skills you meant, but they've helped me figure out how I want to structure conversations so they don't go weird.

</comment><comment><USER6> My recommendation for communicating better is "Nonviolent Communication" by Marshall Rosenberg.

The gist of it is: be careful to separate observations from judgments, whether by yourself or others. When in a difficult conversation, try to confirm what the other person is feeling. Say what you are feeling.

</comment><comment><USER7> As a general website with tips on communication, this one has a lot of good things to start with: [https://www.mindtools.com/pages/main/communication_skills.ht...](https://www.mindtools.com/pages/main/communication_skills.htm) . There seems to be about 140 pages of decent starting points on communicating better. Other general topics to check out (which they may touch on) would be non-violent communication, emotional intelligence, compassion, and empathy.

With regard to critical thinking, study the history of logic, specifically Greek philosophy, more specifically ancient Greek logic and rhetoric, and reasoning in general. (Logical fallacies are an extension of philosophical logic) All that could keep you busy for a few years, so I recommend just skipping around through Wikipedia for a few days/weeks and just noting down the really interesting things and then finding books and articles on those subjects.

All of that would be a base from which to understand the process of thought, logic, reasoning, rhetoric, etc. From there you can skip on to actual critial thinking as a basis for modern society: [https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical- thi...](https://www.criticalthinking.org/pages/defining-critical-thinking/766)

</comment><comment><USER8> Peter Boghossian - A Manual for Creating Atheists.

While the title suggests it is only about religion the first few chapters are actually very general. The book also sparked a movement called Street Epistemology that has an interesting way of "critical communicaging".

</comment><comment><USER9> This site is a simple and straightforward primer on critical reading and writing and hence thinking: [http://criticalreading.com](http://criticalreading.com)

But while most books on critical reasoning and thinking are decent, so far this is my favorite as it addresses barriers to critical thinking and the various types of logic pretty well: [https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking- Introduction-Gregor...](https://www.amazon.com/Critical-Thinking-Introduction- Gregory-Bassham/dp/0078038316)

I was even able to download a previous edition as a PDF for free.

</comment><comment><USER10> I think learning empathy and working with others through a practice like design thinking is a great way to work on communication. Good communicators, don't just talk. They learn to read people, listen, ask good questions, and guide conversations past the natural silence. The facilitation of helping others create good ideas is what makes people want to work with you. Collaborating in a group setting helps remove cognitive biases. What you bring to the table then is the ability to leverage everyone's skillsets to achieve a common goal.

</comment><comment><USER11> Not a resource per se, but here are a few friendly bits of advice that have been very useful in my own pursuit of critical thinking:

Always be skeptical (skeptical, not cynical) of everything. Always demand evidence that can you independently verify (and be extra-skeptical of anyone claiming to have "secret evidence" that you aren't allowed to personally scrutinize).

Always be congiscent of the fact that the number of people who hold a position or tout of a belief has absolutely no relation to the veracity of that position or belief. As social beings we are predisposed towards groupthink. Widely-held positions and beliefs seem inherently more credible because of their widepsread acceptance. They aren't.

Always be especially skeptical towards information that seems to support and/or reinforce what you believe. Humans are also innately predisposed to conformation bias. Try to be aware of this innate predisposition when scrutinizing evidence that supports beliefs.

Beware of certainty. Always remember that we are imperfect beings. Our brains, our thought processes, our memories are all fallible. Our understanding of the universe is limited and there is far more we don't know, than what we do know. There's a critical difference between being "certain" about something, and being "as certain as you can be" about something. While this sounds like a semantic difference, it most definitely isn't. Always remain constantly aware, that as convinced as you may be of something, you could be wrong.

</comment><comment><USER12> Always when I read books or articles on the subject I forget 95% of them. If you are not social by default you can try to hack it. The more tricks you have in your pocket the better (I mean healthy tricks not some NLP bullsh*t). Also I learned more on the subject by asking friends the same question you asked but in real life (face to face).

</comment><comment><USER13> This is a great ask, I would love to know a few answers as well! something around communication skills too?

<comment><USER14> waiting to see what other resources y'all recommend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have no recommendations but I want to make a point. I am not sure if by 'communication' you mean speech or writing, but IMO writing is superior to speaking when you have to communicate ideas that result from analyses and critical thinking.

Such results often tend to be elaborate (or long winded depending on who is listening) and need the listener to participate actively. Unless you are an invited speaker tasked with dissecting a topic, no one is going to have patience, and courtesy, to allow you to finish what you have to say. If you are going to be doing that at company meetings, the interruptions will be worse. The person in the chair might even cut you short by asking you to get to the point in a passive aggressive way. One could argue that developing good speaking skill is all about conveying ideas succinctly, to avoid this very situation, but I differ. Your speech is only as effective as your audience allows it to be.

Writing, on the other hand, provides a better means to communicate such ideas. Firstly, your speech idiosyncrasies, like accent, pronunciation, voice etc, won't become an obstacle. Secondly, you don't demand the listener to be patient and attentive to what you say. The engagement mechanics are better. The reader can always reread a portion any number of times till they understand, or can take a break and revisit a portion if it gets a bit involved. Then, it provides a better means of recording exactly what your thoughts are, one that lasts for a time much longer than spoken words. This not only allows your thoughts to reach people farther down the timeline, it also serves as a snapshot of what your ideas and inclinations were at the time of writing. Retrospection (along with introspection) is a key factor in growing intellectually. Finally, it doesn't suffer from the Chinese Whispers Syndrome when disseminated.

Now, I don't mean you have to develop essay writing skills because not every argument needs an essay. While writing essays is a very good intellectual activity, a short and coherent paragraph or two suffices most times.

Critical thinking is very addictive. You might start off with something small, like why a club must have a player, or why a product design is not good, which might be communicated reasonably well via speech, but you will slowly get to bigger topics where what I wrote becomes applicable.

</comment><comment><USER16> Socializing and playing chess are going to help you in those areas and possibly in tandem.

Ribbonfarm.com is a good website that has blog essays which deal with many topics and some about social strategies which are a lot like chess strategies.

Also maybe getting into debates with people as long as it isn't something so controversial that it becomes too heated.

</comment><comment><USER17> "How to win friends and influence people" by Dale Carnegie is probably the worlds best book on the basics of communication. Highly recommend it.

<comment><USER18> I'd like to vote against this recommendation. The people that live by Dale Carnegie's book can be spotted from a mile away and tend to come across as fake. This could be a cultural thing.

<comment><USER19> I respect this viewpoint.

Having read this book many times, I have grown to appreciate it. Particularly because I try to approach it from a position of seeking understanding, rather than attempting any manipulation.

I managed lawyers, engineers, and scientists for many years. It is not easy, but it was worth it. And this book helped.

I would rather read a great book 10 times, than 10 average books.

Here is a one page summary:

[http://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/luenemannu/pdf/communicationprin...](http://www.csus.edu/indiv/l/luenemannu/pdf/communicationprinciples.pdf)

This Dale Carnegie book is available in all public libraries and even online.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> The 10-part series 'How to get Smarter: A guide to critical thinking, cognitive biases, and logical fallacies' published between in Jan-Apr 2018 at Life Lessons is also quite comprehensive. Covers 50 topics, 5 per post. I apologize for the length of what follows, but I believe this resource it worth it:

\- Part 1: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarter/](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarter/) 50\. Intellectual laziness 49\. Intellectual honesty 48\. Intellectual dishonesty 47\. Willful ignorance 46\. Self- deception

\- Part 2: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart2/) 45\. Be a truth seeker 44\. Be a realist 43\. Open your mind 42\. Don't fall in love with your beliefs or your philosophy 41\. Listen to your opponents and people who disagree with you

\- Part 3: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart3/) 40\. Don't dismiss things you don't understand 39\. Don't assume you're smarter than the stranger you're speaking with 38\. Don't confuse your perspective for objective reality 37\. Don't confuse feelings with facts 36\. Don't believe every thought that passes through your head

\- Part 4: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart4/) 35\. Beware of black and white thinking 34\. Beware of the Dunning-Kruger effect 33\. Uncertainty > The illusion of knowledge 32\. Stand on the shoulders of giants 31\. Have lots of gurus

\- Part 5: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart5/) 30\. Don't attack straw men (don't misrepresent your opponents argument) 29\. Beware of circular logic and reasoning 28\. Watch out for red herrings 27\. The genetic fallacy (examine the statement – not the speaker) 26\. The fallacy fallacy (don't confuse a bad argument with a false conclusion)

\- Part 6: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart6/) 25\. Political correctness 24\. Groupthink 23\. Tribalism 22\. The bandwagon effect 21\. Doublespeak

\- Part 7: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart7/) 20\. Occam's razor 19\. Look to where the finger is pointing 18\. Sunk costs 17\. Framing 16\. Anchoring

\- Part 8: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart8/) 15\. Meditation 14\. Mindfulness 13\. Psychedelics 12\. Pseudoscience 11\. Scientism

\- Part 9: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart9/) 10\. Why you should try to prove yourself wrong – instead of right 9\. Probability neglect & the relativity of wrong 8\. Why you can't trust statistics 7\. Cognitive Dissonance 6\. Sacred Cows

\- Part 10: [http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpa...](http://lifelessons.co/personal- development/howtogetsmarterpart10/) 5\. Critical thinking questions & the Socratic Method 4\. Follow the evidence wherever it leads 3\. Motivated reasoning 2\. Confirmation bias 1\. Thinking for yourself

</comment><comment><USER21> These are, to me, very different skill sets. But, the biggest challenge is to do them both at the same time. Maybe that is what you mean?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes,that's what I meant: To think critically and communicate my thoughts well. Although they are different skills they do work in tandem.

Without communication skills, critical thinking would not be as useful since my thoughts won't be communicated well.

For someone doing technical work, good communication skills are great but not so much without applying critical thinking (imo).

<comment><USER21> Makes good sense to me. It is really hard to focus on both at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I found the following books presented useful mental models:

\- Thinking Fast and Slow

\- Decisive by Chip & Dan Heath

\- Thanks for the Feedback

\- Difficult Conversations</comment>


An Interview with Tumblr's Lead Designer, Peter Vidani - <AUTHOR> http://theindustry.cc/2013/05/03/an-interview-with-peter-vidani-of-tumblr/ <comment><USER2> Very cool interview, I love reading about how things work "behind-the-scenes".</comment>