N.Korean ambassador breaks law in Germany, police can't arrest him - <AUTHOR> http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Asia/Story/STIStory_758169.html

<comment><USER2> As a Berlin resident I can tell you that foreign diplomats fishing in the Havel river is the least of our worries. Trafic rule violations such as blocking emergency exits and excessive speeding are not uncommon for vehicles with diplomatic licence plates. There are roundabout 8000 - 12000 cases each year with Russia, China, Saudi-Arabia and Egypt leading the board. Most cases are petty fines, but we have around 50 accidents a year. In 2004 the bulgarian Ambassador ran over a Policeman who tried to stop him for driving under influence.

Basically all that happens is that if things get too excessive a protest note will be sent to the country in question. However, other cities share the same fate. AFAIK New York collects the tickets and deducts them from foreign aid paid to the country (not that this would have any influence on Saudi-Arabia or China I'd assume)

</comment><comment><USER3> What is the purpose of diplomatic immunity? I suppose there is some overriding principle over the laws of the land, but I've never been shown what it is. Why do countries allow this?

<comment><USER2> The basic idea is a simple one: The diplomat should not be at the mercy of the host state nor should there be the possibility to arrest the diplomat or his family on trumped up charges. Diplomatic immunity allows the diplomat to live and do as he could and would in his home country. It also allows for the diplomat to be in the host country even during times of strained relationships or even war. It allows western diplomats to commit crimes such as serving and drinking alcohol in states where alcohol is considered a forbidden drug. It also allows diplomats to misbehave badly and go fishing without permit :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Unclear how this is HN material.</comment>


Why China's Stimulus Plan Will Change the World - <AUTHOR> http://www.fool.com/investing/international/2008/11/12/why-chinas-stimulus-plan-will-change-the-world.aspx <comment><USER2> The ability of China to spend its way to at least 6% growth (ask Dr. Doom) or maybe even 8% annual GDP, is amazing.

The war chest of (US $) savings they have is monumental.

However, don't expect miracles from China. Damn near every boom they've had has ended with a bust.

First TVs, then washing machines, then cars, all boom then bust, and then boom again.

That's why China keeps growing. But it's growth is bumpy and that's why China is not a place where you "park your money".

All that centralized spending is not the most economical either. Sure infrastructure is almost always needed, but almost isn't the same as always.

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought we all agreed on no political/economic garbage here?

</comment><comment><USER4> Anon84, you might find more welcome here:

www.newmogul.com

</comment><comment><USER5> Flag, off-topic.</comment>


Ask HN: Whatever happened to P = NP - <AUTHOR>

Whatever happened to P != NP <comment><USER2> In short, it seemed that the proof was flawed at a meta-level -- there were certain results, such as that k-SAT has different behaviors (or tractability) at k < 7 and k >= 7, that the proof failed to explain or incorporate.

The consensus was that this was a welcome attempt at answering P ?= NP, but it wasn't sufficient.</comment>


Hackathon DevOps 101 - <AUTHOR> http://blog.devpost.com/post/114493741397/hackathon-devops-101

<comment><USER3> What ngrok does can also be achieved with the following simple ssh command:

ssh -R 9000:localhost:4200 my.server.is.awesome.com

Boom, your local server is reachable on my.server.is.awesome.com:9000

It's actually quite a useful trick that I use when needing to test integration with 3rd parties when on the dev branch of our API code.

If you like these kind of tricks. I'd really advice watching this talk. [https://vimeo.com/54505525](https://vimeo.com/54505525)

<comment><USER4> That is true, but that is only a small part of the usefulness of ngrok. It can tunnel TCP port, assigning you a random high-numbered port at their end (like with ssh -R).

But if you are tunneling an HTTP service, you can be assigned a random hostname (random.ngrok.com), or you can request a specific hostname (pkaeding- test.ngrok.com), and your service will be available over both HTTP (port 80) and HTTPS (port 443) on that hostname. This can be critical for testing webhook callbacks where the remote service only allows HTTPS on port 443.

Also, when you are tunneling HTTP services (using HTTP or HTTPS), ngrok will start a web UI running at localhost:3030, detailing all incoming requests. You can examine the headers and body from both request and response, and even replay requests. This is immensely helpful when debugging webhooks.

(I am not affiliated with ngrok, except as a happy user.)

<comment><USER3> Yeh true. But what I do in those scenarios is hack up an ngnix config with a (self-signed) wildcard certificate and map certain ports to https endpoints on certain subdomains using ngnix reverse-proxy stuff.

So I expose :9000 on the remote host, and then map :9000 to blah.my.website.com:443 using ngnix

<comment><USER4> Yeah, that definitely works as well, and it is also what I did before I found ngrok. It is a few more hoops to jump through in order to get things flowing, though, and you don't get the introspection/replay functionality. You can use wireshark to inspect the traffic, I suppose, but again, it isn't as easy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like this post is less about real hackathon strategies for devops, and more about marketing for ChallengePost's (I guess DevPost now?) partners.

<comment><USER6> It may very well be. But does it matter? As a hackathon organizer/mentor, these are exactly the resources I'd recommend. Publicity by providing a service is not a new concept; I really enjoy this post about it in particular:

[http://blog.crew.co/how-side-projects-saved-our- startup/](http://blog.crew.co/how-side-projects-saved-our-startup/)

<comment><USER5> I don't think that post is the same situation at all - there, Crew made side projects that became popular and then received traffic from them. Here, corporate sponsors skew which tools a ChallengePost employee recommends for hackers - some of which I personally believe are not at all good tools for the listed jobs (S3 for static website hosting??).

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. Some of the tools are related to clients / hackathon sponsors - <USER2> most aren't. And s3 is an excellent tool for static site hosting. You can add cloudfront in a snap, it's stupid cheap, and you can deploy from the command line ( [https://github.com/laurilehmijoki/s3_website](https://github.com/laurilehmijoki/s3_website) is awesome for this.)

Also, I've actually used _all_ of these tools before, both for personal & hackathon projects. I know they work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Chef and test-kitchen to automagically test your recipes in the cloud. VirtualBox and the snapshot creation tool to revert changes to your preferred state while testing recipes in seconds.

</comment><comment><USER8> The dokku app on Digital Ocean is really good for this.

<comment><USER9> I'd probably go with IBM Blue Mix or Heroku if digital ocean wasn't sponsoring. No reason to spend time on managing your server at this point and they provide pretty much the same capabilities for the developer deploying code

<comment><USER8> If you choose the preconfigured app, the setup is essentially adding an SSH key.

[https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to- use-...](https://www.digitalocean.com/community/tutorials/how-to-use-the- digitalocean-dokku-application)

<comment><USER9> Do you have to set up DNS or anything like that?

Other than that, you also need to use or run your own DB or use a hosted solution. That can also be done by a script, but even spending 30 minutes setting up a server and a db is a lot of time when you have a matter of hours to start and demo a project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> But, why not just run then on your local machines? 99% of the hackathon project never gets updated afterwards anyway

</comment><comment><USER11> Getting a quick ipage domain and the services they offer is my go to technique.

<comment><USER12> I've used iPage before. They were down pretty regularly every day for me. So much so, that I abandoned it after less than a week. I've since moved to a Digital Ocean server and Namecheap for domain registration, and I've never looked back.

<comment><USER11> I have several sites with them and have never had an issue. How long ago was this?

<comment><USER12> It's admittedly been two or so years, so their infrastructure may have undergone some real revision.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are there too many people in the world? - <AUTHOR> If this thread takes off it'll probably get flooded with vague, emotional arguments, but I'm asking on the off chance that we get some unexpected perspectives backed by evidence. <comment> chupa-chups Relevant:

[http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people- can-...](http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160311-how-many-people-can-our- planet-really-support)

My own opinion: i don't know the limit, but there definitely is one. And i'm not sure if we're preparing for reacting the right way if that happens (or has happened already).

<comment><USER2> That article focuses on climate change and per-capita CO2 pollution, making the point that it isn't merely population size that is the problem, but population size * per-capita environmental impact.

Climate change is the number one example of a planetary boundary that has been crossed from the "safe operating space for humanity" into an unsafe zone (Planetary boundaries, Rockström et al [1]).

One way of framing environmental impact is by the equation

        I = PAT

where I is environmental impact, P is population, A is "affluence" (measured in affluence-units per capita), and T is "technology" (measured in environmental-impact-units per affluence-unit) [2]. This equation is fairly artificial in that it is an accounting identity, you start with I = I and pick some variables to factor the right hand side with. But it gives one way to start thinking about the problem.

Since this is hacker news, probably the factor people get excited about improving is the T factor, labelled "technology" \-- i.e. reducing the pollution intensity of each unit of affluence -- think energy efficiency etc. Reducing the T factor is compatible with capitalism, compatible with a mindset that all problems have a technical fix, doesn't require talking about explicitly limiting anyone's freedom re: the P or A factors. On another hand, just focusing on improving efficiency doesn't necessarily result in an overall lower environmental impact once the whole economic system reacts (c.f. Jevon's paradox [3]). If you reduce T maybe P or A shoot up, giving you a greater I.

On a small scale, if you sit down and crunch the numbers, and focus on a time horizon of 100 years or so, you could ask which family & their descendants contributes the most CO2 pollution:

(a) a family in a low natural population growth, high CO2-pollution society; or (b) a family in a high natural population growth, low CO2-pollution society .

At extremes, comparing e.g. (a) a couple from Australia (15.4 tons CO2/capita) with (b) a couple from Bangladesh (0.5 tons CO2/capita), the environmental impact of the relatively low-population-growth, high-per capita pollution couple is FAR worse, even if you say that _all_ CO2 emissions of children, grandchildren, great-grandchildren etc over the time horizon are attributed to the original couple [4]. So in my mind, at least in the short run of 100 years, population isn't the concern, it's the population of individuals in high-pollution countries with high-pollution lifestyles (like myself).

On the other hand, there's nothing really special about climate change, if global human population continues to grow, if we figure out how to avoid or mitigate climate change, the interesting thing to watch will be how we deal with crossing the second global ecological boundary, or the third...

      [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#Nine_boundaries
      [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_%3D_PAT
      [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jevons_paradox
      [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> No, there are just too many with a lifestyle way too consumeristic. Eliminating the western lifestyle, especially the American one should be enough.

<comment><USER4> So we need to put more effort into building effective mass transportation to help the populace achieve this goal right? I mean I agree, I visited London and want the US to have an equivalent mass transit system, in most of the US you cannot find work if you don't have a car. These are hard things to modify at the individual level though.

<comment><USER5> That's a fairly small part of the problem. Think of all the other stuff westerners take for granted:

\- plastic wrapping on goods \- frequent replacement of electronic devices \- rapidly changing wardrobe \- waste inherent in eating out \- large quantity of meat in diet

The western lifestyle is _far_ more expensive than, say, African or central Asian lifestyles. We consume far more than other cultures.

Improving mass transit would certainly help, but the crux of the issue is that it's a culture issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> So this was an interesting book, well written and using empirical evidence that humans are killing the planet: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnat...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sixth_Extinction:_An_Unnatural_History)

I tend towards the view that this book is accurate, simply because I read a lot. When you read explorers accounts hundreds of years ago you have sea and land teeming with life and biodiversity. Now, when you watch a reality TV show like 'Naked and Afraid', there is very little to no wild animal life, the show should be called show up and starve.

</comment><comment><USER6> If not now, probably soon: [http://www.worldometers.info/world- population/](http://www.worldometers.info/world-population/)

Your question was the only question where I was stunned, talking to an older man who was ( a little) racist and a lot more.

</comment><comment> a-saleh The model I am used to is the [http://www.footprintcalculator.org/](http://www.footprintcalculator.org/) despite the fact I don't really know what is behind the data.

It postulates, that if everybody would consume/travel, we would need two more earths to sustain that.

On the other hand, I heard that most of the big population bump were families still used to having 5+ children, because most wouldn't survive childhood, but medicine being just good enough to save them all. We no longer should have bumps of billion per decade as in the beginning of 20ct.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm going to go contrarian and say no. There need to be more.

Before I get ecoterrorists looking up my home address, let me state that the planet's gas balance and biodiversity are unequivocally getting thrown way out of whack by the impact humans have and are having. Given how the plurality of human beings are subsistence farmers who aren't really moving the needle much, beaming them all to a faraway planet just for the "too many people" problem would have almost no positive impact on the planet. We could do bad all by ourselves with less than 1 billion on the planet.

If you therefore treat the impact to nature as a separate problem, then exclusive of that, people are a good thing as far as other people go. There are limited physical resources, but social resources push the balance the other way. Humans need other humans to survive. Scale back America to 30 million people, and think what would happen to our comfort level and technological innovation.

Having less people to justify your own existence through selling your own products or services takes a lot away from you. Imagine losing 9 out of 10 choices at the store.

It's hard to see the benefits other people give you when you're staring at an ocean of them on the 101, or waiting until your group number to board, or waiting for your reservation at the local brasserie. But without them there'd be no 101, no airport, and no local brasserie.

And if you're single, if you thought finding Mr. or Ms. Right was difficult before..

</comment><comment><USER8> That is probably the wrong angle to look at it. It's more that individual humans are contributing less, and they cause too much harm.

For example, we can trade labor for money and money for wood. So we create great logging corporations who try to chop down as much wood as possible. At some point, the demand for wood drops, so we start creating more wooden products, marketing toothpicks, or selling cheaper cardboard boxes. Later on, some meal box startup decides that the price of cardboard boxes is so low that they can send a meal box every day.

Housing prices have not 'gone up'. In fact they get a little cheaper as people have better house building tools, and the raw material costs are about the same. But the average person produces less average value, and struggles to produce enough value to trade for a house.

Maybe a big part of this is that all this automation technology really has made people less useful. Inflation and overhiring masks the fact.

<comment><USER9> Doesn't the value of a house have less to do with how much it costs to build, but how much the land it sits on costs?

My understanding is that if you have a growing population whom all wish to live in a few major cities then simple supply and demand means house prices in cities will raise unless more supply is added to the equation. But then in a city like London or New York the only place you can build is up (or down in the case of London) so this isn't always feasible.

House prices in rural areas are fairly affordable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hans Rosling has ted talks about the topic ( why wont world population exceed 11 billion, or something similar - he has a lot to say about this in multiple videos). It is backed by statistical evidence.

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't think as of this moment in time there are too many people in the world. However, the problems of work/food/water/housing seem like a population problem but it is more of a resource allocation problem. I think humans have proven we are bad at resource allocation/management when money/status influences it.

My thinking is that history has shown that when humans exacerbate resources they shrink back/go away (ghost towns, abandonded civilizations, etc.).

</comment><comment><USER12> Say what you want about Ebola, it's one of the few things that could actually halt global warming.

<comment><USER9> How come?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this is not about the number of people, but more like there are too many people on earth with different values and a mindset that they do not agree with other peoples values/beliefs and try to change that. That is where all the wars and stuff comes from

</comment><comment><USER14> Too many people on Earth, not nearly enough people in the rest of the solar system.

</comment><comment><USER15> That's the Malthusian hypothesis, an assumption that has been repeatedly and consistently disproven since it has first been formulated more than 200 years ago.

Strangely enough, it's still surprisingly popular.

Groups like the Club of Rome and reports such as "The Limits to Growth" often don't state so explicitly but when you assert that artificial limits should be imposed on economic growth you're basically making a decision about which human beings get to be born in the future.

In my opinion that's a both patronising as well as deeply anti-humanistic notion that doesn't take into account that there have always been and - extrapolating from the past - likely will still be paradigm shifts in the future which will allow us to make both more efficient use of existing resources and to discover new types of resources or new avenues for extracting existing ones.

</comment><comment><USER16> By what measure? Surely there are useless people, but we can feed the entire world, so why not?

<comment><USER17> * If I don't have a large house with garage,

* If I don't have a car,

* If I have harsh restrictions on when or how much electricity I can use,

* If I can't move around at night for fear of disturbing housemates or neighbours,

it can be difficult to start certain kinds of ventures.

Getting rich or starting a successful business is really what I'm living for. If I had to be a wage slave forever I'd off myself right now so that my corporate paymasters would no longer benefit from my labour.

Is having as many people existing as possible, really what we want to optimise for? What about optimising for freedom or quality of life?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Studies have estimated that the ideal Earth population, living sustainably at an average Western standard of life, would be less than 2BN people. The numbers vary, but the suggested populations are all well below the current.

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

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGdoqsuiN8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=neGdoqsuiN8)

<comment><USER2> The question of "optimum" global human population is an interesting one.

Here's "Optimum Human Population Size" \- GC Daily, AH Ehrlich, PR Ehrlich , from '94: (full text: [http://dieoff.org/page99.htm](http://dieoff.org/page99.htm) )

> All optima must lie between the minimum viable population size, MVP [...] > and the biophysical carrying capacity of the planet. At the lower end, > 50-100 people in each of several groups, for a total of about 500, might > constitute an MVP.

> Above the minimum viable level and within biophysical constraints, the > problem becomes a matter of social preference. [...] Human population sizes > have never, and will never, automatically equilibrate at some level. There > is no feedback mechanism that will lead to perfectly maintained, identical > crude birth and death rates. [...]

> 1\. An optimum population size is not the same as the maximum number of > people that could be packed onto Earth at one time. The maximum would have > to be housed and nurtured by methods analogous to those used to raise > [battery] chickens, and the process would inevitably reduce the planet's > longterm carrying capacity. [...]

> 2\. An optimum population size should be small enough to guarantee the > minimal physical ingredients of a decent life to everyone [...], even in the > face of an inequitable distribution of wealth and resources and the > uncertainty regarding rates of longterm, sustainable resource extraction and > environmental impacts. We agree with Nathan Keyfitz (1991): "If we have one > point of empirically backed knowledge, it is that bad policies are > widespread and persistent. Social science has to take account of them." > [...]

> 3\. Basic human rights in the social sphere [...] should be secure from > problems generated by the existence of too many people. Everyone should have > access to education, health care, sanitary living conditions, and economic > opportunities; but these fundamental rights are difficult to assure in large > populations, especially rapidly growing ones. [...] Democracy seems to work > best when populations are small relative to resource bases [...]

> 4\. We think an optimum population size should be large enough to sustain > viable populations in geographically dispersed parts of the world to > preserve and foster cultural diversity. [...]

> 5\. An optimum population size would be sufficiently large to provide a > "critical mass" in each of a variety of densely populated areas where > intellectual, artistic, and technological creativity would be stimulated. > [...]

> 6\. An optimum population size would also be small enough to ensure the > preservation of biodiversity. [...]

Ignoring the question of what an "optimal" population size might be, it seems reasonable to attempt to clearly state what criteria we'd use to try to make some kind of decision.

Some other criteria that are not included in the above list could include:

* individuals prefer to have freedom about if/when/by-how-much they reproduce. On the one hand many people don't want to have individual freedoms limited by society or government, although these freedoms might be incompatible with other objectives such as assuring a minimum level of human rights for the whole population. On the other hand, some individuals do have access to additional freedoms or options provided by society: access to contraception, IVF, etc.

* some countries with growing populations & economies are run like some kind of demographic pyramid scheme. Regardless of what an "optimal" population level might be there will be a lot of push back from people in positions in power who don't want to change the status quo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Yes.</comment>


IBM and Sony cram up to 330TB into tiny tape cartridge - 076ae80a-3c97-4 https://arstechnica.co.uk/information-technology/2017/08/ibm-and-sony-cram-up-to-330tb-into-tiny-tape-cartridge/ <comment><AUTHOR> _Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway._ \--Tanenbaum

<comment><USER2> Let's do some XKCD what-if math because I love doing stuff like this.

An average truck can house anywhere between 20,000L to 40,000L [1]. Let's take an average 30,000L.

An average truck can also travel at anywhere in between 56 kph to 137 kph [2]. Let's take an average 100 kph.

The tape catridge in the image looks like it's about 4mm x 10cm x 6 cm. And it can store 330 TB.

Let's say we're transfering from New York to San Francisco. That's 4,678 km according to Google.

Total data transferred in one truck = 330 TB * ((30000 L / (1000 L / m^3)) / ((4 mm * 0.001 m/mm) * (10 cm * 0.01 cm/m) * (6 cm * 0.01 cm/m)) = 412500000 TB

Total time taken = (4678 km * (1000 m/km)) / (100 kph * (0.27 (m/s)/kph)) = 173259 s

Bandwidth = 412500000 TB / 173259 s = 2380 TB/sec = 19046 Tbps

For reference, 255 Tbps was the fastest single fibre [3]. This is a good 75 times faster.

Of course, all this comes with a network latency of 2 days.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_truck#Size_and_volume](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_truck#Size_and_volume) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_limits_in_the_United_States) [3] [https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds- fa...](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/192929-255tbps-worlds-fastest- network-could-carry-all-the-internet-traffic-single-fiber)

<comment><USER3> You need to factor in the time needed to transfer the data onto/off the drives.

<comment><USER4> It depends on what you're doing with the data. If you're moving it to some long term archive then you only need to count the write time of the disks at the source, packing time, and unpacking time.

If you're planning to actually use the data you need to add in the time need to read the tapes and put them on a usable medium.

Once you add in all of the overhead, the network comes out looking much better in comparison.

<comment><USER5> >Once you add in all of the overhead, the network comes out looking much better in comparison.

That's a broad assumption. There's a reason why AWS is finding demand for Snowball and Snowmobile. Internet connections just aren't that fast.

<comment><USER4> In total bandwidth the truck is still likely to win, but it won't be a 75x advantage. Closer to 3-4x.

Also note that the Snowball/Snowmobile fit into the first use case. They are loaded up then just plugged in on arrival, and even then the total number of enterprises that have used the services is not very large. The multi-day latency on the first packet means you need to be transferring enough data that it would take more than those few days to transfer on a STM-4 or similar. It works out to a tremendous amount of data.

Of course if you are an arctic researcher who has collected hundreds of petabytes of sensor measurements and only have a satellite backhaul, then this makes tons of sense. But for anybody with a solid backbone connection the calculus is much less favorable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would love a low cost tape backup solution for home use. I would put things on it that I normally would delete (but may theoretically need at a later stage). This could range anything from written material (small size) to raw 4k video material that normally would require fairly expensive storage. What tape solutions like these are available right now at a decent cost? Thinking sizes up to 50TB, so conventional disks are just too expensive and error prone.

<comment><USER7> Define "low cost".

You won't get away with spending less than $1,500 or so on a recent generation tape drive. Don't forget you need a SCSI card. This is the point at which most enthusiasts just turn around, walk home, and order a big stack of hard disks. Sure, you get to save a bunch of money on media. An LTO-6 cartridge costs $25, and that's 2.5TB. But tape is a pain in the ass, and since it has separate capex for throughput and capacity, you need to do the calculations for both. Then you only have one drive, so if it breaks you are sitting without it for X weeks until repairs go through. You could save money by buying older generations like LTO-5 (now two generations old), maybe $500 for a used drive on eBay and now you have to buy almost twice as many tapes which is a pain.

By comparison, with HDD you can pay $100 for a 4TB drive, grab 13 of those and you have your 50TB, all for the $1300 which is less than you'd have paid just for a bare tape drive. When hard drives break you swap them out and keep operating at reduced capacity. (I mean, I've done that with tape drives, but back then I had lots of tape drives.)

"Conventional disks are just too expensive." For small amounts of data, like 50TB, tape could quite easily be more expensive due to the fixed costs of the drive. Add the fact that you have to babysit the tape drive and swap in a new tape every so often unless you get a robot to do it for you.

"Conventional disks are too error prone." Not sure what that's about, when you have 50TB of data you're going to need to add error correction no matter whether you write it to tape or write it to HDD. In reality, you're going to have to deal with a loss of a full tape or full drive either way, plus some read errors on the available media.

I don't have exact TCO figures for you, but despite the low cost of media, tape TCO isn't _that much_ lower than HDD, and for small amounts of data, HDD is cheaper.

Maybe, _maybe_ you could make this work. With old refurbished drives and media, and an endless appetite for swapping out tapes, and the right software to index and manage it all, maybe you could achieve your dream while spending less money. But a couple grand will get you the HDD you need.

<comment><USER6> You had me at the 2nd paragraph. I'm also one of those who'll turn around and order a stack of HDD's. Capex is just too high. I find it quite funny that you think 50TB is considered "small amounts of data", but I suppose all is relative.

For a business however (if I had huge amounts of data that needed archiving i.e. >100TB) then I would definitely go the tape route. Or Glacier if I decided to be sensible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One of the main reasons tape is still used in scientific applications is its durability and robustness when transported, the price of the cartridges is less of a factor.

In exploration geophysics extremely large amounts of data are recorded onto tapes when acquiring in the field, and then either transferred over sea/land/air in a packing case to a processing centre. I wonder if this new tech will prove just as durable as current tape tech?

</comment><comment><USER9> Putting a few of their numbers together seems to imply a read bandwidth of 24 Tbps (330 terabytes = 330*8 terabits/tape, tape length = 1098 meters => 2.4 terabits/meter, tape speed = 10 m/s => 24 Tb/s). Which to me is way more interesting than the total storage size. Of course I have no idea what you could actually feed that into, it far exceeds CPU memory bandwidth, let alone SCSI or PCIE. Do these things not actually run at full speed for more than a fraction of a second?

<comment><USER10> We're no where near 330TB tapes. This was an announcement that they were able to, in a lab, make a few inches of what would be a 330TB tape.

The idea is that when we're at a place where you can reliably manufacture 330TB tapes, fibre channel (or whatever we have then for SAN interconnects) will have caught up.

<comment><USER9> I realize this is a long way off from production. I guess what I was saying is I think the notion that we may have a 24 Tbps tape drive in 10 years more interesting than the notion that we may have a 330 TB tape drive in 10 years. And I'm wondering if my logic for the bandwidth is faulty, or if that might actually be doable with this technology (eventually).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They should copy Soundcloud's 900TB as a demo

</comment><comment><USER12> _Note that commercial tape cartridges max out at 15TB - so, less than the theoretical amount enabled by the 2010 breakthrough._

Will be a long time and quite expensive when/if these finally hit the market.

I would love to store backups on tape at home. Unfortunately harddrives are still the cheapest option in practice, and they are a bit too expensive and a bit impractical to comfortably use as offline storage (and transfer) for home use (my opinion / use case).

<comment><USER13> well the drives/etc we have for home use are magnitudes cheaper than commercial gear which only really has equivalence with regards to how much it stores.

recently pricing out 337gb SSD drives for our production and backup servers ends up with a price about nine times that of which it would cost per terabyte of a new iMac. When you get into have 60 to 120TB it adds up but reliability is so much more important.

Now I have never looked at tape backup for home use, what is the throughput of most of these? Is this merely a limit of the interface?

<comment><USER4> People who are really serious about storage like Google and Backblaze tend to buy those cheap commercial hard drives instead of the expensive enterprise drives.

Tape drives for home use don't make much sense sadly. The tapes are too expensive compared to hard drives. It's easier to buy one of those SATA docks if you want to have cold backups.

[https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E1681715...](https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16817153066&ignorebbr=1&nm_mc=KNC- GoogleAdwords-PC&cm_mmc=KNC-GoogleAdwords-PC-_-pla-_-External+Enclosure- _-N82E16817153066&gclid=CjwKCAjw8IXMBRB8EiwAg9fgMDIcYYxU2aTEjwgGm36APK2VaoP4Vp7MxKnas3QYrfIDCs_b7O8LmhoCKL8QAvD_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds)

<comment><USER10> > The tapes are too expensive compared to hard drives.

That's not at all my experience, at least when it comes to LTO. Sure, TS and T10k are expensive, but they're the 'enterprise solutions'. Modern LTO tapes can be bought for ~$100 if you shop around. Less if you buy in bulk.

<comment><USER7> Recent generation LTO tapes (LTO-6) can be had for like $25 a pop easily, low volume, just check Amazon or wherever. The LTO-7 are more expensive but that's what you get for latest and greatest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Areal" density (bits per unit area), not "Aerial" density (bits in the atmosphere?)

</comment><comment><USER15> Honest question: are tape drives fast enough for use in any asynchronous/random-access environment, or are they generally limited to backups, financial and scientific data? For example, could something like Youtube rely on tapes as the tail end of a LRU cache or similar?

<comment><USER16> According to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape- Open#Positioning_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linear_Tape- Open#Positioning_times) , in the region of 50 seconds, which isn't really good enough.

<comment><USER17> I'm sure there's long-tail data on YouTube for which terabytes of files that could be backed up to tape are accessed far more slowly than every 50 seconds. I agree that this would not be a great user experience, but there's certainly a place for it, especially if the cost/terabyte is compelling.

<comment><USER4> The other problem is that Hard Drives are cheap as hell and tapes, especially ones loaded into automatic robots, are really not that cheap.

It's the perennial disappointment with tape drives that the media has "enterprise" pricing, making it barely better per TB than cheap consumer spinning hard drives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The one thing that has puzzled me for years is why tape never caught on with consumers.

Too much risk that people confuse it with music cassettes?

Or perhaps too fiddly software to deal with? for me a more likely reason why USB drives overtook optical media than the media itself, btw.

</comment><comment><USER19> What kind of read/write speeds are these tapes capable of?

<comment><USER20> Commercial drives you can buy right now write at more than 150 MB/s, newer generations are always faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Backing up a few PB of data is costly and bulky, since you really must use hard disks. I've been waiting for this tech for years.

<comment><USER7> In the PB range, current tape technology is very competitive with HDD depending on access patterns and other factors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Can anyone speculate about the price for one unit?

<comment><USER23> Hard to say. That type of capacity isn't even on the LTO road map yet, and IBM is one of the controlling companies there.

LTO-7 currently holds about 6TB uncompressed, and they're about $100 per cartridge. LTO-8 will double the storage, and will probably be available by the end of next year. I'd guess the cartridges will be more expensive initially, but it's hard to say what the premium will be.

<comment><USER10> > will probably be available by the end of next year.

I'd be surprised if it took that long.

<comment><USER23> I agree, but I'm going based on the road map, which plans for that version to become available this year or next year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> They can go cram it, for all I care.

</comment><comment><USER25> It can now store 330 million books. We better get started writing!

</comment><comment><USER26> Kim Jong Un should make sure one of these things filled with music and movies doesn't get into N Korea. It would destroy their propaganda war.</comment>


Plex Media Server Now on Linux. - <AUTHOR> http://elan.plexapp.com/2011/05/14/the-plex-penguin-friendly-media-server/

<comment><USER2> I just installed Plex on my Ubuntu media server and bought the Plex for Android app on my Xoom and it works amazingly well. Beware of networking issues if your wifi is on a different subnet than your server: [http://forums.plexapp.com/index.php/topic/26336-no-valid- rou...](http://forums.plexapp.com/index.php/topic/26336-no-valid-route-when- using-openvpn/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't have any Macs at my house, so I hadn't experienced Plex before a few weeks ago when I installed the media server on my Windows Box to serve to our Roku. It was already the best local media app for the Roku, and this just makes it even better since I can run it on my Unraid box and only keep one machine running 24/7.</comment>


Ask HN: How many months after launch until your project was ramen profitable? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> About 9 months. But our only costs are an Apple Developer License, and a Business license for the LLC. We're not considering our time to be paid, since we have day jobs. [http://gif-wallet.com](http://gif-wallet.com)

We can almost split a top ramen a day (assuming 4 for a dollar).

If you take a Taco Bell hot sauce and put it on Top Ramen, it tastes exactly like poverty.

</comment><comment><USER3> It has been about 9 months without making any money. The app also doesn't have a monetization strategy yet (focusing on making an awesome product first), so that makes sense. There has been a large uptick in organic traffic recently (without any PR or paid advertising), so monetization may be in the immediate future.

Still can't buy ramen.

[https://plansible.com](https://plansible.com)

</comment><comment> UK-AL Well this thread isn't boding well for iOS apps.

</comment><comment><USER4> About 4 month, wouldn't say its ramen profitable but it cover the cost of Apple Developer License and Business license for sole proprietorship.

It is earning $0.9 per day on average since day 1.

</comment><comment><USER5> My consulting practice became ramen profitable after 2 weeks.</comment>


Ask YC: Self Teach Videos - <AUTHOR>

I'm going back to college to pursue undergraduate degrees in mathematics and computer science. I have been thinking about ways to alleviate my costs as I am currently relying solely on student loans and help for my father. The following is what I have come up with, and I am seeking the opinions of this community.<p>I have noticed that while there is some quality instructional videos on YouTube and places like MIT's website, I still think there is a lack of good quality educational videos. I would like to create a series of lecture videos with a textbook or two written by me and create a means of donating money to offset some of my expenses. In addition to that, if I have any money left over I would create a scholarship for math and computer science studies at Bowling Green State University. Do you think this is a viable plan? Could something like this be turned into a non-profit where more than just math and computer science lectures are posted? <comment><USER2> I really like the idea of self teaching educational videos. If anything, you'd be making a great contribution to society for those who can't seem to get an education for financial, etc. reasons.

It's a viable but very work intensive plan. Writing your own textbook seems like a pretty big bottleneck. In my opinion, don't waste your time writing your own textbook at first, just go straight off of an existing textbook to make your videos. Math, science, bio is math, science, bio. I don't think you'd run into any trouble unless you start copying unique problem strategies. As far as a means of donation, I think a project like this would be so highly praised that many humanitarian/university/etc. organizations would be more than willing to help fund you.

As for covering your costs, you could create your own textbooks, but not the usual type. I'd really like textbooks that are more concise and cut the crap. Just give me the damn formulas, how they work, and why we use them. Then a section of practice problems. I don't want to read about how neat it is to graph a 3d image of the shape of a cowbell using trig functions. If you could make that type of textbook, I'd buy it. Also, you always could create white label versions of your product and sell them to institutions and universities for the hosting of their own videos/podcasts for their student body.

It's an ambitious but awesome plan.

<comment><AUTHOR> I thought the exact same thing you thought about the textbook, and I thought I would do it sort of like a professor does--start out with a set of notes that evolve into a textbook over time.

I agree with the "cut the crap" out of textbooks. I think modern textbooks spend a lot of pages showing fluff. When I look at historical books, like Hardy's A Course on Pure Mathematics, I am amazed at how concise yet rigorous they are compared with today's textbooks.

<comment><USER3> Schaum's Outlines are usually a good source of cheap (~$15) "cut the crap" textbook alternatives. Brief explanations, then many worked problems, then more problems with answers elsewhere.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not so sure Schaum's is that great. I want to "cut the crap" but replace it with a deeper study of whatever the student is studying.

I really dislike when a mathematics textbook states something like "The proof is too complicated and therefore not included." Let me be the judge of that. At least indicate where I may find a proof of a theorem if it's not included in the text.

I also believe that logic and proofs should be taught much earlier in the curriculum than at present, and I don't consider the simple geometric proofs learned in high school to be a firm basis on which to start. Under my plan, something like Rudin should be what is taught as a last math class in high school. Some may say that is too ambitious. I don't think so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> That's what I am trying to do with my web app (www.ezlearnz.com), although I'm not limiting the site to instructional videos, but also text, images, and interactive widgets.

</comment><comment><USER5> Let me get this straight: you are about to start as an undergrad, and you are thinking about writing textbooks?

Holy hubris, Batman!</comment>


DevOps for IoT: IoT Device Portal - <AUTHOR> https://www.deviceportal.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> DevicePortal provides DevOps for IoT by supplementing barebone IoT core from AWS IoT, Azure IoT, and Google IoT.

Go from JSON to provisioning in just 2 hours. Delight your IoT's customers with simple secure provisioning and device management. DevicePortal is a Provisioning as a service (PAAS).

* Provisioning, * Device Management, * Operational Analytics, and * Customer Support

Barebone IoT core from AWS IoT, Azure IoT, Google IoT require a lot of work from DevOps engineers. We make it easy for you to get started with DevOps for IoT and also get the security of AWS IoT, Azure IoT, and Google IoT.

[https://www.deviceportal.io](https://www.deviceportal.io)</comment>


Tesla's head of battery engineering exits - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-moves-jon-wagner/teslas-head-of-battery-engineering-exits-idUSKBN1D62OO <comment><USER2> It's hard not to see this as bad for Tesla.

The one thing Tesla supporters have pointed to more than anything is that Tesla had a large head-start in battery tech over all of the competitors. So Chevy is shipping many more Bolts than Tesla is shipping all models combined, _but_ Tesla's headstart in battery tech and manufacturing would keep them a contender.

Now their head of battery tech is gone and they've missed model 3 targets by a very wide margin due to problems with batteries.

I'm not sure how reliable their lead in batteries is right now.

There's still that supercharger network, though. I suspect we'll be hearing more about that now that other points in Tesla's favor are dwindling.

<comment><USER3> I've never understood what their lead in batteries really is. Isn't it well known that Panasonic manufacturers and supplies battery cells to Tesla?

And cost-wise LG Chem seems competitive enough to Panasonic anyway, keeping in mind leaked figures for Bolt.

<comment><USER4> It was that since they secured rights to a key resource for it's products.

It's essentially the Apple move - by outmaneuvering competitors on key resources it allows higher margin or products that others can't even create.

<comment><USER3> That is even more unbelievable. What are they implying, nobody else will manufacture batteries?

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china- is-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-06-28/china-is-about-to- bury-elon-musk-in-batteries)

<comment><USER5> If Tesla has an adequate supply of cells for their needs (due to contracts with Panasonic and their own factory), but other car manufacturers have to compete with each other on the open market for a supply of cells that is inadequate for high-volume production, then that's a big advantage for Tesla in the short/medium term. They can focus 100% on electric, whereas the major manufacturers will have to stick mostly with gas and hybrids for the majority of their revenue.

If China were to produce many times more cells than Tesla, we could still have a major battery shortage for most of the world's auto manufacturers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm graduating with my BS in EE next month and I've been applying to lots of places working on battery technology since it's incredibly interesting to me, but I have no idea how anyone becomes a "specialist" in that field. Everything I've learned has been outside of class, and there aren't any offered in my department or in Materials Science or Chemistry, and a few of my friends at top-tier schools like CMU and Purdue have said the same thing. It seems so critical for everything from energy grids during natural disasters to environmentally friendly material sourcing/disposal. I hope schools start focusing on it.

<comment><USER7> I'm an EE doing asic design. Everything I do for a living I learned outside of school. Aside from the basics like reading/maths etc.

<comment><USER8> Huh, this is hard to swallow. What digital EE courses did you take in school?

<comment><USER7> Fair point, I had one class called logic design. It was my favorite, although I hated breadboarding 7400 logic.

The class was mainly Boolean algebra with some flip flops thrown in at some point. If I recall correctly that was my sophomore year.

There was next to no digital in my courses. Heavy on math and analog circuits. I think that one class on digital logic was it.

<comment><USER8> > Fair point, I had one class called logic design. The class was mainly > Boolean algebra with some flip flops thrown in at some point.

Yeah that explains it. :-) So nothing about writing Verilog, feedback pipelining, adder design, clock skew, and stuff like that? Because those are the kinds of things I'd expect in a digital logic course (if one were available) and I would be shocked if you didn't need to know those concepts for a job in ASIC design.

<comment><USER6> We've got all that in an Advanced Digital Design course, but you have to be pretty far down a class path to take it so most students don't.

<comment><USER8> > We've got all that in an Advanced Digital Design course, but you have to be > pretty far down a class path to take it

How far down? I wouldn't expect it to be popular but I also wouldn't expect it to have a long prereq chain (a sophomore-level course on computer architecture seems enough?)... it doesn't seem like analog which is where you _actually_ need a long prereq chain to get anywhere.

> so most students don't

Most students... in EE? Or most students planning to do digital design after graduation?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So either he was "asked to leave" (fired) for somehow being responsible for the battery issue that was the rate-limiting factor for Model 3 production, OR he was being leaned on so hard by management to fix the problem that he left for work-life-balance reasons (ragequit.)

Either way, he gets to put in his expertise to found a new company in one of the hottest technologies there is in 2017, probably becoming rich by selling Tesla's own upgraded tech back to it, as well as to everyone else in the electric car race. All while not having Elon Musk looming over his shoulder. Not bad!

<comment><USER10> It sounds like the battery issues aren't even completely within Tesla's control - you try sourcing that much lithium!

...seriously, I'm sorta worried about our continued access to enough lithium for all this electric technology that's rapidly emerging. Counterarguments?

<comment><USER11> Current world production is only 36,000 tonnes per year. Chile alone has 7.5 million tonnes known reserves. So 200 years of current requirements, known, in one country.

And the lithium doesn't just go away. Lithium batteries can be recycled, though in practice it is currently often cheaper to just mine more lithium.

<comment><USER12> The values I heard some years ago (~10) was that there were well over 1000 years of known lithium reserves even when assuming some truly impressive rates of electric vehicle production and zero recycling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting, given last week's reports of Model 3 production being bottlenecked due to battery supply issues. Is his departure the result of him being held responsible for these issues? Or did he decide to leave of his own accord, and if so, why? Either way, I'd like to hear some more details.

</comment><comment><USER14> Let's just appreciate this rare piece of news. All the information presented, without interpretation, no fuss or ads around the post (maybe due to adblocker, don't know). Clean and simple. This is way, waaay, too rare.

</comment><comment><USER15> I've been describing Tesla as a "battery company" for a while now; it's essential for their solar roof and electric car businesses.

This makes me nervous as an investor..

<comment><USER16> Does that mean you weren't nervous before now? I got nervous a long time ago. I sold my modest investment in Tesla and got my Model 3 pre-order deposit back. I sleep much better now..

</comment></comment><comment><USER17>
        > [...] joined the company in January 2013,
        > was involved in developing technology
        > for all of Tesla's cars [according to
        > his LinkedIn profile]

He joined after the Roadster went out of production, which had a proprietary Tesla powertrain, so this doesn't seem like an accurate summary, the Model S was also introduced half a year before he started in mid-2012.

<comment><USER18> The Roadster had the 2.0 update after he joined.

<comment><USER19> 3.0 - 2.0 was much earlier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Does Tesla use European style "Director" designations for VP/Senior Execs?

For Tesla I'd be surprised if the "Head of Battery Engineering" was only a "Director" level position in US style corporate ladders?

</comment><comment><USER21> Was he discharged?

<comment><USER22> I see what you did there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Some articles reported the Model 3 delays were about the Fremont car assembly plant, but this hints at the Gigafactory being the bottleneck. If both are stuck/dead it's gonna smell bad. I wish Musk finds the help needed to at least "land" the project as smooth as his rockets.

<comment><USER24> In the investors call last week Tesla stated that the problem is at the Gigafactory with battery production.

Here's a link to a summary of conference call: [https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/7ao4m0/conferenc...](https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTesla/comments/7ao4m0/conference_call_confirms_teslas_model_3_faces/)

That forum is quite anti-Tesla (as opposed to /r/teslamotors). The whole Tesla thing is quite controversial - lots of haters, lots of fanboys.

Best advice I can give you: Read what both sides have to say and weigh the arguments. Then just stick with the truth you've always believed in - it's what everyone does in 2017 ;-)

<comment><USER23> I just read the story of William Browder (putin's nonfriend) that's indeed what I ended up doing.

Thanks a lot for the report, I guess I misinterpreted what article said about which factory the problems were happening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Didn't Toyota just announce their new battery tech due in 2022? Solid state batteries with short/fast recharge time? Maybe this engineer didn't have anything up his sleeve to get there before toyota

<comment><USER26> Japanese automakers are circling their wagons. Toyota, Mazda, and Denso are collaborating in a JV, with Suzuki expected to join. Toyota leadership is demanding longer range and faster charging batteries from the alliance engineers. The important markets in play are US, China, and South Asia (including India).

<comment><USER27> Mazda and other partners won't get solid state batteries from Toyota. They cooperate on a shared platform for EVs, not on the batteries tech.

Source: [http://www.thedrive.com/tech/15514/toyota-wont-share- solid-s...](http://www.thedrive.com/tech/15514/toyota-wont-share-solid-state- batteries-with-tech-partner-mazda)

<comment><USER26> You're right. I wonder how the alliance partners will handle charging stations. I know from living in Japan that Nissan chargers are at nearly every dealership lot, and many parking garages have charging areas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can anyone explain what the rules are regarding the head of battery engineering leaving Tesla to make similar batteries on his own? Wouldn't it be IP theft if he tried copying the tech he developed at Tesla?

<comment><USER29> not if he copies all their designs but intends to sell his fake startup to a competitor shortly after a few announcements

<comment><USER28> Haha, what could possibly go wrong?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> If his pay was in any way tied to productivity, he was probably taking a big hit. Regardless of fault.

</comment><comment><USER31> Let's be real — he was probably asked to leave.

<comment><USER32> > he is launching a battery and powertrain startup in California

I'm betting Tesla couldn't pay him enough and he's starting his own shop to sell to the other major auto manufacturers.

<comment><USER33> Plus didn't Tesla state that all their patents were open source, so there is no IP precluding him from doing such...

<comment><USER34> How about a non-compete agreement?

<comment><USER35> Aren't they invalid in California?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It really seems like they are struggling lately. Hope they turn things around

<comment><USER37> Sounds like production hell.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: RSS feeds you subscribe to? - <AUTHOR> I've just set up Feedhuddler to save to Pocket and want to start collecting thought inspiring feeds again. What do you guys read? <comment><USER2> from 5 days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12194875](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12194875)</comment>


How Dr. Seuss would prove the halting problem undecidable (2008) - <AUTHOR> http://ebiquity.umbc.edu/blogger/2008/01/19/how-dr-suess-would-prove-the-halting-problem-undecidable/ <comment><USER2> Straight from the author's website: [http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/loopsnoop.html](http://www.lel.ed.ac.uk/~gpullum/loopsnoop.html)

<comment><USER3> I prefer the version you linked to, as it has taken trominos criticism into account [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1323111](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1323111)

Only your linked version is correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Discussed long ago at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1321899](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1321899) and not so long ago at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077471](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10077471).

<comment><USER5> How Hackernews would prove the halting problem:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=10792240&goto=item%3Fi...](https://news.ycombinator.com/reply?id=10792240&goto=item%3Fid%3D10791113)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a side note, the good doctor predicted the ascent of the surveillance state:

       "On a mountain halfway between Reno and Rome
       We have a machine in a plexiglass dome
       Which listens and looks into everyone's home
       And whenever it sees a new sleeper go flop,
       It jiggles and lets a new Biggle-Ball drop.
       Our chap count these balls as they plup in a cup.
       And that's how we know who is down and who's up"

</comment><comment><USER7> How I explained it to a shepherd: [http://www.everything2.com/title/halting+dog+problem](http://www.everything2.com/title/halting+dog+problem)

</comment><comment><USER8> Now if we could only get this for the abc conjecture.</comment>


An Undecidable Problem in SIP - <AUTHOR> http://blog.marc.petit-huguenin.org/2014/08/an-undecidable-problem-in-sip2.html

<comment><USER2> Even though it seems that you can create pathological SIP rules that are undecidable could you reduce a subset of the problem if you are only allowed to do a set of forwards and then you have a graph where you can detect cycles with a simple cycle detection algorithm?

</comment><comment><USER3> I think this article is a bit alarmist...

 _Now, let 's say that we want to implement CTS in SIP. The CPL language is not powerful enough for that but we can define a very simple extension_

...

 _And because we previously proved that SIP with CPL is Turing-Complete_

...

 _Note that at least some SIP systems are not necessarily Turing-Complete - here we had to add an extension to our very limited system based on CPL to make it Turing-Complete._

In other words, he had to create a completely theoretical extension, which AFAIK doesn't actually exist, just to show that it _could be_ Turing-complete? If there's a real extension in use or set of extensions that could make it Turing-complete, why didn't he just choose that?

</comment><comment><USER4> Its not NP to determine if the max-forward reach zero. Just simulate it until it reaches zero or not... QED</comment>


First Rally, new Bitcoin and altcoin data warehouse for analysts, launches - <AUTHOR> https://firstrally.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Press release we sent out earlier today:

PRESS RELEASE

First Rally, [https://firstrally.com](https://firstrally.com), released today offering a wide variety of data products for technical consumers. Offering real-time data tracking for 24 of the top exchanges, as well as historical data with over 36 million data points, users will have direct access to tick- level price information of over 1000 markets.

In addition to their data products, First Rally offers a notifications system free to anyone, that will send email notifications when the price of the user's desired market crosses a threshold. Additionally, First Rally offers a conversion tool that can convert to and from any cryptocurrency tracked, which comes as a boon to those outside the Bitcoin space.

Send all requests for comment to Tim Coulter, email@example.com.</comment>


Ask HN: Collapse comments? - <AUTHOR>

Can I please get to collapse comments in threads? Sometimes I disagree with or simply don't wan't to read everyone's take on something. You're already using JavaScript to vote so this would be something similar... <comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1128583> <\- This is, I think, relevant

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1540722> <\- This was submitted just minutes after your item

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1510615> <\- Your request is a common one, this is a recent example with its attendant discussion.

If this has been helpful, please read this:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1540610>

If that's interesting, please consider upvoting it so it gets noticed.

Cheers!</comment>


MakerDAO's Recent Trouble May Highlight Flaws in the Ecosystem - <AUTHOR> https://forklog.media/makerdaos-recent-trouble-may-highlight-flaws-in-the-ecosystem/ <comment><USER2> The whole blockchain ecosystem has inherent flaws that the sweep under the rug.</comment>


AppHub – Update React Native Apps Without Re-Submitting to Apple - <AUTHOR> https://apphub.io/ <comment><USER2> AppHub co-founder here, we realize that this is something that would seem to be prohibited by Apple, but updating JavaScript code is explicitly permitted by the iOS Developer Agreement [1]. This same technology is used by Meteor [2], Trigger.io [3], and Adobe Hydration [4], and also used by Facebook and Palantir [5] in their apps.

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/information/iOS_Pro...](https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/information/iOS_Program_Information_4_3_15.pdf)

[2] [http://info.meteor.com/blog/apple-hot-code-push- mobile](http://info.meteor.com/blog/apple-hot-code-push-mobile)

[3] [https://trigger.io/](https://trigger.io/)

[4] [http://docs.build.phonegap.com/en_US/tools_hydration.md.html](http://docs.build.phonegap.com/en_US/tools_hydration.md.html)

[5] [https://medium.com/@clayallsopp/a-dynamic-crazy-native- mobil...](https://medium.com/@clayallsopp/a-dynamic-crazy-native-mobile- future-powered-by-javascript-70f2d56b1987)

<comment><USER3> Apple aside, doing this kind of thing silently _sucks_ for users -- one of the benefits of native applications over the web is having control over when updates containing potential regressions are inserted into your workflow.

<comment><USER4> Couldn't this also aide in correcting regressions at the same time?

<comment><USER3> Yes, but as a developer, you're less likely to ship regressions in the first place if your deployment process involves more structure (beta testing, internal code freezes, release branches containing only bug fixes, etc) than 'git push'.

Of course, that runs counter to the "continual deployment" idea popular in web circles, but _that 's the entire point_.

<comment><USER4> This doesn't prescribe which branch you do the git push to though. I'm sure you could just as easily set up a branching scheme where you went through testing and internal releases, and launched new code off a stable branchline

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wish you folks well, and I think this looks neat, but—as others have pointed out—although you follow the letter of the iOS Developer Agreement, I expect Apple will feel you do not follow the spirit of it. They may change the agreement outright, or simply say that use of AppHub falls under the purview of 3.3.2. But, either way, I recommend you have a contingency plan.

This whole spirit/letter thing comes up on occasion. Here's a previous example: [http://daringfireball.net/2012/05/more_on_airfoil_speakers_t...](http://daringfireball.net/2012/05/more_on_airfoil_speakers_touch)

</comment><comment><USER6> This is awesome (and was seemingly inevitable now that React Native is in play), and it will be really interesting to see what Apple eventually does about this.

If they change the terms of service to prevent hot loading app updates via JavaScriptCore they're going to isolate a lot of developers, since so much cool stuff is being developed around JavaScriptCore right now. The rnplay playground app that's currently in the App Store dynamically loads entire apps onto your phone to play around with -- it's so cool, why block things like that from existing?

If they do nothing, it's clear a rogue app store distribution ecosystem is going to evolve (case in point ^) which seems like a sub-optimal outcome for everyone.

Isn't the only eventuality for Apple to change their app store approval process to allow dynamic updates? I mean it's obviously better for developers, and probably ultimately better for end users as well. I just don't see any way around it with the momentum writing iOS apps in Javascript has right now.

</comment><comment><USER7> The PhoneGap app (and probably many others) has been pushing JS code without the need of Apple's approval for a long time now, and Apple hasn't had any problem with it. If this is not abused, to do things against the ToS, it is a really nice thing to have.

<comment><USER8> Indeed, we've been advocating this approach since Aug 2, 2008. But to be more specific, when PhoneGap was first developed it would load the HTML/CSS/JavaScript from a server just like a chrome-less browser with the url hard coded. Unfortunately Apple started to reject apps that used PhoneGap because they felt it violated this rule which forced us to change how it works to have the web assets already packaged in the application.

We later found out that Apple thought PhoneGap was our own custom version of webkit which is what actually concerned them more. Once they came to learn more about the implementation detail on how PhoneGap works it started to become accepted but this was a very long process.

To clarify, 1) Apple hasn't always approved apps packaged with PhoneGap. 2) PhoneGap hasn't always taken this approach (although this was the initial design).

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I see that lasting almost three weeks before Apple shut it down (assuming anyone uses it...)

<comment><USER10> Apple does allow it as long as they are only pushing html / js. IPA changes would still need to go though Apple. From Apples guidelines: [https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/information/iOS_Pro...](https://developer.apple.com/programs/ios/information/iOS_Program_Information_4_3_15.pdf)

"The only exception to the foregoing is scripts and code downloaded and run by Apple's built-in WebKit framework or JavascriptCore, provided that such scripts and code do not change the primary purpose of the Application by providing features or functionality that are inconsistent with the intended and advertised purpose of the Application as submitted to the App Store."

<comment><USER9> Sure, but this is a case of the letter versus the spirit - and as a blatant end-run around the app store application process (they advertise it as a feature) I don't see those terms lasting too long. And/or any app that changes too much stuff on download will get pulled very quickly.

Apple don't have a track record of interpreting their terms particularly generously.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Updated iOS Developer Agreement in 3..2..1..

</comment><comment><USER12> We released an app onto the store last year that was a UniWebView pointed to an S3 website, constantly updated the code without pushing through the app store. No qualms from Apple.

This sounds great!

</comment><comment><USER13> > Celebrate! This is the last time you'll have to wait for Apple review.

This is the great idea! And it works for many. It's easy, though, to get an inconsistent state of the app, where JS bundle would be newer than ObjC part. You should be super careful while npm-installing libs, including react-native itself since most of them consist source code that should be compiled. Maybe it wouldn't be a problem when react-native and most major third-party libraries will be stable

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, so true! Our dashboard makes it super clear to deploy JS bundles that are versioned to specific App Store releases, and we provide an API for testing new JS bundles on old App Store releases.

I'd love to have you try it out - ping me at (matt at apphub.io).

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Technically, this looks like a cool hack.

I've never found submitting an app for app review to be that big of a deal, if your app is well designed, useful, and not negligent or malicious toward user needs.

Your FAQ says what you're doing is explicitly permitted by Apple, and points to section 3.3.2 of the iOS Developer Program Information document.

But what about section 3.3.3?

        3.3.3
        Without Apple's prior written approval or as permitted
        under Section 3.3.25 (In App Purchase API), an
        Application may not provide, unlock or enable
        additional features  or functionality through
        distribution mechanisms other than the App Store
        or VPP/B2B  Program Site

Finally, you do realize that the App store policies are subject to change in order to adapt to hacks like this, right?

Again cool hack but it will be interesting to see if it gets out of the starting gate.

<comment><USER2> AppHub is not trying to circumvent the Apple release process, rather, we want to make distributing updates as frictionless as possible. The main advantages we give developers are instant updates and staged rollouts (deploying new features to a percentage of users).

Glad you pointed out Section 3.3.3 of the Developer Agreement. From our understanding, it is intended to prevent developers from trying to avoid the App Store fees. As always, it will be up to developers to follow Apple's guidelines in their iOS apps.

<comment><USER15> This:

"Stop waiting weeks for Apple to review your app. Just add our iOS framework and start pushing updates."

says otherwise.

<comment><USER16> The key verbiage is "release" vs "updates."

You still have to go through the initial App Store Release process initially. After that, using this framework you can push updates directly, rather than waiting the requisite 5 business days[1]. As an app developer, being able to push updates (read: bug fixes) immediately is a blessing--we live and die by our reviews, and a bad update can cause an avalanche of negative reviews. Waiting 5 days[2] for a fix to go live can seem like an eternity.

1\. It was 5 business days when I was an IOS Developer in 2012.

2\. For all updates it was 5 business days. There were rumors that if you had a evangelist at Apple you were on real good terms with, they could fast track the update for you, if it was a rare occurrence.

<comment><USER15> I really don't see Apple making that distinction.

<comment><USER16> Nor do I.

Best case, this is a minor annoyance to Apple, and they don't bother.

Worst case, a bad actor abuses this forcing Apple to immediately pull any and all apps built ontop of this.

For anything other than an MVP, I wouldn't risk it.

<comment><USER17> Hopefully AppHub can mitigate the worst case scenario to "you have to fall back to standard Apple update procedures".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The problem with this is not if Apple will allow it or not, but the uncertainty, which is deadly for a platform. No developer who take themselves seriously will want to depend on a platform that may go away. Good for you if Apple lets you get away with it, but that doesn't mean it will be like that forever, nor does it mean all apps using this approach will be accepted. It's case by case, and it's already shitty as is when it comes to approval process, most developers would just decide to follow the directions.

<comment><AUTHOR> AppHub cofounder here -- I'm glad you brought this up.

A developer who chooses to use AppHub is not depending on the platform. If AppHub goes away (which we hope will never happen!), our iOS SDK defaults to using the App Store build. Moreover, developers can implement their own "AppHub server" if they so choose, so they're not locked in to using our service.

We're excited to open source the iOS SDK when we launch to the public so that developers can audit the code and assure themselves that they're not depending on our platform.

<comment><USER19> My uncertainty is more around what Apple's going to do the first time someone publishes a free FlappyBird clone, then when it's got several million or tens of million downloads magically turns it into a spambot or a million-strong pocket DDoS zombie army.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is pretty neat! However, Apple can bypass this by simply rejecting apps that bundle the AppHub framework, with the claim that apps whose feature updates bypasses app store approval present a security vulnerability.

A more useful approach would be to open-source the AppHub framework so users can implement auto-updating themselves, and it would be harder for Apple to catch this.

</comment><comment><USER21> From a business perspective, how many apps use react? I am interested in what is the size of the market for this business?

</comment><comment><USER22> Really cool hack! Would hate to see Apple ban this...

</comment><comment><USER15> And this is why we can't have nice things. Someone is going to submit a React Native app to the App Store, use this bullshit to bypass the update review, and either use it to steal information of a user, or post dick pics all over the app.

<comment><USER23> Yes, but if AppHub didn't build this, someone else would. Just because something isn't the "safest" idea doesn't mean we shouldn't stop experimenting.

Also, how would this make it easier to steal user information or share your stash of dick pics? Sounds like a lot of FUD to me.

<comment><USER15> "Yes, but if AppHub didn't build this, someone else would."

What exactly does that mean? My statement doesn't change just because someone else made it.

<comment><USER23> It means that this isn't a mind-boggling amazing idea. This is like taking A/B testing to its logical extreme where you can just inject new tests (code) into an existing product.

Also, since you were so kind to reply, why don't you explain what this means: "use it to steal information of a user, or post dick pics all over the app."

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Whoa, this is sick!</comment>


Brittleness comes from "One Thing" - <AUTHOR> https://blog.asmartbear.com/brittleness.html <comment><USER2> Brittle sounds like fragile. This article reminds me of Nassim Taleb's amazing book, Antifragile.

Fragile organizations and systems break from randomness. Robust ones are able to resist and stay strong. But Antifragile ones actually _benefit_ from randomness and volatility.

I highly recommend the book -- it's highly relevant to startup companies who, rather than shooting for the moon, should protect their downside (at first) and place small bets on numerous 10x activities.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure I fully understand that last sentence, could you explain?

<comment><USER4> Not OP but I'd guess this means "don't do anything where one bad move takes you out of the game, and invest a little in a lot of long shots"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Brittle" does not necessarily mean "bad". If that one marketing channel is really all you have, and perhaps the entire reason your company exists; then it might be fineto just admit that, make the most of it without overextending yourself or making lots of commitments, and then prepare for starting the next business.

</comment><comment> Chiba-City Some permutation of "pair programming" helps with "mission critical" software execution risks. We call this "the bus test" in DC no-nonsense engineering. Project execution must survive anyone getting "hit by a bus."

It does not have to be pair-teams. It can be 3-teams that review each other's code. Crafting shared libraries also helps focus multiple developers around code, docs, calling semantics and help surface implicit performance expectations or penalties early.

I have been the hero developer cranking 10K lines of C per month. But divide and conquer where software development MATTERS isn't very wise. Methods make sense when dozens of jobs, thousands of lives or millions of dollars are at stake every week and month of a project.

We used to call virtuous redundancy "belt and suspenders."

</comment><comment><USER6> In a certain sense, having a 9 to 5 is an even more extreme version of 'one thing' in that you have one big client that accounts for 100% of your revenue. Of course, there are also efficiencies in having one 'client' that are beneficial to both employee and employer.

Edit: see 'Theory of the Firm'.

<comment><USER7> On the small scales (i.e., you or me) it can make sense to have your second thing be a large pot of savings, which is a relatively inexpensive way of providing limited redundancy.

In the same way that a data center has full redundancy for failure of an individual machine, but limited redundancy for failure of the city's power grid, all we _really_ need is enough redundancy to give us time to solve the problem.

Large organisations move too slowly for this to be an option, so they need the much more expensive full redundancy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Reminds me of this infographic showing the revenue streams for five of the largest tech companies: [http://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-5-tech-giants- make-bil...](http://www.visualcapitalist.com/chart-5-tech-giants-make- billions/)

It still boggles my mind that Facebook makes 97% of its revenue from Facebook Ads.

<comment><USER9> That's their actual product after all

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Did this blog post just try to coin the phrase "one thing" in place of the clearer and well-known "single point of failure"?

<comment><USER11> SPOF is too jargony for business people. And it's rarely _single_ ; just too few.

<comment><USER12> _...too jargony for business people._

Is that a thing that actually exists?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This can be generalized to thinking about what happens when X goes away in your organization or team. If Bill doesn't come in tomorrow what will happen? Planning for those cases and covering your bases for a a more effective organization is what makes them last instead of falling apart at the first rip off the seam.

</comment><comment><USER14> The author has come up with the theory of diversification. The problem here is that, finding one thing is already hard. You often can't magically find another thing that's equally effective and so you burn a lot of money and energy pursuing other strategies. Take a look at what Charlie Munger says about diversification. Forget it, make big huge bets when there is a large positive assymetric risk reward.

</comment><comment><USER15> It seems like edit distance is an equivalent way to think of this. Your company is brittle if it is one edit/mutation away from failure.

<comment><USER16> That's an interesting analogy but the big difference is that with traditional edit distance every edit is exactly the same -- one character changed to another character. In the business case there's no equivalent "unit" size for changes.

<comment><USER15> Very true. Edit distance is well formalized, wheres defining a mutation on a business operation is not (though it would be super interesting to think about). So yeah, totally a fuzzy analogy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What does "brittle" mean that "risky" doesn't? I don't think we need a new word here.

Also, the listed risks are cherry picked to fit the "one thing" pattern. Risks that don't fit that pattern include competition risk, technology risk, and financing risk.

<comment><USER18> I think of brittleness as a subset of risk. Risk has a very large surface area, and has to be mitigated by a correspondingly large number of techniques. Brittleness seems like a useful subset to address in the context of specific techniques that can avoid it. 'One thing' seems like a useful heuristic in this context.

<comment><USER17> That's a good point, except we already have a term for that as well. It's a single point of failure.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I made this satellite map of NorCal wildfires. Search for your address - <AUTHOR> https://robinkraft.github.io/norcal-fires-imagery/compare.html <comment><AUTHOR> Many thanks to Digital Globe & Planet for imagery, and Mapbox for hosting.

<comment><USER2> neat!

You should add "Show HN:" to your title!

<comment><AUTHOR> Great idea! Fixed :)</comment></comment></comment>


Bat. Shit. Crazy. (MG's response to Dan Lyons) - <AUTHOR> http://parislemon.com/post/17587323277/bat-shit-crazy

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't stand MG lately, I'm not sure why I even submitted this.

<comment><USER2> "[...] read Michael Arrington's post on the matter. He takes a higher road than I'm about to. I'm just sick of Lyons' bullshit"

I've seen several posts from MG that follow this same template, and it's just egotistical and boring. "Watch me unleash the fury". Sit down, buddy, you're embarrassing yourself.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm not going to vote this up. There's a reason I don't watch soap operas and Jerry Springer.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ew, blogger fights. Avoid.</comment>


Show HN: Easy Bitcoin payment gem using HelloBlock.io - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Sailias/bitcoin_payable

<comment><USER2> Will this work on Heroku?

Trying to use Bitcoind on there is pretty much impossible.

<comment><AUTHOR> This gem uses the HelloBlock.io API and doesn't require bitcoind so you are able to drop it into any Rails project and deploy it anywhere.

TLDR: Yes

<comment><USER2> Thanks

TLDR: thnx</comment></comment></comment>