Community-Owned Fiber Networks: Value Leaders in America - <AUTHOR> https://cyber.harvard.edu/publications/2018/01/communityfiber <comment> d--b Nice. Having read hacker news for years, I remember a lot of comments from angry Americans who were offended by Europeans mocking them about their broadband prices, and telling them that they were being screwed by big American telcos who formed an monopolising alliance artificially keeping prices up.

The comments used to range from "the country is just too big, the infrastructure work doesn't compare" to "European broadband infrastructure is paid by the states because of socialist-type taxation".

And finally, after years of municipalities fighting big telco, it is becoming ultra clear that yes Comcast, TWC and co have been screwing the American people for a looooong time.

And hopefully this is only the beginning, prices still have a long way to go!

<comment><USER2> > And hopefully this is only the beginning, prices still have a long way to > go!

Monthly non-promo rate for gigabit fiber:

Stockholm - Telia - 999 Swedish Krona (~$125)

London - HyperOptic - 60 Pounds (~$80-90)

Zurich - iWay - 79 Swiss Francs (~$80)

New York - Verizon - $80-90.

It's not clear to me that there is much room to go down in countries with similar cost of labor. (Keep in mind that median household income in France is about the same as Choctaw County, Alabama).

<comment><USER3> Looks like completion at work Verizon Fios charges far more than that for lower speeds in MD and VA. However, NYC's is still twice what it costs in many cities around the world.

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure whether those other "cities around the world" are a fair comparison. Install and operating expenses for fiber are dominated by labor costs, and skilled labor in the U.S. is expensive. The median adjusted household income in the U.S. is 90% higher than in Spain, and 40% higher than in France. That's why I used London and Zurich as points of reference, rather than say Barcelona (where, as you point out, you can get gigabit for under $45/month).

<comment><USER4> Copenhagen - Hyper - 299 DKK; Gigabit - 349 DKK ($50-57).

That should be a fair comparison with London and Zurich.

I think there's some reason why it's so cheap, I remember someone explaining, but I don't know what the reason was.

[https://www.hiper.dk/](https://www.hiper.dk/) \- [https://gigabit.dk/](https://gigabit.dk/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> 20 years ago, Spokane Washington had to redo its streets, so they laid fiber downtown before repaving. This allowed ISP's and telecoms to plug in and run very cheap ISP's and hosting services. Downtown telecom/isp exploded with connectivity.

We found an older building had highspeed access due to fiber. We rented a small office, (closet really), and paid for 100meg connection to an ISP on a lower floor. Ran an entire ISP with dialup/dsl and hosting that was cheap, and even offered credit card processing. Years before comcast or large telecom offered DSL.

Ive seen over the years, Spokane have large backup hub for PNW banks and other large bandwidth hungry companies move in. Hands on hosting services, Internet turn key web hosting, etc. All in a midwest type town due to the availability.

Even across the border in Idaho, some smaller towns that now have fiber have startups popping up due to cheap land, cheap bandwidth, and low cost of living. I'm always seeing startups hiring big data dbas, network engineers and programmers.

I just wish they would expand further into the very small rural towns. Wifi at my folks small town community center is packed with people due to dialup being the only thing available to the community. Either drive into Spokane, hope you have Verizon LTE coverage, or pay for limitted usage sat.

<comment><USER6> When did governments stop caring about infrastructure as a direct investment in local commerce?

<comment><USER7> The US will have to raise taxes dramatically at all levels, to do everything that people want it to do (or figure out how to grow the economy far faster). 40-50 years ago, entitlements for example were a small cost for states and the Federal Govt (a huge slush fund for the Federal Govt in fact, they wasted trillions of dollars in entitlement money they were supposed to save). Costs have climbed a lot in all regards, while revenue as a share of GDP has largely not gone up with it.

If the US had fiscally responsible politicians, it would have a modest public debt, and trillions of dollars in a sovereign wealth fund derived from decades of surplus revenue for eg Social Security. Infrastructure would be a non- issue.

Simply put, priorities. You can do this (spending up), but you have to do that (taxes up); or you can choose not to have that (spending down), and so you can do this (taxes down).

Taxes are going up a lot either way, given the massive explosion in entitlement costs inbound, or QE is going to handle it with inflation. The US will hit a trillion per year in deficits in a few years, primarily due to entitlement costs, and partially due to excesss military spending.

<comment><USER8> This is all accurate, with the caveat that we could still have univeral broadband and other first world services provided to all if we cut back on unnecessary military spending (a conversation for another thread!).

Quite a bit of the problem isn't spending per se, but waste, inefficiencies, and corruption (not to mention us dragging forward GDP, impoverishing the future).

<comment><USER7> > with the caveat that we could still have univeral broadband and other first > world services provided to all if we cut back on unnecessary military > spending

Without question. The US could shave $200+ billion off of military spending fairly easily, with no increased threat to its well-being.

However the US has superior broadband to Europe already. I don't see how the US is failing at delivering first world service in that regard. It's expensive, too expensive perhaps. If you adjust for wages, it's still too expensive but not nearly so (the median EU wages are far below the US median for example).

Japan is generally renowned for having very first rate infrastructure. They've spent incredible sums of money in relation to their GDP on that over the last ~30 years. The US has nearly caught up to Japan on average broadband speeds and distribution. That's a fact that seems to shock people when they hear it, because for so many years the US broadband situation was ugly by comparison.

<comment><USER9> Can you share more information (or a link) on Japan's broadband penetration and speed demographics?

<comment><USER8> [http://www.tiaonline.org/gov_affairs/events/Japan's_policies...](http://www.tiaonline.org/gov_affairs/events/Japan's_policies_on_Broadband_deployment.pdf)

[http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8068560.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8068560.stm)

[http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/eng/presentat...](http://www.soumu.go.jp/main_sosiki/joho_tsusin/eng/presentation/pdf/100408_1.pdf)

[http://www.survivingnjapan.com/2012/06/internet-in-japan- bro...](http://www.survivingnjapan.com/2012/06/internet-in-japan-broadband- high-speed.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> The study's methodology of comparing only the lowest-priced tier service isn't that great, because it may be more indicative of the degree to which a provider is willing to cross-subsidize service tiers rather than real cost efficiencies. To take the top 3 providers from the chart on page 8: FiberNET in Morristown charges $200 for gigabit, Sebewaing Light & Water charges $160 for 1000/100, and LUS charges $109 for gigabit. The "market rate" for AT&T/VZN/CenturyLink is $70-90 (excluding promos).

There is also the question of what happens going forward. Quite some time ago, Easton MD (on Maryland's eastern shore) put in a cable internet service through its municipal utility. Today, you can get 200/10 for $100/month. Not bad, but head a bit east to Salisbury, MD and you can get 1000/35 through Comcast for $105 ($80 for the first year). That's the big fear with municipal services. Upgrading head ends won't get you press like rolling out a broadband service in the first instance will.

That being said, municipal broadband certainly has a place. Maryland is spending a bunch of money building a fiber backbone in the rural parts of the state, and municipalities are hooking into it: [http://www.westminstermd.gov/419/Westminster-Fiber- Network](http://www.westminstermd.gov/419/Westminster-Fiber-Network). These are places that don't have the population and density to support potentially even a single private provider, much less multiple competing ones.

<comment><USER10> I pay $85.99/mo for Fios for 25/25\. I started out at about $54, and they've been bumping it up. I called and complained, and they said that's the best rate.

As an existing customer, I cannot get the "gigabit internet for $79" rate that's advertised on the website. That $70-90 rate for Verizon is the promo rate, because it will go up over time after you join.

Ok, so I can switch to Comcast, and get the $44 rate for a year, and then switch back, but that sounds...dumb.

<comment><USER11> I've had issues with Verizon letting me get the "New Customer" specials after cancelling then re joining. They wouldn't give me the deals (even though they mailed me them) because I had already had service through them.

<comment><USER12> Make an account in your wife's maiden name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> [Offish-topic] Lately I've been thinking about solving the last-mile problem through a free-space optics approach for suburban areas. Stick a mast on your roof that can illuminate your neighbor's masts; relay to a FTTC node for backhaul.

Sort of like an extended range LiFi / mesh setup. It's attractive because it could avoid RF licensing entirely, but rain/dust/smoke is an issue.

Does anyone know if any company is doing anything like this right now?

<comment><USER14> Could any radio engineers weigh in on how practical ultra-directional radio antennas could be for this? I'm imagining collimated radio beams (like lasers) which could bypass the _need_ (not necessarily the existing legislation) for spectrum regulation. What if every house had a few microwave drums on the roof?

<comment><USER15> This is kind of starting to happen with 60Ghz radios becoming more available. I think the problem with 'ultra-directional' radio antennas is that they're actually pretty difficult to build and even when they can be built they're very large. But with 60Ghz there is a lot of oxygen absorption, meaning that the signal dies off really quickly in all directions meaning that it won't interfere as much with other nearby installations. The equipment is just barely coming on to the market, though.

<comment><USER16> 60 GHz PTP bridges have been around for 8 years or so, at 1GbE line rate. They're not rocket science, exactly, but knowing how to properly engineer a network with them is something that not every ISP can figure out.

<comment><USER15> Are you thinking of the siklu ones or someone else? I'm not aware of any that have been around that long (not arguing just curious) I was thinking of the IgniteNet and MiktoTik versions which I think are both more recent as well as PtMP applications which (I think?) Aren't really generally available yet.

True on knowing how to properly use them! Although to be fair I think most of the ISPs using them don't have a lot of use for really short, high capacity backhauls they're often looking for distance in rural areas.

<comment><USER16> Bridgewave shipped 60 GHz products 6 years before Siklu... Ignore the Ignitenet, it's a USB 802.11ad dongle glued into a radome. It's a toy. The Mikrotik doesn't have the reach to be a serious product. You can use "real" 60 GHz PTP stuff at five nines at 500-600 meters distance in a moderate rain zone, the mikrotik is good for maybe 90 meters.

<comment><USER15> Ah yes I forgot about Bridgewave. Agreed on all points for infrastructure needs. I would only add that when I read the OP (of this thread)'s comment I imagined using very very short/inexpensive 60Ghz links from neighbor to neighbor to create a kind of mesh. Possibly not what OP had in mind but it's the way I interpreted it. For that use the MikroTiks might actually make a lot of sense. (Very cheap and low range.)

Edit: Also since you're obviously knowledgeable about this stuff and I don't see a way to contact you on your profile - I've been running a matrix chat room around some of this stuff and would love to have you join! [https://riot.im/app/#/room/#startyourownisp:matrix.org](https://riot.im/app/#/room/#startyourownisp:matrix.org)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just wanted to pipe in as I live in Chattanooga, TN one of the cities mentioned in the report. $58 a month for 100/100 ($70 for 1000/1000 and $300 for 10000/10000\. that's right anywhere in the county you can get 10G/10G) and a bill that is always correct.

I am here in part because of the fiber network. That said it is not just the fast internet, but the quality of the service people. They have always shown up on time and gone above and beyond each time. They know how to run a cable properly (drip curve for example).

Plus they have a no data cap and net neutrality pledge.

Feels like most of the rest of of the country is in the dark ages on most or all of those points.

</comment><comment><USER18> I live in a rural town in New Mexico of about 10,000 people. We get 50 megabit symmetrical fiber from the local co-op for about $60 a month. I think the fiber was funded by a USDA grant.

One of the nice things is not having to deal with big-co customer service like Verizon or Comcast. You call up and you get a real person who lives in your town.

</comment><comment><USER19> Data point of one: I'm on one of these networks, here in Concord, MA, and it's amazing. We already had municipal power, so it's the same organization and the same bill. I've been running for ~4 years with no blips at all.

It's the first thing I recommend to people moving into town.

[http://www.concordnet.org/467/Broadband-Internet- Service](http://www.concordnet.org/467/Broadband-Internet-Service)

</comment><comment><USER20> So, are there anyone already doing this? From the attitude towards Comcast, it looks like there will be lots of funding from people dying to get a better alternative.

</comment><comment><USER21> Only slightly related, but is there a way to undo the range reduce in wifi routers. Basically- my old WiFi Router would cover the whole building- and after lightning strike - the newer model only covers a quarter of it. Support told us to buy repeaters. Wich i guess, is what they want people to do.

Are there ways to restore the transmissionrange of the old models?

<comment><USER22> Don't use repeaters each hop cuts the bandwidth in half

Use power line to connect to the router (for wired hosts) or have multiple AP's plus power line as the DS for your mobile devices.

Which band are you using now, 2.4 is slower but has better range 5Ghz is faster but shorter range also look at congestion are you using the same channel as the next house

Why can't you use your own router/ap? get one with external arenas and firmware (eg ddrwt) that can adjust tx power

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Would love a how-to of community organized fiber. Seems like a simple concept with a ton of paperwork and hoops to jump.

<comment><USER15> Not exactly what you're looking for, but I've been working on [http://startyourownisp.com](http://startyourownisp.com). It's focused on wireless rather than fiber but could still be applicable.

<comment><USER23> Great resource, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> ...but it's illegal in North Carolina.

[https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nc-gov-anti-muni- broadband/](https://www.wired.com/2011/05/nc-gov-anti-muni-broadband/)

</comment><comment><USER25> this was on HN not long ago (legends of the ancient web) [http://archive.is/9evG0](http://archive.is/9evG0)

told how early radio was even more community than business, time to loop the loop

</comment><comment><USER26> Lincoln Nebraska, Allo rolling out FTH throughout the city. 1Gb/sec for $90. Spectrum is trying to compete, but failing dramatically. No sympathy for the devil.

</comment><comment><USER27> So...this is deregulation working?

<comment><USER28> Only in that alternative reality where "preventing municipal fibre networks" is the sort of regulation that the Republican Party wants to de-regulate.

In reality, it's among the only regulation they like. Plus preventing Tesla from selling directly to consumers, and making government just small enough to fit in your bedroom.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Semantics is important here. Most of these projects aren't community owned, they are socialised: taxpayers are compelled to fund them.

It may seem like a small difference, but it's not - there are moral, economic and engineering consequences to forcing people to subsidise your broadband use.

Imagine if people referred to State-owned factories in Soviet Russia as "community owned". That would immediately, and correctly, be criticised as propaganda.

<comment><USER2> Most of these systems are not socialized. They're from municipally-owned utilities that recover their expenses from ratepayers, not tax dollars.

<comment><USER30> And if they don't recover their expenses?

It's like transit systems. Ostensibly the user (fare-payers) are funding the system. But the true costs far exceed the amount collected, so in reality they are subsidized by the taxpayers.

<comment><USER29> In other words, the worst of both worlds. Taxpayer funded - so people are forced to pay for systems - and then 'user pays', so you pay a _second_ time to use a system that you've already paid once for. Neat :(</comment></comment></comment></comment>


TinySSH is a small SSH server using NaCl, TweetNaCl - <AUTHOR> http://tinyssh.org/ <comment><USER2> Outstanding! Not only are the slightly mysterious authors of this project not inventing their own crypto, they rely on djb's[0] much acclaimed NaCL/TweetNaCl. The codebase is accordingly small:

      $ wc -l source/*/*c | tail -n1
       11308 total
      $ wc -l source/crypto/*c | tail -n1
       1293 total

The first line suggests a measure of total code ballast, whereas the second incantation might hint at the amount of core crypto code. The latter might be a good starting point for any auditing endeavours.

Incidentally, I am impressed by the spirit of organisation that the source tree permeates. Both crypto/ and tinyssh/ source trees sport corresponding -test directories and a debian/ tree has already been added.

Initially, I felt irritation by the consistent lack of documentation (no README, no AUTHORS, almost no comments, it seems). Browsing the source, however, I grow convinced that this from a conviction that out-dated or redundant documentation is the greater evil.

[0] Daniel J Bernstein - author of qmail, daemontools and long-time promoter of full disclosure. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_J._Bernstein)

<comment><USER3> You may actually be underselling djb: He both knows how to write quality software, and is arguably the most productive cryptographer around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> How is code like below "easily auditable"?

      keydir = *++argv; if (!keydir) die_usage();

or

      if (*x == 'v') { if (flagverbose >= 2) flagverbose = 3; else flagverbose = 2; continue; }

why put multiple statements on the same line if you have nothing to hide?[1]

[1] [https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/CodingStyle](https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/CodingStyle)

<comment><USER2> The answer seems to me quite simple: because they have a different coding style. Just as no one is bound to K&R or the GNU style, nothing suggests that crypto code needs to follow Linux kernel conventions.

Value consistency above everything.

Honestly, I am not convinced that the peculiar if-style isn't actually helping readability and refactoring. Note, that a Apple-style "goto break" bug might be harder to construct, when your one-line if's look like this:

       some_code;
       if (something) die(message);
       other_code;

Now the surrounding indentation does _not_ suggest that there's an extendable block where there in fact isn't, as with Kernel style:

       some_code;
       if (something)
           die(message);
       other_code;

To be perfectly honest, the authors' style reminds me a bit of my younger self's style: keep logically connected pieces of code tightly together.

You (presumably) and I have beaten ourselves into submission to the Linux style; the authors' haven't.

On a side note: your second example even seems to suggest that the authors made some effort at additional readability by refraining from using the ternary operator construct.

<comment><USER5> "You (presumably) and I have beaten ourselves into submission to the Linux style; the authors' haven't."

An awakening!

Is it really so terrible to have things compile quickly and without the usual ./configure nonsense? It seems there are an infinite number of ways an author can organise her project using ./configure; for every one I have to spend time figuring out what they have done.

One of my favourite aspects of djb's build approach (which is what is being used here) is that it's easier (than with the popular build systems) to change compiler and linker options and make static binaries: in most cases, simple edit the conf-* files. Thankfully, authors who use djb's approach usually do not vary much from the model. This means less time spent figuring out how things are organised.

I like (portable) open source software that compiles quickly and cleanly.

djb has continued to deliver on this point.

Nice to see someone discovering this build system for the first time.

<comment><USER6> I'm just curious, where does the parent post mention anything about the build system? The "Linux style" referred to there seems to be the Linux code style, not "configure".

<comment><USER7> On top of that "configure" has nothing to do with Linux.

<comment><USER5> Who said it did? Consider that I was commenting in a general sense.

djb's work, whether it's coding style or build system or something else, tends to differ from what is "popular".

The parent's comment is along the lines of: what is unfamiliar can appear more difficult, but after the adjustment it may actually appear easier than the prior alternative.

If you view the parent's comment in this light, then you will see that both the Linux kernel coding style and the GNU build system are very familiar for lots of folks.

If you are migrating to using tinyssh and other software that follow's djb's style for the first time, then you will no doubt have to "get used to it" and you might even perceive it as being difficult.

To be crystal clear, I'm not singling out the Linux kernel or the GNU build system. The GNU build system is but one example; the Linux kernel coding style is another.

I could make a lengthy list of "familiar", popular approaches that I could argue are inferior to djb's approach to the same task.

It's just my opinion. If you disagree, feel free to state your own opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Curious as to whether something like this would be good for embedded work, as I'm working on a "modern" HP 200LX[0] running RetroBSD[1] possibly, all off a PIC micro controller (!) and want to work out how to get some form of SSH into it. Will be interesting to attempt to port it regardless of what happens though!

\----

[0] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_200LX](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP_200LX)

[1] [http://retrobsd.org/wiki/doku.php](http://retrobsd.org/wiki/doku.php)

<comment><USER9> Dropbear is usually the ssh-server of choice for small systems:

[https://matt.ucc.asn.au/dropbear/dropbear.html](https://matt.ucc.asn.au/dropbear/dropbear.html)

Quick check shows that both compile to about 220K without any tuning on x86_64. While I wouldn't use that figure as serious comparison, it shows that they are in the same ballpark in size.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Someone know how it compares with dropbear [1]?

1\. [https://matt.ucc.asn.au/dropbear/dropbear.html](https://matt.ucc.asn.au/dropbear/dropbear.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> > simple configuration - TinySSH can't be misconfigured

CHALLENGE ACCEPTED!

</comment><comment><USER12> Awesome! A few questions/thoughts:

Right now, you're suggesting it be downloaded via HTTP, which isn't exactly the best way to get my secure daemons. Any chance you could move that to HTTPS?

Semi-related: any chance you'll be making a repo available in some form? (I'm preferential to GitHub, but really anything that lets us follow source changes and open bug reports would rock)

I would love to see an audit of this by some 3rd party entity.

Glad to see folks working to build new tools from such solid building blocks!

</comment><comment><USER13> Is TweetNaCl deliberately 32-bit or LLP64 only? One of the first lines is

        typedef unsigned long u32;

but on 64-bit LP64 systems (like Linux), _long_ is 64-bits.

See [http://tweetnacl.cr.yp.to/20140427/tweetnacl.c](http://tweetnacl.cr.yp.to/20140427/tweetnacl.c)

<comment><USER14> Yes, TweetNaCl is. TweetNaCl's goal is to be auditable, not to be portable.

On the other hand, TinySSH actually includes a configuration mechanism to detect integer sizes, and modifies TweetNaCl accordingly, so TinySSH is not 32-bit/LLP64 only.

<comment><USER15> I wonder why not just use stdint.h, it's got what you need. ..

<comment><USER16> stdint.h is C99 and while I'd love to believe that every C compiler is C99 capable by now, I don't know if that is actually the case. Does stdint.h exist on Win32 these days?

<comment><USER15> Microsoft's poor support for standard C is no excuse not to use these types everywhere else and either define them yourself on windows or get stdint from boost, from one of the stdint.h replacements or <cstdint> from MSVC 2012.

IMHO, of course.

<comment><USER17> I hate Microsoft as much as the next guy, but FYI, MSVC 2013 supports most of C99.

<comment><USER18> Maybe by Microsoft's definition of 'most'.

* no variable-length arrays

* no qualifiers in parameter array declarators (`int x[static 10]`, etc.)

* no `restrict` keyword

* no compound literals

* no designated initializers

There's probably more.

On the web you'll find the same quote copy & pasted over and over saying that support for compound literals and designated initializers was supposedly added in VS2013, but it does not appear to be true. Either that, or I haven't found the hidden switch to enable it. By the way, C code still needs to be compiled as C++ to get anything beyond C89 to work, which should give you a clue as to how serious Microsoft is about C99.

What's true though is that stdbool.h was added. It's a start, I guess...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What use is an sshd that doesn't support SCP? I think to most people that is a core feature, I'd be surprised if it wasn't a requirement for git for example.

It sounds like it's small enough perhaps for a direct port to a safe language like rust, that would be interesting (to me at least).

<comment><USER20> This should work perfectly well with rsync -e ssh. Which is what you should use anyway.

<comment><USER21> Rsync stats a bunch of files on both sides. There are plenty of cases where reading is much more expensive than writing at the destination---imagine Glacier, maybe.

<comment><USER20> Sure but I don't think you can scp to Glacier either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Rob Landley doesn't seems to be too excited about it [http://www.landley.net/notes.html#31-03-2014](http://www.landley.net/notes.html#31-03-2014)

</comment><comment><USER14> I find use of TweetNaCl curious. For curve25519, why wouldn't one use [http://code.google.com/p/curve25519-donna/](http://code.google.com/p/curve25519-donna/) instead?

djb's _cryptography_ is great, but djb's _implementations_ leave something to be desired.

<comment><USER23> The usual problem with DJB's implementations is not that they're incorrect or slow or insecure -- far from it! -- but that they're awkward to integrate with the rest of the world, may require weird build configurations, and are hard for anybody else to modify. Well, TweetNaCl is really easy to integrate with the rest of the world, since it's just a single portable .c file, and the speed is surprisingly good, and its functionality and API are stable enough that you probably don't need to modify it.

So, I don't see the problem here. If these guys had tried to cobble together a replacement for NaCl out of pieces like the curve25519-donna code, _that_ would be a problem, because there's more potential to screw that up.

<comment><USER16> I see 3 alternatives: use the original NaCl, use the unofficial fork libsodium, or use TweetNaCl. The latter shares the same authors as the original NaCl, with the advantage of being much smaller.

I don't like the fact that TinySSH modified TweetNaCl, and added back MD5:

      /*
      Based on tweetnacl 20140427 (http://tweetnacl.cr.yp.to   software.html)
      - updated int/uint types to crypto_int/crypto_uint
      - added crypto_stream_chacha20
      - added crypto_hash_sha256
      - added crypto_hash_md5
      */

I mean they use TweetNaCl because it has "state-of-the-art crypto", but then they add back MD5. Something is wrong here ...

<comment><USER24> That seems strange indeed. Some clarification is needed. Perhaps it's part of the whole NIST suite that's disabled right now?

<comment><USER16> It appears to be used only in tinysshd-printkey to print the key's fingerprint.

The fingerprint is 47 characters when printed, the key itself is 64. Since the key is so short does the fingerprint still server a useful purpose, or would it be enough to print only the key?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Which ssh clients can connect to this? For example, can putty connect to this?

<comment><USER26> Only 6.5/6.6 versions of the OpenSSH client can connect to this server. 6.5 is the first (and as far as I know only) ssh client that introduced chacha20 and ed25519 support.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Every function name in tinyssh/buf.c starts with an underscore...

To quote the standard:

"All identifiers that begin with an underscore are always reserved for use as identifiers with file scope in both the ordinary and tag name spaces. ... If the program declares or defines an identifier in a context in which it is reserved (other than as allowed by 7.1.4), or defines a reserved identifier as a macro name, the behavior is undefined."

\-- ISO/IEC 9899:1999, Section 7.1.3 Reserved Identifiers

</comment><comment><USER27> don't we already have dropbear for such tasks, would it be better to "extend" / "improve" dropbear?

</comment><comment><USER28> Daemontools and inetd? May I ask where the systemd socket activation support is?

<comment><USER23> It's easy, and requires no modification to TinySSH. See here:

[http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/inetd.html](http://0pointer.de/blog/projects/inetd.html)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Can Open Source Help Healthcare? - <AUTHOR> My grandfather, who is in otherwise great health, recently got diagnosed with late stage cancer of the kidneys. How feasible would it be to build an open source suite of diagnostic programs that people can use to build longer term, longitudinal health system?
The idea is that by building transparent, open source diagnostic models and looping it into a platform where you can track your health data, we could build a preventative system.
Am I being completely irrational, or missing something? <comment><USER2> People tend to not invest in their health until it's failing - and even then, compliance rates are terrible. I doubt many people will spend time tracking their health data, but it might still be nice for the few that will.</comment>


SICP Prequel Textbook - <AUTHOR> http://mauricioroman.com/mrblog/ <comment><USER2> `The Little Schemer' is also a reasonable introduction covering a subset of Scheme and recursive programming. It is quite light-hearted and entertaining to read.

<comment><USER3> Is there an online version of 'The Little Schemer" , like SICP?

<comment><USER4> I don't think so, though there's a sample chapter here: <http://www.ccs.neu.edu/home/matthias/BTLS/> . I checked this weekend - I'm waiting for the sequel in the mail...

The way the books are formatted, having the text online would probably reduce sales -- they aren't reference books, but rather relatively thin books of exercises and commentary, all designed to introduce you to several deep ideas. (Also, some people are really turned off by the style or find the writing overly cute.)

The Little MLer is _excellent_ for learning how to think in types (as in OCaml and Haskell), btw. Highly recommended.

<comment><USER3> Thank you ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> How about "How to Design Programs"?

<comment><USER6> HtDP removes the romanticism from programming. Stick to SICP.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but (arguably) a better book than Simply Scheme, if you are needing something more introductory than SICP.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The reviews at Amazon for this book are a bit mixed:

[http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Scheme-Introducing-Computer- Sci...](http://www.amazon.com/Simply-Scheme-Introducing-Computer- Science/dp/0262082810)

<comment><USER9> Yes, there are better books. The authors are very nice guys, but I regret most of the time I spend reading Simply Scheme. There are some online lectures by Brian Harvey that are worth seeing, though.

You could read HTDP _AND_ The Little Schemer in the time it takes to read Simply Scheme and you would most certainly get more out of them. Scheme is a simple language...you don't need a 600+ page book with special constructs from the authors in order to grok it. The Dybvig book is also a better way to spend your time if you're just wanting a (shorter and cheaper) introduction to Scheme.

I'd also recommend most of the free online Scheme tutorials...schemers.org might be a good starting point.

<comment><AUTHOR> What caught my attention about this book is the Preface by Hal Abelson:

"Julie and Gerry Sussman and I are flattered that Harvey and Wright characterize their revolutionary introduction to computer science as a "prequel" to our text Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs."

This is next on my reading list, along with both texts you mentioned.

<comment><USER9> I understand what you're saying, because that is part of what suckered me into reading it ;-)

After reading it, I think professional flattery among colleagues is one thing and a true "revolutionary introduction to computer science" is another. I just really don't think it is the latter. Maybe you will...? You might save time by just watching the online Harvey videos. They cover much of the same territory in lecture format.

If you're going to read Simply Scheme, then HTDP and The Little Schemer should probably come _before_ it, not after. Don't get me wrong, I don't think Simply Scheme is a horrible book or anything...it's actually pretty good. I just have a limited amount of time for that kind of reading, and I wish I had read something else instead of it. Most of the other Scheme/CL books I've read have been either more enlightening or more practical than Simply Scheme. I think some of the constructs the authors come up with for pedagogical reasons are simply not necessary (and could potentially be confusing if you go on to actually work in Scheme.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting. I had been pointing people at HTDP if they had trouble with SICP, I'll have to check this out.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I really am surprised not to have ever seen this mentioned here at HN, and I really am glad I found it.</comment>


Ask HN: Import your programming bookmarks from Delicious  - <AUTHOR>

I am working on Tagmask - an aggregator for programmers which gives every user
a personalized feed of posts according to his interests. (no magic, user configures what he will see using tag-based filtering)
TheNextWeb article about Tagmask: http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/05/05/tagmask-aims-to-curb-information-overload-for-programmers/
I have a crazy idea: allow user to import his programming bookmarks from Delicious in order to share and discuss them with other programmers who have the same interests.
Tagmask offers another way to see posts from other users, so I think it might be interesting.
Could you please tell what do you think about this idea?
Website: http://tagmask.com
Thanks <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: [http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/05/05/tagmask-aims-to-curb- inf...](http://thenextweb.com/dd/2011/05/05/tagmask-aims-to-curb-information- overload-for-programmers/)

<http://tagmask.com></comment>


The graph is a lie - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@vivalavineet/the-graph-is-a-lie-89af46cb766d

<comment><USER2> dishonesty is a great way to sell a business</comment>


Long Stay Digital Nomad Visa Bali - <AUTHOR> https://www.remotetribe.life/travel-tips-nomads/the-bali-digital-nomad-visa/ <comment><AUTHOR> There is one big issue you must keep in mind and solve if you want to stay longer term in Bali. And that is….the VISA. This is a big headache for a lot of digital nomads who are or want to come in Bali and combine business and pleasure. More in the link attached. As you will see below, the VISA concern is quite a hustle right now, but there might be a solution on the horizon very soon thanks to a mix of expats and local entrepreneurs living in Bali. More to come later in the article so stay tuned.</comment>


Tim Ferriss' New Book: Become a Superhuman - <AUTHOR> http://singularityhub.com/2009/07/15/tim-ferriss-new-book-become-a-superhuman/

<comment><USER2> I asked a body-builder friend if Tim Ferriss' workout could actually achieve the results Tim claims. He replied that a person can only gain weight that quickly with steroids. Research has shown that under optimal conditions, less than ten pounds of muscle can be added in a year.

Ferriss claims to have gained 34 pounds of muscle in 4 weeks:

[http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek- to...](http://www.fourhourworkweek.com/blog/2007/04/29/from-geek-to-freak-how- i-gained-34-lbs-of-muscle-in-4-weeks/)

Here is a discussion by steroids users that confirms what my friend told me:

[http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/anabolic- steroids/10-pound...](http://www.elitefitness.com/forum/anabolic- steroids/10-pounds-muscle-year-11595.html)

I couldn't find the relevant research that says ten pounds a year is the max, but here is a Google Books search result that confirms it:

[http://books.google.com/books?id=VnpCA-Z1qcsC&pg=PT166&#...</a><p>"Unfortunately, the average bodybuilder finds it nearly impossible to gain even ten pounds of solid muscle tissue in a year's time..."

<comment><USER3> Not a Feriss fan but it's not at all impossible to gain way more than ten pounds of muscle in a relatively short time if you aren't already very strong. His exact numbers sound excessive but I suspect he's gone up and down with that muscle mass several times in the past, which makes it a lot easier to rebuild it.

<comment><USER4> Why is it not all that impossible to gain way more than ten pounds of muscle in a relatively short time? From what are you basing this?

I haven't read Tim's books but this seems like a reason to not like his work. This isn't science. Now, if he said body weight from water etc. Which he could have for all I know.

<comment><USER3> What makes me most skeptical about his claims in that blog post is the time frame and the simultaneous loss of body fat in absolute rather than relative terms.

When I first started training Olympic weight lifting seriously I gained nearly fifteen pounds of muscle in six months (along with five pounds of fat; even vain bodybuilders who are obsessed with body fat have to alternate bulking and cutting cycles because it's very hard to gain a lot of muscle while keeping off the fat) and my coach has replicated that routinely starting with relatively weak beginners. About six months into a program like that, your efforts start to yield diminishing returns. This is true for total performance as well: when you're starting out, for the first six to eight months, it's easy to work out 3-4 times a week, do heavy squats every time, adding 5 kg to your old record with every single session, but once you get to about 2x body weight (around 150 kg squats in my case) on the bar you not only can't add things as fast anymore, but you have to totally change the nature of the program, and this is despite the fact that 5 kg represents an increasingly smaller percentage of your maximum capacity, so you might naively think it would get easier, not harder, over time to keep up a constant rate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I stopped reading after "Everyone knows that building the perfect body takes years of hard work and an iron will. Everyone except Tim Ferriss."

<comment><USER6> I stopped reading after "Tim Ferriss"

<comment><USER7> It'd be beneficial to everyone if you would voice some specific complaints again Tim. I know a lot of people around here don't like him, but I've never seen a criticism longer than "Pff. Tim Ferriss is a load of crap." The article has some reasonable complaints against him, but I'm interested in why the opinion around HN is the way it is.

<comment><USER6> I gave a few details previously: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=663858>

Basically, I found few original ideas in his book–it read like a get-rich- quick-scheme aimed at tech-savvy middle managers who are stuck in a cube farm.

I don't want to work 4 hours a week ... because I actually _enjoy_ the things I choose to work on.

<comment><USER8> _I actually _enjoy_ the things I choose to work on._

That's why Ferriss defines work as the stuff you do primarily for money and would prefer to do less of. Even if you love your job, there is going to be some of that in there.

<comment><USER6> But he seems to advocate outsourcing your workload to zero. If all of us outsource everything, who's gonna do the actual work in this world? Oh, right ... all the non-Westerners.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't really care about the claims. I'm more interested, like the singularityhub, in personal fitness research. Does anyone know of any resources on the topic? Even good phone apps or tracking programs would be cool.

I'm interested in the place where health, science, and startups combine.</comment>


The $15 Pine 64, a Raspberry Pi 3 competitor, finally ships - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/article/3044165/the-15-pine-64-a-raspberry-pi-3-competitor-finally-ships.html <comment><AUTHOR> The Kickstarter page with specs: [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pine64/pine-a64-first-1...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/pine64/pine-a64-first-15-64-bit- single-board-super-comput/description)

The gigabit networking sounds good, as does the GPU. Although it has no onboard wifi/BT, as the Pi 3 does.</comment>


Should IBM buy Java from Oracle - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/java/comments/1csrh6/should_ibm_buy_java_from_oracle/

<comment><USER2> Good God, no.

Some of IBM's contributions to Java:

\- the EJB1.0 spec

\- the Webservices 1.0 spec

\- Websphere

\- the incompatible IBM JDK

We're still trying to recover from the damage IBM has done. IBM, go away.

In an ideal world, the Apache foundation would take over</comment>


The High Cost of Poverty: Why the Poor Pay More - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/05/17/AR2009051702053.html <comment><USER2> Having been exceptionally poor most of my childhood, I can completely relate to this. You can't absolve personal responsibility but poverty is a vindictive cycle for a reason.

It's simple things like vehicle emissions testing -- if you have money you don't think about it -- but if you drive an older car you fail emissions -- and it costs way too much to get it fixed -- so you drive without registration -- and end up in court. Worrying about things like the environment or organic food is a luxury only the gilded class an afford.

"Sophisticated" people love to shit on the big bad wal-mart empire as they happily truck into target to buy shit from the martha stewart collection-- as if there is any difference. The only difference is that poor people happen to really love wal-mart-- so you can take your sociology degree and shove it.

The poor do get exploited, but Michael Moore style class warfare isn't the answer either. The truth is that the poor exploit each other even more than the wealthy do. Poor people are poor because they don't have the social capital to get out of poverty. Most social programs do nothing to deal with social capital so they don't create long term solutions.

Those people throw indulgence money at poor people all day so they can absolve themselves of their materialism. Or they take vacations to Africa so they can post self-righteous photos on facebook that shows how socially chic they are. Is that a save darfur bumper sticker on your prius? But ask those people to spend their TIME actually building into people's lives and befriending people in a sacrificial way and you can forget it. When you're poor nobody wants to be your friend.

And by those people I mean me. I was poor, so I should know better, right? But MY time is too valuable. I would rather start a website to help the poor or raise a couple hundred bucks for some suburban 5k fun run to support some inner city whatever. This has to scale damnit! But be an actual friend? Take someone to a job interview? Have them over for dinner? Let them hang out with my cool friends? Don't bet on it, because I'm the problem.

<comment><USER3> I mostly agree, and especially with the point about the social capital. But it's more than that. In this country, education pays (which is not true in all countries) but is expensive, and the best kind of education, self-education, requires a personal discipline and a certain type of learning-loving culture with which one should really be imbued in childhood. Poor families often lack this.

This is only one point, and maybe not the most important one.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, that's spot on, it's a cultural issue. We've dumped increasing amounts of money to traditional education model to almost nil effect. But how do you change a culture that glorifies sports and celebrities and openly mocks anything related to learning?

So it's an "education" issue but not in the programmatic way that most people assume but in this broader systemic way can't be fixed with money alone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is nonsense.

 _You [a typical poor person] don't have a car to get to a supermarket...You don't have three hours to take the bus._

80% of the poor work less than half time (20 hours/week), and therefore do have 3 hours to take the bus. Also, 3/4 of the poor do have a car. The article even describes a poor person driving her car to a big box store, something it claims the poor can't do.

<http://www.bls.gov/cps/cpswp2005.pdf>

<http://www.heritage.org/research/welfare/bg1713.cfm>

 _When you are poor, you don't have the luxury of throwing a load into the washing machine and then taking your morning jog while it cycles._

Actually, 65% of the poor do have that luxury.

 _The poor pay for caller identification because it gives them peace of mind to weed out calls from bill collectors._

The poor pay more money to avoid hearing people informing them of their overdue bills?

 _...Harrison Blakeney, 67, ... uses the check-cashing store to pay his telephone bill. The store charges 10 percent to take Blakeney's money and send the payment to the phone company...Blakeney says: "I don't have time to mail it..."_

What's his occupation? _Blakeney [is a] a retired auto mechanic..._ You know those retirees, working their 80 hour weeks, don't have time to mail a letter.

 _"You pay rent that might be more than a mortgage," Reed says. "But you don't have the credit or the down payment to buy a house..._

Yet somehow, 45% of poor households do manage to own their own home.

<comment><USER5> I was once poor (grad school) and I can attest that the first point is valid. I didn't have a car, the grocery store was 3 miles away and the bus ran once a hour on weekdays and much less frequently on weekends - making it hard. 9 out of 10 times when I ran out of groceries, I ended up buying them at the gas station nearby.

I did work only 20 hours a week but gradschool easily consumed most of the remaining time (including weekends).

<comment><USER6> But that was a while ago, right? Don't most supermarkets deliver these days? Seems like that one, at least, should be a solved problem.

The biggest thing with groceries IMO is having the spare money to "stock up" when the prices are low (eg on sale, large sizes, etc) and then getting into the cycle of just replenishing that opportunistically, instead of constantly running out of things and buying replacements on demand.

For example, if you notice your favourite brand of washing powder is half price, don't buy one, buy _ten_. And then a few months later when you notice it's getting low, keep your eyes open the next few times you go to the supermarket, then buy up big again when you see a good deal. This is far better than repeatedly buying small quantities at high prices because you don't have any choice and need it that day, but it does require some spare money to start.

<comment><USER2> Riiight, I mean can't everyone just FreshDirect to their UES studio?!

<comment><USER6> Well, can't they?

For $5 I can get a load of groceries delivered to any suburb in Sydney, you don't even need a credit card. I had assumed there was something similar there. No need for the sarcasm.

<comment><USER3> Available in some places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wasn't this already discussed: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=619110>

</comment><comment><USER8> Education is the silver bullet. Education is everything. We don't need little changes. We need gigantic revolutionary changes. . . . Competition for the best teachers should be fierce. They should be getting six-figure salaries. Schools should be incredibly expensive for government and absolutely free of charge for its citizens, just like national defense. -Sam Seaborn, West Wing

<comment><USER9> Unfortunately Seaborn only got half of the picture right. The relationship between per pupil spending and SAT scores or other metrics of quality is weak to non-existent. Those like Seaborn, not unlike those currently holding office, talk a great game of increasing funding to education 'in order to compete' and fall short when it comes to accountability and then being too afraid to stand up to teachers unions (unions who absolutely abhor the idea of merit pay) when they actually get into office.

Education _is_ everything, but the way the system is currently run, the poor are often hurt the most, ironically, by their most vociferous and supposed advocates.

<comment><USER8> I agree that the quote is only half the picture. But what I remember is, "Education is the silver bullet." Not more money for education will cure all. The level of conversation on education is not nearly enough just like the amount of money. It shows a lack of care.

I don't know what the fix for education is; all I know is that education is the fix for most of the world's problems.

I think that is a step in the right direction that plenty of people have not taken.

<comment><USER9> I should have also qualified my response and thinking in saying that I think that in the US and much of the west this holds true. In developing countries, often the key barrier for the poor to becoming rich is the lack of strong property rights systems. There are numerous studies that show the education spending is largely useless or rather suboptimal relative to other interventions in developing countries (see William Easterly's books - he was an economist with the World Bank).

Unfortunately I think you're right in that most people don't think hard enough about the issue - but the problem is that most people equate caring with blindly spending money instead of delving into some of the more nuanced issues. That they do so is often because this blind spending also happens to cater to special interests like teachers unions. The research on charter and voucher schools for instance is quite promising but just look at the spending that teachers unions have done in those districts that have even considered the ideas. Again, it's the poor who are the worst off given that the wealth(ier) just send their kids to private schools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> While I'm somewhat sympathetic to this, the line "When you're poor you wait" (the very last line of the article) is bogus. Sorry, but lineups are a part of just about every class's life.

<comment><USER11> That's so wrong it is not even funny. People with some money can easily afford to have others take care of the drudgery of life for them, which means they have more time.

You don't have to line up because you send someone else to do it for you. It is only in very rare cases that you can't 'jump the line' if you have cash. (airports ? business class. shopping ? have the maid do it etc.).

<comment><USER8> I was really offended when I found out about things like flash passes or fast passes (<http://www.sixflags.com/greatAmerica/tickets/flashpass.aspx>) that let you either queue up for an additional price or just cut to the front of the line while poorer people have to wait.

There was just something about having such a class segmentation at a public, kid-oriented park that got to me.

<comment><USER3> There is a reason the American project is an ongoing experiment. There must be something in the human nature (hierarchical societal structure?) which leads some (many?) people to behaving like hogs. Egalitarianism requires constant work. If you stop, the experiment is over.

(Just one point where the American experiment may break.)

This whole thread is a side note, but I think it is relevant.

<comment><USER12> America wasn't founded on the concept of egalitarianism, that was an idea of the French revolution. America was founded on the idea of equality before the _law_ (something that we _are_ still working on).

<comment><USER3> Equal rights were (and are) a fundamental idea for the US, egalitarianism less so. However, the anti-aristocratic feelings were strong. Recall, for example, that the titles were easily abolished.

<comment><USER12> Certainly monarchist ideas were easily eliminated and equal rights were a fundamental idea, but aristocratic thought was not uncommon among the Founding Fathers. The split between the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists was often worded in aristocratic language. The people were split pretty evenly between pro, anti, and indifferent to the Revolution.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A Git hook written in Bash for automated CHANGELOGs - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/MartinSeeler/auto-changelog-hook <comment><USER2> Related: [http://keepachangelog.com/](http://keepachangelog.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is also linked in the README.</comment></comment>


Bad predictions about the internet - <AUTHOR> http://www.newstatesman.com/science-tech/internet/2016/08/25-years-here-are-worst-ever-predictions-about-internet <comment><USER3> I had a Minitel account in the 1980s. France Telecom rolled out Minitel in the US, although almost nobody noticed. Minitel had much of the functionality of the Web in a primitive form. There were online stores which accepted credit cards. Traffic maps of Paris. News and chat. Phone directories. Text porn. Social and dating sites. (One had to be able to write good poetry in French to get noticed.) Even paid sex chat ("tenderness service"). Most of the functionality of the Web was there, except images and video.

Minitel was a pay service; almost everything cost. The big surprise on the Web was that ads alone would pay for so much and that bandwidth would become so cheap.

<comment><USER4> > The big surprise on the Web was that ads alone would pay for so much

Another huge surprise was that people would create so much content (including really good content) for free. Can you imagine telling someone 15 years ago that the Web would have a free repository of all human knowledge, in hundreds of languages, thousands of times bigger than Encyclopedia Britannica, that was created by random people and experts around the world almost entirely _without payment_.

Of course I'm talking about Wikipedia above, but that's just one of thousands of outstanding Web resources that people created for free.

I can just imagine the people's reactions 15 years ago: Why would anyone do that for free? Wouldn't the government shut it down? Who would pay to run the servers? Anything anyone would write for free would be garbage. You might get a few random people to write, but no subject-matter expert is going to waste their time.

<comment><USER5> > Can you imagine telling someone 15 years ago that the Web would have a free > repository of all human knowledge

Wikipedia is far, far short of the total of 'all human knowledge'. It's probably a good primer for the _type_ of information that consitutes such knowledge but it's barely skin-deep.

Even the British Library, for all its faults, holds magnitudes more information; it adds three million items every year, which is half as many as Wikipedia has _total_ articles.

<comment><USER6> _Words_ , surely; information, I'm not as sure about. I would wonder how much content an entire library truly holds if you were to try to abridge all its books together into one tome with every redundant statement stripped out, such that each fact or idea was only elucidated once, in one way.

<comment><USER7> I can pick a couple of mathematics books off my shelf, where less than 5% of their content is on wikipedia -- wikipedia is good for topics which many people understand, but in my experience gets very bad for more difficult topics. This partly makes sense, they are difficult to write about, and difficult to read without being an expert so is wikipedia even the right place?

<comment><USER8> In my perfect fantasy world Wikipedia articles would be so well-written that as you delved further into a niche field, they seamlessly segue into textbook chapters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "In fact, the web is so pivotal to modern life that two months ago, the UN declared internet access a basic human right."

This doesn't sit right with me. It's certainly not being treated as one. I keep encountering "free wifi" hotspots - unencrypted, slow networks asking you to get your credit card out for more than 5 minutes of their time.

I was just in germany last week. In a public airport, the wifi was so monetized I felt like I was in the iOS port of a facebook game. Had the choice between that, or some even worse sitekiosk locked down piece of crap.

I wonder when this will change. When wifi will be as abundant and accessible as water in a city. (Although Germany is a terrible example for this - <USER2> luck getting a glass of tap water there). It's funny-sad to contrast the wonders of the internet, to the unending shithole that is internet _access_ in 2016.

<comment><USER10> You overestimate how the "basic human right" is treated.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights has 30 articles, almost every single one was and is being trampled on everyday.

<comment><USER11> Well, an alternative (and more charitable) reading is that these are negative rights.

Having the right to internet doesn't mean that someone else has a duty to provide you with a (free) internet connection, it means that forcibly preventing you from procuring an internet connection is not allowed (as opposed to, say, drugs, which you CAN be forcibly prevented from procuring).

Compare freedom of expression: Nobody can forcibly prevent you from expressing yourself, but also, nobody has a duty to enable you to express yourself.

<comment><USER12> It doesn't seem to be constituted that way according to this: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I've often wondered how much the Web as we know it depends on the current level of technology (bandwidth, resolution, processing speed, storage), vs how much it depends on the fact that it has a critical mass of people using it? Sure, sites such as Youtube would have a hard time over a 28.8k modem (not to mention low resolution/low color displays and slow CPUs). But things like Facebook or other community sites could still essentially exist and perform most of their function.

Or is it that without current bandwidth, that even basic items (such as sharing low resolution pictures) would limit it to those who have enough patience? And how much of the ability to design modern web app interfaces is responsible for drawing in the masses? Is the eye candy what actually sells the net to the average person (in order to obtain critical mass)?

<comment><USER14> Usenet and bbses existed for years. But something like Facebook would not have received critical mass with video and pics. Of course suicidal media on general wouldn't have gotten critical mass without a smart phone.

<comment><USER15> > suicidal media

Now _there 's_ an interesting typo. (Or was that intentional?) Strangely fitting, even.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Another interesting prediction was Bill Gates' "The Road Ahead" (1995) book. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_(Bill_Gates_boo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Road_Ahead_\(Bill_Gates_book\))

The Microsoft Network (MSN v1, MSN dialup) failed spectacularly and the WWW won, Bill Gates rewrote the whole book in less than a year, the paperback edition already featured the WWW instead of Information Super Highway and MSN/Microsoft Network. Windows 95 shipped with MSN integration, an addon "Plus" CD shipped Internet Explorer 1. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial- up#Early_history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MSN_Dial-up#Early_history)

</comment><comment><USER17> I actually think the CBC guy has some validity still. Certainly civility falls apart quickly in large groups like Reddit or Twitter where most interactions are one-offs, but in small ones (irc channels and forums), even where there are major political disagreements I've seen surprisingly good handling. Even the worst of those horrible terrible trolls/harassers/cyberbullies/<other bullshit here> often has somewhere they're more accepted and accepting.

</comment><comment><USER18> Those fond of the genre should pick up a copy of Laura Lee's "Bad Predictions", a great compendium of all sorts of now-foolish statements: [https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Predictions-Laura- Lee/dp/09657345...](https://www.amazon.com/Bad-Predictions-Laura- Lee/dp/0965734595)

</comment><comment><USER19> The author says "the least likely element of this scenario is that Kellogg's will bring back free gifts". I have at home a bunch of squashy balls, eagerly sought by my son, from Kellog's Frosties from the time of Six Nations Rugby tournament this year. Does she know something I don't?

</comment><comment><USER20> Counterpoint to Stoll being wrong: [http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-actually- th...](http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-mh-actually-that- offbase-20150227-column.html)

<comment><USER21> Yeah, every time someone trots out that article, I think that he was wrong about a lot of details and right about a lot of the broad implications.

<comment><USER22> Wasn't his broad implication that the internet was massively overrated and not really that big of a deal?

<comment><USER21> He was wrong about a lot of the specific business applications, mainly because the problems he cited were all things that could be (and were) engineered around once there was enough profit to be made. He was right about most of the social/utopian applications; educational software, government websites, and social networks are all useful tools and have been more financially successful than he predicted, but they have never revolutionized education or government, nor given us something better than face-to-face contact, as we were promised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I think the author is being quite unfair regarding John Allen's "prediction" on anonymity.

First and foremost, it wasn't even a prediction. Second, his comments concerned anonymity within groups and communities, not general demographics, i.e. all users of Twitter. The referenced study linked to by the Guardian (statistically illiterate as ever) article also fails to demonstrate anonymity as a primary cause of abuse, as the author seems to imply, albeit in a passive-aggressive manner.

</comment><comment><USER24> Well, it's still true that CD-ROMs [or rather, 'digital lessons'] actually don't take the place of a competent teacher. Some autodidacts can go very far with digital materials, but for Jane and John Q Public, teachers are better than digital lessons. They're just more expensive, is all.

Plus, of course, there are particular topics that are much better suited for one style or the other, but in general, a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one.

<comment><USER25> "a competent meat teacher is better than a competent silicon one"

... for now, and even then I'm not so sure.

Edit: And what about a competent teacher that records one lesson and broadcasts it to millions?

<comment><USER24> Teaching is a two-way communication - a good teacher can pick up on how well the student is doing, and raise or lower the pitch of the lesson to match, or observe simple (or complex) misconceptions early[1]. A digital broadcast can't do that. In theory, we can get AI that can dynamically adapt to their students, but we're a very long way from that.

[1]A simple example - I self-taught myself guitar using online resources. I wasn't great, but I seemed to be doing what all the various resources were saying to do. Eventually I got tired of always being terrible, and shelled out for a teacher. In the first couple of weeks, he had fixed half-a-dozen tiny issues with my technique, which added up to make a terrible cacophony. I'd never be able to do that with the online resources.

Another example, from when I was a practical class demonstrator for a biology- based class in the '90s. There was a hue and cry about how all lessons of the future would be digital and no more lab animals would have to die (toads, for us). I countered with "how are you going to have a video show you how it feels to tie a ligature too loose or too tight?". Likewise, David Attenborough's documentaries are sterling, but they're not as good as going to the place and experiencing it in person.

Physical skills like the above are clear examples, but even for a standard lecture, human beats video-of-human - how many of us have been in a lecture when someone asks a 'stupid question' that clears up a misconception for everyone?

Good digital lessons are great for scale, but a good meat-based teacher is better. Of course, bad versions of either can be downright destructive...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think this author is confused between what the Internet is and what the WWW is.

</comment><comment><USER27> Slightly related, I think it's a foregone conclusion that in 25 years we'll poke fun in the same way at current thinking about electric cars, self driving cars, solar power, etc.

</comment><comment><USER12> Give Clifford Stoll _some_ credit; his predictions about low quality online discussions and questionable value in educational software have some merit.

</comment><comment><USER28> Couldn't read it. Website wanted me to disable malware protection in my browser.</comment>


What Does Rudy Giuliani Actually Know About Cybersecurity? - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-does-rudy-giuliani <comment><USER2> > Since 2003 ... nominally advised clients on cybersecurity, but people who > have worked with his firm say the advice is focused more on liability > mitigation for companies rather than implementing best security practices.

Yeah, I can see that coming handy when you work for the government...

</comment><comment><USER3> Correct link: [http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-does-rudy-giuliani- act...](http://motherboard.vice.com/read/what-does-rudy-giuliani-actually- know-about-cybersecurity)

</comment><comment><USER4> According to this link he knows how to 404 a Vice article.

<comment><USER5> Hired.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What does HBO know about journalism?

</comment><comment><USER7> What does my boss actually know about development?

<comment><USER8> Unless your a VP/CTO/Director or at a very small company where you got hired as a first developer I sure hope your boss knows development. At least a little. At some point in the org chart there should be a buffer between tech and non-tech (the VP, CTO, manager).

It's not unheard of at super large companies for the CTO (for example) to be non-technical but I think those companies are making a mistake. That role should be filled with someone who understands both sides. (having a CTO that is ONLY technical is also a mistake)

With that said, re the article. That does't have to be Giulliani. It could be someone working under his direction. It's just an extra layer of bureaucracy.</comment></comment>


Australian political activist targeted by opposition party's lawyers - <AUTHOR> https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BTYfzipCMAAKOu3.jpg:large

<comment><USER3> _" My ISP contacted me on Wednesday afternoon to let me know that the federal opposition party's lawyers were demanding my personal details. Despite this being a personal project not paid for or endorsed by anyone, I gave them permission to hand over my name, address, and phone number so that the site could stay up."_

Is political speech regulated in Australia? If you have an influential website like this, are you required to register publicly to prove compliance with, e.g. campaign spending limits?

I read there's a blackout on political ads, but it doesn't apply to web ads:

[http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/04/no-media- black...](http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2013/09/04/no-media-blackout-web)

<comment><USER4> You _are_ required to give the name and location of the person authorising political comment.

The blogs I host, for example, place authorisation on their lead authors.

eg: [http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/electoral- co...](http://larvatusprodeo.net/about-larvatus-prodeo/electoral-comment/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Direct link to the site: [http://dontbeafuckingidiot.com/](http://dontbeafuckingidiot.com/) Link to the statement that's a bit clearer: [http://dontbeafuckingidiot.com/MediaStatement.pdf](http://dontbeafuckingidiot.com/MediaStatement.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> Seeing lots of people I know posting this on Facebook made me very uncomfortable. It feels the far-left and far-right crazies (we all know the type) breaking into the mainstream.

It's desperate, disrespectful and just plain inaccurate.

The problem with something like this spreading on social media is its only going to polarize our country taking us further towards the toxic political environment of the US.

Let's take a look at some of the claims:

* Gay Marriage

"GAY MARRIAGE WITH LOVE & RAINBOWS AND SHIT vs. ARCHAIC DISCRIMINATORY FUCKWITAGE Tony Abbott is a bigot. Fuck him and his hateful, backwards, repressed nasty fuckery. If two people are in love who the fuck are you to tell them it's not 'valid'. Fuck you."

Gay marriage was defined as between a man and a woman with bipartisan support in 2004.1 Both party platforms opposed gay marriage until this year 2011, when the ALP said they would allow a conscience vote. Our old prime minister Julia Gillard, an athiest, from the ALP party personally opposed gay marriage. Kevin Rudd, current prime-minster only changed his position in support of gay marriage in May 2013. Tony Abbott has a lesbian sister, his daughters support gay marriage and his wife is open to the idea.2 So the fact is the ALP is not for gay marriage. They are only for a conscience vote and only very recently. The LNP conducts conscience votes inside their caucus and choose their position as a party as a whole.

Gay marriage is a nuanced issue in every country. It is not black and white. Most Australians are religious 3 and if that is what you have been brought up to believe its going to take time to work through it. If this is bigoted to you, have some balls and go call every religious person a bigot, don't single out one Australian.

If someone supports a civil union bill which provides equal rights to hetero and homo but is sensitive to the use of the term 'marriage' for some strange religious reason, are they the same as someone who believes being gay is a lifestyle choice. If this is still bigoted, go label that group as bigots - just watch out because they might be a decent person voting for your party because of another issue.

It's better to bring people with you on this issue than to call them bigots.

* Climate Change

"SAVING THE FUCKING PLANET vs. TOTALLY FUCKING THE PLANET Abbott fucked Turnbull on the basis of climate change being "crap", he's a climate-denying, self-serving, short-sighted, right wing tool and he will actively fuck up your children's future. Do you want to look back in 20 years time and remember that you voted for the guy that was against saving the planet? You'd be like one of those dipshits that opposed women voting."

In Oct 2009 Abbott said "the argument is absolute crap… However, the politics of this are tough for us. 80% of people believe climate change is a real and present danger", then in Dec 2009 said he had used "a bit of hyperbole" at that meeting rather than it being his "considered position".

In Nov 2009 Abbott said "we should take reasonable precautions against credible threats".

The issue is how proportionate should our response to climate change be - <USER2> this has always been Abbott's point. There are opinions throughout the spectrum on this issue, it is certainly not black and white. What kind of increase in cost of living are people acceptable with, how much debt should we incur to invest in new enviro-friendly energy sources, what spending wil we forgoe because of the drop in revenue from reducing our use in coal, how less internationally competitive are we willing to be as a result of exporting to countries without a price on carbon.

Most importantly, how much do we want to economically handicap ourselves before the US, China and Russia act.

ALP is now for an ETS. LNP is for direct investment in renewable technologies whilst we wait for the rest of the world to act. It is a reasonable debate to be had.

* Economy

PRETTY FUCKING GOOD ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT vs. IGNORANT ARSE-BACKWARDS ECONOMIC POLICY THAT WILL FUCK US ALL FOR A LONG TIME Even the motherfucking right wing Economist reckon's Labor's economic policy is a much better idea than slashing, cutting, and burning our economy. Keynesian stimulus bitches, it works.

There was plenty of waste with stimulus. The ALP's argument is that as long as we didn't go into recession they did the right thing. The fact is our net debt was 0% and will now peak at about 13%. Both parties are now in agreement that we have to make cuts to spending to reduce our structural deficit. The LNP is simply arguing that the ALP could have spent less. When people see unpopular cuts to programs like the ALP cutting university funding to put into high schools, it is right to ask the question: would we have to make this choice if we used less stimulus money. There are arguments from credible professors that the stimulus actually caused higher unemployment, given that our low Australian dollar and strong demand for exports from China actually kept us out of recession rather than the stimulus spending. 4 If the author feels its so obvious, he might have been better to mention the complex counter arguments and illustrate how obviously false they are rather than "Keynesian stimulus bitches, it works.". But that would probably require an understanding of economics, some careful thought and research, and wouldn't fit in with his diatribe. Despite your entitled moaning about cost of living pressures (while you sip imported beers looking at wall-sized plasmas in your McMansions) shit is pretty good. You vote for Abbott and you'll find out pretty fucking quickly what austerity results in and feels like.

LNP is not doing austerity. This is just a scare tactic from the ALP. All LNP costings are out today, no-one would consider it austerity and its simply spending 6bn less than ALP which is not much at all. Macro-economics is not a household budget and our debt levels are fucking negligible. Seriously, wake the fuck up and stop being a credulous cock."

Debt will peak at 13% and is unlikely to be paid off in our life times. The number of consecutive surpluses we would need is huge. Considering at each election each party wants to promise bigger and better than the other party, to have a government with the fiscal discipline to actually reduce our debt faster than we grow it is unlikely to happen. They just wouldn't be popular enough. A bit of debt is fine, but you only get to run it up once. The LNP has been attacking the ALP because they fervently promised surpluses by this 2012-13, but instead produced a $30bn deficit. Both parties agree that debt is an issue and a return to surplus soon is neccessary. The LNP has slightly more cuts than the ALP. Again the author is not on steady enough ground to make claims with such hyperbole.

* Ramblings

Also, despite all of Labor's faults and instability, they do actually give a shit about people and communities and, usually at least, create policy that's informed by evidence instead of ideology.

You can read this as the LNP doesn't give a shit about people and communities. It's just not neccessary. It sounds so desperate. I could list plenty of pros and cons for each party but its just not worth it.

So you could just take it as a joke, but the way he finishes it makes it sound like he believes everything he has written, and then appeals for you to vote for the ALP. It doesn't come across as satire, or comedy.

The comedy is in the way he captures what would be written by a biased obnoxious bleeding-heart Labor party voter after everything the party has been through. I don't think he realized this though :P

Normally you could ignore something like this or but seeing how popular its got is alarming. Yes, free speech and all that, but I would prefer this to be removed from Facebook, and something equally popular and vulgar from the LNP be removed if it came about.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm totally ignorant of Australian politics (can you believe it?? An American who doesn't know the major parties involved in a foreign election??), but this sounds basically like a comparison between the Republican and Democrat parties here. The joke here is that it's all lip service and they both do and act almost the exact same way once elected. Is that the case elsewhere?

<comment><USER8> Not really. Both major parties in Australia still stand for something. They share a lot of common ground on many issues which does make some people feel there is a lack of choice but often these are issues where there is some option which is clearly more pragmatic or reasonable to both. Neither are going to stray far from the US alliance for instance.

The Liberals were sometimes more progressive in the past but now are more firmly a conservative party and have conservative economic and social policies within the context of the Australian system where people would be sensitive to dismantling public health care or education beyond certain limits.

The ALP fundamentally exists to give a fair go to working Australians. In the past that might have been through socialism but these days it more through an efficient market economy (they were responsible for several big macroeconomic reforms) while still ensuring protection for employees and safety nets for health and education.

Economies and governments have reasonable optimum settings and experts like economists to advise and both parties will benefit their constituencies through wealth creation. The ALP perhaps would share a bit of the wealth down and the Libs would direct it more up. Either are prepared to tax and spend on their own constituency to buy votes up to a point. The point being that we are still a AAA rated economy with much lower public debt to GDP than many others.

Like the US, Australia goes through election cycles and parties fortunes change. The conservatives are due for government and have the benefit of overwhelming media support (Murdoch owns nearly all the press) and lack of discipline within the ALP. The thing that strikes me about the Libs is that their policies seem very underdone. They haven't costed them. They seem poorly reviewed. There is stuff like the Internet filter backflip. I wonder if by Abbott trying to channel GWB style anti-intellectualism to gain popular votes he hasn't done his party a bit of a disservice in other areas. Time will tell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, those statements on dontbeafuckingidiot.com almost reach Charlie Brooker levels of awesome.

</comment><comment><USER4> I used to be in student politics. There is always an overzealous dipshit who zooms off to play the hard man who makes you look like ... well ... a pack of pricks.

More. _More_ like a pack of pricks.

However, intimidation is a serious charge. The site owner should contact the police. The police would be within their powers to obtain telco phone logs to see who made the relevant call.

</comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if that Internet filter they've just added to their platform policy will be used to censor websites like that. My guess? _Definitely_.

It may be why they even decided at the last minute to introduce that, to stop this sort of activism from happening at future elections.

<comment><USER11> They've withdrawn that, claiming it was "poorly worded". It's apparently an opt-in filter now.

[http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-filter- say...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-05/no-internet-filter-says- turnbull/4939156)

Though in reality we still have the AMCA filter, which has been used badly in the past.

<comment><USER12> I love that both Turnbull (who will be the internet minister) and Abbott (who will be prime minister) are both back pedalling saying they didn't have time to read it properly.

IT'S THEIR FUCKING POLICY.

[https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/37555537509050777...](https://twitter.com/TurnbullMalcolm/status/375555375090507776)

<comment><USER13> Isn't that the idea of releasing policy so close to the election: not giving people time to read it properly?

<comment><USER14> No, it's just about having something you can point to when a pesky journalist is making too many questions: "oh, it's all in the manifesto|whitepaper, please look it up". Those docs are written by unpaid interns and forgotten a minute after ballot boxes close.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Breaking Circular Dependencies in Recursive Union Types with C++17 - <AUTHOR> https://email@example.com/breaking-circular-dependencies-in-recursive-union-types-with-c-17-the-curious-case-of-4ab00cfda10d <comment><USER2> On one hand, this is neat, and it ticks boxes in my C++-programming heart.

On the other hand, it's frankly embarrassing that this is what needs to be done to implement a trivial data structure with the ability to print its value to a terminal.

After 60 years of computing, this is where we're at?</comment>