Stop Complaining about Apple and the App Store - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/27/stop-complaining-about-apple-and-the-app-store/ <comment><USER2> While this seems more of an inflammatory post to garner attention, there's an important correction to be made. Developing for the iPhone platform constitutes some degree of tacit support, it's true. But beyond that, it's important to make opposing views heard. I'm programming for it right now (taking a break to write this), and it's a fun platform, but it's not perfect. The sdk improves via developer feedback, including complaints. Likewise, feedback across the different mediums on apple's App store are much more likely to bring about change than complete silence.

Let the complaints continue - likely we'll be the ones who benefit.

</comment><comment><USER3> "Someone needs to teach Dan the difference between their and there before they let him hit publish again."

[http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/27/stop-complaining- about-...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/27/stop-complaining-about-apple- and-the-app-store/#comment-2484022)

<comment><USER4> Seems that people read his stuff anyways, does it really matter in the end? I am sure they are way better ways to say his is stupid then correcting is grammar.

<comment><USER3> Does it matter if a writer can't write well? Yes.

<comment><USER4> But it doesn't matter because many people still read his blog. That means that many people don't care if he writes well. They only care what he writes about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> He miss a fundamental point: if I buy a fork there is no NDA about what kind of food I should eat with this. I think hardware able to run software need some kind of regulation that allows the user to run every kind of software he wants to run. Apple terms are violating this idea, that is not a law (unfortunately) but for many people is even more important since it's about freedom.

<comment><USER6> Why do we keep comparing Apple with analogies? What if the iPhone was like a car? What if iTunes was like a fork? What if iPods were like cats? What if what Apple is doing is unique on its own and you examine their situation and determine whether you _want_ to buy into it or not, instead of applying them to a standard in how they _should_ behave?

<comment><USER7> What if the iPhone was like a product, and we subjected it to the same standards as any other product out on the market?

Just a thought, you know.

<comment><USER8> ... It is, and we do.

<comment><USER7> I think you missed the sarcasm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> PLEASE: A way to filter out TC stories!!! We beg! I'll name my first born YCombinator! Make it stopppp!!

<comment><USER10> If it's really important for you: <http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/25039>

I didn't write the script, but feel free to name your first born "thorax". I don't think they'll like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> At the end of the day, you can write an app that runs on the iPhone and is installed however you want. So long as you don't write it with the dev kit, or want to deliver it via the AppStore and install it with iTunes, the sky's the limit. Apple has the stranglehold on the platform/framework and the delivery mechanism. They can use it however they want.

Now .. a nice startup idea might be an alternate delivery method from scratch. But who has that kind of time?

Besides, I have a hard enough time keeping my iPhone connected on a call.

</comment><comment><USER4> Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL is to the Internet as The Apple iPhone is to _____________

</comment><comment><USER12> No.</comment>


Why killer whales should not be kept in captivity - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20160310-why-killer-whales-should-not-be-kept-in-captivity <comment><USER2> > In line with this, several decades of observation show that orcas are not > naturally violent towards humans. There are no recorded cases of a wild orca > killing a human.

In a recent BBC Attenborough documentary (I think Frozen Planet) there was a sequence where they showed teams of killer whales swiftly swimming just under the surface to create a wave in an attempt to knock a seal off an ice flow so that they could eat it.

After the main part of the documentary they had a "making of" component that showed how the film crew got the shots and made the film, and they showed the killer whales trying to do the same trick on the tiny boat the camera men were on to try to knock them into the water.

<comment><USER3> Attacks on humans by Orcas happens. Its that they do not eat humans, once they realize its us, they let go and swim away. They need to taste us first, especially if none of the members of group haven't tasted or interacted with humans before.

<comment><USER4> It's not just that they don't eat us, it's also that they haven't killed us for other reasons.

For example, a human happening to stray close to a young orca might be confused as a threat to it, which could trigger an attack by a parent. Yet, despite there being lots of orcas in the ocean, no violent altercation between a wild orca and a human has led to a human death.

That this hasn't happened even once is remarkable, especially given the massive size and strength of orca. Other large mammals often kill humans, and not just as food, for example, hippos.

I don't think we know exactly why orcas have never killed humans, but I would guess their intelligence has something to do with it.

<comment><USER2> One explanation could be that Orcas and Humans simply don't come in contact that often.

Orcas are common where I live in British Columbia, but you really don't have that many swimmers around in contrast to tropical areas. Additionally, the local resident orcas eat salmon and I don't think they'd consider humans to be a potential food source. Transient orcas eat seals, and I could imagine them confusing a human with a seal just as great white sharks do. Maybe the migration patterns of transient orcas don't line up with when and where people swim.

<comment><USER4> That's certainly a factor. However, orca are not limited to cold climates, even if they are found more there. Their natural range includes all oceans,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Range_and_habitat](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killer_whale#Range_and_habitat)

and they can encounter humans not just when the humans are swimming - which is rare in cold climates - but also when they are fishing.

Furthermore, there are also practically no cases of other dolphins than orca killing humans, and human-dolphin encounters are not that rare. For example, even in the times of ancient Greece, dolphins were known and considered very friendly,

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin#In_history_and_religio...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolphin#In_history_and_religion)

Other dolphins are of course significantly smaller than orca, but still very powerful when in the water.

I don't think there is an obvious answer for why wild orca have never been seen killing a human, and practically no other dolphin either. It's an interesting mystery.

<comment><USER2> An additional reason could be how they find they prey.

I've read that most of the time shark attacks are somewhat accidental with the shark biting to find out what something is, but not continuing the attack.

It could be that the echolocation abilities of toothed whales provides them with a superior ability to discern a human from their typical favoured prey and they don't make mistakes.

It would be ambitious for a dolphin to kill a large animal like a human and that's since that's not their typical hunting behaviour, I can understand why dolphin attacks are not common.

On other hand an transient orca would often eat human sized animals. Even if I'm right that echolocation would allow an orca to discern between a seal and a human, why wouldn't they give the human a bite to see if they tasted any good? It is pretty weird mystery that there have been no recorded attacks on humans.

<comment><USER5> Perhaps humans smell bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "There are currently (December 2015) a total of 56 orcas held in captivity (23 wild-captured plus 33 captive-born) in at least 12 marine parks in 8 different countries." [1]

"SeaWorld holds 23 orcas in its three parks in the United States and owns (at least) a further four at Loro Parque in Spain (ownership of Adan and Morgan not verified). At least forty-five orcas have died at SeaWorld." [1]

[1] [http://uk.whales.org/wdc-in-action/fate-of-captive- orcas](http://uk.whales.org/wdc-in-action/fate-of-captive-orcas)

</comment><comment><USER7> I agree that killer whale's shouldn't be kept in captivity, but than on the other hand, I also love me some bacon. Pigs are also sentient creatures with high intelligence yet we see them as a food source, and thus don't really care about their conditions in captivity.

<comment><USER3> Pigs are meant to be kept as farm animals. They were selectively domesticated. Same with chickens, sheep, cows etc. Problem with Orcas is that they are not use to live in captivity. They were just caught in the sea and forced to do tricks. Its same with large wild cats - they have been not selectively chosen over decades to join the human society.

<comment><USER8> Nothing is "meant" to be kept as a farm animal. The choices we've made about which animals we keep as livestock, which we keep as pets, and which we keep in zoos (or, per TFA, only slightly oversized swimming pools) are in absolutely no way derived from some sort of teleological mandate.

<comment><USER9> > _Nothing is "meant" to be kept as a farm animal._

Modern sheep are. If they're not sheared regularly and their fleece is allowed to grow, they end up suffering quite a lot - they are not suitable for living in the wild, and in the other direction, are also not particularly suitable as pets.

Yes, nature is not a thing with intentions, but modern sheep are a combination of natural processes and humans (who do have intentions) meddling with things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are no real arguments here that do not apply to a large amount of other animals kept in captivity. But I guess we have to start somewhere.

Edit: grammar

</comment><comment><USER11> My wife keeps hitting me when I (intentionally, to mess with her) call these creatures 'killer whales'. The name doesn't help, really.

The subtitle is 'Keeping orcas in aquariums deprives them of crucial aspects of their lives, and in some cases it can even prove dangerous to humans'. BBC seems to know what these creatures are called, but prefers to use 'killer whales' in the title. Why? That's messed up, both in general and for this particular piece.

<comment><USER12> > BBC seems to know what these creatures are called

Yes, they're called both "orcas" and "killer whales", with the latter being more common.

And on that note, do people really parse "killer whales" as "whales that kill (people?)". I'm pretty sure I don't; my brain treats the phrase as an opaque semantic unit meaning "those giant, black and white dolphins".

<comment><USER11> So, two things. First of all: Even if 'killer whale' is more common, I don't think that this kind of name is making a good case for a 'pity the social creatures trapped in a cage' article. I'd try to avoid it, if I wanted to make people more aware of the problems outlined in the article.

But - obviously that's a cultural thing as well. I just checked the English Wikipedia and it happily lists Orcas as 'Killer Whales'. The German Wikipedia [1] however calls them 'Orcas' or 'Sword whales' (Schwertwale, translating word by word here) and explicitly says (my crappy translation, original to go and ask Google Translate about is below [2]) "The animals have been referred to as Killer Whales and Murder Whales by Whalers due to their seeminly brutal ways to hunt for prey".

So maybe it's a bit of both? Bad publicity in general with a name like that and using a name that isn't common and generally ~obsolete~ in my home country?

1: [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwertwal](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwertwal) 2: "Die Namen Killerwal und Mörderwal wurden den Tieren von Walfängern gegeben und nehmen Bezug auf die oft brutal anmutenden Jagdmethoden dieser Raubwale."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _Blackfish_ is definitely a provocative documentary on this topic of killer whale captivity.

<comment><USER14> Sadly that documentary is one sided and what appears to be motivated documentary. We need to hear the other side too.

<comment><USER15> The other side? That good money can be made by keeping animals in substandard conditions for their complete well being (mental and physical)?

:-\

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is there some animal which should be kept in captivity? For instance, I don't understand how it's accepted to cage birds and keep them from flying. It makes no sense to me. Please explain, as I'm sure there's a valid reason, but if you try to look it up you end up on animal rights activist sites that don't explain much.

<comment><USER17> People also shouldn't be kept in captivity.

<comment><USER5> I disagree. People who pose a significant threat to wider society should be incarcerated IMO, either for safety or punishment purposes. Locking up animals that have caused no significant harm seems wrong unless there is some other reason, eg food production.

Personally I'm fine morally with eating non factory-farmed meat; keeping a massive creature locked up just to use as part of a show to me is morally objectionable.

Zoos seem terrible places on the whole; safari parks are acceptable to me though. I remember with great sadness my first visit to a zoo (in the UK, as an adult) seeing a lion in a tiny cage pacing up and down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Being one-issue fundamentalist is always a bad thing. A sweeping statement "killer whales should not be ..." does not seem convincing.

No one is even trying to put all killer whales in aquarium. Having few of them where humans could watch them is a good thing. Where else would my 5 year old know about these giant creatures, after all he needs to do something for their preservation.

Watching wildlife up and close is a great experience just so we could empathize with their needs. I cared a damn about Polar Bears or Orangutans until I saw them up and close at San Diego zoo. Now I am much more willing to donate money that helps their cause.

Besides if an animal is entertaining for humans I think that is a great evolutionary trait that can help those animals survive. I don't see how else that d __ _f_ *k Panda would have survived on earth.

<comment><USER18> >Having few of them where humans could watch them is a good thing.

For humans, maybe. How is it good for orcas? Isn't the issue here that we are denying agency from intelligent beings?

<comment><USER19> As a species it very good thing as it provides awareness of them and lets the public learn about them and want to protect the species as individual animal it kinda sucks.

<comment><USER18> You could argue that the goodness of awareness outweighs the badness of captivity, but you can't argue that the captivity itself is good. If there exist other ways of spreading awareness, then what is the value of captivity?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How many men are kept in captivity?

</comment><comment><USER21> They are sentient. It is slavery.

<comment><USER22> On the one hand, I wish I lived in an era of human history when technology had improved to the point where we could explore or communicate with distant planets and meet other sentient life forms.

On the other hand, our treatment of lifeforms of varying difference to ourselves already on our planet is deeply troubling. The thought of that culture spreading across the galaxy like a disease is horrifying.

I have a pet dog. I think I treat her well. Will my descendants look back on this and compare me to my not-so-distant ancestors who were racist or sexist?

<comment><USER13> Here is an article about a Beluga whale that began to mimic human speech:

[http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/story-one- whale...](http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/story-one-whale-who- tried-bridge-linguistic-divide-between-animals-humans-180951437/?no-ist)

Also, In the "Animal Minds" episode, Radiolab recounts a story of divers saving a net-entangled whale, and the whale in turn "thanks" each diver. It's a good show, and the examples included are thought-provoking. If you found this story intriguing, I recommend giving this Radiolab episode a listen. If not, the stories leads to what is intelligence and connection possibilities across species, and the topic of Spindle Neurons is presented which are explored as a connection between high and low order parts of the brain. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spindle_neuron))

_

 _The Goods_ :

1\. The episode: [http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal- minds/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/91701-animal-minds/)

2\. A related follow-up about whales:

[http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank- you/](http://www.radiolab.org/story/149761-whale-saying-thank-you/)

<comment><USER23> What are your thoughts on Jon C. Lilly's work?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> If SeaWorld really believed that they needed to capture these animals in order to study them up close in captivity then they wouldn't need to commercialise the study into some Disney-esque circus. Even in zoos animals aren't force to learn tricks to impress the posting visitors. SeaWorld is a travesty.

Or they could just be honest, and about that they are just a Disney-Sea-Circus and the science is just an excuse to keep the dollars rolling in.

No more of these animals should be born into captivity, and if possible, we should at least try to release as many of them as possible back into the wild, possibly as their own pod.

</comment><comment><USER25> Humans should not be kept in captivity either, yet we do it to ourselves with sedentary lifestyles

<comment><USER18> If you are doing it yourself, it isn't captivity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> No one is "meant" to be tortured and abused. I find you reply to be morally abhorrent and absolutely disgusting.

Right now, at this very moment, on American highways, there are no less than 5,000 concentration camp trucks. Trucks that we've constructed. Inside these trucks there are living, terrified, innocent beings (such as) cows, pigs and chickens. These trucks are being driven to concentration camp slaughterhouses that we've carefully constructed all across America. When the trucks arrive, the animals are so frightened they won't even get off the truck. They're not stupid. They know what's next. So people go on the trucks with electric prods and force them to walk down the chutes to their own death. Or if the animals are small enough to manhandle, like chickens, we'll just grab them off the trucks and toss them inside. Inside, these innocent, living beings are hanged upside down, fully conscious. In other words, they go in alive against their will and come out chopped up into hundreds of pieces. I think this type of behavior is inexcusable and unbecoming of a species that claims to understand right from wrong. The animals have not done one single thing to us to deserve the wrath and the cruelty that we hurl on them.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt4lweBJTQs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nt4lweBJTQs)

<comment><USER27> I find your reference to "concentration camps" in relation to livestock finishing feedlots and slaughterhouses to be tremendously inappropriate. Please find another way to shock and horrify readers into treating food animals more humanely.

It might not have been your intent, but you are reducing the victims of _actual_ concentration camps to the status of food animals.

<comment><USER17> I think it's correct, in fact livestock farms are worse than most concentration camps.

<comment><USER27> Except that their purpose is not _human genocide_.

If you do indeed believe that battery farming of livestock for meat production is worse than _human genocide_ , we cannot have a rational conversation about ethics or animal rights, as we do not agree on the necessary foundation premises.

<comment><USER17> We must differentiate between concentration camps and death camps. Concentration camps are just large prisons, death camps are for genocide. Also, food farms are for animal genocide.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hacking the Breast Pump - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/hacking-breast-pump <comment><USER2> "Finally, someone took me aside and said, 'We could make cheaper technology, but it wouldn't support the cost of our sales force, so we have no motivation to do so.'"

I don't understand. Isn't the cost of the sales force built in to the cost of the product, so if the hardware cost went down the end price would be reduced somewhat but still include the cost of sales? Is there some retailer or consumer psychology at play where people don't want a cheap breast pump?

<comment><USER3> This wasn't for breast pumps, it was for fetal monitors.

Fetal monitors exist in a fractally broken market. The people delivering medical devices have little motivation to be price-conscious because the people making purchasing decisions about their products have limited motivation to be price-conscious. The people making purchasing decisions have little motivation to be price-conscious, because they just pass the costs on to patients. Patients, in turn, do not ask about costs associated with fetal monitoring up-front, are not in a position to do any negotiation regarding fetal monitoring in the moment, and in any case aren't too worried because their insurance company picks up the cost. Sort of. The insurance company, in turn, doesn't worry too too much about the cost of the fetal monitors that the hospital chooses, because they still figure out how to pass the cost back to the patient - which they can do successfully because in the United States it's exceedingly rare for consumers of health insurance to comparison shop. Instead, they just go along with whatever option is chosen by some HR folks who are mostly spending other people's money and therefore have all sorts of incentive to not worry too terribly much about the best interest of the consumer.

So yes, there is some weird consumer psychology at play. The weird psychology is that we've got this crazy aspect of our culture where it's not just OK for our employers to be meting out important and expensive health care decisions to us (a bizarre proposition if you look at it objectively), it's actually _desirable_ , so desirable that many people are unwilling to consider taking jobs where a health plan isn't included in the benefits package.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Additional information on the Hackathon: [http://breastpump.media.mit.edu/](http://breastpump.media.mit.edu/)

</comment><comment><USER4> OK, I read the entire article, it was interesting.

Unfortunately, I read the entire article, including the last paragraph. That last paragraph killed it for me. Completely uncalled for statement that had NOTHING to do with purpose of the hackathon, and the only point of the statement was to negated any and all accomplishment of the attendees. Because those other items were not solved, all is for nothing.

I still have respect for the attendees, great job. I have none for the reporter (and editor).

</comment><comment><USER5> I own breastpump.com and am interested in a deal with anyone interested in the space or anyone looking to commercialize a product coming out of the hackathon.

<comment><USER6> Christ. $200k for a DNS entry? This "market" is insane.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140517081811/http://breastpump...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140517081811/http://breastpump.com/)

<comment><USER7> Seriously, ill take the .co save 199k and a letter.</comment></comment></comment>


Duqu 2.0 Hits Kaspersky Lab - <AUTHOR> https://securelist.com/blog/research/70504/the-mystery-of-duqu-2-0-a-sophisticated-cyberespionage-actor-returns/ <comment><USER2> _" By targeting Kaspersky Lab, the Duqu attackers probably took a huge bet hoping they'd remain undiscovered; and lost."_

That seems like a very nice spin on a successful attack that was eventually detected. How long were the attackers able to spy on their internal systems? Perhaps they didn't need ongoing access and simply wished to steal client files or documents.

<comment><USER3> That was my first thought aswell. One of the main takeaways from this is that Kaspersky Labs was probably compromised. Or at least there was an attempt. And the attacker is related to Stuxnet in some way. At least according to Kaspersky Lab.

<comment><USER4> >Kaspersky Labs was probably compromised

Relevant quote:

"Company officials were unable to provide Ars with an estimate of how many megabytes or gigabytes of data were extracted from their network, in part because the custom network connections Duqu used may have bypassed normal logging procedures. The company hasn't ruled out the possibility the attackers obtained Kaspersky Lab source code, but there are no signs they tried to compromise any of Kaspersky's 400 million users."

from [http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/stepson-of- stuxnet-s...](http://arstechnica.com/security/2015/06/stepson-of-stuxnet- stalked-kaspersky-for-months-tapped-iran-nuke-talks/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The geopolitics of this one is fascinating.

Stuxnet was a combined Israeli/US attack on Iran's nuclear capability. Kaspersky is a Russian security company which was started with government support, and is believed to still have connections there. Russia and Iran are allies.

Now look at how it played out. The US and Israel attacked Iran. Kaspersky tracked it down and publicized it to the world. And now some combination of the US, Israel, or close allies launched a spying attack on Kaspersky. Which, for all we know, may actually be an important part of the Russian cybersecurity infrastructure.

For all that organizations like the NSA do wrong (like spying on all of us), this is the kind of thing that we actually wanted them doing when they were created.

<comment><USER6> > a Russian company started _with government support_

From what I know this is simply not true. Got a source?

But I think your overall point holds. Kaspersky's 400 million user base includes a boatload of US/Western users, including enterprise and government clients. This simply cannot NOT be of some concern to respective countries, so it's perfectly logical that they would want to keep an eye on the situation.

<comment><USER5> I thought I had a source, but when I went looking I found tons of interesting connections (eg Kaspersky having gotten started in anti-virus while he was KGB) but no actual proof of involvement.

Given how Russian business works, though, it would seem likely that there is a connection.

But [http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/cybersecur...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-19/cybersecurity- kaspersky-has-close-ties-to-russian-spies) is an article that gives more recent reason for why Kaspersky is a potentially interesting target for Western spies.

<comment><USER7> >tons of interesting connections

Mind sharing those?

>he was KGB.

A claim unsupported by evidence.

>Given how Russian business works

"Given how I assume Russian business works based at most on anecdotal evidence." FTFY

Anyway I wouldn't bother to reply to your post, if you hadn't had used source that is full of shit, pardon my French. You can check out Kaspersky's blog for rebuttal of this article. Now if you insist on inductive reasoning I can offer you no evidence to the contrary, of course. And no, I don't work for Russian troll agency and am not Russian in any way. I doubt they would bother with ycombinator anyway. In no way this is attack on you of course, but I find these kind of posts severely annoying because of aforementioned reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The Windows 0-day is CVE-2015-2360 from MS15-061, it appears to be the only one Microsoft admits to have been exploited or used to attack it's customers.

[https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms15-061](https://technet.microsoft.com/library/security/ms15-061)

<comment><USER9> Even if it's the only one they've admitted to, I think it's readily known that Microsoft has numerous zero-days (discovered or not) in their software. Combine that with their prevalence in Enterprise businesses, they're going to be a logical starting point for any top tier blackhat org.

<comment><USER10> "I think it's readily known that Microsoft has numerous zero-days (discovered or not) in their software."

This is true for every single piece of software ever written. Msft is no different in this regard.

<comment><USER11> I don't think it's fair to say "every single piece of software", as the claim that it's impossible to write secure software is just a myth. It's not very hard to write a secure "hello world".

Then there's also Coq and such.

Of course, usually the amount of vulnerabilities exponentially correlates to the size of the codebase.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Related report from Symantec:

[http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/duqu-20-reemergence- ag...](http://www.symantec.com/connect/blogs/duqu-20-reemergence-aggressive- cyberespionage-threat)

Eugene Kaspersky: "Why Hacking Us Was A Silly Thing To Do"

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/eugenekaspersky/2015/06/10/why-h...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/eugenekaspersky/2015/06/10/why- hacking-us-was-a-silly-thing-to-do/)

<comment><USER12> From the Kaspersky link:

 _I can think of several reasons why someone might want to try to steal our technical data, but each one of them doesn't seem to be worth the risk._

I don't get it: what's the risk here? As far as I can see, the only risk is that their malware is removed from the victim machines. The risk of blowback to the perpetrators is vanishingly small as far as I can see.

<comment><USER4> Well, the malware used some quite innovative techniques, for example, consider this quote from Ars Technica article:

>Kaspersky researchers have described it as a "0-day trampoline" because it allowed their malicious modules to jump directly into the Windows kernel, the inner part of the operating system that has unfettered access to system memory and all external devices. The trampoline exploit allowed the malware to bypass digital signature requirements designed to prevent the loading of malicious code into the OS kernel space.

>"What is really impressive here—what I call really amazing—is the entire malware platform depends on this zero-day to work," Raiu said. "So if there is no zero day to jump into kernel mode this doesn't work."

Now this will be patched, and they will need something completely different for the next framework.

<comment><USER13> Follow that thought. If the risk was exposing these techniques, and exposure meant that the attackers would need new techniques, and the attackers were willing to take the risk, then...

Then they probably already have their new techniques all ready to go. Maybe even deployed in the field.

<comment> mark-r Perhaps they also knew that other bad actors had already discovered this particular 0-day and _wanted_ it to be outed?

<comment><USER14> ^ This seems like a great way to perform a risky operation and simultaneously stop your adversaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The Duqu attackers have got a ridiculous bag of zero-days at the ready.

<comment><USER15> Downvote with no explanation. Someone disagrees that these guys use zero-days? Not to mention some of which include jumping to kernel mode?

2011: CVE-2011-3402

2014: CVE-2014-4148 CVE-2014-6324 CVE-2015-2360

<comment><USER14> Your comment adds nothing of value to the conversation and provides no sourcing. This is why you have been downvoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Technical details were released yesterday:

[https://securelist.com/files/2015/06/The_Mystery_of_Duqu_2_0...](https://securelist.com/files/2015/06/The_Mystery_of_Duqu_2_0_a_sophisticated_cyberespionage_actor_returns.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER17> It's kind of cute how the technical report[1] goes to great lengths to finger Israel, without explicitly stating it (see page 43).

[1] [https://securelist.com/files/2015/06/The_Mystery_of_Duqu_2_0...](https://securelist.com/files/2015/06/The_Mystery_of_Duqu_2_0_a_sophisticated_cyberespionage_actor_returns.pdf)

<comment><USER18> I wouldn't be surprised. KL tend to nettle (expose activity of) most western spy agencies while bypassing Russian and to a lesser extent Chinese hacking activities.

</comment></comment><comment> at-fates-hands _" Despite the beefed up operational security of the malware, its unmistakable connection to the Duqu 1.0 and the times of day Duqu attackers manually entered Kaspersky's network leave little doubt in the minds of company researchers that the 2011 and 2014 attacks were carried out by the same group."_

Not only is this a total stretch, it's complete hearsay.

The reasons for hackers to go after Kaspersky are just as numerous as state sponsored teams to. I find it hard to say it was definitively one or other without further evidence. But in this "government surveillance" panic people are currently in, it's easy to just point a finger and say it was the NSA because this version "looks similar" to another version already deployed.

It's about as solid as saying there were similarities between the type of malware used in the Sony Pictures attack and code used to attack South Korea last year - which was laughed off by most of the info sec community.

<comment><USER19> Yes, once malware has been found, it can be reverse-engineered and reused. Also, I recall reading that the NSA relied in part on independent consultants in developing Stuxnet etc. Maybe some of those consultants have other pseudonyms, and other clients. So we have malware proliferation. And it's far worse than, for example, nuclear proliferation. Because it's all just bits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Will be interesting to see who else was targeted by this, looks like Kaspersky is just the first to disclose it:

[http://www.kaspersky.com/about/news/virus/2015/Duqu-is- back](http://www.kaspersky.com/about/news/virus/2015/Duqu-is-back)

"Kaspersky Lab would like to reiterate that these are only preliminary results of the investigation. There is no doubt that this attack had a much wider geographical reach and many more targets. But judging from what the company already knows, Duqu 2.0 has been used to attack a complex range of targets at the highest levels with similarly varied geo-political interests."

</comment><comment><USER20> Impressive to see most of the infections lived solely in memory. Along with the zerodays burned for this attack, you can tell this is a very professional team.

</comment><comment><USER21> I cannot but wonder what would have been the response here if similar attack had occurred inside Google or Facebook.

<comment><USER8> They might have been attacked too, just not disclosed or even discovered it yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This appears to be Israel from the technical report both because of the targets (Iran) and also the timezone data.

</comment><comment><USER23> So, correct me if I'm wrong: A non-technical user on their network DIDN'T have EMET running? Or did they, perhaps, have an EMET bypass in their shellcode?

If it's the latter, that's what I would be more interested in.

<comment><USER24> What makes you think that EMET can't be bypassed?</comment></comment>


California updates laws around salary and criminal histories of job applicants - <AUTHOR> https://justworks.com/blog/california-ban-job-applicant-salary-criminal-history <comment><USER2> > Salary history may be discussed if an applicant "voluntarily and without > prompting" discloses salary history to a potential employer.

People who believe they're highly paid might find it advantageous to disclose that: they'd avoid an accidental lowball, companies that can't afford them, etc. So there should be three types of people: (1) those who disclose and are highly paid, (2) those who disclose and think they're highly paid but aren't, and (3) those who don't disclose.

If being in group 1 is advantageous, then not disclosing (group 3) could be taken as a signal that the person thinks their salary is low and doesn't want to be anchored--but isn't that the information this law is supposed to be hiding? Even though they haven't named a price, it's still a signal that they might accept an offer under market.

On the other hand, that makes it harder for employers to calculate an offer that's more than they're making but still under market. And the gap should shrink with every job change, in theory.

Is there any data (maybe from other states) on how the game theory shakes out here?

Edit: another provision makes it more complicated.

> (c) An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a > position to an applicant applying for employment.

<comment><USER3> Everyone fails to disclose, then waits for an offer, then negotiates.

Given the first offer people in group #1 (paid highly) still have an advantage when negotiating ("I'm paid more now"). People in #2 will learn that they're not paid as much as they think they are if the offer is good. People in #3 remain the same and should have +EV.

All groups can still negotiate.

<comment><USER2> It feels like there's some value in disclosing that's greater than the risk of leaving money on the table _if_ the other groups behave as expected, but I can't put my finger on it. Maybe just one of those economic fallacies.

<comment><USER4> Whoever says a number first loses. That's some piece of wisdom that I don't recall the source of, but I believe it addresses what you're feeling.

<comment><USER2> I think it's the opposite: it feels like this law might create an incentive for certain people to go first and thereby change the meaning of _not_ going first for everyone else.

But I can't support it, so I'm probably wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The ban is not on asking about criminal history. It's a ban on asking about criminal history before a conditional offer is made. Quote from article:

 _Under this law, employers will no longer be allowed to ask applicants about their criminal conviction histories until after a conditional offer of employment has been made._

<comment><USER6> So they're just making it more clear to potential employees that if you don't lie now, you'll lose the offer?

Seems either pretty useless and will just waste more of a company's time, or will just encourage more people to lie about prior convictions (as it will be literally spelled out that they'll rescind the offer if they have a criminal history).

<comment><USER7> Consider sunk costs. As an employer, you've found a brilliant person to fill a position. You've gone through days of interviews, and this is clearly the best candidate. You put out the offer, and then ask for a criminal background check.

At _that_ point, the candidate says "When I was 19 I got into a fight in a parking lot and was convicted of assault, had three years probation".

Now you've gone to all this trouble and you like the guy, but have to decide whether that history matters or not.

Before, you'd have simply filtered his resume from the pile at the start and never even interviewed him.

<comment><USER8> however there are jobs subject to state regulations that forbid those with criminal history from obtaining said job or even the certification.

this is just feel good do nothing regulation. it benefits no one because the end result will be the same.

<comment><USER9> For a subset of jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "If an employer does decide to deny an applicant the position solely or in part because of the conviction history, the employer must make an individualized assessment of whether the applicant's conviction history has a direct and adverse relationship with the specific duties of the job that justify denying the applicant the position."

You could drive a semi through that loophole

<comment><USER11> It's not really a "loophole", per se. It would be ludicrous to say that a bank should not be able to exclude someone from hiring if they have been convicted of a serious financial crime, or that a day care should not be able to exclude a convicted child molester.

Now, will other companies take advantage of this so that they defeat the spirit of the law? Perhaps. But the fact that they need to make an assessment means that might be subject to review at some point.

<comment><USER12> It's amazing we need to explicitly say this. This should be obvious, yet by many comments you wouldn't realize it.

<comment><USER13> It is obvious: I'm stunned that people on HN still use uninformed "but who will think of the children?!"

So to make it clear: as a day-care owner, you do not need to refuse employment to a previously convicted child-molester after they've successfully applied. You don't because they violated their life-long-parole-like control and are in back in jail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> An article that explains the perverse results of "Ban the Box", and then attempts to rebut it:

[https://onlabor.org/ban-the-box-and-perverse-consequences- pa...](https://onlabor.org/ban-the-box-and-perverse-consequences-part-i/)

> Ban the Box interacts with racial profiling because, unless it checks or > asks, an employer has no information one way or the other about an > applicant's criminal record.

> Without individualized information, employers apply racial stereotypes that > place applicants of color under a cloud of suspicion.

> But when employers check, they confirm not only who does have a record but > also who does not, enabling employers to target the former for more accurate > exclusion.

> The racial exclusion from stereotyping when employers don't check could > exceed the racial exclusion from accurate screening when they do check.

> That is exactly what happens, according to the studies.

<comment><USER15> Wow I am impressed at this analysis and finding.

I am currently debating with myself about the cost of hiding information, and cases where there is a deliberate attempt at hiding it are the ones that are more likely to counter my intuition that information truly should be absolutely free.

Thanks for the contribution!

<comment><USER16> It needs more upvotes. I'm confused at how it's at the bottom of the comments here. It's an excellent one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Note that, as part of this same law, pay scales for jobs must be provided to applicants, upon request. Effective January 1 2018.

<comment><USER18> Is there an example payscale somewhere? Does this apply to remote employees if a company is headquartered in California?

<comment><USER19> Or more importantly, to non-California companies with California employees.

<comment><USER20> If you have a physical presence in a state, you must be incorporated in that state. You'll then have to follow the laws of that state for the business conducted there. This includes what are otherwise considered remote employees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Also notably,

> An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a > position to an applicant applying for employment.

So not only can they no longer ask you for salary history, they must tell your about their salary practices if you request the information.

<comment><USER22> What is to stop people from just lying about their salary information?

<comment><USER23> Haven't read the law, but what's to stop people from lying on their tax returns? Upfront notice via the law, and backend enforcement via IRS auditing. Same principle could apply here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I didn't see anything about payscale disclosure in the body of the article, but at the end it mentions, "Prepare payscale information for applicants that may request it." Is there anything to this?

<comment><USER25> It does seem to be the case ...

> (c) An employer, upon reasonable request, shall provide the pay scale for a > position to an applicant applying for employment.

[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB168)

<comment><USER26> Congratulations California. You just capped everyone's salaries.

All you had to do before was say "It doesn't matter. My price is $x." I've done it many times and still been offered the job.

<comment><USER27> Not everyone is in your position, and feels they have a strong enough bargaining position to do that. Nothing in this law changes things for you, but it can change things for the better for many other people.

<comment><USER26> Yes, actually, everyone is in a strong enough bargaining position to do that.

You can teach people they're helpless or you can teach people how to negotiate. California seems intent on teaching people to be helpless.

<comment><USER13> I'm going to assume you are not employed as a cleaner.

<comment><USER26> Not anymore. But I have been. I've also been a day-laborer. A retail clerk. A Christmas elf. A soldier. And a developer.

When somebody is trying to hire you, you are the one with the negotiating power.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What about looking up their salary at a credit agency?

<comment><USER29> You can opt out of that particular piece of info being available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Ban the box" laws have a pretty horrible track record. In practice, they unsurprisingly generally result in higher levels of discrimination against demographics with higher crime rates, especially low-skilled Blacks and Hispanics.

Here's a decent article on the topic.

[https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/consequ...](https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/08/consequences- of-ban-the-box/494435/)

</comment><comment><USER31> Meanwhile, Wisconsin just moved in the opposite direction. A bill has been introduced which grants employers the right to ask job candidates for salary information.

[http://dailyreporter.com/2017/11/17/bill-would-prevent- local...](http://dailyreporter.com/2017/11/17/bill-would-prevent-local- officials-from-setting-stricter-licensing-minimum-wage-standards/)

<comment><USER32> Just in case you weren't sure how corporations feel about this issue. ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Is this Constitutional? People with a criminal history are not, as far as I understand, a protected class. So it's not clear to me why the government can forbid speech about prior convictions.

Second, as an at-will state, these protections on behalf of the convicted seem pointless. How does this prevent companies immediately firing people with a criminal record?

On the part about prior salary, at least the State can attempt to claim that it is connected to age-discrimination (a protected class) and prior sex- discrimination (also a protected class). It's not clear to me whether that will work, but at least there's an attempt to provide a Constitutionally- permitted reason.

<comment><USER34> The government is not forbidding speech - you can disclose your prior convictions and your salary if you like. (If you look at it with a reductionist-enough lens, it forbids speech on behalf of the employer, but there are plenty of cases where you can't do that, e.g., trademark infringement, copyright infringement, fraud, claiming that your patent medicine cures certain diseases, etc.)

Also, the bill bans "the box" \- the question on the initial application form. It does not ban inquiring into criminal history once you're ready to extend an offer, and requires that you consider whether the history is relevant. It seems to me that the motivation is to force employers to actually think about whether it's relevant instead of blanket refusing to consider people with a criminal history: once you've put time into interviewing candidates and preparing an offer, you're much less likely to give up on that sunk cost for _irrational_ reasons, and the policy is betting that blanket refusal to hire people with a criminal history is only rational if you use it as an initial filter.

So there's no need to prevent immediately firing people: that's expensive, and you're going to think twice about doing that, and that's enough.

[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180AB1008)

<comment><USER35> Asking questions is speech.

<comment><USER36> It's not protected speech however.

A company is free to say they will reject someone if they have a criminal background, they can't ask if you have a criminal background.

<comment><USER35> What makes you think it's not protected speech?

<comment><USER36> It's a sliding scale at a high level:

"Laws that regulate the time, manner, and place, but not content, of speech in a public forum receive less scrutiny by the Court than do laws that restrict the content of expression."

Critically, an interview process is almost by definition not a public forum and the bar is thus significantly lower. With various questions about protected classes being barred considered completely reasonable. Further, this prohibits time/manor but not content.

Granted, some view free speech as nearly absolute, but with current case law this is rather far from the edge.

<comment><USER35> Whatever you're quoting is talking about it being okay to restrict speech in a public forum. They went out of their way to say time/place/manner apply to public forum speech. Why do you think that implies non-public speech would have a _lower_ bar?

Would it also be constitutional for the government to prohibit fellow employees from asking each other what their salary is?

That's just about the legal question.

For the more cosmic sort of question, asking questions is definitely part of free speech. Free speech includes the right to have a conversation.

<comment><USER36> > Why do you think that implies...

Because that's the law. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_(legal)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_\(legal\))

"A nonpublic forum is not specially designated as open to public expression. For example, jails, public schools, and military bases are nonpublic forums (unless declared otherwise by the government). Such forums can be restricted based on the content (i.e., subject matter) of the speech, but not based on viewpoint. Thus, while the government could prohibit speeches related to abortion on a military base, it could not permit a pro-life speaker while denying a pro-choice speaker (or vice versa)."

PS: I get that people have strong opinions about this, but IMO if you care it's worth looking up the details. It's more reasonable than you might think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> In my experience for "good" salaried jobs, background checks come with or after the job offer (in NY it's after). Do these kinds of laws affect that? If I had a record, I'd rather know up front than accept an offer and then have it rescinded because of a background check.

I've actually had friends with a record accept offers, work at place for a few days or even weeks, and be asked to do a background check (and then told to leave!).

</comment><comment><USER38> I wonder if this would put higher paid experienced people at a disadvantage as companies often use your previous salary as a reference for how much you are worth. Maybe you are not so good on your interviews but in the actual job you perform well so you are paid a higher salary.

</comment><comment><USER39> Google does credit checks, at least they did.

While I can see some science behind that - I'm weary about it.

It's pretty easy to get in a whack credit situation for all sorts of reasons - 1/2 of issues are healthcare related.

Then to have to have people say 'I refuse sign' or whatever and risk their jobs.

Uncool.

<comment><USER40> Google does credit checks for employment? That's bizarre.

<comment><USER41> If that's bizarre consider the fact that Microsoft does credit check on employees every two years, as a condition of employment, and you can be fired if something really bad shows up. This is for employees that work in the Azure division and the purpose is to reassure customers who host their data on Azure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Would it be unconstitutional for a law to prohibit employees from asking each other what their salaries are?

If so, it's hard to see how this could survive scrutiny.

</comment><comment><USER42> I wonder if this applies to services that connect workers with employers (e.g. caregivers, etc.) and premptively do background checks. People have been unconditionally blocked from those over things like tiny mariajuana possession charges that are years old (and in a state where such a charge wouldn't even be filed now).

</comment><comment><USER43> If California doesn't want people to be judged on their criminal history, then perhaps California should look into the unjust laws they've enacted which place so many otherwise functional members of society into prison in the first place.

<comment><USER44> The problem is not unjust laws. The problem is companies' "Once a criminal, always a criminal" mentality that fails to allow for the possibility that rehabilitation can happen.

<comment><USER45> hard to blame companies when they can be sued if a person with a criminal record, say for assault, gets hired and later assaults somebody while on the company's time/premises/etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Banning asking about criminal history seems silly. It's not like you accidentally become a criminal. Your criminal history directly reflects your judgment and character.

<comment><USER47> If a person does their time, the mistakes they made in the past shouldn't haunt them forever.

<comment><USER11> If you do your time, you are square with the state. That doesn't and shouldn't mean private business or individuals should be forced to accept you. Should we make a law that says your friends and family have to accept you once you do your time?

<comment><USER48> I choose now to live as a corporation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Giving your previous salary was a good way to help them offer you you a _higher_ salary.

<comment><USER34> If there is a pay gap in any form, that's a way to perpetuate it. Suppose Group A is currently paid higher than Group B. Group A will be able to say, "I was paid this amount and I expect that much or more." Group B won't. Group A will get higher salaries than Group B. Next time they apply for jobs, the same thing will happen.

Yes, this potentially sucks for the people currently in Group A. A moral society cannot have "We will not make things worse for anyone" as an axiom, because that axiom would prevent taking power away from a tyrant. It's fine to say "We will not make things worse for people without a really good reason" \- so the debate is just about whether fixing a pay gap is a good enough reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> How about background checks? Now that they can't go thru the door, they'll crawl up your window.

<comment><USER50> Or just job history.

If you were in jail, you have a gap in your resume. Seems like you could just filter out anyone with a gap in their resume of more than say a year.

The intentions are good on this bill. I worry it is going to be a challenge to actually implement.

<comment><USER51> Are people in America legally bound to write the truth on their CVs? You could just say you worked for some made-up firm or for your friend's firm.

<comment><USER25> Every "good job" I've applied for has had an explicit warning that lying during the interview process will result in automatic dismissal. It's perfectly justifiable.

<comment><USER52> If only they applied their guidelines to their own interviewers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> >> The ban applies to both oral and written inquiries, whether they're made directly by an employer or through an agent.

So employers can't ask job applicants, but they can still ask Equifax, right? Your current employer may be sharing your salary with Equifax. (There is no law preventing employers from doing so.) Equifax offers various services using the salary info shared by your employer. For more info see: [https://www.theworknumber.com/](https://www.theworknumber.com/)

<comment><USER36> Companies don't get data from Equifax without asking for it. So they would need to ask for salary data before getting salary data.

A more general rule is 'cute' interpretations of the law don't work.</comment></comment>


Show HN: TheKnob – sound volume control knob made of concrete and RGB lights - <AUTHOR> https://theknob.co/ <comment><USER2> Really neat little project!

I would have loved to paid more attention but easily the most unusable website I've used in a while. Like seriously, it's awful if you scroll up an down a couple times because you're pushing URL changes. Then because everything animates it starts chugging a long, doing weird shit, like not going back. It's a single page it doesn't need to change the fucking URL or even worse animate those changes...

On the plus side, the website looks really nice even if it is unusable.

<comment><USER3> Not sure what pisses me off more. That, or the music autoplaying.

<comment><USER4> Or breaking the back button

<comment><USER5> People just need to know when to use replaceState instead of pushState.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/History/rep...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/History/replaceState)

<comment><USER6> pushState maybe sometimes used but replaceState should never be used.

Seriously, many times I was on a website where scrawling introduce you to new article but it also replace the URL oh, now I wanted to go back to the original article because I wanted to share with you but I couldn't. at least with a push State I could retrace my steps and not rely on the developer guessing where I might have been going.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As an aside: this is the first time I've seen scrolling the page implemented with history. This feels like an anti-pattern; I had to hit back 4 times to return to HN.

<comment><USER8> I couldn't get Firefox Preview on mobile to get back to HN.

<comment><USER9> Combined with the url back nav issue it crashed mine :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So it's a PowerMate ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffin_PowerMate](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Griffin_PowerMate)) except made from concrete?

(Huh, apparently Griffin stopped making them in 2018, so I guess there's room for a replacement. I covet one every time I remember they exist but I never quite covet one enough to actually want to spend the money getting one...)

<comment><USER11> I have an older PowerMate (USB, not Bluetooth) that I used about 15 years ago in my first carputer. It's really good for that, better than relying on just a touchscreen. The carputer is long gone, but that Griffin PowerMate is sitting on my desk in front of me right now. Still wonder if I can find another clever use for it.

<comment><USER12> I've been using an ElGato StreamDeck repurposed as a global mute button (among other things) for Zoom, Webex, etc. The Powermate could be pretty nifty for this as well, using the radial menus to quickly get at globals like mute/unmute, start/stop video, etc

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> it's already said in this thread, but wow am I impressed with how many things are working against me on this website.

1) scroll is totally hijacked into discrete intervals, those discrete intervals count as page loads (destroying web history and any chance of using the back button),

2) auto-playing media that isn't default-muted that starts with loud music rather than a soft lead-in or voice,

3) and after you trudge through the mess, the site doesn't really work at reasonably average resolutions, explain much, or offer a product.

The straight thingiverse link[0] that's on the site is a better, more descriptive advertisement for this project than the project's site itself -- not good.

[0]: [https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4424564](https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4424564)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, We didn't expect such huge feedback, and the website was made just for fun without any testing. We know that the webpage is ugly. Moreover, we're hosting it on a limited free Firebase tier. Sorry for the inconvenience.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Seems like this is inspired by DIYPerks' video from a few years ago, is it not?

[https://youtu.be/sJ5vhShdVjo](https://youtu.be/sJ5vhShdVjo)

<comment><USER15> I was just checking to see if someone else had posted the link.

I think that the concept of a knob made of concrete could definitely be made through independent invention given that concrete is a popular aesthetic right now, but it still wiggles it's eyebrows...

<comment><USER16> DIY Perks is credited in the Thingiverse page.

[https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4424564](https://www.thingiverse.com/thing:4424564)

> So, driven by the idea, I began to look for some inspiration and finally > found this awesome video made by DIY Perks youtu.be/sJ5vhShdVjo I am > starting to develop.

<comment><USER15> Super glad to hear!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why can't I go back? Cool product, but this is the worst webpage I have ever had the privilege of using.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, We didn't expect such huge feedback, and the website was made just for fun without any testing. We know that the webpage is ugly. Moreover, we're hosting it on a limited free Firebase tier. Sorry for the inconvenience.

As a temporary solution, you could use [https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control-your-audio-wit- th...](https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control-your-audio-wit-theknob).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Actual build instructions at: [https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control- your-audio-wit-th...](https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control-your-audio- wit-theknob)

<comment><USER19> Thank you.

The site felt like more like one of those old adventure game puzzles than an actual website with information.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Screwing with the browser history == "The abomination that causes instant abandonment"

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the inconvenience. We've updated the website. I've removed the clunky scroll and the browser history issue. I hope it works better now.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> We are getting a lot of questions about the knob.

Here is some info to avoid any confusion:

The concept of the knob made of concrete is fully inspired by DIY Perks. But we are added a lot of perks, like:

\- Open-source Arduino-compatible firmware so you can add your functionalities and light effects;

\- The audio is controlled with the HID library instead of potentiometer; spare time - There are one audio input and two outputs that can be switched with the hardware switch;

\- Bonus option is you can use it as a scrolling knob;

\- The audio lines are connected to the microcontroller and you can add light effects relative to the sound;

\- It is 3d printed and we also added a 3d printable model of the mold for the concrete part;

If you are interested in buying one of the samples please email us, we'll try to figure something out. This way you will help us understand how desirable the product is.

Thank you and Have a nice day ;)

</comment><comment><USER21> ... sigh ... the back button ... sites that mess with the back button should not be allowed on the internet.

<comment><USER22> How is this even achieved? I've made websites before, but I don't know how you'd even go about hijacking the back button like this.

<comment><USER23> [https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/History/pus...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Web/API/History/pushState)

<comment><USER24> It should require a click action in my book. Bad web standards (== bad google)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sounds like a nice DIY weekend project indeed!

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. And even after weeks touching the concrete surface, it still feels awesome. Sometimes I wish there was a concrete mouse :D

<comment><USER26> Will it be available for purchase?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure yet. We have several manually assembled samples now, but it isn't easy to produce a lot of them without a proper production line... If you're interested in getting one of these samples you can email at email@example.com, we'll try to figure out how to send one to you.

<comment><USER27> If you made your own board pcb and ordered them populated with everything but the rgb ring and switches, I bet you could get the soldering time down to 2 minutes or so per device, especially if you made custom jigs to hold everything in place. I could see a price point of $100 totally reasonable for this, especially if the user can easily swap knobs. Bulk manufacture of the concrete knobs should be easy, as long as you can make sure the molds are reusable. Seems totally marketable to me, why not throw it up on Kickstarter with a $50k goal and a $80 early bird price? If it doesn't fund, who cares? You've already done the work to make the prototype.

<comment><USER28> In all fairness, it looks like user DIY Perks on YouTube already did the work to make the prototype. I'm not sure what's different about this version; I'm sure it could even be superior. But let's put credit where it's due.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ5vhShdVjo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJ5vhShdVjo)

<comment><USER27> Thanks for sharing. They're obviously inspired by that one from a materials point of view, but the technical implementation is far different. There are some major limitations on the YouTube one. First of all, it's a potentiometer not a rotary encoder, so it has a start and a stop. Second, it is controlling an audio signal directly, not using a PC, so it is not usable in the same way. Audio would need to be routed through the knob. This wouldn't work for a setup like mine that has balanced outs directly from a sound card to my monitors. I would want a digital control. I'm not sure why the YouTube video recommends a linear pot specifically either, an audio taper pot should be used which is logarithmic. The one in the OP also has a push button which opens up more functionality.

<comment><AUTHOR> To avoid any confusion:

The concept of the knob made of concrete is fully inspired by DIY Perks. But we are added a lot of perks, like:

\- Open-source Arduino-compatible firmware so you can add your functionalities and light effects;

\- The audio is controlled with the HID library instead of potentiometer; spare time \- There are one audio input and two outputs that can be switched with the hardware switch;

\- Bonus option is you can use it as a scrolling knob;

\- The audio lines are connected to the microcontroller and you can add light effects relative to the sound;

\- It is 3d printed and we also added a 3d printable model of the mold for the concrete part;

Have a nice day ;)

<comment><USER28> Wow! That's amazing level of improvements!

I'm glad people share their inventions online in this open way. It helps us all get better ideas. I hope you didn't think I was saying anything negative about your new improved version! It looks fantastic.

Thanks for the details and thank you for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If someone is still reading this:

We're the developers of TheKnob.

Please tell us how would you like us to improve the knob itself?

Would you buy it?

Would you like to see it as a DIY kit or ready-to-use product?

We're using plastic for the bottom frame now, maybe we should consider using aluminum or wood frame?

</comment><comment><USER29> I have... somewhere... a stainless steel knob, designed to control the volume, that was wonderful to feel and turn. Alas, the driver was incredibly flaky, and just wouldn't work consistently. I ought to dig it up and see if I can reverse engineer it.

<comment><USER15> Is it, by any chance, a Griffin Powermate? <[https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Griffin_PowerMate>](https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Griffin_PowerMate>)

<comment><USER29> Yup! I may give their drivers another try... this is a different computer, with a later OS.

Alas, they no longer support it. Ah well...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I swear there was some startup that raised millions of dollars to do exactly this, but can't remember the name. It could be a YC company. Anyone know?

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting... I've never seen the startup doing something like this, we were inspired by DIYPerks on youtube.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Does this sell for $495 or $4.95?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're not ready to sell any of these yet. If you're interested in getting one of the samples please email us. I'm not sure, but I hope we'll figure something out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is a great project. Yes, the website sucks a bit but that can be fixed.

Good job !!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

We didn't expect such huge feedback, and the website was made just for fun without any testing. We know that the webpage is ugly. Moreover, we're hosting it on a limited free Firebase tier. Sorry for the inconvenience.

As a temporary solution, you could use [https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control-your-audio-wit- th...](https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control-your-audio-wit-theknob).

Maybe I'll fix the webpage in the next couple of days

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Whoever designed this train wreck of a web page should be tarred, feathered, and publicly flogged on national television as a warning to anyone that might be tempted to make something similar.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, We didn't expect such huge feedback, and the website was made just for fun without any testing. We know that the webpage is ugly. Moreover, we're hosting it on a limited free Firebase tier. Sorry for the inconvenience.

<comment><USER24> I'm sorry your getting such a hard time from HN.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the inconvenience. We've updated the website. I hope it works better now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Website usability vomit

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, We didn't expect such huge feedback, and the website was made just for fun without any testing. We know that the webpage is ugly. Moreover, we're hosting it on a limited free Firebase tier. Sorry for the inconvenience.

As a temporary solution, you could use [https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control-your-audio-wit- th...](https://hackaday.io/project/172188-control-your-audio-wit-theknob).</comment></comment>


PG&E-friendly wildfire bill being prepared by lawmakers in wake of lethal fires - <AUTHOR> https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/11/20/pge-friendly-wildfire-bill-being-eyed-by-state-lawmakers-in-wake-of-lethal-butte-county-inferno/ <comment><USER2> It seems like an odd quirk of liability law that all of the fire damage is blamed on PG+E if the initial spark that started the fire was PG+E's fault. Surely some blame lies elsewhere as well. I think homeowners need to be paying fire insurance costs proportional to fire risk to properly incentivize fire protection (and I say this as a California homeowner in a somewhat fire prone area).

In the end, PG+E is regulated so heavily that any costs they pay will basically just be passed on to consumers. The solution to the increased fire risk is not "blame PG+E".

<comment><USER3> California the land of sky high housing & rent, insane deadly forest fires, homelessness like no other state, landslides, earthquakes... it just doesn't sound very appealing.

What are the positives ... chasing and potentially realizing your creative (music/film) or tech dreams there? That can be done in other cities like Nashville or possibly close to here in a few years with Amazon building in Crystal City, VA (other big tech companies may follow). Well love to hear the positives of living in California!

<comment><USER3> Hmmmm i was seriously asking in a nice way as I don't live in California.

I've only been there for vacations, competing on a reality tv show and an unpleasant meeting with Google re: buying one of my apps.

<comment><USER4> you were in no way asking in a nice way. You were incredibly condescending in a post about a natural disaster striking the area. Don't be disingenuous.

<comment><USER3> Sorry you feel that way ... wasn't my intent!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I want to know if backburning is a common practice in California, or in the USA at all.

In Australia a big part of a Firey's job is running controlled burns in the (relatively) low fire risk season to keep the amount of flammable material around cities and property to a minimum.

It is a continuation, in a way, of a much more ancient indiginous practice of regularly burning large swathes of bush. It is very much a part of the natural ecosystem here.

<comment><USER6> Im a wldland firefighter from the northern Rockies, just returned from a deployment to the Woolsey incident (LA and Ventura counties).

Yes, prescribed burns are common in the off season for all fire districts. However, CalFire has some unique challenges [1] that most of the other states do not have to deal with when it comes to air quality and sufficient water conditions during their shrinking off season. [https://www.kqed.org/science/1927354/controlled-burns-can- he...](https://www.kqed.org/science/1927354/controlled-burns-can-help-solve- californias-fire-problem-so-why-arent-there-more-of-them)

<comment><USER6> I'll add statistics for the 2018 fire season that includes southern and northern California [1] at a combined 55,000 acres versus the northwest (WA, OR) of a similar geographic size [2] and atmospheric conditions to Northern CA at over 100,000 acres in prescribed burns.

[1] [https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/sitreprt.pdf](https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/sitreprt.pdf) (page 6) [2] [https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/](https://www.nifc.gov/nicc/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If someone pours gasoline over everything, but someone else lights the match, why do we put all the blame on the match lighter? Building flammable homes right next to super dry, brush filled forests is just an invitation for disaster.

<comment><USER8> _why do we put all the blame on the match lighter?_

Because we know how to effectively employ "scapegoating" to hide our own misdeeds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> PG&E = Pacific Gas and Electric, an energy distribution company, for anyone else outside the USA.

</comment><comment><USER10> A unanimously passed bill to address the potential for wildfires was vetoed by the governor in 2016.

[https://freebeacon.com/issues/california-gov-browns-veto- wil...](https://freebeacon.com/issues/california-gov-browns-veto-wildfire- bill-faces-scrutiny/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Note that PG&E is being held liable under current law for fires started at the site of it's equipment. Regardless of whether or not PG&E was at fault due to lack of maintenance. So when PG&E is found liable then the public and media often conflate it with being at fault. Two different things.

<comment><AUTHOR> Note that SB 901, the recent PGE bailout over _last year 's_ fires (Coffee Park, etc.), is illegally being applied retroactively to this year's fires (see George Avalos' article in the Mercury).

It doesn't even take effect (legally) until 2019.

<comment><USER11> Who is applying it illegal?

I feel like your statement is misleading. Regulators have come out and said they don't want PG&E to go bankrupt. PG&E and the regulators are probably both supportive of extending the existing legislation to cover 2018.

However I am not aware of PG&E or regulators having acted illegally. Publicly stating an opinion before taking action is not illegal.

Plus the bailouts are generally being used to fund PG&E's rebuild on fires where they weren't at fault (from a common sense perspective) but were found liable under California law (see my earlier statement).

People are angry and want someone to blame even tho this was a natural disaster. With current laws, PG&E is being painted as the bad guy and are stuck between a rock and a hard place.</comment></comment></comment>


Huawei abandoned by Google and major US chipmakers - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@yashwate07/huawei-abandoned-by-google-and-major-us-chipmakers-bf1e085d957a <comment><USER2> Could turn out as a big problem for Huawei</comment>


Ask HN: Which IDE are you using? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> For all web based things non-msft I use JetBrains WebStorm. Then Eclipse where I have no other choice. And of course Xcode for Apple products/projects.

Outside of an IDE (not that you asked), notepad++ and vi with some TextPad on the Mac.

</comment><comment><USER3> vim for no reason other than the fact that I can use the same environment from anywhere with ssh.

x forwarding is too slow for me.

<comment><USER4> There really is no other editor...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use just about everything, Eclipse for Android, XCode for iOS and other general programming, Sublime and BBEdit for web stuff.

</comment><comment><USER6> I use Emacs as my primary IDE, in addition I use Visual Studio and IntelliJ Idea.

</comment><comment><USER7> Aptana if I'm doing PHP, Gedit or VIM for everything else.

</comment><comment><USER8> RubyMine (IntelliJ Idea for Ruby)

</comment><comment><USER9> PyCharm for Python and web stuff

</comment><comment><USER10> Eclipse</comment>


Python Level Challenge (Try on your Python level) - <AUTHOR> https://plc.pengin7384.endpoint.ainize.ai <comment><USER2> 10/10 very easy

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.reddit.com/r/PythonLevelChallenge/](https://www.reddit.com/r/PythonLevelChallenge/) You can make quiz by posting on this subreddit!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 10/10

Hire me Google.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow! Cool kk</comment></comment>


5 Minutes Early Is on Time; on Time Is Late; Late Is Unacceptable (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/brentbeshore/2015/08/02/5-minutes-early-is-on-time-on-time-is-late-late-is-unacceptable/#463d63f2d422 <comment><USER2> The author may have a point if we adjust for hyperbole, but he comes off as neurotic when he says, among other things:

> _" Being late bothers me so much that just thinking about it makes me > queasy. My being late, which does occasionally happen, usually causes me to > break out into a nervous sweat. The later I am, the more it looks like I've > sprung a leak. Catch me more than 15 minutes late and it looks like I went > swimming."_

I'm a person who is always on time, so I get his frustration, but this tirade (referring to the article as a whole, not just that quote) isn't a good look.

If you need to target an earlier time than what is designated in order to offset the risk of not making it, so be it, but that's on you. Being on time is not being late, it is very much on time.

</comment><comment><USER3> I prefer the version an old work colleague had on a poster in his office:

If you're early, you're on time.

If you're on time, you're late.

If you're late, you're fired.</comment>


Shift.js: Swift to JavaScript Transpiler - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/shift-js/shift-js <comment><USER2> It is a cool idea but I don't understand why you don't write your compiler in Swift so at some point you can compile your compiler with your own compiler.

Unfortunately, it is far from usable. It is unable to parse even basic Swift code.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. The project is still in active early development, so there are still a lot of bugs that need to be worked out. We have a good portion of the core language features covered so far, and are working on adding more.

<comment><USER4> It looks like you're using built-in collection types in the resulting JavaScript without accounting for the fact that Swift collections are value types, not reference types. Do you plan to address this? There's another third-party Swift implementation out there focusing on Android which does the same thing and buries this drastic language change in the fine print, which is rather unfortunate.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is on the radar. The differences between the languages, especially regarding collections, are tricky. For example we're finalizing a data structure to mimic tuples that would allow value lookup by index and/or element name.

<comment><USER4> Great! It must be pretty tricky to translate that across without destroying performance and interoperability. I just wanted to check, because the other one seemed to think it was no big deal to leave it this way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whats the benefit of this compared to using [https://github.com/kripken/emscripten](https://github.com/kripken/emscripten) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> In short: fewer steps in the conversion process so it is easier to debug the output, which inevitably happens when using a transpiler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This word, "transpiler", must die. Call it a translator or a compiler; there's no need for a new word in this case.

Looks like an interesting project, though. I'll keep an eye on it.

<comment><USER7> A transpiler is specifically a "source-to-source" language translator.

<comment><USER8> So a C compiler is a transpiler, given that classical C compilers just outputted Assembly that was processed further by the Assembler.

Eiffel compilers are also transpilers as they use C as intermediate language.

Scheme compilers are also transpilers as many use C as intermediate language.

....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Concept of compiling things is awesome. But I refuse to understand how making compiled language -> interpreted language is a thing... It should be other way around. I'd love to see something solid like js -> c compiler so my js code runs quick and efficient.

<comment><USER10> A js -> c compiler would actually be much, much slower than current JITs because of the lack of type information.

<comment><USER11> Just declare a C union of an int, float, string, etc. All functions take these unions as function parameters.

Have one field be an enum of its actual type. Or something along these lines.

I don't see why this is any more difficult than a normal jit that also doesnt have type information.

<comment><USER12> Because JITs are able to generate code that optimistically assumes variables have certain types (with appropriate deoptimization checks), which is much less expensive than performing full dynamic lookups on every single operation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If something can be written in or for js, it will be.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is cool, but once swift is open sourced I'd imagine that you'll be able to use emscripten to generate JavaScript code instead of native asm. In fact you can probably do that today by havin swiftc emit llvm IR and imputing that into the emscripten backend like that guy did to get swift running on his android phone.

Hmmmmm

<comment><USER15> There's a pretty big difference between emscripten and compilers that specifically target JS. The ones that target JS will generally use JS memory management and attempt to use JS language features whereas emscripten targets asm.js and manages memory itself within byte arrays.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Does this support classes or protocols yet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Not yet, classes and structs are planned for the next big push. Protocols shortly after that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not got time to look at this in depth right now, but glad to see somethibg like this.

Is it swift to ES5, 6 or 7?

Update: looks like ES5.

<comment><USER3> We decided to stick with ES5, since there are still many browser compatibility issues with ES6.

<comment><USER18> Why not transpile down to ES6/2015 and rely on Babel for transpilation to ES5?

<comment><USER19> You're asking why he doesn't want to add yet another compilation step? Isn't that obvious?

swift -> es6 -> es5

<comment><USER20> If you need code written in Language X but insist on using Language Y "yet another step" probably isn't the deal breaker you imagine it to be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Awesome project, I hope to make some contributions to it on Github in the future!

</comment><comment><USER22> This is a very awesome project, how can I get in..

<comment><USER23> make commits, issue pull requests.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Why not just learn swift? I never understood this random language -> other random language...

<comment><USER25> I'm guessing so you could use swift to write web front end code. And this goes from Swift -> JS, so you would still need to learn Swift

<comment><USER26> yeah, but that seems ridiculous</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do you use Twitter? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> After google reader vanished its the best source for news outside of mainstream media

</comment><comment><USER3> Exposure to news from outlets I don't regularly read.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just for feed the news !</comment>


Who needs funding when you have creativity? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.mixergy.com/my-financials/ Awesome and inspiring look at how Andrew Warner bookstrapped his first company, Bradford and Reed into a multi billion dollar engine. Andrew is candid, creative and sharp! <comment><USER2> Nitpick: the title should be "Who needs funding when you actually charge customers?"

My mother pays something like $50 a year for online greeting cards. Do the quick extrapolation on how many mothers there are in America, how many of them use the Internet, and how many you can reasonably convert. Yeah, $40 million for a market leader doesn't seem that unreasonable now does it.

You will not get invited to give conferences at The Future Of Web 3.0 2012 if you make greeting cards. Nobody will ask you for your insights on scaling, principally because at your scale it will be a boring engineering problem with well-understood solutions. You'll just put smiles on a few mothers' faces and, oh, well, there might be a little bit of money involved.

I think I've mentioned this a few times, but to say it one more time: _grown women have money, too, and nobody in tech wants it_. Instead of building stuff they want and charging money for it ( _money they have and spend_ ), we want to push CPM levels to about a quarter (trending towards dimes!) while making social networks for the same people who are already members of six.

<comment><USER3> They really were an under-served and unappreciated market. Everyone we got funding went after the cool kids. Meanwhile we were in the business of creating the cutest smiley-face pages. Not as cool, but more profitable.

<comment><USER4> "Were"? Are things different now?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've watched a few of this guys videos and I'm really liking them. It's cool to see someone make it with a startup but do it "quietly". Who ever heard of his company? I guess it really doesn't matter because his clients sure did.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. I was very conflicted about our obscurity. On the one hand I saw it as a way of keeping competitors away. On the other hand, I felt like the Rodney Dangerfield of the dotcom space. All the cool kids were on magazine covers and I couldn't even get into their parties.

<comment><USER6> I suppose you can host the parties now!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice introduction, Andrew. You established credibility and got right into WIIFM (What's in it for me)

There sure are a lot of folks helping startups. I've got a stack of books on startups, e-commerce, and innovation. Hopefully you can distinguish yourself from the rest of the pack. Best of luck. Look forward to hearing more from you.</comment>


Show HN: OverThrown – A multiplayer turn based strategy game - <AUTHOR> https://overthrown.io <comment><USER2> I'm starting to think that web sites will eventually offer so little information about their product/idea/service/game that there will just be a logo at the top and after scrolling down through various fancy backgrounds, there will be the second of two UI elements which is a link to their facebook account.

<comment><USER3> Generally speaking I'm seeing an overall improvement in this, with short videos, demos, and better attention to on-boarding.

This particular site could use some gameplay videos/tutorials, but this looks like the recently revealed passion project of a single developer so I think we can cut Daniel some slack.

Edit: others below have commented about the docs[0] and a tutorial video[1]

[0] [https://overthrown.io/docs](https://overthrown.io/docs) [1] [https://youtu.be/fItliXZ2Agg](https://youtu.be/fItliXZ2Agg)

<comment><USER4> I know some people like videos, but just a reminder: some of us really hate videos, so please don't skimp on screenshots and, you know, text.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> You should make it possible to inspect games without an account. I love that you've made your Trello open btw! Very cool to have it next to Facebook and Twitter.

<comment><USER6> You just should find the game ID you want to spectate and browse this:

[https://overthrown.io/game/:id](https://overthrown.io/game/:id)

Like

[https://overthrown.io/game/38c752cf-40a2-4dd1-8c97-631dd56a4...](https://overthrown.io/game/38c752cf-40a2-4dd1-8c97-631dd56a41b8)

You can find game id's in the Websocket frames using inspector tools on chrome.

Nothing interesting though. I think most games have just begun and with 12h turns not much has happened yet.

<comment><USER7> I was spectating w/ Chrome and it figuratively melted my late 2015 MBP (sans discrete graphics card). I hate to think what this would do to a mobile device's battery.

<comment><USER8> The curse of HTML5 games. It's a damn shame because it would've become a great medium. My tin foil hat theory is that it was purposely sidelined so it wouldn't detract from the mobile gaming craze that was growing at the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This seems really cool! How much work outside the standard meteor workflows did you have to do for all the clients to be nicely synchronized? I guess since the turns are "slow" you have plenty of leeway to make sure the data gets where it needs to be, but I've had a little trouble before with many people connected to a meteor app and having them looking at the same interface, where some of the smaller, incremental graphic updates got skipped over and caused some visual lag. I'd love to see some sort of technical write up for how this game is structured!

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's how I got RethinkDB working with Meteor. [https://medium.com/@danphi/meteor-and-rethinkdb- db8864762139...](https://medium.com/@danphi/meteor-and-rethinkdb- db8864762139#.z7nosl7k2)

<comment><USER9> Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Just a reminder to everyone that this is a Show HN which has different commenting rules. So honesty is okay but maybe lay off the snark, sarcasm and acidic cynicism.

</comment><comment><USER11> Here's some explanation of the game, including a short video under the second header: [https://overthrown.io/docs](https://overthrown.io/docs).

Maybe there should be a link to that on the homepage.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah good point I'll add it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This sounds very much like Diplomacy ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_(game)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diplomacy_\(game\))). Very cool.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's nice you made your Trello todo list public, but why not make the game open source and use the GitHub issue tracker so we can also open issues and feature requests?

</comment><comment><USER14> Very nice game, I just started on game 46, I can't wait to get further into it.

Also great job on the UI, everything is smooth and easy to understand.

</comment><comment><USER15> Instead of the Youtube video, I think a step-by-step guide and feature introduction would be way better. Something like [http://introjs.com/](http://introjs.com/) but otherwise the game seems interesting.

:D

Also, 12h turns seem incredibly long :(

<comment><AUTHOR> Planning on having faster ones eventually :D

<comment><USER16> Personally I think 12-24h is perfect for busy people. Will try to convince my friends to try this out with me ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Looks promising. How about a gameplay video, more screenshots, and a short description of how the gameplay works on the homepage (without digging)? You have to give us something more to go on...

</comment><comment><USER18> Nice! This reminds me a lot of Iron Helmet's games ([http://www.ironhelmet.com](http://www.ironhelmet.com)).

</comment><comment><USER19> This game is not good.

I will stop playing it in the middle of a match.

I want to apologize for the other players, but I think we shouldn't play a game just because it is a game and it is free and the game has a nice UI. Games are important things and no one should be incentivized to release games to the public if they are not interesting.

</comment><comment><USER20> Is it somehow possible to leave a game that hasn't started yet? I logged in using Google, but I have notifications disabled for the account, so I would rather register using an alternative email address. Changing the email used for notifications would work too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not possible right now after the game starts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you like turn-based strategy games, check out backstabbr.com (web-based Diplomacy).

</comment><comment><USER22> Joined a game as well, the camera should pan to your city on game start.

<comment><USER23> Had the same issue, didn't find my city until I found the zoom option (scrolling doesn't work). But on another game it did pan automatically. YMMV?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Very cool idea! I'll definitely be trying this out.

</comment><comment><USER25> Is the app a reasonable improvement over the browser version?

</comment><comment><USER26> hmm, joined a game, turns are supposed to run every 12 hours. Two turns ran almost immediately. Now I am getting server disconnect errors.

<comment><AUTHOR> Those two turns are correct, they run when a game starts. Disconnects are because of all the people from hackernews.

<comment><USER27> Any chance you guys could make a speedy game mode where turns are like 15min ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, planning on having some quicker games.

<comment><USER28> The best way to do it will be 5-10 min. turns with option to end your turn before that. If everyone is ready than it's not needed to wait and just jump to the next turn.

<comment><USER14> I recommend a game mode where you can check a box and send a notification to the server that you completed your turn. If all 50 players checked their turn then automatically update the server move on to next round.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> For anyone interested, the from a laptop computer (macbook, chrome browser) this game was buggy and nearly unplayable. It took up 900 MB of memory and 50% CPU.

Age of Empires was more responsive in 2002.

<comment><USER30> I started hearing sounds from my MacBook that I've never heard before. There is an option within the game to simplify the graphics, which helped enough to silence my laptop.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> bug found... i choose fb login, and i didn't provide my email, and i can't login with my fb any more..</comment>


Widely used access badge system PremiSys has a hardcoded backdoor - <AUTHOR> https://www.techspot.com/news/78264-widely-used-access-badge-system-premisys-has-hardcoded.html <comment><USER2> That disclosure timeline is absolutely appalling.

<comment><USER3> As are the vulnerabilities.

The locks look like they're a simple target for anyone with a proxmark device and close proximity to someone with access.</comment></comment>