An algorithm for the Names at the 9/11 Memorial - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/talk/2011/05/16/110516ta_talk_paumgarten

<comment><USER2> "Even so, the first few computer scientists and statisticians the foundation got in touch with said that it couldn't be done."

Really? Wtf kind of incompetents were arguing that it _couldn't be done_?

I'm not arguing that it was or should have been easy, of course. It sounds like a fascinating challenge. And I'm also not claiming that any computer scientist, even a good one, could have solved it. But any vaguely competent computer scientist should have been able to say, "that's a cool problem, and you need to talk to a graph drawing expert."

Of course, this could have been a case of the source saying "they said it was hard" and the writer mangling that into "they said it couldn't be done". But still.

<comment><USER3> It's possible that the problem was originally stated in such a way that there was no solution. Perhaps the original statement of the problem was that each name must be adjacent to every name in its cluster, and readable. But the cluster of 658 people at Cantor Fitzgerald probably makes that impossible - how do you have 658 names all readable and adjacent to each other (in two dimensions)?

Perhaps they really answered "as the problem is stated, it can't be done, without compromises."

Then again, I tend to give computer scientists and statisticians the benefit of the doubt (and not so much the writer).

<comment><USER4> If I had been asked, my reply would have been "It can't be done. If you want help from me or someone like me, you'll need to make a loose ranking of the qualities of the ideal solution, and we can try some approximations".

I might even have left the latter sentence out, since it's clearly implicit. Maybe whoever they found left it out or maybe they didn't even consider it, but the artist could have made the addition too. I suspect the first few people just weren't interested.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if the coder/s would open source what they did. I imagine its purpose is unique enough that releasing the code wouldn't cause any "now we won't potential clients won't need to hire us" issues, and it could be quite interesting.

Edit: Any chance of explanation for the down voting to -1? I mean, I assume it's for thinking my question moronic, but would like to actually hear why that might be...

<comment><USER6> When you get downvoted, just wait a bit. It seems in the last two years or so we acquired some trigger-happy idiots. It still usually balances out in the end.

<comment><USER5> I don't really have a problem being downvoted, and I've certainly seen what you describe happen many times in the past. I was asking not so much to prevent downvoting, but because I couldn't see what I'd said that could lead people to want to downvote, and hoped to have a chance either to win them over or have them win me over.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Courtesy of the Metafilter thread (<http://www.metafilter.com/103302/meaningful-adjacencies>), a longer article:

[http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663780/at-911-memorial-name- pla...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/1663780/at-911-memorial-name-placements- reflect-bonds-between-victims-thanks-to-algorithm)

And a website to explore the names and some of the stories and links between them:

<http://names.911memorial.org/>

</comment><comment><USER8> What a fine combination of typographical aesthetics and algorithmic computer science! Makes me proud to be associated (however distantly) with those professions.

As for finding peoples' names, there's a strong symbolism it making it hard. To search for a name is to honor the efforts of the recovery workers who searched for remains.

At any rate, let's hope there's no more need for memorials like this one.

</comment><comment><USER9> After all this, so-called aesthetic considerations make it impossible to find a name you are looking for.

<comment><USER10> At the Vietnam war memorial on the national mall in DC, the names are listed by date of death, but there are phone-book style guides that list the names alphabetically with the wall location.

Presumably this will offer something similar.

<comment><USER11> In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if it was just touch screens showing the names.911memorial.org page. What more do you need?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is the source/a paper/a blog post going to be released so that we can look at (read: poke holes in) it?

<comment><USER13> It's not like there's a "right" or "wrong" answer. It's more art than code, and what really matters is the final result.

<comment><USER12> i completely agree. i didn't mean that it would in any way be wrong, i am just really interested in how they did it, and wanted to look at the source.

yet another example of a need for a sarcasm punctuation mark.

<comment><USER14> Why would you add the parenthetical statement "read: poke holes in" if you were "really interested in how they did it"? Not only does it not really make sense (how do you "poke holes" in art?), it makes you sound like a dick.

<comment><USER15> Why is poking holes automatically negative?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Since it's to honor the lives of the victims, why not just sort them by date of birth?

</comment><comment><USER17> This is way off topic, but if you use a diaeresis in "coöperation," you are probably an asshole. Stupid New Yorker.

<comment><USER18> I was going to comment exactly this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can't believe people are (ostensibly) paid well for this kind of writing. It meanders around and takes the longest path possible to what is essentially a paragraph or two of actual information.

<comment><USER20> Sometimes, writing is about more than just "actual information."

If this kind of writing bothers you, you _definitely_ don't want to subscribe to the New Yorker.

<comment><USER21> Do they routinely add those goofy umlauts, too? In the English I was taught in school, we don't have such a character.

 _Each requires the coöperation... even others coördinating a response_

Perhaps I'm over-sensitive, but this seems rather elitist.

Now, combine this with the citation of "A same-sex couple and their three- year-old son..., certainly, belonged together." Why mention their genders? Either the writer has an unhealthy fixation on other people's sexual preferences, or, worse, thinks that the fact that they're gay entitles them to special consideration. Not good either way.

I don't think I like their style.

<comment><USER22> [http://www.kirkmahoney.com/blog/2008/09/coordinate-vs-co- ord...](http://www.kirkmahoney.com/blog/2008/09/coordinate-vs-co-ordinate-vs- coordinate/)

Contrary to popular belief, the English language has no official single governing body. Either are considered to be "correct".

<comment><USER21> _Contrary to popular belief, the English language has no official single governing body._

Nor did I claim that it did; linguistics is a descriptive science, not a prescriptive one. It _describes_ the way people use the language. I've _never_ seen English with umlauts, outside of a few heavy metal bands [1]. The link you provided would seem to agree with me, showing the non-accented spelling outnumbering this one by some 500:1.

[1] <https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Metal_umlaut>

<comment><USER22> _"I've never seen English with umlauts"_

Nobody cares.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Conduct Unbecoming of a Hacker (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://sealedabstract.com/rants/conduct-unbecoming-of-a-hacker/ <comment><USER2> "And yet a great many of our institutions are set up to discourage, distract, destroy and derail the making of anything."

This may not be obvious to everyone writing software. Or maybe authors today just do not care. They are too busy chasing users.

As for the later some who would call themselves "hackers", I wonder: Did the original "hackers" from whence the term was taken have such ambivalence and accept what was made for them (including "platforms") fully knowing that it meant lock-in?

Thwarting "hackers" from making things for themselves may not always be obvious today because in fact some of these "institutions" are set up by organizations who desperately _need_ developer contributions.

As long as they can take the contributions and use them to generate revenue or mindshare _for the organization_ , they appear to be _encouraging_ people to make things... but only if authors agree to jump through hoop after hoop.

"Instituition": Want access to our pool of end users? Jump!

Today's so-called "hacker": How high?

But what if the "hacker" _does not plan to share_ his program with end users? What if he is writing it only for himself?

What is the purpose of making such an author jump through _any_ hoops? How does that serve the author in any way?

</comment><comment><USER3> > Indeed, several point the fingers at closed-source software as the problem > which I think is an incorrect, but not entirely unreasonable view.

I have to disagree with you there. Being able to create a _fix_ rather than a _workaround_ is _very_ important to us hackers. Proprietary software is a thick wall we often beat our heads against. Since all software is written by hackers, we should promote a culture of making that software _free_.

Apart from that detail (wherever repeated), this is a fantastic article! There is definitely a trend from hacking to thinking, and there are several ways we can get that trend flowing the other way.

It course, thinking is the most important aspect of hacking, so we should find ways to minimize those other aspects. For example, creating a parser/editor to style code so we don't waste time nitpicking.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is the best thing I have ever read on Hacker News. This is my only comment on the matter.

</comment><comment><USER5> The note on the commonality of patch authors making changes after getting an r+ at Mozilla is a little misunderstood here. It's very common at Mozilla to grant "r+ with nits", which is to say "yes land this code, but make these changes first". It's generally not acceptable for patch authors to make arbitrary changes after review, since that should incur another review!

</comment><comment><USER6> 1) Who the hell is "Hacker Monthly"?

2) I wouldn't call Dr Dobbs a _hacker rag_. That'd be 2600, or PoC||GTFO, or Phrack. Dr Dobbs is a trade journal.

<comment><USER7> This is the "hacker news"* definition of "hacker". What you're referring too is what HN will call a "cracker" (or "phracker" for cracking communication systems).

A "hacker" on here is just someone that does neat technical stuff (purposefully simplify, don't nitpick).

*Which is much older than that of course, dating to the BBS era and earlier.

<comment><USER6> That's what a hacker has always been -- even the 'h4x0r' definition. There is a necessary component of deviance and anti-authority in the word that nearly everyone seems to have forgotten about.

If you're making computers do something they're not supposed to be doing, you're hacking. The "entrepreneur hacking away at his business" definition hearkens back to the word they use for a bad writer: a "hack".</comment></comment></comment>


Kindergarten coders can program before they can read - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21929275.800-kindergarten-coders-can-program-before-they-can-read.html#.Ukn9_obkuba

<comment><USER2> They can't read at 4 or 5?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think they can read but the article is simply pointing out how quickly some kids can get into coding at 4 or 5.</comment></comment>


Ruby 2.0.0 Now Default on All New Ruby Applications - <AUTHOR> https://blog.heroku.com/archives/2013/6/17/ruby-2-default-new-aps

<comment><AUTHOR> Cannot wait to use named arguments everywhere!</comment>


Beta Launch HN: A Sketch to React Tool - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv-CQxpswBs <comment><AUTHOR> Hi developers, Our team makes a tool that can make Sketch to a responsive page 10x faster. As the video showed, you can make a sketch to a responsive page in 30 secs, and with 2more clicks, you can have HTML/ React code.

We are inviting developers to join our private beta version. If you are interested in our project, please sign up on our page. We will send you link ASAP.

We really need developers' advice and feedback to make a better tool for frontend developers.

Sign Up beta launch here: [https://bit.ly/2Q80Dbc](https://bit.ly/2Q80Dbc)

More info on our official page: [https://pxcode.io/](https://pxcode.io/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Good work.</comment>


Show HN: Meet Ummo, your personalized speech coach - <AUTHOR> http://www.ummoapp.com/ <comment><USER2> Ummo gives you real-time feedback on filler words, pace, volume, jargon, pausing, and more while you speak. Use it for presentation prep or live speaking events. We're excited to share this with the Hacker News community!

Can be downloaded directly from App Store at [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ummo/id1102924965](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/ummo/id1102924965)</comment>


Conway's game of life implemented in Dwarf Fortress (2010) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bay12forums.com/smf/index.php?topic=69307.0

<comment><USER2> And game of life is Turing complete, so there we have it, any computable problem can be computed by dwarf fortress.

<comment><USER3> Don't you need an infinite map for that?

<comment><USER4> That hold true for any computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Now do it the other way around.</comment>


Reality Editor – MIT Media Lab - <AUTHOR> http://www.realityeditor.org/ <comment><USER2> Hi its Valentin, the guy in the video. Let me know if you have any questions. :-)

<comment><USER3> This is very interesting and great work on it but I feel in reality the problem being solved does not benefit people a great deal that they will be willing to spend a lot of money or spend a lot of effort trying to configure things around them. The interface is easy to most but from doing home automation it does require a higher skill set to configure physical buttons or input devices to do what you want on another physical device.

How does your team try to combat the cost and the effort required by making this as economical as possible and also easy to use such that a person who is a beginner at technology such as using smart phones, computers, etc. can use it.

<comment><USER2> You can checkout openhybrid.org for some of these questions. We do research in the Media Lab not product development. The Reality Editor is a projection in to the future. But have a look at the costs of SoC's. It's going down so rapidly that in 2 years your question probably will be answered.

The moment real products will be in the marked that make use of the Reality Editor, you will power them up and just point your phone on them. It should not be more complicated.

<comment><USER4> The openhybrid.org example sharing a timer between toaster and food processor _using a phone, which has its own builtin timer_ is non-compelling bordering on comical. do you have more realistic examples that make meaningful use of the components of a physical object?

<comment><USER5> I would imagine this could be a good fit for roadies, who have to set up and tear down audio/lighting/video installations on a daily basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Someone please enlighten me, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't get why this augmented reality interface is better than having a centralized web page where I can manage them using the good old textual interface. It feels like a very convoluted rube goldberg machine approach to me. For example, the guy says something like "the car knows because I connected my chair to my car." Imagining how he would have done this makes me doubt the convenience. I can imagine he would have started dragging when he left the office and kept his thumb on the screen until he got to the car and finally connected it to the knob. He could have just opened a web page and connected these two devices without having to go through all this trouble.

<comment><USER7> This is important because it represents the next step in allowing regular, non-technical (but increasingly tech-familiar) consumers to set up and maintain their own networks and systems.

Setting up a webpage to control a network of lights, monitors, garage doors, thermostats, cameras, etc. might seem simple to you and to most of HN, because many here are familiar with the hardware, the languages, the ISA's, the basic device networking principles and best-practices that make these things work. You are in the very small minority of the 300m people in the US and the 7bn people in the world. For everyone else, visually dragging and dropping will be a much easier way to visualize and set up networks.

This product is not for you - it's for the vastly larger market outside of computer scientists/embedded engineers.

When you can demonstrate this value prop to the mass consumer market, under the MIT brand nonetheless, big companies like Audi will start to pay attention because they see an avenue to market an increasingly heterogeneous product (luxury sedan) to the rich, older folks who buy these things based on cool new features - automated avoidance, tying volume into acceleration, "Intelligent Drive" [1], projected HUD [2], etc.

As we see from the video, Audi has granted this researcher access to APIs that would be completely inaccessible otherwise. This is another key - API access. Could you control the features in your car through a webpage? No, because you don't have access to your windows or your stereo, unless you do some intensive and illegal hacking.

M2M and IoT has been contained mostly to the realm of industrial/auto applications so far. So once big companies start to see the consumer market opening up through a simpler, more intuitive interface, they might start opening up APIs to new machines and products.

Of course, allowing access to these APIs opens up a whole new can of safety worms...but that's going to be an increasingly large issue that we will have to deal with as we continue to integrate software and connectivity into new products.

[1] [https://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/technology/videos/detail/titl...](https://www.mbusa.com/mercedes/technology/videos/detail/title- safety/videoId-fc0835ab8d127410VgnVCM100000ccec1e35RCRD)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg3mmfVILRA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg3mmfVILRA)

<comment><USER6> I think you're assuming a lot of things about mainstream users. If AR was that intuitive, it would have already been mainstream. Many apps tried to port existing good old text based interface into AR but none have yet to gain traction. You need to remember the mainstream users _do_ know how to use computer and _do_ know how to access websites and enter forms. But they do not know how this geeky augmented reality technology works. Also my point here was not criticizing AR itself, I'm just saying his approach makes things needlessly convoluted for the sake of making it look cooler. Read my comment about how someone would drag and drop his chair in his office to his car.

<comment><USER8> I believe the research has value in its own right though.

I would agree though with the view that it's a bit convoluted as shown. Without even building out prototypes you might arrive at this as a V1 in an iterative thought experiment and quickly move on.

A slightly more user friendly iteration might be using image recognition to detect devices in your surroundings and build a database of them for use in a different, more suitable UI. If glass took off this data collection could be happening seamlessly with visual feedback while you are just looking at stuff. RFID tech may be a good alternative to image recognition. Ownership(authorization, authentication) sounds like a real challenge in any case. To work with minimum friction digital ownership might need to be assigned at the time of purchase.. In which case you wouldn't need image recognition OR RFID to build a database of your internet things..

Ok so then you wouldn't even need to connect your stuff together because there would be a database of stuff and everything would be able to self connect. You'd just be left with managing preferences similar to phone notifications. "Your chair would like to interface with your lights; Allow(Y/n)?".

Transferring ownership.. Lots of problems to work out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Most people don't want to reprogram stuff, they don't want to customize stuff. They want things to "just work", they don't want to choose which button controls the car windows and which knob controls the bass. This is the job of the designer. Most people want a finished product.

People don't want to "rewire" their products, they don't want to hack on this kind of thing. Except for geeks and technical people, who can also handle normal apps and interfaces.

The analogy with the Internet breaks down because the Internet is mainly successful because it connects people. That's what people care about, other people. The telephone was a success because it lets you talk to other people.

Unless this thing helps people deal with other people, it's too complex and uninteresting for the masses and probably too simple and tedious for technical people.

<comment><USER2> I disagree! The internet is successful because authoring and publishing became as easy as consuming. The first web browser was an editor and a browser in the same time.

The most successful webpages are those where people are authors. People want tools that empower them to engage with their environment.

To say people don't want to "rewire" their products is like saying that you don't want to connect your Electric Guitar with a wire to the Amplifier.

<comment><USER9> > The most successful webpages are those where people are authors.

Exactly. But not because they enjoy tweaking some website settings or enjoy the control over the layout of a page. No, the reason is connection with other people. They write a blog so that they get feedback from people. They post pictures to Instagram and Facebook to get likes and show off.

Connecting the electric guitar and repairing things with screwdrivers is seen by most people as a chore. Sure, techie, geeky tinkerers enjoy messing around with things, the same ones who enjoy configuring linux, for example.

I just haven't seen a single use case that would make sense in an everyday setting. Having a knob that controls the lamp? Well, lamps already have that, without being radio controlled.

If a car dashboard is designed well, then there's no need to remap the buttons. Very few people like to customize their stuff that much. If there is a trend in software (and hardware) it's that they remove options. We have less features and customizations than 10 years ago. Developers realized that people just mess their settings up and they call support. Also, the more options there are, the more bugs there will be. So now instead of supporting a myriad of settings, they just go with a default and leave it at that. Why don't we have the option of vertical browser tab arrangement in Chrome? Well, because they decided it's too complex and unnecessary for most users.

People just want to get their things done. They want to get business things done with other business people and they want to have fun with their friends.

The success of the Internet is all about human communication, sharing experiences (mainly through photos), and gossip.

<comment><USER2> I would say that there are a ton of people in the world that love to build things, because its how we came to that point where we are. This is the sole reason why the world around you exists.

Imagine building becomes so easy that it is more of an "amazing" experience for you then a "geeky" long lasting frustration.

<comment><USER10> I think the original poster is trying to say that 99% of people aren't builders and don't even get to the point of geeky frustration - and I have to say I agree.

I'm an AR developer and it's been disheartening over the past 12 months to see how little people actually want to do anything other than "like" things. Even posting comments seems to be a big leap for most people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems like a lot of people aren't really convinced of the value of this kind of tech (and maybe of IoT in general), and I'll admit that I'm a little skeptical of parts of it as well. I don't really see the value in linking devices to each other (eg I don't need my shower to automatically turn on after my alarm goes off), and I don't need to be able to read HN on my fridge, but I do think there's a lot of value in making the smart phone a remote control for the physical world. I think it'd be awesome if none of my devices (thermostat, TV, TV peripherals, lights, door lock, sound system, etc) needed their own physical interfaces but I could just control them all with my phone. My phone is already my remote control for a bunch of other things, like transportation (Uber), food (Seamless), money (Venmo), shipping stuff (Shyp), love (Tinder - just kidding?), etc, so why not have it control my physical devices too?

<comment><USER12> Agreed. I really don't understand people who are against this sort of research. A light switch will still work as a light switch does now if you don't program it. There's another layer of complexity in the product design to go wrong, and add cost, but so long as when things break they still work in "dumb" mode and the cost added is minimal then a smart switch that you can program is a win for those people who want it and has practically no effect on those who don't.

Being anti-IoT seems like sour grapes; thinking "I don't want this in my life so no one should have it" is completely irrational.

<comment><USER13> I agree. This is just research, and not a market ready product. And research is really necessary in IoT, not just to figure out what is useful and what isn't, but also to figure out security and privacy concerns with everything being connected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The idea that everything can be integrated via AR is fantastic... it's the next step from IFTT. The challenge is replacing everything you have with IOT versions that can be connected to these apps and hoping those things won't go obsolete in a couple of years. Technology is moving so fast, not everyone can catch up, thus there are no standards.

<comment><USER2> We designed the platform behind the Reality Editor in such a way that it can adopt. You can read more about it here: [http://openhybrid.org/how-to-connect- everything.html](http://openhybrid.org/how-to-connect-everything.html)

If you can run nodejs in your object, you will be able to make it in to a Hybrid Object the Reality Editor can talk to.

The inspiration is the World Wide Web. It was created with a clear simple and open foundation. You can still read the first webpages ever made.

You should be able to still interact with the first Hybrid Objects ever made.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not sold. The whole IoT thing fails miserably in story-telling. Until now, I have yet to read/hear/watch one compelling example. Who really cares if my chair is connected with the light so that I can get the best light shedding angle? who cares if my refrigerator is connect with my micro-wave to de-freeze meat according to my online menu?

Maybe I'm too old for this. There are millions of important things to be solved by computer and internet, yet big-names like Google and MIT push this typical high cost, low return technology, for what? to sell chips and standards to factories?

<comment><USER16> Your comment reminds me of how people first looked at blogging, twitter, youtube, and many other technologies.

I agree that the examples we are usually given are not massively impressive, but neither is the ability to post info, or share your videos online.

I think IoT has been oversold in many ways for the short-term, exactly as you are pointing out. But in the long-term, I think it will be very impressive.

For example, my fridge knowing that I'm out of milk and reminding me to buy some. Sure, that's a pretty useless case. But what happens when we aggregate that over a large population and then we connect that with the grocers and dairies. Will we have JIT milk processing and production, saving significant energy and resources?

We just went from a very big 'so what' to potentially having a significant impact on the environment.

<comment><USER15> Thank you for a serious reply.

What troubles me more is not IoT, but the storytelling. It has been years people from this segment come out boring, meaningless videos, talks, articles usually feature microwave, doors, windows. Steve Jobs sold iPhone with 3 functions in hours. Yet after billions spent and thousands of smart minds working for years, we still have this?

I'm not sure if IoT has potential in long term. The most important thing about internet is it connects people, minds, creativity, imagination and consumers' pockets. I think as an industry we have too many more important and meaningful works to do, directly with people. I'm willing to bet that a well thought, carefully made video on youtube will make more positive impact on environment that the whole IoT segment combined today. If so, why bother?

If IoT really has potential, at this point it's very badly executed.

<comment><USER17> I think that like 3D printers, this stuff is useful to a fraction of the population, as a tool with which to prototype products for everyone else.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Do I understand this correctly? It's exposing the functionalites of IoT devices as advertised services (IoTaaS?), allowing them to be linked together (e.g. the timer from the microwave and the lightswitch), and provides an intuitive interface that, hopefully, end users might utilize.

Exposing the IoT functions as services seems brilliant to me (has it been discussed before?). What will we end up with? A overly redundent mess of IoT functions (e.g., how many devices have clocks)? Or maybe an IoT server on each home/office/car/phone (or more likely, in the cloud) that provides a central source for basic functions like timers, monitors, etc.?

<comment><USER2> It goes beyond that. The interesting thing is that in the moment you have a visual representation for an object, you can break it down into all its components. From that moment on the abstract object is represented by numbers only.

You can read more about it here: [http://openhybrid.org/how-to-connect- everything.html](http://openhybrid.org/how-to-connect-everything.html)

The interfaces them selfs are web pages.

<comment><USER19> The story written there doesn't make sense. Why the heck would I want to connect a button on my toaster to my mixer? Why not have a "Timer" object in my phone that can be connected to the mixer instead?

<comment><USER2> Because this kind of new visual interface is scaleable. You can operate 1000s of objects without a problem. This is something your app centric user interface would start looking like Times-Square. The Desktop-Metaphor is not scaleable with the physical space, because you need to remember the digital<->physical links in your own brain.

You can read a bit more about this problem here: [http://openhybrid.org/learn%2c-setup%2c-operate.html](http://openhybrid.org/learn%2c-setup%2c-operate.html)

<comment><USER18> Regarding the webpage: That's an interesting perspective. I'm sure it's been considered before, but could the difference between the physical and digital interfaces result from complexity and not whether they are digital or physical?

I'm trying think of a complex physical interface - not one where the abstractions are buttons rather than a touch screen, but one without abstractions (if I understand your meaning on the webpage). Most man-made physical interfaces are simple, probaly for good reasons. A large sailing vessel, operated manually, is the best example I can think of, with the many sails, ropes, the rudder, etc. On one hand, my impression is that it's easier to conceive of them when using their physical interface; on the other I think an abstract UI could hide a lot of the complexity; for example it could present only the part of the interface I need for a particular task, hiding other parts and underlying mechanisms; also it could show helpful things that would be hidden in a physical interface, such as somthing blocked from view or info such as the stress on a mast or wind speed.

But I'm just thinking about it now; I assume someone has researched and thought about this issue ...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm a nerd. What's the command line API for this? I really don't want to be screwing with remote 2.0; i'd rather write my own programs and call the actions on these objects.

</comment><comment><USER21> "We change, but interfaces haven't, therefore we need to change the interfaces" is a flawed argument. Change has a cost. The interfaces may be good enough. The new interfaces may be worse. Change may result in many standards where there used to be one. Change is fresh and nice in other ways, but to me, the foundation for this research seems to be more along the lines of "Glorified knobs for everyone!", which is cool in its own right.

</comment><comment><USER22> Did they invent that labyrinth pattern just for this, or is it an existing technology?

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure Valentin also invented it, but perhaps as a separate project and is using it for this.

<comment><USER24> The homepage for the QR-ish codes is here: [http://hrqr.org/](http://hrqr.org/)

It was an earlier project by the same researcher.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is an interesting project that practically begs for the availability of smart, pluggable, physical control surfaces able to be reprogrammed using this technique.

Integration with Nest-style devices seems like an obvious first choice for a consumer product.

On maintenance: It seems like there'd be a bit of difficulty around managing a nest of "wires" between devices that are only visible under a 5" smartphone glass. So, you'd want something head-mounted (glasses), preferably with zoom. Microsoft HoloLens? That said, you'd definitely need an abstract schematic view to manage a dense network.

It would be a really curious development if, in addition to plumbers and electricians, new construction required "reality editors" to wire up behaviors between such interfaces. "This won't do; your reality isn't up to code."

Final thought: lose the digital tattoos and integrate Bluetooth/Zigby beacons for device advertisement. There's no way that those patterns are going to become fashionable. Or, use something else that's easy to print but is outside of our visual range.

</comment><comment><USER26> Maybe I did not get the example? I would not need to get up to turn off the light b/c I can use a trigger like touching something on my night table. But if that something and the light switch are somehow networked, can't I just use my phone and some app to directly turn it off? Same thing with the timer example: isn't my phone already capable of running all sorts of abstractions? Why would I need to borrow the timer function from the tv? Finally, as far as discovering objects and its capabilities, wifi + some sort of IoT protocol should do, right? No need to point a camera, this gadgets will always be broadcasting its API (and ACLs I hope). Sorry, maybe I did not get the product at all.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think with connected devices, a central machine that figures out the patterns for me and others in my house and then automagically creates the patters (the drawing of lines on the app) would be way cooler.

</comment><comment><USER27> Valentin's idea has a lot of interesting components to it. The ability to stitch together a few different physical interfaces ad hoc using the camera + smartphone combination is particularly brilliant. I like where his head's at: integrating a bunch of discrete IoT devices should be simple, simple, simple.

My main beef? Frankly, it's those stickers that the camera needs to recognize the device. Ugly, ugly, ugly.

<comment><USER28> Computers have been huge (ugly?) machines before now they are sexy and small. Screens have been heavy, now its all in your pocket. All of it has been in the Marked and sold wonderfully. Visual Markers (Stickers) for Augmented Reality are a design challenge that can lead to new looks. Its Natural Feature tracking, so everything can be a "sticker". This can actually help companies to differentiate from each other. Its something new to think about. I would not say that a radio with just a touch screen is particular beautiful, but it sells too. ;-) Anyhow, one thing is sure we will get rid of the marker. There is so much technological development going on in that field.

<comment><USER27> Thanks for answering! I really like the comparison to a "digital screwdriver". I think way too many companies set the setup bar for their IoT devices way too high. If you can make it as easy as Reality Editor, you should!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Anyone else reminded of [http://reactable.com/](http://reactable.com/) (Reactable) at all?

</comment><comment><USER30> This is awesome. Being a coder I can see myself writing IoT services without a problem (just simple REST apis). And who cares about the masses? Code or be coded is what I say. However, tried using the iPhone app and couldn't get it to work. Made me feel dumb :( Be nice if there was a help me in the app or a tutorial on how to hook phone up to other devices.

</comment><comment><USER31> Thanks for an interesting project shared. I am sharing this at my college, some share concerns about adaptability, but I feel like as this project expands it will feel seamless. I am glad it is so readily available and already showing support for newer boards like the Raspberry Pi Zero. Thank you for your work, I hope to see this and similar projects expand!

</comment><comment><USER32> A knob that changes functions..

I feel old fashioned saying this but.. I think I prefer my objects stateless.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think the more valuable contribution is not Reality Editor, but Open Hybrid. Right now there are many crappy home automation standards, and none/few outside the home.

Also, HRQR just looks awesome.

<comment><USER2> True and not true. Open Hybrid is not useful without the visual representation that breaks down the object in to its components. Short write up about it here: [http://openhybrid.org/how-to-connect- everything.html](http://openhybrid.org/how-to-connect-everything.html)

The problem of all other standards is that they have to think about complex abstract standards.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I see object with beautiful tactile affordances being turned into tactile-free and afforance-free touch interfaces. What's the point of that?

</comment><comment><USER35> Why don't you just manipulate the physical objects with your hands? They're right in front of you. I think I am missing something.

</comment><comment><USER36> Tune a .vimrc of my own life.

</comment><comment><USER37> Are you going to build The Reality Editor for Android any time soon?

</comment><comment><USER38> Wow, imagine this applied to manufacturing or assembly lines!</comment>


Jelly Mario - <AUTHOR> http://jellymar.io/ <comment><USER2> The optimal strategy for this seems to be staying airborne by staying roughly level using left and right arrow to adjust your pitch between jumps

</comment><comment><USER3> The physics seem slightly off... :)

It seems to be pretty easy to go off the top of the screen.

</comment><comment><USER4> What a frustrating game. haha</comment>


Postage prices set to go down for the first time since 1919 - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/08/news/companies/stamp-price-decrease/index.html <comment><USER2> Why not make postage free, paid for by all the garbage in our mailbox that we throw out? It works for the web.</comment>


Pepper – a friendly contact widget for your website - <AUTHOR> https://pepper.swat.io/ <comment><USER2> seems great, will be using it on a website to check the impact. the overall clean design is really nice.</comment>


The ISIS encrypted messaging app the media reported on recently does not exist - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailydot.com/politics/isis-alrawi-encryption-messaging-app/ <comment><USER2> It's pretty trivial to create an encrypted app: put together a simple custom android app that uses open source openssl libs for messaging directly between phones/clients.

There will be no way to stop this.

<comment><USER3> Also, trying to defeat encryption by forcing backdoors into things won't prevent people from using a different version.

Compromising OpenSSL won't break LibreSSL, and nothing stops you from having a "pre-government intervention" version of either of them.

There is definitely no way to stop this, and government intervention only harms honest people.

<comment><USER4> >nothing stops you from having a "pre-government intervention" version

Don't neglect to consider surreptitious intervention. You're not going to see a `dhs/libressl` fork on github. We tried that with the NSA->NIST flow, and it was outed. New flaws will be injected by some cryptographer being run by clandestine services.</comment></comment></comment>


Twitter blames its users - <AUTHOR> http://scobleizer.com/2008/05/30/twitter-blames-its-users/

<comment><USER2> scoble is a big crybaby.

this is the difference between a hacker and a non-hacker.

a hacker at twitter described a scaling problem in purely technical terms--the load on their servers is worst when a lot of updates are generated, and a lot of updates are generated when people with a lot of followers tweet in rapid succession (among other things).

<http://dev.twitter.com/2008/05/youve-got-qs-weve-got-as.html>

a non-engineer takes this purely objective statement of technical fact and turns it into a personal affront. twitter did not "blame" scoble. they stated the facts. scoble chose to be offended (wrongly, imo).

<comment><USER3> He's also quite obviously a self-centered braggart: _sure sounds like blaming their best users, and very specifically, me, since I'm the only user with more than 20,000 followers that behaves this way._

Yep. It's all about you...</comment></comment>


Dtrace for Linux - <AUTHOR> https://gnu.wildebeest.org/blog/mjw/2018/02/14/dtrace-for-linux-oracle-does-the-right-thing/ <comment><USER2> Unfortunately for DTrace, this is too late. Oracle should have done this years ago. Now Linux has a more powerful tracer builtin, eBPF, and it would be a backwards step to switch the kernel code to DTrace (assuming the DTrace port is completed, which it is not). I'm sure this will not be lost on the maintainers, who have the ultimate say as to what is included in Linux mainline.

The only hope for DTrace is to have the frontend emit BPF bytecode. The bulk of this GPL DTrace code is no longer needed, only the user-level front end.

<comment><USER3> As a non-expert, I still find this exciting. While eBPF may be more powerful, I find it far less approachable than DTrace. Perhaps this is just a failure to discover the right documentation. I use DTrace now and then on macOS and have resented that I can't really use it on Linux as well.

<comment><USER4> IIRC one of the big things about dtrace vs systemtap is that dtrace could trace a process from userspace to kernel space and then back again. Can eBPF do this? How else do they compare?

<comment><USER2> That would not be recalling correctly: SystemTap does that, and so does eBPF (via uprobes and kprobes).

A large problem with SystemTap is that it was developed in the open, and in the early days people were scared off with its kernel panics. SystemTap built a negative brand: first impressions matter. DTrace, however, was largely built before its public release, and with the help from many other engineers and test teams. People's first impressions with DTrace was something that was already awesome. Of course, there are other problems with SystemTap: its process of compiling code and loading kernel modules was always risker than an interpreter.

As for how eBPF compares: I summarized it last year [http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2016-10-27/dtrace-for- linux...](http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2016-10-27/dtrace-for- linux-2016.html)

<comment><USER5> > and in the early days people were scared off with its kernel panics.

It is ironic that to this day those kernel panics are associated with systemtap (the visible user interface) rather than the kernel (where the vast majority of the responsible bugs actually lay). But perceptions indeed matter, even erroneous ones.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I had somehow missed this; this is excellent news! The Oracle port of DTrace to Linux is (far and away) the most complete port; Kris van Hees and team did a very thorough job[1], and I'm elated (and honestly, surprised) that they somehow prevailed on Oracle to do the right thing here!

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NElog3MvUC8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NElog3MvUC8)

<comment><USER7> If ZFS were also relicensed, would Illumos be able to relicense OpenZFS as well, even with the divergence?

<comment><USER8> OpenZFS can't be relicensed as GPL since FreeBSD won't be able to use it.

Perhaps it could be dual-licensed, not sure, but that would be bad for FreeBSD as well. If it would be integrated into the mainline Linux kernel, I don't believe FreeBSD could merge back subsequent ZFS changes done on the Linux side.

If OpenZFS were relincensed and developed outside the mainline Linux tree (as it is now), FreeBSD would be able to get all changes, but it would still be annoying to actually use ZFS in Linux for the same reason it is annoying to use it now, even though the legal uncertainties would disappear.

<comment><USER9> FreeBSD is OK with CDDL but not GPL?

<comment><USER10> Yeah, the CDDL is weak copyleft, meaning derived works don't need to be licensed CDDL. The GPL is strong copyleft, and could force all of FreeBSD to adopt the GPL.

<comment><USER11> To clarify that a bit: The CDDL is a per-file copyleft; you must provide the sources of the CDDL-licensed source files. The GPL is a per-program copyleft; you must provide the sources of the entire program if it contains GPL-licensed code; the source of the entire program effectively becomes GPL-licensed if you incorporate GPL-licensed code.

If I made a closed derivative of the FreeBSD kernel, I'd have to provide the (CDDL) ZFS sources, but nothing else. If ZFS were GPL, I'd have to provide the sources to the entire kernel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Really cool! However isn't it a bit too late for DTrace to gain market share on Linux now SystemTap and all have gotten such a head start?

For me personally I like the idea of being able to use my DTrace skills (which I gained on FreeBSD and SmartOS) on Linux!

<comment><USER13> Well, it's never too late!

I mean, when reading articles like this one:

[http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2015-07-08/choosing-a- linux...](http://www.brendangregg.com/blog/2015-07-08/choosing-a-linux- tracer.html)

Linux tracing looks like a mess, where there're dozens of incompatible alternatives, each one with its gotchas. But instead, dtrace is a mature standard framework which also works under BSD or macOS. You got one programming language, D, and tons of resources out there.

So... my best wishes for this.

<comment><USER14> It was a mess back then - in 2015. Instead, it's probably more useful to look at at where things are today rather than assuming things are the same as they were a few years ago. Things move fast in this space - for example, just a year later Brendan wrote this on eBPF: [http://brendangregg.com/blog/2016-10-27/dtrace-for- linux-201...](http://brendangregg.com/blog/2016-10-27/dtrace-for- linux-2016.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> it looks like the dtrace port can be used by non-privileged users (i'm just guessing because there is some uid checks in there). just be aware there has been a bunch of fixes applied to the illumos version of dtrace and i'm pretty sure at least 1 (maybe more) have not been applied to this version.

</comment><comment><USER16> Time for ZFS now!

Even better yet, a new OpenSolaris under GPL instead of CDDL.

<comment><USER17> The new OpenSolaris is called illumos.

And the CDDL is actually fine. Give it a try :)

<comment><USER16> I use OpenIndiana since its beginning, it's fine but IMHO not there for serious work. FreeBSD with ZFS is miles ahead.

And the CDDL is not fine, as it is not compatible with GPL, which makes it impossible to have it official in the Linux kernel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> What does this mean for DTrace on FreeBSD?

Given that DTrace is now GPL'ed, does that kill DTrace on FreeBSD?

[https://wiki.freebsd.org/DTrace](https://wiki.freebsd.org/DTrace)

<comment><USER19> You can't retroactively revoke CDDL :)

And new DTrace userspace is actually under the Universal Permissive License now (which is, well, permissive). The Linux kernel module is GPL. I don't think FreeBSD needs anything from that module at all.

<comment><USER20> The UPL license also has some somewhat "unique" patent grant wording with regard to a "Larger Works" file, which can even reference external projects by name, and its supposed use as a CLA document.

Not being a lawyer (and similarly not a licensing or IP subject matter expert), and know the license was drafted by Oracle, I am somewhat suspicious of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Have you tried Sysdig? [https://github.com/draios/sysdig](https://github.com/draios/sysdig)

</comment><comment><USER22> This is good news, I think.

I have heard so many people praise DTrace, but it not being available on Linux has so far kept me from looking at it. I have one FreeBSD box at home, one (ancient) laptop running OpenBSD, but all my other machines run various Linux distros. So there was little point for me to spend any time learning it.

Now there is. :D I think I know what I will be doing with my next vacation.

</comment><comment><USER23> Thanks God, eBPF is a security nightmare as we saw with Spectre, they even got arrays now. and there is no infrastructure as with dtrace. Will compile it into my kernel for sure for proper dev work.

<comment><USER24> Doesn't this criticism apply to any software that opens a communications channel between the kernel and user space? Also, how does eBPF relate to Spectre?

<comment><USER23> Yes, but syscalls are properly designed. drivers are a huge problem, always have been. eBPF on the other hand lacks proper security design. They added it afterwards, to some extent.

> how does eBPF relate to Spectre?

Please read any spectre paper. Besides the known javascript attacks, eBPF is the easiest way to bypass kernel ASLR. google is your friend.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask PG: Can we see the response to the HN changes? - <AUTHOR> Have people commented more? Does user karma matter? Are there more "quality" posts?
Is there a different subset of users posting?<p>Probably too early to tell, but it would be nice to see what happens when you take karma away from comments. I am trying to imagine reddit without it and it doesn't seem quite as interesting. Some hard data would be cool to look at. <comment><USER2> Personally I'm really missing seeing the karma on comments.

Fundamentally, removing them has changed the balance of what karma is all about. Karma previously had a function for the reader. It highlighted and bubbled up the good. It showed where there were good counter points. Now...well it's just for the account owner. It feels just like it's there for your own rpg-levelling style dopamine hit. It feels pointless.

I really feel this is a mistake. Comment karma had a function for readers, not just for account owner's inner satisfaction. This role has now been lost. It's making browsing comments - especially for very popular topics with lots of comments - much harder. I'm skimming a lot more or actually skipping the comments altogether because I don't want to read them all to find the goodness. It also means people can't learn from others what is or is not a valued contribution.

So I really hope this will be reversed or at the least make a better way (more than just what is the top comment) to make karma benefit the community not just the individual.

<comment><USER3> I don't miss the karma at all. If you don't have time to read the comments and evaluate for yourself which ones are good or bad, why are you even here?

<comment><USER4> What are you even talking about? The point of sites like HN is curation.

<comment><USER5> Do you ask museum curators what point value they assigned the paintings in their exhibits?

The curation still happens without numbers attached.

<comment><USER4> You don't need to. It's there, therefore it has value. Not at all like HN comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd still like to see an experiment where the up and down arrows (generally interpreted to mean "agree/disagree") are replaced with "| interesting | spam" before the present "|link" in the comment header.

Or any two words that intellectually interrupt the "vote up / vote down" reflex to vote down unpopular or dissenting points of view no matter how well thought out.

</comment><comment><USER7> I think we need to let it go on for at least a week before drawing any conclusions. People need to integrate this way of displaying posts into their mental model for the site, and that takes time. Before that happens, none of the data will be meaningful.

<comment><USER8> I agree. I feel like I need to get used to it first before I can decide whether or not I like it. Besides- maybe more change trials are coming? I'm actually curious as to how pg (and others?) is /are going to evaluate the changes. Monitor chatter? Randomly distributed survey? I'm curious because I'm not sure how much thought/effort it's really worth, and I wonder how much pg &co think it's worth.

<comment><AUTHOR> Way too early to tell, but I figured I might as well get the idea out there early.

And pg & friends probably have some different goals than what some hn users are used to a online forum having. HN doesn't need to be monetized or have huge page views for it to be a success. All pg needs hn to do is attract the right people and scare off the wrong people. And I imagine that creates some metrics that are more quality based than what most hn users are user to.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From a visual inspection things look the same as always.

<comment><USER10> from this users inspection things don't.

\- I spend substantially more time wading through comments because I can't pick out the good ones. This is particularly true of nested threads.

\- I often vote based on the current score. If the score is as the comment deserves (in my opinion) I leave it, otherwise I upvote. I rarely downvote.

\- I can't pick out whether a comment is valid (based on scores, and thus the opinion of other users). For instance if a user writes in a comment that joshua schachter never invests in B2B startups I don't know how valid it is.

\- When someone responds to a comment I like to see the votes. This is particularly useful when someone disagres with me - if the response gets a lot of upvotes I can be fairly certain I'm wrong. If I don't see the votes I won't know.

Besides, if we don't see scores they're not much good to users. My bet is that over time people will vote less, since they don't immediately see their impact anyway.

<comment><USER10> This comment thread is a pretty good example of what I'm talking about: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2438577>

Do people here think this is a forum for entrepreneurs? Do people think it's OK to link to the HN thread and not the post? Without the votes I simply don't know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've made one important change in how I vote as a result of the hidden score change. I'm now more afraid to downvote. My usual downvote algorithm was: If offtopic/noise and score >-4 then downvote. Now I don't downvote for fear that it already has 100s of downvotes and I'd just be dogpiling.

<comment><USER12> Maybe I am misinterpreting it, but comments seem to vary in color from black to nearly white. I am not sure how many levels of gradation there are, but it seems that ones that have been down voted are lighter than those that haven't?

<comment><USER11> They do, but I don't know at what levels this happens. I'm kind of hoping not to need a pantone swatch to vote in the future.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Where I could see things changing is higher highs and lower lows: previously I wouldn't downvote a well-intentioned but wrong comment below 0 or -1, but now I might because I don't know. Also, previously, I stopped voting up the first comment on an article if it already had a ton of votes, now I'm not so sure, so I might vote for it.

<comment><USER14> Why would you downvote a well-intentioned but wrong comment? If something is wrong, explain why it is wrong. Downvotes, I think, should be reserved for comments that are 1) pointless ex:"agree" or "great post" 2) mean ex: "How could you be so ignorant!" 3) Way off topic.

Everything else should get ignored or warrants further discussion. In some cases it is even important to upvote "wrong" comments.

<comment><USER13> If someone states that it is their firm belief that the Earth does indeed sit at the center of the universe, with the sun revolving around it, I just can't agree with it, and think it should not be a highly rated comment.

Same sort of deal when people are factually wrong, but aren't being a jerk about it: I don't think they should rate that highly, but I wouldn't likely vote them into negative territory either. And yeah, I might leave a comment too.

<comment><USER15> Then don't upvote then, it's simple! Remember <http://xkcd.com/386/>

I always thought that the saving grace of /. was the metamoderation. People here downvote based on personal bias here frequently enough, and it would be nice to have the bad actors dinged for it. I'm not saying you do this, but it is done. Far better to have a highly upvoted correction.

<comment><USER13> > Then don't upvote then, it's simple!

Downvoting obviously wrong comments is very simple too. And useful. Like I said though, in the past I've tended to do so because it's incorrect, not to "punish" as I might with a mean-spirited comment, so I would never go past -1.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really like it. It actually makes me participate more. It's always interesting though to see how many points someone got that commented on your comment, so perhaps after a certain "sleep" period we could be able to see the score?

<comment><USER7> There's already a timer that determines when a thread gets locked. Perhaps after it's locked, display scores.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The downvoting needs one simple change. It should not drop comment's score below zero until it has been effectively voted down to -10 or thereabouts, in which case it can be safely assumed the comment is a true junk and grayed out.

I personally used to use downvoting to sink comments that are of no particular interest to me, and to promote other branches of the thread that I'd like more people to look at and comment on. So there's gotta be a mechanism that would allow for rearranging comments in a more popular order, but without punishing their authors unnecessarily.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm delighted to see the end of comment scores, and if they are restored, I think i will hack HN for myself to remove them when I read comments.

I like having the community filter articles, but when it comes to a discussion, I like reading the arguments and deciding for myself. Scores do influence my expectations around what's important and what isn't.

Besides, there is already a filter in place for really bad comments. If something isn't at -5 or so, I really ought to give it the benefit of the doubts and read it.

</comment><comment><USER19> One more person really missing the karma numbers.

My algorithm was to read the first several high rated karma comments than the article if interesting. I usually got the picture from the peoples perspective quickly and it also eliminated lot of the repetition and noise.

Too bad, my hope and wish is that the karma on comments is coming back.

</comment><comment><USER20> Question, what does the orange dot mean? and why are some users green now?

<comment><USER21> I think green users are those that has been recently created.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm liking the introduction of the flag link and coloring newbies green. I'm 50/50 on the comment points. I like seeing the points, but at the same time I no longer feel they're necessary. To me, the flag and coloring are more important changes that I hope stick around.

</comment><comment><USER15> For what it's worth, I _really like_ the change. The almost unconscious thought of "does this comment deserve more karma than it already has" was useless, it's much better to decide whether it's a good or bad comment just on its own merits.

</comment><comment><USER23> On the iPad, the up and down arrows are close together. when I upvoted a comment, I couldnt be sure I hit the correct arrow.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm really missing it. It also breaks the user experience completely on other HN-interfaces like the iPhone apps.</comment>


Ask HN: why do we have less science related posts now that in the past? - <AUTHOR>

This is something that I don't really understand well. Why do we have less science (or music, arts, whatever not directly programming & startups related) content here? If I remember it well, we used to have about 50% programming & startups, and 50% content that was interesting to hackers even if it was outside of those subjects. I even think the name change to Hacker News was to avoid focusing too much in startup & programming content (the previous name was Startup News)... why did the community almost entirely drop it?
I think the problem isn't that we don't like it when it appears, but that for some reason people isn't posting it so often. I haven't had problems posting maths, science, etc content into the first page, so maybe if everyone is interested in this we could try to post such content more often?
What do you think?
(Sorry for my English, I'm not a native speaker.) <comment><USER2> I think people are a bit afraid to post things outside of the main themes. The quality and relevance of such posts is a lot more subjective, so you always will see people complaining that it is not hacker news.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I guess we can discuss whether science is one of the main themes or not here... In my own pov, science is not only inherently related to technology, but also it's a common interest of everyone I know that works on high tech. Not so sure about general tech and web startups though.

<comment><USER3> Science and technical stuff require a high level of intelligence to understand. It's even harder to comment usefully in a discussion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I've been posting quite a few of them in the past (science, neuroscience, cogsci etc) but they never got more than few points. People just don't seem to care.

Another thing is that many business related links never propagate upward either. I've started my own mini news site that will be all about business/finance/management. I haven't give the link to anyone yet. Anyone interested?

<comment><USER5> What's the url?

<comment><USER4> I haven't advertised it yet but you can find it here: www.newmogul.com

It's still missing some pages: about etc. but everything's functional.

<comment><USER5> I assume you're using a tool to see when people make comments on your posts. Got a link for it? I had considered writing one just last night.

Thanks for the link btw. This looks neat.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I use an RSS feed for comments. ycfeeds.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have to agree with you. While I find tech news interesting, I am also a big fan of science news. I'm not a hacker, but I hang around HN because the community seems to filter out very well all of the garbage found on Digg.

I came to the HN because of YCombinator and my ambitions, but I am no longer studying computer science (I have changed my major to mathematics and physics, pursuing what I dropped my first go-around at an undergraduate degree). I stay because this group shares many of the same interests in news. If science posts were to show up, then all the better. If not, then it may be that this group is more inclined towards tech news.

</comment><comment><USER7> The reason there aren't more science submissions is probably just that there isn't very much good science writing on the web. Most of the science articles being written today are basically just poorly summarized press releases covering cleantech, medicine, space, and the physical sciences. Most of the announcements are bullshit to begin with, and the fact that the writers don't know what they're talking about makes it even worse. If there were people who went out and read interesting journal articles and wrote up the results in a readable way then I'd be all for that, but the number of people doing that is basically zero. Aaron Schwartz et al. were trying to do that for a while on their blog Science That Matters, but they don't seem to even exist anymore.

<comment><AUTHOR> There are some interesting blogs to follow though... Terry Tao's, and Scott Aaronson's are two examples: they can be very technical, but when they are more focused in the general public, they are great.

<comment><USER3> John Baez's stuff, and Overcoming Bias is also good.

I'm _dying_ for non-technical science writing. I want to know what those guys are _thinking_ , not read a popular write up.

They're usually good, even when it's outside their field.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I follow these too. Others are: The Unapologetic Mathematician, The Reference Frame (if you can filter the hating), Symmetry Breaking, Gowers's Weblog, Plus Magazine (sometimes), Not Even Wrong, Cosmic Variance, Backreaction... also some Arxiv rss's.

<comment><USER3> You literally just made my _week_.

And you make great submissions to HN too.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool, you're welcome! Uncertain Principles is cool too; from all these, go through the links and you'll probably find a few more.

<comment><USER8> Your submissions are high quality and technical, the way I like them. I would ask you to continue to submit from your sources, especially since the stories about what googlers eat for breakfast are getting old....

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! Sure, I'll keep submitting whatever I find interesting in the little time I have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I posted an article on my blog about how, at digg, science ended up being the best quality category (largest promotion/submission ratio - [http://owenbyrne.com/2008/06/05/yet-another-random-digg- list...](http://owenbyrne.com/2008/06/05/yet-another-random-digg-list/)). My impression at the time was that there was no money in science - So people post crap constantly in other categories, because that's where the dollars are. There's a lot less money in the promotion of science, hence less sock-puppets, gaming, etc.

</comment><comment><USER10> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift>

Maybe in a small population social news site, the 'norm' for content can drift in a similar fashion to allele frequency in a small gene pool.

</comment><comment><USER11> _"... why do we have less science related posts now that in the past? ..."_

I don't know but every time I post an article detailing the hard science behind say a wired, the economist, newsweek, salon or FT post it will be ignored. The reason behind this might be the fact the real science doesn't make for entertaining reading or more likely journalists explain difficult things in an more entertaining way.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think there are two questions here we need tease out:

1\. Are enough science stories being submitted? If not, why not?

2\. What happens to the science stories when they are submitted?

I can't answer the first question (anyone got data?) but from experience submitting a few science stories is that they get a couple of votes and die. This, I think, is an interesting observation.

The hint of an answer also comes from my experience: I get my science news fix elswhere. HN, to me, is about things that make me think harder/better or see the world in a new way. Granted that's not always the case, but the gems here outclass any gem elsewhere I've seen.

So what think is happening is that we don't care for mainstream science news. I think for a science story to survive here, it needs to be a slightly off the beaten path subject with a very clever title - hackers are humans after all and headlines can affect them emotionally to get them to up vote.

</comment><comment> mark-t I think the bar for a non-programming, non-startup article to count as "interesting to hackers" is a lot higher. Really interesting science articles just aren't written as often as somebody blogs something useless about how great closures are.

Your English is fine, by the way. I wouldn't have known you weren't a native speaker if you hadn't said so.

<comment><AUTHOR> About the bar, I think that while it's certainly higher for science than for programming articles, it has dropped a lot for programming & startups so I don't understand why people is so incredibly picky with science (even for good articles) but an order of magnitude more tolerant with other subjects.

Oh, and thank you for your comment about my English :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The average upvoter has become less sophisticated.

A top story for almost two days was a screenshot of a hapless fellow complaining about mistakenly ordering the 'I Am Rich' iPhone app. (It got 59 story upvotes, and this was in addition to other news coverage of the app.) The thread had multiple highly-rated comments that were no more insightful than "ha, don't click 'buy' if you don't want to buy". (Two of those had over 20 net upvotes.)

The idiot hordes have arrived and are breeding like rabbits through mutual upvotes. Death of News.YC predicted; news at 11.

<comment><USER14> This is an utterly predictable problem.

News.YC has been mentioned in enough places -- like Reddit, where I migrated from -- that it's been gathering some influence from those places. PG has been curiously adamant about not doing anything algorithmically to address this, instead insisting that somehow this forum will just never accumulate the kind of cruft that every other web-based forum accumulates.

I think that web-based forums have to follow one of the basic rules of capitalism, in that it has one of three states: either it's dying, or it's growing slowly, or it's growing quickly.

Interesting conversations and submissions happen as a way for people to signal information to other people that they think might not be aware of it, and might find it interesting. Assuming it were possible for a forum to never either lose nor gain participants, eventually the participants would share most of the information that they weren't mutually familiar with, and those that were interested in external sources of information that they weren't initially aware of would begin to follow them, and there'd be nothing left to share. The forum gradually gets quieter, and dies.

Or, the forum can grow. It may grow quickly, as with Reddit or Digg or Fark or what-have-you, in which case it has a natural tendency towards more mainstream topics. Or, it can grow slowly, like News.YC, but it still gathers a little bit of new blood, and inevitably, that new blood brings a certain fraction of mainstream interest along with it.

The funny thing is, a forum in a slow state of growth will tend to accelerate into a faster state of growth, as the gradual increase in mainstream topics draws the interest of a larger cross-section of people.

So, the trick is to enforce a slower state of growth without killing it altogether, and I haven't seen any willingness here to do that.

<comment><USER15> Captcha, but not for bots, for humans.

The way I found reddit was from a link in pg's essays. And boy was reddit good when pg first linked to it. So we need a place where the only people are the kind who would voluntarily read something like pg or steve yegge.

Perhaps a simple logic puzzle wrapped inside a question about programming? That would require both factual knowledge of programming and at least a modicum of thinking ability.

That's your captcha for posts and voting permissions.

The problem I see is how to generate the captcha question/reply pairs. Perhaps something wiki style?

<comment><USER2> For each problem in Project Euler there is a forum that is open only after you solve it. One of the hard ones has "First!" comment in there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Don't forget that hacker news has collected lots of media attention all those numerous time that Y Combinator is mentioned. Paul Graham even pointed out to the community here that the demographic would be changing, and perhaps it has again a few times over.

The recent <http://paulgraham.com/fundraising.html> is worth mentioning because if the VC types appear in droves here to observe us, they indirectly create a salting effect where we stop posting or otherwise behaving as ourselves. i.e, we go elsewhere, possibly back to a chat room, or just keep to ourselves until another collaborative opportunity presents itself.

</comment><comment><USER17> We don't consciously post things here trying to comply with the vision. Historically, communities evolve independently of the vision their founders had when seeding them.

So, you can't complain why there are less science related posts. It is just the way because the community does not find science interesting. (By the way, I personally love science). You can try seeding the community with science related posts and see how we respond.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's my point with posting this here. I don't want to complain, but I want to make the correct people aware of this (if they weren't already). What I think is: 1) interesting enough science articles go to the front page when they are posted on the news queue, 2) there are people interested in science here, maybe they'll care to start posting science related links again? I don't know, it's just an idea.

I post my own articles when I have time too.

<comment><USER18> Not directly pertinent to your original question, but since you're interested in science articles, I'd recommend tracking the Ars Technica "Nobel Intent" science news feed: <http://arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/>

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a lot for the link.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's a totally different site than it was a year ago.

It used to be five or six votes could keep you on the front page for a while. Now you submit the same kind of article and it dies with only a vote or two, and other people coming in with the same link count as some of those votes.

Sadly, I'm left to conclude that it is not the quality of the article, but the personal relationships between the posters that lead to upvoting or downvoting. That is, the same article submitted by two different people would get highly different scores based on the track record of the people involved, not the community's feeling about the content of the article.

Speculation only, but it explains the answer to your question. We ARE seeing just as many science stories -- probably more. It's just the wrong people are submitting them. (on average)

<comment><USER20> I don't find myself paying any attention to who the poster is though. Do you? If the story is interesting or the question important, I upvote it, otherwise not.

<comment><USER19> I don't either, but then again, I don't vote up and down a lot.

Just guessing, but I think there are probably three levels of visitors: random browsers, occasional voters, and people who play the board like a video game.

I'm more occasional. For instance, I usually don't view things that only make page 2

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I still have hope. As long as people aren't posting game screenshots and cheat codes, there is hope.

</comment><comment><USER13> Do you have numbers from a comparative analysis over time? (It may be true; I'm not sure and it would be good to quantify beyond anyone's vague impression.)

<comment><AUTHOR> No, I didn't do such analysis, but I think the difference is quite evident (even if it wasn't 50/50, sure there was a drop).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> SCIENCE has failed the world!!!!</comment>


Researchers find ways to sniff keystrokes from thin air - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/security/64193/researchers-find-ways-sniff-keystrokes-thin-air <comment><USER2> A few years ago there were some papers about logging keystrokes by recording the sounds of the different keys in the keyboard. Keyboard Acoustic Emanations: <http://www.truststc.org/pubs/3.html>

<comment><USER3> And as far as I remember they just had to input the statistical properties of the text you were typing and no information about the keyboard to train their algorithm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This information (EM leakage from computers) is at least 20 years old.

It used to be they could pull up in a van full of radio gear outside your office and read both the keystrokes and the monitors.

The state of the art has advanced a long way since then.

<comment><USER5> Old or not, it's still quite disturbing.</comment></comment>


Mozilla Raises Concerns Over Facebook's Lack of Transparency - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2019/01/31/mozilla-raises-concerns-over-facebooks-lack-of-transparency/ <comment><USER2> Facebook is right to point out here that scraping data from their users' logged-in pages puts their privacy at risk and makes Facebook liable for it, even if there is consent (as happened in the cambridge analytica thing). There is clearly a conflict with EU's own laws here.

Also, don't forget that EU elections are nothing like federal elections, these are local elections which reflect each country's national politics rather than anything EU-wide. And, based on previous elections, i have found individual candidates themselves to be major violators of anti-spam laws.

<comment><USER3> Sorry, did you mean Mozilla is right to point out?

<comment><USER2> no, facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This was Facebook's statement to Propublica [1]:

> "We regularly improve the ways we prevent unauthorized access by third > parties like web browser plugins to keep people's information safe," > Facebook spokesperson Beth Gautier said. "This was a routine update and > applied to ad blocking and ad scraping plugins, which can expose people's > information to bad actors in ways they did not expect."

Seriously, after all the scandals with third parties where action wasn't taken in a timely manner, it's clear that Facebook will do something if and only if it benefits from it.

Like with ad blockers, can't these extensions change this into an arms race where it becomes futile for Facebook to keep fighting them? Or are these organizations restraining themselves, hoping that Facebook will somehow change its mind?

[1]: [https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad- transp...](https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-transparency- tools)

<comment><USER5> I understand the privacy concerns, the problem being that Facebook's ads targeting has no transparency, which is very problematic for issues of public interest.

For elections for example I'd like to be able to see what parties or what politicians are paying for Facebook ads, what demographics are they targeting and with what ads.

If Facebook exposed this data, it wouldn't be a privacy issue.

<comment><USER6> Some of what you want might be available here: [https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/](https://www.facebook.com/ads/archive/) ([https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307](https://www.facebook.com/business/help/2405092116183307)).

(work for fb)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Elections were the breaking point for me on Facebook. I didn't post much myself but my family and friends do. After seeing the amount of blatantly false information being passed by both political sides I finally had enough. This was 2016, after what I've learned last year I really what to delete my account instead of having it deactivated.

<comment><USER8> Are you saying that Facebook should decide which news is false or that you're just done with using social media to find news in general?

<comment><USER9> I find myself somewhat unimpressed by arguments like "Facebook / Google" should not be deciding what is false.

They already are - or rather, they are deciding what is visible and prominent, and what isn't. When you share a post, Facebook's algorithm determine what visible it has for each of your friends - whether it's on top of their feed, lower, or completely invisible.

At this point it seems more and more likely (though probably not proven) that those algorithms are skewed to promote content that gets high chances of engagement - and that means content that provokes outrage or rage is more likely to be visible than a long-form, balanced conversations.

So in short - Facebook is not (and should not) be the arbiter of truth. But surely it's not unreasonable to ask that they don't actively promote incivility and (literally, uncontroversially) blatantly fake news?

<comment><USER10> I imagine that, at some point, any specialized management of a 'social feed' will be considered human experimentation that generally leaves the people consuming it to be worse off mentally and emotionally. We already know that Facebook has done what are considered experiments against the wellbeing of users, but there is no real gap between that and trying to adjust the behavior of users in order to keep them on the site. Once that adjustment has been made, then a closed-source curated social feed becomes illegal, as it should be, IMO.

I think that the only way to manage a social feed is for it to be really dumb: blocks, maybe best friends, etc. Of course, once you do that you've basically returned to email.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This ProPublica article has more information: [https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad- transp...](https://www.propublica.org/article/facebook-blocks-ad-transparency- tools)

</comment><comment><USER5> > _It also prevents any developer, researcher, or organization to develop > tools, critical insights, and research designed to educate and empower users > to understand and therefore resist targeted disinformation campaigns._

Is Mozilla building some sort of visualization tool for the marketing done on the upcoming EU elections?

<comment><USER12> Maybe, maybe not. But I have a number of academic colleagues working on marketing/news/misinformation on online platforms, and Facebook has _always_ been a problem for analysis. It's next to impossible to get raw data unless you're Facebook, which makes investigating these questions very difficult.

For comparison, Twitter is comparatively easy to work with (though getting harder as time goes on) and Reddit is very open. This is one reason why there are lots of papers based on Twitter data and very few based on analyses of Facebook.

<comment><USER5> Any legitimate reasons for not allowing access to raw data? Could it violate people's privacy for example?

<comment><USER13> I'm sure it could, but of course you can always anonymise data first. In any case it seems a bit rich for _facebook_ to restrict access due to privacy concerns, in reality the issues is likely that reason is simply that academics can't pay as well as ad agencies.

<comment><USER14> Data anonymization is an incredibly complex problem and de-anonymization is an entire subfield. I'm by no means a Facebook apologist, but "we don't trust our ability to deanonymize data so it would be suitable to publish" rings true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It is the very nature of online advertising to stalk usage behavior akin to spyware and be completely opaque about it. It is horribly subjective to single out Facebook for it when all online advertisers are basically doing the very same things.

The only difference between Facebook and other ad agencies is that Facebook has a structured system in place inviting better PII and relationship data submitted directly by the users. While people demonize Facebook for this behavior other ad agencies would kill to be in that position.

<comment><USER16> > It is the very nature of online advertising to stalk usage behavior akin to > spyware and be completely opaque about it.

No, it's not. Online ad space is like any other ad space, and advertising has existed for decades with only minimal information about who views it. The only difference with online advertising is that there are no longer technological limitations to tracking everything. Something that's much harder to do with a billboard or a newspaper ad. Since Since this is the case, it's up to voters to insist on legal limits on tracking instead. But advertising will be fine either way.

<comment><USER15> Just because online advertising is different from billboards in that billboards don't stalk me doesn't in any ways redeem online advertising.

I have worked that business before and written that code for Travelocity. I created Travelocity's most successful advertising code before they were consumed by Expedia (an annoying popunder that achieved click-through rates of 14%). I later worked as the developer on their analytics team and worked hand- in-hand with their media (advertising) team. The name of the game is experimentation and analysis. The more data you have on a user the more accurate and targeted your decisions can be about that user. Spyware is absolutely the name of the game.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In the U.S., Facebook is allowed to lie, and to propagate lies of others. On what basis is Facebook required to be any different than the National Enquirer? The limitation is defamation, but in a political context defamation doesn't apply.

Mozilla's letter is to the European Commission, and as such I recognize different laws between the U.S. and E.U. are relevant.

However, the most simple test for double standard is to flip the narrative around: imagine a truth that makes many people angry to hear, and imagine that unpopular truth being put into an ad, and imagine the people arguing for ad targeting methods to be revealed are people who want to protect people from truth in order to allow them to keep on believing lies.

I appreciate the importance of developing tools to fight disinformation campaigns. But on what basis can any person or company be compelled to reveal their advertising methodology? What is public interest in a political ad campaign context where literally everyone involved is claiming moral high ground?

I think regulating speech is a trap, and people need to consider the double standard. What happens when your truth becomes difficult or impossible to disseminate, because it makes most people angry to hear? You really think all angry people need their emotional state coddled? Why protect them from becoming angry? This is why we need to do better in school teaching coping skills, and critical thinking.

</comment><comment><USER18> As a fan of Firefox (see username) and user since 2006, and as someone who doesn't like fb- maybe Mozilla should start by being more transparent about:

1) why they don't install ublock origin by default

2) why they install pocket by default

3) why they keep doing ad-experiments?

Mozilla needs to stop pretending they are some saints. But thanks for calling fb out.

<comment><USER19> Mozilla is trying to find a way to sustain itself outside of Google. I don't fault them for that. They need money just like any other company.

<comment><USER20> Mozilla is a non-profit, not like any other company!

That said I strongly support their work... Disclaimer: I used to work at Mozilla.

<comment><USER21> Non-profits still need money to pay their bills...

<comment><USER20> Yes, but not like _any_ other company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Political advertising is something that FB should have tackled closer to the stem.

First, they should have considered banning it entirely. I'm sure they had such conversations around (eg) tobacco, arms, alcohol, medicines and such. FB are far from immune to the fiduciary imperative, but they are very profitable. They were in a position to turn away potentially problem-making revenue. In hindsight, IMO, that would have been the better choice.

If they are going to do political advertising, they should be channeling & (internally) regulating it differently. Separate rules. ID your advertisers, and enforce local election rules by jurisdiction, like election day ad bans. Report on (or verify) spending, if local laws require it. Similar systems exist for licensed/regulated markets like financial services. You can't just start advertising savings accounts.

Without doubt, transparency should be part of the special rules for political ads.

On the bigger questions, to me, GDPR-like regulation is _not_ the answer. Some parts, like reporting on breaches, are good. Other parts, like the emphasis on creating agreements between users and websites, are (IMO!) wrong. These things are contracts. The mental bandwidth required to understand a cookie policy and make informed is far too great.

Transparency is, potentially, an alternative.

<comment><USER23> Political ads are not inherently bad though. Ads in general are not actually.

Ads help political candidates to get the word out...i think that's useful and I think it's awesome that Facebook didn't go the route of less resistance (banning political ads) here and rather is trying to get this right!

Political ads a a tiny slice of FBs revenue...so I don't believe they are profit motivated here.

$1B was spend on digital ads in the 2016 presidential runs and Facebook has a 19.6% market share so probably pulled in about $196M which is about 0.35% of their annual revenue...so I don't think they are in it for the money at all

<comment><USER22> >>Political ads are not inherently bad

Are they inherently good?

In any case, I didn't say they _had_ to ban them, though I think in hindsight they should have considering (as you say) that they could afford to.

Since they decided not to, then they should have treated political ads more responsibly. For example, only a candidate can run a political campaign. No anonymous advertisers.</comment></comment></comment>


Finding The First Ten Users For A Product - Week 1 - <AUTHOR> http://first10.255bits.com/2013/01/12/week-1-getting-back-to-our-waiting-list/

<comment><AUTHOR> Love the feedback that you guys gave last week. AMA as usual.</comment>


'Bang With Friends' Gets Booted From App Store - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2013/05/17/bang-with-friends-ios-banned/ <comment><USER2> This is why I don't use iOS and never will. I won't have the maker of my computer telling me what I can and can't run on it.

</comment><comment><USER3> If I install the app? Will other know I have it installed ?

<comment><USER4> No, not by default. You can modify your FB settings to do either</comment></comment>


Hulu encrypts its HTML to fend off Boxee…again - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/02/hulu-encrypts-its-html-to-fend-off-boxeeagain/ <comment><USER2> Boxee including XULRunner isn't circumventing any "encryption". Boxee is then a browser which works on your TV. I'm guessing the content providers for Hulu don't know that you can use your TV as a monitor for your computer yet either.

Also, I never heard of JavaScript source code that is meant to be eval'd qualifying as "encryption". At best you can call it obfuscation.

        document.documentElement.appendChild(document.createTextNode("omfg this is encrypted!!1!!!! DON'T TRY TO CIRCUMVENT"))

</comment><comment><USER3> So the networks would rather Boxee users download full HD, ad-free versions of their shows from the Pirate Bay rather than watch the low-def versions with ads from Hulu?

And then they complain about losing money...

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It's pretty easy to circumvent the encryption, but the act of doing so might be a DMCA violation.

<comment><USER4> I think you just hit the nail on the head. I was wondering why Hulu would take the time to implement such a braindead "encryption" scheme. All you need is a JavaScript interpreter to break this.

But now they can _sue_ anyone who serves their content because it's circumventing their broken encryption scheme. DMCA is quite a nifty bit of legislation.

Hell, publishers once sued someone successfully under DMCA for breaking an "encryption" scheme based on _rot13_. I kid you not: <http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-116424.html?legacy=zdnn>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is html encryption anyways? obfuscation?

<comment><USER6> Looks like some code that has to be run through a couple JS functions before it's legible. I tried seeing where it actually happens on the site and can't find it. Regardless, it has already been "cracked".

[http://www.hulu.com/channels/Action-and- Adventure?ajax=true&...](http://www.hulu.com/channels/Action-and- Adventure?ajax=true&type=episodes&kind=videos&sort=release&page=1)

(That's a link from the article, I can't see anything like that when browsing through the site. It's all plain text for me.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Hacker News like community for active trading? - <AUTHOR> Are there any high quality communities that discuss trading especially swing trading?
There is /r/wallstreetbets which while funny but is full of too much noise.
My friends and I have a Whatsapp group to discuss our trading. We share our trading ideas but we mostly share other topics related to trading (promotions, tutorials, news, brokerages, books). We are pretty exclusive and try not to let anyone in who will be too easily excited.
I just wish our community was a bit bigger because sometimes for example I am looking for a new book to read on trading but no one has any suggestions. <comment><USER2> stocktwits.com

<comment><AUTHOR> If you follow right person perhaps. A lot of it is full of people just talking about what stocks to buy.</comment></comment>