Mercedes got caught trashing a rental Tesla Model X - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1146259/mercedes-got-caught-trashing-a-rental-tesla-model-x/ <comment><USER2> This is actually fairly common, and it's actually standard to rent the vehicles.

When I was a contractor for MAC tools, they would rent cars for the week from the local Hertz branch, documenting the tear down for one of their products, and then disassemble, and then reassemble them during that work week, returning the rental vehicle on Friday.

Hertz didn't seem to mind -- I asked the Hertz manager the next time I was renting a car from there why they did it, and he openly told me that he could charge them 6 times the normal weekly rate (which looked good for his numbers), he would drive any vehicle returned for the next week to make sure there weren't any issues, and that the dealership would still warranty any damages, so, he saw it as a win/win...

...I'm not so certain that I'd take a risk like that, though.

<comment><USER3> >... tear down for one of their products, and then disassemble, and then reassemble them during that work week, returning the rental vehicle on Friday.

> ...the dealership would still warranty any damages...

Does disassembling a car not void the warranty?

<comment><USER4> Not usually. Only modifications will usually do that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just for the record, the first linked article from spiegel.de is not about Daimler and Tesla, but about Daimler and Deutsche Post (the former federal Postal Service, no a semi-private company). The latter has just recently developed its own electric delivery truck, and Daimler rented a demonstration vehicle via a letterbox company, but got caught by a GPS tracker in the car.

</comment><comment><USER6> From what I know, this is not only a normal thing to do, everybody is doing it. The reason for renting the car and not buying it is not only because it is much faster to get your hands on the car, much cheaper and much easier, but what would they do with do many cars that should be bought after disassembling them and doing whatever they want to do? They do not do this for every car, but with so many manufacturers and car models every year this could well be 50 cars a year. An interesting thing I know is that it could take 2 days to disassemble the rented car, one day of photoshoot and then two days of assembling the car back. And even for experienced people like them breaking some parts while disassembling is also a normal thing. So very often cable ties are used to hold some plastics or other parts together. Important is that they are not visible during visual inspection when they return the car back

</comment><comment><USER7> The article didn't address why Daimler rented the car instead of purchasing it. Were they just being cheap? Was stock of the car unavailable? Did they anticipate counterespionage from Tessa if they purchased a unit above board?

<comment><USER8> My best guess was that they couldn't get their own car on the necessary schedule (I have the impression you can't just go ahead and buy one and have it inside of a week, but it could just be a stock issue like you suggested), so maybe they were willing to face the consequences of repairing a rental instead of delaying. Perhaps they had a short window of time to work with special people/equipment.

Definitely an interesting story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is so weird, I'm curious why would a company like Mercedes do something like this? Surely they can afford to buy it, and then they won't have to go around vandalising other people's cars.

</comment><comment><USER10> They do it this way so there is no 'special treatment' from the manufacturer. They know they are getting the same build that any Jo Public would.

<comment><USER11> They could just send an undercover Jo Public to buy a car. There must be another reason, like saving money (!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Lmao seriously? How could they not afford to just buy one for their own uses? I can't believe the level of unprofessionalism here.</comment>


My book: "Loving Common Lisp, or the Savvy Programmer's Secret Weapon" - <AUTHOR> https://leanpub.com/lovinglisp

<comment><AUTHOR> I am taking my wife to the movies, but I will be back in a few hours to answer questions.

This is the third edition of my book "Loving Common Lisp, or the Savvy Programmer's Secret Weapon." I removed some of the older material from the earlier editions and added application examples for using Common Lisp clients for: MongoDB, Solr, CouchDB, and relational databases. I also added a chapter using my Natural Language Processing (NLP) library and a short chapter on information gathering.

<comment><USER2> Since this is the third addition, could you please point us at some reviews for the first two additions?

$3 is a no brainer and you should probably charge more, but the cost of time invested in reading is what is valuable.

One question I have for authors is "What book would you recommend over your own book?" I ask this because I once met an author of many technical books going back 20+ years, but I was supremely disappointed when I discovered that he wasn't familiar with some of the most highly regarded books in computing like The Little Schemer, K&R, etc. It's clear from your books, that you're not clueless like he was, but I'd still love to hear what books you look up to as an author.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suggest that you grab a free copy of the previous edition and look at that for a few minutes.

Other Lisp books I like: Peter Norvig's first book for Morgan Kaufman, "Paradigms of Artificial Intelligence Programming: Case Studies in Common Lisp" and I rather like my first Springer-Verlag Lisp book. Norvig's book is awesome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> It would be nice if the author provided some sample chapters so we could find out a bit more about the content and writing style before buying the book. Yes, I see there's a money-back guarantee, but I'd rather not provide my personal details to the publisher just to look at a few pages of a book I may not be interested in reading.

<comment><USER4> [http://markwatson.com/opencontent_data/lisp_lic.htm](http://markwatson.com/opencontent_data/lisp_lic.htm)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is the 2nd edition of my book. Except for 4 new chapters in the 3rd edition, the 2nd edition is similar.</comment></comment></comment>


Examining Carlos Ghosn and Japan's System of 'Hostage Justice' - <AUTHOR> https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2019/04/17/national/crime-legal/examining-carlos-ghosn-japans-system-hostage-justice/ <comment><USER2> Ghosn's handling by the Japanese is utterly despicable. No habeas corpus ... no due process.

Ghosn is credited with a stunning corporate turnaround and creating billions of dollars of value for a Japanese company and the Japanese people. I am certain foreign corporations who do business in Japan are thinking long and hard about the implications and potential risks of operating there.

To be clear - I am not saying Ghosn is innocent. He may very well have created special corporate structures to siphon off cash - and if he did, he certainly didn't do it alone. I think he regretted not taking the helm of GM where he saw US top execs easily earning $20, $30mm a year with no complaints from the public...

<comment><USER3> At some point, foreign nations are different and we just have to deal with it. We got habeas corpus and other processes from the Magna Carta back in the eleventh century B.C., and the resultant English Common Law shaped the justice systems of America and other nations. It is not fair of us to expect all justice systems to align with ours.

For an extreme example of this issue, look at the Middle East. They have simply never taken to democracy, and a good number of people are of the opinion it is simply an issue with their culture. This is why nation-building fails there. Japan is so to a lesser degree. They Westernized more due to losing WWII to America, but are still different. It's not our job to play world police.

<comment><USER4> > For an extreme example of this issue, look at the Middle East. They have > simply never taken to democracy.

This isn't helped by foreign interference in every election they have. Even the borders, arbitrary lines drawn up by colonial powers, contribute to the problem as the forced groupings don't suit anyone except for some colonial empire a long time ago. If the meddling stopped for a decent duration democracy might have a chance.

<comment><USER5> Maybe, maybe not. Counter example. Bangladesh (where I'm from) was created in 1972 with a constitution embodying various western style principles, including secularism. The country was organized along pretty sensible geographic/linguistic/religious borders, and there has been no western meddling with its elections. Regardless, over the decades the people have voted to make Islam the official religion and generally cut back on secularism, free speech, and democracy. One of the relatively few bright spots is the Bangladesh Supreme Court—a western transplantation that _e.g._ conducts its business and issues opinions in English. Americans love to blame the west for everything. I find it fairly patronizing.

<comment><USER3> I certainly didn't blame the west. I personally think it has done more good than harm in the long term. My only point was that not all cultures take to democracy in the same way.

<comment><USER5> I was responding to @lostlogin's response to you.

<comment><USER4> I don't entirely follow sorry, could you expand a little on your comment about it being patronising how Americans blame the west?

In the Middle East, there are so many bad actors it's ridiculous. I haven't consciously encountered Americans blaming the west for the situation in the Middle East. Does the definition of 'west' you are using include the US?

In case it is relevant, I am from New Zealand and think the disgusting behaviour in the region started long before the US got involved and includes far more countries than any set defined as 'western'. Even places as far away and as small as New Zealand have ended up with a record of massacres and murders when in involved in the region.

<comment><USER5> I'm saying Americans blame the west, not necessarily that Americans blame America. America had very little to do in the subcontinent, for example.

As to it being patronizing. Speaking for myself—I think if you can't blame people for the state of their own country, you're taking agency away from those people. The British did lots of bad things in the subcontinent and looted it. (They also left some really good values and ideas and institutions.) But that ended 70 years ago. In that same time period, South Korea went from being nearly as poor, and far more war torn, to being a developed nation. It's not the absence of interference from the west that did that, it's the industry and virtue of the Korean people. Likewise, to the extent Bangladesh hasn't grown as fast as it should (and to be fair, things have gotten better at least on the economic side in the last decade), who is to blame? I think it's patronizing to continue to blame the west. Maybe blame the fact that Bangladeshis supported a military dictator for President, supported dismantling secularism, invited fundamentalism in from the Middle East, etc. Whose fault is it? Maybe it's the fault of the clerks in the Bangladesh Supreme Court that demand bribes to quickly your filings quickly. If we credit Koreans for the development of their country, Bangladeshis must get their fair share of blame for what is happening in their own country.

<comment><USER4> Thank you for that reply, I see your point and it's a good one.

I think that the two arguments are not in opposition though. It is possible for foreign interference to have harmed democracy in the Middle East and for locals to have damaged it too, and there are plenty of examples of this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The real mindfuck here isn't just that Japanese law allows the authorities to question you during detention (before being charged with anything), all day every day, with no attorney present.

Nor is it that they can restrict access to the outside world, only allowing you to speak to family for max 20m a day, with a translator + officer present at all times.

No, the real kicker is that the clock for the 20-30 day detention period starts fresh every time, for each charge they want to investigate. This means that they can essentially keep people in detention for as long as they want by having a list of charges and "investigating" them one at a time.

If you're used to things like due process, "give me my phone call", etc, the Japanese justice system is quite difficult to wrap your head around.

I have no idea if Ghosn is guilty of what he is accused of. But there are massive pressures to extract confessions from people in his position. And forced confessions reduce the legitimacy of the entire justice system.

</comment><comment><USER7> Edit: I just realized that the nearly 100% conviction rate is only for those who go to trial. A third of the people who are detained are released without trial. So ignore this post: my main assumption (that arrest is similar to conviction) was incorrect.

\---

Maybe one way to think of the Japanese justice system is that the trial happens before the defendant is arrested. After all, the conviction rate is nearly 100%, so in some sense the actual trial is just a formality. From that perspective, it's not surprising that defendants may be detained without bail for weeks: the system treats them as if they are already convicted.

It seems to me that with such a system, it's far too easy to convict an innocent person: after all, the decision is made by prosecutors, who are usually incentivized to err on the side of conviction (both by career pressures and by personal predisposition).

Do we know whether Japan has a really high false conviction rate? It's probably very hard to answer, since it's unclear how anyone could collect such statistics.

If it turns out that false convictions are rare in Japan, it may imply the prosecutors are actually trying to discover the truth rather than convict. Which would be a very interesting deviation from any other justice system I know of.

<comment><USER8> Like much of Japanese society, appearances and propriety are very important. Sometimes that means releasing criminals who might not be found guilty. Sometimes it means homicides get declared suicides.

<comment><USER9> Years and years ago I traveled to Japan.

It seemed like a very safe place. I had heard about crime in Japan, and the year before had (allegedly) less than 100 murders for the entire country, which puts the murder rate far, far below the rest of the world.

And these days when I read about how criminal justice works there... well, I'm glad I'm not as naive as I used to be.

<comment><USER10> It's a case of both. Japan is incredibly safe, no questions about that. At the same time they have a very severe problem with managing expectations and facing the sometimes inevitable less than perfect results of reality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I find it interesting how Japan and Germany both have a constitution that was essentially written by Americans after the second world war. But there is a big difference in civil liberties between these countries.

E.G. If the police charge you in Japan, there is very little chance not being sentenced to something (or taken hostage). Compared to Germany where you would have a much fairer trial.

<comment><USER12> Aside, not relevant to the article discussed here.

       constitution that was essentially
       written by Americans

I cannot speak about Japan, but that's historically false for Germany. If you look at the list of participants in the main events that drafted the West German constitution such as the _Rittersturz-Konferenz_ [1] and the _Verfassungskonvent auf Herrenchiemsee_ [2], then you'll see that all participants are German. Naturally, the allies had to agree, but they were split in a big way. The Soviet Union anyway, but the US and France really had very different ideas. France, in particular, wanted to snatch the Saar region. Naturally the drafters of the German constitution were inspired in particular by the US constitution, because it was rather successful.

[1] [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rittersturz- Konferenz](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rittersturz-Konferenz)

[2] [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungskonvent_auf_Herrenc...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungskonvent_auf_Herrenchiemsee)

<comment><USER11> My constitutional knowledge on the German constitution is a bit rusty, but I guess you hit the nail on the head when you say: 'Naturally, the allies had to agree'. The Allies were the ones that required these conferences and approved of the Germans that went there. I guess the English and the French had some say, but really the big dog of the allies was the US. So I stand by my statement.

<comment><USER13> No, they did not; the conferences were attended by the governments of the German states, who had passed through the de-Nazification filter but were otherwise selected by purely German political processes.

When it came to the content of the constitution, the Allies' conditions were clear and pretty general - it had to be democratic, and it had to be federal. (The latter was distinguished from the Weimar constitution only in that the Allies insisted on general size parity between states.) Plus complying with occupation policy on control of heavy industry. See [https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Dokumente](https://de.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frankfurter_Dokumente)

The main principles of the constitution itself were assembled by German elected governments of the states ([https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungskonvent_auf_Herrenc...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verfassungskonvent_auf_Herrenchiemsee#Ergebnisse)), and were very much direct responses to the process of the Nazi takeover in 1933.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Japan is a really weird country, on one hand it's the safest country, on the other it has old laws / weird mentality about some modern concepts for society, ex: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_child_abduction_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_child_abduction_in_Japan)

<comment><USER15> > Japan is a really weird country, on one hand it's the safest country

How do you know it is safe if you can easily be wrongly convicted, but no statistic about the country shows that?

<comment><USER16> Criminals think seven, no, seventy times before doing anything that could possibly upset japan national on Japanese soil.

This is how it is that safe.

<comment><USER17> _Criminals think seven, no, seventy times before doing anything that could possibly upset japan national on Japanese soil._

 _This is how it is that safe._

Or, the criminals are organized and have connections and unspoken agreements with the authorities, existing in a kind of truce.

(EDIT: In essence, the seven to seventy times thinking over has been enshrined and institutionalized.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not going to tell the Japanese how to run their society, primarily because I'm not Japanese, they're a sovereign nation, and there is no evidence that the system I'm currently subjected to is any better or worse.

If the Japanese people want to change this, and want external support to change this, that is an entirely different discussion from what was in this article.

<comment><USER17> _there is no evidence that the system I 'm currently subjected to is any better or worse_

There's plenty of evidence in the form of the many people who want to come here, and in the form of the many people who have come here and established successful happy lives. My family history is evidence. Inherent, universal human rights are the right side of history. The history of the world shows this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't see the problem. Extended detention and repeated interrogation is normal around the world. Visit Rikers island and look at how long people are held there prior to trial (years). The focus on confessions isn't a Japanese thing. Look at how many americans/canadians/brits/auzzis agree plea deals, a form of confession. Repeated questioning isn't torture. In the USA it is true that police have to stop asking questions once you demand a lawyer, but that isn't true in Canada. The mounties can, and do, question suspects for hours. Brits who do not want to speak still have to sit through the ritual of "no comment' interviews which can last hours. Are we only talking about these Japanese cases because they involve rich people?

<comment><USER20> My unpopular opinion: Questioning someone longer than they want to provide answers, when that same person is unable to leave the interview is a form of torture -- change my mind.

<comment><USER21> Your request is, at its heart, a question about the definition of the word "torture".

The pedestrian definition of "torture" as per the Merriam-Webster dictionary is:

1: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure

2: a) something that causes agony or pain; b) anguish of body or mind

3: distortion or overrefinement of a meaning or an argument

I guess definition 2b in the context of "mind" fits best with your proposition. Which then leads to the definition of "anguish".

Alternatively, we can examine the legal definition, which will vary by jurisdiction, but for completeness, I will link to the UN definition at [https://www.apt.ch/en/what-is-torture/](https://www.apt.ch/en/what-is- torture/). In brief:

"Torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession"

Here, you'd have to ask if prolonged unwanted questioning causes "severe [mental] pain or suffering".

And finally, perhaps you mean torture in the figurative sense.

Either way, if simply questioning someone "longer than they want" is "torture" then pretty much all of us have, at some point tortured someone. At that point, the word "torture" becomes synonymous with "discomfort" or "to annoy" and would, IMO, lose all utility from a legal point of view.

In the final analysis, what this boils down to is that the world does not exist to serve your desires. Unpleasant things can and will happen to you. Even being asked questions you don't want to answer in situations where you cannot leave. While an individual may never have experienced anything more unpleasant than that, and thus it feels horrible to them, the fact is that there are far far FAR more unpleasant experiences that millions of others have faced. Society does not owe the sheltered more than the less sheltered.

<comment><USER22> It makes more sense if you think of torture as a gradient, not a binary.

2 hours of questioning in a room? Not that torturous. 60 days, 12 hours a day, even if your basic needs are met? Pretty bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> > _During detention, both were subject to extensive questioning by prosecutors > without an attorney present. Videotapes of Ghosn's questioning — a new > feature added in the Criminal Procedure Reform law in 2016 in direct > response to documented abuses — were made available to his attorneys who > were present at the detention center, but lawyers were not permitted in the > room where questioning took place._

> _The system must change._

> _First, every suspect should have the right to consult a lawyer as soon as > the case is in the hands of prosecutors, and questioning should be > prohibited in the absence of an attorney._

The article makes no attempt whatsoever to explain why the above change "must" be made. I'm on the fence on this matter, but the article just sounds like a sanctimonious scolding of Japan for not doing what other Western countries are doing.

 _" We're all doing it, so you better do it too"_ isn't a particularly compelling argument. In fact, given how much more effective their criminal Justice system is compared to America's, I would err on the side of keeping up their good work.

<comment><USER24> > In fact, given how much more effective their criminal Justice system is > compared to America's, I would err on the side of keeping up their good > work.

When a society justifies human rights abuses based on results, bad things tend to happen.

<comment><USER23> Being questioned by the police without a lawyer being present, is a "human rights abuse"? I have yet to hear an explanation on why being questioned 1:1 by the police is so bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I find Western criticism of Japan's legal system hilarious.

> Japanese prosecutors subject suspects to up to eight hours of daily > questioning while they are detained in a bid to obtain a confession, > shutting off access to their family and barring them from obtaining legal > assistance during the questioning. And according to the popular narrative, > it's all done capriciously, with the nefarious machinations of the state > lurking behind.

This is true in almost every western country except the US. England, Canada, Australia etc you have no right to a lawyer during questioning. Police will destroy and cover up evidence in attempt to frame people on a regular basis, and basically join the prosecution from day 1 instead of investigating crime. They seek certain sorts of convictions to please their politics masters. They much rather a rape conviction than a false accusation conviction for example. They will prosecute people against the weight of evidence, where in fact the only evidence is exculpatory.

Consider the case of Mark Pearson. Falsely accused of a rape after bumping into a woman in a subway station. Video evidence proved it wasn't possible, so police slowed down the footage to make it appear it did happen. [https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cps-slowed- down-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cps-slowed-down-cctv- footage-of-commuter-accused-of-sexual-assault-to-look-like-he-had-more-time- to-a6861181.html)

Now if this same thing happened in Japan, if they saw the video footage that basically proved it was a false accusation, do you think they would have acted as capriciously as UK police, or maybe charged the woman instead?

The narcissism of the Western political/legal class knows no bounds.

</comment><comment><USER26> Who is the writer and what is his angle here? It looks like this is his only contribution to this outlet. A google search on his name turns up nothing.

<comment><USER27> Outside Board Director, Former Executive Officer at US/Japan Multinationals, Retired Int'l Business Attorney.

you can find him on linkedin.

[https://www.linkedin.com/today/author/eneiheisel](https://www.linkedin.com/today/author/eneiheisel)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> i find it interesting that if a normal person gets detained like this, no one fucking cares. ;)

</comment><comment><USER29> A hundred years ago, Japan was a feudal society. Apparently, some of the old traditions live on.

<comment><USER30> Japan wasn't a feudal society 100 years ago, in fact, they had beaten a western power 10 years prior.

Not to mention the 'West' just finished 4 years of blowing each other up, not very "Civilized" imo.

<comment><USER31> And also not to mention that while their internal justice may have been questionable (as it always is, everywhere), the Edo period had zero war for 250 years. Imagine the US never having been in a war since before the Declaration of Independence. Would that GP included _that_ in their criticism.</comment></comment></comment>


This app looks like it's alive - Real-time shadows and reflections. - <AUTHOR> http://pixiteapps.com/blog/matter/

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is the main page for the app - [http://matterapp.co/](http://matterapp.co/)</comment>


Watching cars driving down a highway outside of Tokyo, from our own satellites - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/earlkman/status/783335483405312000 <comment><USER2> I'll copy one of the comments:

> pics or it didn't happen ;)

I.E. It look interesting, but it would be more interesting if some kind of video / gif is available.</comment>


Learn refactoring, design patterns, SOLID principles, and other topics - <AUTHOR> https://refactoring.guru <comment><AUTHOR> Just stumbled upon this site, and it seems like a really good resource to learn about those concepts, and it provides the information in a really nice interactive way.</comment>


What if China corners the cobalt market? - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21739161-nickel-could-make-good-substituteprovided-car-batteries-dont-catch-fire-what-if <comment><USER3> The same thing that happened when China "cornered" the rare earth metals market: other mines were opened and a temporary advantage mostly disappeared.

The same will happen here.

In addition, cobalt can be recycled from existing batteries, but it is currently not economical to do so. When you can trade existing batteries to Best Buy for a couple bucks, you'll know the price of cobalt (or nickel, or lithium) is genuinely high.

People interested should read _Junkyard Planet_ : [https://www.amazon.co.uk/Junkyard-Planet-Travels-Billion- Dol...](https://www.amazon.co.uk/Junkyard-Planet-Travels-Billion-Dollar- Trash/dp/160819793X)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep. The author actually summarized it pretty well in the last paragraph:

          In theory, the best way to ensure sufficient supplies of
          both nickel and cobalt would be for prices to rise enough
          to make mining them together more profitable.

<comment><USER4> Of course, that works because "sufficient supplies" is defined as "sufficient at price X to those who are willing to pay X" not "sufficient for those who only wanted to pay the original price".

The principle works for anything at any price, nearly vacuously.

For instance, there are sufficient supplies of Lamborghini automobiles, ensured by the price being high enough that making them is profitable.

<comment><USER5> Yep, but it is a useful concept with certain minerals and products. For instance, the vast majority of the cost of producing a lithium battery is the big oven to dry them out before sealing them, the price of the lithium itself is way down the list and could effectively double before it massively affected battery costs. However if the price does double, suddenly lithium is economically available pretty much everywhere.

<comment><USER4> Thus if there is a niche use for some material, and that something is very cheap, but that niche use itself is profitable, then that industry somehow ensures that it has enough of the material just for itself. Maybe by owning the production chains of that material; those units don't have to stand alone as profitable. Outsiders can't easily get the stuff, though. If the stuff becomes independently profitable, then the availability follows.

<comment><USER5> These thing can happen by accident also. If it is generally known that there are only a few places in the world that you get lithium from, then investors are going to think that lithium is very risky and may run out. They don't tend to think, "Hey, it is the third lightest element, in theory there should be loads of it, perhaps we are only mining the cheapest possible sources", which is the actual truth of the matter. So while the people inside the industry might know the potential availability, investors on the whole do not and so the market only gets enough money to expand conservatively, rather than enough to kick off a magnitude more resource acquisition at a significantly higher raw material cost.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A similar thing happened to rubber during WWII when natural rubber resources were compromised. (If anyone is in doubt about the nature of the US relationship with China, consider this news story. [1])

> _" When the natural rubber supply from Southeast Asia was cut off at the > beginning of World War II, the United States and its allies faced the loss > of a strategic material. With U.S. government sponsorship, a consortium of > companies involved in rubber research and production united in a unique > spirit of technical cooperation and dedication to produce a general purpose > synthetic rubber, GR-S (Government Rubber-Styrene), on a commercial scale."_ > [0]

It seems that tech companies and the governments of the world just need to either find more resources and control them. Or find new ways to make batteries with different tech/chemistry. (The second option seems the smartest long term, just like rubber tech)

[0] [https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry...](https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/syntheticrubber.html)

[1] [https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense- national-s...](https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/defense-national- security/fcc-wants-chinese-tech-out-of-us-phones-routers)

Edit: Years ago a client of mine made software for satellites for an unnamed massive defence contractor. They were control systems for satellites that killed other satellites. He was doing this work in the 90s. Late 90s he said the US's biggest enemy was China.

<comment><USER7> > _Late 90s he said the US 's biggest enemy was China._

Well, biggest competitor. For enemy it should have also actually done something, and until now it's mostly been western nations doing things to China ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Century_of_humiliation)).

Besides, who else would have he said at the late 90s? Russia was a faltering non-entity under Yeltsin, and China was emerging and a billion+ strong.

<comment><USER8> China's territorial expansion in the South Pacific and support of anti- American political parties in e.g. Cuba and Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over the status of Taiwan.

It should be noted that the US put an end to colonial expeditions in China with the Open Door Policy in 1899. The "Century of Humiliation" article enumerates complaints about the colonial expeditions but does not mention any US actions or the ODP, the latter, I assume, being considered not humiliating. It's hard for me to imagine why the US should be lumped in with Britain/France/Russia/Japan in the period before 1949. After that we were at Cold War, of course.

<comment><USER9> > China's ... support of anti-American political parties in e.g. Cuba and > Venezuela is certainly enough to warrant Stephen Colbert's suggested title > "frenemy", not to mention their continued international temper tantrums over > the status of Taiwan.

How can you not see the contradiction in this sentence? You say that China supporting anti-US elements is them being aggressive—sure. But then you characterize China's opposition to Taiwan, which continues to exist arguably solely because of US support, as a "temper tantrum." How is this supposed to be Chinese aggression, any more than the Civil War was the War of Northern Aggression?

The GP's point is that it has mostly been the US being aggressive towards China, rather than vice versa. It is definitely possible to argue against, and it is definitely possible to argue that China should try to get along with Taiwan. This I would agree with.

But your argument is self-defeating and plain inaccurate. (Also, characterizing the Open Door Policy as not an aggressive action is also plain wrong. Would you characterize Commodore Perry's expedition to Japan as non- aggressive as well?)

<comment><USER8> Whether the US's support of Taiwan is aggressive is immaterial; nowhere did I suggest that the US has taken no aggressive actions against China. I responded to a claim by 'coldtea that China has taken _no_ aggressive actions against the US and I make no claims regarding degrees. US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as nonaggressive.

China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII. That the PRC would wish for those agreements to be binding is ironic considering their characterization of the RoC as a US puppet state.

<comment><USER7> > _US aggression towards China does not reclassify actions by China as > nonaggressive._

It might well reclassify them as defense.

At worst, it puts them in perspective.

Else, it's like saying "someone fighting back a bully does not reclassify his actions as nonaggressive".

>* China's actions regarding Taiwan are nonetheless absurd because it was basically a colonial possession of the Qing Dynasty, having not been part of China before the 17th century, so China has no serious "historic" right to claim it aside from nonbinding agreements between the US/RoC during WWII.*

So, the US would for example would easily give away California to Mexico, Hawaii or Puerto Rico to the natives, etc, if it came to some schism, right? After all, they're way younger possessions than a 17th century one.

(And it's not just about state ownership -- China itself was divided in many ways over the course of history. It's about common culture and ethnicity, not about it being a part of the "official state" since forever. Taiwanese are settlers from China, and even the previous local (aboriginals) had come from China).

<comment><USER8> >It might well reclassify them as defense.

>At worst, it puts them in perspective.

The context is "For China to be considered an enemy it ought to have done something." Defense of any form obviously satisfies this requirement. You are only arguing semantics.

But in Taiwan, China is the bully, and the US defends peace.

>the US for example would easily give away California to Mexico

The US controls California. If we lost it, it would be ridiculous to spend 70 years threatening war against anyone who suggested we should admit it.

>Taiwanese are settlers from China

Americans are settlers from England.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When it comes to trade war topic these days, most Western commentators completely miss that a trade war is what China was preparing intensively for the last quarter of a century. They well expected an economic pressure on a scale even bigger than what the West puts on North Korea and banana republics. They totally understood that the West will not play nice with them forever.

There is zero questions about China's economic policy being very strategic, and deliberate. Chinese state conglomerates may look to just littering around the world with money, but analyze it more, and you see a pattern, one that is very much like a game of Go - victory by limiting enemy moves.

They buy ally countries, strategically - they buy resource supplying countries, often with major holds on markets of vital commodities.

Their tech purchases - mostly underappreciated market leaders with industry wide influence. Kuka - the only company you can say to be Tier 1 in robotics, all other competitors combined will not be an equivalent for it. I has almost complete dominance over major heavy industries. Lattice Semi - the one and only FPGA company that can threaten the Xilinx-Altera duopoly. And so on and on and on.

Their domestic tech development - even more so. People talk about China dominating consumer goods manufacturing without realisation that it has even bigger hold of manufacturing machinery industry - manufacturing can't really leave China with Chinese made manufacturing equipment being locked down.

The whole industry you can call "Manufacturing machinery 2.0" is a domestic Chinese development. Biotech - China quietly ate the market for genetic engineering reagents, as well as much for complex organic chemistry. There are megatons of biotech startups in the West, but they all feel that they will eventually have to move to China to have any chance to scale - <USER2> they are already a Chinese property.

Military allies - well, there things are even more obvious.

Major trade agreements - same. Their idea is to bind any major developing market niche to Chinese economy before the West even realizes its emergence.

Their idea - to make it so that if somebody wants to do anything any much big being impossible without involving a Chinese company or state institution at some part of the process - to make it "You can't do that without China"

<comment><USER11> And yet, the moment you want to move any of those resources from one place to another, you must deal with the US Navy, which, without meaningful resistance, can control all global shipping lanes at will.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers#Numb...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aircraft_carriers#Numbers_of_aircraft_carriers_by_country)

When it comes to limiting moves, no country has the ability that the US does.

<comment><USER10> Indeed, this is currently missing from Chinese strategic calculations. While they do seem to be scrambling to build a navy before the good times end, they do that not to 100% of their abilities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A 2017 Tesla battery has 4.8 kilograms of cobalt [1]. At $100/kg the Tesla uses $480 worth of cobalt. Two years ago at $25/kg it used $120 worth of cobalt. So $360 or 1.2% more for a $30,000 car.

This is important to a some people at Tesla who will try to reduce cobalt usage, to battery recyclers, and to cobalt mine owners. It is only interesting to everyone else (us).

This is not China winning or beating the US or anything like that. China has pricey cobalt too. And the best way to minimize the effect of very minor supply disruptions like this is more free trade so that when the price goes up someone opens a mine in Australia and it can be bought there. The historic shortages mentioned in these comments were in the era of protectionism. That is why economists are afraid of Trump's trade war ideas, these little problems will add up and cost the US in higher prices.

[1] [https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-09-28/cobalt-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/gadfly/articles/2017-09-28/cobalt- s-chemistry-experiment)

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm afraid we are just beginning to learn how badly we have arrogantly underestimated China.

<comment><USER14> I believe we're all actually very deep into realizing the problem, across North America-Europe-Asia. The context now is what to do about China's economic protectionism and their refusal after two decades of false pledges to actually do what they said they would to gain admittance into the WTO.

France for example is trying to get everyone to focus on banding up against China's dumping practices (the US should be working with the EU on this, Trump is half going about the trade war wrong of course). Germany & others are looking at rejecting the aggressive technology transfers / acquisitions that China is making or trying to make.

India is into overdrive about China's military plans across the Indian Ocean and greater region.

China's neighbors have been sweating for years about what's coming next out of them militarily, beyond their territory acquisitions in the South China Sea.

The US has entirely frozen China's ability to buy US companies and is reciprocating on behavior by increasingly locking out several of China's big companies.

<comment><USER15> Trump tariffed the EU and Canada because they allow China to buy companies in their countries to avoid direct tariffs from the US. It wouldn't have been necessary if our 'allies' valued our relationship more than making billions from the Chinese in exchange for stabbing us in the back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's a fascinating, if little-known term, the "Harbord List".

Better known via a successor concept, the Strategic Minerals Reserve, now DLA Strategic Materials. Which serves _both_ military _and commercial_ interests.

[https://books.google.com/books?id=oy4rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=P...](https://books.google.com/books?id=oy4rAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq="harbord+list"&source=bl&ots=5TOUbFEjd0&sig=LJF0SfMWqgsWv3AbHv5H0x-I658&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy7qG3wo3aAhVl9IMKHe0xB0gQ6AEwAXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22harbord%20list%22&f=false)

[https://books.google.com/books?id=OqNawWS7iHsC&pg=PA221&lpg=...](https://books.google.com/books?id=OqNawWS7iHsC&pg=PA221&lpg=PA221&dq="harbord+list"&source=bl&ots=IUUj3jYWDU&sig=I3m-Oty9HAQEquZCJ9T8uqlR1sE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiy7qG3wo3aAhVl9IMKHe0xB0gQ6AEwAHoECAcQAQ#v=onepage&q=%22harbord%20list%22&f=false)

[https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/dnsc.htm](https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/agency/dod/dnsc.htm)

</comment><comment><USER17> I have rewritten, in my head, the comment I am about to make 2 or 3 times, and it kept getting more obfuscated by me trying to portray it in a way that gets me an answer and not get my karma obliterated. So I will just go with the blurt method:

Was Trump right about China? Additionally, was it a mistake to be so helpful to the Chinese 1970s- now?

<comment><USER10> >was it a mistake to be so helpful to the Chinese 1970s- now?

Yes

Mr. Kissinger and Mr. Nixon misunderstood crucial things about China.

Sino-Soviet split was not such. Rather than an imagined existential struggle, it is better to say it was a family squabble; like newlyweds trying to figure out who is a top dog in a family. Rather than splitting the Eastern Bloc, they just gave Chinese a much bigger advantage in negotiations with Soviets. A proof of that is USSR giving Chinese not something, but a _NUKE_ , a jet engine tech, tanks, AA and ground to air missiles (!), and truckloads of resources looong into the split.

Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kissinger were tricked by Chinese.

If you doubt so, read excepts from Kissinger's biography about his thoughts at the moment of US-Mao deal. He was completely oblivious of all aforementioned.

<comment><USER18> The sino Soviet split was real, and could have easily escalated into a shooting war (and actually was one in Vietnam by proxy) beyond a few border scruffles. China making overtures to the USA was a matter of survival to them as they thought at the time.

<comment><USER17> FWIW they totally duked it out in the Northern/Mongolian region. But they kept it quiet so we all forget. China also pushed heavily into India during the Cuban Missile Crisis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> We should probably exploit local resources, anyway. Mines in some Asian and third world countries have terrible human rights records.

<comment><USER6> The US had horrible human rights records in the early 1900s, but this was fixed with prosperity and a population that demanded their government protect them.

Rights the US should be helping to motivate other countries to employ, not playing grab-ass with China over property rights and resources.

<comment><USER20> Comparing something that happened 100 years ago is not an equal comparison. The reason we have changed since the 1900s is because of horrible working conditions. The US also significantly changed in the 1970s in regards to pollution, Ohio river fire[1].

The point is we can't allow someone to make questionable choices just because we did it 100 years ago. Especially when it's changing the environment, it's up to Western companies and China to make a change.

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

<comment><USER6> > _...we can't allow someone to make questionable choices just because we did > it 100 years ago._

I didn't even remotely suggest that, I said the opposite. That the real solution is to get the countries on their feet so they can run things themselves, be their own people and control their own resources. Then they can control their pollution and human rights.

Until a country can stand on it's own two feet, it will be a pawn between global power brokers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What a load of rubbish I see in the comments. The US has been using all the tricks in the book, for decades, to further its economic dominance, including shaping international law in its own interest (copyright & IP law) and other niceties like invading countries, corrupting democracies, supporting dictators, and lying in the security council. All while polluting and laying to waste the planet.

And now you are complaining because China is, adhering to international trading agreements, improving the quality of living of their citizens, and winning in some areas? Whiners! What a fitting president you have ...

It would be good for you to realize that the planet is not only populated by americans, that other people have the same right as you have to improve their quality of life, and that you do not have any divine entitlement to affluence.

<comment><USER22> I think most of the issue is that they were let into international trade markets on the assumption that it would be a free market but they have stolen a lot of IP and not been a particularly open or free market in some areas. I hope the international community calls out the US on a lot of toxic practices but doesn't mean we need to ignore the poor Chinese trade practices

<comment><USER21> Have you even, for a fraction of a second, considered what it meant, for example, to invade Irak and kill thousands / millions of civilians, while destabilizing one of the most dangerous areas of the planet?

And you are worried that, in a playing field tilted by and towards the US, China has found a way, maybe playing the system, to improve their economic well-being? I for one hope that they keep on finding ways to force the system to "trickle down", as your right-wing capitalists like to describe your dysfunctional one-percenter system.

According to you, now is the time to call the unfair Chinese trade practices, and yes, you know, we will even maybe take a look at what the US has been doing for decades, yes maybe we will take a look now, but of course the important thing is to make sure that the Chinese do not play the system to their advantage. Once we make sure, then we can forget about the wrongdoings of the US. After all, the US are the good ones, so who cares if you kill one million here, one million there. It is for the greater good.

Rubbish.

<comment><USER22> I'm all for equal enforcement of trade issues so I'm not really sure who you are arguing against here. It's also a good time to call the US out on their problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Which country _doesn 't_ want to corner supply markets? How is this different from if any other country would have done it?

<comment><USER6> The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government, thus creating an unholy alliance where the government can manipulate the value of their currency and empower their businesses to out compete on the global markets unfairly.

<comment><USER23> >The difference is that other countries don't combine their businesses with their government,

The US government has export embargoes, and has blocked the foreign purchase of US tech firms, citing "national security". The NSA has used US tech firms to spy on foreign citizens/governments.

>where the government can manipulate the value of their currency and empower their businesses to out compete on the global markets unfairly.

Every government tries to make exports cheaper. How many billions of dollars has the US treasury printed during quantitative easing? Also, for e.g., the US defense only accepts payment in USD for weapons purchases or defense services (to korea, japan, etc) - in part - helping keep the demand for the USD high. Calling it currency manipulation doesn't make it evil when China does it. Its just a game that all countries play and each tries to brush their own motivations under carpets with different words written on top.

To me, while it's not a wash, with every country being "equally bad", its a little hypocritical to see countries adopt a "do as i say, not as I did" policy.

<comment><USER24> What I think is happening is people are identifying machiavellian actions. Chinese actions aren't 'bad' per se- they are self-interested though- and often in a zero-sum context.

The US, despite many deplorable actions by its government over the years, consistently also supported good government initiatives, development initiatives, and generally bi-lateral open markets.

This has allowed well run countries access to a large export base with minimal barriers- hence the rise of countries like S. Korea, Japan, China, Taiwan and Germany post WWII, all of which could have been foreclosed by the hyperpower of the US if it so wished.

China is completely strategic in leveraging its money and industrial base into more military and political power. It has no problem in leveraging corrupt governments like Venezuela to secure more strategic influence, much like the US did during the Cold War, which at least had the goal and virtue of halting the spread of totalitarian Communism.

If a nation is going to act completely self-interested, rather than contribute to the greater good and trust that growing the market ensures more for everyone, it then behooves other countries to act in defense of their self interest in return and potentially act in a coordinated manner to constrain that power.

The US, despite its errors, delivers value to its partners. S. Korea, Japan, Germany have all directly benefitted from sheltering in the embrace of American military might. And as the Philippines has shown, the US is more than willing to withdraw from any country (other than Cuba, for historic reasons) that wants it gone.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for the comment. I agree with some of what you said. My objection is towards the recent (mostly in the west) hyper nationalistic attitude towards China, as-if everything they do is necessarily evil. Personally, I have no dog in this fight as being neither American nor Chinese (not that it should matter anyway :) ).

I'd like to counter some of your points though. I don't think the US could have checked the rise of all of those countries. The US (Allies) forced their way economically into Japan/Germany/Korea/etc after the war, in an act of pure self-interest - Reparations, forced exports, etc. They continued to benefit from the rise of those countries anyway.

China is strategic as you say, but they've always been isolated from the West. They've tried creating alliances (BRIC), which have been moderately successful. Now they're also trading with many heretofore neglected countries in Africa to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars. Western media calls it "the new colonialism". I happen to think that this is the west realizing that there is a chance, however slight, that they could be excluded from a large portion of the future growth markets. Maybe an emergence of the Silk Road? [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Wired Dots 2.0 – Beautiful Bootstrap 4 templates for startups - <AUTHOR> https://wireddots.com/v2 <comment><AUTHOR> __30% OFF ALL BUNDLES FOR HACKERS - USE COUPON CODE WIREDDOTS30 __

Hi,

I am the founder of Wired Dots. Wired Dots is a place to find beautifully crated Bootstrap 4 landing page templates. All the themes are built on top of Bootstrap 4, HTML5, SASS and JavasSript. Each theme has 10 pre-built color schemes and comes with source SASS files for quick customization.

I will appreciate your feedback and suggestions.</comment>


Distraction Can Make You a Faster Cyclist - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/blog/distraction-can-make-you-a-faster-cyclist <comment><USER2> I had a personal trainer for a month a few years back and he pointed this out. I was running with a heart rate monitor (belt around chest type). He pointed out that my heart rate fell 10 bpm when I switched from watching readouts on the treadmill to watching whatever was on the many TVs. Same speed and incline, but if I focused on something other than those numbers, I relaxed and it became easier.

It's interesting to see a real test of this. The clever bit in here was asking the cyclists to count red circles on the screen occasionally, ensuring the TV had a large share of their conscious attention.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool. I think that this is reflected in a lot of physical activities. From my personal experience with martial arts, I've definitely seen some (anecdotal) evidence to support the notion that you move more efficiently and correctly when you aren't thinking your way through it. It's cool to see some experimental support for this.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm kinda day-dreaming (on calm mountain hills), and indeed your can climb hours, kinda forgetting about the effort

</comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if this works for all cardio workouts that requires repetitive motion?

Like distraction might be bad if you're in boxing/mma but would it be beneficial with something like long distance running wherein you're distracted?</comment>


An e-commerce alternative - <AUTHOR> I wanted to build something for the people that find the current e-commerce structure systems do not fit their services or products.
I started this to fulfill my own needs as a website developer and although it is originally based around web development and associated work it can also be used in other fields like dress designers, Tshirt printers, content writers, creatives and anyone that need to quote on customisation.
In a nutshell, its a quote system you can embed on your website with a CRM and project management I am in the last phase of the development and wanted to see if it could be of use to others and get feedback.
https://quotemewp.com <comment><USER2> Can you provide more detail on how to integrate or use it? You mention you can embed it; how is that done?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi bobblywobbles, as it's WordPress based, it done with a WordPress plugin that connects back to your account on our server

<comment><AUTHOR> @bobblywobbles I have added a section in the home page to explain the question you asked, thanks for the feedback</comment></comment></comment>


Generating electricity with a shoe - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/108085-generating-electricity-with-a-shoe

<comment><USER2> Seriously? I could see this with a sock, but this is strange</comment>


F-35's Towed Decoys - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/27185/f-35s-most-sinister-capability-are-towed-decoys-that-unreel-from-inside-its-stealthy-skin <comment><USER2> After a lot of bad news about the F35 it seems the PR effort has started to make it look better. Lots of positive articles about it all of a sudden.

<comment><USER3> I always found the F-35 "bad" news to be agenda driven, possibly by a foreign actor. The people I know in the Air Force are fans of the F-35, but the media never has been. I think there are certainly cost overruns, etc that deserve coverage...but I am always struck by the negative opinion even the most common person has of the fighter just from headlines, that in some cases are misleading. I just can't shake the feeling that some of it is manufactured. I could be wrong, but it has certainly felt that way to me. So, it wouldn't surprise me if the DoD is doing a bit of a PR push to restore public faith in the project.

<comment><USER4> It's $100,000,000 per aircraft, and US military spending is bigger than the next 7 countries combined. The news stories I've read about America in the past year are about how our water pipes are still full of lead, people are dying of gun violence, and government workers who live paycheck-to-paycheck got hurt by the shutdown.

I don't need a foreign actor to explain why people in America today are unsympathetic to a new technologically advanced fighter jet. Even the foreign threats of today aren't the type where air superiority would help at all.

<comment><USER5> Imagine how many people you could feed for $350B. Or how much we cancer and HIV research we could fund. Denmark bought a set of these monsters and I still have no idea why we need them. Competition (SAAB Gripen, F18) was 1/3 of the price, purchase as well as ongoing opex.

<comment><USER3> That's not how budgets work. You don't automatically get to spend $350B because of a budget shift. You also have to consider the diminishing returns of things like disease fighting, crime fighting, and the incentive to fraudulently justify your research/actions.

The F-35 is designed to be more expensive but cheaper to maintain. Fleet maintenance, especially in the US eats up a massive, massive chunk of the budget. So while the F/A 18 might be 1/3rd the price, once you count in maintenance, it might not be much cheaper...and it's last generation. There is a complex math behind it. There is absolutely waste, fraud and abuse in the military...but it's probably not as much as you think since the majority of military spending in the US is actually on pensions, healthcare, housing, salaries and maintenance of aging equipment. Things that in other countries are much cheaper or just not given to soldiers. Comparing the US to China and Russian (at least their public spending numbers) is so misleading. New research and projects is a drop in the bucket.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sorry, but this reads like a cheap infomercial to me. Nothing wrong with extra advertising I guess (other than the fact that it is likely in the end charged to the taxpayer), but I just cannot help translating things like

"The fusion of information ... degrades a stealthy aircraft's ability to remain undetected" to "this was cutting edge stealth when conceived, but as aircraft has been in the works for so long (work started 1992, first flight 2006) its stealth is kind of useless now. We have to depend on towed decoys :(

</comment><comment><USER7> TFA includes this image of an F-35 underbelly:

[https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/the-drive-cms-content- sta...](https://s3-us-west-2.amazonaws.com/the-drive-cms-content- staging/message-editor/1553810000189-dadadac.jpg)

The exotic curves are visually exquisite, and I'm curious what the production and fabrication technique and processes are.

Particularly for the jet engine housing. Is it comprised of a few large sheets, or many smaller pieces? Not sure how to get the curvature and bends consistently correct within tolerance limits for large sheets. It seems like it would be extremely challenging.

It looks like it might be titanium?

If you know about this or have ideas, please do tell!

P.S.

What a cool read! This is the type of article I come to hacker news hoping to find :)

<comment><USER8> Look at those High-Tech Hexagons[1]! The F-35 designers knew their tropes.

[1] [https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HighTechHexagons](https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/HighTechHexagons)

<comment><USER9> Hexagons are the most efficient way to tile a 2D surface.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One thing that has often puzzled me is the effectiveness of an expensive fighter jet against inexpensive adversaries in a face to face dogfight. For example F-35 costs in upwards of $90 Million per unit. Chinese J-10 or JF-17 are $20 or $25 Million per unit. That's 3 fighters for one F-35. So is one expensive F-35 capable enough of taking on 3 cheaper (yet sophisticated enough jets read up on JF-17 recent achievements)? Granted pilots and ground crew on both sides are equal match in skills.

<comment><USER11> Internet bench racing of aircraft always focuses on "dogfighting". Dogfighting has no purpose in in winning the war. Striking the enemy ground targets without engaging in dogfights is successful. Do that and pretty soon there won't be any enemy fighters in the air to worry about.

Modern combat is not at all the same thing as WWI/WWII "turn and burn" stuff or what gets depicted in Star Wars.

"Turn and Burn" was already out of favor with US pilots in WWII.

If the F-35 enters into a turn-and-burn in a 3-1 situation the pilot has already failed.. if he gets out of the situation alive he's getting chewed out.

They have all kinds of training & procedures around different scenarios and those don't involve flying straight at the enemy and then getting into a turning match.

We haven't seen the deployment of a drone which can threaten manned aircraft yet. That's going to be fascinating to watch.

I'd envision "kamikaze" drones being the most feasible thing to be effective first. Basically much smarter missiles. A vision of a swarm of something that looks like a DJI phantom threatening fixed wing aircraft is pretty much fantasy right now though. Too slow, not enough weight capacity, range & loitering time & service ceiling too low, etc.. the only way I seem them being useful is 1000 of them in a dense cloud around a target.. like stationary mines in the sky hoping to be struck by attackers like a bird strike.

<comment><USER12> _Modern combat is not at all the same thing as WWI /WWII "turn and burn" stuff..."Turn and Burn" was already out of favor with US pilots in WWII._

In WWII, F4 Wildcat pilots soon learned not to get into turning contests with Mitsubishi Zeros. Instead, they maintained altitude and speed, using their advantage in a dive to execute "slashing" attacks.

 _something that looks like a DJI phantom...the only way I seem them being useful is 1000 of them in a dense cloud around a target.. like stationary mines in the sky hoping to be struck by attackers like a bird strike._

Those drones are plenty fast enough for tanks. Why not a tank equivalent of an aircraft carrier? The tank would act as a mobile charging station and command center. Most modern tanks could be severely disabled by a shaped charge placed directly onto the barrel of the main gun, or directly onto the tread mechanism. The machine guns and targeting systems are also quite vulnerable, the loss of which would also severely degrade the tank's combat power. Tanks have acquired countermeasure systems like Trophy, but those could be overwhelmed through saturation attacks and on current tanks, they are externally mounted and themselves vulnerable.

<comment><USER13> > Instead, they maintained altitude and speed, using their advantage in a dive > to execute "slashing" attacks.

Fun trivia that I read a while back: After getting hold of a zero, they discovered that the carburetor design would cause the engine to sputter on high speed dives. [https://www.history.com/news/the-akutan-zero-how-a- captured-...](https://www.history.com/news/the-akutan-zero-how-a-captured- japanese-fighter-plane-helped-win-world-war-ii)

<comment><USER12> _they discovered that the carburetor design would cause the engine to sputter on high speed dives_

Also, their controls could become sluggish at the right conditions near their top speeds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you'd like to read how the towed decoys are used in real life (F16 in this case), be sure to check out book "Viper Pilot: A Memoir of Air Combat" by Dan Hampton.

The desc of the book includes: 151 combat missions, 21 hard kills on surface- to-air-missile sites, 4 Distinguished Flying Crosses with Valor, 1 Purple Heart.

I've been into historical aspects of war/plane/ship/weapon so I've read lots of books and viewed many pics/videos related. However I had never heard of towed decoys off of a modern fighter jet like F16 until reading above book.

The book is awesome to read if you are into that kind of stuff.

I remember reading in the book where he talks about getting into a fight with the towed decoy deployed. When he was out of the fight and tried to tow in the decoy, it was gone. Meaning it had done its job and sacrificed itself and therefore saved the F16 itself.

Btw, there's been lots of discussion of MCAS on Boeing 737 MAX and how some are uneasy that software HAS to be involved for 737 MAX to stay airborne at certain times. I believe F16 was first production fighter jet where computer has to be involved in controlling every moment it's airborne. If computers on it stopped working, F16 will supposedly stop being a flying object almost immediately.

<comment><USER15> thus the nickname of the plane. the 'lawn dart'

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Lots of talk about the F-35 here lately and I've been meaning to ask if anyone caught the PBS NOVA "Battle of the X-Planes" about it back in 2003 [0][1]. It's a really interesting take on the program from that era. And it really shows you the complexity of building this aircraft. I saw it in high school and it made me want to major in aerospace engineering. That didn't happen, but I always think about this show and wonder if people have seen it when the F-35 is mentioned.

[0]: [https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/about.html](https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/xplanes/about.html)

[1]: [https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ft1qf](https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ft1qf)

</comment><comment><USER17> Ever since the SR-71 piece a few days ago (in which there are some disparaging F-35 comments), there have been a few submissions on the F-35 that appear to attempt to bolster its reputation.

<comment><AUTHOR> Personally I have no opinion on the F-35 and its reputation other than time will tell and people other than me seem very invested in it one way or another.

I think the article as an overview of towed decoys in general is interesting and a not very well covered topic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Seems like something the military would want to keep close to their chest. I am amazed that things like this are allowed to be in the public domain.

<comment><USER19> yeah, i tend to agree. i get that it's good pr, but is it worth it to declassify these capabilities?

<comment><USER14> My gut reaction is they would like to, but they realize enough of the information is already out due to carelessness, spying, etc. So they just decide to release some information, with some FUD mixed in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The US has "little buddies." Australia is looking to build "Loyal Wingmen." (Autonomous drones)

[https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/australia/australia- artificia...](https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/26/australia/australia-artificial- intelligence-boeing-drone/index.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> This is a really interesting article. Having been interested in aviation for a long time I was not aware of these. Fascinating stuff. A much fancier version of chaff & flares. Reminiscent of submarine warfare.

</comment><comment><USER20> I guess that once total stealth has been maxed in the "reflective" research- area, the next effective defensive would be some wide-ground arrays pointing to at least 1 satellite (making satellite techno a must) => as soon as at least 1 of the emitting array does not reach the satellite (of course something more complicated to avoid man-in-the-middle-attack, interference, etc...) it would mean that something flew through it... .

</comment><comment><USER21> How well would a towed decoy be able to fool a missile equipped with a camera and a neural net trained on pictures of fighter jets? Are the distances and speeds too extreme for a visible light camera? Is there some technology to "blind" a visible light camera?

<comment><USER15> missiles work with radar signature or heat signature, not the visible spectrum. and yes, there are countermeasures available to 'blind' an IR sensor (like those used on short range A/A missiles)

<comment><USER21> Right, I know that you'd want to use radar for longer distances, but if the towed decoy is meant to appear as a juicy target, to take a hit for the fighter, couldn't you just follow it until you're in close range, and then switch to a better discriminating sensor (visible light camera in my example) to hit the jet instead?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder what role AI/CV has in identifying and ignoring towed decoys in modern weapons systems (either allied or adversarial.)</comment>


Ask HN: Books that have stood the test of time? - <AUTHOR> Sometimes, time is the best differentiator for good and not so good content. Would love some tips on books (fiction and non-fiction) that have stood the test of time, books that we're written in a different age but are still relevant.<p>I'm thinking at least ten years old but preferably even older. <comment><USER2> I think you'll find the vast majority of published books are still relevant, since most aren't about tech, which becomes irrelevant faster than philosophy, music, drama, art and pretty much everything else. Meanwhile, fiction never becomes irrelevant.

</comment><comment><USER3> The art of loving - by Erich Fromm

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

</comment><comment><USER4> The Prince - Machiavelli</comment>


SV company that automates 'mundane' tasks gets nearly $2 Bn valuation - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/07/05/goldman-sachs-funds-automation-anywhere-at-billion-dollar-valuation.html <comment><USER2> Per their site [https://www.automationanywhere.com/products/enterprise](https://www.automationanywhere.com/products/enterprise)

>Create software robots to automate any process end-to-end. Cognitive bots that learn as they work, and analytics that can change the way you operate.

So it's a sorta self-learning IFTTT/DIY Zapier zap that can generate analytics too?</comment>


Ask HN: Why is YC's website almost exactly the same as it was 9 years ago? - <AUTHOR>

The Y Combinator website is almost exactly the same as it was nine years ago (see: http://web.archive.org/web/20051124005340/http://ycombinator.com/). I remember reading awhile back that Weebly was accepted into the first YC class after redesign YC's website in five minutes during their interview. Between the companies in YC's portfolio that specialize in web design and the technical expertise of probably every YC partner, a more modern redesign would be trivial. So that leads me to my question: Why had YC decided to keep its early design? Is it just because it's not necessary? Is there a specific reason why the current design is optimal? Is a redesign planned but just extremely low priority?<p>Edit: This is referring to www.ycombinator.com NOT Hacker News <comment><USER2> Why do so many websites feel a need to redesign the site every 2-3 years to keep up with the latest design fads? Do old sites regularly break on new devices / browsers? Or is it all a scheme to generate employment for web developers and demand for the increased hardware resources that are provided by ever-advancing technology?

I find it hard to buy the claim that users really care that much whether your website uses the latest fads in infinite-scrolling responsive AJAX design as opposed to an old-school server-generated paginated display. As a user I care about content more than presentation, and usually interface "innovations" just end up breaking and making me unhappy. [1]

[1] [http://xkcd.com/1309/](http://xkcd.com/1309/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I think a big part of it is a "keeping up with the Joneses" mentality. It's the same reason why people always want the latest phone or car, or why businesses are quick to jump on the latest buzzword.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The right question is, what value would a fancier design add? pg talks constantly in his essays about doing the things that matter-- i.e. the things that bring the most value-- and I'd imagine he followed the same philosophy with YC's website.

</comment><comment><USER4> EDIT: Some of this answer maybe still applies, but basically I seem to have misread the question. Apologies.

HN has in fact changed quite a lot over the years and PG has been visibly tweaking it continually. I guess you are asking specifically about why the graphic design has not changed much...

Pretty clearly modernity per se is not worth optimizing for. I have zero inside knowledge, but some thoughts on what the current design might be optimizing:

1) HN probably benefits from discouraging undesired users in a variety of subtle ways. Like the trivial Metafilter subscription fee, an unadorned layout may create a low bar that discourages extremely casual users. PG is pretty explicitly NOT trying to rapidly scale HN.

2) The YC partners have a lot of opportunity costs for every hour of work. Current layout good enough? OK, on to the next problem...

3) Quick load times, works in any browser/OS/device.

To answer your question with a question: what do you think could be functionally improved by a redesign?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not asking about HN, I'm asking about www.ycombinator.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Personally, I like the simplicity. The site is always fast to load, has zero bloat, and works on any device and any browser. It does not have any crazy frameworks or things to break.

If I could make a suggestion though, I would love a responsive design that scaled for smaller screens.

</comment><comment><USER6> It is one way of signalling "we value substance over style"

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a bit pedantic, but this might be better as an Ask PG.</comment>


Whether an ant becomes a worker or queen may depend on insulin metabolism - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/26/science/ants-genes-queen.html <comment><USER2> I wonder if you could create an ant colony repllent that activates that pathway and converts the colony to Queens.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure that's how you get a sci-fi ant apocalypse. I think if you were to actually try it, only "The Rock" and his band of feisty comedic side- kicks would be able to save us.</comment></comment>


SkypeKit now available for Mac and Windows developers - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.skype.com/devzone/2010/07/skypekit_now_available_for_mac.html

<comment><USER2> What language(s) is the SDK or API in?</comment>


West Virginia to introduce mobile phone voting for midterm elections - FLUX-YOU https://money.cnn.com/2018/08/06/technology/mobile-voting-west-virginia-voatz/index.html <comment> FLUX-YOU This is looking awful:

Boxes look unpatched/out of date. No CISO personnel: [https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1026603800365330432](https://twitter.com/GossiTheDog/status/1026603800365330432)

Good news is it doesn't seem to actually be blockchain: [https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/06/05/the-west- vir...](https://davidgerard.co.uk/blockchain/2018/06/05/the-west-virginia- voatz-blockchain-voting-pilot-another-single-user-blockchain-as-a-database/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Block chain developed by someone halfway competent would be better than glorified Access databases. From what I've read most election systems don't bother to have any cryptographic record whatsoever.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> Ugh. Just use paper for voting. If the 2000 recount taught us anything, it's the importance of a paper trail. Just take the time to count the ballots by hand.</comment>


Ask HN: Why am I getting ads on HN? - <AUTHOR>

can anyone explain this?
here's some proof http://i.imgur.com/axJdD.png
PS: i'm accessing the HN from Hong Kong, hence the Chinese ads. <comment><USER2> It appears that your browser has been compromised, infected with malware. To test this idea, try opening HN in a different browser, or uninstall and reinstall your present browser, making sure to delete absolutely everything before reinstalling.

<comment><USER3> also, check what browser extensions are installed... in chrome it is fairly easy to remove ones you don't want / need

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> To me it looks like you have some kind of spyware on your computer. Check your local hosts file for unwanted entries:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hosts_(file)>

Also have a look at the source code of the HN page if there is anything which might explain this behaviour. Maybe it is running inside a frame site which opens the ads? There are so many possibilities ...

If there really is some malware on your system I recommend the procedure known as _Nuke it from Orbit_ : Wipe everything clean, install a clean operating system, restore important things from a backup. And change all your passwords from a clean system.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> localhosts: check

i suspect it's the free WiFis that require you to comply with their terms and conditions. They probably catch the traffic and inject text ads into the HTML, which arguably is quite clever and malicious.

i'll get more data to confirm this</comment>


'Spell-check for hate' needed, says Google's Schmidt - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-35035087 <comment><USER2> Well, couldn't this go horribly wrong? Because let's face it, as much as some stuff (read, IS propoganda) is obviously hate, the definition is theoretically vague enough to cover anything that some group or another doesn't like. How would you stop a government abusing this to remove criticism of their policies and leaders?

Or various groups wanting it to classify whatever they don't like/feel threatened by as 'hate'?</comment>


Tired of Apple's rules? Build your own touchscreen handheld - <AUTHOR> http://www.adafruit.com/index.php?main_page=product_info&cPath=51&products_id=330

<comment><USER2> Guys, come _on_. The bit about being a replacement for the iPhone was a joke. It's a toy. It's meant for nerding around with. It's not a production device. You probably shouldn't be depending on it to actually _work_ more than 10% of the time.

It's a model airplane. It flies, it's kindof neat, but it's pretty much totally pointless beyond being tons of fun.

<comment><USER3> "Don't be discouraged if what you produce initially is something other people dismiss as a toy. In fact, that's a good sign. That's probably why everyone else has been overlooking the idea. The first microcomputers were dismissed as toys. And the first planes, and the first cars. At this point, when someone comes to us with something that users like but that we could envision forum trolls dismissing as a toy, it makes us especially likely to invest."

\-- pg

<comment><USER4> Ah, mindless, out-of-context quotes. What next, the Ghandi line about laughing/winning/etc.?

This is a kit for microcontroller enthusiasts. It is not _meant_ as some sort of alternative to anything Apple or Android or Palm or Nokia, except jokingly and in the minds of people not actually reading that page closely.

<comment><USER5> Until someone does something really interesting with it, sparks an idea, and then starts developing it as a retail product.

<comment><USER4> Seriously, RTFA. Look at the specs.

This isn't some basic version of a cutting-edge technology, it's just an 8-bit microcontroller with some geegaws. If someone wants to make yet another low- end handheld game and make some money selling it in discount stores, more power to them...but you aren't going to compete with many far more advanced platforms in the same arena.

If you want to pretend otherwise, by all means drop some pithy, defiant quotes and condemn my lack of vision...and we'll still both know nobody's going to build an iPhone-killer out of this.

<comment><USER3> Come on. $69 for a handheld touchscreen computer that you can program however you want? You'd have to be incredibly jaded to not reflect about how amazing this is. You'd have to be deliberately ignorant to _not_ be able to imagine things you could do with this. iPhone killer no; but that's not the point.

<comment><USER4> No, _you_ come on. You're the guy who was calling someone a troll for pointing out _exactly_ what you just admitted - that it's a really neat hobbyist kit, not an iPhone competitor.

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry this miscommunication has caused you so much consternation; I will readily agree it's no iPhone competitor at this time. It may even be a toy. But don't dismiss it. That's all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> They lost me at "resistive touch screen."

Does anyone have a good source for a similar device with a larger screen and capacitive touch?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's the beauty of open-source hardware :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's a great demonstration of what can be done with an 8-bit RISC microcontroller.

The biggest downside is that AVRs can only execute code from flash ROM. You can't just throw apps on an SD card and run them; the list of apps (which seem to be instances of C++ classes) is hardcoded, and adding a new app requires reprogramming the whole chip.

An intelligent bootloader that could burn executable files from the SD card into ROM would be awesome. Yes, you're only limited to about 10,000 writes, but coupled with Contiki-style multitasking, this could be quite cool.

The other idea (which not many people have tried) is to make some kind of "virtual machine" that interprets bytecode from RAM. There is a Forth implementation (amforth) but not much aside from that. Things get really tight when all you have is 2K for data _and_ bytecode. I'm sure a couple demoscene coders just scrambled off to get working on that after reading this. :p

Rossum has also done some extremely impressive stuff with ARM chips as well, including the RBox, a game console that's literally the size of a coin: <http://rossum.posterous.com/building-the-rbox>

<comment><USER8> There is also EEPROM for code storage, as used in NanoVM [1].

1\. <http://www.harbaum.org/till/nanovm/index.shtml>

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This may not be the device you are looking for but the idea is not totally crazy. Powerful ARM devices can be had for a few hundred dollars. IMHO, the real trick is to implement the communications. With VoIP instead of voice, instant messaging instead of SMS, the day when you can use WiFi rather than mobile wireless may be coming.

<comment><USER10> Sounds like a Nintendo DS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It might not be as interesting as building your own, but the Palm Pre gives you root access and Palm is very supportive of third party app stores. So if all your after is a more open touchscreen device you aren't forced to build your own.

</comment><comment><USER12> Worked so well for the Joojoo ;)

</comment><comment><USER13> It's somewhat mind-boggling just how little {RAM, storage, CPU speed} this thing has, while still able to do useful things.

</comment><comment><USER14> It would be fun to try to port WebKit to something like this, but at those specs, not gonna happen.

</comment><comment><USER15> No. I'm not tired of Apple's rules.

</comment><comment><USER16> 2.5K of RAM? Sign me up for 2000!

<comment><USER17> I guess you never dealt with microcontrollers, right?

The company is about popular DIY electronics kits, I think it's a marvelous project if you consider that, but nothing close of an iPhone, if that's what people want they should play with an ARM board.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> WiFi?

<comment><USER19> No. Did you even read the specs? It says exactly what this comes with.

<comment><USER18> Arrgh. Another example of "let's interpret the comment in as idiotic a way as possible when there are other easily imagined options." I know it doesn't come with WiFi. I read the whole page. I knew it when I asked the question but it is possible with a lot of other hobbyist platforms like Gumstix to buy WiFi shields and extension boards. This is an answer more likely to be known by enthusiasts of the platform.

Yes, I read the specs. Thanks for jumping to incorrect conclusions and contributing noise when you could've contributed information.

I'm looking for a way to quickly manufacture an ad-hoc urban mobile network. Cheap processors on mobile texting devices over WiFi mesh is one way of doing this. (While providing good encryption to keep information out of the hands of the authorities.)

Congrats, you've just become an anecdote! <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158202>

<comment><USER20> Maybe instead of complaining that people take the "most idiotic interpretation possible" from your comment, you should _write more than one word_ in order to give your question some meaning and context.

As it stands your basic grievance seems to be that people aren't capable of intuiting what that one word question meant in your mind.

<comment><USER18> Then you are intimating I am a liar or you have poor reading comprehension.

My grievance _as stated_ is that people who do not have enough information to go on _jump to the worst conclusion_. So which is it, am I lying, did you not understand my previous comment, or is the notion of multiple interpretations too intellectually advanced for you, or is it something else? Note that I ask, and do not jump to conclusions.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158531>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158462>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158331>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158521>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2158644>

<comment><USER20> I'll take door #3: You're over-reacting in a wildly hyperbolic manner to the fact that the single most obvious meaning of a post consisting entirely of "WiFi?" in response to an article about a gadget is an inquiry as to whether it offers such a feature.

If you find that people are mis-interpreting your posts on a regular basis, consider looking in a mirror. And please, take the trollish aspersions to some other site.

<comment><USER18> My friend, "door #3" in the context of the post above is "the notion of multiple interpretations too intellectually advanced for you." This is an example of door #2, which is "poor reading comprehension."

 _And please, take the trollish aspersions to some other site._

This is incredible, since you are the only one in this whole exchange who every cast an aspersion, and _you opened with it!_

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Nexus S? Nexus One? Nokia N900? OpenMoko FreeRunner? OpenPandora?

There are more than a few more powerful alternatives to an iPhone that are open source and ready to hack. Most of them can even make phone calls.

<comment><USER22> And yet this 8 bit microcontroller seems to have more fluid, smooth scrolling than all of them...</comment></comment>


Interprocedural optimization in GCC - <AUTHOR> https://kristerw.blogspot.com/2017/05/interprocedural-optimization-in-gcc.html <comment><USER2> Tangential Q: someone mentioned that GCC is right up there in terms of most complex piece of software ever written. People with enough know-how would vouch for this? Are compilers the most complex piece of the puzzle? Or, are there other type of wares that dwarf GCC or compilers, in general, in terms of complexity (like, say, JIT interpreters, or DB Query Execution Engines, or HDLs).

<comment><USER3> Web browsers are astoundingly complicated. They generally contain _multiple_ JIT compilers, a database engine, sophisticated rendering code for 2d and 3d graphics and fonts, video and audio codecs, support for a variety of network protocols, graphical debuggers and development tools... the list goes on. And they expose all this to arbitrary applications downloaded from the internet while attempting (and mostly succeeding) to maintain your security and privacy and remain backwards compatible with 20+ years of legacy content. At a target frame rate of 60 fps.

Browsers are, when you think about it, pretty damn amazing.

<comment><USER4> Taken as a whole, sure, but all those things you refer to in a browser are components, probably developed by different teams or even reused by entirely separate projects. By that measure, a modern Linux distribution is far more complicated than a web browser, since it includes a kernel, compilers, multiple web browsers, codecs, etc. The Firefox browser, for instance, I believe uses the SQLite database, so you can't claim that the Mozilla devs created that complexity, they just included it.

I think a compiler is different because you can't break it apart into separate projects like that. All the parts that go into a compiler are really only useful for that compiler, not as common pieces of "infrastructure" that can be used by many disparate larger projects.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Identical code folding is slick. It's the opposite of using macros, and is harder to fold code than to generate it.

</comment><comment><USER6> devirtualization sounds like something that could significantly improve performance in large C++ projects.

Hope to see some real-world benchmarks soon!

<comment><USER7> Hi, I just created an account to give you a bit of feedback.

When g++4.9 went out, our old mathematical/financial library was finally able to be built with LTO.

See, to be effective, devirtualisation requires LTO, it also requires profile- guided analysis to detect the right use-cases to devirtualise, and it requires that your functions can in effect be "hidden" from the outside, so that the compiler can tune the inlined functions.

As our codebase was also portable to Windows (and so, had all the right declspec (dllexport) lying around), we were able to use the -fvisibility=hidden flag. We just had to make sure that everything was within one big fat shared-lib.

On old CPUs (e.g: Nehalem class), our code ran 2 times faster than the same code compiled with -O3. On Haswell-E, it ran 50% faster.

There's also a very cheap way to force devirtualisation: use the C++11 "final" keyword on your methods. G++ can optimise and inline where applicable.

<comment><USER6> Thank you!

I was hoping this could automatically improve performance for existing projects but it seems it is a bit more complicated than that. Either way, 50-100% improvements sounds very nice.</comment></comment></comment>