Firefox Full-device VPN - <AUTHOR> https://private-network.firefox.com/vpn <comment><USER2> I don't understand. Their partner is Mullvad. Mullvad has servers across the entire god damn globe. Why is this US-only? Why is it US-only going into early 2020, as in, _months_ to provide service to non-US regions in what's probably going to be a limited roll-out to "select regions"? It's not the 90s anymore. It's time to drop the US-centric crap. They're not a publisher. They're not distributing movies or TV series.

<comment><USER3> I think it's because Firefox have made their own client and they only want to offer Wireguard connections.

Since Wireguard is still a bit new and buggy, they probably want to make sure it's stable and roll out in stages.

<comment><USER2> Wireguard isn't US-only in any way. Like, I literally do not understand at all. I can download a working, functional, largely stable Wireguard client on my phone or configure it on my Linux desktop without issue from outside the US. Like, US-based has no bearing on any of this. At all.

<comment><USER4> Where did you get an implication that Wireguard was US-only. The poster you are replying to is simply stating since Wireguard may still be a bit buggy, they are rolling this out in the US first to iron out any kinks before making it widely available.

<comment><USER5> But how does rolling it out US only first help with the fact that Wireguard is buggy.

They are already rolling it out slowly via a waiting list. Limiting that to US only doesn't really change how "widely available" it is in order to iron out the kinds. Seem more likely this is regulatory related.

<comment><USER6> Trying to do support in multiple languages and timezones can be tricky (and surely adds to the cost), I don't know for sure if that's the reason but it's a reasonable one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> With the pending sale of PIA to CyberGhost, I was looking for an alternative to Librem Tunnel. A lot of users on the Purism forum suggested Mullvad and it looks like this uses that. I'll definitely be trying this on Linux when it's available.

It's a shame Purism picked PIA to partner with, I want to support the company but Librem Tunnel is the only feature justifying the $7.99/month Librem One fee for me and I don't want any of that going to CyberGhost. I use Librem Mail too, but they don't offer a price package that includes email without VPN.

<comment><USER8> Mullvad already supports linux wireguard clients if you want to just cut out the firefox middleman and use it internationally too - [https://mullvad.net/en/download/#linux](https://mullvad.net/en/download/#linux)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Perhaps Mullvad is great. I don't know. The whole VPN industry is full of shucksters, and when Mozilla says that Mullvad has "committed" to privacy doesn't sound like enough heft to me.

Why isn't Mozilla running their own servers if this really is something worth getting into? They're one of the few privacy and public good companies we have left.

<comment><USER10> Consider another angle: Mozilla doesn't have experience running a VPN. There are a lot of terrible mistakes to be made there.

If Mozilla can secure a good contract with folks who _have_ run a VPN, isn't that a better technical scenario? I mean, sure, you have to assume that the contract has teeth to enforce privacy guarantees. But I think that's part of the value proposition here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Last time this was presented Mozilla mentioned a partnership with ProtonVPN.

To any Mozillians reading this, what was the reason for the switch to Mullvad?

Also will we be able to use our own standard Wireguard clients to connect?

<comment><USER12> It doesn't look like ProtonVPN supports WireGuard yet.

[https://protonvpn.com/blog/whats-the-best-vpn- protocol/](https://protonvpn.com/blog/whats-the-best-vpn-protocol/)

Edit: As Gaelan mentioned below, this is an answer to hellcow's first question.

<comment><USER13> Why would WireGuard be important? It's nice technically but the benefits vs mature protocols are not really material in a vpn service's value proposition, compared to other properties.

<comment><USER14> I recently became a mullvad customer and used wireguard for the first time. Maybe this is a windows thing, but it's so, so much faster than what I was used to from openVPN, ike, etc.

<comment><USER13> Anyone know if there's something weird about OpenVPN that makes it particularly bad? You'd think crypto + UDP encapsulation at consumer internet speeds would be pretty straightforward to implement performantly in this day and age.

<comment><USER15> 5 years of VPN admining here.

The openvpn community is pretty nonexistent. Core is about 10 guys (half on loan from the for-profit company) and they're multiple years behind on where the development should be.

2.4 release: currently 3 years old, decently robust, but limited. 2.5 release: 38 of 51 blockers still open, no release date in sight. 3.0 release: roadmap was written in 2010, no release date in sight.

OpenVPN 2.5 is where we'll have per-user tls-crypt. tls-auth/tls-crypt in 2.4 means when the PSK (that all clients share) leaks, you have to rotate a PSK for ALL users all at once. Or you could not use that PSK at all and just get DoS'ed over UDP all the time. OpenVPN 3 is where they're looking at being multithreaded. Let that sink in for a minute, because the devs haven't. You share one core with EVERYONE who's connected. openvpn is, performance-wise, a glorified openssl-pipe-to-nc at that point.

These are features that any server admin should be dying to have, because they're what let you scale from "my cute little tunnel from my home to my cloud instance" to "endpoints that can scale."

Tuning to get solid performance means getting the client config right with a lot of low-level tweaks, a lot of iperf and network-ops knowledge, shipping it out to the userbase, and hoping it works in their situation. Tuning later because you screwed anything up is hit and miss: some features you can 'push' out and fix, some you can't. The devs can't imagine tunnels where someone who isn't as immersed in the code as them doesn't control all endpoints and all configs, or where there's no burden to walking around and changing every user's config. I'm years into this and I'm still finding things to adjust or submit patches for, to make my users happier.

OpenVPN has one thing that other VPNs severely lack: a ABSOLUTELY SUPERB hook system. You want to have actions trigger scripts, they got u fam. You can do a lot of serverside and clientside magic because of that, integrating with your SSO and ACL management. Wireguard is much more in the beautiful-in-its- simplicity-but-that-still-means-simple 'static definition' camp (for now).

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the explanation!

If it's not multithreaded, sounds like one thing to try could be just to run an instance per user, but I guess that may not be straightforward to operate.

Oh well, at least we have IPsec.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm way below the technical skill average on HN, so can I prevale upon someone to correct me?

This is just a vpn right? My existing vpn is already putting all device traffic through its servers (though it would actually be nice to turn it off for some apps, as I can't order takeaway because everyone thinks I'm in Iceland).

And its $5 a month, which is about what I already pay.

Plus its not available except on windows 10 (where its beta).

And its US only

What is Firefox/Mozilla offering me here that I don't get from NordVpn (who I hifhly recommend)?

<comment><USER11> You mean the NordVPN that was hacked for god knows how long, knew about it themselves for months, and both deliberately hid that information from their customers and failed to fix the issue in a reasonable timeframe? [0]

With Mozilla you get someone you can hopefully trust (hopefully being the operative word).

[0] [https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/nordvpn-confirms-it-was- ha...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/10/21/nordvpn-confirms-it-was-hacked/)

<comment><USER17> I'm curious about the parent's question, but consider that Mullvad is about $5 on its own anyways. It also already supports international customers and multiple platforms. So I'm not sure why you would buy it through FF and not directly from Mullvad? It just seems like a middleman with no benefits.

<comment><USER18> I would like to buy it through Mozilla in order to support the Mozilla Foundation, because I want to support their work and help them break their dependency on Google for funding.

<comment><USER17> I can justify this, but I'm wondering why Mullvad doesn't give them a slightly better deal. It is basically the same deal that you get if you pay with crypto, except you -- the user -- lose all the benefits of that. So why not charge something like $4.50? Or $4? They are bringing bulk to Mullvad. One of them, or both, could eat the cost until the price stabilized. I'm sure at Mozilla's scale they could push Mullvad's operating price down.

But the fact is that this does create more links in the VPN, and thus more security risks. Which isn't a big deal for the 99% of us that are just using them to torrent and prevent Comcast from seeing our data, but there's still a principle thing, which is part of why people are jumping from PIA before the merger has even happened.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So do they keep access logs for law enforcement? If this is the same VPN as Mullvard that means they don't? Could someone clarify maybe?

<comment><USER20> If Mullvad is in the US, courts can compel Mullvad to siphon their clients' information and not disclose it despite any claims their policy makes.

<comment><USER21> Yeah I wouldn't use any US VPN unless it had a warrant canary and didn't keep logs

<comment><USER22> It which countries do you think a VPN provider can ignore a court issued warrant?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Mozilla need to clarify their relationship and perspective with ProtonVPN, especially because they always stay above the dirt slinging with the CEO of PIA claiming on HN and Reddit that ProtonVPN is a low credibility business.

<comment><USER12> Firefox Private Network uses Cloudflare for the browser extension and Mullvad for the desktop and mobile clients.

> Our partner for FPN Browser Protection is Cloudflare. Our partner for FPN > Full-device Protection is Mullvad.

[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox-private- networ...](https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/privacy/firefox-private-network/)

Mozilla previously sold ProtonVPN as an affiliate for $10/month, but Firefox Private Network doesn't use them at all.

[https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/10/22/testing-n...](https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2018/10/22/testing- new-ways-to-keep-you-safe-online/)

<comment><USER23> But is Mozilla dropping mention of ProtonVPN due to a loss of confidence after the PIA CEO engaged in mud slinging on public forums? It's noticeable that Mozilla never really defended their "associate".

<comment><USER24> No, and this is supported by the timing. PIA made the inaccurate (and now withdrawn) allegations in July. Mozilla was aware of the allegations, visited Proton in Geneva, looked into said allegations, and announced the Proton partnership in October.

Proton doesn't support Wireguard which is the protocol Mozilla wanted to use. This was a conscious decision because Wireguard is UDP only, which poses a significant problem for many Proton users which are based in countries with strict censorship and UDP VPN protocols are easier to block. Therefore, Proton's VPN focus has shifted to working on TCP based solutions which can resist DPI.

While Proton and Mozilla's VPN focuses have diverged, there is still collaborations and discussions in other areas. For example, Thunderbird is integrating Enigmail, which is based upon the OpenPGPjs library that Proton maintains.

Proton and Mozilla have similar missions, and will continue to support each other in the future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> To those who are curious (as I was), they use Wireguard and have partnered with Mullvad for the servers.

<comment><USER26> Where's that mentioned?

edit: never mind

<comment><USER12> > About our trusted partner

> Firefox Private Network full-device protection is a VPN built by Firefox > using global WireGuard servers provided by Mullvad, which has committed not > to keep logs of any kind.

[https://private-network.firefox.com/vpn](https://private- network.firefox.com/vpn)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I might be paranoid a bit - I'm skeptical about "you can pick your location" feature. And generally I have a very little trust in US-based VPN service providers.

No matter the location, they'll keep logs forever for the gov or some other equally unreliable entity.

<comment><USER12> Mullvad is based in Sweden. Their site has details on their no-logging policy and summaries of the relevant Swedish laws:

[https://mullvad.net/en/help/no-logging-data- policy/](https://mullvad.net/en/help/no-logging-data-policy/)

[https://mullvad.net/en/help/swedish- legislation/](https://mullvad.net/en/help/swedish-legislation/)

Of course, it's up to you to determine how much you want to trust them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I thought WireGuard was not yet ready for primetime, why is it being used here? I've been wanting to stand up a VPN at work to make my life easier than SSH tunneling but I was waiting for a 1.0 release of WG.

<comment><USER29> Looking on the WireGuard site, it says that it's still a work in progress that "may contain security quirks", but they also say "already it might be regarded as the most secure, easiest to use, and simplest VPN solution in the industry." Both statements could be true, but I guess it's up to you whether or not you want to wait for a 1.0 release.

<comment><USER30> We'll change the language on the site once we're upstream in the Linux kernel. Hopefully that's around the corner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Watching Firefox sinking to essentially licensing its name like an obsolete fashion brand is sad.

<comment><USER32> It's a great idea to use Firefox like Wirecutter, as a recommendation for the best of each service type. Combine that with some thin interface over the top, like an OS, to control all the services you subscribe to with unified billing. Password leaks, manager, file sharing, bookmark sync, vpn, dns, newsfeed. Now a new person starting out on the internet doesnt need to learn about haveibeenpwned, dropbox, mullvad, cloudflare, and facebook/pocket. They can let Firefox (hopefully) select the best of each product type, and white label it as part of the Firefox family.

<comment><USER20> > newsfeed

I must have missed this, what RSS solution have they put out?

<comment><USER32> Pocket, their competitor to MSN and Facebook and Reddit. Lets be real, MOST people are consuming from one of those three feeds daily.

<comment><USER20> Does Pocket do feeds now? The last time I looked it was bookmark manager or something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> So, the regular price is $5.00/month, but with that incredible partnership, it's only $4.99! This is a game changer!

<comment><USER12> Mullvad actually charges €5/month, which is about $5.54. (This doesn't take into account the 10% discount if you pay with Bitcoin or Bitcoin Cash.)

The $4.99 rate would be a 55 cent discount over the standard rate, which matches the cryptocurrency discount and would likely help support Firefox financially.

Mozilla has been trying to diversify its revenue for a long time:

[https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/02/13/revenue- diversifica...](https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2014/02/13/revenue- diversification-the-mozilla-way/)

<comment><USER34> I plan to do this as I was going to use Mullvad; now I can help Firefox reduce the Google reliance at the same time? Sign me up

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> So what is the benefit of getting this through Firefox instead of Mullvad? They want my email to sign up for the waitlist, but Mullvad requires nothing. Seems like it may even be linked to your Firefox account.

<comment><USER12> If you already use Mullvad, Firefox Private Network probably won't be an improvement for you.

However, this partnership would most likely benefit both Firefox and Mullvad. Firefox gets a stream of revenue (independent of Google) that would be used to finance development, and Mullvad acquires additional customers through the partnership who would otherwise not know about it.

<comment><USER35> I know that, but what I'm saying is that you lose a degree of privacy going through Mozilla.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Given that they're rebranding Mullvad's service, I wonder if they'll still accept anonymous payments.

</comment><comment><USER37> One the one hand, I'm glad they are using a trusted partner like Mullvad. On the other hand, why would you join a waitlist for a service that requires you to link your account to a US credit card--when you can literally mail cash to Mullvad and be completely anonymous.

</comment><comment><USER38> I guess it is Mozilla's name behind it... but... I guess fundamentally... you still can't use shit like netflix or any other media services because they actively block vpns.

</comment><comment><USER39> Why is the Mozilla Corporation diluting the Firefox brand like this?

<comment><USER40> How is this brand dilution?

<comment><USER39> Because Firefox is a browser, not a family of products. Well, now it is, but they already had a brand for their family of products: Mozilla.

<comment><USER40> They've been pivoting the Firefox name to encompass many privacy-minded tools for a while now. I would argue that a Firefox VPN strengthens that branding.

[https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/](https://www.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/)

> Meet our family of products \- Browsers

\- Monitor

\- Send

\- Lockwise

\- Pocket

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Does Mullvad offer ad-blocking dns (like AdGuard)? Maybe Mozilla should start a beta program for this considering they are considered fairly trustworthy.

<comment><USER20> If it's WireGuard based, the client allows you to specify your DNS servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Mullvad vpn is very good which Firefox vpn is based on.

</comment><comment><USER43> Shouldn't this be served from firefoxfulldevicevpn.com ?

</comment><comment><USER44> just fyi opera has had a free built-in vpn for some time. works a peach.

<comment><USER45> Opera VPN collects user data. It's right in their policy. It's not a privacy respecting service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> This is how much it cost to run an outline vpn on digitalocean

<comment><USER12> Outline is an excellent piece of software, but VPN services mix traffic from many users through the same IP address, which may improve anonymity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> A partnership with OVPN.com would have been much better with their high security focus. However, Mullvad is probably fine.

</comment><comment><USER48> >Does Firefox Private Network log my browsing history?

>Firefox is committed to protecting your privacy. Our privacy policy describes how we handle your data. The VPN is provided in partnership with Mullvad, who is committed to not monitoring or logging your browsing or network history.

So in other words, Mullvad doesn't track you but Mozilla does. Is that interpretation correct?

<comment><USER10> Nope, not correct.</comment></comment>


Now/Rust - <AUTHOR> https://zeit.co/blog/introducing-now-rust <comment><USER2> How is this (specifically with servo) for making screenshots instead of scraping data?

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool project! How easy was it to use servo as a library?</comment>


Google Satellite Reaches Orbit - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5046406/google-military+controlled-satellite-reaches-orbit-we-dont-feel-lucky

<comment><USER2> This is pretty cool!

Meanwhile they've sponsored a private moon landing.

I wonder if it's better to design a satellite than to make orbital trips cheaper (aka Jeff Bezos and Elon Musk of SpaceX).</comment>


The Entrepreneurial Generation - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/30under30/2007/the-entrepreneurial-generation.html New technologies, a proliferation of resources, and a disenchantment with the corporate world are making Generation Y the most entrepreneurial in history. From magazine publishing to delivering fresh-baked cookies, the rising business stars named to our annual 30 Under 30 list are transforming existing industries and blazing trails with new ones. <comment><USER2> We're entrepreneurial because we don't have much of a choice. Without self- starting, most of us are doomed to a lifetime of pumping coffee while society collapses around us.</comment>


Android master key flaw used in the wild - <AUTHOR> http://www.scmagazine.com.au/News/351136,android-master-key-flaw-used-in-the-wild.aspx <comment><USER2> Isn't the master key vulnerability related to the SIM card attack, and not to the app signature vulnerability? Maybe I'm reading the article wrong, but this article seems to be confusing two non-related vulnerabilities.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you create your MVP landing pages? - <AUTHOR> Title says it all, want to set up a quick landing page with a form submission. Would love to know if there is a low-tech and quick turnaround that the community recommends. <comment><USER2> Just one clean and short landing? HTML5 template, premade. Just upload, analytics, MailChimp form and boom.

More complex? Either wix (just website) or integrate the landing page in my webapp (Google cloud or was)

It should be the least work you could possibly do or, at least, not cross your MVP development.

</comment><comment><USER3> I just install Wordpress + theme + Contact form 7. I'm on Webfaction so Wordpress in an 1-click installation.

Some very useful plugins for rapid prototyping: Google Analytics for WordPress by MonsterInsights + Yoast SEO + Wordfence Security + Page Builder by SiteOrigin</comment>


George Takei: The Challenge Ahead Under President-Elect Trump - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/11/15/george-takei-the-challenge-ahead-under-president-elect-trump.html <comment><USER2> Yeah George, we're all off to the camps</comment>


What is Colombia's commitment to protecting it's social leaders? - <AUTHOR> https://latinamericareports.com/what-is-the-governments-current-commitment-to-protecting-social-leaders-in-colombia/2765/ <comment><USER2> "623 social leaders and human rights defenders have been assassinated in Colombia since the signing of the peace accord in November 2016." \- Indepaz</comment>


Sprint integrates Google Voice - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/03/sprint-integrates-google-voice.html <comment><USER2> Assuming the setup and interface is solid; this can only mean good things for Sprint and Google Voice in general.

Sprint needs to focus more on disrupting the marketplace. Their differences on price/offerings is good however - now more than ever - Sprint will need to create additional benefits to remain a player in the mobile arena.

If the AT&T/TMobile deal moves forward, consumers will need Sprint to keep the playing field somewhat fair.

</comment><comment><USER3> i'd like to know how this is going to work for people like me who already have a google voice number and a sprint number. I have no desire to get rid of either number as I use one for personal and one for business. Will I have to create a new google account to route both numbers through GV? Then what number will my phone chose when dialing out as I don't think there's an app to select what phone number to call from or a way to use 2 different GV accounts from one phone.

</comment><comment><USER4> Before this was announced I was reasonably sure that the iPhone would make its way to Sprint before the end of the year. With this development, I'm not so sure. What would the ramifications of a Sprint-based number tied to Google Voice being passed through to an iPhone? Might this be a sticking point discouraging Apple from launching the iPhone on their network?

</comment><comment><USER5> How reliable is Google Voice? I'm a little wary about switching my phone over considering my Sprint service has been rock solid so far.

<comment><USER6> I have never had any issues. When I call people, I get them and can talk as long as I want. When I text people, they get my message. I receive calls and texts regularly and never hear, "hey, why didn't you reply to my voicemail / text". So I assume it works.

The only problem I have is that I get two Android notifications for each text. One from the SMS app, and one from Google Voice. Not sure how to fix that.

<comment><USER7> On the Google Voice website there is a setting where you can disable receiving SMS on a certain phone.

<comment><USER6> But receiving the SMS is what tells Google Voice to poll for messages.

<comment><USER8> Not on Android. It's a push service. I've had the SMS disabled since I installed the Google Voice app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wish I could pick which contacts I use Voice with. I will still be picking how — Call with Google Voice or Call without Google Voice — for each call even though I use Sprint.

I doubt the audio quality will improve or that I can find out via reading the Web whether it improves after this connection is made.

</comment><comment><USER10> now if att would get on board...

</comment><comment><USER11> How does this affect MMS messages? The one annoying thing about google voice since I switched to completely using it is that I don't receive MMS messages and people that send them to me don't know that I didn't get it.

<comment><USER12> It says on the FAQ that MMS messages will be sent through your Sprint number and not your Google Voice number.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> $99 per month recurring cost. Damn. That's a rich person's territory.

<comment><USER14> There's no cost beyond what you pay for your Sprint service. This is just pure FUD.

<comment><USER13> Their everything unlimited plan is $99. That's still a lot from median/average perspective.

<comment><USER6> So don't buy the "everything unlimited" plan? They have other ones.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Non-Profit CouchSurfing Raises Millions In Funding - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/nicoleperlroth/2011/08/24/non-profit-couchsurfing-raises-millions-in-funding/

<comment><USER2> Huh. CS seems to have taken down their anti-open-source article: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:03RlQr9...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:03RlQr9f-yEJ:www.couchsurfing.org/policy_faq.html%3Fopen_source_answer%3D1+couchsurfing+open+source+policy&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&source=www.google.com)</comment>


The stack overflow that wasn't - <AUTHOR> http://www.tedunangst.com/flak/post/the-stack-overflow-that-wasnt <comment><USER3> Just to inject a comment here that isn't complaining about the post, I found it an interesting read! It's pretty rare for anyone working in these sorts of situations to explain anything at all and I'm grateful the author bothers to write them up.

I inferred from context that "stackgap" was some sort of random memory space added to a process, but in case anyone else isn't familiar with it I found this presentation with a picture (the previous slide explains a bit more too):

[http://www.openbsd.org/papers/auug04/mgp00005.html](http://www.openbsd.org/papers/auug04/mgp00005.html)

From there it suggests it's normally a random gap in the ~256kb range. The change mentioned in the post increased the range to up to 2mb, which explains why that, coupled with a 2mb stack limit, caused such problems.

I'm a little surprised this didn't trigger problems earlier, since it would randomly causes processes to have half as much stack as they used to. I guess most processes don't use anywhere near 2mb (that's the 4mb limit - <USER2> 2mb of gap) of stack?

<comment><USER4> This method implementation feels a bit dubious - the same effect, making it harder to exploit buffer overflows, can be achieved by moving the whole stack around randomly in the process' address space while preserving its size.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why does ramdisk kernel have lower stack limit than regular kernel?

<comment><USER6> I don't know for sure, but I'm guessing the fact that it runs from a ramdisk means that it's probably more memory-constrained than a regular kernel, so they configure it to use as little memory as possible. Not much more, on modern systems with gigabytes of RAM, but moreso on older systems.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Based on just the title, I thought this was about the website (It's not)

<comment><USER8> I clicked thinking that too!

<comment><USER8> Ok so parent is gone and it makes no sense now :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> An obviously smart guy who doesn't know how to tell a story OR provide enough technical detail to the curious.

Who's the audience for this post?

Script programmers who never had to turn a computer off and on because they popped the wrong number of arguments off the stack before returning from a function?

Kernel hackers who didn't already see the checkins?

People who Google a problem after their kernel upgrade fails with obscure messages, who then receive no information on how to solve the problem?

Context is everything. From the title on down, this has none. If you're not going to take the time to do it right, let the commit messages tell the story.

I love learning about systems and I love a good "hunt down an obscure bug" story but this post offers neither.

<comment><USER10> I thought it was interesting? It's not even like the author himself came here and put it in front of you. I can send you some links with much more comprehensive displays of vacuousness on the internet if you need some solid targets.

<comment><USER9> And it's not like the author has a comment section so I can tell him there.

Call me a dick if you like, but I'd love the web to contain a little middleground between mindless listicles and sentences like "Technically, the errors above come from ksh, when execve fails because there's no room left in the new process to copyout argv."

I know what those words mean, I'm doubly-sure Ted does, and I'm sure it'd be a far better post if he spent another thirty words on the issue.

<comment><USER11> Feel free to email him email@example.com or tweet @tedunangst

Just because there's a comment section doesn't mean you can't comment. You can read James Hague's thoughts on the matter here: [http://prog21.dadgum.com/57.html](http://prog21.dadgum.com/57.html)

<comment><USER9> Or I can choose to leave a comment on HN and raise the broader issue of lack of context, something that plagues a lot of tech bloggers.

If the first words I see when I arrive on a site are "guest" and "flak," and then there's a misleading headline, and the seventh through ninth word in the post itself is "OpenBSD install kernels" with no further explanation as to what that is then I reserve the right to express both a local and global observation regarding the quality of the information as presented.

I'm amused that this is downvote central but turning a valid observation into a slightly lighter shade of beige isn't refuting my argument.

<comment><USER12> I originally read this article following a link from undeadly.org, the "OpenBSD journal", which provided enough context for me: [http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20150209112628](http://undeadly.org/cgi?action=article&sid=20150209112628)

<comment><USER9> I truly find this fascinating. That site has what appears to be a pokemon character wearing a drum kit, adds the line "Home: :Add Story: :Archives: :About: :Create Account: :Login:" and proceeds to quote the opening of the article _while providing absolutely no additional information_.

CmdrTaco used to provide a transitional sentence or two, and that's what made sites that look just like OpenBSD Journal actually have appeal and usefulness. Has the internet forgotten this lesson too?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft wannacry patch page for older OSes no longer works - <AUTHOR> Yesterday, Microsoft Blog had a page of wannacry patches for older OSes, including XP and Server 2003, which was accessible.  Now (21:05 UTC), that page fails for "Server Error".<p>https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/msrc/2017/05/12/customer-guidance-for-wannacrypt-attacks/ <comment> T-A [https://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/threat/encyclopedi...](https://www.microsoft.com/security/portal/threat/encyclopedia/Entry.aspx?Name=Ransom:Win32/WannaCrypt)

Click "What to do now", all patches are there.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is fantastic, this new page works, thanks and have my upvote.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> TechNet is down right now altogether, not just this blog post.

<comment><USER3> [https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com](https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com) is down, [https://technet.microsoft.com](https://technet.microsoft.com) remains up.

<comment><USER2> Ah, yes you're right. Sorry I'm running a decent sleep deficit right now.</comment></comment></comment>


Judges reluctantly accepted claim that broadband isn't "telecommunications." - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/10/why-ajit-pais-unhinged-net-neutrality-repeal-was-upheld-by-judges/ <comment><USER2> > According to the FCC, the offering of DNS and caching makes broadband an > information service, which is defined under US law as "the offering of a > capability for generating, acquiring, storing, transforming, processing, > retrieving, utilizing, or making available information via > telecommunications."

So by the same token any of us can be an information service by running a caching DNS server even if it's just a forwarding some other DNS server's recursive answers. The precedent is rotten and this low bar to escape from net neutrality is misset.</comment>


Show HN: QR codes - my mini project - <AUTHOR> Hello HN! Check out and comment on one of my mini projects:
http://coderqr.com
It's a website for the QR-uninitiated crowd to quickly make QR bar codes and move on with their lives, with plenty of options to satisfy most everyone.
The site came about when I tried to make QR bar codes for the business cards at my job. There wasn't a single site out there that allows you to enter multiple phone numbers, emails, urls, etc. I did some research into the data format, found out it's a bunch of text markup code, and so I was able to get the right data into the bar codes. Then, I built coderqr.com to make everyone else's life easier. The user can also embed other types of data besides contact info. There's plain text (which, with the right markup, allows you to generate every other type of embedded data), urls, email addresses, email messages, sms messages, even map coordinates. For the unaware, when you scan a qr bar code, you can open the right app for the given data. For example, if there's an email message embedded in a bar code, when you scan it, you'll be able to launch the email app and the To, Subject, and Body fields will all be filled in with the data from the code. All you have to do is press send. I can envision Washington DC plastered with QR code ads where you just scan the code, press send on the email, and off it goes to your senators and other representatives.
There's nothing too fancy on the backend: it uses Google's Charts API to generate the image. Further down the line, I'll generate my own images. That way, I'll be able to add custom designs with curves and colors, so the codes won't looks so blocky and sterile.
I've used this project as a bit of a learning lesson in SEO and advertising revenue. Up next, I'll add affiliate links to put the codes on tshirts, mugs, and other objects.
Anyways, long story short, I'd love to hear your thoughts! <comment><USER2> At the risk of being the rain cloud on your project - you could just download the free and open source Zint bar code generator from SourceForge <http://sourceforge.net/projects/zint/> this covers QR among many other options.

<comment><AUTHOR> Cool find, but it's for a different audience. I'm aiming for people who want a quick data entry form to generate the barcode image. Your link is for a software library. Apples and oranges...

<comment><USER2> In fact it is an app - I have it installed on my dev machine and use it to generate QR codes for use on web sites.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Not sure if this is an issue with your site or a limitation of MeCard, but having a single name field (instead of first/last) doesn't seem to work right.

I just created a contact for myself, and tried scanning it into my Android phone, and it just put my whole name into the "First Name" field.

But anyway it's a really cool idea - I like it..

</comment><comment><USER4> when I started reading this, first reaction was, what do you mean there isn't a site that lets you put all sorts of data in a QR Code - Google Charts API what. Then I see that's what you figured out.

</comment><comment><USER4> also, QR Codes with full vCard style contact infos have been in use/easy/available in popular places like Japan, for years.</comment>


A Brief Explanation of Greg Egan's Dust Theory - <AUTHOR> https://cephalopods.blog/2020/08/14/a-brief-explanation-of-egans-dust-theory/ <comment><USER3> This article doesn't actually _explain_ Dust Theory to someone who hasn't read the book. I haven't found a good standalone explanation of the theory that explains it in a compact manner so my recommendation to people is to read the book.

Permutation City is among my top 5 favorite books because I found Dust Theory so mind blowingly amazing from a philosophical standpoint. I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere outside the lesswrong.com forums (which are famous for creating Roko's Basilisk). It's only $3 on Amazon so it's worth picking up if you're a fan of hard sci-fi that gets into the philosophy of uploading: [https://www.amazon.com/Permutation-City-Greg-Egan- ebook/dp/B...](https://www.amazon.com/Permutation-City-Greg-Egan- ebook/dp/B00FDWCPV2)

Dust Theory also provides an interesting option for people who want to achieve True Immortality. That is, immortality that can survive the heat death of the universe without violating the First or Second Laws of Thermodynamics. It also provides a hard sci-fi version of the concept of Subliming from Iain Banks' Culture novels where a civilization leaves this universe once they become sufficiently advanced. (Sublimation in the Culture books is similar to Ascension in the Stargate universe or Transcendence in Babylon 5.)

<comment><USER4> Almost a decade ago I independently invented the same idea. Discussion was here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2727750](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2727750)

It's a pretty simple theory, which I ultimately reject even to this day. If it were true, however, the expanse of existence is truly terrifying.

This theory leads to any possible existence existing, short of maybe self- contradiction[0]. Well, so if that is true, then there exists a relation of beings where one of the beings is both powerful and has motives that are purely antithetical to the others. Think "I Have No Mouth, and I Must Scream" kinda bad, only armed with Knuth's up notation and applied to pain and suffering. A hell that's truly beyond comprehension.

If this theory is correct, then all beings eventually find themselves in this hell. Note that this isn't argumentum ad consequentiam. I'm not saying that since this is such a horrific outcome that it's clearly false. I'm saying that _if_ it is true, it is a horror beyond all horrors.

Though I suppose there is always a chance that a being that found themself in such a situation could always randomly pop out into some other, better existence by sheer chance.

Thinking about it is useful, but ultimately there are too many degrees of freedom to come to any practical conclusions.

[0] An existence arising that stops the existence of the vast randomness leading to all existences, for example.

<comment><USER5> > This theory leads to any possible existence existing, [...]

This statement maybe superficially correct, but I interpret it differently. Every _possible_ existence may exist, but not every _imaginable_ existence. For something to exist in this manner, it has to be possible to generate it in a logically consistent manner from some initial conditions and simple rules, and while that allows for a "terrifying expanse of existences" we can't say which imagninable existences can actually be thus generated, any more than you can look at a random jumble of dots and say whether those could have been generated by one of Wolfram's one-dimensional automata without generating all possible patterns from those automata and seeing if one matches.

The fact that you can imagine a hell beyond all horrors is not proof that any world-generating automaton would ever generate it... even in an infinite Universe it may not actually be a "possible existence".

Infinity != Everything.

<comment><USER6> > Infinity != Everything

More precisely, infinite sets come in different sizes. For example, there are provably more real numbers than natural numbers even though both sets are infinitely large. ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleph_number))

<comment><USER7> I think their point is more along the lines of "there are infinitely many (real or rational) numbers between zero and one, but none of them are equal to two".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Very interesting to think about. Here's my interpretation of the argument: Suppose you have some system X whose dynamics are those of conscious agents in a world. For example, maybe X is the real world. Suppose that the agents in X really experience consciousness. Now suppose we apply some one-to-one function f to X, yielding Y = f(X). Then Y contains all the same information as X. So who's to say that the agents in X have consciousness but the agents in Y don't? Now by an inverse argument, suppose you randomly encounter some blob of random dust, Z. Then you can always come up with a one-to-one function g mapping Z to X, X = g(Z). So apparently the dust Z already contained all the conscious agents in the universe. Conclusion: The conscious experiences of all agents are present in all sufficiently complex blobs of random dust and all sufficiently complex networks of mathematical relations.

One issue with this argument that hasn't been brought up yet is Kolmogorov complexity. Must random blobs of dust Z will be algorithmically random, not containing any real structure. In that case, the complexity of the function g that decodes Z into X will have to be huge. Essentially, the decoding function g itself will have to contain all the information that eventually ends up in X. So the information about conscious agents isn't really in the dust Z, it's in the decoder g.

<comment><USER9> If you believe in mathematical realism than the fact that there surely exists a mapping between a random set of data and a simulation with conscious agents in it, that should be enough.

<comment><USER10> It's not enough if the mapping function does not use the information from the random set. For instance it is easy to construct a mapping from ordered digits of pi to ordered letters of your comment, but all of the information of your comment will be in the mapping.

<comment><USER9> I believe the argument goes like this: assume that conscious agents can be simulated (that is, consciousness is computable). What is computation? If sudden wind arranges leaves on the ground into a pattern that looks like "2 + 2 = 4", was there a computation? We would usually answer "no", as computation, like many other things, requires causal connection. But Greg Egan states that "there is nothing more to causality than the correlations between states".

Now, a deterministic simulation can be represented as a series of states recorded on a medium. Then you, an observer, can rewind and inspect what's going on there, similar to reading a book or watching a movie. But the inhabitants of the simulation couldn't care less about you observing their states. They already "exist". In that case, why do we need the states of the simulation be recorded on the "film" in the order that makes sense for an outside observer? Surely a random arrangement would not affect the "simulation". The same goes for the encoding.

Now, if the arrangement doesn't matter, and the encoding doesn't matter, why there needs to be a specific physical medium at all? Surely somewhere in the Universe you can find arrangements of "dust" that "encode" the same states (in no particular order).

<comment><USER10> What does "encode" mean here? If it is supposed to contain the whole state in one chunk, the space of possible deterministic algorithms is too huge compared to the amount of dust, so it can't contain that. If it is supposed to find small chunks and rearrange them, it will not be using any information from the dust, and with same success encoder could use just any set of 0s and 1s. To circumvent finiteness of dust One could use digits of an irrational number or simple counting, but that is a very strange definition of existence. By that logic every possible history is just a number, so everything exists. The Important question is how to construct these numbers, find them in the sea of other meaningless numbers.

I think Stephen Wolfram's idea of computational irreducibility is very useful here. It says that most computations (even very simple systems like some of cellular automata) cannot be replaced by other computations, and even to verify that a number represents result of a computation, one have to carry out that same computation. So the part of the book where states of the simulation are computed out of order is simply wrong, the latter state of the simulation could not have been computed without computing the intermediate states, and all the methods of computing that state were equivalent to the person living through that interval of time.

<comment><USER9> You are still talking about mapping the simulation to a representation that will make sense to you.

The episode that I found fascinating to think about is when a simulated character reflects on his existence: "And if the computations behind all this had been performed over millennia, by people flicking abacus beads, would he have felt exactly the same? It was outrageous to admit it-but the answer had to be yes."

It looks like the physical medium and the representation do not matter to the simulation, as long as computation occurs. Then the question is, what is computation. If you believe that all digits of Pi exist, then every possible computation should also exist.

We don't usually believe that. It seems that information in our universe cannot exist without some physical medium.

The out of order computation was added to the story to make it more dramatic, the author states.

<comment><USER10> >You are still talking about mapping the simulation to a representation that will make sense to you.

I am talking about mapping that will make sense to anybody at all, be that inside or outside the simulation. If such mapping cannot be constructed, then how can we state that information about these computations exists in dust?

The part about abacus is very good, but it is also very different from dust theory, since with abacus there is a process of computation, states are obtained one from another sequentially, and the positions of abacus beads are not random. In the case of dust the information about the simulation is clearly not contained in the dust, so it's unclear how dust can cause the simulation to exist.

> It seems that information in our universe cannot exist without some physical > medium

isn't that simply due to the definition of the word exist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here is an explanation of Dust Theory from Wikipedia:

"[Dust theory states that] there is no difference, even in principle, between physics and mathematics, and that all mathematically possible structures exist, among them our physics and therefore our spacetime...The dust theory implies that all possible universes exist and are equally real, emerging spontaneously from their own mathematical self-consistency."

I think this does a pretty good job of summarizing the concept: the universe is simulatable, but there is nothing doing the simulation; it just exists as a pure mathematical object. All other possible universes that are simulatable (i.e. follow some mathematical model) are equally as real as ours.

<comment><USER12> Not familiar with the concept, but how does it square with Godels Incompleteness theory, is any mathematical universe even possible?

<comment><USER7> The closest GIT gets to being relevant is that some mathematical universes exist (or 'exist') that cannot be proven to exist. Alternatively - <USER2> Godel's Incompleteness Theorm is the same thing thing as the Halting Problem - some simulations that can't be proven valid (ie that each step of the simulation halts) are nonetheless valid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> aaron-santos The article really ought to close the loop by tying it back to the final 10% of the book. The big point in the book is that you can craft arbitrary surjections and have an infinite set of justifications for your subjective experience. A physical substrate is just as good as a computational/mathematical substrate. In this sense you can bootstrap your simulated existence into the immortal world of forms.

<comment><USER13> The part I don't understand about this, which is the same as the part I don't understand about dust theory, is that it seems to ignore the distinction between an abstract representation of an object and the object itself.

By the logic of dust theory, I can walk into a bank and say "give me the money, or else I'll throw this handful of sand into the air, and it might encode a universe where you're tortured for a billion years!"

<comment> aaron-santos You're right. To which the teller can reply, "I've crafted an encoding where you are tortured for billions of years."

The idea is more about swapping out the substrate of your current subjective experience than creating a new encoding of your current universe. The book has the convient liberty of actually jumping between simulations/encodings to illustrate this, but it's ancillary to the main idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Greg Egan is definitely in the list of authors with the most radically hard science fiction ideas, even more extravagant than those I found in Alfred Bester books.

Speaking of the Dust Theory, this looks very close to concept as Max Tegmark's Mathematical universe hypothesis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothes...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_universe_hypothesis)

Tegmark's book goes over it in a very readable way: [https://www.amazon.de/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate- Rea...](https://www.amazon.de/Our-Mathematical-Universe-Ultimate- Reality/dp/0241954630)

</comment><comment><USER15> Greg Egan is my favorite author. My favorite book of his is Diaspora.

If you loved Permutation City you may also love Diaspora. The first chapter of Diaspora is brilliant, if you try reading it, and find that you enjoy it, you will then like the whole book.

<comment><USER16> Thumbs up for Diaspora, that's probably my favorite of his.

If anyone wants to sample him first, if you like the short stories on his website, you'll almost certainly like his books.

[https://www.gregegan.net/BIBLIOGRAPHY/Online.html](https://www.gregegan.net/BIBLIOGRAPHY/Online.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Looking at other stuff ISTM this is generated by one of them newfangled GPT3 things or whatever:

"Nonetheless, It is because of my faith in science and its processes that I have always been of the opinion that the state pension, though grisly from a naive "one-worlder" perspective is actually a remarkably humane, efficient and (dare I say) generous social program."

([https://cephalopods.blog/](https://cephalopods.blog/))

and if you look at the home link [https://cephalopods.blog/about/](https://cephalopods.blog/about/) anyone else think that looks like a generated face?

<comment><USER18> > and if you look at the home link > [https://cephalopods.blog/about/](https://cephalopods.blog/about/) anyone > else think that looks like a generated face?

More importantly, it's a new face every time you reload the page.

<comment><USER17> So it is! Well spotted. I think you've proven it.

<comment><USER18> Not sure I'd consider this a proof. Maybe it's just some weird dude :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> He lost me right in the second paragraph:

> Because computation is sort of subjective, just a set of relations that can > be usefully interpreted as representing a function, this seems to imply that > the function you identify with can be interpreted as being simulated by any > sufficiently complex set of relations.

Can anyone explain? I'm already struggling with the premise: Why should computation be subjective in the first place?

<comment><USER19> If I understand correctly, it's not that the computation itself is subjective, but that the interpretation of the results is. Like how things are represented in lambda calculus - is this _really_ an integer, or is it just a blob of function applications that has an interpretation _consistent_ with being an integer? That part is subjective. Edit: to be more explicit, the parallel is "is that _really_ a mind, or is it just a blob of molecules that has an interpretation _consistent_ with being a mind?"

<comment><USER20> The Model vs The Map

<comment><USER21> Syntax vs semantics?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Interesting article!

As linked in the article, Egan posted some FAQ/counterarguments for issues raised here: [https://www.gregegan.net/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html](https://www.gregegan.net/PERMUTATION/FAQ/FAQ.html)

<comment><USER13> Nice, IMO this (short) FAQ has a lot more useful info than the featured article. His claim at the end that creating intelligent life through evolution is deeply immoral confuses me, though -- by all accounts, _we_ arose through that process, and relatively few people seem bothered by it.

<comment><USER23> He means that deliberately setting up a synthetic evolution process to generate intelligent life would be immoral.

His short story Crystal Nights deals with this. Its a corker of a story.

[https://www.gregegan.net/MISC/CRYSTAL/Crystal.html](https://www.gregegan.net/MISC/CRYSTAL/Crystal.html)

 _"What created the only example of consciousness we know of?" Daniel asked.

"Evolution."

"Exactly. But I don't want to wait three billion years, so I need to make the selection process a great deal more refined, and the sources of variation more targeted."

Julie digested this. "You want to try to evolve true AI? Conscious, human- level AI?"

"Yes." Daniel saw her mouth tightening, saw her struggling to measure her words before speaking.

"With respect," she said, "I don't think you've thought that through."

"On the contrary," Daniel assured her. "I've been planning this for twenty years."

"Evolution," she said, "is about failure and death. Do you have any idea how many sentient creatures lived and died along the way to Homo sapiens? How much suffering was involved?"_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Greg Egan is truly one of the most creative minds on the planet. He has a book called Dichronaughts that's set in a universe with 2 space and 2 time-like dimensions. It's very hard to get your head around but the result is a universe with a hyperbolic geometry where movement on one axis implies changing your shape entirely.

</comment><comment><USER25> This reminds me of David Chalmers' 'Does a Rock Implement Every Finite-State Automaton'? [http://consc.net/papers/rock.html](http://consc.net/papers/rock.html)

</comment><comment> j-pb I don't know the original theory, but this explanation is brief to the point where it's nonsensical.

<comment><USER26> Might be because the entire thing is nonsense. Entropy shoots a hole in the entire thing as far as I can tell. The problem is that the information can never be retrieved, so if it exists or not is really pointless.

<comment><USER27> If you _are_ the information though then you have retrieved it.

<comment><USER26> Not really. Brains don't exist and cannot exist without a medium to work in. It's the old idea that we have souls that are independent from our bodies and underlying reality. This is nonsense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Well yes, you could construe any physical object as having conciousness by having a sufficiently detailed/complex schema that assigns 'meanings' to each of its states.

But we all agree a rock is not conscious, so this definition doesn't pass the common sense test.

One mistake is then claiming that this usage of the word conciousness can be substituted for the commonplace usage in all situations. E.g. why don't we feel the same ethical obligation to a potentially conscious rock that we do to animals, humans and, arguably, seemingly intelligent entities?

For a nice exposition of this one can read chapter 2 of Gary Drescher's book 'good and real'.

</comment><comment><USER29> A while ago I wrote up my own take, inspired largely by Permutation City but also by Tegmark's mathematical universe hypothesis: [https://blog.domenic.me/mathematical- consciousness/](https://blog.domenic.me/mathematical-consciousness/)

To me this line of thinking is very attractive. As someone who has been a mathematical Platonist forever, this gives a very satisfying answer to big questions like "why is there something instead of nothing" and "why is our universe so perfectly described by mathematics".

<comment><USER30> > Permutation City

I haven't read that book since the early 90's but it dealt with ideas that have really stuck in my mind.

<comment><USER13> The main detail I remember from that book is that credit card companies would track whoever you dined with at a restaurant and then serve you ads featuring computer-generated people who resembled those people to manipulate you into trust. Pretty ahead of its time for 1994!

<comment><USER30> At the time, using computational chemistry to simulate an entire living, evolving life form was just a mind blowing idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> There's a philosophical literature on this, which is also known as the "dancing with pixies" argument.

See: [https://www.consciousentities.com/2009/07/dancing- pixies/](https://www.consciousentities.com/2009/07/dancing-pixies/)

And: [http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas02mb/Selected%20Papers/2009%20...](http://www.doc.gold.ac.uk/~mas02mb/Selected%20Papers/2009%20Cognitive%20Computing.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER32> > This is sort of like the Boltzmann brain idea but even worse because it > applies to any set of relations. According to Egan's argument all possible > experiences that can be computed by any sufficiently complex set of > relations are in fact computed by them.

This idea seems identical to the Boltzmann brain hypothesis and I don't understand how this paragraph differentiates it at all.

<comment><USER33> >> This is sort of like the Boltzmann brain idea but even worse because it applies to any set of relations. According to Egan's argument all possible experiences that can be computed by any sufficiently complex set of relations are in fact computed by them.

> This idea seems identical to the Boltzmann brain hypothesis and I don't > understand how this paragraph differentiates it at all.

I don't claim to totally understand this, but my impression is "Dust Theory" implies that the mind is more frequently simulated than in "Boltzmann brain" theory. IIRC, the latter imagines a literally brain being formed briefly out of matter.

<comment><USER32> > IIRC, the latter imagines a literally brain being formed briefly out of > matter.

I see. FWIW I think that is a very narrow reading of the Boltzmann brain hypothesis and while it may have been true to when it was first presented, I think the general "brain as abstract relations that can be simulated by physical systems" Boltzmann brain is what most contemporary cosmologists are talking about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I've not read the book, but I'm trying to digest this. For someone who has a good grasp of Dust Theory, if you answer from its perspective...

1) Does believing that consciousness is simulateable commit you to thinking of consciousness as a purely mathematical object, apart from any physical process it might model?

2) If the universe were just an infinite space filled with dust in a wild zoo of different configurations, does my consciousness exist in it so long you can find a dust configuration that admits a mathematical representation that's isomorphic to the one representing my "real" consciousness?

3) How does complexity fit into this? If the entirety of the universe were a single static point particle, would consciousness still fall out of it? It seems as if it could, if you had a sufficiently complicated encoding scheme.

<comment><USER35> 1\. Yes, what physical processes? It's just signals.

2\. I can postulate that to be true, but unless I have hard proof I cannot say it to be true. If that isomorphic consciousness finds _itself_ to have a subjective experience... Then it knows that dust theory exist, no one else does.

3\. I do not understand this question

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think I can somewhat grasp what is being explained but maybe not really.

As a thought experiment, if you had a screen of fixed resolution that displayed random color pixels, given an infinite amount of time, you could watch an entire specific movie (along with every other image), perhaps in random order, but from the movie's perspective if it were conscious it would not be aware of whatever order it's playing in, it would just perceive itself to be going forward I guess. The movie itself is like a function that displays an image as a function of time.

So I guess they're saying consciousness in Dust Theory could be like that? What we perceive as a conscious moment is a brief output of random noise for a random timestamp?

</comment><comment><USER36> The problem with these kinds of theories (eternal recurrence, random quantum state fluctuations, simulation):

\- There are plenty of things that aren't computable that our universe seems to do just fine (entropy being one)

\- The universe seems to be intelligible, especially w.r.t. its causal chain -- if we only _happen_ to be conscious in these very specific instants (where we have intelligibility, causality, etc.), the question is _why_?

At the end of the day, you end up with some kind of Maxwell's demon type of situation where there's all this trickery that needs to happen to support a theory where we're in a simulation or Boltzmann brains.

</comment><comment><USER37> > If you think experience is simulatable, you buy computational or > "patternist" theories of identity, there are some very strange implications > that are not commonly brought up.

Maybe the sentence isn't worded correctly, but these are two entirely different claims. It's relatively simple and straightforward to argue that one's experience is simulatable, but that identity lies in the instance of the simulation itself, so a copy of a simulation would be a different being. That two machines running the same computational process represent the _same_ entity is a separate, unverifiable claim.

</comment><comment><USER38> " _That is, for any random set of relations with enough complexity to represent a human mind, Egan claims, there exists an exotic encoding scheme that can interpret this set of relations as representing any arbitrary function, including the function that you would call "I"._ "

"There exists an X" is significantly different as a statement from "This X" (or "All X", for that matter).

Since I assume that solipsism is a fallicy, I don't find this philosophical position all that useful.

</comment><comment><USER39> > In fact, even if you imagine a static set of relations that do not evolve in > time there still exists encoding schemes that can interpret this set of > relations as any arbitrary function, so in some sense the set of > mathematical objects that represent "you" and "me" and all possible minds > can be said to exist in these timeless relations.

The argument fails because "you" and "me" are processes, embodied agents while the interpretations of data are "virtual".

</comment><comment><USER40> Just finished Diaspora. It made me feel rather stupid, as the analogies it weaves throughout (as way to dumb it down I suppose) were sort of like reading the cliff notes. Okay 6 dimensions, ok 12 sure. And this one is 5 dimensions but they're all sort of visible or something. But really it's infinite dimensions and all that science proofing I skimmed was wrong. Great.

I did love the artificial mind part in the beginning. Is this book a deeper dive on that?

<comment><USER41> All of Egan's books make me feel stupid, but in the best possible way :) I always feel I'm getting half the picture but would need a PhD in whatever speciality he's focussing on in this book to get the whole thing, yet thoroughly enjoy every book all the same.

Permutation City is something of a different take on the artificial mind to Diaspora. Schild's Ladder deals also has the artificial mind theme, perhaps a bit closer to Diaspora, but with it's own take again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> All formal systems are incomplete or inconsistent. There is zero evidence that the universe is either.

<comment><USER43> There is a difference between a mathematical object and a formal system. Surely you would not call a differential equation with a given initial condition describing a simple harmonic oscillator along with an initial condition "inconsistent". Would you call it incomplete? Doing so would seem rather odd seeing as there is exactly one solution (given the initial condition). And the sense of "incomplete" that the incompleteness theorems are about doesn't apply to this. I don't just mean that it isn't true of it. I mean that it is not an applicable idea. It is like asking what the northernmost point of the color blue is.

People should be careful when trying to apply Gödel's incompleteness theorems to philosophical questions, as people often do so without really understanding what they say, and, importantly, what they do not say.

Something that may help is to familiarize oneself with Gödel's _completeness_ theorem.

<comment><USER42> > Surely you would not call a differential equation with a given initial > condition describing a simple harmonic oscillator along with an initial > condition "inconsistent".

No, certainly not.

> Would you call it incomplete?

Yes, absolutely. There is no such thing as a harmonic oscillator that exactly follows an equation like that. Show me one. Either the formal system has nothing to do with the real world, or it is an incomplete approximation of it. All other known physical theories are the same way.

Can even a part of the universe be described completely by _any_ (incomplete) formal system? Is it even meaningful to talk about a "part" of the universe in this sense? Well, there's exactly zero evidence either way. That's what I'm implying when I say "the universe may not be incomplete."

<comment><USER43> > Either the formal system has nothing to do with the real world, or it is an > incomplete approximation of it.

Ok, but this is a totally separate meaning of "incomplete" than what the incompleteness theorems are talking about.

So, if that is what you meant by "incomplete" in your original comment, you should know that your comment looked like it was appealing to Gödel's incompleteness theorems, which do not deal with that sense of "completeness".

<comment><USER42> Added some clarification - Yes, the incompleteness theorems only concern the behavior of mathematical/formal systems themselves. But to me it seems perfectly reasonable that correspondingly, there may be features of the universe ("true statements") that cannot be modeled ("proven") by any given physical theory ("formal system"). I cannot prove this, but nobody can prove the opposite belief, either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I'd like to see more of this. Egan's work got more mathematical and harder to understand as the years went by.

Not that I'd want him to dumb it down, but explanations are appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER45> [https://xkcd.com/505/](https://xkcd.com/505/)

</comment><comment><USER46> Dust theory is cool, but I really, really wish someone could simplify and explain the world of Egan's Dichronauts to me.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'll take this one. Can someone provide some background as to exactly what is being discussed here?

<comment><USER48> A major plot point and thematic element from a novel by Greg Egan called Permutation City.

<comment><USER49> Would you consider this to be a spoiler for the book? I've not read my copy yet.

<comment><USER48> You probably won't understand this brief "explanation" until after you read the book. It's brief largely because it assumes that you know at least the events in the book, even if you couldn't follow the definitions and other exposition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> tl;dr - I am possible, therefore I am.</comment>


Facebook says asking users about condoning pedophilia 'was a mistake' - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/5/17080796/facebook-policy-survey-pedophilia-sexual-pictures-mistake-apology <comment><USER2> I'm not on Facebook, but from the outside, it sure looks like pure evil. A tool for the state and other powers that be to gauge the pulse on what is culturally acceptable so they can further shape the narrative of underlying agenda. This one was a miss, but someone is up to something and I'm sure this will re-surface in the future after more time spent blurring the lines. Maybe an army of bots and shill accounts promoting a catchy hashtag aimed at 14 year olds as the new grown and sexy.

We deserve better. Let's build tools truly focused on the community and the well-being of those who participate to better connect and uplift the world around us.

</comment><comment><USER3> How completely moronic. Can't help but to think how panicked someone could be if misinterpreting this with a casual accusation.

I log into FB at home:

"Hey FrozenTuna, do you think its okay to solicit 14 y/o's for nudes?"

"No"

"What do you think fb should do about this behavior?"

"What the actual fuck..."

I don't think its a stretch to imagine myself trying to email my entire internet history to friends and family trying to be transparent lol. Even accusations can be a death sentence in the US.

</comment><comment><USER4> Headline and source article both misuse "pedophilia" for shock value; the question was not about pedophilia or behavior indicative of pedophilia.

<comment><USER5> >Alongside questions about topics like violent extremism, it asked how users would handle "a private message in which an adult man asks a 14-year-old girl for sexual pictures."

what exactly is your point?

<comment><USER4> That an adult showing sexual interests in images of post-pubescent minors is not a behavior associated with pedophilia [0] any more than an adult showing interests of such images of other adults is.

[0] "a psychiatric disorder in which an adult or older adolescent experiences a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to prepubescent children"; [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia)

<comment><USER6> We can defend pedophilia on Hacker News but such content wouldn't be welcome here. The article is about Facebook.

<comment><USER7> He/she is being pedantic (as one should) to clarify the narrative. No harm there

<comment><USER2> > It is not, however, pedophilia, or in any way behavior associated with > pedophilia

Sorry that the general public does not follow the guidelines of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).

He/she is not just being pedantic, but also disingenuous by attempting to paint it as clear cut black and white. Hebephilia is absolutely closely related to pedophilia, and should not be tolerated any less.

<comment><USER4> > Hebephilia is absolutely closely related to pedophilia,

IIRC, that's true in two senses:

(1) Most of the normal age range for hebephilia (11-14) is within the age range used to define pedophilia for diagnostic purposes (under 13) and much of it is below the median age of puberty in either sex, so much hebephilia is pedophilia in either of itd strict senses (the "prepubescent" one or it's age- based operationalization in the DSM), and

(2) the middle category in the three-way classification into pedophilia, hebephilia, and ephebophilia doesn't have a lot of evidentiary support for being a real distinct category separate from the ones on either side.

> and should not be tolerated any less.

I'm not making an argument about the degree to which adult male approaches to minors of different ages should be tolerated (whether or not they are backed by the kind of primary or exclusive attraction that would make any kind of paraphilia.) OTOH, I think there is plenty of evidence in law,nculture, and research that (1) the attractions are fundamentally different, and (2) the degree of social outrage directed at them is substantially different; for both reasons, calling a question about something that concerns conduct that is explicitly not indicative of pedophilia as being on about condoning pedophilia is an inappropriate use of emotionally loaded language that obscures rather than illuminates the issue.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mark Zuckerberg is 'dictator' of Facebook 'nation': The Pirate Bay founder - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnbc.com/2016/05/27/mark-zuckerberg-is-dictator-of-facebook-nation-the-pirate-bay-founder.html <comment><USER2> >"We censor a lot of things, why not censor Facebook?"

That seems like a really odd sentiment for the founder of The Pirate Bay. I was hoping he'd have a more creative solution than censorship given the history of his site.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Mark Zuckerberg is a rich white dude from a really privileged background

Since when does this mean that he knows nothing of culture? I feel like he's making a lot of generalizations: Europe is a giant continent with over 50 countries, most of which contain white people. How can he claim that Zuckerberg is "interfering with our local culture" of ALL of Europe? Seems fishy.

Still, Facebook's privacy policy, as well as its usage, are quite annoying, and comprise the reason that I don't use the service. It's extremely easy to avoid: simply tell people that you know that you don't have a Facebook, and they communicate with you via SMS, calls, etc.

<comment><USER4> "Our" might be a stretch; the children of Mother Europa are quite diverse unto themselves, so one person claiming to be "European" only begins to make sense under "enemy of my enemy..." conditions.

But "all of Europe" seems feasible to me. Facebook does have a massive outreach coming from the Internet, after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "And really you can't opt out of Facebook. I'm not on Facebook but there are a lot of drawbacks in my offline world. No party invitations, no updates from my friends, people stop talking to you, because you're not on Facebook. So it has real life implications."

I've never experienced this. Perhaps if you are some ultra-socialite, yes, but I have a couple close friends and we reach out to each other in various ways which mostly don't involve facebook. I think this is a phrase that just gets repeated without people actually thinking about their own situation.

<comment><USER6> Just because you've never experienced doesn't mean it's real. I have experienced it.

<comment><USER7> That isn't a result of Facebook, that's a result of inconsiderate friends. There are a couple friends in my group that aren't on Facebook, so we text them.

<comment><USER6> If all of my friends (coworkers, work friends, casual acquaintances) are using Facebook for events, and I'm the one insisting they contact me directly, then I feel like I'm being the inconsiderate one.

<comment><USER8> Really? I wouldn't think this of a friend not on a particular social website or if I myself was the one on a particular social website.

I guess I'm old (mid thirties) and rely so heavily on text et al

<comment><USER9> A reasonable analogy would be someone who didn't accept texts and insisted on party invitations (and communicating) through post or in-person visits. It's easy to say "Well a real friend would make the time to drop by", and that's perhaps a consistent definition of "real friend". But the fact remains that there's a whole host of pleasant social interactions (many of which others would define as "real friends") that you'd miss out on if you only relied on more inefficient communications technologies.

I'm not a heavy Facebook user, and I've considered deleting it multiple times, but each time I couldn't convince myself that there was any advantage to doing so over just using it as an inbox. Particularly with things like the News Feed Eradicator Chrome extension, I can basically pretend that all the irritating parts of Facebook don't exist when I check my messages and events. Having a single place where all the members of a group can see and share information on their own schedules is infinitely more convenient than trying to hack together the same thing over multiple bilateral communication channels (i.e texting/calling). Sure it would be better if it was federated, but given that there is no such widely-used solution, it's not hard to understand how people refusing to participate in FB groups can be fairly perceived as being the inconsiderate one (or else being left out altogether).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Facebook is a 'free'[1] community and every community has some form of leader. Sometimes those with direction _are_ dictators (sometimes), as in they dictate orders so that others can follow the direction. Facebook is very successful and I don't see how this leadership style is failing them, yet.

[1] Yes, I understand 'you are the product' on free sites like this.

</comment><comment><USER11> Is this article for real? I start a website and it becomes insanely popular then someone suggests it is wrong that I "wasn't elected" to be the leader of it. Only in Europe...

Facebook has its issues and is ready to be replaced any day now, but it's still a private site with private rules and use of it _is_ optional.

</comment><comment><USER12> > if you look at it from a democracy standpoint, Mark Zuckerberg is a > dictator. I did not elect him. He sets the rules

You kind of did, when you signed up.

> And really you can't opt out of Facebook. I'm not on Facebook but there are > a lot of drawbacks in my offline world. No party invitations, no updates > from my friends, people stop talking to you, because you're not on Facebook. > So it has real life implications.

Oh yes you can. Facebook is just about the worst place for actually expanding your social life.

When I was there, when I would make a post, it often felt like I was talking to everyone and no one at the same time.

<comment><USER13> > You kind of did, when you signed up.

Problem is many people signed up years ago and I bet they've changed their ToS and privacy policy 100 times since then without people noticing.

Facebook satisfied our needs to connect with our friends when it arrived. Now it's 100% ads. I used to have real discussions with friends, but the comment quality today is basically on par with youtube (if not worse).

<comment><USER14> > Problem is many people signed up years ago and I bet they've changed their > ToS and privacy policy 100 times since then without people noticing.

Honestly that sounds functionally like democracy still.

People (not I) voted for policies years ago have have changed a thousand times since, with or without people noticing.

Officials campaign promising to serve constituents in some way (we can call this their Terms of Service), people elect them, then they change those terms often, sometimes dramatically, sometimes on day 0. Whether people notice or not seems to have little effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Why would democracy be better in this case? When it comes to a business, I don't know if I would prefer mob rule to a benevolent dictator.

</comment><comment><USER16> s/:/, says /

That is a confusing headline!

<comment><USER17> It should be other way around, like _speaker_ : _what_they_said_

So it would be:

The Pirate Bay founder: Mark Zuckerberg is 'dictator' of Facebook 'nation'

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The resemblance of Zuck to Ceasar is striking......

</comment><comment><USER19> I remember when he called his users 'dumb fu*ks'. That told me everything I needed to know about the DNA of that company.

<comment><USER20> I never had a FB account, and I've tried to discourage people from using it every since Beacon came to light, back in 2007/8\. FB is a scourge on the web.

That said, I never really understood why here of all places he gets grilled over that phrase. I mean, he was right - they were dumb for uploading personal data and pictures to some unknown site owned by some unknown kid. Should he pretend otherwise? Is hypocrisy or stupidity a requirement for running a social network?

It reminds me of the quote from Red Mars, _" It was a mistake to speak one's mind at any time, unless it perfectly matched your political purpose; and it never did."_

<comment><USER9> > That said, I never really understood why here of all places he gets grilled > over that phrase. I mean, he was right - they were dumb for uploading > personal data and pictures to some unknown site owned by some unknown kid. > Should he pretend otherwise?

Because everything he says and everything he indicates about his beliefs is that sharing is a net good and everybody should be doing it as much as possible (I'm simplifying a little bit, of course). Just because you (and many here) feel differently doesn't mean it's impossible that someone could genuinely believe in the mission of connecting everyone, as opposed to thinking people are "dumb fucks" for wanting to do so.

Listen to Larry Page speak enough times and you'll get the same sense: he genuinely believes (to at least some degree) 1) organizing all the world's information from every possible source does powerful good that is more than worth the risks/costs and 2) advertisements are effectively a human-curated addendum to information-seeking and thus entirely consistent with the "organizing information" goal. The fact that you or I may disagree with those ideas doesn't make him a hypocrite for his true-believer status.

> Is hypocrisy or stupidity a requirement for running a social network?

This is a beyond-bizarre assertion. Loudly and constantly extolling the value of less and less barriers to oversharing when you in fact agree with many people that those doing so are dumb _is_ hypocrisy. To use the same analogy, it's as if there were early records of Larry Page saying something like "once everyone gets their information filtered through us, we can nudge them into believing whatever we want". Do you think the absence of such records indicates that LP is a hypocrite?

<comment><USER20> To me, there's a subtlety - though I realize Zuckerberg may not have meant it. One may believe that sharing is good and should be encouraged, while recognizing that there are dumb ways of going about it.

People were uploading their personal data, expecting it not to be completely out in the open (back then, FB was even restricted to colleges), despite the site being run by someone they have never heard about.

It's like believing that people should travel and meet new places, it doesn't mean you can't also believe that entering in an unmarked "taxi" in a foreign country in a high crime area is a dumb move.

<comment><USER9> That's fair, and I did think of that for a second. The fact remains that he was providing a service while calling his users dumb fucks for using the service; Effectively, he was peddling something that he clearly believed was against the interests of his users.

When the person constantly trying to convince 7 billion people that sharing every aspect of their lives on his platform is a good idea, it seems entirely relevant that he has demonstrated in the past that he will gladly market you something that he believes is damaging or dangerous or whatever. This is part why people are more inclined to think of the guy as a snake than many other tech leaders: while it's obviously in their interest to sell you their product, you can make a much more plausible case that Bezos or Jobs or Page or Brin actually believe in their pitch too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Well I agree I don't know why people trust big tech companies. I guess most people don't trust them they just put up with the abuse. Even if you trust facebook then you have to trust their employees and the third parties they share your information with. Everything you do online probably exists on many different servers, some of which are insecure, allowing the many world governments (china, russia, five-eyes) to extract everything they want, thus putting it on more insecure servers, where it falls into the hands of criminals and gets sold on the dark web for bitcoin.

<comment><USER22> Tragedy of the commons. It's not worth it for individuals to withdraw.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> We need a corollary to Betteridges law for headlines with more than one set of scare quotes in them.</comment>


There are now 229 unicorn startups, with $175B in funding and $1.3T valuation - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2016/01/18/there-are-now-229-unicorn-startups-with-175b-in-funding-and-1-3b-valuation/ <comment><USER2> Look at the bottom-right of the infographic: the social networking apps. Facebook and LinkedIn are no longer unicorn startups: they are mature companies with a substantial presence on the stock market. Instagram is owned by Facebook, so why list it as a separate unicorn? That's double-counting the valuation of Instagram. Same for WhatsApp. In the "Big Data" section, there is Palantir. Palantir hasn't been a startup for several years now.

This infographic is garbage.

The rest of the article is an eye-rollingly superficial summary of irrelevant statistics. "6 years: the median time to become a unicorn". That's not a reflection on unicorns, that's a reflection on the technology market over the past decade.

<comment><USER3> Their definition: every company _younger than 25 years_ valued over 1 billion (?)

tristanj in this discussion linked to the document where they state that.

(On completely tangential side, and as a good comparison when speaking about wealth creation, Mike Bloomberg seems to recently got personally 11 billion richer in one and half years, if Forbes is to be believed, even if his company isn't public and is more than 30 years old, so I'm really curious how.)

<comment><USER4> If that's their definition... then where is Google? They're worth $500B, yet they aren't in the list.

So not only do they have this ridiculous definition, but they can't even follow their own rules.

Edit: Yahoo, Ebay, Amazon, Netflix, PayPal also qualify. Also excluded.

They should add these.. it'll make for a better click-bait headline. That's $1T in additional value right there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Since the images in the article are rather small, I found the original document (linked at bottom) and scaled up some of the more interesting charts. They're assuming companies that IPOed in the last few years are still considered "Unicorns", which I find rather questionable. Anyway, it is quite nice to see all these companies in one place so here's the all the interesting charts:

The unicorn club [http://i.imgur.com/UCXLaYY.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/UCXLaYY.jpg)

New unicorns of 2015 [http://i.imgur.com/JnDuOgj.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/JnDuOgj.jpg)

21 decacorns [http://i.imgur.com/NPLpYDd.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/NPLpYDd.jpg)

13 European unicorns [http://i.imgur.com/FZd02hD.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/FZd02hD.jpg)

33 Chinese unicorns [http://i.imgur.com/aaSOJAT.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/aaSOJAT.jpg)

And finally the original document (PDF) [https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFGUJc2Cr8rb3hFUVZ2Nk45QzQ...](https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BxFGUJc2Cr8rb3hFUVZ2Nk45QzQ/edit)

</comment><comment><USER6> Hi my name is Philippe Cases and I am the CEO of Spoke Software who published the landscape and Ebooks on which John Koetsier based his article. The goal of our EBook and of John Koetsier's article is to give some numbers around this Unicorn phenomenon and show a long-term perspective. Reading through the comments, I would like to point out few things: 1) A unicorn is a company that reached the US$ 1 Billion mark from a private transaction. We went back until 2000 to identify all the unicorns we could, independently of what status they are now. We may have missed some but the goal was to identify when, where geographically and where in the technology landscape, unicorns appeared; 2) About 25% of the companies that have the Unicorn Status have been either acquired or went public so they are technically beyond the unicorn stage but we still want to know what they will become and it is important to identify that they were unicorns at one point. 3) We also want to know which unicorns got sold below market like Gilt or Fab and which company is going under and we also want to track companies like Facebook or Alibaba who are now worth several US$ 100 billion. 4) Facebook, Zalando and LinkedIn did receive US$ 1Billion dollar valuation while private. Palantir is a Decacorn as well. Skyscanner is now a unicorn but we only saw a press announcement of this status in 1/2016; 5) We don't expect to be fully exhaustive at this point and people have pointed 14 unicorns that we hadn't identified and we are in the process of adding them to the landscape. SpaceX is part of the landscape already and we are checking for Tesla. Google never reached the US$ 1 Billion valuation while private so isn't part of the unicorn. I hope this helps and let me know if you have any questions. I would be happy to answer.

</comment><comment><USER7> This article is full of incorrect data: Etsy and Groupon are already public. Instagram, Whatsapp acquired by Facebook, Yammer by Microsoft.

The industry definition of a unicorn: a non public company, that took less then 10 years to have a market value of over $1B. Which is why - ironically - the company I work at, Skyscanner is never listed as a unicorn on any of these lists. This is because it took them 11 years to reach the >$1B valuation mark.

Disappointed with the quality of this Venturebeat article.

<comment><USER8> I agree with you! Zalando went public in October 2014. Hudson's Bay has agreed to acquire Gilt Groupe for $250 million in cash. PCH International acquired Fab for an undisclosed sum...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> For reference the market cap of all US publicly traded companies is about $19T [1]. Including names like Apple, Google, Amazon... Still funny name as "startup" those $1.3T companies.

[1] [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-map-of-the- world-...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-map-of-the-world-if- size-was-determined-by-market-cap-2015-08-12)

</comment><comment><USER10> Wouldn't Tesla and SpaceX count as decacorns? This infographic is infuriatingly low-res, so I can't even tell if they're here.

</comment><comment><USER11> Higher resolution images on that page would be nice. So we can actually see who the unicorns are!

</comment><comment><USER12> CA is the best nurturer in the world!They provide the best culture and atmosphere. In my country (Singapore), people are less willing to think out of the box. A lot of citizens obey the old rules. This slower the pace of innovation in my country. I hope people can see the possibility of finding new solutions!</comment>


Harvard Quietly Amasses California Vineyards–and the Water Underneath - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/harvard-quietly-amasses-california-vineyardsand-the-water-underneath-1544456396?mod=rsswn <comment><AUTHOR> [..] Steve Sinton, a rancher, was baffled when a company he'd never heard of began buying large tracts of agricultural land near his pastures at above- market prices. The firm, Brodiaea Inc., over a few months in 2012 acquired more than three square miles of a flat-bottomed valley.

"It was surprising, the prices they were willing to pay," says Mr. Sinton, a partner in a family-owned ranch that raises cattle and grows grapes. A conventional agricultural business's returns couldn't have justified those prices. "It didn't make sense to me."[..]

[..] The university's endowment manager, Harvard Management Co., was stealthily building a sizable grape-growing business on the Central Coast through entities including Brodiaea. With the land, it was acquiring rights to vast sources of water in a region where the earth's warming is making the resource an ever-more-valuable asset.

Drought has plagued California in recent years, hitting farmers particularly hard. The Central Coast experienced drought conditions for 30% of the past two decades, compared with 14% of the prior 100 years, a 2015 study found. Droughts have led to spikes in withdrawals from aquifers, many of which aren't recharging as much during rainy season, says study co-author Noah Diffenbaugh, a Stanford University professor.

Harvard's bet has proven prescient. The $39 billion fund, among America's biggest endowments, now values its vineyards at $305 million, up nearly threefold from in 2013, while its overall natural-resources investments have done poorly.

The wager has also earned backlash from some farmers and other locals who fear Harvard eventually will use up groundwater and unduly influence water-use regulations. "Should they be controlling our groundwater plans?" says Debbie Arnold, a San Luis Obispo County supervisor. "I don't think so."[..]

[..] A Harvard Management spokesman says it is the endowment's policy not to discuss individual investments. In its financial report issued in 2012, the year Brodiaea began buying, Harvard said it liked the natural-resources asset class "because we believe its physical products are going to be in increasing demand in the global economy over the coming decades."[..]</comment>


Ask HN: Can someone translate Alexa into unique monthly visitors? - <AUTHOR>

I found a scatter graph that correlated Alexa ranking to unique visitors but it was from 2002.  Anyone know how to write and where to post a script where site owners can input this information and build a more current graph to reference? <comment><USER2> Find a site that shows their stats to the public (something with the same magnitude that you're interested in) and then use that to get the relative traffic of other sites you're interested in.

We've used this approach and it works well for getting approximate traffic numbers for our competition.</comment>


Ask HN: Software for Reading Pdfs? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
I am looking for recommendations for native software for reading and annotating pdfs.<p>text-to-speech feature would be good to have but not necessary <comment><USER2> Maybe Polar [0] would suit your needs, I have no idea how it does with TTS. I'm assuming by native you mean "runs on your hardware not a web app". It's native for desktop OSes, not for mobile and they have a syncing service between your devices.

On my iPad I've long been a fan of GoodReader, again I've never tried TTS with it.

[0] [http://getpolarized.io/](http://getpolarized.io/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Check the following threads:

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24460142](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24460142)

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24471058](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24471058)

There also is a Python library:

\- [https://github.com/jsvine/pdfplumber](https://github.com/jsvine/pdfplumber)

</comment><comment><USER4> Native for what platform? Are you on Windows, MacOS, Linux, BSD, iOS, iPadOS, Android, etc. ?

</comment><comment><USER5> If you are using linux, try Zathura

<comment><USER6> +1 for Zathura. I use it for reading PDF and CBR and it's great. Minimal and vi keybindings.</comment></comment>