Silicon Valley is erasing individuality - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/how-silicon-valley-is-erasing-your-individuality/2017/09/08/a100010a-937c-11e7-aace-04b862b2b3f3_print.html <comment><USER2> This reads more like a bag of complaints against Google and Facebook rather than a case for how the current trends in technology might be actually threatening individuality.

<comment><USER3> And Amazon, Apple, and Microsoft - they're in the article too.

Anyway, how would you write this without talking a _lot_ about the trend- setters?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _To take another grand theory, Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg has exclaimed > his desire to liberate humanity from phoniness, to end the dishonesty of > secrets. "The days of you having a different image for your work friends or > co-workers and for the other people you know are probably coming to an end > pretty quickly," he has said. "Having two identities for yourself is an > example of a lack of integrity."_

Wow, did he really say that? It would be a pretty dumb thing to say. Society rests on secrets.

If you want do have just one personality what is going to happen is not less phoniness, but more: people will extend their "work" personality to the rest of their life, not the other way around. They will have personal relationships that ressemble the ones they have with their coworkers, and that will be quite horrible.

<comment><USER5> I don't disagree with the sentiment (who is he to dictate how I present myself) but do you really feel that society rests on secrets?

Also this quote makes mark sound like holden caulfield

<comment><USER6> Society does rest on secrets, but also on another more nuanced thing, discretion: In areas of life where privacy is eroded and everything you do can be posted to instagram or largish whatsapp groups, people can become more reserved and start acting more conventionally and blandly. Before this kind of social media behaviour, there was gossip, but it was a noisy channel and people forwarding gossip would also stake something when forwarding gossip.

<comment><USER7> Yes, society rests on compartmentalized information, which to people outside the compartments are "secrets"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > When it comes to the most central tenet of individualism — free will — the > tech companies have a different way. They hope to automate the choices, both > large and small, we make as we float through the day. It's their algorithms > that suggest the news we read, the goods we buy, the paths we travel, the > friends we invite into our circles.

I recently quit Google News for this. Despite my best efforts at customization using the limited controls that it provided, it insisted on feeding me stories for sources I'd turned off (but were obviously preferred by Google News), and not from sources that I'd prioritized. Sure, it'd put some stuff in from the prioritized sources, but there was an obvious pattern of using Google's preferred cadre of media outlets for certain major stories, even when one of my preferred sources had an article on the same story. I would liken trying to customize Google News to herding cats.

<comment><USER9> Did you find a Google News alternative? I'd love to switch, especially if there's something else with the Preferred / Blocked Sources feature, and hopefully also the blocked topics feature. I considered Feedly Pro when they added Mute Filters, but they only offer 25 filters.

I realize I'm creating a filter bubble for myself, but I'm okay with a bubble that doesn't include 'news' from TMZ or who Katie Holmes is dating now.

<comment><USER10> I switched to Newstral, [https://newstral.com/en](https://newstral.com/en). I like the simplistic beauty of the "algorithm": The first three stories on the front page. And you can order and select the sources.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Using tech mogul's quotes in this way seems rather shallow. Someone saying something one time, particularly when speculating, doesn't make a trend; you need to look for consistent behavior.

Also, it's odd to blame big tech companies for lack of respect for intellectual property, or maybe call it remixing. This is a much larger trend. Consider sampling in rap music, VCR's, Napster, BitTorrent, Scihub.

<comment><USER12> Facebook's no-fake-personality T&Cs seems to confirm Zuckerberg's (slightly mad) views.

Most adults understand that there absolutely needs to be clear water between public and private personas and relationship networks.

Trying to mash them altogether has nothing to do with enforcing integrity (something large corporations are hardly ideally qualified to moralise about) and everything to do with the fact that no one at work needs to know that (e.g.) your best friend's daughter is struggling with depression and suicidal thoughts and your best friend is having a really hard time with this.

<comment><USER11> Yes, the "no fake personality" thing seems like a post-hoc justification of a real names policy that was adopted for other reasons entirely.

I would guess that there is not actually any deep philosophical reason. Facebook started out using real names at Harvard just because that's how college face books did it, was very successful, and therefore they believe that people using real names on Facebook (for the most part) is important to their success.

Google certainly thought so when they tried to compete, using Google Plus. They eventually abandoned real names but not without a lot of controversy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder if it would be possible for the whole world and all activities to end up being "owned" by one company?

<comment><USER14> I believe this is part of the premise of Brave New World by Aldous Huxley.

That said, whether it's one company or a few that are well-aligned doesn't really matter for the purposes of that book.

<comment><USER15> The world most people think described by "1984" is actually described by Brave New World.

<comment><USER16> The way i see it is that both had it partially right. BNW for those that conform, 1984 for those that don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The alarmist screams of a deluded nostalgic who is too lazy to ground his intuition in data. The author also makes a stand against capitalism and globalism rather than tech monopoly. Do you think the media was so much better when the Nazi could rise to power or the necessity of war, or moral be imposed on society through those restricted medium the elite controlled?

Not to speak about all the injustices internet helps bring to light, the diffusion of important knowledge (side effect of bad consumerist habits being on of them), the convergence of the poor and the middle class allowing for a large part of the population to access the same products, education, and social advantages. The path to the disparition of labor work and rise of the nomad lifestyle is also a beautiful evolution of society.

</comment><comment><USER18> At some point the idea that we don't own our own data and have to give it up in exchange for use of these products and services will have to be revisited.

We already have models that preserve privacy out there, TouchID in Apple products doesn't transmit your fingerprints to the cloud but is kept securely on device. They remain on the device (I take Apple at their word when they state this). The next logical step is for Apple to use their knowledge of differential privacy to obscure our data, they already do this to an extent with things like autocomplete, like they explained at a previous WWDC.

I'm optimistic that Apple and Microsoft would be motivated to do this in a way that's compatible with their business models as non-tech savvy users learn the value of privacy. Google and Facebook can be persuaded to make this work as well if the alternative is heavy-handed regulation.

</comment><comment><USER19> Genesis 11:6-7 New International Version (NIV)

 _The Lord said, "If as one people speaking the same language they have begun to do this, then nothing they plan to do will be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and confuse their language so they will not understand each other._

</comment><comment><USER20> After having worked more than a decade in Data Mining, individuality is highly overrated.

<comment><USER21> In what sense?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think most leaders in these companies have a greater degree of self awareness of the unintended consequences their corps can have. This degree of self awareness did not exist in the mega corps of the 60s thro 90s. The levels of information asymmetry and mastery over scale that exist today has never existed at any prior time in history. What to do with these powers is basically unchartered territory. People who have serious experience in ecology, history and sociology will have much more constructive uses for these powers than any business, tech or political leader. But this hand off of power from traditional "growth" based leadership to "sustainable/equilibrium" based leadership is asking quite a lot from our existing leaders. But I see signs off hope in Zuckerbergs speech on providing ppl "purpose and financial stability". This is a much harder goal than providing information to everyone or a better phone or better blockbuster entertainment. But it is a goal I actually respect him for putting on the table. He didn't have too. And that's leadership.

<comment><USER23> Leadership is one of my passions. I observe it, study it, marvel at what different shapes it can take and how it can miserably fail, sometimes not straight away.

My opinion is that Mark Zuckerberg absolutely does not have leadership. He has influence, but those are very different. When rank and leadership don't correlate, very bad things happen at some point.

I believe that Facebook the company does have some great leadership, but if anything it is coming from Sheryl Sandberg. Have you ever seen what she can do to a room? It's similar to Obama, or Jobs.

Mark Zuckerberg actually worries me a lot. To know quite a few leaders in tech, I don't think he meets the calibre on the people level, not even a little bit. Bezos, Musk, Sandberg display insane levels of vision and truth in their mission. Zuckerberg always feels to me like someone who is very smart but pushed into a role he was never made to fit, because of context.

I hope I'm wrong, but I think something bad will come out of this situation.</comment></comment>


Symbolically Executing WebAssembly in Manticore - <AUTHOR> https://blog.trailofbits.com/2020/01/31/symbolically-executing-webassembly-in-manticore/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here, happy to answer any questions about working with Manticore or my experience implementing the WASM spec.

</comment><comment><USER2> I am very excited this had finally landed in master. To my knowledge there were no other symbolic execution tools that worked on WASM.</comment>


My iPhone App with the Boring Icon is out - <AUTHOR> http://lookatpete.com/cinematic-3-boring-icon-released

<comment><USER2> what do you use to build it? is it a native app or sencha-style?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a native app built in XCode. Except for the navigation bar background and icons, it's all drawn manually in the app. I found it to result in a much faster experience.

One change I didn't mention in the post is that I finally moved from ASIHTTP to AFNetworking for my networking library. That's significantly faster as well</comment></comment>


Could There Be More To Google, Android, Chrome, & Gears Than Meets The Eye? - <AUTHOR> http://www.informationweek.com/blog/main/archives/2008/09/could_there_be.html <comment><USER2> _My guess is that Google sees an offline technology like Gears as being so fundamental to the future of Web applications, that it can't not be built into the browser._

Unless that offline technology is based on the HTML 5 client-side storage recommendation and isn't named Gears. In that case it should be ripped out and replaced with Gears.

<comment><USER3> Google doesn't care that you use gears or not. They want you to use the internet to get to it. If your on the internet chances are your seeing their ads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Developers don't want to have to develop for multiple platforms. There are two ways to solve that: Either develop for a platform which has a monopoly share, or develop cross-platform.

Web Applications' ability to work on every platform, combined with an increasing feature-set (thanks to Gears), makes it a very viable platform.

The web is Google's domain: The better the web stack works in all platforms (including mobile), the better chance they'll have to beat out Microsoft, Apple, and all the rest.

</comment><comment><USER5> I would add Google App Engine to the list and see it a direct competitor to Microsoft's Live Mesh.</comment>


Ask HN: How to keep doing research work if not enrolled in any PhD program? - <AUTHOR>

Probably the best option would be to get into labs like IBM research, HP or Microsoft research lab but most of the time I have seen they take Phd candidates. Due to some reasons I am not in a position to go for Phd but I am interested in some work that encourages research work and publications. <comment><USER2> Do you mean get hired, or do you mean keep doing research?

Consider Alexander Shulgin: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin#Life_and_care...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Shulgin#Life_and_career)

A bit of a hero in the bio-chemistry world. He was working at DOW chemical, and when he was assigned to a project that he wasn't interested in, he quit, and continued doing research and publishing from his house.

There is a lot of research to be done in the fields of computational linguistics and machine learning. Get yourself a coffee maker, and start hacking. You might eventually need to save up for some nice cuda gear, but there is no reason that you can't research from your garage.

<comment><USER3> While Shulgin was certainly a very cool fellow and did exceptional research, he also had a pretty unique situation. Being friends with the head of the DEA he was able to get a DEA license to work on scheduled compounds.

Your average Joe won't have those kind of connections, or even access to current literature, which rather limits you to certain fields (i.e. not anything biology, chemistry or probably physics).

<comment><USER2> OP isn't asking about doing things that would be normally regulated by the DEA.

I'm just using Shulgin as an example of somebody who went "screw it" and kept researching things on their own.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, fair point. And hey, this guy built a mass-spec in his garage, so a lot can be done in a non-academic environment:

[http://benkrasnow.blogspot.com/2011/03/diy-scanning- electron...](http://benkrasnow.blogspot.com/2011/03/diy-scanning-electron- microscope.html)

<comment><USER3> Whoops, I meant an electron microscope, not a mass spec!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can get hired at all these places without a PhD. Your job title may not be "Researcher" though. At MSR, there is a category called "RSDE-Research Software Design Engineer", and at IBM Research, there is a related position. Your focus in these roles is to support the research activity of the lab. For some, this might mean writing grunt code. For most, this means being a part of the research team, doing actual research, getting your name on papers, etc. How do you get one of these jobs? Keep a lookout on HR web pages. Believe it or not, these positions do open up from time to time. You have to be a strong developer - very independent, as no one is usually there to hold your hand.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are also government and commercial jobs for research engineers that don't require a PhD. You play as second fiddle but you still get time to work on improving algorithms or coming up with your own. Willow Garage has a job opening that you might look at: <http://www.willowgarage.com/jobs/research- engineer>

<comment><AUTHOR> Many thanks!!!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You can also get hired at a research group in a university without a PhD (as a full-time developer for example). The pay is not competitive with industry, but you get to work on interesting problems. I do this at Penn State.

<comment><AUTHOR> :) true. Hence I work full-time on a research funded job at Cornell University.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> you can start doing independent research as has been suggested. you need to believe in yourself, however, and trust that the plan will pan out in the end. maybe it won't but did you have something to lose?

edit: also a valid set of questions might be: are you after recognition or personal intellectual growth? why do you think that organizations like IBM is the place for you? DO you need somebody else to guide you or maybe share the research experience?

<comment><AUTHOR> I need money to survive. Just by doing research on my own I won't get paid. Doing Phd helps because most of the time one gets to work on interesting stuff and get paid by grants. Work at a good place like IBM ( and any other company which provides research based work ) would help me achieve both ( money and good work ). I can try and do routine software work for some company and carry out interesting projects in free time but it will have some limitations. At this stage of my life I cannot sit and do just research. I need someone to pay me for my living.</comment></comment>


About speculative execution vulnerabilities in ARM-based and Intel CPUs - <AUTHOR> https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208394 <comment><USER2> I must say I am pleasantly surprised by the straightforward, no BS language

<comment><USER3> Except they forgot to tell us about older versions of macOS which probably 75%[1] of Apple users still use.

[1] [http://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market- share/desktop...](http://gs.statcounter.com/macos-version-market- share/desktop/worldwide)

<comment><USER4> Security Updates were released for 10.6 and 10.5 (2017-002 and 2017-005 respectively).

<comment><USER5> Where do you see updates for 10.6 and 10.5? According to [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208331](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT208331) \- there was a 2017-002 for 10.12 and a 2017-005 for 10.11.

<comment><USER4> Yes, I did mean 10.12.6 and 10.11.6.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Our testing with public benchmarks has shown that the changes in the > December 2017 updates resulted in no measurable reduction in the performance > of macOS and iOS as measured by the GeekBench 4 benchmark, or in common Web > browsing benchmarks such as Speedometer, JetStream, and ARES-6.

This is incredibly deceptive, because web workloads are precisely the sort not expected to be impacted by Meltdown most. As I've written elsewhere, it's syscall heavy workloads targeting fast devices, like database software on PCIe SSDs, that will suffer the greatest slowdowns.

<comment><USER7> This spells certain doom for Apple's vaunted supremacy in supplying high- performance hardware for database usage.

<comment><USER8> Why? Is their competition not affected?

<comment><USER9> the /s at the end is silent

<comment><USER8> Ha, I thought I was on /r/apple

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Interesting that this seems to say that A-series processors are vulnerable to Meltdown (or a variant of it).

Could this "check later" speculative approach similar to Intel's explain Apple's great performance advantage over other ARM CPUs?

<comment><USER11> > Could this "check later" speculative approach similar to Intel's explain > Apple's great performance advantage over other ARM CPUs?

No. Speculative execution is not unique to Apple's SoC designs; it's present in other ARM cores as well.

[https://developer.arm.com/support/security- update](https://developer.arm.com/support/security-update)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> > Apple has already released mitigations in iOS 11.2, macOS 10.13.2, and tvOS > 11.2 to help defend against Meltdown.

What about macOS 10.12 and earlier versions?

<comment><USER12> My work machine is 10.12 and patched today.

Sierra and El Capitan is covered too.

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208331](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT208331) \- see Kernel entries.

<comment><USER3> 10.12 is Sierra. I cannot see any security update in the updates tab of the App Store app, nor in the list of updates that were installed in the last 30 days.

<comment><USER13> This update shipped to 10.12 on Dec 6 as 10.12.7.

<comment><USER3> I'm on 10.12.6 on a Mid 2011 MacBook Air 13": "No Updates Available"

Edit: I see, there is a confusing typo in om2's comment (it should be 10.12.6 not 10.12.7). I am wondering why this update does not show up in my list of installed updates. What a mess.

<comment><USER4> It was released as Security Update 2017-002 and 2017-005 for Sierra 10.12.6 and El Capitan 10.11.6 respectively, not as point version updates.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apple patched Meltdown (not Spectre) for Sierra in "Security Update 2017-002" on Dec. 6th 2017. They are not doing a point release; the latest version of Sierra is 10.12.6

If you want to check that you have installed this update, you can use the following command:

      $ system_profiler | grep 'Security Update 2017-002'

</comment><comment><USER15> > Since exploiting many of these issues requires a malicious app to be loaded > on your Mac or iOS device, we recommend downloading software only from > trusted sources such as the App Store

Haven't there been JavaScript POCs for Meltdown? That's already patched and AFAIK there's nothing for Spectre yet, but this is still a little disingenuous.

<comment><USER16> Aren't the browser patches already shipping? The JS risk should be significantly lower with days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what's going to happen to old Android devices that are no longer receiving security updates

<comment><USER18> Nothing.

Until Google takes the stand and actually forces OEMs to update, nothing will ever change.

Not for existing devices, nor for Treble certified ones.

Updates are only for rich people able to pay 500€+ for flagship devices every three years.

<comment><USER19> Treble is counterproductive to this sort of problem anyway. But abstracting the OS to a layer sat above a quasi-HAL as it does, users will get OS updates with features but without updates to the underlying hardware interface blobs. The incentive for OEMs to update drivers for security goes down radically, not up, because the users crying out for OS feature x get it without having to update anything below the abstraction layer.

Ultimately the problem with Android driver security is that Qualcomm has no interest in it, and won't until some form of legislation from a large territory such as the US, EU or China forces their hand on it.

<comment><USER18> No they won't, because Google keeps saying that even with Treble, OEMs are the ones responsible to push any kind of update not Google.

So unless Google changes their mind, users will get the same amount of updates as they are getting now on non-Treble devices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Damn it's 2000 all over again. Cybermagedon is the most annoying thing. It always appears when I am in low supply of pop corn.

</comment><comment><USER21> Hmm, so Apple confirms that meltdown happens on ARM as well, interesting. Likely their Axx chips are way faster than competition, allowing the timing window in which to execute the attack, as Google suggested.

<comment><USER22> The speed isn't the issue. It is all about speculation and prediction

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does Geekbench test for TLB flushes at syscalls or whatever other kind of "mitigation" they introduced in 10.13.2 ? Where can we see true benchmarks of performance comparison between previous and current version in regards to this bug ? Isn't Apple being really nasty by exploiting the lack of knowledge of the general public ?

I am no expert in any way but would like to know how did they "mitigated" this without a serious performance hit.

<comment><USER24> You should try defining this mystical _true benchmark_ that you seek.

Apple decided that heavy userspace execution and web performance are representative of common workloads. You are welcome to argue for a different kind of workload. As it stands now, at best you're implying that it's common for users to execute syscalls in a loop.

<comment><USER23> Can you tell with any degree of precision what kind of benchmark the "GeekBench" is and does ? What guarantees do you have that it is testing "real world common workloads" ?

Do you think common users execute guassian blurs in a loop and ray tracers before perfoming rigid body physics in their "common workloads" ? As you said, I know I am welcome to argue for a different kind of workload, specially when I am being taken for a fool.

<comment><USER24> I'm not too familiar with GeekBench, but I'm assuming it's userspace code. Whether it traces rays or does something else isn't that important, because the slowdown is with syscalls.

As for what common users execute, based on my observations over the years it's mostly web browsing. However my personal vision of common workloads is a distraction. I have made no claims to know common workloads. I merely stated that Apple has chosen a particular set to be representative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What about macOS 10.12? I haven't seen enough stability across applications with High Sierra to make the upgrade for work machines. I guess we'll have to just wait it out to see what they actually release.

<comment><USER13> It's gotten the same patches as 10.13. The original security advisory did not mention it, but it's been revised now: [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT208331](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208331)

      Kernel
      Available for: macOS High Sierra 10.13.1, macOS Sierra  10.12.6, OS X El Capitan 10.11.6
      Impact: An application may be able to read kernel memory
      Description: Systems with microprocessors utilizing speculative execution and indirect branch prediction may allow unauthorized disclosure of information to an attacker with local user access via a side-channel analysis of the data cache.
      CVE-2017-5754: Jann Horn of Google Project Zero, Werner Haas and Thomas Prescher of Cyberus Technology GmbH, and Daniel Gruss, Moritz Lipp, Stefan Mangard and Michael Schwarz from Graz University of Technology

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > Intel said its chips, which power Macs and devices from other manufacturers, > contain the flaw as well as processors based on ARM Holdings architecture, > which is used in iOS devices and Android smartphones.

Has it been proven that Meltdown can affect ARM processors, or is this Intel speculation?

<comment><USER27> Meltdown affects Intel chips, Spectre affects Intel, AMD, and ARM chips.

<comment><USER28> Spectre likely affects any chip with speculative execution, regardless of vendor, even things like Power8. So that's fun.

<comment><USER29> "We have people everywhere" \- Mr White.

Did Google name it Spectre after the the James Bond movie?

And I thought AMD put out a release saying they are not affected.

<comment><USER19> I imagine it was named Spectre because it's going to be haunting us for years to come.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So nothing required on hardware side? I was under the impression that OEMs need to send out BIOS/UEFI Firmware updates or at least CPU Microcode updates but doesn't look like Apple is planning to do so.

<comment><USER31> Microcode updates will come down the pipe to users as OS updates as Intel uses these channels.

<comment><USER30> Yeah I think if a UEFI update comes down it might bring the mitigated uCode with it. Just got to boot into USB macOS installation - don't think Boot Camp users get those updates.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> They say the watches aren't effected.

Is it possible that they don't do speculative execution?

<comment><USER33> I think it's only Meltdown that the watch isn't affected by.

It sounds like it is potentially affected by Spectre, especially since they say they will be continuing to develop mitigations for WatchOS.

The surprising thing to me is that they patched iOS to mitigate Meltdown. Before now, I thought it was only Intel chips that were affected by Meltdown, but I guess Apple's own A-series processors are affected too.

<comment><USER34> Yes some ARM Cortex A-series are affected by a variant of Meltdown. [https://developer.arm.com/support/security- update](https://developer.arm.com/support/security-update)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I wonder if Apple can retro-actively add the retpoline trick to the apps submitted in bitcode. If so, then I expect Apple to make bitcode mandatory.

</comment><comment><USER36> What about iOS10 users who need to run 32-bit apps?

<comment><USER37> How long has Apple warned users that 32 bit software wasn't going to be supported?

For context, the only phones that are not being supported by the latest patch are iPhones introduced before 2013.

<comment><USER36> If the app vendor has gone out of business and there is substantial data in the 32-bit app, there may be no upgrade alternative.

<comment><USER37> And can you name a few real world examples?

<comment><USER36> Several are named here: [https://tidbits.com/article/17342](https://tidbits.com/article/17342)

<comment><USER37> I haven't dug into the list too carefully but would you really use a productivity app from a small company that doesn't have anyway to export the data?

Even my third party podcast client supports exporting to OPML.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Are secrets within the secure enclave vulnerable? e.g. Bitcoin wallet keys

</comment><comment><USER39> So, older versions not fixed? Who is most likely to be running older version? Corporations? Ah, they probably don't care.

<comment><USER40> Sierra and El Capitan are covered too.

<comment><USER39> Do you have a source for that because:

a) The article above doesn't mention it (specifically says 10.13), and

b) There are no updates available for my mac.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> > but there are no known exploits impacting customers at this time

known by whom? Apple? Then say "we do not know of any exploits". Is the answer different for the NSA? Who the f knows?</comment>


Homotopy Type Theory and Higher Inductive Types - <AUTHOR> http://www.science4all.org/article/homotopy-type-theory/ <comment><USER2> This articly is quite hard to read and follow. I have some background in math but can't follow the logic in the article because author is constantly jumping from one topic to anonther. Artificial "questions" from imaginary layman are not helping, instead they confuse and dilute attention.

<comment><USER3> The questions are not the problem. They are a variation of the Socratic method and are super useful - when used correctly - for checking your understanding, and following where the author is going to go next.

The problem is that the text is full of grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors. There are missing words, confusingly run on sentences, etc. It's an unnatural read because it hasn't had an editor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really wish somebody could explain the Univalence axiom to me. Without assuming that I know category theory or algebraic topology. You know, just like you can explain the axioms of set theory pretty easily. I mean, if it is a foundation, there should be an easy way to explain it. And not in metaphors, please, but in a precise way.

<comment><USER5> I doubt that it can be explained in less than fifteen pages.

[https://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2015/REUPapers/Macor.pdf](https://math.uchicago.edu/~may/REU2015/REUPapers/Macor.pdf)

<comment><USER4> Well, it is a start. Fourteen pages anyone? Once we are down to five pages I'll give it a(nother) shot.

<comment><USER6> you should read it, it's an easy one, at least it's how I feel after reading 3 pages (usually I stop long before that)

<comment><USER7> It's not bad, but man the way the author throws around multivariate (e.g. non- curried) functions all over the place is sooo confusing. I remember reading a λ-calculus book that would do that and it's really not fun to try and parse (see the bottom of pg. 7).

But I will say it's very cool to see how HoTT derives all the basic tools you'd use in propositional calculus (A: A -> A, :(A -> (B -> C)) -> ((A->B) -> (A->C)), and so on).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Computerphile did some videos on voevodsky and homotopy type theory: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5a5BYZwRx8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5a5BYZwRx8)

(watch those eyes! I like how they bug out when he gets really excited.)

</comment><comment><USER8> > I mean, when you actually use integers, do you really picture them as > equivalence classes of the Cartesian square of natural numbers?

Yes, accountants really do think of integers this way: these are assets and liabilities.

</comment><comment><USER9> [https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sd601/thesis.pdf](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~sd601/thesis.pdf) might provide useful background reading for those who aren't familiar with type theories.

</comment><comment><USER10> _In 2013, a consortium of the greatest mathematicians published a massive volume which reboots our conception of mathematics._

Ok, here's a rant by a frustrated student who's spent way too much time drinking the cool-aid. None of the authors, except for Voevodsky, is widely known among professional mathematicians. And Voevodsky is not known because of his work on HoTT. In fact, most mathematicians regard homotopy type theory as some obscure stuff logicians and computer scientists do, with no relevance to their research. And they're most certainly right.

"greatest mathematicians". Nobody would call a mathematician "great" for coming up with a definition. (No, Grothendieck is not an example, because he actually put his definitions to use and solved hard problems.) Yet there are no interesting theorems proved via the univalence axiom which weren't known before. Thus, the "greatest" mathematical achievement of the HoTT community seems to have been coming up with the univalence axiom. Everybody can come up with random axioms. Thus, I'd say their greatest accomplishment is not actually mathematical but social, because they managed to market this "breakthrough" the way it has been.

The whole process of how type theory research seems to work is completely absurd. Type theorists first create a syntax and later come up with a semantics for it. In other words, they first think about _how_ they want to say something before they even know _what_ to say. For example, the semantics of dependent Per Martin-Löf type theory were developed only 10-15 years after Martin-Löf came up with his syntax. A few years ago, somebody finally published a proof that the semantics of extensional Martin-Löf type theory is equivalent to locally cartesian closed categories (lccc's). It's not hard to understand what an lccc is, and state their defining operations/axioms. lcccs pop up everywhere. The concept of dependent types, on the other hand, has not existed in mathematics for thousands of years, seemingly without causing any harm. Nobody gained any interesting new insights by understanding dependent types, to my knowledge. Why, exactly, is this awkward axiomatization of lcccs interesting?

And the same happens for intensional type theory with the univalence axiom. It's been blurted out for years that this syntax's semantics should be equivalent to infinity lcccs. Yet there is still no proof, no evidence that HoTT is the easiest axiomatization or the easiest to work with, and a proof, if it exists, will likely be extremely convoluted because it has to deal with all the peculiarities of a syntax that was created without having infinity categories in mind. A language that makes it hard to understand what it means has failed.

If you don't believe me (and there is now reason why you should), please read this thread [1]. Lurie, _the_ expert on infinity categories (well, there are others, but he's written the canonical tome), debates with type theorists about the usefulness of HoTT. I believe it ends with Lurie not seeing any usefulness and calling it a day.

[1] [https://mathematicswithoutapologies.wordpress.com/2015/05/13...](https://mathematicswithoutapologies.wordpress.com/2015/05/13/univalent- foundations-no-comment)

<comment><USER11> > The whole process of how type theory research seems to work is completely > absurd. Type theorists first create a syntax and later come up with a > semantics for it. In other words, they first think about how they want to > say something before they even know what to say.

Well no, they know sort of what they have to say. Type theory is syntax- directed because this is what ensures it's mechanically automated and doesn't require any intelligence to verify.

> The concept of dependent types, on the other hand, has not existed in > mathematics for thousands of years, seemingly without causing any harm.

That's what some thought about Russell's basic theory of types before the inconsistencies of set theory were properly acknowledged. And now type systems are in every major programming language that drive trillion dollar industries.

> Nobody gained any interesting new insights by understanding dependent types, > to my knowledge.

What kind of insights? There are plenty of great industry and computer science insights, even if there have been no or few abstract mathematical insights yet. Also, there's a growing push to use automated theorem proving tools like Coq in mathematics because of the growing complexity of this field.

Finally, your argument that a difficult proof hasn't been found in the handful of years since HoTT began, therefore HoTT is probably invalid or useless, is frankly asinine.

<comment><USER10> Can't reply to everything here. I don't know to which extent Russel's type system influenced modern-day type systems in programming languages.

 _Well no, they know sort of what they have to say._

Yes, I agree. But I'd expect more from people who literally want to make formal, exact proofs viable.

 _Type theory is syntax-directed because this is what ensures it 's mechanically automated and doesn't require any intelligence to verify._

Validity of terms in extensional dependent type theory is not decidable, but that doesn't stop people from studying this system. They could just as well study free locally cartesian closed category, but I guess it would be too obviously trivial.

 _Also, there 's a growing push to use automated theorem proving tools like Coq in mathematics because of the growing complexity of this field._

Err... There are _very_ few mathematicians who want to spend significant effort on this. And one of my points is that there is no reason to believe that a system based on intensional dependent type theory (e.g. Coq) is the most suitable one, except that it already exists.

 _Finally, your argument that a difficult proof hasn 't been found in the handful of years since HoTT began, therefore HoTT is probably invalid or useless, is frankly asinine._

Why thank you. HoTT has existed for 10 years now, Martin-Löf type theory for 40, and experts in the fields about to be revolutionized are very reserved. If you think that not expecting a revolution here is asinine, I don't think we can come to an agreement.

<comment><USER11> > There are very few mathematicians who want to spend significant effort on > this.

Because the tools aren't quite there yet.

> And one of my points is that there is no reason to believe that a system > based on intensional dependent type theory (e.g. Coq) is the most suitable > one, except that it already exists.

No one has claimed otherwise.

> If you think that not expecting a revolution here is asinine

That's not what I said. You effectively claimed that the fact that a difficult proof had not yet been found, despite many believing the equivalence, somehow entails that it won't be found. That's the asinine argument. I'm sure you're very well aware of proofs that evaded mathematicians for _millenia_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Introductory talk: "A Functional Programmer's Guide to Homotopy Type Theory" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caSOTjr1z18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caSOTjr1z18)</comment>


User/Subscriber Economics: An Alternative View of Uber's Value - <AUTHOR> http://aswathdamodaran.blogspot.com/2017/06/usersubscriber-economics-alternative.html?utm_campaign=Mattermark%20Daily&utm_source=hs_email&utm_medium=email&utm_content=53704562&_hsenc=p2ANqtz-8aO8oqX9iKe3J2cLMbDTuSDlkmrJXvrnBjpzHyksOBSOddJQ405B1KSSkV3ls_OnvZKMOza20CnIjGqVEHX4xInIIqEw&_hsmi=53704562 <comment><USER2> The main question, remaining unanswered, for Uber's success is if the network effects for Uber will be as powerful as for, say, Facebook. This is what they're banking on with the current loss leader strategy -- drive out the early competition to establish a long run profitable monopoly.

It's a basic result in industrial organization theory that the predatory pricing strategy generally doesn't work except in extremely narrow cases.

I personally think predatory pricing won't work out for Uber. Ridesharing is fundamtentally a local enterprise the way Facebook isn't -- I have most of my value from Facebook from relatives living far away from me whereas I do not care at all about Uber drivers or passengers more than 10km away.

<comment><USER3> But if I fly to another city (or country), it's easier for me to just use Uber to get around since I have the app already installed, my CC is linked, etc. Not to mention, there's a higher probability that Uber will be in the new city than a less popular service.

<comment><USER4> Someone could still create a single app that plugs into many cities' existing ride services. It may not be as uniform an experience, but it saves the headache of downloading and setting up a new app for each city.

<comment><USER5> Yes, a ride share arbitration service would solve a lot of the problems. The question is, does Uber have enough market in enough places or enough of a name that they can resist _fully_ tying into a service like that.

Think Apple. They have enough market share (even if not a majority), and enough brand loyalty, that they don't need to adhere to existing standards if they think they can resist them and use that to their advantage. Think iChat, and compare to the original XMPP google chat. It was trivial to talk to gchat friends on an iPhone, but hard or impossible to talk to friends over iChat from an Android phone. By resisting making iChat open, Apple created an advantage for iPhone users. Eventually Google redoes google chat with Hangouts, and guess what? They close the protocol. Sharing is only beneficial for you if it's reciprocated.

Does Uber have the clout or loyalty to get away with this? I doubt it, especially since the bar for drivers to drive for multiple services is so low. But if the arbitration service was created without provisions to account for this (e.g., you must partake in the system to use it as a provider), it would be trivial for Uber to fill gaps in their coverage through the service while preventing other apps from doing the same with Uber drivers.

<comment><USER4> I don't follow. I wasn't suggesting that Uber would be forced to tie into such a service, only that this would eliminate their advantage in that respect.

<comment><USER5> My point is that unless locked down correctly, and depending on the specific market conditions, a service like that could be used by Uber to their advantage. If the Uber app gives you rides from Uber or from other providers when an Uber isn't available, but the other app only does other providers, it's beneficial to use the Uber app instead of the other ones, and Uber can then provide better placement to their own drivers.

It's a common problem between open and closed systems in markets.

<comment><USER4> That would explain how Uber would mitigate some of the resultant competition, not why it would eliminate their "only need one app" advantage.

<comment><USER5> I think we are addressing slightly different things. I wasn't specifically addressing the concern of one app, but what that implies (the service that aggregates ride providers). A service like that does mean a single app might yield good results in the majority of situations. That lessens the advantage Uber has. I was just noting that Uber might still be able to play that into an advantage for themselves, so while it might lessen the advantage, it wouldn't eliminate it, in that case (since Uber's app would always be _at least_ as good in that scenario).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Your Mobile OS's Maps App + Your Mobile OS's Payment Provider == No advantage for customer's already having Uber's app.

Uber and everyone else will be intermediated.

<comment><USER7> You mean do exactly what Microsoft did with Internet Explorer? The parallels will be uncanny and will certainly attract the attention of the DoJ.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you publicly announce your number of users? - <AUTHOR>

For Housefed.com, there are 634 users. I'm a small site and all of my competitors know that so what's the big deal? Some people seem to think there is a competitive advantage to keeping that information private - but it just seems funny to me. <comment><USER2> FaveOne.com has 766 users :)

Since we are small, I am not sure how our beliefs about this data compare to those with larger projects.

</comment><comment><USER3> IMO it depends on the site and whether or not the number of users correlate directly with income. For instance, i've worked on a few microsites for brands that report number of users on the site as a form of social proof.

On the other hand large services that announce their numbers might persuade more companies to enter the space.

</comment><comment><USER4> Ask yourself why and why not you should or shouldn't publish the numbers, make a list, weigh the pros and cons and then decide. Sounds like you're just publishing this info because you have it, not for a good reason.</comment>


MoviePass couldn't afford to pay for movie tickets on Thursday - <AUTHOR> https://money.cnn.com/2018/07/27/media/moviepass-service-outage/index.html <comment><USER3> If I am a traditional 'tech' company - I can afford to lose money when I am investing it in my platform or technology. It's like borrowing money to invest in your assets.

For MoviePass, they are losing money and passing it off to theaters - it's like borrowing money to buy more ingredients for a failing restaurant. You can't charge less than the marginal cost, it doesn't make sense!

I am trying to wrap my head around what MoviePass is trying to do - <USER2> given the number of friends I have who say they would easily be willing to pay 2x or 3x for the service. The data they are gathering cannot be more valuable than the cost of a movie ticket.

I have to imagine they were making a play at building up a huge enough audience to strongarm theaters into lowering their rates. Well the joke is on them - everyone knows that they have no bargaining power. Plus, signing up was so hard, their audience is skewed towards power users and people persistent in their cheapness.

An emergency loan with no change to the service whatsoever? They are really having a deer in the headlights moment.

<comment><USER4> > You can't charge less than the marginal cost, it doesn't make sense!

It worked for Uber tho. And now they've raised prices in markets where they are established.

<comment><USER5> Uber also plans to cut costs significantly in the future w/ autonomous cars. May be a pipe dream, but if they believe in the successful widespread deployment of the technology, that means they just have to stay afloat until then.

MoviePass could start to make their own movies, but that would require a substantial investment and isn't really comparable

<comment><USER6> Wow that would be something...

what would happen if _Universal Pictures_ stepped in with a subscription model (or whatever Moviepass does) for their movies?

<comment><USER7> Why build when you can buy?

Universal just has to buy MoviePass. Assuming it has the cash. From what I've read over the last few years, the big Hollywood studios are not cash-rich.

<comment><USER8> I forgot where I read it, but I though Moviepass's ability to geolocate and push money onto a credit card was considered a good idea and could sold.

<comment><USER9> Hardly seems like a large barrier. I would think the biggest issue would be finding the card company to partner up with, and then it doesn't sound like a very high barrier.

For theatres it's even easier to offer an unlimited option since they can just have the accounts internally. Studios can partner with theatres, though that seems overly complicated (I went to Mission Impossible last night, so I need a paramount account?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They still keep thinking that people will eventually treat it like they do gym memberships - buy them, but ultimately not use them. But there is a certain social expectation to have a gym membership and at least pretend you are doing something about your physical fitness. I have one through work and the last time I've been to that gym was over a year ago. But I can't be bothered to go to HR and actually cancel my account. But going to the gym sucks - and going to the movies does not. There is no reason to _not_ use the movie pass once you have one. I'd be shocked if anything but an absolutely marginal percentage of their users were actually paying more than they were using.

<comment><USER11> And a critical difference, your gym doesn't lose actual money any time you visit. They may not want everyone to visit all the time, but it doesn't drain their bank account anytime you enter the door.

<comment><USER12> They lose a little money on equipment maintenance over time, but it's nothing like going to a movie.

<comment><USER13> I'd imagine even a moderately engaged gym user would lose the gym money on every visit, in staffing costs alone. The marginal cost of each user rises too, as people that are unable to get on machine are more likely to churn. It is however usually outweighed by the huge numbers of people who simply do nothing with their subscription.

<comment><USER14> > I'd imagine even a moderately engaged gym user would lose the gym money on > every visit, in staffing costs alone.

A gym user attending a gym doesn't incur significant additional staffing costs. The work required to clean the gym may increase a bit but that'd be nowhere near the price of even the cheapest gym memberships.

> The marginal cost of each user rises too, as people that are unable to get > on machine are more likely to churn.

That's not a cost, it's a factor for the overall churn rate and marginal cost for acquiring a new user. It'd limit the max profitability of a gym (i.e. getting to churn = growth equilibrium) but it's not an operational cost.

<comment><USER15> >A gym user attending a gym doesn't incur significant additional staffing costs. The work required to clean the gym may increase a bit but that'd be nowhere near the price of even the cheapest gym memberships.

But that's not the right way to gauge "cost per member-usage". If you get a lot more usages, you will have to pay noticeably more for staff, maintenance, replacement, etc.

For comparison, how would you gauge the actual cost of sending a letter in the mail? Naively, you would say "well, you can't detect the cost of sending it in labor or fuel costs, so it's zero".

But that would be wrong. The right way is to say "how much would it cost to send a million more letters? The cost of one letter should be treated as one millionth of that" because, in the large, your marginal costs will scale that way as letter transmission goes up and down.

So yeah, the gym is, for all relevant purposes, bearing a small cost each time you use the gym.[1] It's just that, for the vast majority of members, all those usages cost them much less than the membership fee.

[1] I've heard figures of $1/visit but can't find at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> First, they tried to strongarm AMC into getting a portion of ticket and concession sales [0]. When AMC said "lol no", MoviePass blocked AMC and tried to pass it off as AMC blocking MoviePass. They then lied about how much money they made AMC [1].

[0] [https://deadline.com/2018/01/moviepass-lack-of-amc- theatres-...](https://deadline.com/2018/01/moviepass-lack-of-amc-theatres- coverage-1202269412/)

[1] [https://variety.com/2018/film/news/amc-blasts-moviepass- fals...](https://variety.com/2018/film/news/amc-blasts-moviepass-false- statements-profitability-1202678478/)

<comment><USER17> And then AMC turned around and did thier own subscription service. Yes it cost more, but it's sustainable, you don't have to jump through hoops to use it and I'm really enjoying it.

<comment><USER18> >it's sustainable

Is it? 3 movies/week for $20/month is about $1.67/ movie.

I think it is just around until movie pass kicks the bucket (at least at that price)

<comment><USER17> AMC doesn't show 12 different movies in a month. At most, they probably have a turnover of 5-6 movies per month.

As I said earlier, the price they pay for the studio for each movie a subscriber sees is around $4-$6. They still make a lot of money on high priced concessions.

<comment><USER19> I looked at an AMC I've been to. They have 20 movies listed as available to see today. Many only have 2 showings or something, but they have 20 screens, they seem to turnover more than 5 or 6 movies in a month.

<comment><USER17> I didn't say they only have 5 or 6 movies showings at once. By turnover, I meant after you catch up on all of the movies they have now, you won't find 20 new movies next month. Over the course of the year, they won't have 156 movies in the theatre (52 x 3)

<comment><USER20> 191 films were released by the top 10 US studios in 2015. I bet most 24-plexes screened them all, plus more.

<comment><USER17> [https://stephenfollows.com/how-many-films-are-released- each-...](https://stephenfollows.com/how-many-films-are-released-each-year/)

The best I could come up with - 93 wide release movies in 2016.

AMC does restrict the subscription service so it doesn't cover the Fathom Events movies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Was the entire play of MoviePass to pay for people's movie tickets until they make it and then jack up the prices + negotiate with cinemas for better deals? What was the "make it" condition?

Is this a common strategy?

It also loosely reminds me of the dotcom era strategy. It doesn't matter if we're not making any real money, we have a lot of users. Surely that can be converted into money somehow. We're worth billions of dollars because we have 300 million users!

<comment><USER22> I think of Moviepass as the pets.com of 21st century VC madness. That said, they clearly had a great pitch, I'd love to see their series A pitch deck.

<comment><USER23> I guess the upside is that they will fail fast!

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure 7 years and a mostly-acquisition counts as "fast." Quite frankly it's impressive their charade has lasted this long.

<comment><USER25> They were a lot more expensive until recently though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Ouch. Now that MoviePass subscribers are aware of its impending demise, they're likely to use the service even more to squeeze out any remaining value before it goes kaput, further exacerbating their money woes.

<comment><USER27> Also known as a "Bank Run".

As soon as people think it is going bad, they go to squeeze their money out, making it even worse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think the subscription model for theatres makes a lot of sense for all involved. Getting more people to the theatres (where they buy other stuff) and creating larger audiences who didn't previously visit theatres. The pricing and terms of MoviePass are unsustainable, but I think there will be more subscriptions for theatres that are tried.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I think their general conceit is that people enjoy the movie-going experience, but they are put off by the price. There is truth to this.

That said, they really botched the strategy - they could have bootstrapped the whole thing and slowly come down in price.

<comment><USER29> I'm not sure how you could bootstrap this idea. The only way to undercut the theatres is to lose money.

<comment><USER30> Provide childcare, undercutting babysitters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> 24% premium on a loan that will last them until August 1 is insane. I don't think they're going to make it past August or September at this point.

</comment><comment><USER31> In the UK, 2 of the biggest chains offer subscription passes... Cineworld, which is the one I use, allows me to see any movie at any cineworld (there's a 2 tier system for London, but ignore that for now) at any time for free based on me paying £17 a month. I live in London and the average cost of a ticket is roughly £12, if i see 2 movies a month i'm quids in. It seems insane that moviepass isn't operated already by one of your big chains (AMC? i guess). There's normally at least 2 movies I want to see a month, and even if there's not if i have nothing better to do i'd likely go and see something.

<comment><USER32> There's an AMC equivalent now, 3 movies a week (in the nice Atmos theaters, too) for $20/mo: [https://www.amctheatres.com/amcstubs/alist](https://www.amctheatres.com/amcstubs/alist)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Lending $5 million to MoviePass at this point is probably as close as you can get to literally throwing your cash on a burning heap. Must be some term sheet!

<comment><USER34> Perhaps they are secretly working for major movie theater companies like AMC. The trick is to get more people to go back to movie theaters and then when they can no longer use their movie pass service they will still want to go to the movies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> If MoviePass fails, it's a failure of the Nash equilibrium due to stubbornness and lack of communication. MoviePass drives traffic to movies, benefiting both studios and theaters. Despite the existence of other subscription plans, if MP goes away, the majority of those tickets will never be purchased. MP could certainly have evolved into a sustainable plan, that restricted its users to seeing movies at off-times with low demand, at nearly 100% marginal profit to the theaters, even if those tickets were sold at a significant discount that MP could reasonably afford.

Instead, theaters, especially AMC, refused to negotiate and in doing so, shot themselves in the foot. AMC's subscription plan is especially attractive to high-volume users on which it will likely lose money, further, it encourages them to use their free tickets at peak times for the most popular movies in the most expensive formats. When an AMC subscriber in NYC reserves a seat for a Marvel film in IMAX on opening weekend, that's a $20+ ticket that AMC can't sell to a paying customer because the theater is sold out. AMC's profit margin is already quite thin, and getting worse, according to its financial filings. Its CEO is very full of himself but doesn't seem like much of a strategist.

<comment><USER36> > MoviePass drives traffic to movies

Does it? Were those people going anyway? Would they go if they had to pay one cent more?

They're just a middleman aren't they? How are they driving anything or adding any value?

> that's a $20+ ticket that AMC can't sell to a paying customer

But the subscribers are paying customers aren't they? Do you mean they can't sell it to another paying customer? So you're just saying they can't sell things twice?

<comment><USER37> It is an anecdotal response to your first point, but since you didn't place a threshold I'll say it anyway.

I have two friends who I'd describe as average theatre goers. Maybe a movie every 2 - 3 months. Since using MoviePass they both average about two movies a month during 2018. I am not sure how sustained that behavior will be, but at atleast in this early stage it is lasting.

As for the second point, he is arguing they never sell the ticket once. AMC does not get the money if the subscriber does not attend the film. So by fighting with MoviePass (as they have been), they never sell the ticket once.

<comment><USER36> So the studio gained audience but (excluding the MoviePass susididy) not any money so what's the benefit of that? In fact they might be setting an expectation that film tickets should be lower in people's minds!

If you give me free tickets to the cinema I might go. If you say now I'm in the habit can you charge me $1? No thanks not worth it now.

<comment> crooked-v The benefactee in this scenario is the theater chain, not the studio, as they make most of their real profit from concessions, not selling seats.

<comment><USER38> Is the thrifty MP user the same one that buys overpriced stuff from concession stands, though? I suspect the old candy in the pocket ahead of time trick would be in use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> A couple months ago there were optimist articles about how they'll "make it in the long run", having "enough money to keep going before being profitable". Cinemark even announced something similar.

Guess it didn't last THAT long. I'm scared for other services with the same pricing scheme.

<comment><USER40> It's eye-opening that there are companies that forgets about cash-flow and profitability...

<comment><USER41> Uber, Spotify...plenty of other examples, I'm sure.

<comment><USER42> Soundcloud as well. They have something like 175 million users but almost shutdown last year

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> They just underwent a 250:1 reverse stock split and the stock is barely 10% of what it was after the split. It's lost over 60% today alone. This company is going bankrupt and quickly.

</comment><comment><USER44> On what terms would you actually lend MoviePass $5m? It would seem surprising at this point if MoviePass makes it to September.

<comment><USER22> You would no doubt be surprised. High risk lending is a thing in the Bay Area at least, I attended one of the VC lunches and at my table was a person who did that for a living for hedge fund. Sort of like really really big payday loans, but with worse terms.

He mentioned that one of the most unusual notes they had written was backed by obligations on future projects by the CEO of the company, so if the company folded and the CEO went on to start a new company the hedge fund could convert that defaulted note into a percentage share of the next company. Very creative stuff.

<comment><USER41> What are the chances the CEO will disclose those terms to prospective employees of his new companies? Near zero?

That's a serious landmine for employees who get part of their comp as stock options.

Edit: edited to reflect what I actually wanted to say (future companies instead of current company)

<comment><USER22> Absolutely but once you're in the situation where you are securing high risk debt financing you're employees should already reset the future value of their stock to $0. While I don't know if it is a hard and fast rule, it has been true in my experience over the last 30 years in the bay area that when a company is doing this sort of move to survive it has never left any value in the common stock.

<comment><USER41> I actually meant the employees of future companies of that CEO. Poorly drafted comment on my part.

<comment><USER22> Yup, it is always a good idea to research the CEO/Founders of a company you are considering joining to see as much of their history as you can. And if you see that they sold their previous company at firesale prices ('or undisclosed amount, not material to the acquiring company') you know that they missed their execution target that time. So a conversation with them is in order.

I have declined a number of offers over the years when my research into the CEO showed they were not the people who could get a company over the finish line, and have generally been pretty accurate in the eventual fate of those companies. Correlation isn't causation, but the CEO is the biggest win/lose variable in the mix.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> A lot of startups has not sound business ideas. Rather they have been fueled by cheap below real market central bank interest rates seeking higher return than zero.

Some startup founders are hustlers.

The children story by hc Andersen about the emperor without clothes. trying to convince he has clothes comes to mind. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor%27s_New_Clothes)

There will be a shake down of real pegususes versus so called unicorns. One magical creature has wings the other does not.

Of course people will be attracted to services selling services below market rate but it is not long term economically sustainable.

</comment><comment><USER46> Links from the SEC website about this $5m loan:

Promissory Note: [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040792/000121390018...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040792/000121390018009741/f8k072618ex4-1_helios.htm)

8-K Filing: [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040792/000121390018...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1040792/000121390018009741/f8k072618_heliosmatheson.htm)

<comment><USER27> From the Promissory note:

> the principal amount of Six Million and Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars > ($6,200,000)

Is this a gross mistake? Or am I missing something ?

<comment><USER47> No, this is what's termed an "Original Issue Discount" in debt parlance and allows for a lender to earn interest without a cash coupon on the loan. Basically they give them $5mm, but the "par value" of the loan is $6.2mm. So MP actually owes $6.2mm, but only got $5mm in cash up front.

<comment><USER48> I think they were referring to the "eight (2)".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> My wife and I are so frustrated by the movie going experience in the US. In Taiwan, everyone is permitted to bring food and drinks to the theater and that's pretty common. In the US I'm forced to pay an absurd amount of money for awful junk food. No thanks, I want to drink tea while I watch a movie. We always have to smuggle in drinks because the theater just doesn't provide any good options.

None of the movies is the US are subtitled. I am a native English speaker, but I really prefer to watch every movie with subtitles. Reading the dialogue while I hear it helps me remember the content of a movie, helps to understand what characters are saying while there are explosions going on in the background, let's me lower the volume for the sake of those around me, and so on.

And then there's the friggin' cell phones... but I suppose this isn't really a US specific problem.

<comment><USER50> Movie theater food is expensive because theaters in the US make almost all of their profits from the food. The movies are just a vehicle to get you to buy the popcorn and soda. On big blockbuster releases, like Star Wars or Mission Impossible, the movie theater may only get 10% of the gross ticket price on opening weekend, with the remainder going to the distributor.

Overseas distributors Asia have less leverage because these markets are generally so much smaller on a dollar value basis that it's not worth the time and effort to push for 90% instead of 60% of a relatively tiny pot. In China, terms are dictated by the government. In Europe, audiences prefer more avant garde films (read: bad films which pretend to be about something) so theaters have significantly more leverage overage distributors.

<comment><USER51> I sometimes fear that, like bookstores and Toys R' Us, if you don't patronize these businesses, they will go away. As a kid I couldn't imagine a world without bookstores, now there aren't any. Same with Toys R' Us. Kids will never have that experience again. Yes, movies are expensive, but would you rather them not be there at all?

<comment><USER52> Indeed, when the home video/DVD usage was at its peak around the '90s, movie theaters were assumed to be a dying business by most people. Then consolidation and marketing to a younger generation breathed new life into the industry, with ticket prices going up alongside.

<comment><USER53> I wonder if the proliferation of high definition and TVs with screens 2 or 3 times the size of TVs in the 90's for the same price will make a difference this time around. Back then, theaters were still the best way to see a new movie. Now though, I know a few people who's living rooms are far superior to a movie theater in every way, from the screen, to the sound, to the seats and honestly company and environment. Going to a theater used to be worth it even if the movie wasn't very good, just to get to see a movie on something different than a tiny 20" crt TV. Now it's really only worth it for great movies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Why did 'opening a business without an ever working business model' become a thing? Investor-money can only take you so far if you can literally not ever become cash-flow positive.

</comment><comment><USER55> In my mind moviepass is proof that the current pricing of tickets is too high. 5M people were willing to fork over $300M a year in subscription fees to go pay likely $20+/visit in concessions ($1.2B if they only go 1x a month).

Moviepass plan was to control as much leverage as they could in relation to the movie industry as quickly as possible. Betting they could borrow against this growth. They started producing their own films and doing all sorts of things to own that chunk of the ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER56> I would love to see the terms for that emergency 5 million in cash. Probably eye-watering interest rates.

<comment><USER57> Via Bloomberg...

"Terms of the loan are onerous. Investment firm Hudson Bay Capital Management can demand repayment of more than $3 million of the loan on Aug. 1, and the rest on Aug. 5. Proceeds from a planned stock sale must also be used to repay the debt.

If Helios and Matheson Analytics fails to pay, it will be subject to a 15 percent annualized late fee until it makes good on the obligation. If the company is 48 hours late in its payment, Hudson Bay can require the company to repay the debt at 130 percent."

[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-27/moviepass...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-07-27/moviepass- parent-borrows-6-million-to-end-service-interruption)

<comment><USER43> I've never had a physical reaction to reading loan terms before. That is painful, I have to wonder if they have any plan to turn it around using this money or if it's literally a Hail Mary to buy just a little more time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I could possibly imagine MoviePass working IF:

MoviePass can predict: Who(subscribers) What(movies) When(what movie showing subscribers will attend) Where(which theatre) Why(Netflix like recommendations) How(um, non tech cliche use of "algorithm")

And then MoviePass can bulk pre-purchase tickets at steep discounts to solve movie theatre excess capacity problem(if it is a problem).

With how tenuous things are now, I suspect MoviePass is NOT Netflix circa 2002.

</comment><comment><USER59> Oh god, get ready for the onslaught of endless thinkpieces on "What the failure of Moviepass reveals about the nature of Silicon Valley".

</comment><comment><USER60> Cancelled my account today since it renews shortly, but definitely going to keep my card as a nostalgic trophy to look back on ten years from now.

</comment><comment><USER61> Theaters make their money on drinks and food, no?

What bothered me in the US is that I can't buy a beer in the cinema. I always had to bring my own :-)

<comment><USER62> I can buy beer at Bay Area Century cinemas

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> How is this a business?!?!?

</comment><comment><USER64> How many movies a month does their average customer watch? Is there a small group of users costing them the most money?

<comment><USER65> I've seen 30 since signing up at the end of November. Not sure how typical that is, but my friends with MoviePass also see a bunch!

<comment><USER66> Gotta love a bit of wealth redistribution. Let's just hope they don't turn into a horrendous monopoly and force very anti consumer behaviour.</comment></comment></comment>


Can Computers Replace Teachers? - <AUTHOR> http://reason.com/reasontv/2013/04/06/katherine-mangu-ward-at-reason-weekend

<comment><USER2> They already have, or are in the process, to the extent that classroom time is dictated by the needs of preparing students for the flood of standardized tests in use today.</comment>


Apache man disables Internet Explorer 10 privacy setting - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/09/10/fielding_apache_ie10_windows_8/

<comment><USER2> Meh...

Tries to portray MS as being heavy handed while being heavy handed himself by forcing such a brazen opposition. Where is HE giving the users the choice? At least on the browser, users can turn off/toggle the value. But on the Apache server, the users have no such control and hence are at the loss..

Hypocricy much...

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't any default option by definition a choice that has been made for the end user.

I'm really trying to figure out Microsoft's angle on this. I've never once known them to pull a move that didn't in one harebrained way or another promote their products to the exclusion of others. Seeing them act as a watchdog for the consumer has me very confused. Can't believe it but I agree with Microsoft and there's simultaneously a major player in the apache project apparently being puppeted by the interests of large web tracking corporate interests. Welcome to bizarro world.

<comment><USER4> Embrace DNT, extend it to default apply as though every user selected it, extinguish DNT by having other would-be respecters of the flag not respect it.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> _> It does not protect anyone's privacy unless the recipients believe it was set by a real human being, with a real preference for privacy over personalization._

User choosing a particular browser advertising itself as `privacy oriented'† is plenty enough of indication of user's intention. An extra manual action should not be needed.

It was an open question whether using OS' default browser could be considered a valid choice, but not anymore. On Windows, users are prompted to select a browser, via BrowserChoice.eu.

† yea, I know it is quite ironic to call IE a privacy-oriented browser. Still, it should not be singled out for any perceived shortcomings.</comment>


Pi-Top, a Raspberry Pi laptop you build yourself, (38% funding in one day) - <AUTHOR> https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/pi-top-a-raspberry-pi-laptop-you-build-yourself

<comment><USER2> This... looks amazing. I totally want one of these for myself, and it looks like an absolutely amazing educational experience for younger folks. Love that quote about how "the days of DIY computing are back".

But... we have to stay vigilant, as too much computing these days involves closed systems, proprietary firmware and driver binary blobs, DRM'd crap, etc. Remember the "war on general purpose computing".[1]

[1]: [http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html](http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html)</comment>


An Overview of Secure Boot in Debian - <AUTHOR> https://debamax.com/blog/2019/04/19/an-overview-of-secure-boot-in-debian <comment><USER2> As far as I know, the Debian secure-boot-signed-GRUB image uses the same patches/config as ~all other distros except Ubuntu: the only kernels GRUB will load are Debian-signed kernels or (IIRC) those signed by some other key in the firmware variable of trusted keys. The effective policy is "Only code that chains to a trusted root key may run in ring 0." I think they've also got the kernel patches.

Ubuntu has a different interpretation of the policy: they go with "Only code that chains to a trusted root key may run before ExitBootServices()." ExitBootServices() is a UEFI function call that hands over machine control (interrupt handlers, memory maps, ability to boot multiple CPUs, etc.) from UEFI to the code that calls it, and also makes certain firmware variables—notably the trusted keys, whether Secure Boot is enforced, etc.—read-only (usually by cutting power to an EEPROM write pin or something). You can either call it in your bootloader, and have the bootloader do a traditional handoff to the kernel, or you can load the kernel itself as an EFI binary and have it ExitBootServices() once it's ready. In GRUB, the `linuxefi` command does EFI handover and the `linux` command does traditional (multiboot, in GRUB's case) handover.

So Ubuntu's signed shim+GRUB is willing to boot unsigned/untrusted kernels as long as you do so with the `linux` command, and I think nobody else's shim+GRUB are.

Who's right is a matter of how you interpret the mission of Secure Boot and its threat model. It's certainly the case that Ubuntu's approach is a lot easier to implement: in particular they don't do any kernel lockdown either, so you can load random kernel modules, have untrusted IOMMU operations, load unsigned hibernation images, etc. in the Secure Boot pathway. In other distros you can't (or at least you need to generate and enroll your own key and then sign your kernel modules with that). So Ubuntu had Secure Boot for a long while, and Debian only has it now.

(In fact I use Ubuntu's shim+GRUB to boot Debian Stretch on my laptop without turning off secure boot. In one sense, it defeats the point; in another sense, the mere existence of Ubuntu's shim+GRUB also defeats the same point because an attacker could just install them, so I might as well.)

<comment><USER3> > It's certainly the case that Ubuntu's approach is a lot easier to implement: > in particular they don't do any kernel lockdown either, so you can load > random kernel modules, have untrusted IOMMU operations

Not true.

If you don't believe it, try installing virtualbox from Oracles prebuilt repo (which doesn't do DKMS).

Their vbox.ko won't load with Secure boot on, because it's not signed.

The solution is to load vbox with signed modules from the Ubuntu standard repos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thankfully, you can find code to get the bios master password and disable secure boot for most PCs. Not true, though, for some more niche platforms.

Microsoft, though, can change their mind anytime and force manufacturers to require secure boot, and to get rid off the ability to disable it.

Current policy: [https://www.extremetech.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/windo...](https://www.extremetech.com/wp- content/uploads/2015/03/windows-10-secure-boot-1280x800.png)

More info: [https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201722-linuxs-worst- case...](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/201722-linuxs-worst-case- scenario-microsoft-makes-secure-boot-mandatory-locks-out-other-operating- systems)

<comment><USER2> You don't need "code" or a "bios master password" \- if there is no end-user- set firmware password, you can just go into the menu and change "Secure Boot" to "no."

(If there is a user-set firmware password, and you don't know it, you're not the end user and you can't change how someone else's computer boots up. That's been true for decades: setting a firmware password and maintaining sufficient control of the machine to prevent it from being opened is the standard way to prevent someone from booting your computer into a live CD and messing with it.)

<comment><USER5> >if there is no end-user-set firmware password, you can just go into the menu and change "Secure Boot" to "no."

The above expected behavior is still quite prevalent.

However with PC's such as the Acer Aspire Switch 10e, if there is no end-user- set firmware password, you can NOT just go into the menu and change "Secure Boot" to "no." The option will not be available.

The latter would seem to work as an anti-recycling feature. IOW, since the default user behavior is to not set a BIOS password, anyone disabling secure boot in order to use Linux will have had to set a BIOS password on such hardware first, even if they would not have normally used a BIOS password otherwise.

Later, when the hardware is passed on to a second-hand user without knowledge of the BIOS password, it will not be so easy to fully repurpose the machine without being able to get into the BIOS to make appropriate changes.</comment></comment></comment>


Snapchat Checker - <AUTHOR> http://robbiet.us/snapchat/

<comment><USER2> I really wish these "check if you've been hacked" sites gave some sort of reason why I should trust them. How would my mom know if this was a secure check or just a phishing scam?

<comment><USER3> I've had an idea floating around my head:

The site implements an api which describes what data it needs to perform the check, and the standard would be to accept hashes of the data.

There are then sites that provide a UI over the api. The user can point it to the api URL (they can also allow it to be specified in the URL so it can be linked to), it performs the hashing client side and makes requests to the API.

The worst the people providing the api can get is hashes, and people can check the source for the UI to verify it isn't siphoning off data.

Because the UI is decoupled from the data leak, there is less code to check.

<comment> nezza-_- Yeah, but it's still easy to do mistakes this way. For instance, the keyspace of phonenumbers isn't really large, so just hashing wouldn't help much against someone trying to get phone numbers. With e-mail addresses it's a bit better I guess.

A client-side, bloom-filter based solution would be nice IMHO. You would get either a definitive "No, your data wasn't leaked" or a "Your data was very likely (xx% possibility) leaked."

This all still doesn't help non-technical people decide whether a site can be trusted though :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for putting this up. So the dump didn't include the last two digits?

<comment><USER5> It probably did, but the site is attempting to provide some level of privacy.

Interesting decision. Sure the dump is publicly available, but this is much more accessible.

<comment><USER6> The dump does not include the last 2 digits (has the same XX at the end). The original site mentions this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Full list (limited paging per IP) with partial number check: [https://dazzlepod.com/snapchat/](https://dazzlepod.com/snapchat/)

</comment><comment><USER8> IMHO, I really think that script should only return whether the phone number is leaked or not, instead of showing the phone number of provided user name.

</comment><comment><USER9> has some coined the term for this trend yet?. where a site is hacked, and it's followed by a trend, to create websites to check if you are one of the sheep got slayed in a hacking attack.

what about SheepCheck? it does not sound right, then again, which other internet slang term does? ;)</comment>


The most hilarious "Amazon shut off our API access" email ever. - <AUTHOR> http://jasonbentley.posterous.com/when-your-company-screws-the-pooch-theres-a-r

<comment><USER2> Maybe I am not fully awake yet, but where is the joke?

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure either. Maybe hilarious in its frankness? Maybe the magnitude of the mistake is hilarious?

Notwithstanding that Collectorz made a bad mistake in basing part of their service on something Amazon explicitly doesn't allow, I thought it was a pretty good sorry message. He should have been more apologetic about making the mistake in the first place, but it's generally a very open and frank message.

<comment><USER4> Totally disagree. Classic case of oversharing. Even if yer inept, you don't let your custies know it at this level of detail. There's frank and there's pathetic sounding.

<comment><USER5> "Yer inept [...] custies"? There's frank, there's pathetic-sounding and there's turning every day into talk-like-a-pirate day.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's good snark lather, but if you actually look at the collectorz.com forums, you find that yes, the email WAS as bad as all that: [http://www.collectorz.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15...](http://www.collectorz.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15897&start=0)

<comment><USER5> Oh I read it in the original post (not sure what gave you the idea I hadn't). It's does drag on although I don't find it notably horrible - the field is highly competitive. At the same time, it's hard to take 'right way to talk to ur customers' [linked post] and 'arr, yer custies' as anything other than snark fodder, especially given the topic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "Dear customer:

We've recently been informed by Amazon, our service provider, that our products may infringe upon certain usage restrictions. As a result, the product you've purchased may experience decreased functionality. We are working with Amazon to resolve this issue before this happens.

If you experience any problems or error messages, please do not contact Amazon or Collectorz.com at this time. We will keep you updated as we learn more. Follow us on Twitter at [blah] and on Facebook at [blah].

We sincerely apologize for any inconveience.

Sincerely,

Blah."

Done.

<comment><USER6> Personally, I like more information better. If my app stops working and I get a relatively terse communication that explicitly tells me not to contact anybody about problems or error messages then I know for SURE I'm contacting someone.

I didn't find the first email hilarious, but this one for sure is less than or equal to that email in its hilarity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is exactly why I think the quote "I'd Rather Beg Forgiveness Than Ask Permission" should be carefully avoided when you depend on 3d parties, API, etc.

I always explicitely ask API/sites (Amazon included) owners whenever I have a doubt.

What do we have here - Amazon terms:

"The use of a mobile application in conjunction with the Product Advertising API or the Associates Program without our express prior written approval is not permitted."

Which leads to this interpretation:

"Here's my understanding of the situation: \- Amazon does not seem to allow the usage of any Amazon data in mobile applications, any data that was once downloaded from Amazon."

My interpretation is different: Amazon does not allow the usage of mobile xxx, _unless express prior written approval_.

So I really think this story tells us something: if you work with someone, get in touch, ensure the situation is clear, then go on with your project.

<comment><USER8> "Beg[ging] Forgiveness" is only better than "Ask[ing] Permission" in one-off situations, where the consequences are tolerable. It's a terrible fit here for two (2) reasons:

1) It's not after-the-fact forgiveness you'd be seeking, but forgiveness "during-the-fact". It's like indulgences - it's hard to make a sincere apology for a sin you're still committing.

2) The other party has them over a barrel. If Amazon doesn't accept the apology, it's not a broken friendship - they'll shut off the API and put the company out of business. It's only a sound strategy to Beg Forgiveness if you can survive the consequences of a refusal to forgive. Consider copyright infringement - it's better to get permission up front than trust that it's fair use or that the owner won't care, because you can't survive the multi- million dollar lawsuit they can bring.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hi all, this is Alwin, the writer of this "hilarious" email...

I am amazed to find all this about my email :-) I was just being frank and trying to be clear, upfront, before any possible disabling of our Amazon access (which has not happened yet).

My customers are used to lengthy, detailed emails. They respect and expect my honesty, good news or bad news.

I agree that I could (should?) have been more apologetic.

But please note that my iPhone apps are _not_ using the Amazon API at all. Amazon claims that Amazon data is being used on a mobile device, that is, data that once has been downloaded from Amazon. Which should be rare, because we have our own online media databases and our Windows / Mac software only queries Amazon for barcodes that our not found in our own databases, as a fallback. The "violation" of the Amazon ToS (if any) is very minor and rare.

But yes, it IS a violation and I will have to deal with the consequences. And informing my customers was the first thing on my mind. Which I did, fast and with all details.

</comment><comment><USER10> Here's the source of the blog post, from the company forum:

[http://www.collectorz.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15...](http://www.collectorz.com/phpbb2/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=15881)</comment>


How the United States is reinventing itself yet again - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/01/02/how-the-united-states-is-reinventing-itself-yet-again/

<comment><USER2> This is an atrociously optimistic view. The fundamental inequalities between the rich and the poor are more getting more and more out of balance. There is chronic long-term unemployment, the Debt has ballooned beyond reason and Fundamental Liberties are under sustained assault.

So the "reinventing" might work out for a measured few while the rest have a hopeless, orwellian future ahead barring some serious course correction.

<comment><USER3> While the present has bad spots, we've lived through the gilded age, japanese internment, slavery, trail of tears, etc.

Good things and bad things are always happening.

<comment><USER4> > _we 've lived through the gilded age, japanese internment, slavery, trail of > tears, etc._

Having overcome stuff in the past is not a guarantee of othercoming other stuff in the future.

To put it in another way, your words could might as well have been uttered by some roman, just before the fall of the Roman Empire. They also had a long history of "living through" troubled times.

<comment><USER5> Plus, "we went through this before" seems to miss the whole point. As if it's not a _VERY_ bad thing. As if we shouldn't be upset about it. As if 5-10 years of shitty life (or however long this is gonna last) is trivial; like we're all going to live forever or something.

<comment><USER4> True -- not to mention that some will even be, well, killed or severely affected by it. He mentions the "trail of tears" as something people survived, but how many died during that?

<comment><USER6> The attitude may appear cynical, but it seems totally in line with the ideas feed to the public. If in the Hollywood movie the kitty is saved then it is not a drama no mater how many die, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is written like some kind of sales pitch for US Treasury bonds.

It's so lopsided that I doubt the authors believe their own thesis. They're trolling -- [http://xkcd.com/386](http://xkcd.com/386).

</comment><comment><USER8> > a new era where the precepts of Moore's Law can be applied to virtually any > field

It was at this point that I started reaching for my revolver.

<comment><USER9> Especially considering that Moore's Law is stopping to work in its original field...

<comment><USER10> Is it though? People say that all the time, since I have been aware of Moore's Law.

<comment><USER11> IBM has demonstrated the smallest possible working gate. We're still a little ways off from that but - the problem with exponential traversal is you rapidly reach the end of the road. That and the last few iterations of Moore's law are going to be _very expensive_. It's the economic aspect people are referring to when speaking of Moore's law coming to an end.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> tl;dr -- Happy days are here again!

Not very much content, except that solar panels and natural gas continue to get cheaper. Don't get me wrong -- I love to hear the US is about to return to being a world class manufacturing nation, and it might even be true, but this seemed like a pretty content-free article.

<comment><USER13> Natural gas may be getting cheaper, but in the short term electricity is going to get more expensive as the relentless assault on coal generation continues. Utilities are building and converting natural gas generation plants but coal still dominates in many areas. Our local utility is telling us to prepare for a tripling of rates.

<comment><USER14> The relentless assault is justified IMHO.

I drove through Pennsylvania (my home state) twice in the past couple of weeks to go from my duty station to home and return. The state is as beautiful as ever but I often had to switch my car's ventilation system to recirc to avoid the smell of coal power plant exhaust, even miles from the plant. I don't know how the residents handle it.

It's a pity that TMI effectively shut down nuclear in the USA as nuclear could, if nothing else, help replace the single most-polluting power generation method still in wide use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reinventing itself as an Orwellian dystopia.

<comment><USER16> And taking the whole World with it.

<comment><USER17> Some of the World is just as involved as the US. They are spying on everyone too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Similar articles have been printed in the Sowjet Prawda 30 years ago.

<comment><USER6> ...and the prophecies went true, right? If not, they need to wait just a little bit more!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > _Because the United States continues to lead the world in its ability to > adapt to, incorporate and develop new systems and new technologies, we are > uniquely poised to reap a disproportionate share of the benefits of these > shifts._

That was funny!

</comment><comment><USER20> O Canada! Maybe the picture is a lil more complex... [http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/Local- scientist...](http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/fyi/Local-scientists- theories-on-globalization-and-energy-consumption-have-wide- influence-104210094.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> I guess he was told to write something with a possitive spin for the new year...

</comment><comment><USER21> Much of this article is unsupported happy talk Here is what's really happening on the specifics:

The only thing the US has going for it is the oil/gas boom, while it lasts, and if we don't get sucked into a a resource-curse economy. Rooster, meet sunrise.

The "manufacturing revival" is hugely overhyped and puffed up with weapons and military supplies manufacturing.

K-12 education sucks. It needs an individualized education revolution. But all the money is in NCLB.

The solar boom is real, and we might luck-in to a postponement of Peak Oil, but, for now, there is no replacement for oil and not enough capex in nuclear and renewables to fill the gap. That will SUCK. But not in 2014.

The NSA has pooped in the Internet punch bowl. Who wants an Internet of Things That Spy On You? Yeah.

So frack all the things, and party while it lasts. Everything that was wrong before the fracking boom will be there when we're done, bigger, uglier, and more dangerous.</comment>


How startups can launch a print service in the blink of an eye - <AUTHOR> http://www.peecho.com/blog/when-pastbook-met-peecho-or-how-to-launch-a-print-service-in-the-blink-of-an-eye.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice post on startups helping each other out!</comment>


Show HN: Create Games and Simulations on iPad - <AUTHOR> http://twolivesleft.com/Codify

<comment><USER2> It took me a while to determine that the programming language this uses is Lua. Have you considered making that a little clearer on the main page?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks will fix, completely forgot to mention that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very nice. I might see if it interests my kids.

I thought there is a "no interpreter" rule?

<comment><AUTHOR> It was changed some time ago to simply "no downloadable code," however there seem to be even exceptions to that now days.

<comment><USER3> Cool. So in your case, the user is ok to type in his own code, so that's OK isn't it?

In fact, it would usher in another beautiful era of kids typing in code to the computer, learning as they go along.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it's okay to create, run and save code on the device.

I had functionality early on to allow downloading your own projects through iTunes onto your PC. Apple rejected that so the feature was removed.

(It will be re-added tonight and I will appeal their decision if they reject again, I just didn't want it to delay the initial release.)

<comment><USER3> Probably can workaround by have a pastie style service to copy and paste code.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>