Ask HN: Why was the VICE video report on China's Uighur situation flagged? - <AUTHOR> I noticed that this Hacker News submission:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20336543
was (as is usually on Hacker News) silently flagged and removed. The submission linked to this YouTube video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v7AYyUqrMuQ
which is titled "China's Vanishing Muslims: Undercover In The Most Dystopian Place In The World". As far as I remember, the Hacker News submission title was not editorialzed or sensational.
Again as usual on Hacker News, there is no moderator message that says why this post was flagged and removed.
Hacker News is obviously heavily moderated. But I found the moderation to be rather silent a lot, seeing title's changed, link's changed, and comments flagged without any clear information or often no information at all as to why. The fact that this particular post was removed is extra bothersome to me. There are other articles that have been allowed through, including this one:
https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/7xgame/at-chinese-border-tourists-forced-to-install-a-text-stealing-piece-of-malware
The original video obviously contains political content, but it also shows the repercussions of technology. That is an important thing to discuss. Engineers are supposed to build technology that helps people, and if conversations regarding that goal are silenced, it is worrisome.
At a bare minimum, I would like to see the rather aggressive moderation team at Hacker News be more upfront with the edits they make to submissions. <comment><USER2> Users flagged it. That's usually the answer. Moderators didn't touch it.

Would you please review the site guidelines and follow them in the future? They ask you to email firstname.lastname@example.com with questions like this, not post off-topic submissions like this one.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> Just guessing. Probably because it's very similar to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20335816](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20335816) (228 points, 3 hours ago, 179 comments) dupes and almost-dupes are usually moved downward to keep a more diverse front page and keep the conversation together and avoid duplication of comments. If the other post have a lot of new information, you can add a comment there and email the mods email@example.com so they remove the penalty.

> _Hacker News is obviously heavily moderated._

I agree with that, but it's not so obvious. (I think that they must add a warning about the heavy moderation at the top of the site with <blink> and <marquee>, but they prefer the clean simple look. :) )

</comment><comment><USER4> Because it's a duplicate which I had submitted 3 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315905](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20315905)

<comment><AUTHOR> duplicates happen, and the one removed had more upvotes and was on the front or second page. either way, a message on why it was removed would be well received.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> rather curiously, the submission has been unflagged now mere seconds after i submitted this. it's possible it happened right before this submission, but it had been flagged for many minutes before i submitted this, including just a minute or so before since i checked the link.

<comment><USER2> That is because some users were flagging and other users were vouching.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Sort Foods and Recipes by Nutrient and Caloric Density - <AUTHOR> https://kale.world/c <comment><USER2> nice!

This is something I can see my self using.

Couple requests:

-Possible to add a 000g to the sliders of the left to be able to find foods based on a nutrient's content in grams?

-big ask but - could you add a way to sort by average price/calorie or by standard weight (g, ounces, etc)? (example) would love to be able to find highest protein lowest carb foods, sorted by price.

-how are the %s calculated, % of of daily recommended value? % of nutrient to total calories in food? Would like more clarification.

note: might want to break up some of the recipies into smaller components - e.g. right now when I set protein slider up all the way up and "avoid foods with" carb slider all the way down, tuna salad sandwhich is one of the top recipes (above sauteeed spinach). Would like to see the actual breakdown because I find it hard to believe an entire sandwhich has fewer carbs than spinach.

Otherwise, good work! will keep my eye on it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the actionable feedback! I'm making a note of it. I'll make sure to add a pie chart of each food and recipe showing exactly the percentage of calories from prot, fat, carbs relative to the total.

As for percentage of daily recommended value, these mostly come from the standard recommendations, for instance 28g of fiber per 2000 calories, etc.</comment></comment>


They Used to Say Whale Oil Was Indispensable, Too - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/nyregion/03towns.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> This makes me think of Clay Shirky's book "Here comes everybody".

I think the example of the whale oil industry's feeling of superiority until their rapid decline, is similar to Clay's example of the feelings of scribes during the advent of the printing press.

He talks about how the last people to be able to adapt were the people entrenched in the industry, who spent their energy justifying why change was bad rather than adapting and bringing their experience.

Often change is inevitable but a big enough change such as petroleum or electricity (or the internet) make it hard to predict how the future will pan out. People don't like change because it's unpredictable, so it's easier to deny it will or should happen.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's impressive that the entire argument of the article can be compressed down to the title-- and still be that thought-provoking.

</comment><comment><USER4> We will find another/better way, but we still have a long time to find it, and it's probably just going to be shale oil, which isn't going to run out for a very long time. What comes after that hasn't been invented yet and there is no hurry.

The idea of a "sustainable" way of life is one which never encounters new problems. What it really means is a static way of life. It's _not a bad thing_ to have a dynamic way of life which depends on human creativity to deal with the new and unknown.

<comment><USER5> I think tar sands and shale oil buy us out of the "classic" peak oil scare, which was that we had used up 50% of the world's oil and were headed for production decline. No, we've used up less than 30%... and can get much more, expensively and with massive cost to the environment.

I don't think an oil _shortage_ is in the works just yet, but the era of cheap oil is gone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That is an extremely stupid comparison. They used whale oil for reading at night. Crude oil is a critical ingredient of modern industrial civilization.

And the implicit assumption that superior substitutes always emerge is also childish. Just because they figured out kerosene says absolutely nothing about our relationship to crude oil.

<comment><USER7> The argument that humans will "always find another/better way" has more to do with faith in humanity than it does about any commodity and it's successor.

<comment><USER6> Well that reads nice on a hallmark card, but back here in reality societies have fallen into decline, crisis, and famine many, many times because of resource shortages.</comment></comment></comment>


Piano Staircase - <AUTHOR> http://www.thefuntheory.com/piano-staircase

<comment><USER2> For comments from the other times this was posted:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=872759>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=873059>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=871721>

</comment><comment><USER3> A simple yet brilliant idea, but my worry is, Will adults let kids play on that staircase? :)</comment>


Firefox brings 3D to inspect element. - <AUTHOR> http://www.designed2perform.co.uk/2012/03/13/firefox-11-brings-3d-to-web-design/

<comment><USER2> Anybody tried this yet?

I don't like the new inspect element feature nearly as much as Firebug, but this actually looks useful for when I cock up my divs.</comment>


Dan McCracken died, peacefully in his sleep - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_D._McCracken <comment><USER2> Last year I wrote a fan letter of sorts to Professor McCracken, thanking him for his ForTran book, which I credited as my inspiration for what became my life work. (Ref: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1710523> )

He replied to my letter, saying:

===

"I love your story!!! Warms my heart like little else. I am absolutely delighted to have had a hand in your choice of career, given that you are pleased with the choice.

"By golly, I too think my books were clear! I'm still teaching. Not Fortran, but beginning CS. When I get frantic I pick out my first Fortran book, or a later one, and look for a good example. It's usually there!

"Makes me think of writing a book in a modern language. For about two seconds. The energy isn't there any more. Love to teach, but writing a book is a very much bigger deal than it was back then, and I don't see how I could hack it. Well, I am 79.

"Thanks a million for your mail. Definitely made my day."

===

I'm glad today that I got to do that. RIP, Professor.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I was privileged to have him as a Professor. We would have lunch sometimes and discuss programming paradigms and modern web techniques. He'll be missed.

<comment><USER3> You had an opportunity I could only dream of.

I've never had access to a mentor of any kind, on the job or otherwise.

I still hope to have one someday.

That he would spend that kind of time with his students (undergrad? grad? I don't know or care.) is impressive and says a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just took his course last semester. Glad I had the opportunity. He was always full of interesting stories.

</comment><comment><USER5> I never knew him or even knew of him until now. But it must be grand to pass on like that after a long meaningful life that impacted many others. I look forward to exploring his works.

</comment><comment><USER6> Do people really "die peacefully in their sleep" or is this a euphemism? I can't imagine, given how painful (eg) a heart attack is, that you could sleep through it.

<comment><USER7> The current theory goes that dying peacefully in sleep is possible. Elizabeth Simpson of the Virginian-Pilot explored this question further and a nice little article summarizing the excerpts from the AHCJ discussion can be found at: [http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2011/07/reporter- explor...](http://www.healthjournalism.org/blog/2011/07/reporter-explores- dying-peacefully-in-his-sleep/)

<comment><USER8> My question is, given the existence of sleep paralysis which is both terrifying and plausibly able to leave "no evidence of thrashing about", if many people died "peacefully" but also awake and very scared.

<comment><USER9> As a sufferer of sleep paralysis, I would think it almost impossible that sleep paralysis itself could persist through dying painfully, since pain or other external stimuli (or passage of time, usually less than a minute) will generally kick you out of it.

That doesn't preclude the existence of some other paralysis mechanism, but I am not aware of any, so I think it's just wild speculation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm a City College Student. I've taken 2 courses with Prof. McCracken and spoken with him privately on several occasions as well. He was an amazing man. A truly kind heart who knew how to bring out the best in people. Teaching was something he was very passionate about, he was still teaching courses last spring, well past the point of retirement. Dan McCracken knew how to make a difference to people and that was his real gift.

He could instruct in technical subjects, but he was already over that point of his life when I got to meet him. He had written his books, done his service with the ACM, made his contributions to the profession. What he devoted himself to later in life was cultivating people. He knew exactly how to nudge a student in the right direction to make them press onward. It worked for me. I don't think I would have made it through my freshman year without his encouragement.

I'll miss him. He was a wonderful person, a great teacher, and a warm presence. We should all be so lucky to as to know someone like him.

</comment><comment><USER11> One of the few theologian-programmers. RIP.

<comment><USER12> Not as rare as you would think. Knuth, though not formally trained, has been doing the same (from his wikipedia page):

>In addition to his writings on computer science, Knuth, a Lutheran,[10] is also the author of 3:16 Bible Texts Illuminated,[11] in which he examines the Bible by a process of systematic sampling, namely an analysis of chapter 3, verse 16 of each book. Each verse is accompanied by a rendering in calligraphic art, contributed by a group of calligraphers under the leadership of Hermann Zapf.

<comment><USER13> 3:16 is a beautiful book, and the idea underlying it is a very nice one. Knuth also has a book called "Things a computer scientist rarely talks about", derived from a set of lectures he gave at MIT, which is mostly about the 3:16 project.

I don't think it was exactly "a group of calligraphers under the leadership of Hermann Zapf". I think Knuth worked with each calligrapher individually; Zapf just happens to be the most famous of them (albeit mostly for his work in typography).

Someone -- I forget who -- called Knuth's technique in the 3:16 project "the way of the cross section", which is a lovely pun.

(In case it is relevant to anyone's evaluation of the above: I am an atheist but spent years as a Christian.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Should there be a Black bar at the top to signified a great person has died?

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm sitting here looking at the brown, dog-eared old McCracken Fortran IV book from my high school comp sci class (1978). What magic it was to conceive of a program, cut it onto punched cards, suck the stack through a card reader, and then see my output appear, line by line, on the dot-matrix printer. Thank you, professor, for your contribution to computer science and for inspiring me to find the work I love.

</comment><comment><USER16> I used his FORTRAN book for my first job out of college - very useful.

</comment><comment><USER17> he was a nice person and great professor... I am glad I had the opportunity to take a class with him</comment>


Givv.org - interesting approach to manage your donations - <AUTHOR> http://givv.org/

<comment><USER2> I find this interesting not so much because of the budgeting features but because you don't have to give your personal info to the charities. I don't like giving to a charity and then finding myself on their mailing lists for the next 5 years. Even worse is when they sell your info on their mailing list -- it isn't always easy to find out how to get off that stuff. I've been thinking for a while that someone should build an app to mediate between charities and donors for this reason.

An added benefit is that they can give you a single statement for your taxes. I assume that, from the IRS's perspective, you are just giving to givv.org, a non-profit.

<comment><USER3> Is givv.org a 501c3?

They don't state this on their website, and they claim you can give to anyone, not just charities, which makes me wonder if you lose the tax-deductibility by using givv.

<comment><USER4> It doesn't look like they need to be 501c3 themselves, because they are merely an intermediary. It's strange that this is not obvious from the site, but in the 3-minute video, they said "...and at the end of the year you get a nice tax report of everyone you've given to..."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> that's the same as flattr, right?

<comment><USER6> Nope, this is "To as many nonprofits as you like." only</comment></comment>


Externalize, Secure and Manage APIs with Node.js - <AUTHOR> http://strongloop.com/strongblog/node-js-loopback-api-gateway-sample-applications/

<comment><USER2> As annoying as some parts of Node's programming model are, this really seems like the perfect job for it.</comment>


Redis Turns 10 – How it started with a single post on Hacker News - <AUTHOR> https://redislabs.com/blog/redis-turns-10/ <comment><USER2> One of the funny things is that I've still never really used Redis directly, only as a sort of opaque part of other things.

I posted that link because I've known antirez for a long time, worked with him at Linuxcare, and when he said he was working on something cool - I believed him!

<comment><USER3> I thought it was funny that the author of OP said that "...one suggested Salvatore re-write Redis in Erlang" and it turned out to be you!

<comment><USER2> It was more of an excuse to get him to play with Erlang some... I always thought he might find it fun to work with.

<comment><USER4> Did he ever try it?

<comment><USER2> Not too seriously afaik.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Congratulations! Fast and stable DB.

In 2011 I wrote PHP client for Redis with features like tags, safe locks, map/reduce. It was heavily tested and users had no issues - and since there was no issues, it was removed from the list of clients after few years as "abandoned". Nobody even tried to contact me :) Now I don't use PHP and barely use Redis so it's all in past. But that experience taught me a lot of new things.

Salvatore Sanfilippo, you are great programmer. Redis API is elegant, safe and effective. I personally had 0 data losses all years I use Redis. And this DB is always extremely fast.

<comment><USER6> That is the irony of software development. In theory, good software could last forever without any maintenance. In practice though, nothing has to be replaced as often as software ;-)

What does that teach us about our software development practices?

<comment><USER7> I think developers need to learn to build to last. We have medical software that hasn't been updated for two decades that runs just fine.

That's often unobtainable with modern software development because we rely so much on things that change too often, but it doesn't have to be that way.

It's a paradigm shift of course, but I think our business really needs to take maintainability more seriously than it does. This goes for proprietary software as much as Open Source, but with Open Source there is the added layer of governance.

I work in the public sector and we operate quite a few Open Source projects with co-governance shared between different muniplacities, and the biggest cost is keeping up with updates to "includes". It's so expensive that our strategy has become to actively avoid tech stacks that change too often.

<comment><USER8> While I don't disagree that we shouldn't strive for maintainbility, things like medical software, airplane software or similar highly tested mission critical pieces are specifically built to last for that long. Nobody is going to pay us to build a WebShop to last for 20 years, thats just not a necessity when getting it out quick is so much more important from a business perspective than making it last forever.

> That's often unobtainable with modern software development because we rely > so much on things that change too often, but it doesn't have to be that way

The reason we rely on things that change often is because we want to leverage them to get products out faster. Many different layers of that (as every tech stack is essentially a product by someone) and we have lots of updates to deal with. The flipside of slow moving projects is bugs might not be fixed or new helpful features might not be coming in, meaning you have to build it yourself.

As a community we know and have known how to build mission critical software for decades, but we actively often decide not to do it because it isn't that important compared to other factors.

<comment><USER9> So interestingly - the web shops you're talking about do want to maintain their client data, and do expect it to be available "forever," somewhere. The payment processors absolutely do at a minimum. Some of those layers are highly hardened.

While the particular Etsy clone or t-shirt of the day, or customized shower curtain site will certainly come and go, it'd be an entirely different problem if visa, PayPal, stripe, swipe, or whatever payment processor packed it up and went home at random.

<comment><USER10> We need the foundations/infrastructure to be built to last. People need to identify which kind of software they're making and treat the infrastructure as unchanging. Changes in the basement need to be carefully considered with a default stance of rejecting them unless justified by reasoning that has a time horizon of many years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The original HN post only has 23 votes and 11 comments! Good reminder that HN doesn't have to be crazy about your project for it to become successful.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=494649](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=494649)

<comment><USER12> Reminds me of the time when Bitcoin was first posted to Hacker News and only got 5 upvotes and 3 comments: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=599852](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=599852)

<comment><USER13> It's amazing how those three comments still reflect the main opinions about crypto

<comment><USER14> "This is an absurd waste of energy" is missing.

<comment><USER15> It's not a waste of energy according to the miners who shell out for that energy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> For me, Redis is the most software valuable tool I use. I was hooked from the day I started using it about 8 years ago. It somehow has a place in almost every software project I work on. And it just keeps getting better. Now with RESP3 on the horizon, it will enable me to even further benefit from the many clients available in almost every programming language.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=494649](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=494649)

Here is the link from Feb 25, 2009

Note this number = 494649

Today = 19 247493

Nineteen (19) Million Posts etc later (mas o menos)

<comment><USER17> Is it worthwhile to replace a MySQL with Redis? Am I losing something?

<comment><USER16> I believe if you think of Redis as a data structure server, then there are lots of applications you can build out that have simple commands like set and get for both lists and hashmaps that are slightly different ways of thinking about saving and retrieving your data. The concept of a set is very powerful and easier to implement I believe than using SQL.

<comment><USER18> Relational databases are based on relational algebra which is all about operating on sets.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can truly say that Redis has changed my life and career. I started using it in 2010, got hooked immediately, and I've been a member of the community and contributor ever since. I got to build so many cool things with Redis over the years, it's amazing how versatile and powerful it is.

Having worked for a couple of years at Redis Labs, I got to work closely with antirez, and that's been a transformative experience as well, which made me a better engineer and open source contributor.

Thank you, Salvatore. Here's to the next 10 years.

<comment><USER20> And to that Erland rewrite!

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> What's the clustering story these days? Last I checked, Redis Cluster still had lots of issues losing writes, and the design doesn't seem to have been revised since Aphyr ran Jepsen tests on it back in 2013, making it (at least from my perspective) practically useless for anything that requires distributed consistency, which means most things that I look to use a distributed data store for.

I've also been warned by fellow devs that much of the clustering logic is actually done in the client, and there's historically been a lack of mature clients for all languages. Even if you find a mature client, the complexity of the implementation implies that not all clients may behave identically, or may have different bugs. Then there's the issue of lock-in, where you become dependent on a specific client library and its development lifecycle. I don't know if all of this is true, but I also don't hear a lot of people talking about Redis Cluster these days.

I know you can use Redis in master/slave mode via Sentinel + Twemproxy, though even this solution seems to have some issues with data consistency. Running all three also appears a lot more complex than an integrated system.

I see a lot of comments implying that Redis is mainly used in single-node setups, so that might be where it shines?

<comment><USER22> Hello! Redis Cluster has yet the same tradeoffs, because they were basically designed, and were not shortcomings. Btw Aphyr never tested Redis Cluster, and does not made any sense to test it because he tests things for strong guarantees so it should test Redis-CP instead, for instance, a consistent store for Redis implemented into a module using Raft.

I believe that for the Redis use case the cluster tradeoffs make sense because:

* Best effort consistency in the practice work quite well, even if it does not have any _guarantee_ , but does certain things to avoid losing writes in trivial ways.

* If you want to cluster Redis, you want Redis, not a cluster that automatically becomes a lot more slower, memory hungry, and so forth. So replication should be asynchronous.

However what I may change in the future, and there are plans for that, is to add a failover strategy that does not just pick the replica that is more ahead in terms of received writes: but even stop the failover if there isn't a majority of slaves reachable. This improves certain properties, and if well orchestrated can also show strong properties if writes are acknowledged only after transferred to the majority of slaves.

Redis Cluster is used in many organizations right now. The next step is to improve it (in different ways than having strong properties mostly), and provide an official proxy for it.

<comment><USER21> Where can I find information about "Redis-CP"? Google isn't giving me anything.

I don't really understand the nature of the "tradeoffs" you mention. As Aphyr pointed out, Redis (with Sentinel) is not safe to use as a database, a queue or even as a lock service. That really narrows the possible use cases. I can absolutely see Redis being appropriate for many "lossy" applications: Caching, web sessions, rate-limiting counters, precomputed analytics data, intermediate outputs from distributed data processing pipelines, that kind of thing.

But the use cases where I'd reach for Redis seem a lot fewer than with data stores that have high consistency guarantees, such as FoundationDB, TiDB/TiKV, CockroachDB, or Cassandra/ScyllaDB. With the exception of TiDB, these are a bit easier to reason about since there's no Redis/Sentinel/Twemproxy split.

On the other hand, I certainly appreciate the specialized data structures and Lua support that Redis comes with.

<comment><USER23> Redis is safe to use as a locking mechanism, many people do that. You should dig deeper than Asphyr said it doesn't work.

<comment><USER21> How do you do that in a distributed cluster with HA failover using Sentinel, considering that Sentinel is susceptible to partitions and drops?

<comment><USER24> Do you work for NASA, or are you overly paranoid about your infrastructure?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The first version of Redis: [https://gist.github.com/antirez/6ca04dd191bdb82aad9fb241013e...](https://gist.github.com/antirez/6ca04dd191bdb82aad9fb241013e88a8)

</comment><comment><USER26> Redis is the best data store I've had the fortune to work with. No nonsense data structures coupled with extremely reliable performance, beautiful API and extremely easy to manage.

It also helped me earn a lot of praise for using redis-cli --pipe to bulk insert data which bringed down a data import job to a few minutes from 4 hours. I eventually built a wrapper around redis-cli --pipe for using it with a cluster.

<comment><USER27> You clearly haven't used it at scale with sorted sets.

<comment><USER28> Can you elaborate on that please?

<comment><USER27> Try inserting more that 30K elements in a key which is a sorted set and watch the insertion time, memory & cpu usage. Now try doing this to millions of keys simultaneously.

<comment><USER29> We run several million sorted sets, but they are all short sets (100s), but do thousands of writes/sorts per second without issue.

From memory - there was a setting to turn on/off gzip compression for a list once it went beyond a certain size - do you have this enabled?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> As someone who is fairly tech literate but not familiar with this tech stack - in practical terms, what is Redis, and what is it used for?

<comment><USER31> A lot of people are saying "k/v store", but I think there's an alternate definition which I've stolen from aphyr: A shared heap.

If you have a cluster of machines operating on a dataset, you can store that dataset in redis to get high performance reads and writes. In the simple case of a cache, it's a key value store. But other complex cases exist: A priority queue, an atomic transaction log, a lock server, and more.

It supports lua so if the data structure and operations you need doesn't exist you can generally build it yourself.

<comment><USER30> What is it generally used for though? To me, a "k.v" store sounds like a very generic but nice thing to have, but I still don't have a good sense of what it is and what people think of it.

The one place I've run into it is in web development where it's used for caching? In some tutorials I've read.

<comment><USER32> So lets consider one use case. We have a website where people login and we create a session to track that user across different pages on the website. Now the session will have data like user name (to display on the website), the user's location or IP address, the user's preferences, etc. So whilst the browser and the website communicate with a cookie (to identify this session), we need to store this session data somewhere. You can use a file or a database to read and write to this session data which works fine. But redis shines in this example where the speed is very good and you also have the session id as they 'key' and the session data as the 'value' that you can store.

Redis gives you amazing speed and because it provides a kv interface, the work is very easy.

<comment><USER33> Thanks, I never heard a practical example like this. I assume the "value" side of Key:Value can be a giant heap of JSON? So theoretically you can retrieve an entire collection of structured data as long as you know the key, correct?

And where the usefulness of K:V store is beaten by SQL is the point you would want to run a "JOIN" or "GROUP" on the data, for example if you wanted to count the number of keys containing a certain data point, correct?

<comment><USER32> Yes the big bag of data which is generally the value in the kv store is a json (either as a serialized string or a map if it is natively supported by redis).

Yes, the usefulness of SQL always is the join or group but with something like session, the idea is to just use it to dump values into the store which you don't want to reach into the database every time. So different teams will want to put in their own keys and data into the session object which means your DB session store becomes extremely difficult to maintain over time.

On the other hand, the joins and groups based on this can be handled later in time than in the req-response cycle itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Redis is incredible. I built a matchmaker with it as the sole data store and it has been a breeze to use. It's so simple to visualize data structures with it and I just can't see myself using any other in-memory data store. Also Redis Sentinel is fantastic.

<comment><USER35> What does Redis Sentinel do in a nutshell?

<comment><USER36> Provides high availability for Redis

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Easily one of the most versatile and reliable pieces of software I've ever had the pleasure of using. To ten more years!

<comment><USER38> especially for bitcoin miners and unsecured redis instances!

<comment><USER37> I'm curious. Elaborate?

<comment><USER39> Around 75% of open redis servers are hacked.

[https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/around-75-per...](https://www.bleepingcomputer.com/news/security/around-75-percent- of-open-redis-servers-are-infected-with-malware/)

<comment><USER22> Redis safe mode introduced in 3.2 reduced the problem but still folks actively misconfigure Redis before putting it in a public IP... Now there are ACLs in Redis 6 that will mitigate this even more, but it's a lost game, because images are created with installations of Redis that are made completely accessible on purpose.

<comment><USER39> Oh not blaming Redis in the slightest. Its one of my all time fav tools. Things are only secure as ppl configure them.

I don't even want to know how many elasticache Redis servers data are just unsecured on a public IP because it's so easy to configure that way.

<comment><USER38> ^^^ this exactly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've been using Redis many years. It's served me well. It's simplicity and vision is a testament to antirez's hard work. Thank you sir.

</comment><comment><USER41> Has anyone ever had problems with Redis?

I expect it to always work and it always has. I really like it but am worried I trust it too much now. Please tell me I'm fine to trust single instances!

<comment><USER42> Only problem I ever encountered was mainly my fault -- my Redis instance was used to hack my server (the attacker manipulated Redis data and dumped it to overwrite /etc/passwd, etc). I was an idiot and hadn't locked down my installation. Luckily my provider had disk snapshots.

<comment><USER43> Sounds interesting. Can you share how and what happened in detail?

<comment><USER42> There's actually a writeup of this technique on the Redis blog: [http://antirez.com/news/96](http://antirez.com/news/96)

In my case they overwrote ~/.ssh/authorized_keys, /etc/group and /etc/passwd as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I was first exposed to Redis when I first started building NodeJS sites using ExpressJS many years ago. There was a session caching layer that used Redis that "just worked" and was fast. Later I had other opportunities to use Redis and the more I used it the more my appreciation grew. However I echo some of the well put discussions in this thread about Redis clustering. Thank you Antirez!

</comment><comment><USER45> I like antirez's "Linenoise" library. I converted it to Unicode, and gave it a multi-line editing mode with undo, visual copy and paste, edit in external editor, parenthesis matching, incomplete syntax continuation, and more. It's all in the TXR Lisp REPL.

<comment><USER22> Cool! You should reply here with a link to your fork.

<comment><USER45> [http://www.kylheku.com/cgit/txr/tree/linenoise](http://www.kylheku.com/cgit/txr/tree/linenoise)

I've tried to keep it decoupled from TXR internals, and to abstract it from the OS a bit, so there is a considerable "struct lino_os" interface now.

There is a dependency on a "config.h" which provides some HAVE_* constants.

There is a user guide to the REPL in the TXR Lisp manual; that provides context for some of new interfaces, like what is the _lino_set_atom_cb_ function for.

[http://nongnu.org/txr/txr-manpage.html#N-025AAA27](http://nongnu.org/txr/txr- manpage.html#N-025AAA27)

<comment><USER22> Wow a lot of interesting work. Thanks for sharing, I think I should compile a list of the forks at the end of the README.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Tcl was the first language used. I laughed, but only because I've developed in Tcl and it has its time and place. Though I don't remember how to do an if statement in Tcl off the top of my head. Update: ok, its squiggly brackets; that's right.

<comment><USER47> I've been using TCL more and more lately. It's ability to use its own interpreter is super handy. I made a static site generator in it most recently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> In classic Hacker News fashion, the top comment is just suggesting you use something else instead.

<comment><USER49> I wonder what the odds are of any new thing posted on HN staying the course and turning out to be useful in the long run. Probably not very high.

<comment><USER50> About 1 in 57 according to the random statistic generator app someone posted years ago that I'm still using multiple times a day.

Super stoked the developer finally released the "output as odds" feature (though my favorite output setting is definitely still "matter-of-fact tone with a hint of strained patience").

<comment><USER51> Statistically speaking, I'm fairly sure it's safe to assume that had up-voted negative comments too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Just coming here to say congratulations to Antirez.

I've never had to use the software myself, but I always read Antirez's posts and his interactions on here. I think it's a great example of technical leadership.

</comment><comment><USER53> Why would I use Redis over Couchbase?

<comment><USER54> I don't know about Couchbase, but Redis tends to be lighter/faster than full- fledged databases.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I never realised it was Ezra that did the initial redis-rb implementation.

<comment><USER56> He talked about it at Railsconf 2009, as well. I remember that was the first time I installed it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> It's funny to see how HN has changed. People who are actually excited about a project, creating a client for ruby within hours. Not the same anymore

<comment><USER58> People are still quick to build and add to new projects. Now it's more likely to be something related to Kubernetes or serverless, and those people are seen as hype chasers not pioneers. Like I'm guessing people were in the past too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Current Open Source Redis fork: [https://goodformcode.com](https://goodformcode.com)

<comment><USER28> Redis was/is open source. The licensing thing was with Redis labs modules (plugins) for Redis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Slightly off-topic, but what makes Redis cluster preferable over something like etcd as a K/V store?

<comment><USER22> They are at two extreme places of the spectrum basically. One is a very slow CP KV without any feature over basic stuff. Another is a data structure server with a KV shell, and weaker consistency guarantees and good performances.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Doesn't load with ublock origin.

</comment><comment><USER62> That dancing guy is rad tho :)

</comment><comment><USER63> Who can help me identify redis timeouts in azure mvc core project?

</comment><comment><USER64> Why is there JavaScript that prevents me from selecting any text? That is how I read sometimes (subconsciously mostly). When I disable JS, I can select text again. What are you trying to accomplish with this?

<comment><USER65> I always find replies like this amusing. It seems to be the habit of Hacker News users to focus on minutiae while either missing or ignoring the focus of a submission. It's baffling.

<comment><USER66> People who build websites analysing how websites are built. Pretty natural I'd say.

<comment><USER64> I agree. I can image architects going into buildings for various reasons other than working on that building yet still analysing its architecture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> > "It takes guts to be a first follower. You stand out, you brave ridiculing > yourself. Being a first follower is an underappreciated form of leadership"

There is a Mark Twain quote that reminds me of this:

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."

(edited with the full quote)

</comment><comment><USER68> I guess 10 years is not enough to develop _concurrent_ in-memory data structures storage.

Yeah, let's code like it's 1970's and multi-core CPUs are Sci-Fi ;)

<comment><USER69> Having no _threads_ is exactly what makes Redis so convenient in deploying it to clusters: you have a node, and the node is a single process. It's like a building block.

Also, Redis source code is so much cleaner than memcached!</comment></comment>


Chartio (YC S10) Is Hiring a Sr PM to Make SQL Visual - <AUTHOR> https://jobs.lever.co/chartio/7d2a121a-b452-4bb9-a871-6165d15aaa86 <comment><USER2> YC companies get preferred treatment (guaranteed to be on the frontpage for a while), you should contact the moderators (link in footer). [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html)</comment>


One teachers approach to preventing gender bullying in a classroom - <AUTHOR> http://togetherforjacksoncountykids.tumblr.com/post/14314184651/one-teachers-approach-to-preventing-gender-bullying-in

<comment><USER2> Interesting read, though approaches like this (attempting to blur gender definitions) often seem questionable as they begin to blur the lines between taught and inborn gender definitions, ie it seems that the typical response that this article demonstrates is to teach/encourage nontraditional gender definitions. While in the author's situation, it is obvious that some of the students entered the class with "blured" gender viewpoints, it becomes difficult to discern how much our educational system etc is contributing to and/or propogating these viewpoints simply by teaching them as "OK"

</comment><comment><USER3> Great article, but doesn't really seem appropriate for Hacker News.

<comment><AUTHOR> I read that article on lego, <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3357522> and hence thought it might be continuation of that debate.</comment></comment>


Mt. Gox Bitcoin Chief Mark Karpeles Arrested in Japan - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-33745611

<comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9985664](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9985664).</comment>


Kaspersky Lab Has Been Working with Russian Intelligence - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-11/kaspersky-lab-has-been-working-with-russian-intelligence? <comment><USER2> This is old news. I thought Bloomberg had found more evidence on this topic.

Here's Kaspersky's response to Bloomberg's article :[https://usa.kaspersky.com/about/press- releases/2017_kaspersk...](https://usa.kaspersky.com/about/press- releases/2017_kaspersky-lab-response-clarifying-inaccurate-statements- published-in-bloomberg-businessweek-on-july-11-2017)

</comment><comment><USER3> So, it is American intelligence officials who are concerned about this situation?

At some time in the past, the US, as a democratic society might have done something to separate offensive and defensive intelligence, used some method to give us something like an assurance that concern by American officials would mean that Kaspersky was doing something shady rather, say, that Kapersky was one tool they couldn't use to spy (not that I know anything about the situation at hand).

But as it is, the US (along with all the other states, of course) produced a situation where there's no real difference between the "state actors", where basically every software product from a given nation risks being requisitioned as well be spyware for that nation.

Perhaps it's just as well and anyone caring about privacy will move to all open source, defined builds and so-on.

Or perhaps just buy software from the smallest, least important nation.

<comment><USER4> > _there 's no real difference between the "state actors"_

This is a classically bogus argument [1]. A foreign adversary, constitutionally unbound, is more worrisome than a domestic actor who, while having a more-legitimate threat of violence, also faces realistic odds of retribution.

While throwing democracy under a bus seems to be in vogue nowadays, suggesting moral or democratic equivalence between the Russian and American states is absurd. Americans support the NSA, _et cetera_ [2] despite lots of messaging to counter their agenda. A better argument would entail how the tech community could communicate its message to American voters.

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

[2] [http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what- america...](http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/05/29/what-americans- think-about-nsa-surveillance-national-security-and-privacy/)

<comment><USER5> > This is a classically bogus argument [1]. A foreign adversary, > constitutionally unbound, is more worrisome than a domestic actor who, while > having a more-legitimate threat of violence, also faces realistic odds of > retribution.

So, there is no difference between the two actors: I'm German, both are foreign countries that have threatened to nuke Europe. (Well, at least Trump has).

I don't see why I should trust the US more than Russia, both Trump and Putin don't give a fuck about any other country and just want to destroy my life.

<comment><USER6> Same with me. I mistrust German intelligence agencies just the same, even though they are supposed to be organs of my government. My stance here is simple: if an institution has something to hide from me (barring personal information) then that institution cannot be working in my interest, so I can't trust them.

<comment><USER7> I'm no fan of "three letter agencies" but it seems the problem isn't _you_ knowing certain information, it is identifying a set of "yous" who can know it without compromising the purpose the organization is pursuing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh I have another clickbait. American Companies have been working with the NSA.

Common knowledge folks.

</comment><comment><USER9> if someone is suprised by this please, do yourself a favor, and become a farmer or something...

<comment><USER10> But we might still be outraged and boycott their products, all right?

<comment><USER11> Nothing is stopping you but that's like saying you want to boycott Monsanto products because of the latest misdeed to make the rounds in the news. You should have assumed Kaspersky was working with Russian intelligence before buying just like you should have assumed Monsanto was evil before buying.

Kapersky is one of Russia's top cybersecurity research institutions by default because of the products they sell and the stuff they need to do to make those products. Cooperation with Russian intelligence isn't really optional for them. If they didn't want to cooperate they'd either be infiltrated making it a non-issue or they'd be "convinced".

This is no different than Russia not wanting to use Win10 because they assume that the NSA put in feature requests (or created the features themselves without telling anyone at MSFT).

<comment><USER10> > Cooperation with Russian intelligence isn't really optional for them.

But that does in no way make it allright - from a consumer perspective. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER12> Sure. But at the same time it would be foolish to assume that Symantec doesn't work with the US security agencies or Sophos doesn't work with British agencies.

In the worst case scenario, if the government wanted them to, they would have to hand over anything they work on to continue operating.

<comment><USER13> This was my takeaway. My understanding of the top comment in the chain wasn't that we shouldn't be offended. Just that we shouldn't be surprised. It would be like being surprised that Boeing takes orders from the U.S. government sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14743092)

</comment><comment><USER15> For anyone who's been to their conferences/seminars, this is really easy to guess from the way their employees talk. They love to paint the GRU as a cool older brother all while dissing the CIA for carrying out endless attacks against their clients.

<comment><USER16> I got drunk with one of their employees at a conference in London and he started loudly singing "The Internationale". It really annoyed the yanks, I found it quite funny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article was presented before and here it is again.

Some other people intent on giving Eugene a hard time recently: [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kasperskylab- analysis-...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-kasperskylab-analysis- idUSKBN19Z0EH)

True, it must be hard to remain objective when this happens: [https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/01/kaspe...](https://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2017/01/kaspersky-labs-top-investigator-reportedly-arrested-in- treason-probe/)

On the recent embassy ban a former CIA station chief said it will mostly affect the russian staff whom they all assumed to be spies anyway as they suspected that nobody would get a job there unless they had been vetted by GRU.

May we assume they would think the same for KL employees?

Maybe US intelligence is still butthurt over exposure of and then also loss of tools - Equation group et al? Can you imagine how much crapola is coming down the old shitpipe currently - hacked elections, shadowbrokers, HBO/mandiant...? The list of agenda items on the briefing meetings just gets longer and longer and the politicians just get crazier and crazier.

Oh Lordy!

</comment><comment><USER18> I can get why such a thing would be scary to a government. But really, there's no reason this should be about Russia. "Government runs closed source software distributed by foreign company" should sound scary whatever government it is, wherever the company is based.

Governments need to be able to audit the code they run. If there is a place where the "100% libre software" ambition should rule, it's there (provided govs indeed have people who audit code, obviously).

</comment><comment><USER19> Ah, this laughable article with no actual proof... thought this died when it was debunked and ridiculed online last month. The HN frontpage is the last place where I expected to see it again.

<comment><USER20> Yeah, because Russian intelligence would never co-opt its economic assets for espionage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Kaspersky also probably has dealings with GHCQ/NSA. If you are a top vendor then nation state actors are going to want to subcontract out non-sensitive duties.

</comment><comment><USER22> Government agencies employ local industry resources especially in cutting edge technical fields, in other news water is wet.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, I'm pretty sure that Microsoft has worked with US domestic law enforcement on similar "active countermeasures" against hackers targetting its customers for years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> it would be fun if it has been working with cia/nsa.

</comment><comment><USER25> No shit.

</comment><comment><USER26> Isn't Kaspersky a Russian name?

<comment><USER27> Well, this is a russian company founded by a russian whose name is Evgeny Kaspersky. I'd say family name origins are not russian, but I don't think you are interested in etymology or onomatology here.</comment></comment>


RealVNC demos BIOS-based server at IDF 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2011/09/19/realvnc-demos-bios-based-server-at-idf-2011-video/ <comment><USER2> VNC client in the BIOS would make more sense

<comment><USER3> I thought hat at first and then I watched the video and fully understood. A client in the BIOS would be fun but this solves real problems.</comment></comment>


Coolest Startups in America - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rightsignature.com/2012/02/coolest-startups-in-america.html

<comment><USER2> Just curious, I clicked through a lot of those startups, then landed on ThinkNear.

Initially, this led me to the conclusion that this article was actually a load of balls, since this startup made the cut. I say this after struggling to figure out what their startup actually does... yet seem to say that they have been featured on TechCrunch, gigaom, mashable etc.

After Googling, I saw that yes they had actually been featured on TC and the like, but in July 26th, 2011.

How can I startup which says they are backed by Google Ventures, Qualcomm etc, based on <http://www.thinknear.com/aboutus.html> and clearly have gotten substantial press coverage, not have done anything in the last 7 months?

Their entire website, is just a .jpg. (Right click on something), and then the "Learn More" is a mailto:.).

I agree by the way, the original blog did list some pretty cool startups, and I clicked and read quite a lot of them. But then this one just confused the hell out of me.

<http://www.thinknear.com/index.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> Love the convenience of RightSignature. Makes signing my contacts easy to do anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER4> Is there an equivalent for the UK?

</comment><comment><USER5> clients sign on the ipad on Right Signature. huge time saver</comment>


I'm not a celebrity, why would I need a stylist? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.sharesomestyle.com/post/47709199035/im-not-a-celebrity-why-would-i-need-a-stylist <comment><USER2> One of the best experiences is when you go clothes shopping, have enough money so you don't particularly care, and your sister runs around the whole store finding things for you to try while you stand there feeling kind of overwhelmed.

Is a stylist something like that? A way for me to look good without investing so much effort into finding clothes that look good? I care a bit about how I'm dressed, but I really _really_ hate the choosing clothes part. There's always too many and most look like crap.

<comment><AUTHOR> You got it - a personal stylist is like a sister or brother who can run around the store finding clothes that fit your style and your body, so all you have to do it try them on and give them feedback. OR another thing a personal stylist can do is come to your home and help you make new outfits out of the clothes you already own and help you understand how to buy better fitting, more flattering clothes. We'd love to have you contact a stylist and tell them your situation and have him or her reply and take it from there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I wear the same thing a lot. I have found an outfit style that is really comfortable and works really well with the type of work I need to do.

When I found what I liked - I bought several of them. Just about 2 weeks worth, though they are not all the same color. Its about 10 shirts, all the same - but different colors.

I also bought about 4 pairs of the same jeans.

Finally, I like to replace all my socks on an annual basis. About once a year - I go out and buy all new socks and throw out the old ones.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> @gtolle and I have been working on this for a few months now. We know we have a long way to go, but wanted to share what we've been up to.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think this is a pretty good idea, I really hate shopping because there are simply too many options and I don't really have an eye for how things look until I try them on. And after trying on the third sweater I'm just fed up. Also I didn't have any idea about clothes until very recently when someone suggested this book to me: [http://www.amazon.co.uk/Details-Mens-Style-Manual- Ultimate/d...](http://www.amazon.co.uk/Details-Mens-Style-Manual- Ultimate/dp/159240328X/) . Prior to that it was only suits at work and jeans and t-shirt outside of work, no variety ever.

Having someone knowledgable pick out something is a pretty useful option for me. I might use something like this but only if I could get a clear picture of sort of "prior projects" they've worked on because I'd like to match what I want with what they deliver.

<comment><AUTHOR> Once you sign up, you can click the headshots of each stylist, to see their profile page, which shows client before and after photos and client recommendations. You can also message any stylist and tell them what type of style you are going after and then they will reply within 24 hours with their thoughts and you can see if they are the right stylist for you. You can also jump on a phone or skype call with them if messaging back and forth is not your thing.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like you have it set up like I'd want it. But I live in London so I guess I'll have to wait till you guys expand. Best of luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I spend all day programming, all I need is a hoodie to keep me warm- everything else is a distraction from what matters.

("Why I wear the same shirt every day", <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4490538>)

Why would I need a stylist?

:)

<comment><USER6> Old advice... "dress for the job you want, not the job you have." Which may still include hoodies.

<comment><USER5> The job I want includes a swimsuit and sipping cocktails on a beach all day... I'll keep the hoodies for now :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using Bombfell for the past three months and have been pleased with most of their selections. It allows me to not have to worry about selecting clothes and have something/someone else do it for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> We love Bombfell, in fact Gil, my co-founder, uses them too. But there is nothing like meeting a personal stylist in real life and having him or her help you find or refine your own personal style. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Men can get the same style as those featured on this site by simply doing all your shopping at J. Crew.</comment>


The FCC Might Ban Specific Operating Systems - <AUTHOR> http://prpl.works/2015/09/21/yes-the-fcc-might-ban-your-operating-system/ <comment><USER5> This title is kind of click-bait - they aren't prohibiting operating systems, they _might_ be prohibiting installation of operating systems that are not approved on certain types of devices that allow software defined radio - <USER2> is, transceivers that can be tweaked easily by software.

That is not at all the same thing as banning an operating system.

This is already present insofar as hardware requirements in radios - <USER3> cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones, and must not be restricted in such way as they can be easily modified to enable it (e.g., a header/jumper). This really just extends this requirement that it is non-trivial to enable illegal broadcasting or reception on software defined radios.

Now - insofar as if this should impact open source operating systems, we have a good question. I don't think it does that - my interpretation, potentially wrong of course, just as the article's could be wrong, is that you would have to restrict the actual firmware in question to a blob that communicates with the hardware in a secure way. This would prevent open/free components insofar as the actual driver, but would not permit the operating system itself from being installed. They mention this, but only at the end of the article.

I also doubt the impact of this for non software-defined/modular radio systems. I don't see a way this would really impact everyday wifi or non- modular systems in a way most people would care about. That isn't to say it isn't _bad_ but once again, it just seems super misleading and alarmist.

Whether or not the FCC should or shouldn't do this is a different question, but the link's title seems intentionally misleading.

<comment><USER6> _radios cannot be permitted to listen on frequencies reserved for cell phones_

Is this true ? I've never heard of the FCC restricting receivers before. You don't need a license to buy or operate a HAM receiver.

<comment><USER7> Listening to the the cell frequencies, selling a device capabable of listening to them, or modifying a device to enable listening to them, has been illegal in the US for years: [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2010-title47-vol1/xml/CFR-2010-title47-vol1-sec15-121.xml)

The law dates back to the days when cell phone tranmissions were analog and could be picked up with a consumer-grade police scanner. As I recall, it was passed soon after an incident where a congressman's conversation with his mistress was picked up and publicized, but I don't have a authoritative source for that.

Even with modern phones being digital and encrypted, the law remains in effect.

<comment><USER6> The regulation you linked to appears to date to 2010, long after analog phones had been replaced.

18 U.S.C. 2512 may be older but I wonder why such a regulation would have been issued so recently.

Also if this regulation is intended to implement 18 U.S.C. 2512 it appears to be broader in scope than that law. The law only prohibits devices that are "primarily useful for the purpose of the surreptitious interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications". The regulation on the other hand restricts scanners that are capable of receiving such communications. I don't see how a broadband scanner that includes cell phone frequencies along with other bands could be considered to be "primarily useful" for intercepting cell phone communications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> My contribution to the commentary:

I feel that the proposal to regulate device firmware and effectively ban non- vendor firmware is both overbroad and will result in significantly increased security risks faced by the general public (myself included). If the FCC chooses to go forward with this, it should also require and put in place penalties to enforce MANDATORY security updates from vendors within tightly constrained timelines, including to products which the vendors no longer sell or wish to support.

I have used various third-party firmware replacements (generally OpenWRT, occasionally DD-WRT) to replace firmware on routers with known security holes, undoubtedly including some for which patches were years late if ever delivered. I have done this for myself, friends, family and customers.

If the FCC mandates that I may not legally replace the firmware with secure versions unless they come from the equipment vendors without also taking steps to ensure the availability of those security fixes, then the FCC is acting to ensure that the state of network security in the United States is AND WILL REMAIN unacceptably poor.

<comment><USER9> They are struggling with a very simple problem. If you configure your 5GHz U-NII device to the wrong country, and turn it on, it will stomp all over licensed/restricted spectrum.

That's because unlike 2.4GHz, 5GHz has been carved up very differently in different parts of the world (each place has had its own evolution of technology and spectrum pressures).

To such a degree that this isn't even about power and frequency. As an FCC registrant seeking to slap FCC stickers on your new/imported devices, you'll be required to submit proof of conformance documentation which demonstrates you've properly implemented radar avoidance in your frequency hopping/spread spectrum algorithms.

Finally, the FCC has made it obvious that this aimed at the transmitter module, not the overall device. And so, "banning" OpenWRT and other 3rd- party/alt firmwares would only be required if that's the only half-arsed way a manufacturer can hope to comply with the new regs.

In future, I'd hope hardware becoming better isolated from radio components, this ruling (and similar around the world) are essentially mandating region- locked devices, so we might see something similar to what's happening in mobile phones (Eg. baseband radio firmware separately versioned/updated from OS firmware).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I thought to myself: "This looks like a good time to stock up on SDR equipment, in case this ever goes through."

And then I realized this is exactly the same thing gun enthusiasts thought when they though Obama would limit their guns/bullets, and stocked up on them, and I thought it was silly. I guess we're a lot more similar than I would have thought, made me think a little bit more about it. I'm reminded a bit of that "first they came for me" poem/story.

<comment><USER11> FWIW, I don't think there's a lot of regret among gun enthusiasts who stocked up. They like guns, they like ammo, and they found a reason to buy in bulk.

The people I know are happy they did.

I can imagine being pretty happy in a year or two having stocked up on SDR gear. :-)

<comment><USER12> And I bet those people would never concede that their favorite political commentators that whipped up a frenzy without any evidence were 100% completely wrong about what Obama was going to do. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those people think that Obama actually did ban bullets. And they still listen to their favorite loud mouths and take them seriously.

The FCC thing is based on actual information, not the fevered mind of deranged anti-Obama conspiracy theorists.

<comment><USER11> Your mileage may of course vary, but as I said, in my circles it wasn't so much a knee-jerk reaction as a decision to take the occasion to buy in bulk.

I haven't yet met any of the stereotypical deranged gun owners that I keep hearing about. Although I'm not a gun owner myself, I have visited ranges and gun shops throughout the US and all the "gun people" I've met have been peaceful, helpful, open-minded, and friendly.

And FWIW, you don't need to subscribe to a "deranged anti-Obama conspiracy theory"; the market mostly moved (quite rationally) after the Obama administration announced support for the so-called UN Treaty on Trade in Small Arms. The conference concluded without adoption of a treaty, but US support has made it more likely, and passage may well mean decreased availability of small arms and ammunition.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was slightly surprised about a week ago when I came across the NPRM by accident and realized the comment period was already over.

But, I'm more taken aback though by the reactions here to this guy's (admittedly alarmist) thoughts... From reading the comments here, it sounds like only a couple people scanned past the headlines.

TL/DR, Eric (Who is actively involved in the OpenWrt project), makes a very good case that the FCCs proposed rules will require DRM for software on all devices with radios, thus preventing the use of third party OS like OpenWRT (although he thinks the rules could probably be applied to computers, phones, etc. too).

Sure, the FCC won't "ban" OpenWrt et al, but lets not be pedantic here; if there are no devices left that allow you to legally (or otherwise) install your own firmware, projects like that _will_ die a death by a thousand cuts.

<comment><USER9> The FCC responded to Ars saying that the line about DD-WRT was clumsily worded. I'm under the impression that if the OEM/importer demonstrates in their filing that their proof of conformance documentation will always be representative (valid) of the device no matter what the user can do through user-accessible features and menus, i.e. they can prove that the radio module is locked down in some way other than the main device firmware, this should be sufficient and does in fact meet the requirements.

After all, preventing APs from stomping on licensed spectrum due to wrong country selection seems to be half of what's driving all this anyway.

<comment><USER13> Do you have a link for that? I'd like to see it...

The original wording from the FCC about DD-WRT was pretty awful, and I don't see how their intent can be interpreted otherwise (although they may be backpedalling now):

"2\. What prevents third parties from loading non US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from "flashing" and the installation of third party firmware such as DD-WRT."

As seen on this thread and the document linked within: [http://lists.prplfoundation.org/pipermail/openwrt/2015-July/...](http://lists.prplfoundation.org/pipermail/openwrt/2015-July/000373.html)

<comment><USER9>
        Do you have a link for that? I'd like to see it...

It's the very same document - I'd encourage everyone to read it in full. There are only 3 pages of content after all: "Software Security Requirements for U-NII Devices" [1]. But keep in mind - this is not representative of the actual license conditions and regulations, it is a piece of bureaucratic administrivia that helps the FCC staff process and assess your applications!

        "2. What prevents third parties from loading non US versions of the software/firmware on the device? Describe in detail how the device is protected from "flashing" and the installation of third party firmware such as DD-WRT."

Again, I think people are picking stuff at random and missing the context. I could find much scarier wording than this if you really wanted to FUD this up some more. This is part of a bureaucratic administrative process used to help assess applications.

It even says that follow-up questions may be asked. As someone familiar with regulatory compliance processes in another country (.au), just because you answer in the negative does not mean your application will be rejected - <USER4> other responses (see the _rest_ of the questions to see how redundant they are) will be taken into consideration.

Even though we have the old joke where our equivalent of the FCC has an unofficial motto, "We're not happy until you're not happy", even bureaucrats have enough imagination to see that scripted questions can't capture every single possible way to meet the underlying requirements for a given regulatory compliance issue.

The questions are centered around identifying how the device is restricted from operating outside of the conditions asserted and tested in the conformance documentation submitted with the FCC registrant's application. That's not an unreasonable expection from a spectrum regulator's POV, but it is terrifying given that this will likely mean region-locked (or region- specific) devices - choosing a country from a drop-down list will become a thing of the past (after all, 5GHz is carved up quite differently in different parts of the world compared to 2.4GHz, where things are already a complete mess).

Whilst you might find that "OMG, these questions seem to assume that the FCC wants only OEM-approved firmwarez", as per the DD-WRT wording this is because the questionnaire has been written from the assumption that these drastic measures are necessary to meet the new regulations. If you read the proposed regs themselves, carefully [2], I don't see anywhere where the "host device" is explicitly required to control OS firmware _unless this is the only means that the registrant can meet the U-NII security requirements_.

It doesn't help that we have a whole new population of people trying to read and understand these documents (me included). They use the term "software" rather loosely, and you have to have some background understanding of how the existing FCC registration/approval/certification process works (difference between an approval for a host device vs module etc).

I even see people mixing up the SDR rules. Technically an SDR product must undergo a completely new FCC approval process with new validation test results/proof of conformance for every firmware update! There's no way WiFi router AP vendors are going to go down that path; this is reserved for things like mobile phone baseband firmware that change infrequently and are profitable enough (check out Qualcomm's profits) to actually afford to be able to do this.

This [2] basically summarizes the intent behind the U-NII security requirements:

        Manufacturers must implement security features in any digitally modulated
        devices capable of operating in any of the U-NII bands, so that third parties
        are not able to reprogram the device to operate outside the parameters for which
        the device was certified. The software must prevent the user from operating the
        transmitter with operating frequencies, output power, modulation types or other
        radio frequency parameters outside those that were approved for the device.
        Manufacturers may use means including, but not limited to the use of a private
        network that allows only authenticated users to download software, electronic
        signatures in software or coding in hardware that is decoded by software to
        verify that new software can be legally loaded into a device to meet these
        requirements and must describe the methods in their application for equipment
        authorization.

[1] [https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869Rsy...](https://apps.fcc.gov/kdb/GetAttachment.html?id=1UiSJRK869RsyQddPi5hpw%3D%3D&desc=594280%20D02%20U-NII%20Device%20Security%20v01r02&tracking_number=39498)

[2] [http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=9a15d7771e...](http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi- bin/retrieveECFR?gp=1&SID=9a15d7771edde76916923037f790b75d&ty=HTML&h=L&mc=true&r=PART&n=pt47.1.15)

Edit: I guess you meant the Ars article! Here it is:

[http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc- ac...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-accused-of- locking-down-wi-fi-routers-but-the-truth-is-a-bit-murkier/)

        Ars is attempting to schedule an interview with the FCC to explore this issue in
        more depth. So far, the commission has only told us that "versions of this open
        source software can be used as long as they do not add the functionality to
        modify the underlying operating characteristics of the RF [radio frequency]
        parameters. It depends on the manufacturer to provide us the information at the
        time of application on how such controls are implemented. We are looking for
        manufacturers of routers to take more responsibility to ensure that the devices
        cannot be easily modified."

<comment><USER13> New ars article: [http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc- op...](http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/09/fcc-open-source- router-software-is-still-legal-under-certain-conditions/)

"Despite an FCC guidance to router manufacturers that seems to ban open source firmware such as DD-WRT and OpenWRT, FCC spokesperson Charles Meisch told Ars that there is in fact no such ban. But there are restrictions that in some cases could cause a manufacturer to decide to prevent the installation of third-party firmware. _In fact, disabling the installation of third-party firmware by the user may be the easiest and most straightforward way for hardware makers to comply with the FCC 's guidance._ ... _Manufacturers could choose to achieve compliance by simply locking out any kind of third-party firmware, the FCC acknowledged._ "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is like banning guns cause people sometimes use them illegally to kill other people. Not very American.

Just go after people who are causing illegal interference and leave the people who 'might be able to' alone.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, there is a gun problem in this country and this is a terribly flawed analogy.

<comment><USER14> A random American has a 1/10,000 chance of dying to a gun this year. Half of them are suicides. Hardly a 'gun problem' worthy of banning guns.

I have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle and dying that way, do you support banning motorcycles too?

<comment><USER16> If you're going to lecture someone on numbers, at least get your arguments right.

1\. You should separately account for "random Americans" and americans that actually own guns. I, too, would have a higher chance of crashing my motorcycle... if only I owned a one.

2\. Vehicular transportation is a worldwide leading cause of death. It is a problem that is defining the beginning of the 21st century, what with self- driving autos and all. You're setting a pattern in bad analogies.

3\. Do you enjoy having that extra 1 in 10k? Do you realize it's _really not that high_? By your already-biased numbers, there's a 3% chance that someone in your non-gun-owning household of 5 will die with more holes in their body than they were born with.

<comment><USER14> > You should separately account for "random Americans" and americans that > actually own guns.

Yes, but I'm overstating the risk to parent by choosing random Americans vs. Americans who own guns. This is fine because it helps my argument the least. Consider that someone who is anti-gun like parent can easily choose not to have a gun in his home and further reduce his risk without the need for legislation.

> Vehicular transportation is a worldwide leading cause of death. It is a > problem that is defining the beginning of the 21st century, what with self- > driving autos and all. You're setting a pattern in bad analogies.

I don't understand what you're saying here.

> Do you enjoy having that extra 1 in 10k?

No, but I find it preferable to gun control (or the regulation in the article or any other kind of pre-emptive legislation against crimes that haven't even happened yet).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What I don't get it is, why make the software enforce certain frequencies? If the hardware should never be able to broadcast on a certain frequency, why not build the hardware with that limitation?

<comment><USER18> In the past that's exactly what they've tried to do, and this usually ends up clobbering the law-abiding users in the process. Most of these bands are pretty close to each other - the 10M HF band is right next to the CB band, the 2M band is right next to the emergency services bands and pretty close to both the aviation bands and the weather radio bands, and so on. Gear from one will pretty much just work on the nearby bands, absent some other protection. You can do filtering, but it's physically pretty hard to make an amplifier work ideally within its band and then immediately stop working when you take it outside its band.

So the FCC's response in the past was to make it illegal to produce anything that could go from [unlicensed power level] up to [licensed power level] on demand. If you wanted to make a 10M amp that could hit say 150W, you had to require at least 75W drive power because that was beyond what a legal CB radio could deliver. Kinda sucked for anyone who couldn't afford a radio with 100W of drive, and I think they eventually let off a bit because they were losing the battle to cheap Chinese junk sold over the internet. They're very proactive about enforcement, they'll get you sooner or later, but until then it's better for everyone if you're not spewing harmonics everywhere.

There are radios and amps that use a frequency analyzer to automatically cut out when operated out of their intended bands, they're just very expensive compared to most of the gear that's out there. And a lot of the Software Defined Radios and so on are actually wideband radios that are physically capable of operating across a bunch of bands. These are very concerning for the FCC, and you pretty much cannot limit these physically, it has to be built into the firmware or the controlling software. Hence the article.

There's also just different rules for different license classes. As a radio amateur, I can also use 2.4 GHz (13cm band) under my license, and I am allowed to operate with up to 1500 to 2500 watts EIRP depending on mode. That is of course subject to lots of limitations including "minimum necessary power", but there's nothing physically stopping you from taking a 13cm amp sold for radio amateurs and running wifi over it. Same frequency, how does the radio know?

<comment><USER19> > _There are radios and amps that use a frequency analyzer to automatically > cut out when operated out of their intended bands, they 're just very > expensive compared to most of the gear that's out there._

Why is that expensive? It obviously can't require fancy hardware if it can also be done in software.

<comment><USER20> Here's a contrived version of this:

Imagine trying to design a calculator that isn't allowed to display the digit '8' on its LCD display.

In software, the implementation sees if the LCD is being set to a value that contains '8' in binary and if so, ignores the input.

In hardware, you have to have a camera that is pointed at the LCD, and a hardware OCR implementation that looks for the 8, and then a circuit that when the OCR implementation sees an 8, turns off the display.

<comment><USER18> Just to fill in the context that's missing here:

1\. If you have a single radio unit, you can easily do the "software" implementation where you look at what you're going to be broadcasting and cut it off if it's not legal. The problem comes when you have separate radio and amplifiers - the amplifier has no idea what whether you're feeding it 10M or CB frequncies. It will amplify either just fine, so the FCC really prefers you to build in a "hardware" type implementation there (a frequency analyzer that figures out what's going into it). It's just expensive to do so - like if you didn't already have a digital amp, you might easily add 1/4 or 1/2 to the cost just to get some dumb logic built in. And you can still probably get around it if you really try.

2\. There is a disproportionate amount of cheap gear and old gear in circulation. We didn't get "smart" rigs until the late 90s at a minimum, and even so they are vastly outnumbered by stuff from the glory days of the 50s, 60s, and 70s. There has always been a relatively small amount of high-power stuff in circulation, and there's even less smart high-power stuff. A lot of the modern kit-built stuff like the Elecraft K2 focuses on QRP (effective operation on low power) instead of crazy high output.

3\. This manifests as a CRAZY price curve. It's relatively easy to get an old radio from the 70s that'll do 50 or 100W (especially after factoring in weak, aging tubes, etc). A modern mini-rig that will do 25W or something is also relatively affordable. But if you want something new, powerful, or new AND powerful you can easily jump into the thousands of dollars. For the cost of a modern rig that'll do any given power level, you can afford an older rig and an amp that will put out an equally good signal with substantially more power. Or with a better antenna. And so on.

4\. There's nothing wrong with the old gear and things like tubes can be fixed. If you trash your new wünder-rig it's garbage. So given that amateurs are crafty people (the proto-hacker, really) there's a strong incentive to make the old or lower-power stuff work, because it's repairable when it breaks.

<comment><USER19> Thanks for the info, cbhl and paulmd. I'm afraid I still don't quite get it, probably because I don't understand EE and radio as well as I ought to.

Why is there significant expense in putting a ROM chip between the radio and the amplifier that cuts out certain frequencies? I can see where that's not _as_ simple as mandating software that is simply incapable of generating bad frequencies in the first place, but it intuitively strikes me as the same sort of embedded programming that goes into, say, a microwave oven--I can see it adding some cost, but not so much that it would be unfeasible in e.g. an home wifi router. What am I not understanding?

<comment><USER21> Chicken and Egg. If you can modify the radio (hardware/software), you can modify the protection device.

Adding a protection device merely shifts the problem (being discussed) from the radio to the protection device.

It achieves exactly nothing.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure that follows. On the kind of wifi router that the FCC wants to ban, you can install new firmware because it's designed to allow you to to that. You could have accessible firmware whose signals have to pass through a non-accessible ROM.

<comment><USER20> You can change the frequency that a thing communicates on by changing the length of the wire in the antenna, and you can change the strength of the signal by changing the shape of the antenna, and the ROM will be none-the- wiser.

An example of the former is "homemade AM radio", where you wrap a lot of wire in a coil, and changing where you complete the the circuit along the coil allows you to "tune into" different frequencies.

An example of the latter is the cantenna, a directional antenna that can be made from a Pringles can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> A driver is not an OS, notwithstanding the legitimate and well-founded objections to driver signing as it affects open source operating systems...but I'm willing to firgive a little hyperbole in the pursuit of attention. On the other hand:

 _I firmly and respectfully disagree. The user always knows their life better than anyone else. Linux exists because users could modify their device. OpenWrt exists because users could modify their device. CyanogenMod exists because users could modify their device. Ultimately, a software community which believe users are fundamentally unqualified is a broken community. I trust users to take responsibility for their own lives._

Sure, philosophically I feel the same way. But as soon as I begin broadcasting, I'm not just living my life any more, I'm affecting yours, too. Probably not by much, but possibly by a lot - what if my actions impact your ability to live your life?

Externalities are an economic fact. The article itself discusses ways that ignorant or indifferent radio users could cause trouble for others. Pre- emptive regulation of the sort the FCC engages in is annoying, but what other mechanism is proposed to prevent spectrum abuse? We saw from the Marriott Hotel case that where economic incentives exist, some actors will opt to defect and collect an economic rent.

<comment><USER23> _> as soon as I begin broadcasting, I'm not just living my life any more, I'm affecting yours, too_

Do you have a wifi router? If so, you are already broadcasting. Have your neighbors complained that they can't use their wifi because of your broadcasting?

The huge missing piece in this whole discussion, to me, is: how much of a problem actually exists? How many people actually have problems using wifi because someone else is violating the FCC rules? My sense is that the number is very small.

 _> Pre-emptive regulation of the sort the FCC engages in is annoying_

I think it's much worse than annoying. Perhaps you don't do any hacking on any device that has a wifi radio; if so, it might only be annoying to you. But if even a small number of people who want to innovate (and won't be doing anything that would break the rules anyway) are prevented from doing so because of pre-emptive regulation, that is a big price to pay. Particularly if, as I suggested above, the magnitude of the actual problem is small.

 _> what other mechanism is proposed to prevent spectrum abuse?_

The article suggests two: social norms, and aggressive enforcement against actual offenders--as in the Marriott case.

<comment><USER22> My neighbors haven't complained because I'm not doing anything particularly radical with my router. But if I started swamping their signals I imagine they would be annoyed about it. I thought this context was obvious in my post above.

 _The article suggests two: social norms, and aggressive enforcement against actual offenders--as in the Marriott case._

And people who disagree with our perspective thought the Marriott case was a big government shakedown. I am disinclined to rely on social norms, given that there are often substantial economic rewards for flouting them.

<comment><USER23> _> My neighbors haven't complained because I'm not doing anything particularly radical with my router. But if I started swamping their signals I imagine they would be annoyed about it._

But you're not swamping their signals. Neither are the vast majority of people who have routers. So the vast majority of people are _not_ hindering each other by broadcasting. That includes many people (like me) who have routers with third party open source firmware on them (I run OpenWRT). Just saying "well, someone _could_ swamp others' signals" isn't enough to justify pre- emptive regulation; that should require showing that enough people _are_ swamping others' signals to make ordinary enforcement insufficient.

 _> people who disagree with our perspective thought the Marriott case was a big government shakedown_

How do you think those people would view pre-emptive regulation by the government?

 _> I am disinclined to rely on social norms, given that there are often substantial economic rewards for flouting them._

I see the economic incentive in the case of a large corporation like Marriott (and that's why I mentioned them in connection with enforcement, not social norms). But for ordinary users who just want to run routers in their homes? Social norms seems like a reasonable way to regulate in that case.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Apologies for the off-topic comment, but I feel compelled to say that a #6D6D6D anchor color with a #444444 body text color on a white background is a terrible UX choice. I guess they expect me to hover over the entire paragraph to see if it contains any links.

</comment><comment><USER25> Go ahead and ban new OSes on radio hardware. These are radios. Anyone can build them (see the ubertooth). My startup will be called "locked down radios" and our products will come with a very serious EULA instructing you to never ever ever cut that one little wire blocking you from flashing on new software.

(serious business to do now. The new Muppets show is on.)

</comment><comment><USER26> Nitpick: a 1kW amp wouldn't be sufficient only on the AP side in order to expand your WiFi range.

You'd need a damn good RX amplifier with damn good antennas or have a 1kW TX amp on the other station, too, in order to get wide-range communication.

</comment><comment><USER27> How is this not equivalent to a theoretical "The ATF Might Ban Specific [Gun] Operating Systems"? The ban isn't on the OS, the ban is on the gun (or in this case, high-powered radio).

</comment><comment><USER28> Note that the FCC _still_ hasn't stopped manufacturers from using RP-SMA connectors on their routers, despite ruling that they are "commonly available" in 2000.

<comment><USER29> Can you elaborate on why the FCC would ban a commonly used antenna connector?

<comment><USER30> Adding higher gain antennas without decreasing transmit power is a common way for people to exceed authorized transmit power. The regulatory theory was that by using a "uncommon" connector only people who know to decrease transmit power (the "professional installer") would be changing antennas: [https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm...](https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/kdb/forms/FTSSearchResultPage.cfm?id=29031&switch=P)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Do they do this because they don't have the resources to enforce the law?

</comment><comment><USER32> Nasty. The last thing we need is FCC mandating DRM by law.

</comment><comment><USER33> In 5 years we'll all just be using a SoC as the entire computer, so likely there will be no free operating systems considering they'll also make it illegal to tamper with any approved operating system bootloaders/firmware so can't replace anything on it.

</comment><comment><USER34> Conjunctive mode verb ("might") in the title -> bullshit.

<comment><USER35> 1\. Subjunctive, not conjunctive.

2\. Mood, not mode.

3\. This isn't subjunctive anyway.

4\. But it wouldn't make the article bullshit even if it were. (But funny enough, "were" is subjunctive.)</comment></comment>