The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD - <AUTHOR> https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2018-December/072422.html <comment><USER2> There are some interesting comments further in the mail thread from Matthew Ahrens (co-creator of ZFS) and Alan Jude (has recently been working on getting zstandard into ZFS) that give more insight.

Matthew Ahrens[1]:

 _…Being "upstream" is more a matter of degree than an absolute ordering. In the past, most ZFS features have originated in illumos, and those changes have been ported to the other platforms (notably FreeBSD and ZoL). Looking forward, we see more features originating in ZoL. The OpenZFS community (including FreeBSD) is working to put in place technical processes to ensure that new ZFS features are available on all platforms. The original post in this thread was a proposal for how to do that._

Alan Jude[2]:

 _…The way that things have evolved over the last few years means it would be much more difficult to just import changes from ZoL. ZoL was originally far behind the OpenZFS repo, but as they were catching up, they were also fixing bugs and adding features. So there is not really a common point in the source we could start from to import ZoL commit by commit.… The biggest thing to remember is that this is still OpenZFS, and still run by the same developers as it has been. We are just commonizing on the repo that has the most features integrated into it._

[1] [https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2018-Dec...](https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2018-December/072431.html)

[2] [https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2018-Dec...](https://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd- current/2018-December/072430.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> > In the past few years the vast majority of new development in ZFS has taken > place in DelphixOS and zfsonlinux (ZoL). Earlier this year Delphix announced > that they will be moving to ZoL [https://www.delphix.com/blog/kickoff- > future-eko-2018](https://www.delphix.com/blog/kickoff-future-eko-2018) This > shift means that there will be little to no net new development of Illumos.

So, basically, Delphix was a (the only?) commercial user of Illumos and now they're abandoning it for Linux, which means Illumos will starve for manpower going forward?

It also sounds like FreeBSD also lacks the resources to maintain an implementation of something like ZFS, which is ironic since not too long ago it seemed like one of the marquee features they had that Linux didn't.

<comment><USER4> > It also sounds like FreeBSD also lacks the resources to maintain an > implementation of something like ZFS, which is ironic since not too long ago > it seemed like one of the marquee features they had that Linux didn't.

There's no contradiction here. FreeBSD was never the primary contributor to (Open)ZFS (it was an Illumos thing), but we had the resources to make it a first class citizen on FreeBSD at a time when Linux wasn't doing that (mostly for licensing reasons).

It seems like the Linux world has gotten over the licensing problem one way or another, and at the end of the day Linux has something like 100x-1000x more developers to bring to bear at the problem. So between that, and illumos' imminent death, ZoL is the active upstream. FreeBSD is happy to benefit from the ZFS improvements in ZoL, especially given the collaborative spirit we've seen from the ZoL team so far. If anything, kudos to the ZoL folks for the huge amount of effort they've put in over the last handful of years.

<comment><USER5> I just wish the ZFS could be more tightly integrated into Linux than it can (due to licensing). Would be nice to not have two implementations of a crypto system, a raid parity computation system, block caching, allocation, etc. Oh well...

<comment><USER6> is it just licensing? Doesn't it do its own thing in the vfs layer and perhaps others in a way that it wouldn't be accepted upstream either way?

<comment><USER4> I don't see any reason ZoL couldn't stub out their own CDDL implementations and invoke Linux functions directly, where they are a suitable replacement. The problem is almost always going to be that ZFS was designed for Solaris and adapting it to use Linux APIs is non-trivial. The code duplication bothers me less than the page cache duplication / cache reclaim logic integration.

<comment><USER5> It's not just to reduce the amount of ZoL specific work.

If I understand correctly, the developers were saying there are specific parts of Linux where anything using them is considered a derivative work, and therefore even distributing source would be a violation of GPL. An instance of this is the crypto layer that was added in recently with the native dataset encryption. SPL actually reimplements this logic because the ZoL maintainers claim they can't use the Linux crypto subsystem without violating GPL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jamieson-becker The most interesting (and tragic) part of this, to me, is not that ZFS is being rebased from Illumos (open source Solaris) to ZFS on Linux:

... it's that Solaris is effectively finished as an OS. It's not even its own upstream anymore for arguably the greatest modern contribution to any OS.

This is tragic, and needless. Oracle effectively shot itself in its own foot with the pointless and deliberate choice of licenses, the on-again, off-again open sourcing of Solaris, and the complete lack of commitment. Solaris had a real shot of remaining a fine alternative UNIX operating system, at least for the server side of things, but now this shot is gone.

They killed Solaris like they killed Java.

<comment><USER7> You are assuming they ever even cared about Solaris.

They bought Java, because they were using it everywhere in their own product offering, and didn't want it under someone else's control (esp. if IBM would have been Sun's buyer rather than them).

Anything else which came with the purchase (Solaris, OpenOffice, VirtualBox, MySQL, the hardware business, 30K+ employees) amounted to, in their eyes, literally strings attached, that they had to pretend to care about for a while.

Even Java itself is not getting treated too well, but that was never the point - the point is not to lose control, and to monetize what they can.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> OT, sort of: I am banned (permanently? [2]) from the #zfsonlinux IRC channel because I connected to it via IRCCloud [1]. It's this kind of attitude that worries me about using it.

1: [http://irccloud.com](http://irccloud.com)

2: [https://irc-source.com/channel/freenode/%23zfsonlinux- quaran...](https://irc-source.com/channel/freenode/%23zfsonlinux-quarantine)

<comment><USER9> They probably don't want another service storing and analysing your messages.

The free version is basically useless: "Stay connected for 2 hours while inactive (permanent for first 7 days)" because of this.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but I can't even reconnect with another client with my normal Freenode account now.

<comment><USER10> Hit up #freenode and see if one of the staff can mediate wih the channel ops for you - "I was banned by account because irccloud but am happy to use another client" seems like a reasonable request to me

(I'm freenode staff but currently mostly on hiatus due to lack of tuits)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > many races and locking bugs have been fixed in ZoL and never made it back to > Illumos and thus FreeBSD

Why would that be? Lack of interest on sending them upstream or them being sent but never merged back?

<comment><USER12> I would guess it's because people don't always try to figure out whether bugs they find that appear to be in Linux-specific code can be reproduced in other codebases, rather than explicit lack of interest or PRs going nowhere slowly.

<comment><USER11> Is there enough interest in ZFS that an organization could be set up to keep a single core ZFS and coordinate its ports into different OSs in a way all ports benefit from updates and the frontier between core and OS can be clearer?

<comment><USER13> Well, this mailing list discussion is serving that function; how much more of an "organization" would you want?

I suppose you could argue for having a single, explicitly OS-independent "upstream repository" rather than treating either Illumos or ZoL as upstream? I doubt there are enough developers who would want to work on ZFS generically rather than ZFS in the context of a particular OS. ZoL maintains a clear separation from Linux proper for licensing reasons so I'd think they're "independent enough" to serve as upstream for non-Linux versions.

<comment><USER11> > ZoL maintains a clear separation from Linux proper for licensing reasons so > I'd think they're "independent enough" to serve as upstream for non-Linux > versions.

That would neatly solve the issue of ZoL patches never making it back to Illumos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a long-time BSD user (since 1982) this both saddens and heartens me. It saddens me, that the core development path in BSD was not able to sustain being the "reference" model for a wider community. There is no point pretending you can, when nobody else wants to follow that model.

The heartening moment, is that linux and BSD should share code when they can, because its sensiblet to avoid pointless fork. Pointful fork, (and I exclude licence terms mostly) is something we have to deal with. Pointless forking is just a royal pain.

An outcome of this _should_ be that I get more guarantee a ZVOL export/import cycle across Linux/BSD (which btw I have now done about 10 times on 10TB ZFS filesystems) will work with no awkward binary consequence to flag/version mismatch which came about because of two codebases: version mismatch because one was "old" and one is "new" is a different thing.

<comment><USER15> > It saddens me, that the core development path in BSD was not able to sustain > being the "reference" model for a wider community.

Could you explain? FreeBSD was not the reference implementation of ZFS, illumos was. ZoL is still tied up in the OpenZFS project (as are illumos and FreeBSD), this is more a matter of rebasing onto the subproject where more development is occurring. As it was, FreeBSD's implementation was already using a Solaris/illumos compatibility shim, and it sounds like switching isn't _that_ much work.

<comment><USER14> Oh, I misunderstood. I thought the input back into Linux ZFS grew out of the (Free)BSD work. If its two independent OS trees both referring upstream to Illumos, its a minor moment.

What does the solaris compatibility shim do in the end, which couldn't be done direct in the codebase? I don't like shims, it feels like the linux compatibility ABI moment where something gets added and the shim drifts, and then you can't do eg DRI any more because "they changed how it worked and we didn't catch up"

But, thanks for the cluestick hit. If this is just flavour of ice-cream from the same truck, I'm less worried.

<comment><USER16> The shim, as I understand it, for linux is there to both handle some licensing differences and to also translate between Linux's io subsystem which isn't going to be turned into Solaris' nor will ZFS's be turned into Linux's IO subsystem directly. They're basically compatible but have different ways of doing things so it results in needing a shim to handle things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Is there a resource that explains the historical intricacies and licensing issues surrounding ZFS from the beginning? From what I've seen, it's a clusterfuck whichever *nix OS you like.

<comment><USER18> As I understand it, including ZFS requires all linked code to be bound by the CDDL, which the GPL cannot do.

[https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and- linux/](https://sfconservancy.org/blog/2016/feb/25/zfs-and-linux/)

"[§]3.1 … Any Covered Software that You distribute or otherwise make available in Executable form must also be made available in Source Code form and that Source Code form must be distributed only under the terms of this License. …

"[§] 3.4 … You may not offer or impose any terms on any Covered Software in Source Code form that alters or restricts the applicable version of this License."

<comment><USER19> But Ubuntu figured it was ok to ship with zfs.

[https://blog.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and- linux](https://blog.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-linux)

Though FSF doesn't seem to support it.

[https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and- linux](https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux)

And a few HN posts regarding the Ubuntu's announcement.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125063](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125063)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11240402](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11240402)

<comment><USER20> >But Ubuntu figured it was ok to ship with zfs.

Yes, but it's shipped as a separate kernel module (as in separate file) rather than built into the Linux kernel. As for the legality of this, it can really only be determined in court, which hopefully won't happen since I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone.

It would be great if it could eventually be part of Linux mainline which would then allow it to easily be used on boot volumes as well. That would require dual/relicensing though, since Linus Torvalds have said that CDDL code will not be merged with mainline (most likey a result of consultation with Linux Foundation lawyers).

<comment><USER21> > I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now > that Sun is gone.

Oracle? I doubt they would, but I mean, it's Oracle.

<comment><USER22> I get you point but Oracle don't really seem all that interested in maximizing Solaris.

The problem we have is Oracle also don't seem at all interested in maximizing ZFS either. So they'd quite happily see both die.

<comment><USER19> Only until they figure suing others would be worth a grab for them.

<comment><USER22> That doesn't contradict my statement.

One can be aggressively litigating using ones IP while also letting the technology behind that IP die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'll admit, I feel somewhat smug over this after being talked down to by BSD guys. Regardless, I'm glad we can all enjoy a shared codebase for an amazing filesystem.

</comment><comment><USER24> It's my understanding that code will not be committed into OpenZFS if it cannot be compiled in both Linux and FreeBSD.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> TL;DR FreeBSD will rebase its ZFS code from Illumos to ZFS on Linux (ZoL).

<comment><USER25> If the ZFS FreeBSD code are going to be taken from ZoL, what's the difference of use ZFS on FreeBSD and GNU/Linux?

<comment><USER18> FreeBSD can bundle it in the installer, and put the root filesystem in a ZFS dataset.

Because of GPL incompatibility with the CDDL, Linux cannot do this. A compliant installer must put root on something else, usually ext4 or xfs. A Linux installer iso putting root in a zfs dataset opens a terrible legal door.

<comment><USER26> Of course Linux can do this. I'm writing this very reply on a Linux system booted directly off a ZFS dataset.

        % zfs list rpool/ROOT/default
        NAME                 USED  AVAIL  REFER  MOUNTPOINT
        rpool/ROOT/default  14.8G  60.1G  11.9G  /

Support for this exists in GRUB and initramfs-tools, and it works perfectly.

The GPL is not an EULA. It's a distribution licence. There is absolutely no problem in using ZFS on your system, and there's no legal restriction on what an installer may or may not do.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> does this mean anything for mac?

<comment><USER19> Apple already has apfs.

<comment><USER28> And? How's this relevant?

<comment><USER19> I mean, there's unlikely to be any official support of zfs on Mac and the fact Apple developed apfs recently could mean there's less appetite for community to port and support zfs on Mac.

<comment><USER29> > _could mean there 's less appetite for community to port and support zfs on > Mac._

Eh? The community port and support already happened, _years ago_. I made the move myself from ZEVO once Spotlight support got mainlined but even that was a while ago and it already had a ton of great features before that. It is a small scale effort compared to Linux _or_ FreeBSD of course, but it has kept up pretty darn well and is pretty solidly developed at this point. I push it pretty hard on my Macs and it's been pretty reliable, though there are definitely edge case oddities that can be found. You can also see the smaller scale of the effort in areas like the wiki not being fully up to date, or that booting off of it still is rough. Even so it's pretty solid at this point and hits all the core features including encryption.

Long term the big risk of course is that Apple will shut off all user low level access to their drives via T-series chips in Macs, since they don't actually give hardware owners the ability to use their own keys there. Ideally this would be illegal but I doubt any movement will be made on that in the US at least in the near future. Even so given that Apple up until recent has still been selling brand new Macs without it macOS itself will likely support running on those systems for a long time to come (Apple still officially supports running the existing version even on 8 year old MPs, granted with compromises but those had pretty fundamental divergences from modern firmware too). O3X is still pretty nice in the mean time.

<comment><USER30> I'm not terribly afraid of Apple doing that move. With Core Storage, Apple already has abstracted away low level storage access years ago. Even if Core Storage was mandatory (which it isn't), O3X runs perfectly fine on top of Core Storage either with or without ZFS encryption. O3X will continue to run happily as long as block-level storage access remains built into macOS. And it will because APFS is a very young filesystem, which depends on block-level access; it took Apple a decade to build APFS from scratch so there's no way for Apple to get rid of this dependency without throwing APFS away and starting from scratch.

But what if Apple simply built APFS into one of the next generations of T-series chips so it can physically deny block-level access to software? Not going to happen: Apple needs APFS to work not only with built-in storage but also with external USB drives, RAM disks, DMGs, sparse bundles, and so on. This means APFS needs to remain in kernel space, and kernel code will continue to have block-level access, and so will O3X and all of its features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Hope this puts to rest the claim that zfs on bsd is better maintained and integrated than zol!

<comment><USER32> > and integrated

Considering one of thse comes default the base system and the installer can install to it, has jail(8) integration, etc etc

and one of them is an addon which will never be merged to the main kernel (which is only a kernel), and because of this, will likely never be directly supported by the main linux distribution vendors, I'd say the jury is still out on this piece..

lack of base system integration for linuces also leaves the 'maintained' somewhat up in the air too.. if I'm running $linux_flavor and Zfs crashes, and the ZoL devs blame this particular distros particular configuration/build options, toolchain, etc where do I go for a fix?

migrate to another linux with totally different package mgmt, etc?

but yes, it looks like the zfs core code itself is more actively updated for that portion directly.

<comment><USER33> > will likely never be directly supported by the main linux distribution > vendors

Zfs is front and center for lxd on Ubuntu - and about as "supported" as can be?

I just can't wait for crypto support to really land in open zfs - would make it even easier to use for external drives (now encryption needs separate support, geli on bsd, dm-crypt/luks on Linux). And using zfs as a volume manager would make things in general easier and less complicated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> DragonflyBSD Hammer2 filesystem all of a sudden looks way more appealing.

Kind of ironic given DragonflyBSD roots in FreeBSD

<comment><USER35> > DragonflyBSD Hammer2 filesystem all of a sudden looks way more appealing.

Why? Existing FreeBSD ZFS users can and in all probability will continue to use it. Why does a less mature FS on a less widely used BSD derivative suddenly look appealing to you?</comment></comment>


Happy ManhattanHenge - <AUTHOR> http://abc7ny.com/news/manhattanhenge-returns-monday-lighting-up-streets-from-east-to-west/1421677/ <comment><USER2> FWIW, if you actually want to participate in this, be advised that you have to get there extremely early to get a good spot. I remember going out in 2009 about a couple hours early and the main spots (such as the Tudor overpass [0], which is elevated over a main street and is situated about as far east as you can go without being in the river) were already staked out by folks with tripods and telephoto lens.

I ended up hopping in a cab and having the cab driver go up and down the midtown streets. Didn't get any iconic shots [1] but it was fun, as the cab driver was really into it. But even 7 years ago, pre-Instagram, crowds of people would step out in front of traffic to get a shot of Manhattanhenge.

Uber wasn't around back then. I wonder if you could get better shots than I did from the back of a taxi by riding shotgun?

[0] [https://foursquare.com/v/tudor-city- overpass/4fc6addde4b0115...](https://foursquare.com/v/tudor-city- overpass/4fc6addde4b01153fc551766)

[1] From my Flickr: [https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=32451477@N02&q=manhattanhen...](https://www.flickr.com/search/?w=32451477@N02&q=manhattanhenge)

</comment><comment><USER3> I always find it funny that the summer ManhattanHenges (there are two, one as the sun's inclination increases and one as it decreases) are so celebrated, yet the winter versions of the phenomena (when the sun lines up with the city grid at sunrise) are ignored. As someone who used to have to drive uphill along one of Manhattan's streets during my winter morning commute, they were far more noticeable/annoying.

<comment><USER4> I had an astronomy prof who cancelled morning classes on the days where the sun lined up with the roads. He even lobbied the university to make it some sort of road safety holiday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> If I had a time machine one of the things I'd do is go three thousand years into the future and laugh at the archeologists who speculate about our culture's obsession with astronomy because we built this "religious monument" that aligns with the sun on a particular day of the year.

<comment><USER6> If I had a time machine I'd go back and convince them to align the grid more perfectly, so that it happened precisely at the solstices instead of just before/after.

<comment><USER7> But this way, you get double the Manhattanhenge. Seems like a good trade to me!

<comment><AUTHOR> One theory is that archaic Manhattanites celebrated a long midsummer religious holiday. It began with the sun rising between the temples and ended weeks later with its setting between the temples. Of course, the constraints of underwater archeology makes definitive interpretation difficult.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > The term "Manhattanhenge" was coined by Museum of Natural History Hayden > Planetarium Director Neil deGrasse Tyson.

Really? Him? He was the first to make that link? Or was he simply the first to use the term on television.

</comment><comment><USER8> Time to listen to "The Chemistry of Common Life" [1]

[1] [http://matablog.matadorrecords.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/1...](http://matablog.matadorrecords.com/wp- content/uploads/2008/10/ole-807-the-chemistry-of.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER9> We need to come up with a better name as this happens in all cities with East- West roads.

<comment><USER10> Manhattan's East-West streets are not laid out due East/West. They're actually 29 degrees clockwise of the true cardinal directions!

So these dates are particular to Manhattan.

<comment><USER11> That is a fun fact, and also explains why manhattanhenge only happens at sunset and not also sunrise. A true east-west sunrise/sunset occurs at the equinoxes (Spring and Fall)

<comment><USER12> It does happen at sunrise roughly 18 days before and after the winter solstice. (Dec 3 and Jan 10)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Huh, we were just talking about this looking at the sunset behind Manhattan across the river from Brooklyn yesterday. Didn't know it was almost the exact day it happens.

</comment><comment><USER14> >The sun sets on 23th Street during 'Manhattanhenge' on July 11, 2014 in New York City. (Getty)

>on 23th Street

>23th

good job abc

<comment><USER15> Nothing wrong with the sentiment, but the 4chan style isn't going to win you friends here.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's your #1 productivity hack? - <AUTHOR> This one works for me "Picking the right thing to work on is the most important element of productivity and usually almost ignored." from Sam Altman. I take the time each day to prioritize my tasks, meetings, etc. <comment><USER3> You probably hear all the usual productivity hacks like promodoro, start with small things, constantly do it, switch off distractions, etc (which i do too in some form) but let me tell you an unorthodox technique I came up with that was inspired by this tweet - [https://twitter.com/tkiramadden/status/1255516715502522370](https://twitter.com/tkiramadden/status/1255516715502522370)

For me, I don't always have an issue being productive when I am in the zone but I have a problem of sometimes being unable to "jump-start" into that mode. Its like the engineers/developers version of a writers block and I get the occasional mental block when I need to create something.

So what do I do to overcome this?

I gave $1,000 to a really trusted friend and told him, if I dont show him the thing I want to create by the end of the week, he can give that money to an organisation that I absolutely against with on principle (think brainwashing) and hate with my guts.

Boy, it was sure a motivator to my brain on day 5 or 6. :)

<comment><USER4> Ha, I once considered using a variant of that one (don't remember where I read it) to stop smoking.

I was planning to tell everyone I know that if they could show me a picture of me smoking after I'd officially quit, I'd give a 1.000€ to the political party I hated the most.

I quit on my own, but it's nice to see the method works :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> For many people, sleep seems to be the #1 productivity booster. Certainly, the research seems to suggest focus suffers significantly thanks to lack of sleep - not to mention IQ.

Needless to say there seem to be exceptions - Margaret Thatcher famously coped with 4 hours a night. It's been suggested that some people's ADRB1 expression continues while they're awake, which means they need less sleep. However, less sleep is also associated with dementia late in life.

<comment><USER6> I never heard about the ADRB1 gene before. The expressed protein acts as a receptor for epinephrine and norepinephrine so it sounds like it plays a key role in regulating the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems. It makes sense that variations in the gene impact things like sleep and stress.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Kratom, vyvanse and coffee for breakfast! Makes me a relaxed, focused, alert and efficient force to be reckoned with. As it gets closer to lunch time, I'll take a stack of l-theanine, gaba, black seed oil and ashwaghanda to take the edge off the peak and prepare me for that trip to Pluto I take on my couch after a couple bong rips at the end of the shift.

</comment><comment><USER8> [https://crushentropy.com/](https://crushentropy.com/) It's like markdown for planning your day in high resolution. The hours no longer just slip through my fingers. I made it one weekend a couple of years ago and I've used it myself ever since. I'm not exaggerating when I say that my productivity has massively improved because of it.

<comment><USER9> What part of your days is marked "skim Hacker News"? Is there an entry for that?

<comment><USER8> Haha it's a struggle. On most days these days, I manage to time-box Hacker News to about 15 minutes while I have my first cup of a coffee, plus an "as long as I want" session in the late evening.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would go with keyboard hacks and short keys commands. Specifically, on Mac, I use Hammerspoon, Karabiner, and Alfred. As we know the amount of time spent moving, pointing and clicking on repetitive tasks is completely wasted time. So, if I find myself doing the the same thing for a project or daily. I'll make a short key for it. Whether it's tiling windows, command line (e.g. srbt = sudo reboot), caps locks into super key/escape key... I've made it to where almost all the keys are able to be accessed from home row using a layer keys. Think something like SpaceVim for your keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER11> doing it consistently over a long period of time. It took me years to realize that all nighters and overwork were a big mistake.

What truly works is to show up everyday consistently for years.

Like Bill said, "Most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in ten years."

<comment><USER12> I fully agree. This has become my mantra. You need to be relentless over the long term, but to maintain that, you need to relax over the short term. And by relax, I just mean, don't stress out, don't go too fast, and don't overdo it.

The parable of the totoise and the hair teaches this succinctly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My killer productivity hack is a combination of three techniques: 1. Pomodoro, 2. GTD (Getting Things Done), and 3. Spaced Repetition Learning.

Pomodoro Technique helps timebox tasks in addition to prioritizing them. Both are required to stay focused and get into the flow.

<comment><USER13> > [Pomodoro is] required to stay focused and get into the flow.

Can you elaborate on that? I've been hesitant about trying Pomodoro because it appears like it would break the flow every 30 minutes.

<comment><USER14> Not OP, but I never got on with forced stops either. I had some success treating it like a mini-deadline to achieve flow-state - work on something for 25 minutes, and if I don't feel like I want to keep going, take a break and try again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Controversial, but get off Hacker News and get to work. Best trick ever.

</comment><comment><USER16> In the last year, I wrote a nonfiction book (History of Cosplay, coming sometime next year, if all goes well), and spend much of last summer conducting research. When it came time to write, I kept stalling out. What I ended up doing was shifting the font to Comics Sans, and boom! I ended up writing quickly and efficiently.

</comment><comment><USER17> I organize everything I know I'll use daily or very often. I take it from the French kitchen term "Mise en place" [0]. It suits my work style, and think it will as well for anyone who primarily has a single workstation (I include your smartphone in that definition, say when in traveling for example). I'm aware that endlessly organizing can be a time waste, but over time I've learnt to know when it's enough, to keep moving and execute on ideas or valuable work, earning an income etc. I can always spend a few minutes re-configuring a specific set up. Apps have configuration, so should your workstation, and your operating environment in general.

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

</comment><comment><USER18> On a meta level, I would say identifying the things that drain your battery throughout the day (e.g. messy room, slow phone) and the tings that recharge your battery (e.g. calling a friend, taking the bike to work) and acting accordingly.

Also, having a nice computer. It's a bicycle for my mind, after all.

</comment><comment><USER19> Not totally life changing, but I have a playlist on Spotify that's roughly a pomodoro period long (~25 minutes). At the end of the playlist is a song that is very different to the other songs. I put in effort to not listen to these songs while not working and to play it when I want to focus. Audio triggers work for me, and the "break" song can be a great non-distracting time marker.

I have Alfa Mist and BADBADNOTGOOD (idk the genre. fusion jazz? acoustic?) as the main timer and Linkin Park's Session from Meteora as the time marker.

Here's my playlist if you want a try: [https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1CZk671K0M11aNf4LuHFbD?si=...](https://open.spotify.com/playlist/1CZk671K0M11aNf4LuHFbD?si=Pq- XyPHkQeGb6w4S5XzgiA)

</comment><comment><USER20> Fear. Nothing got me motivated to finish something like the fear of failing and the shame that I'd feel as a result. Not my favorite technique, and probably not what you're looking for, but I'm guessing half of my good accomplishments at work were based on that.

<comment><USER21> A deadline is my #1 productivity hack.

Ever start something literally the night before, and you finish at the last minute and realize how MUCH better it would be with another day to work on it?

<comment><USER20> Definitely. It's also a really good (if painful) way to decide what things are actually important to the delivery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think productivity enhancements are really tightly coupled with the domain and type of activity you are doing.

For example, as a university student, I noticed that timing the number of hours I pass on each topic is useful for 1. understanding if I'm doing too little and fixing it 2. getting the idea where I'm spending most of my time and trying to adjust accordingly

On the other hand, if the work is more project-based, I find it more difficult to track time since I find myself switching more often to different things - <USER2> solution I'm employing is writing a little todo list every morning on what I want to work on and it's working a little better

</comment><comment><USER23> As I already said here before...

Read through `man bash`. Thank me later :-)

But seriously, just take some time to read through manuals of software you _really_ use a lot. Like git, vim (or any of your fancypants code editor), shell, etc.

</comment><comment><USER24> Hearing protectors. I use a 3M Peltor X5A -31dB and Flare Isolate Pro. Dead silence, minimal bone hearing.

</comment><comment><USER25> This may sound preachy but I don't mean it to be. Turn your phone on dnd and practice checking it and email from your desktop no more than hourly. Use dnd on slack.

</comment><comment><USER26> Something I recently built has helped me stay focused and productive more than anything I've ever tried:

Timmy ([https://timmytimer.com](https://timmytimer.com)) is a free web app that combines a Pomodoro timer with social accountability and a leaderboard. The mix of those elements has been super helpful for me and a lot of other devs and students.

</comment><comment><USER27> Mental flexibility. Oftentimes, people build their identities on hard and fast beliefs. These have a way of eliminating entire directions of exploration when the ingredients that cook into a decision are being gathered. Routinely refresh your deepest beliefs and your mental architecture will be much, MUCH more optimal.

</comment><comment><USER28> I drink coffee. Take a deep breath put headphones with noise cancellation enabled and focus... is it a hack maybe ?

<comment><AUTHOR> It is! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Make sure I can go undisturbed for long periods.

</comment><comment><USER30> The nature of my work right now requires me to attend a lot of meetings (20+ meetings per-week on average), so what I do is block 2 days in a week for no- meeting days, which is Wednesday and Friday. I use these no-meeting days as a time to work on the tasks that require deep work and to get things done.

</comment><comment><USER31> Exercise at least once every other day. It does wonders for productivity and focus.

<comment><USER23> I see this so often. Yet....

I do this. In a good shape, healthy, strong.

I'm a moderately good runner on top of it, all the mental and physical benefits of it.

Yet, I can squat out the whole day anxiously looking at the time at 5pm just to realize I haven't delivered anything that day.

<comment><USER32> Would it be worse or better if you stopped exercising?

<comment><USER23> Wow, that's actually the right question.

Honestly, I don't know. Maybe it would be even worse...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> the i3 tiling window manager

</comment><comment><USER34> Freedom app has been super useful for me so far

</comment><comment><USER35> Delete Facebook

</comment><comment><USER36> Master org-mode.

</comment><comment><USER37> noprocrast: yes

<comment><USER38> And how many privilage escalation 0days before you have write access to such system variables?

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wow, a great hack and profound insight. How did no one think of this before now?</comment>


In which Eben Moglen calls out a reporter for having Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/in-which-eben-moglen-like-legit-yells-at-me-for-being-on-facebook/

<comment><USER2> "Banks aren't the problem, he said; the users tempting banks with their Twitter and Facebook postings are the problem.

As are reporters who write about privacy issues with social media without first closing their Facebook accounts."

You know he's right, don't you?

<comment><USER3> You can use Facebook in a way that doesn't endanger your personal privacy, it can be primarily a consumption platform for the endangered privacy of all of your associates. :)

<comment><USER4> This is actually entirely untrue given the way that Facebook is set up.

The most _insidious_ thing that Facebook has done, is litter the web with _their_ "Like" buttons. Oh sure, _they're_ not the ones who have put up "Like" buttons around the web, all they've done is insist that websites who _do_ want a "Like" button have to use file assets & scripts from their webserver.

Well, by tracking where the "Like" button gets loaded, they can tell what you've been watching out on the web, _even if_ you don't touch the "Like" button. Loading the button is enough. And on that basis, anyone who's set their pages up to use the "Like" button is informing on you. And in turn, your very use of the web becomes part of Facebook's surveillance.

<comment><USER5> This is why it is _essential_ for people who are concerned about privacy to use run Firefox and install the RequestPolicy extension. I simply don't whitelist facebook's domains and thus couldn't be tracked even if I had a Facebook account.

<comment><USER6> This. The only regret I had about switching from Firefox to Chromium is the lack of RequestPolicy. Apparently the hooks aren't there, as with AdBlockPlus.

In fact, just thinking about it now ... why did I switch? I should try Firefox again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article makes me angry, and the groupthink of most the replies I read here supporting Moglen make me angry too.

You know what causes a real ecological disaster?

Washing Machines.

Yes, _FUCKING_ washing machines.

They use too much of one of the worlds rarest resources (clean water), contribute to global warming and pollute the waste water with phosphates.

On the other hand, they have freed up half the worlds workforce from backbreaking manual labor and contributed to society enough that no less than Hans Rosling calls them the _greatest invention of the industrial revolution_ [1]

Facebook allows companies to sell advertising and allows law enforcement to track you.

On the other hand, it allows quicker and easier communication than ever before, and contributed to the Arab Spring to the point where the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt are known as "the Facebook revolutions" [2][3]

Convenience has costs, but who is Moglen to judge if those costs are worthwhile for everyone?

[1] [http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_...](http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_and_the_magic_washing_machine.html) (watch this video - it's really good)

[2] [http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/so- was...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2011/09/so-was-facebook- responsible-for-the-arab-spring-after-all/244314/)

[3] <http://www.technologyreview.com/web/38379/>

Edit: To all those claiming this is a strawman - it's not. Moglen failed to point out the benefits of social networking, and I'm using an analogy to show that most things have costs and benefits. Please don't get distracted into an argument about that.

I'd love to see people try and explain how Moglen is right about Twitter (which has much lower privacy costs than Facebook).

<comment><USER8> Wow, that's quite a straw man you have there.

Washing machines are tools. Facebook is a platform. If Mr. Moglen was attacking the postal service or mobile phones, you'd have a point. But he is talking about a centralized service that gives unprecedented power to the ones in control of the service and the jurisdictions it falls under.

I can stand in front of my washing machine and say, with total clarity, that I'm the only one in charge of it at that time. If I had a facebook account, there would be no such thing. And that doesn't even get to Mr. Moglens deeper point - that usage of facebook spreads the problem into your social graph.

As for the "facebook revolutions" you cite - that's quite a rosy picture you paint there. In reality, those services _were_ used to track protesters and there have been coordinating handouts urging participants _not_ to use social media for that reason. Furthermore, after these 'revolutions' have cooled down, it's still unclear what we will end up with. I would conclude that at most, those services served as catalysts and their convenience came at quite a cost indeed. But it's not Arab Youth + Facebook = Functioning Democracy.

<comment><USER7> My response is far from a strawman.

Moglen pointed out all the problems with Facebook (and Twitter) without showing the benefits.

<comment><USER8> So you say it's not a straw man. Maybe you have some more words left to explain yourself on that point?

He was asked for the problems. It's not his job to advertise social networking services.

One of the big figures of Software Freedom is asked about the drawbacks of social networking services and you start your argument with saying that he doesn't talk about the benefits. And then you compare the drawbacks to the ecological damage of washing machines (with the recent advances in efficiency, nobody is making as strong a point against them as you are trying to force). Nope, sorry, that's a straw man. And a very weak one at that.

I think if anything, having those three big issues out there (privacy violations, tracking by government, careless spreading of the two into the social graph), Mr. Moglen would be correct to say that the cost is already too great to be weighed against with any benefits.

<comment><USER7> _A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position._

I don't think I misrepresented Moglen's position in anyway. He only spoke about the negative aspects of social networking, but nothing about the conveniences. Argument by analogy isn't a strawman.

I agree that recent advances in washing machines have improved them, and that the environmental impact of them is far outweighed by the convenience.

Indeed, that is _my point_.

For me - and many others - the convenience and advantages of social networking outweighs the costs. I make that decision in full knowledge of those costs, and I think it is fair to point out that there are advantages as well as costs.

<comment><USER8> Mr. Moglen is well known to speak against and was asked to comment on the drawbacks of social networks. You are attacking a straw man if you complain that he isn't talking about the benefits.

        Person A: Sunny days are good.
        Person B: If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death. Therefore, you are wrong.
        Problem: B has misrepresented A's claim by falsely suggesting that A claimed that only sunny days are good, and then B refuted the misrepresented version of the claim, rather than refuting A's original assertion.

You are picking a discussion that Mr. Moglen was not having.

The benefits of social networks are self evident - they enable communication in an unprecedented way. His argument is that the drawbacks he is talking about are unnecessary and dangerous and that some of the technology may seem useful, but is actually just thinly disguised non-social behavior ("keeping up" with somebody may border on "stalking"). You have not addressed any of his arguments while complaining that he didn't address points that nobody was discussing to begin with.

So yes, one more, final, time - your argument is a straw man.

<comment><USER7> Wait - so I'm not allowed to attack omissions in his arguments?

That's like saying when Rick Santorum points out what he sees as problems with gay marriage no one can point out the benefits because it is a strawman.

That's ridiculous!

<comment><USER8> Alright, this is moving quickly into troll territory. One final reply:

The premise of the article we are discussing was this:

"My editor wanted a quote from a privacy advocate, so I immediately thought of Eben "Spying for Free" Moglen, a militant digital privacy advocate, founder of the uber-secure personal server FreedomBox, and the inspiration for the decentralized social network Diaspora."

Eben Moglen was asked for his statement as a privacy advocate. There is nothing to be said about facebook in terms of being a privacy advocate. Except for maybe "sure wish they'd try some!". And that's the end of your argument right there.

Eben Moglen argues that facebook is bad because of the gross privacy violations it institutionalized. His argument is perfectly sound and coherent and doesn't need any forced "balancing" to be valid. He is not omitting any facts to make his argument.

You are welcome to argue against it, but you have instead chosen to act as though his argument is moot because he didn't make yours. That's not how arguments work.

Your 'Rick Santorum' point boggles the mind. Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs. You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and _that_ would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument.

<comment><USER7> _Rick Santorum is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs._

Moglen is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs.

 _You could now attack a point completely unrelated or only superficially related to his rants about gay marriage and that would be a straw man. You could also, however, argue for or against his points with your own argument._

This is true. Additionally, one could point out the good things about gay marriage. That's a perfectly reasonable approach.

Specific to the Moglen argument, it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to argue against his points because I agree with a lot of them. However, I think the benefits are more important and I won't sit still and let only one side of the argument be presented.

How would you suggest I should present benefits of social networking without you calling me a troll or saying my argument is a strawman?

<comment><USER8> _Moglen is not attacking a straw man, he is stating his honest, if misguided, beliefs._

Seems like you finally got it! (Although I disagree that his beliefs are misguided.)

Moglen was stating his beliefs because he was asked for them. _You_ created a straw man to argue against them.

You could have just said "I agree with Mr. Moglen on points X-Z, but I would like to weigh them against the benefits of social networks" - and then do that. That would clearly mark that you are opening your own line of reasoning instead of trying to forcibly claim them on the OP. Then, we could have _that_ discussion together.

You must understand - I did not take exception to you trying to start that discussion, but it's a cheap shot to say that Mr. Moglen was the one who should have done so. It's perfectly reasonable to stand up for your own arguments without forcing them on another person. It was a particularly cheap shot because you did not offer anything in line with your argument except the washing machine argument which I found very weak for the reasons I mentioned earlier.

<comment><USER7> _You could have just said "I agree with Mr. Moglen on points X-Z, but I would like to weigh them against the benefits of social networks" - and then do that. That would clearly mark that you are opening your own line of reasoning instead of trying to forcibly claim them on the OP. Then, we could have that discussion together._

There are an infinite number of ways I could have responded, but I deliberately chose to use an analogy, and to express my anger about how Moglen presented a 100% negative view. I understand why you say that he didn't need to express anything positive about social networking, and I disagree. To me, one should always attempt to give an honest view on any subject. Moglen's 100% negative views are either wrong or dishonest. That make me angry.

Show me where I misrepresented Moglen's views in anyway. That's the definition of a strawman, and I object most strongly to your claim that I used one. Nor do I troll, take cheap shots or resort to personal attacks.

<comment><USER8> Eben Moglen was asked "What's so bad about Social Networks?". Then he talked about what he thinks is bad about social networks.

You say: "His argument isn't valid because he isn't talking about what is _good_ about social networks".

Instead of addressing what he did talk about, you chose to talk about something he did not. And that's the definition of a straw man:

 _to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition_

"What is bad about social networks?" != "Can you provide a balanced picture of social networks?"

The fact that you have not given a single word to actually discussing his statements (Oh, because you agree? Hmm...), except defending your initial argument (based on the olde and extremely valuable "because!"), actually not even responding to my critique of that argument, shows that you are not interested in the discussion, you are only interested in being right. You've made a mistake in your understanding of the article and made a bad argument against it that I and others clearly saw for what it is. Get over it.

Actually, I don't know why I bother anymore. If what I (and a couple other commenters) have said before doesn't convince you, I reckon nothing will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm kind of amazed at some of the completely unsympathetic responses on here and on the original article. There are two distinct issues I see here: 1) whether or not Moglen's tone/attitude was appropriate, and 2) if his arguments were valid. Personally I think he was a bit harsh on her and could have at least expressed his feelings in a more diplomatic manner. She's a journalist calling about a story, not someone on trial. The moralist scolding seemed a bit much.

I also think his premise is a bit extreme... Social Media can be used recklessly, but so can many things. Suddenly people are saying that if your friends are on Facebook then you should get new friends... I must admit this sentiment sounds extremely reactionary and way over the top. We seem to be operating under the assumption that all information shared about another human being is potentially dangerous... Really? I'm pretty sure that most of what gets shared on Facebook is fairly innocuous, if not utterly mundane.

<comment><USER10> _most of what gets shared on Facebook is fairly innocuous, if not utterly mundane._

It usually is, until it isn't. By then, it's too late.

<comment><USER9> Do you have any examples to back up this statement, other than people getting fired from their jobs for foolishly posting incriminating information online? It seems to me that most of the alarmist reactions to social media are based on completely theoretical "slippery slope" arguments that assume we're heading straight for an Orwellian future. That may be true, but so far I haven't had any of my friends scooped up by the secret police for Facebook-related thought-crimes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> >> Me: I think that's totally relevant and will definitely put it in. (N.B.: In the end, I did not put this in the story for several reasons, not the least of it was the fact that it was late and over word limit.)

So what ARE the reasons?!?!

I'd like to hear why Adrianne Jeffries didn't include any of Moglen's points in the final article.

Does Adrianne Jeffries really think Moglen's ideas are "totally relevant"? The tone of her article suggests otherwise. She introduces him as a "militant" professor, and the title of her post appears to mock the entire situation.

The telephone exchange is certainly entertaining, but Moglen's points are relevant and I'm disappointed the author didn't include her reasons for omitting them from her article.

<comment><USER12> The author is referring to another article in her N.B. It's linked in the first paragraph: [http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/as-banks-start-nosing- aro...](http://www.betabeat.com/2011/12/13/as-banks-start-nosing-around- facebook-and-twitter-the-wrong-friends-might-just-sink-your-credit/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> When privacy advocates are as honest as Moglen, they recognize that the biggest problem facing them is not governments or Facebook but those damn, stupid _people_ who keep letting their privacy be invaded. Sure, people will say they want privacy, when you ask them using that loaded word, but time and again when faced with the choice between revealing information and getting some small thing of value, they reveal the information. But underneath the Moglen viewpoint is a huge disconnect: If privacy is about individuals exercising power over one's own information, and the vast majority of people consistently decline to exercise that power, then what the hell are privacy advocates advocating for?

</comment><comment><USER14> I have to side with Moglen here. First the journalist decides to call somebody he describes as "a _militant_ privacy advocate" (emphasis mine). Then he says things like "It just doesn't seem like the consequences are that bad."

What did he ever expect? I think Moglen is right in his expectations that any article resulting from that will be bullshit. And really: "N.B.: In the end, I did not put this in the story for several reasons, not the least of it was the fact that it was late and over word limit". Really, the word limit is his excuse? Sorry, but I think the journalist is the jerk here.

</comment><comment><USER15> Changing Threats To Privacy From Tia To Google (Blackhat 2010) by Moxie Marlinspike <http://www.securitytube.net/video/1084>

_How many people here would be excited about a law that required everyone to carry a government mandated tracking device with them at all times? Probably very few people right, no-one's really excited about that. How many people here have a cell phone? Right, probably everybody in this room has a mobile phone. And so what is the difference really? A mobile phone is a tracking device that reports its position over an insecure protocol to a few telecommunications companies that are required by law to reveal that information to eavesdroppers and governments worldwide. So what's the difference? Choice. This is the difference. You choose to carry a cell phone, whereas you would be forced to carry a tracking device._

 _Well I have a mobile phone. Never in my wildest dreams did I think I would have a mobile phone, why would I want one: it's a mobile tracking device, it communicates over an insecure protocol, it's potentially a mobile bug. And yet I have one. So did I choose to have a mobile phone? Maybe._

 _I think if you look at the way that people tend to organise in groups and communities, there are often informal communications networks that bind them together, that allow them to communicate, make plans, coordinate activities. If you introduce something like the GSM cellular network to this group, and if I start using it, I am subject to something that is very well known called the No Network Effect. If I am the only one with a cell phone it's really not worth very much. The value of the network is in the number of people that are connected to it and that if I'm the only one I can't really communicate with anyone._

 _However if I somehow manage to get everyone to start using my communications network it becomes very effective and very valuable. But there is an interesting side effect, which is that the old informal mechanisms people use to communicate and to collaborate disappear, that they are destroyed by the introduction of technology. The technology actually changes the social fabric of how people communicate and coordinate. Mobile phones, there are many obvious examples. People used to make plans, they would say: "I'll meet you on this street corner at this time on this day and, you know, we'll do something" and now people say "I'll call you when I'm getting off work" or "I'll text you" and if you don't have a mobile phone you can't really participate in this type of organisation and you begin to find yourself kind of alone. Because if I now make a choice not to be a part of this cellular network, there is sort of an interesting thing where once again I am subject to the no network effect. The network that used to exist, the informal communications channels, has been destroyed._

 _So yes, I made a choice to have a mobile phone, but what kind of choice did I make? I think this is sort of an interesting phenomenon. What happens is a choice is introduced; it starts as a very simple choice: the choice of whether or not to have a mobile phone, a simple piece of technology. But slowly things happen to expand the scope of that choice until eventually it's so big as to encompass not just whether you have a mobile phone or not but whether you want to be a part of society. In some ways the choice to have a mobile phone today has become not necessarily just whether you have a piece of consumer electronics in your pocket but whether or not you are even a part of society, and that's a much bigger choice. Maybe not one that we should have to make, or at least maybe one that isn't really a choice at all._

<comment><USER16> _So yes, I made a choice to have a mobile phone, but what kind of choice did I make? I think this is sort of an interesting phenomenon. What happens is a choice is introduced; it starts as a very simple choice: the choice of whether or not to have a mobile phone, a simple piece of technology. But slowly things happen to expand the scope of that choice until eventually it's so big as to encompass not just whether you have a mobile phone or not but whether you want to be a part of society._

That is it right there.

The only answer is the same technology without the bad side of it.

Mobile phones that do not track you, that governments can not track.

A Facebook alternative like Diaspora, except much better and as popular as Facebook.

We are not going to quit mobile phones and social media, but we have to strip their bad side from them. That may involve non-profit mobile phone manufactures, open source social media, who knows exactly what. But I know that _technologically_ it _is_ possible, now we have implement it and use it.

<comment><USER17> > Mobile phones that do not track you,

> that governments can not track.

The pragmatist in me wants to call that a pipe dream. Phones that work on the cell system that don't track you are an oxymoron. It would require a ground up reimplementation of phones. The best case I can see is burner sim cards for smartphones with all the data encrypted and some non-skype popular voip platform. Even if someone built all this you'd still be tracked while you used the phone.

You could start talking about mesh networks or public free wifi to improve some of those problems but any technically realistic solution relies on government supporting things they inherently dislike and popular support for "terrorist helping" technology (which the public doesn't care about until a local power group starts using surveillance to kill/torture a _lot_ of them)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Moglen is of course correct about the problems of privacy and corporate ownership of social networks -- but then goes on to take an absolutist position which is both strategically indefensible and ethically bankrupt.

First, a key concept: there is no such thing as absolute freedom. Freedom can exist at many different levels, some of which are mutually exclusive; sometimes abrogations of lower-order freedoms are required to create higher- order freedoms. The archetypal example of this is the law which arbitrarily restricts you from driving on one side of the road. This is a small loss of freedom, but when applied universally, it creates the far greater freedom to drive for long distances without substantial risk of a head-on collision.

Now, with social networks and the like, freedoms are created and freedoms are taken away. The problem which Moglen identifies -- and is absolutely correct to call out -- is that there is absolutely _no legitimate reason_ to abrogate the freedoms that are being abrogated. Where he goes wrong is in denying the reality of the freedoms that are being created: namely the most powerful one- to-many communications platforms in history. The citizens of Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya are categorically _not_ less free because they used Facebook to organise their revolutions. Whatever freedoms they lose on account of Facebook, pale in significance to the freedoms Facebook has allowed them to create.

Whether this calculation holds true in other societies is a perfectly legitimate subject for debate; where Moglen goes wrong is in denying that it's a debatable subject whatsoever.

I had the same problem with Richard Stallman, when I recently attended one of his boilerplate talks. While I greatly respect what he has accomplished and agree with the majority of his opinions, he had absolutely no concept that there could possibly be greater freedoms outside of his narrow domain. It was all too easy to picture him castigating, say, Syrian activists for distributing videos of atrocities using non-free codecs, captured by camera phones with non-free firmware. Stallman's position would seem to be that if you can't document an atrocity with fully free software and hardware, then you shouldn't document it at all. This is where he -- and Moglen -- take a swan dive from the moral high ground into the swamp of ethical bankruptcy in which all true zealots swim.

The bottom line is that there are greater freedoms and lessor freedoms. The world has collectively decided that the freedoms created by one-to-many communications networks are greater than the freedoms that are (unnecessarily) being lost in the process. Sometimes this decision is clearly correct (Tunisia, Egypt, etc.); other times it probably isn't. What's certain is that asking people to forego what they (often correctly) perceive as the greater freedom, in order to fix an unnecessary abrogation of the lesser freedom, is not an ethically defensible position to take.

Please don't get me wrong: unlike road-direction restrictions, there's no reason why social networks _need_ to be compromising our freedoms the way that they are. I'd much rather see social networks created by open-standard distributed protocols rather than centralised corporate systems, just as I'd much rather see mobile phones with fully free firmware that encode video with free codecs. I think it's absolutely worth trying to create all of those things. But simply ignoring the genuine freedoms that are created _despite_ the faults of these platforms is not ethically legitimate.

Ethics aside, it's also bad strategy, and just won't work. If you're obligated to give up your car before writing about global warming, or obligated to become a vegan before writing about animal cruelty, or obligated to take monastic vows before writing about conflict in domestic relationships -- then you'll probably never write about any of these issues. And that won't help anybody, will it?

<comment><USER11> >> Ethics aside, it's also bad strategy, and just won't work. If you're obligated to give up your car before writing about global warming, or obligated to become a vegan before writing about animal cruelty, or obligated to take monastic vows before writing about conflict in domestic relationships -- then you'll probably never write about any of these issues. And that won't help anybody, will it?

I find Moglen's absolutist point of view on this issue refreshing.

You're not obligated to give up your car or go vegan to write about certain issues, but you're a hypocrite if you don't acknowledge your own contribution to a problem.

Two examples:

Al Gore did a great job spreading the word about global warming, but he still has a larger carbon footprint than most Americans (it's well-documented).

Jonathan Safran Foer became vegan when he researched and wrote his book "Eating Animals" about animal cruelty.

We need more people like Foer, do we not?

<comment><USER19> I find that point to be orthogonal.

That's like saying that everyone at Occupy Wall Street had forswear all material goods in order to be considered "valid" protesters.

Discarding someone's argument due to a lack of complete purity is just plain facile.

<comment><USER11> >> That's like saying that everyone at Occupy Wall Street had forswear all material goods in order to be considered "valid" protesters.

No, it isn't.

Occupy Wall Street isn't about giving up all material goods. A better analogy is a OWS protester who is a manager at one of the banks that got bailed out.

>> Discarding someone's argument due to a lack of complete purity is just plain facile.

I never said the arguments should be discarded. I acknowledged that Al Gore did a good job spreading the word about global warming.

I'm just saying it's refreshing when someone actually stands behind their argument by making a personal change or sacrifice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Best quote: "The problem is caused by people who would like a little help spying on their friends. And in a genteel way, that's what the social media offers. They get to surveil other people. In return for a little bit of the product, they assist the growth of these immense commercial spying operations."

This has become the crux of my objection to social networks: they exist to gather data on you. Whatever benefit you get from it, their purpose of existence is data mining.

As the Pinboard Blog puts it, that's ANTI-social.

"We're used to talking about how disturbing this in the context of privacy, but it's worth pointing out how weirdly unsocial it is, too. How are you supposed to feel at home when you know a place is full of one-way mirrors?"

<http://blog.pinboard.in/2011/11/the_social_graph_is_neither/>

<comment><USER21> Too bad we can't exchange that for a system where social networks let you own the data and charge a monthly subscription fee.

<comment><USER22> Diaspora lets you own the data, and it's free. If you wanted to run your own node on a dedicated server rented at a hosting company, you could do that too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Even if you don't buy his whole argument – and especially that the journalist has a partisan duty to abstain from, rather than research, these systems – it's awesome that Moglen is making this point, and this ecological/privacy- littering analogy.

</comment><comment><USER24> _Facebook now acknowledges what we said for a long time and they didnt acknowledge, that every single photograph uploaded to Facebook is put through facial recognition software they call PhotoDNA which is used to find people for whom any law enforcement agency in the world is looking._

How true is this?

<comment><USER25> I don't think it's very true at all. From what I've read, PhotoDNA is used to detect child pornography by comparing a photograph's "hash" against a database of hashes for known pornographic images. There's no facial recognition involved.

More here:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2564235>

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Mr. Moglen: Thanks for the warm up. I'm having lunch with Stallman in un poco minutos. Bye!

Reporter: Like, bye?

</comment><comment><USER27> _Dr. Moglen: Well you called me, you know what the problem is. People lost their homes. People lose their money. People lose their freedom. (??? -ed.)_

Could someone elaborate upon these? I am not aware of these incidents. (In particular, the first two.)

<comment><USER28> There have to be hundreds of social media-related incidents that came up in the middle east during the Arab Spring uprisings. This one came up first on a search:

"Man gets three years in prison for insulting Islam on Facebook"

[http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/arab-spring-in-egypt- man-g...](http://www.jihadwatch.org/2011/10/arab-spring-in-egypt-man-gets- three-years-in-prison-for-insulting-islam-on-facebook.html)

<comment><USER29> And the same result would likely have occurred had he said the same thing on a street corner, or in a pamphlet he handed out at a bus station.

The problem here isn't Facebook, it's the government that he lives under. But Facebook did give him a much larger audience than he might otherwise have had.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Somewhat unrelated but I've always wondered how many passwords you could crack by making a word dictionary attack out of a user's status updates and comments. The assumption being that most users have a narrow vocabulary and would naturally pull from it to choose their passwords.

None the less it seems like every time you publish on the net with an association to your identity in any form you do willingly degrade some aspect of your own privacy. Truthfully just from analyzing a couple sentences you probably have a pretty good shot at guessing all kinds of things about the person.

</comment><comment><USER31> Isn't this a little bit like saying "You can't claim to be against governments spying on their own citizens if you ever go outside. By going outside they can trace where you are, and who you visit."

I don't want to live in a world where I have to not do things to avoid privacy invasion, I want to live in one which doesn't allow privacy invasion.

Obviously it's not a simple issue, you can't just sign up to twitter and tick the "no privacy invasion please" checkbox, but if we're going to aim for something, how about we reach for the stars not the dogshit.

<comment><USER8> No. Going outside is an act that happens on common grounds. Using facebook happens on commercial grounds. You can choose not to use facebook and eliminate the problem right there. You cannot choose not to use roads.

You are right to say that we need better rules to regulate the second, or to go with Moglen - the people should know better than to even ask for such rules instead of staying away from the problem. But that doesn't mean that the same logic must suddenly apply to civil society, no matter how paranoid (and, at times, rightfully paranoid) you may be about the tracking that happens there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's interesting to me that the impetus for this post is seemingly motivated by the reporter's reaction to Mr. Moglen's tone over the substance of what he said.

I know it's "just" betabeat, a blog, etc, but imagine if Leslie Stahl or even Katie Couric made the emphasis of a story how they were "legit yelled at" by an expert source who gave some thought provoking ideas on a silver platter that could have been developed into much more.

</comment><comment><USER33> Moglen's argument fits in an idealist world, but having governing laws for Social engineering sites will help in regulating centralized power of corporations. This can be handled outside software too. But somewhat aggressive political behavior of Moglen worries me.

</comment><comment><USER34> How comparable are sites like HN to FaceBook and Twitter? I'm genuinely curious what others, here, think about that. I don't use the mainstream social sites, but I do use and like HN. Would professor Moglen think HN users were part of the problem too?

<comment><USER35> Well there are no ads being served on HN, so while it's possible that pg and YC are collecting tons of interesting data on people from analyzing their comments and votes, I think it's easier to imagine that they are not, since there's no clear motive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Eh. If it's not Facebook, it'll be some dork from Anonymous releasing a bunch of data, including yours, that they hacked from ThinkGeek, because they're offended by the plush bonsai kitten.

</comment><comment><USER36> Did anyone else have the experience of reading this, starting out thinking "Moglen has gone over the edge" and ending in a defeatist "it's actually as bad as he says and there's no stopping it"?

</comment><comment><USER37> Awesome.

I just cant describe how awesome Moglen is.

A "journalist" wants a story, a complete article, so she doesnt have to think - get this she says " I was hoping you might be ableto help __me think __about this particular" - she wants him to think for her! She could as well have told him to please write the article for her in full, but she will take the credit and money. Then he still serves her an idea and a very fruitful thesis which she could write several articles about if she would pull her finger out of her ass for once.

</comment><comment><USER38> As an exchange, that was awesome and hilarious. The substance, however, is neither.</comment>


HN bug - number of comments only listed after comments loaded - <AUTHOR>

Just noticed this morning that some of my submissions in my submissions list had "comments" next to them without the number of comments. After clicking on comments and refreshing, or clicking on comments and going back to the submissions list and refreshing, it showed the number of comments next to the "comments" link. <comment><USER2> I doubt it's a bug. PG is probably just minimizing what's cached outside of the most current and/or most viewed submissions. If a user views it, then it gets cached (for awhile, at least). Just guessing though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Understood, but:

\- I personally like to see the number of comments to see if the number of comments had changed.

\- It didn't seem to work this way before, so I think it might be new, or it was restarted and just hadn't loaded yet, maybe?

\- This behavior isn't intuitive.

\- It was distracting to reload the same page with the same backing data and get two different results (once without number of comments, once with number of comments on topic I'd just viewed).

So, it is a (minor) bug, imo, even if it makes for a faster, more scalable page load. Speed is awesome and speed is king, but don't do things that are distracting or unintuitive to the user.

<comment><USER2> I don't disagree with you. I'm just not surprised. The goal of the site is definitely not to make it easy to see and understand everything that's going on and why. Features seem to be community-centric, not user-centric.</comment></comment></comment>


Magic Leap CEO steps down - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/5/28/21274070/magic-leap-ceo-rony-abovitz-stepping-down-replacement-ar-vr-mixed-reality <comment><AUTHOR> as the wise men say, what an incredible journey!</comment>


Five year old turns down free Sony tablet - <AUTHOR> http://www.loopinsight.com/2013/11/06/five-year-old-turns-down-free-sony-tablet-for-ipad/

<comment><USER2> Relevant bit is at ~5:23, although the first couple minutes are worth a watch: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxjy7f9RpY#t=5m23s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XFxjy7f9RpY#t=5m23s)

I can't help but think that that level of exposure as a five-year old will only lead to a severe case of 'special snowflake syndrome.' Kid clearly is intelligent though.

</comment><comment><USER3> I feel so stupid right now.</comment>


The Apple Watch Doesn't Have to Do Anything Special to Be Huge - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/02/apple-watch-doesnt-anything-special-huge/

<comment><USER2> How about just waiting 'till Apple launches the thing, and seeing whether the congregation will take it for its blessings? What sense is there in endlessly speculating on whatever Apple may be up to, and how insanely great it surely will be, or maybe less so but then yet so it'll surely be a success?

Take that company from its pedestal and put it back where it belongs - on the ground, like any other commercial entity, out there to lighten your wallet.</comment>


Trump's Dangerous Support for Conspiracies About Autism and Vaccines - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/trumps-dangerous-support-for-conspiracies-about-autism-and-vaccines?intcid=mod-latest <comment><USER2> When the richest person in the world does a TED talk explaining how he plans to reduce the world population by 1B+ using vaccines, funded through his giant tax shelter, is it really surprising that there would be some push back?

It's a noble goal and with a bit of luck it will be wildly successful. But people are hard to trick when their lives are on the line.</comment>


DirectX is coming to the Windows Subsystem for Linux - <AUTHOR> https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directx-heart-linux/ <comment><USER2> This is the old Embrace, Extend and Extinguish all over again.

Now you can write Linux software that uses Microsoft APIs, but will only work with WSL2. There is no way to run DirectML on a bare-metal system. You'll always need Windows in the background.

Microsoft noticed the Machine Learning / GPU compute ecosystem has moved to Linux, now they attempt to tie it back to Windows.

<comment><USER3> Meh, it's just more proprietary middleware, which is nothing unusual for the Machine Learning crowd. They don't care. Everyone will still use PyTorch or TensorFlow (or just CUDA) and whether or not it directly talks with nvidia's Linux driver stack or through DirectML to the WDDM stack or through CUDA to the WDDM stack isn't relevant for most people, with one exception: training performance. The vast majority of actual large scale training and inference happens on headless servers anyway and even if it did run on Windows Server you'd just pass a PCIe card directly through to a Linux VM with Hyper-V, you already had that for a while.

I see this as a response to one of WSL's most requested features by developers. "Machine Learning Support" has been a day 1 bug report, and in practice it means "Run TensorFlow/Pytorch" which in practice means "Support CUDA". Frankly if they only did that, it'd be fine (AMD DL support doesn't exist meaningfully), so the fact they went with this whole DirectML thing, allowing generic DirectX 12 compatible GPUs to work, is a surprise. It's more goodwill, in other words, for researchers/developers doing local work. Nobody is going to use these APIs directly, and those who do just need them purely as "device middleware" for the underlying hardware stack, so some generic thing can sit on top. The fact that they're working on Mesa to bring OpenGL to WSL applications, by way of WDDM/DXGI, is more evidence of this, I think, because it will not just benefit ML apps.

"Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" implies that Microsoft wants to subvert things and attract people to their APIs, over time, so they can do a 180. But they don't want Linux users to use DirectX APIs on Linux. They don't have time to make that happen. They want Linux users to use Linux APIs, but run them on WSL (on Windows). And those Linux users expect normal Linux software to work, out of the box, all the time. Totally different things. DirectX only is a means here, not an end. It's the same reason they went from "crazy ersatz clone of the Linux kernel inside the Windows Kernel that works 85% of the time and fails otherwise" (WSL1) to "Run ordinary Linux in a hypervisor and call it a day" (WSL2). Yeah, the first version makes nerds on Hacker News happy because it's a cool hack, but the second version actually means your Linux software will run as is, and it works for users, which is more important. They need OpenGL, and TensorFlow, and whatever, to run on WSL _as they exist today_ to attract people. Not in some theoretical future where everyone is using DirectX APIs on Linux and then Microsoft does a backflip and says "gotcha!"

It will actually be hilarious if TensorFlow-on-Linux-on-DirectML-via-WDDM could actually provide a viable mechanism to use AMD GPUs for Deep Learning, while keeping the same high level software stack.

<comment><USER4> > They want Linux users to use Linux APIs, but run them on WSL (on Windows). > And those Linux users expect normal Linux software to work, out of the box, > all the time. Totally different things.

This is exactly on course for EEE. EEE isn't about increasing DirectX adoption on regular Linux, it's about using DirectX as a wedge to increase Microsoft product adoption (ie. Windows, Azure and co.) and marginalize regular Linux. By marginalizing regular Linux, they also marginalize every competitor that supports regular Linux.

The theoretical future moves in stages. Today it's "only Windows can support DirectX on Linux! But don't worry, it's still Linux, just this one extension."

Then it's "DirectX on Linux now works best with Windows Machine Learning Foundation or some crap like that, only on Windows!"

Then it's "Windows Machine Learning Foundation is now only on Windows Professional Plus"

Then it's "WSL enjoys deep integration with Visual Studio, only on Windows!"

Then it's "Azure ML is the best way to run DirectX on Linux in the cloud! You see, the Azure Advantage (TM) is that only we know how to run DirectX on Linux effectively, because only we can see and change the code."

At some point, you stopped using open source tooling, stopped using an open source OS, and stopped being compatible with open source Linux providers like AWS & GCP. Microsoft practically owns your entire stack. "Gotcha!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This allows DirectX usage on Linux. The catch is that it only works on a Windows host. This is for WSL specifically, running in Hyper-V on a Windows host. It basically forwards DirectX calls to the Windows kernel through paravirtualization.

</comment><comment><USER6> The headline should be "CUDA support on WSL2", but that's only mentioned at the bottom of the article.

And having all this stuff work out of the box, I can see some people choosing the WSL path over native Linux simply because there are less apt-gets involved to get a PyTorch model training.

</comment><comment><USER7> Im a little confused what the impact of this is... We will finally have 3D acceleration on WSL?

Does this mean I can "finally" train TensorFlow stuff on WSL?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, deep learning can now use your local GPU. I've been waiting for this a long time, as it means that I can run this stuff reliably on a laptop with an NVidia GPU now. It's not clear when this will hit the Insiders Fast Ring builds yet though ... can't arrive fast enough for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The relevant bits are available in the WSL2 fork of the linux kernel. I know MS is probably doing that for access to GPU hardware for ML/AI training but I'm wondering (and hope) if this would indirectly benefit the DirectX implementation efforts in Wine.

<comment><USER2> Unlikely, the kernel module is just a shim to redirect the DirectX calls to the host DirectX driver. You will always need WSL for this to work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> EEE, slowly the Linux desktop | os environment will be a thing of the past. something you won't run directly but interact via the windows api. and your only other choice will be mac os on arm. the biggest mistake the linux ecosystem did, was being so fragmented. if they had rallied around one desktop env, then lots of people would've migrated. I personally use a t490 on ubuntu and a 2013 macbook. but even I I'm attempted to try out WSL even though, I haven't used windows in over a decade</comment>


Simon Cowell Did Not Fall Off an E-Bike - <AUTHOR> https://www.treehugger.com/simon-cowell-did-not-fall-off-an-e-bike-5074440 <comment><USER2> This is called a sandhopper, also known as dirtbike, and is used to kill young unexperienced teenagers. It's an extremely dangerous vehicle.

The engine is mostly irrelevant here, less power but stronger in lower rpms.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there any 'gigs' for script-based automation experts? - <AUTHOR> I'm looking into ways I can potentially bring in more income on the side, and in terms of professional skills I have spent most of my time working on becoming extremely good with PowerShell.<p>My question is, has anyone here ever done 'consulting' type work that was purely scripting in nature, or is that just a pipe-dream? <comment><USER2> Yes, I've had a few jobs here and there that amount to just scripting.

It is all about how you spin it. If you say you do shell scripting, it doesn't sound like much, and you probably won't find much. But if you say you can automate legacy enterprise software environments into a modern DevOps paradigm, with scripted CI/CD, suddenly there are thousands of Microsoft-based IT shops in the country who need your help.

In other words, don't focus on the tech you are good at, focus on the business value it can deliver.

</comment><comment><USER3> I know lots that do side work for small stuff. You could sign up for a service where clients contact you? My google skills found the following examples.

      *toptal.com
      *upwork.com
      *peopleperhour.com
      *guru.com

</comment><comment><USER4> There seems to be demand for scripting jobs (scraping, browser automation, etc.) on Fiverr. Not sure how well that applies to PowerShell, but some sellers are making money with Python.

</comment><comment><USER5> I might have a gig for someone like this next month. How can I reach you?</comment>


Whoops Google Says Mysterious Wave of Unbootable Macs Is Their Bad - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/whoops-google-says-mysterious-wave-of-unbootable-macs-1838430057 <comment><USER2> Previous discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21082381](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21082381)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064663](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21064663)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21073819](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21073819)</comment>