The warp drive will have to wait - <AUTHOR> https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.golem.de/news/em-drive-der-warp-antrieb-muss-noch-warten-1606-121641.html <comment><AUTHOR> [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t...](https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&ie=UTF8&prev=_t&sl=de&tl=en&u=http://www.golem.de/news/em- drive-der-warp-antrieb-muss-noch-warten-1606-121641.html)

The critical passages - translated by myself

Page 2:

The hint:

"Again it showed the same behavior - until the drive was directed towards the top for testing purposes. Usually, the drive is put on a torsion balance in a way that it can best turn the scale left or right. With the drive directed towards the top nothing should be measurable. [...] However, the drive directed toward the top in this experiment still showed the same force as when directed to the left."

The test result at TU Dresden, Germany: "Tjalmar said: 'I can't say I proved or refuted the EM drive'" (because they didn't have the means to test it with a battery instead of an external power supply)

Reference to a follow-up from a Chinese university: "But a research group from China did the necessary to refute it. As soon as the EM drive doesn't get its power from a cable outside [i.e., it get's its power from a battery], there is no measurable force anymore."

The link to the Chinese paper [http://www.tjjs.casic.cn/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?file_no=2...](http://www.tjjs.casic.cn/ch/reader/create_pdf.aspx?file_no=20160220&flag=1&journal_id=tjjs&year_id=2016)

The final sentence of the abstract: "Within the measuring range of three-wire torsion pendulum thrust measurement system,the independent microwave thruster propulsion device did not detect significant thrust. Measurement results fluctuate within ± 0.7mN range under the conditions 230W microwave power output,and the relative uncertainty is greater than 80%"

<comment><USER2> So... you're saying all we need to do is pull an extension cord behind our spacecraft?

Unlimited powahhh!

<comment><USER3> That's basically the thinking behind the laser-propulsion plan. The rocket equation gets a lot less hostile when the engine is not mounted on the rocket, but that has its own practical issues. Less than trying to drag a literal cord, of course.

<comment><USER4> Just building a kilometer-wide lens to keep it focused and a several-Terawatt power source.

Space travel. Shit's hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the best sentence is this:

"The theoretical expectation is that you don't measure anything. Now you're measuring something, and you can learn extremely much on this hunt for the error."

<comment><USER6> Sounds a bit like Fermi's quote:

"If the result confirms the hypothesis, then you've made a measurement. If the result is contrary to the hypothesis, then you've made a discovery."

<comment><USER7> I remember that quote too, and the key take aways always seemed like: in science you _always learn something_.

Taking the EMDrive as an example -- we have measurements that contradict current theory, so we are either going to discover new physics or we are going to learn something about the art of making very precise measurements of force in complex mechanical systems. In no case do we learn nothing.

<comment><USER8> A third option, of equal merit: We may learn to apply existing theory more correctly and more adequately in a novel configuration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In case you are curious about some data. There is a German maker who has been posting about his experiments as well.

[https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an- emdrive](https://hackaday.io/project/10166-flying-an-emdrive)

<comment><USER10> Holy mackeral, that is cool. I really appreciate the "well, let's just try it" approach. I can't wait to see what happens when he launches his little satellite. If it shows positive results, lots of people will replicate it.

This is win-win: if it works awesome happens. If it fails then you're left with the experience of having built a little satellite!

<comment><USER7> > I really appreciate the "well, let's just try it" approach.

That's called "science." :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why not run the setup without the cavity, or replace the magnetron with a big ass resistor, and see if you still get deflection. I suspect this is the beginning of a refutation, but it feels like there's a carrot still dangling.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, this is hardly a refutation. This is just one failed attempt at replication using batteries

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I guess a cheap and efficient propulsion that doesn't fit our understanding of physics was too good to be true. Still, it's a bit sad, that would have been beautiful if it were true.

<comment><USER14> As far as I understand it, it's not quite over yet. Maybe the refusal itself can't be replicated by the other groups. Now that will keep these physicists busy for a while...

<comment><USER15> It's not really over until we understand where these readings are coming from, whether error or new physics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I believed in the EM drive in the same way I occasionally buy lottery tickets: there's no way I could win, but wouldn't it be _so cool_ if I did?

<comment><USER17> Well, the probability is non-zero. And people win.

Sure, it is _extremely small_. But even that is different from zero.

<comment><USER8> Reward is finite. Risk is infinitesimal. No-brainer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder what was causing the measurement, then. Magnetic repulsion due to the current flowing through the cable?

<comment><USER19> Yes, that is what is suggested by one of the experimenters at the end of the article.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> We updated the link to the translated version of the article. If someone can suggest a good English article, we can update it again.

</comment><comment><USER21> If something sounds too good to be true, it usually isn't true.

<comment><USER22> Or, it's a scientific breakthrough. That won't happen often, but it also can't be ruled out completely.

<comment><USER23> If it's free energy or free momentum, using only physics that has been perfectly described in hundreds of millions of contexts and experiments, for one and a half centuries, using mathematics that don't allow for either, you can rule out this alternative.

The likelihood that free momentum and free energy are possible is indistinguishable from 0. They are empirically impossible in the strongest reasonable sense the word can have.

<comment><USER10> The critical detail here is that this is neither free energy nor free momentum in this setup. Energy is pumped in, and some momentum is generated - that's incredibly boring and not at all something that should raise any skepticism. The question of what in the hell was being pushed against to convert that energy to momentum, on the other hand, is a really interesting question, but not one to deeply pursue until we're actually sure it's happening. Which seems like the cavity wasn't the interesting bit in the end. A shame and a bit boring after so much careful testing, but nothing to get worked up over.

And the experiments didn't make it obvious that the setup didn't work. I mean, I don't think anyone took the inventor's theoretical claims seriously, but the device did generate some small thrust in a difficult to explain way.

Besides, we know that space isn't _nothing_ , so being able to tractor against whatever is there would be a rather intersting engineering find; physicists would then likely take the experiment and go "oh, there's a neat edge case in this system of equations that explains it". There are a _lot_ of interesting edge cases left to find and engineer.

<comment><USER23> Free momentum WAS claimed. Hence the space engine applications talked about everywhere.

Momentum is conserved independently, it can not be created from energy without spilling some the other way (into whatever you're pushing against).

The vacuum is a translation invariant state so you can't push against it to get momentum either, but you can create particles out of it and then push against those. That's what electro magnetic thrusters do. They generate photons. The effect is just super tiny.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I dont see any other article on the internets discussing these results

<comment><USER25> Judging from the date in the URL of the linked paper [1] and the corresponding section in the Wikipedia article on the EMdrive suggests that you might have better luck looking at somewhat older news articles. Publication date (and PDF metadata) seems to be 2015 though [2].

[1] [https://tu- dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_m...](https://tu- dresden.de/die_tu_dresden/fakultaeten/fakultaet_maschinenwesen/ilr/rfs/forschung/folder.2007-08-21.5231434330/ag_raumfahrtantriebe/JPC%20-%20Direct%20Thrust%20Measurements%20of%20an%20EM%20Drive%20and%20Evaluation%20of%20Possible%20Side- Effects.pdf)

[2] [http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2015-4083](http://arc.aiaa.org/doi/10.2514/6.2015-4083)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> So was it a hoax or a mistake by its inventors?

<comment><USER10> That's sort of an unnecessary dichotomy. Enthusiasm doesn't mean hoax, and the mistake was propagated by more than just the inventors.

Everything suggests that it was just science in action. There was an experiment, and it failed to reject the null hypothesis of 'no thrust'. A few groups have repeated the experiment, but not to the experimental power needed to thoroughly reject it. This test seems to be a more definitive rejection of it, but we're still not sure why there was any thrust measured in the first place, though there are some pretty reasonable leads on that.

<comment><USER26> I can see that to a point, but there was a commercial venture set up around it too.

<comment><USER7> Setting up commercial ventures based on speculative hypotheses is what a large chunk of Hacker News does for a living.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Come on folks. John Baez has dismissed it [1]. For those who don't know who John Baez is, it's as if Terry Tao dismissed your math homework. For those who don't know who Terry Tao is... whatever. Just stop.

[1] [https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13gzfm4xt2tuxehl04...](https://plus.google.com/app/basic/stream/z13gzfm4xt2tuxehl04chvywcofjhhzhwbk)

<comment><USER28> John Baez and Terence Tao are as nice as they are smart and i think you're doing them a disservice by using them to be condescending.

<comment><USER27> Have you read Baez's post that I linked? It's way more harsh than my comment. "Mumbo jumbo", "Failed a course in quantum field theory and then smoked too much weed"...

Also I'm getting seriously creeped out by the amount of EmDrive non-skeptics on HN. Maybe we should make a poll whether 0.999... = 1, and then say that anyone who insists on the correct answer is "condescending".

<comment><USER29> Ad hominems and appeals to authority are such letdowns.

Almost as those who might even admit they know nothing about it, but feel they're qualified to judge validity of some scientific claim. And provide <insert subculture> mantra as "evidence".

<comment><USER27> I do know quite a bit about physics. But if I just said the EmDrive is nonsense due to conservation of momentum (which is the 100% correct answer with no caveats), people would shut me down because "NASA scientists know what they're doing". That would be an appeal to authority. So I mention Baez preemptively, but it seems like that's not a winning tactic either. What would convince you, pray tell?

<comment><USER29> > you'd shut me down because "NASA scientists know what they're doing"

I've said nothing like that.

A working experiment that provides irrefutable data is needed to convince me in any way. Refutation I'd need to leave for others to do, not my competence.

I really like EmDrive as an idea and hope it will work out. It's very inspiring when someone has the guts to push it despite the dominant (scientific) opinion. If it does work out, these people will be some of our greatest heroes.

After all, sometimes people like these have been right in the past in adverse scientific atmosphere. I'm just content to follow it from the sidelines.

If I had to bet on EmDrive, I'd have to bet against it.

<comment><USER27> I understand your position.

The real question is how much you should weigh a single experiment vs. the abstract idea of conservation of momentum. It's tempting to trust the experiment all the way, and imagine that science demands such open-mindedness. But the more physics you study, the more likely you are to trust the abstract idea instead, because you realize just how incredibly well-supported it is. It's a kind of certainty that has almost no analogue in other sciences. Even in a very careful experiment, measurement error is many times more likely than overturning conservation of momentum. (Also measurement error is much more devious than people imagine, but that's another story.)

I'm very confident ($100 to $1 at least) that the EmDrive is a story of measurement error, compounded by ignorance and optimism.

<comment><USER30> By one experiment, you mean one actual experiment, made once, by a single group? Or one single experimental setup, replicated by different groups?

If it's the former, I don't trust it at all, but if it's well practiced and interesting, it ought to be replicated. If it's the second, well, if its results are against theoretical models, theory is wrong. No questions, no exceptions. Now, theory correction does not automatically mean a fundamental change, "hey, this approximation we used has a problem here" is as valid a theoretical correction as "ops, all of our models are wrong, everything is much more complex than we thought".

Specifically about the EmDrive, I'm not aware of anybody that could actually measure an effect yet. So, there's no experiment showing theory is wrong. There's only a lack of experiments confirming it either (or better, now there is one).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> EM drive is not an argument such that it might be refuted. It is a device. As such it has fitness for purpose, which depends entirely on the purpose at hand.

Snarkiness << skepticism.

<comment><USER31> Sure, if you need a paperweight, it very well may be the device for you. But the question is it's fitness as a propulsion device.

<comment><USER32> or discharge a battery very fast</comment></comment></comment>


Multics Emacs: The History, Design and Implementation (1979) - <AUTHOR> https://www.multicians.org/mepap.html <comment><USER2> One interesting bit I (re-)learned from this is that Multics Emacs was the first Emacs implemented in LISP, so although RMS implemented the first Emacs in TECO, and implemented the currently most popular Emacs, LISP was introduced into it by someone else.

And RMS makes no secret of that: [https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms- lisp.html](https://www.gnu.org/gnu/rms-lisp.html) so I probably learned this before at some point.

<comment><USER3> > Multics Emacs was the first Emacs implemented in LISP

No, the first Emacs in Lisp was the one from Dan Weinreb for the Lisp Machine, which was also the second Emacs implementation. It was called EINE, EINE Is Not Emacs. Then ZWEI, ZWEI Was EINE Initially.

<comment><USER4> Didn't Multics Emacs predate ZWEI? Or was kind of contemporary to it?

<comment><USER5> It's my understanding that the EINE (v1) → ZWEI (v2) rename happened in the '80s, but that EINE was just slightly before Multics Emacs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't know much about multics emacs, but the author's knowledge of baroque counterpoint and fugue is unparalleled outside of academe.

He's spread his knowledge of music theory with many, including me, on the (opensource) musescore website.

<comment><USER7> If you'd like to use Multics Emacs (with little effort) you can use the BAN.AI Public Access System - some relevant instructions are posted here: [https://lobste.rs/s/uwvpl1/110_days_early_multics_emacs_hist...](https://lobste.rs/s/uwvpl1/110_days_early_multics_emacs_history#c_bvqlgp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I remember using Multics Emacs at Cardiff in the early 80s. It was really noticeable how much more responsive it became when nobody else was using the system.

</comment><comment><USER9> Who gonna read this, this is so compact.

<comment><USER10> It's not mobile friendly although maybe this says more about mobile browsers than the site itself, because it looks like a typical old school "mofo" style website (h1 h2 p etc. no css)</comment></comment>


The Last Artists of SoHo and TriBeCa - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/t-magazine/soho-artists-john-newman-laurie-anderson.html <comment><USER2> I'm as far from NIMBYism as is possible for a person to be [1] but the urban neighborhood growth curves seem to inexorably point to either of:

1\. open air mall with prestige housing and office space (SoHo) 2\. steel and glass mall with prestige housing and office space (LIC, Hudson Yards)

I know it's possible for there to be growth that is for people and not plutocrats. I live in the East Village and I love the density we have here but any attempts to upzone other neighborhoods to equivalent density seems to result in this kind of soulless mediocrity.

[1]: I support Tokyo style zoning, abolishing street parking and private vehicle traffic in urban cores, and would gladly have someone start building a twenty story apartment building next to where I live. If a majority of the units get allocated to poor families at risk of losing housing, even better :)

<comment><USER3> > If a majority of the units get allocated to poor families at risk of losing > housing

Those programs, by and large, do not work at all. The biggest bargaining chip a poor family has is the threat to move to cheaper apartment (if the supply is there). Forcing them into sub-standard subsidized apartments is a band-aid where they are afraid to make more money.

<comment><USER4> Source?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Who cares about where artists (in particular) live? Are they somehow more entitled to particular areas compared to people in other occupations?

In fact, if we're talking about the kind of artist who works from home and does not need to commute, one would think that it's less important where they live (compared to people who actually need to get to their workplace every day).

<comment><USER6> Do you think artists just work from home, comrade McFarter?

<comment><USER5> No, but I thought they're more likely to do so in general compared to people in other jobs. I could be wrong though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article is such a mess. It's talking about 1950's 80's and early 2000's (with reference to "but 15 years on") so is basically generalizing half a century in a few paragraphs.

Across all these periods of time large parts of Manhattan had relatively cheap property. Soho/Tribeca were probably favorite spaces for studios compared to other parts of Manhattan because they included non-residential buildings with huge open spaces with higher chance of natural light.

15 years ago the greatest density of NYC's new artists were probably found in Williamsburg for some similar reasons, today they've been priced out and are probably more likely to be found in Bushwick. In 2035 they'll probably be centered in some other neighbourhood.

What the author fails to mention is the enormous number of artists that died during the AIDS epidemic.

I know this is just fluff to provide something in between advertising of the NYT magazine, but this is exactly why I've cancelled my subscription. GAH!

</comment><comment><USER8> It seems normal to me that over the course of 40 years that neighborhoods that became some of the most desirable in the world would be too expensive for artists to live in.

Not quite sure what the point of this article is.

</comment><comment><USER9> It seems like this is a common theme in every city these days - people are forced out of their neighborhoods by high RE prices and as a result high cost of living.

Perhaps one way to address this could be to modify outdated landlord laws - make it so it is prohibitively expensive to be a landlord in a major city or to be a landlord period. There is no need for landlords these days, its an outdated concept that must die off, just like landlords from centuries ago.

Also, perhaps introduce rules prohibiting city transformation into one big "shopping mall".

<comment><USER10> So the only way to get housing should be to come up with a down payment, qualify for a mortgage, and accept all the risk and transaction costs of owning? This will _increase_ affordability?!?

What should kids fresh out of college do?</comment></comment>


The New California Act That  Let Consumers Find Who Has Their Data - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/5993421/the-new-california-act-that-would-let-consumers-find-out-who-has-their-personal-dataand-get-a-copy <comment><USER2> Support the bill here: [https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KE...](https://action.eff.org/o/9042/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=9171)</comment>


Ask HN: Are Web 2.0 "badges" played out? - <AUTHOR>

I'm talking about these things: http://akoogle.blogspot.com/2008/05/web-20-badges-collection.html<p>They seem to be a rite of passage for a Web 2.0 site. But they seem played out. At what point, if not already, do they signal that a site or those behind it are more followers than leaders, or is that an unfair conclusion? Does it matter if it's unfair? Does it matter at all? And what will replace these things, if anything? <comment><USER2> Yes! They are very much played out. As far as the "fashion" of web design, gloss and web 2.0 is fading.

Alternatively, there's always people in design who make old things work and make them new. It's technically possible to work that type of badge into a site and make it look nice! Yes, really... But I wouldn't recommend it.

As for what will replace them, that's more complicated. There's many different design styles in use each day and the world is always changing. I think the topic is most irrelevant. I don't recommend using them, but no need to go figuring out the best fit for a replacement.

</comment><comment><USER3> Not the right thing to be worried about. Once you've built your tech, consulting a designer and doing A/B testing on your website will take care of the rest.

<comment><AUTHOR> True, but my question is in the general sense, not specific to my own site really.</comment></comment>


Fully patched OSX hacked within seconds of start of pen test contest - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=2917

<comment> patrickg-zill As much as I like Apple and OSX, I see some of the same kinds of mistakes Next/NeXT made with NextStep, being made with OSX.

(I used to sell Next software for about 6 months and got to use a NextStation every day. Very cool - later at another company I got to speak with the GUI designer Keith Ohlfs and personally thank him for the best copmuter experience I ever had.)

For instance, NextStep's POSIX interface was broken and thus, Next was not able to compete against the then-very-inferior SunOS in government contracts (because POSIX compliance was a requirement).

Instead, Next did win in CIA/NSA and other exempt contracts where the solution was considered to be "custom" and thus didn't have to follow the standards.

It probably would have taken a competent Next programmer a few weeks to fix the POSIX layer - but since POSIX was viewed as "dumb" it was never made a priority.

Apple is letting some of the boring stuff slip - which is a danger sign. Programmers at Apple can't all be programming the cool CoverFlow stuff and ignoring the "guts".

<comment><USER2> I appreciate your past experience with NeXT, but I'm going to have to disagree with your extrapolation: <http://www.apple.com/macosx/technology/unix.html>

<comment><USER3> I don't think he's specifically referring to POSIX compliance in the current OSX, but I can certainly attest to my experiences with A/UX (the original Mac OS/Unix hybrid OS) and say that POSIX compliance was also a minor issue - perhaps not so much for a Unix, but it's other stuff that they let slip. I don't use OSX as I don't have a Mac but I wouldn't be surprised if they're focusing on the insanely great bits to the detriment of stuff under the hood, as has happened before.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find the title highly sensational and misleading. Of course it was hacked in seconds given a prepared exploit, I would be shocked if it took the computer longer than that to execute the exploit code.

<comment><USER5> Leads to the question, what took FF/IE so long?

They surely tested them all ahead of time, so why did anything take any longer than a few seconds?

<comment><USER6> It did take FF/IE only seconds to 'get exploited', but it was more than a few seconds after the start of the contest... In short -- the guy with the Safari exploit went first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yup, I'm at CanSecWest now. This doesn't say much except that he just brought a ready, armed exploit and just took the prize. Nils' breaking of the browser trifecta was quite impressive though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Bringing a pre-made exploit to a contest like this kind of dodges the point of the competition.

Maybe an exploit contest could be started after each browser revision, where winning submissions must be exploiting a bug introduced by that version of the software.

<comment><USER9> While I definitely agree with you, I also think that Apple should start more seriously addressing these kinds of problems. So far, unlike Microsoft, they've been very slow to respond. (I'm an Apple-user.)

<comment><USER10> I just got a MacBook (my first). Previously, in Windows land, I logged in as a Limited User all the time (and saved Adminiatrator access for what it should be used for - adding printers, installing software).

On the Apple, I run Security Update habitually. What software for virus scanning, additional protection do you recommend?

<comment><USER11> There is no anti-virus software for the Mac worth running, because there are no viruses for OS X.

This story is about a security flaw in Safari where the browser can be tricked into executing code.

<comment><USER12> Ouch. A tad naive.

[http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/02/maco...](http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/02/macosxleap.html)

[http://louisgray.com/live/2008/08/i-got-mac-os-x-virus- and-i...](http://louisgray.com/live/2008/08/i-got-mac-os-x-virus-and- infected.html)

Just 2 from a quick google search: <http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=mac+os+x+virus>

<comment><USER11> Second one's a trojan. First one's a worm; it doesn't actually infect files or disks the way viruses did "back in the day". It relies on tricking the user into executing a program when the user is not expecting to be executing a program.

Compare to Windows worms that run automatically, or viruses for Microsoft platforms that infect files that are commonly shared.

I repeat my statement that you don't need anti-virus on the Mac. You simply need to have common sense.

I don't think it's too naive of a viewpoint. There are legitimate security concerns on the Mac, just as there are on other operating systems. My point was that you don't need cpu-cycle-sucking memory-resident antivirus programs the way you do on Windows.

<comment><USER12> Worm, trojan, whatever - I didn't read the links, I left that for you to do :)

> You simply need to have common sense.

I ran Windows ME (of all things) for several years with no AV, using just common sense. So, you don't "need" AV in Windows, but I would definitely recommend it.

Although I agree with what you're getting at, both your original comment and this one seems to be relying heavily on stereotypes more than actual fact. That's what I think is naive.

<comment><USER10> Microsoft is getting better when it comes to default lockdown modes (Vista) but I believe Administrator by default is the reason why Conficker et al and botnets exist.

I can't think of any good reason why the average home user needs to run as Administrative user, other than convenience.

I have to "administer" my dad's old computer and I gave him a Limited User account. Yes, he complains about not being to install some software his friends email but no viruses, no spyware. Cuts down on support calls and unnecessary trips home.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is frustrating for me. I've become _very_ accustomed to the speed and interface of Safari, but the security-conscious part of me says the only rational response to this article is to stop using Safari for general surfing and switch to Firefox, which seems to be lacking any major crash holes right now.

But every time I fire up Firefox my entire body cringes at the sluggishness. For many Mac users, myself included, this is going to be a real test of discipline.

<comment><USER14> If you haven't tried using an Intel optimized build of Firefox, give it a go, it's pretty snappy: [http://www.latko.org/2009/02/04/firefox-31-intel- optimized-b...](http://www.latko.org/2009/02/04/firefox-31-intel-optimized- build/) (Still not as fast as the Safari, but very close)

And I use the Grapple Delicious theme (very mac like): <http://www.takebacktheweb.org/>

<comment><USER13> I have.

The problem is that Firefox isn't _much_ slower, but it's _noticeably_ slower, so it's tough to complain about but very irritating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Are there more details available? Like which version of Safari was hacked?

<comment><USER16> You can safely assume the most recent version, and most likely the nightly.

<comment><USER5> It would be the latest stable release that you would get by running all of the software updates in OSX.

it would not be a nightly.

<comment><USER16> Running on the laptop, it wouldn't be a nightly; I'm opining that it would be surprising if it didn't hit the nightly too.

<comment><USER5> Ah, good point, I completely misunderstood what you said.

<comment><USER16> That's because I was terse and ambiguous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> JeremyBanks</comment>


Climate Change Did Influence Australia's Unprecedented Bushfires - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/yes-climate-change-did-influence-australias-unprecedented-bushfires/ <comment><USER2> > Yes, Climate Change Did Influence Australia's Unprecedented Bushfires > (scientificamerican.com)

THIS is a good example of why people don't trust scientists or global warming.

The narky Yes, is based on a pre-print, this isn't even published, I assume not peer reviewed yet. Good to see even the journals no long believe in peer review which they base their authority on.

The first paragraph has NOTHING to do with the study, but lets toss it in with no scientific backing.

> Such an extreme fire season is at least 30 percent more likely because of > global warming

And 30% more means the 3 in a 100 year event now happens 4 times every 100 years. Which is not great but not scary either. It's still something we 100% have to mange and deal with, which we can.

Scientific American needs to scare people to get their clicks, and they are misrepresenting numbers to do that. This is not how to do real science.

</comment><comment><USER3> Australian trees have extremely hard seed pods and require fire to open, it's the evolution of many species in the ecosystem (animals that live in-land are fast moving, slower moving animals live closer to the coast or dig into the ground). Being told for the last 10 years that you cannot clear land of bush- fire fuel (as one citizen did, and was heavily fined with new ECO laws), a practice done since Aboriginals taught settlers, contributed massively to last year's fires.

The point I'm making is the new ECO laws aren't respecting the reality of Australia's ecosystem, and bush-fires like that are the outcome.

<comment><USER4> The head of the NSW Rural Fire Fighters who are responsible for fighting bushfires and doing hazard reduction burns has stated that there have not been any ecological laws that have prevented them from doing burns.

What has prevented from from doing burns is warmer winters that has resulted in the window for when they can safely do burns being reduced.

I'd like to know what these new eco laws you are referring to and a citation for the story you made reference to about the person getting fined for doing hazard reduction on his own land.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Australians have continuously voted for parties who have a track record of either dismissing or doing nothing about climate change. The currently elected party in particular. It's extremely sad to watch all this unfold in my home country from abroad but at the same time I'm not sure how you can argue with what the general public are voting for.

<comment><USER6> There is nothing Australia could have done on its own to curb climate change. Even if we removed every single human and factory from the country it wouldn't have influenced climate change one bit. Now I know "we need to start somewhere", but this somewhere needs to be the biggest polluters not Australia. The best thing Australia could have done is to decrease their consumptions of goods manufactured by these big polluters by imposing heavy tariffs maybe, although this could have triggered a local industry to build this tariffed stuff which could have only been stopped by imposing very heavy taxation on those local industries, I don't think any politicians would like to commit political suicide though.

<comment><USER7> This is only a variant of the old "that big group of peoples are much larger than our group, so they need to change first". The others are always larger, so easy to accuse. Total for a country is maybe not the best metric to use. Per person emissions shows much more than total for a group of peoples called a country. Of course the largest polluter both by country and per person need to change the most, but the total pollution is the total of what you, me, and everyone else pollute

<comment><USER8> Yes, and it's scary how often this broken thinking pops up here.

Here's a quick quiz: China decides to split in two. Can each half now by rights pollute twice as much as it was before? Does the EU count as one large mega polluter or a bunch of small conscientious countries? Should we cap an Indian's emissions at 1/50th of those of an Australian, or use their economic development as an excuse to do whatever we want?

The planet doesn't care about whatever imaginary lines we draw on a map. Per capita is all that matters and Australia is doing very poorly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ah, it's the climate's fault. Not shitty forestry management policies by the various government entities who are "responsible" for that kind of stuff.

Letting underbrush accumulate because you have a zero tolerance burn policy is the problem everywhere there's been a severe fire.

We thought we'd improved a million year old system, but all we did was make it a tail end event.

<comment><USER10> > Letting underbrush accumulate because you have a zero tolerance burn policy > is the problem everywhere there's been a severe fire.

Australia doesn't have a zero tolerance burn policy. New South Wales alone burned ("bushfire hazard reduction") 187,041 hectares in the 2018-19 financial year[1].

Your comment comes across as an American who doesn't actually know anything about Australia.

[1]: [https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/12989...](https://www.rfs.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/129892/NSW- RFS-Annual-Report-2018-19-web.pdf)

<comment><USER9> I'll comb through that document and find it myself if you don't have it offhand, but do you know what section I'll find information about controlled / planned burns? And / or underbrush removal policies?

Strike that, found it after rereading your post

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Our group did a ScienceBrief showing climate change increases the risk of wildfires ([https://sciencebrief.org/topics/climate-change- science/wildf...](https://sciencebrief.org/topics/climate-change- science/wildfires))

<comment><USER12> Everywhere, or in Australia specifically?

<comment><USER11> The review was global and included Australia. It is linked from above. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> >Yes, Climate Change Did Influence Australia's Unprecedented Bushfires

>Such an extreme fire season is at least 30 percent more likely because of global warming, a new analysis finds

What? What am I missing here?

<comment><USER12> Yeah, it's still statistically impossible to attribute individual events to Climate Change with any amount of confidence.

Climate change is about global averages. It makes satisfying headlines to blame climate change, but it's poor science.

<comment><USER13> It's this sort of thing that makes climate change deniers even more emboldened in the conviction that they're right and that it's all a politically motivated hoax or whatever. It's extremely irresponsible. Especially because the headline directly contradicts the subheadline right below it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not disagreeing with the conclusion but given that climate change itself is real what would it even take for the contrary to be true ? Or for any other natural phenomena/disaster, hell if the covid19 virus reproduces/mutates better on average at warmer temperatures even its impact can be attributed to climate change.

<comment><USER15> I'm not entirely clear what point you are making, or what question you are asking.

A conclusion may 'seem obvious' to some people while still being doubted by others. Careful analysis of the evidence allowing us to put credible and defensible numbers to the influence of climate change is important work. This research isn't making a vague claim along the lines of warmer temperatures 'maybe' amplifying the effect of a disease, it's quantitative study putting real numbers on a measurable effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 2020

1\. Find extreme weather event 2\. Blame it on climate change 3\. Write article about it 4\. Profit

<comment><USER17> There is not much profit though, you'd get much more if you said it wasn't related.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> When did we ever have Climate!Change?

Get this crap off HN.</comment>


Robot maker's fortune built on a simple idea - <AUTHOR> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25518218/ <comment><USER2> People here might like to know that the Roomba is successful as a consumer product because the parts are so cheap. They are so cheap because they can fit a great deal of intelligence in a tiny kernel. They do this with a toy version of Lisp. By toy, I literally mean designed for toys. "My real baby".

It's actually a software problem -- and the numerous clones failed to figure that out.

<comment><USER3> IIRC, you worked at iRobot before starting TipJoy. Would you mind to share your opinion how you see the future of the company (medium to long term)?

<comment><USER2> My stock options are junk right now. It doesn't make sense though because they are pretty much the strongest mobile robot company in the world.

So medium term I wouldn't expect to make money off of IRBT. Long term, they should be positioned to take advantage of both the high and low end robotics markets. They aren't moving fast enough in certain areas -- and if Tipjoy does well, I'll take advantage of that.

The most interesting tech is definitely on the high end. The trend towards thousands of cores in a processor actually works really well with the kind of sensor processing and planning common in robotics. Particle filtering and large matrix/image operations can often be significantly parallelized. They're building a framework called Aware that is lots of C++ & Python to take advantage of such architectures. <http://www.irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=32>

<comment><USER2> Ohh, and if you want to work for a robot company, but you're worried that you don't know enough about robotics: apply right now. You don't need to know robotics. Robotics is just a collection of different fields, with individuals doing their specialties. You should most especially apply if you know Lisp, because the Home Robots side needs you. <http://irobot.com/sp.cfm?pageid=79>

Ohh, I hear Anybots is hiring too, as is Willow Garage

<http://anybots.com/join.html>

<http://www.willowgarage.com/Careers>

<comment><USER4> Can you suggest some resources for playing with lisp in a robotics context?

<comment><USER2> The easiest by far would be to make or find a simulator. Dealing with a real robot is a pain in the ass. Gazebo is a good robot simulator -- part of this tookkit: <http://playerstage.sourceforge.net/gazebo/gazebo.html>

It's free and good. I'm sure someone has made some hooks into it. Building those hooks would be a subset of building your own simulator.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: All my GitHub Issues on one page - <AUTHOR> http://my-issu.es/

<comment><AUTHOR> A small project from last weekend. Maybe it is useful for somebody else. :)</comment>


Apple doubles down on controversial decision to reject email app Hey - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/18/21296180/apple-hey-email-app-basecamp-rejection-response-controversy-antitrust-regulation <comment><USER2> Apple: Do as we say, not as we do... [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23564247)</comment>


How to Use Classic Amiga for Word Processing Today - <AUTHOR> http://amigalove.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=41 <comment><USER2> This is obviously a fine route to go if you want, but I've found simply booting into a text-mode Linux on its own partition (or something equivalent) gets the job done just as well, and means I don't have to have a bulky out-of- date machine just for creative writing. Going this route also means your creative writing workshop is portable, has wonderful battery life, and is trivial to backup--things I didn't have when I briefly tried hipstering myself with AppleWorks on a IIGS.

As a bonus, when whatever I'm writing is actually technical stuff that I need the Internet for (e.g. a post I've been working on about a one-stop enterprise Mercurial server setup), I can have exactly the same storage location and document creation/publishing workflow, but work from my normal, fully graphical session. I'm all for using the no-distractions mode for writing things that don't require research, but I think it's equally important to acknowledge that a lot of stuff most of the HN crowd writes every day require an Internet-connected research station with rich media support, and having that station be something I can cut and paste out of (as opposed to e.g. an external iPad or Android tablet) is a boon to my productivity, not a curse.

</comment><comment><USER3> In the weekend when I am home I try to do my normal work on a 1986 msx-2 running Symbos. It actually workd quite well. I cheat a bit by having 512kb (soldered in myself which I am still proud of), a network card and compactflash card reader but the MSX runs at 3.58mhz and most things I need to do work on it. It is absolutely crazy what the creator of Symbos gets out of this limited machine. If that had happened in the 80s we might have had a very different history.

I run a computer museum and try to educate visitors on the history of computers by actually using the old systems and seeing that fundametally it is not so different or in; it is not magic what computers do.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't think users of outdated word processors are just using them for simplicity's sake, usually they're real power users of whatever software they're using, the fact that it's an old DOS/Win 3.1/whatevs program is not the whole raison d'etre of it, although I guess the "distraction free" environment might help a bit.

If it's just about the latter, a non-networked Amiga without games might suffice, but if it's also about word processor-fu, does the Amiga actually have something unique that's in a league of XyWrite or WordStar? A real reason to pull out the A500, instead of heading for e.g. iaWriter/WriteRoom (for the distraction-free) or Emacs/Scrivener (for the feature-focused).

<comment><USER5> I was part of a fairly large cult following of Wordstar that continued to use it after supposedly better GUI based word processors came along.

The key bindings and traversal were very well thought out, and once you got into the groove, it was more efficient than anything I've used before or since.

A write up on the subject that says it better than I can: [http://sfwriter.com/wordstar.htm](http://sfwriter.com/wordstar.htm)

And, yes...I can't see why an Amiga would be a plus in a pure editing scenario. Sharp monochrome would have been the right environment for word processing at the time, which was not the Amiga's forte.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ouch, Amiga with its flickering interlaced screen was never a good 'productivity' machine because it was painful to look at higher resolution documents. Its competitor, the Atari ST, had a high quality paper white monochrome monitor at 640x400 that was much better for those type of applications. And it was cheaper.

Amiga was definitely by far the better games and graphics machine tho.

EDIT: Had written 640x480, meant to write 640x400

<comment><USER7> 640x400 - since 640*400/8=32000. The ST always had 32,000 bytes of display memory. (edit: I dawdled over my reply while doing multiple nostalgic google searches, and my correction is now redundant)

I don't know what they did to make the mono monitor look so nice. It was only 70Hz, and it only did black OR white, but it was completely flicker-free, like an LCD. But unlike an LCD - at least an LCD in the 1990s - there was no blur; unlike the then-popular passive-matrix LCDs, there were no crosstalk streaks; and unlike your average 1990 colour CRT, assuming you could find one that ran at 70Hz, there was no visible flicker even to my teenager's eyes.

Focus round the edges was pretty bad though, at least on the model I had. The options appeared to be "pin-sharp stamp-sized display with a massive border" or "nice big screen with blurred edges".

It doesn't really compare very well to anything modern, but you're right that it was streets ahead of 640x512 interlaced on the Amiga, and I don't care how many colours that would have been.

<comment><USER8> Not that I ever saw one, but there was the Amiga 2024 monitor. Supposedly it had less flicker and also higher resolution. [http://www.bigbookofamigahardware.com/bboah/product.aspx?id=...](http://www.bigbookofamigahardware.com/bboah/product.aspx?id=863)

<comment><USER9> I still have one. It does 1024x1024 in 50Hz or 1024x800 in 60Hz. 4 greyscale tones.

Very good monitor for the time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've found myself intrigued by the idea of "antique computing," though I'm not sure why someone would advocate the Amiga specifically.

I have considered a project that involves getting an older, though not ancient, PC, installing FreeDOS ([http://www.freedos.org/](http://www.freedos.org/)) as the OS and running say, WordPerfect 5.1.

<comment><USER11> I've been considering getting a Pentium II thinkpad and going all Debian 3.0 on it, KDE2 and probably StarOffice something. Not as antique, but there is USB and thus Wi-Fi or cabled ethernet.

<comment><USER12> I personally would feel that using something like KDE and StarOffice would be already way beyond the complexity cliff that defines modern computing, and as such for me it would be almost same to use modern versions. Of course your mileage might vary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> If there really are people who would love to use the classic Amiga for word processing (in the sense of modern features) why don't they simply start an open source project for this purpose?

</comment><comment> rlv-dan If the author is reading this: You spelled the name of the word processor software wrong: WordWord instead of WordWorth.</comment>


Building Scalable Databases: Perspectives on the War on Soft Deletes - <AUTHOR> http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2009/11/23/BuildingScalableDatabasesPerspectivesOnTheWarOnSoftDeletes.aspx <comment><USER2> _One of the annoyances that we have to deal when building enterprise applications is the requirement that no data shall be lost._

Since when is a business requirement an "annoyance"? We keep data for lots of good reasons. Just a few off the top of my head:

      - IRS requirements
      - SEC requirements
      - SOX requirements
      - data warehousing
      - data auditing
      - delayed undo
      - business intelligence
      - trend reporting & analysis
      - research & development
      - cooperative databases
      - industry databases & statistics

_The usual response to that is to introduce a WasDeleted or an IsActive column in the database and implement deletes as an update that would set that flag._

Wrong. The usual response is archiving to disk using separate tables. This solves all of the requirements above while streamlining active database tables. It's not unusual for 98% of all the enterprise data on disk to be in the archived state.

 _This sort of cleanup now has to moved up into the application layer._

So what?

One of the biggest mistakes I consistently see is trying to use the facilities of a database management system to replace application logic. Indexes, triggers, and stored procedures are all critical tools in the developer's arsenal, but they do not replace application analysis, design, and programming. Like security and scaling, archiving is a _architectural consideration_ , not a bolt on. Including proper data archiving in the application's design renders the hard vs. soft delete debate pointless.

<comment><USER3> I agree that the "hard vs. soft delete" debate is pointless. It seems the article sets up a false dilemma. The interesting thing is how to deal with archive data. There are a few patterns, but the one presented many times in this article is the "log it" pattern (if it has an official name, please let me know). Basically, this transforms all the data into a series of transactions, each of which is stored. It can occur at the database level (log each changing query, e.g. insert, updated, delete). At the data level (columns for is-filled, is-backordered, and so on, the soft delete in the article). At the application level (each transaction is in a different row, what it means is away from the data itself). Really it comes down to how often the data will need to be accessed, and how dynamically it needs to be queried.

In the modern age of hadoop clusters everywhere, and clouds being cheap, it may actually be best to keep the database as a maintainer of current state, and the transaction log as the historian (alternative 1 above), shipping off the logs for data-mining on the cluster at the analyst's leisure. The part I find amusing is: depending on which angle you come from, this could be a hard or soft delete :).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We get around having to "clean up" hard deleted in VertexDB using garbage collection.

<http://github.com/stevedekorte/vertexdb>

For archival, we append "events" to a node.</comment>


Show HN: Zircle UI – a circular zooming user interface library based on Vue.js - <AUTHOR> http://zircle.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi folks I'm presenting you Zircle UI, which is a circular zooming user interface library based on Vue.js. It took me a lot of time to develop it since I'm a diplomat not a programmer. So, I had to learn Javascript, how to use Git and a lot of tools first. Also I experimented with many concepts before achieving what I wanted. I always wanted to create a library to build apps or sites that use zoomable navigation so I build one :). I hope you like it! Thank you, Martin

<comment><USER2> Not sure about circles as sole UI primitives, but this is a great start that could grow to support rectilinear views as well.

The big thing I would take a look at is the animation: Ease-in with a hard stop is not a pleasant motion for a zooming UI. I'd try an ease-in-out, and see if you can synchronize the scaling and the positioning so the new circle smoothly zooms into place rather than zooming offscreen and jumping into the center at the end of the animation.

Keep up the good work!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your suggestion! Surely the eases could be improved, maybe the best is to allow to the developers to define their own ease and timing according the use.

<comment><USER3> Certainly _allow_ it, but provide a sane default, too. If you don't, people wiill be more likely to do something stupid than they would be otherwise.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your suggestion about using ease-in-out. I'm playing with that and it is more pleasant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like it, but it's a bit nausea inducing for me. I'm also the type of person that feels nausea playing FPS games, shifting my focus quickly is not the right feel for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your feedback! I appreciate your comment. Maybe it is a good idea to have the possibility to set the transition speed. Thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is really cool. Recently I was looking for zoomable ui for a complex timeline I want to implement, this may be useful for that.

Here is another example of zoomable ui : [https://jonikorpi.com/zoomable-ui- for-the-web](https://jonikorpi.com/zoomable-ui-for-the-web)

How much effort will be need to make it squarish instead of circular ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! It is very easy to use boxes instead of circles! You only have to change the css border of some classes. Pls feel free to contribute withan issue in Github if you like! I ended with circle shapes just because a personal interest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've made an user interface based on spheres turning like a carrousel (using mouse wheel). When you clicked on a sphere they'll all go to the center and then the next level of navigation/menu appears.

Pretty aww demo effects on the final client.

Strictly no interest on a daily basis use. The company I worked with finally removed it.

So my point is that, despite the fact that I really like what you did (and I do :-), reinventing navigation way is a pretty rash UX problem and must be apply in very specific places.

Good work anyway and thanks for sharing

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you! Pls, JeanMarcs understand that I've never thought on reinvent the navigation. I'm not feel comfortable in such position and It wasn't my goal.

On the contrary, Zircle allows me to learn Javascript and meet a very interesting people. Maybe, but just maybe it is a small contribution to the ZUI.

Also, I'm agree with you in to apply it to specific places. I think that Zircle may be work for building UIs for IoT, health & fitness apps, mini- dashboards, among other potencial implementations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hey, congratulations on your work. Be aware that I am seeing lots of strange visual artifacts when testing this on Firefox Dev Edition. Basically there are scrollbars in all circles...

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for your support! You are right I have problems with the scrollbars in some ffox editions. I'll work on that!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Demos seem to suffer from a lack of "overflow: hidden".

Affected classes: .z-content, .maindisc

<comment><AUTHOR> Good to know that! I really tried to make the transition as much smooth as I could. Your info will help me a lot to improve this aspect. Thank you

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I feel dizzy :)</comment>


Ask HN: Is this a good idea for a startup with a chicken/egg problem? - <AUTHOR>

The chicken/egg problem I refer to is that our startup will be valuable to users when there are a lot of users. I think it was Paul Buchheit who said to start with something a few people love rather than something a lot of people kind of like. That's the advice I'm trying to adhere to with this idea. The challenge my cofounder and I face is that we're attempting to disrupt a very entrenched method of doing something. Our target users express that they'd love if our process became the new norm, but can't afford to neglect the traditional system while they wait.
So we intend to make our users fall in love with our vision and ethos before our service provides them the value they deserve. To show our gratitude to initial users we'll help them achieve their short-term objectives within the traditional system we intend to disrupt. Is this a good idea?
Hopefully this analogy will clarify any misunderstandings. Imagine Lyft when it started. An initial user goes through the effort to try it out, but there isn't a driver available to pick him/her up. Should Lyft show its gratitude by helping that user get a taxi? <comment><USER2> Yes, you want to prove to your users that you understand the problem and that you are the solution. You can be the solution without the product by helping them best use the traditional system you are trying to disrupt. Grab a good community of beta users and hook them into your market research. We started with a survey then a phone call and now we take them to coffee to really know what their needs are. As we build product, we're testing our UI and UX with these initial users heavily involved in our market research. We've found that they are more likely to provide feedback because we're truly building a product specific to their needs. Demonstrate you can solve their problem however you can then build the product of their dreams.

</comment><comment><USER3> My detector's going off based simply on the fact that you're unwilling to tell us more about your idea. Do you believe that there are people out there who would beat you to the pinch?

<comment><AUTHOR> There may be people out there who could provide a great solution to the problem we're trying to solve before we can. I welcome that possibility because I've experienced the problem myself, and I want a great solution to exist. The reason I didn't mention our idea is because my cofounder is still under the impression that ideas are very valuable, and asked me not to divulge it unnecessarily. I may not agree with him, but I've respected his request because I don't believe including our idea is necessary for this question.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If you are not in a hurry (disrupting entrenched mindsets shouldn't be expected to be done in a hurry) then yes, you want to gradually sneak it into their daily life with an offering that's closer to their current mental model for the activity.

With bitgym[0], we originally tried to make cardio-gaming a thing [1]. We still want it to be a thing, as when tried in a properly curated environment with the right expectations, it was far and away the best experience for users seeking fitness. As such, we've had to start from their current experiences, and engineer something that they can relate to better as we slowly progress towards our vision of getting everyone to play VR mariokart to stay fit.

It's slow work, but it's definitely something a few people love, and they are quickly seeing things the way we do :]

Just an anecdote, we aren't roaring away with success yet, but it seems to be working.

[0] [http://www.bitgym.com](http://www.bitgym.com) [1] [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id483991355](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/id483991355)

<comment><USER5> Just want to say that the name bitgym is super awesome. Not too sure about the service itself though.</comment></comment>


Mirasol, a color screen that has the battery life of E-Ink and can play video - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/btl/qualcomms-e-ink-killer-how-do-you-mass-produce-mirasol/37838

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's another article I found DDG-ing "mirasol qi" which lists 4 new competing new color display technologies.

[http://besttabletreview.com/a-comparison-of-second- generatio...](http://besttabletreview.com/a-comparison-of-second-generation- displays-why-pixel-qi-mirasol-qr-lpd-and-liquavista-are-the-future-of-tablet- screens/)</comment>


Ask HN: Why Hiring Is Broken? - <AUTHOR> We know hiring is broken.
We know recruiters/HR always have unconscious bias on name, typo, keywords, CV format etc. We know recruiters always don'y response to replies.
But fundamentally what creates these problems? Why we are not looking into whether a candidate can create a great product for the company, but whether they can sell themselves with nonsense keywords? <comment><USER2> We don't "know that hiring is broken." We know that some people find the process of finding a job frustrating, and that employers struggle to find the right people to hire. I attribute those problems to more demand than supply for competent candidates, and no reliable and quick way to determine how a candidate may perform in any specific role. Given those conditions, proxies such as credentials, experience, sample work, and whiteboard interviews get used instead.

The biases you list aren't even unconscious. Poor spelling and grammar indicate either sloppiness or inadequate education, not qualities anyone hires for. A person who can't put their own CV together doesn't give a good impression regarding attention to detail, checking their work, or mastery of the tools and domain.

How do you think a potential employer might determine if a candidate "can create a great product for the company?" Why assume that creating a "great" product is even the employer's main priority? How might a recruiter or hiring manager judge and rank multiple relevant qualities for hundreds or thousands of candidates?

A process that seems less than ideal and frustrating for some people isn't necessarily "broken." It may be the best we can do given the constraints and ambiguities of hiring and job hunting.</comment>


Light speed: Flying into fantasy - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/int/news/-/news/science-environment-15034414

<comment><USER2> Confirm it, confirm it, confirm it! It's baffling, yes, but not altogether inconceivable. In the case of black holes that supposedly exert an equal or greater force to slow down or stop light, why is it not conceivable to have a greater force that is faster than the speed of light? Findings like these forces us to view things (and hopefully accept things) outside of our comfort zone. If it is confirmed, it brings us to the doorstep of dimensions > 3rd; more quantum physics and string theories; and (so cool) warping of time and the fabric of space. The fact that CERN scientists have detected neutrinos ahead of what they expected means that they detected it!!! - a natural process in its own right, but we have now managed to detected it; ergo, it suggests that they don't follow the rules of physics that we have established and that there are more laws that we do not know about.....how exciting!</comment>


Ask HN: React Native vs. Nativescript: which do you use/prefer? - <AUTHOR> Which of the two do you use/prefer ?
What was the major reason ?
Is there another alternative for JS-based native mobile development ? <comment><USER2> The bad thing with Nativescript is that it is developed by a company who sells components, so free Nativescript will always be a second class, will lack functionalities, etc... Basically it is a first bait for subsequently converting you into their clientele.

</comment><comment><USER3> React Native -- all tooling is free, it's used by high-profile companies in production, and it has a much larger community</comment>


How faulty checking for valid email addresses can hurt you - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ox.cx/2009/05/13/how-faulty-checking-for-valid-email-addresses-can-hurt-you/

<comment><USER2> I gave up validating an email address a long time ago. Now all I will do is sanitize it to be safe from malicious attempts. The tipping point for me was trying to decipher an unreasonably long regular expression written months prior to find out why someone's funky address (like the author's) was failing -- wasted time.

You can try, but you can't prevent people from doing dumb things, and in the attempt you end up potentially making mistakes like in the case of the article. Users will always do something unanticipated. With that in mind I only validate the things that really matter (e.g. credit card numbers, social security numbers, etc.). If someone wants to enter "jane at aol" as their address, I have to think, "is this going to a problem for my company?" If not, don't bother to try to fix it.

</comment><comment><USER3> We check for an MX record associated with the domain, and leave it at that. I'd rather deal with spam than lose a customer.

<comment><USER4> a domain without MX records is valid. if a domain/host doesn't have an MX record, MTAs are supposed to try delivering to the domain/host itself.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the tip, I didn't know that. We should change to checking for valid DNS entries then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My current policy on validating email addresses is to issue a warning if a given email address fails a check against a standard that covers the vast majority of addresses in use. Validating against the whole range of possible address content is near pointless. The warning simply asks the user to check their email in case of errors but allows a page submission following the display of that warning.

<comment><USER6> _My current policy on validating email addresses is to issue a warning if a given email address fails a check against a standard that covers the vast majority of addresses in use._

My policy on validating email addresses is "if I send you an email and it arrives, your email address is valid".

Why do you need to "validate" an email address? Knowing that an address is syntactically valid doesn't do anything to confirm that it will reach the intended target.

<comment><USER5> You are correct - but - at your initial point of contact you have (perhaps) a single opportunity to make contact with your prospective customer. You should do all you can (without boring or annoying your prospect) to capture enough accurate information to ensure that the next step succeeds.

I agree - long term relationships are built on (in the context of this conversation) an exchange of emails but why blow it at the first hurdle?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There's no way to get around invalid email addresses. Anybody can put in something like firstname.lastname@example.com and it would pass most regex checks. I think the best solution is to just check for an "@" sign and a "." after it.

<comment><USER8> Yup, I deal with a lot of email data at work and this is pretty much what I do. People try to get way too clever with their validation (I pity anyone stuck with an email at a .museum TLD), and the spambots will just put real- looking fake ones anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The plus address issue is very very frustrating. The worst is when you try to unsubscribe from somewhere, and they don't URL-encode your email address in the unsubscribe URL. If you don't know the change the "+" to a "%2B", you're stuck.

</comment><comment><USER10> While I'm not as unlucky as a .museum user, I use a .me address as my main public contact address, and you'd be surprised at the number of well-designed sites that don't think it's a valid email.</comment>


Why Linux on the Desktop Is Dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/252516/why_linux_on_the_desktop_is_dead.html

<comment><USER2> I upvoted this article because I actually hold the opposite opinion. While I wouldn't deny that most people are going to have a better experience on Windows or OSX right now, I believe that as the commercial software world becomes increasingly focused on web, tablet, and mobile platforms, room appears for the "open-source desktop" - Linux or otherwise - to experience a renaissance.

The open-source ecosystem accomplishes something no company really wants to bother with - maintaining and polishing up old working code. Over a period of a few years that is no advantage, but when you start taking a decades-long view, old solved problems want to stay solved, and open-source increasingly becomes the option that gets you there faster.

And the cutting edge has already moved on. Although there are still plenty of high-end tasks that need the kind of deep hardware access you only get on desktops, the web has proven that it can do an increasing breadth of high quality apps - and so have the mobile environments. If you're selling software, you want to be on those platforms if you can, despite all their maturity problems.

</comment><comment><USER3> Well, I still going to keep using Linux on the desktop regardless... Ubuntu is not exactly the best example of this application for sure!</comment>


Drupal 8+ only hurts middle-class developer job growth. - <AUTHOR> In light of Drupal 8 being released recently, it's probably worth saying this (again)...
More and more functionality is being baked into Drupal core.  Among other things, this means more website features can be implemented by just configuration and site-building, not necessarily writing custom code. You can now create even more complex and robust Drupal websites without ever having to write PHP, JavaScript, or other programming languages. Drupal 9 and later versions are only going to continue this trend.
In the long run this kind of situation will pose sincere challenges for most Drupal developers both personally (i.e. becoming a marketable programmer) and professionally (i.e finding a long-term full-time job with health/retirement benefits). Will there be a lot of Drupal jobs that need site-builders and content curators? Or if you are an experienced enough programmer, will your skills be as needed if Drupal core can do it already? To put it another way, Drupal might simultaneously help in creating Drupal developers who can't program, while making the need for Drupal devs who can program less and less of a need (for Drupal jobs).
When speaking of Drupal jobs, I speak of full-time jobs that include opportunities for advancement, long-term job security and solid health and retirement benefits. I'm not talking about a part-time internship or even a full-time position that has low pay and little to no benefits.
This trend probably won't be an issue for Drupal developers near the top of the core commit pile working on the next version of Drupal core and/or those working for Acquia (the former and latter are usually the same thing), but those kinds of positions are very few and far between and most Drupal devs don't have the depth of knowledge/experience to earn a full-time position doing it.
In summary, Drupal as an application and how Drupal is built (free via open-source) will only hurt long-term developer growth for the middle-class. <comment><USER3> Nope. Not entirely at least and here's why:

\- There are still companies who delegate site development to web development firms. These firms are normally comprised of people who do Drupal _and other technologies_.

\- If you are focused on Drupal, you're doing it wrong. One should never be stuck with a single technology. I know people who do Drupal with Laravel, Symfony, and even Spring.

\- Some sites are still sitting on D6 and need upgrading to D7. Some sites sitting on D7 and need maintenance and upgrades.

\- And if you know what's right, you don't jump in the "new technologies" bandwagon until a year or two after, when it matures. D8 was just released, there's bound to be bugs.

\- Most common modules that are being used for D7 development aren't even fully ported over to 8. That means you can't migrate, nor even port over custom code until those are fully fleshed out. And even after they get ported, they'd still have bugs.

\- Custom systems will have custom code. This means there is code that's maintained outside the Drupal core or modules. This means there will be developers that will handle them.

If you think "middle class" developers are affected by this, then you're concept of "middle class" developer is not the right one. Also, if you think about it in the other way, D8 simplifies the work of a lower-ranked developer. Why create code when a module or a core feature already does that for you? Besides, a developer and a site builder are two totally different roles. They may meet at some common point, but their differences are quite extreme.

And there will always be the need for custom code. Otherwise, we'd all Drupal sites would look the same.

<comment><AUTHOR> \- Can you unpack your first bullet point a tad more? Are you saying that because these shops use other technologies (like say, Python, C++, etc...), they will be fine? But this still doesn't refute my point about Drupal in-and- of-itself. Actually, it might even buffer my point, if I understand it correctly.

\- But isn't this what so many Drupal developers do as well as Drupal shops (especially small to medium sized shops)? And, again, this point might even buffer my point about Drupal along not being advantageous. Plus, I don't think the Drupal community in general thinks this way (they are even cultish about Drupal actually)

\- True, as of now. This is where Drupal devs will still have work to do. But that sucks professionally speaking - who wants to just do that? How will that kind of work help you develop as a good programmer? But, all of that is not really relevant to my post anyway - I'm more focused on things ahead - <USER2> ahead - the future of jobs. In 5 years? 10 years? These jobs will be gone.

\- Ok.

\- See my 3rd bullet point response above.

\- Sure, but the future of Drupal actively works against that. My point is not that all of this is ending tomorrow, but it time Drupal's philosophy (get as much into core as possible) will eventually hurt programmers and their jobs (for those who stick with just Drupal).

\- I define a "good middle class" job as the following: long-term job security, real opportunities for growth in the company, good pay, healthcare benefits (including dental) and retirement benefits (like 401ks) etc. There are a lot of small to mid-sized Drupal shops who can't come close to this kind of job offer. They always seem stuck in virtual start-up mode. So, serious Drupal devs are forced to work for one of the big Drupal shops (and those kinds of shops are few and far between)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Taps.io is bit.ly for apps - <AUTHOR> http://blog.tapstream.com/post/40781681789/made-for-apps-taps-io-shortener

<comment><USER2> Gotta say I was skeptical clicking the link, but after reading about how you plan to give app analytics, I'm amazed nobody thought of it sooner, its a great idea. Good luck on your venture.

<comment><USER3> Bit.ly for apps totally under sells it, I thought it was another url shortener for app store links. This is link to app install analytics solution. Very cool.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> God I hate the "X is Y for Z" idiom. Just tell us what you do. I don't know what every Y is on the planet.

</comment><comment><USER5> Simple question your front page should answer: does it work with web apps? As this is targeted at developers, I surely don't assume Mac OS and Windows 8 includes web apps.

<comment><USER6> Good point - it's aimed at mobile and desktop apps. Web apps can do all sorts of tracking already via cookies, while native apps are completely sandboxed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm curious how TapStream auto-magically ids the user. My first guess is you guys are doing the app-safari-app dance at first fireup.

<comment><USER6> Definitely not! We hate the Safari dance - it fingerprints visitors based on their device info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> looking good guys! it's possible to use Tapstream with our own url shortener right?

<comment><USER6> Yeap, they can be stacked and the destination URL can be arbitrary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is this compatible with our own linkshare affiliate links?

<comment><USER6> Completely, it doesn't touch Linkshare unless you add it to the shortener.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What do you when you are forced/asked to design at work? - <AUTHOR>

I am employed as "Web Developer" and I am not a designer. I wish I was, but I'm not. At least I know it right?
I was handed a CS3 install disk within my first week and my heart sank. I know I am not good at using any of those programs, and I thought I made it perfectly clear in my interview that I'm NOT a designer.
At work I'm asked to take photoshop designs and "cut" them. I don't really mind writing HTML if someone gives me the graphics, but I feel like cutting them out in photoshop is out of my skill set.
Do any of you developers face similar challenges? Did saying anything help? I feel like I'd probably get laughed at.
"This guy doesn't know photoshop?? psh."
I honestly believe the company is losing money every time I open photoshop...maybe I should just learn it?
Is it time to find somewhere else? <comment><USER2> Cutting up a comp isn't "design," it's implementation.

I have never seen a frontend web development position where slicing comps wasn't a core component of the job description. If the primary languages they listed in the description are HTML, CSS, and JS, then this is probably what they imagined you'd be doing from the beginning.

On the other hand, if you a "programmer" proper and the primary languages listed are Ruby, Python, PHP, Java, etc., then I could understand a little frustration. But keep in mind - if you're working in web and doing any frontend work at all, most employers will (rightly) expect that you have these skills.

I hope the position you've found works out for you, or that you're able to find something better that you'd prefer.

Good luck!

<comment><USER3> I totally agree, what you're doing is not design. If you're writing the html/css it's in everyone's best interests that it's you doing the slicing and dicing.

Learn enough of photoshop to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> When I started looking at development as a career, I was under the impression that web development always involved two parties: the developer and the designer. I was employed at a development company, doing non-development work, and was looking to move to a new position. That's when I was informed that, at this company, all developers were expected to also be proficient designers...

...my heart sank. But, I picked up CS3 and started poking around looking for tips/tricks/tutorials and the like. Within 3-4 weeks I was proficient enough to get the new position, and I've been improving over time.

Now I can say that, in retrospect, this is probably the better way to do development. We do have a handful of designers on staff, but they are perpetually swamped, and they're going to focus on the most prominent artwork needs, like the big shiny icons. That, of course, leaves them little time to help me with my silly little shadow or border box.

There are benefits to having developers also know design that goes beyond how much time they waste hacking around in Photoshop.

 _EDIT_ : To clarify my response a bit: Learning is hard, but it'll be a good skill for you in the long run. Leave the business, cost/benefit determinations to your bosses for the time being. If they're giving you time to learn: learn!

</comment><comment><USER5> One approach might be to point out the hourly wage of a good designer. Point out your own hourly wage. Then point out that it takes you 2-3 times longer for lower quality work. If you feel the need to be explicit, do the math for them. Most companies will listen to economic arguments.

(Though they may "listen" by laying you off, if they don't have other work for you. Still, it's the same outcome as if you quit, and you get to collect unemployment.)

If that doesn't work, bite the bullet and learn some minimal Photoshop. I'm not a designer either. But I've had to "cut" Photoshop mockups on a few occasions (mostly in my own startup, where there was nobody else to do it). _Somebody_ has to perform the translation from graphic to web page, and it's usually easier for web developers to learn a little Photoshop than it is for designers to learn good HTML.</comment>


Security Weekly – The Security Podcast Network - <AUTHOR> https://wiki.securityweekly.com/Security_Weekly <comment><AUTHOR> I don't know if I should comment and explain why this is interesting, but I sometimes click the comments first, so here goes:

Look at all this stuff! Application security, red team tradecraft, security news (both overview and in depth), stories about all kinds of crap I've never heard of.

I discovered this in the thread on the Mexican oil co. hack (at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21541592](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21541592) ), but there's way more stuff on here than just the Security Weekly news podcast.</comment>


Can someone please tell me what this company actually does? - <AUTHOR> http://www.leversource.com/index.php

<comment><USER2> It looks like they come in and optimize your business, I think?

<comment><USER3> haha! Well that cleared things up.</comment></comment>


Wekkars keep your webserver alive - <AUTHOR> http://axonet.be/blog/2012/03/wekkars-keep-your-app-alive/

<comment><USER2> This is important for .NET websites as well - if you don't have enough traffic to guarantee your site stays alive you should set something up so force it to, that first pageview can take orders of magnitude longer than normal.</comment>


ITA-Powered Google Travel Launches; Kayak Says Its Flight Search Is 'Superior' - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/09/13/ita-powered-google-travel-launches-kayak-says-its-flight-search-is-superior/

<comment><USER2> Only flights within the US? That is a bit too alpha.</comment>