GoPro introduces Hero3 - 4k video, 2x frame rate and low light performance - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/16/gopro-hd-hero3/ <comment><USER3> Probably off-topic, but many do not know that GoPro was bootstrapped. Here is an interview with the founder Nick Woodman about bootstrapping GoPro [http://www.inc.com/maeghan-ouimet/nick-woodman- gopro-10-year...](http://www.inc.com/maeghan-ouimet/nick-woodman- gopro-10-years-bootstrapping-overnight-success.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> Not mentioned in the article but WVGA now supports 240fps. This is amazing on such a cheap camera.

</comment><comment><USER5> GoPro makes excellent hardware, but for some reason they insist on restricting its use. They politely told anyone who asked them about the bus to please stop, and they refuse to release any details of their Wifi protocol - <USER2> that you can only make any use of the camera with their app.

I've got a project that can use hundreds of these, if I could use it as an IP camera (I'm willing to write the code to do that myself, if I get the documentation); As it is, we're paying $700 for a camera that produces lesser quality images.

edit: speaking of which - does any of you know of a successful GoPro1/2/3 hacking project?

</comment><comment><USER6> Whow. $200 for the cheapest hero 3, which does include wifi, sounds like a great deal!

</comment><comment><USER7> Has anyone here ever used a GoPro as a dash cam? I've been looking at one for motorsports, but while I'm not riding I would like to put it to use. Having recently been victim of a hit and run where the officer did not believe that I was not at fault, a dash cam is something high on my list to get. It would be easier to justify the cost if I could use it as dual-purpose.

Recording constantly, but footage only reviewed if I need to prove something. I don't need automatic start/stop or the ability to automatically record over old stuff as long as I can delete footage on the camera without needing a computer.

<comment><USER8> I don't think it's possible to configure the gopro to overwrite old footage - unless something's changed in a recent firmware.

I have a roadhawk mounted (and wired into the fuse box). The video quality is sub standard for the price, and especially poor compared to even the previous go pro at night. However the software does work quite well and unfortunately the device paid for itself ~2 years ago when i was clipped with no witness and the other party presenting a fabricated story. Until then i had felt a bit guilty about using the camera - i don't necessarily think these are a great idea, but i have to go with my experience and it worked well for me.

NB: all these options are useless for "the other driver did X" often they will only help prove what you did or did not do. I mistakenly thought of it as a way to capture what actions other drivers took but it doesnt work well for that use case.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There is a youtube clip with sample video from this camera: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=A3PDXmYoF5U)

Here is a link the same clip with much better quality. This clip has average bitrage over 10mbps. <http://fil.io/FL82vTNAs/Footage%20from%20GoPro%20HERO3>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> From dpreview: [http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/10/17/GoPro- Hero-3-Black-W...](http://www.dpreview.com/news/2012/10/17/GoPro-Hero-3-Black- White-Silver-Edition-4k-protune) The existing Hero HD and Hero 2 models have essentially been re-housed in smaller cases with updated user interfaces and will sit alongside the Black Edition as the White and Silver Editions, respectively

</comment><comment><USER10> Does it resolve the rolling shutter issues?

I'm disappointed an action oriented camera displays so much distortion in rapid movement.

<comment><USER11> Are you sure you aren't misrepresenting the issue? I never had distortion issues with my Hero2, and looking on google it seems the rolling shutter issues mostly pertain to engine vibrations and aircraft props (?), which I don't really expect a $200 camera to be able to capture perfectly, action- oriented or not.

<comment><USER12> It is certainly not misrepresenting the issue, the rolling shutter is a big issue. Having said that, as a pro-sumer bit of hardware this camera is a fantastic deal. For true professional shoots the rolling shutter is problematic precisely because this is the type of camera that you will be putting in high-vibration locations. I've used these cameras extensively and they are great at what they do if you play to their strengths, but I'd definitely be willing to pay more for them if they move away from a CMOS sensor.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> For anyone in the market like me, here is a good comparison vs. Sony's offering : [http://afr.com/f/free/technology/digitallife/sony_shows_gopr...](http://afr.com/f/free/technology/digitallife/sony_shows_gopro_hero_who_first_xQN7lgW5aeKli1a16W5voN)

<comment><USER13> Looks like Sony's offering is competing with the GoPro2, rather than the GoPro3. Still, given the inevitable upcoming price drop in the 2 after the 3 comes out, that's a handy comparison to have.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes they are. We have to see how it will compare. The GoPro2 compares poorly in low light compared to Sony with lower dynamic range. So I can't wait to see some comparison

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Looks like Drift Innovation has some catching up to do

<http://driftinnovation.com/camera/>

Their kind of design looks more appropriate for helmet mounting. I wonder why GoPro do their cameras in compact camera style?

<comment><USER15> There are underwater casings and a lot of other gear which can be used with the GoPro. And the compact camera style, according to me, is more flexible and appropriate for that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> 4k@15fps

<comment><USER17> Would be great for making streetview style imagery.

<comment><USER16> One would need to correct for that horrible lens geometry and rolling shutter first. Not impossible, but kind of tricky to do it right.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Dang! I just bought my hero 2 Technology moves so fast that I now purchase with a "rental" attitude.. :(

</comment><comment><USER19> Any videos of the purported low light performance?

</comment><comment><USER20> woah GoPro 2 had a very short half-life.

</comment><comment><USER21> Guess which shmuck just bought a pair of Hero2s. :(</comment>


Git Hot Tips - <AUTHOR> http://wesbos.com/git-hot-tips/ <comment><USER2> Nice collection. How did I not know about git log --oneline?

And shortlog -sn is amusing. Looks like I need to make 33 more commits to take over second place in the commit race on my primary project. lol.</comment>


Airbus plans derivatives trading for airline tickets - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/content/dc56376c-3940-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4 <comment><USER2> paywall</comment>


Officials Admit Japan's 'Helicopter Destroyers' Were Also Designed for Jets - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18855/officials-admit-japans-helicopter-destroyers-were-also-designed-for-jets <comment><USER2> When the Japanese start naming these carriers things like Kaga, Akagi, Hiryū, and Sōryū, then it will really be time to worry :) (1)

But seriously, given all of the provocations by North Korea and China, this should be expected and may even provide deterrence against others' destabilizing moves in the region. The Japanese haven't displayed any aggressive policies since 1945.

(1) Carriers of Battle Of Midway 1942 ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Carrier_Division](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Carrier_Division))

<comment><USER3> > Kaga, Akagi, Hiryū, and Sōryū

Kaga and Akagi are classes of ships so there is and wil be a bunch of them. Hiryu and Soryu were specific ships, hopefully these names stay with them.

It's "funny" how all the army ship games and manga

<comment><USER4> To add to this, these names are fairly generic and do not actually have any connotation of warlike-ness like, say, "Imperial Star Destroyer" or even something like a traditional US/UK Navy name "Victory."

Kaga: A region of Japan

Akagi: A mountain in Japan (perhaps familiar to fans of Initial D)

Souryuu: lit. "Blue Dragon"

Hiryuu: lit. "Flying Dragon" \-- really a modified Souryuu, named with the "dragon" (ryuu) suffix to show the relation to the Souryuu class.

The JMSDF also maintains several traditions from the Imperial Navy, such as the songs, ensigns, and technical terminology. One of the most well-known traditions that's been maintained across the two navies is the Japanese curry lunch served every Friday (there are even ads on trains for it as a tourist attraction).

IIRC the current naming system was also inherited from the Japanese navy, if you were curious about why two of the ships you named are named after places. Wikipedia has some more information on that: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritime_Self- Defense_Fo...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japan_Maritime_Self- Defense_Force#Culture_and_naming_conventions)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> With N. Korea provoking them for decades, I'm surprised they have kept article 9 of their constitution.

It made sense to defang Japan in the post-war period, but unilateral disarmament is foolhardy --and they know it given they have SDF as a workaround the limitations... so given they are by no means foolish, why keep on being somewhat hamstrung by article 9, specially given N. K's behavior?

<comment><USER6> If I understand correctly- the pacifism of article 9 is broadly popular and part of their national identity now.

It is an inspiring idea to give up weapons, even if it hasn't worked in practice.

<comment><USER5> The idea is noble, certainly, but foolish in practice as evidenced by their actually having armed forces disguised as self defence forces. Now, of course to keep up appearances, it does hamstring them --but as further evidenced by this "helicopter destroyer" it's more of appearances --it's like whaling but calling the whaling "cetacean research" rather than just whaling.

<comment><USER7> Most countries refer to their arms spending as 'defense spending'. Japan seems to go through further contortions but it's not like everyone else is that different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> All this threatening and tensions and military buildup between the US, it's clients and China as well as Russia sure makes me nervous about the future. Not to mention the recently announced movement of the doomsday clock to two minutes before midnight by the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists.

It would be terrible if the world were plunged into another catastrophe like WW1 or WW2. Unfortunately the lessons from those wars seems to be leaders are only to eager to start war to extend their power and prestige.

I'm sure nobody here wants war, it's up to us to stop it!

<comment><USER9> Terrible loss of life, but both of those wars were catalysts for major technical and industrial breakthroughs... I'm curious if the tech advancements of those wars outweigh the direct deaths.

<comment><USER10> I hear this a lot, but it's silly on its face. What if the money was just put directly in to research instead? If any government action leads to spin-off technologies, I'd rather it be in the form of a space program than in the form of a war that kills many of the _next_ generation's great scientists.

<comment><USER11> "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron." ― Dwight D. Eisenhower

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Thinking of "the pentagon wars" the engineer that designed that thing for helicopters and now when it is all done they announce yeah and also it should be able to handle f-35's.

Featurecreap.

</comment><comment><USER13> Reminds me of the Through-Deck Cruiser episode for the Royal Navy.

"Work on the design of the new cruiser continues. Our plans for its development are not dependent on the outcome of the Harrier trials"

[http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/oct/21/throu...](http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/commons/1971/oct/21/through- deck-cruisers)

Handily enough, when the RN was forced to decommission its big-deck carriers in the mid-1970s the through-deck cruiser was outfitted for Sea Harriers and became a light carrier...

</comment><comment><USER14> I would have thought they needed to rewrite their constitution _before_ building these, not a few years after!

<comment><USER15> Japan's constitution bans war and sets a percentage of GDP limit on their military, but it doesn't force them to forego having a military altogether.

Japan is also a very rich nation, still 3rd in the world by GDP I believe and were only relatively recently overtaken by the PRC in that regard as they were 2nd in the world for a very long time. So even with a limit of 1% of national GDP, that is a pretty large budget and they still rank among the big spenders in terms of absolute dollars spent on their military every year.

Given they live under the American nuclear umbrella, and American treaty obligations state that the US will come to Japan's aid should it be attacked, the Japanese have focused their defense dollars around a Self Defense Force, less blue water and more green water for their navy for example. Helicopter carriers rather than large aircraft carriers because their focus is on anti- submarine warfare, not force projection.

If their focus _had_ been on force projection and the restrictions in their constitution didn't exist, then the PRC would most likely have been stymied long ago trying to project power out into the South China Sea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> to the surprise of exactly 0 people</comment>


Mac Pro Teardown 2: Teardown Harder - <AUTHOR> http://ifixit.org/blog/6179/mac-pro-teardown-2-teardown-harder/

<comment><USER2> This is the part that caught my attention:

> We noticed a few cavities around the edges of the impeller filled with some > sort of epoxy (on both sides). We suspect it's for fine-tuned balancing, to > keep the fan running smooth and quiet.

Apple is balancing the fans they put in the computers. What other manufacturer would do that? I love Apple's little details.

<comment><USER3> > Apple is balancing the fans they put in the computers. What other > manufacturer would do that? I love Apple's little details.

Noctua, for example? [http://www.noctua.at/](http://www.noctua.at/)

<comment><USER4> I've used a Noctua fan in one of my builds, they are fantastic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Individually that's not much gold. Anyone able to estimate how much, and what it would cost at today's gold prices?

One bendit of having that there is that people really want gold, and so those machines are going to get a thorough teardown at end of life, which should help with reclaiming and recycling all the other stuff.

</comment><comment><USER6> So that's why macs are more expensive! Maybe there's a gold bar tucked away in your macbook pro right now.

<comment><USER7> Mine feels heavy enough to contain some bullion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> will linux run on these things? what's linux support for the new connectors they have?

<comment><USER9> What exactly in Linux you do that is not possible in OSX?

<comment><USER10> Dumbest comment I've read all week

<comment><USER9> No I'm really questioning this. I have both OSX and Ubuntu machines. For command line tools they are equal. Absolutely everything that works on Ubuntu (CLI app) works on OSX too. So what's the Linux advantage when you already paid for OSX?!

<comment><USER11> Package management, kernel modifications, the ability to know whether or not your machine is back-doored, among other things. The ability to run an OS that will actually run on other hardware. The fact that it's open source also has a lot of indirect value to many of us as well.

<comment><USER12> I was with you until you implied Linux can't be back-doored. There's nothing about Linux that makes it immune to rootkits or backdoors despite what the hype would have you believe. Remember, Apple used to say the same thing about Macs, but you don't hear a lot of that rhetoric nowadays.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Blogspam - direct link: [http://ifixit.org/blog/6179/mac-pro- teardown-2-teardown-hard...](http://ifixit.org/blog/6179/mac-pro- teardown-2-teardown-harder/)</comment>


Why Do Societies Collapse? (2003) - <AUTHOR> https://www.ted.com/talks/jared_diamond_on_why_societies_collapse/up-next <comment><USER2> The classic reference, for those HN readers who are not in the post-literate society, is Joseph Tainter's _Collapse of Complex Societies_. The book explains Tainter's theory explaining collapse (increasing social complexity without commensurate improvement in quality of life) and concludes with an unconvincing representation that our society does not meet the conditions motivating collapse.

[https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies- Ar...](https://www.amazon.com/Collapse-Complex-Societies-Studies- Archaeology/dp/052138673X/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=)</comment>


Martin Scorcese Documentary on the New York Review of Books - <AUTHOR> https://mailchimp.com/presents/by-the-books/the-50-year-argument <comment><AUTHOR> Free to view in the USA through September 7.</comment>


Getting Your Groove Back - <AUTHOR> http://www.jasonshen.com/2011/getting-your-groove-back/

<comment><USER2> "Our world is one of second chances, of comebacks and turn arounds." So true. It seems that every major success story had a dark period when things weren't going well. The comeback may be more the rule than the exception.

<comment><USER3> I forget who said it (it might have even been pg, too lazy to google atm) but there are a lot of situations that are defined by failures and where it's utterly important to never fail and to avoid any elements of weakness (school, some corporate environments, etc.), however in life (and especially in entrepreneurship) it's the rare successes that define you, not the failures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Awesome post Jason.

One of my favorite videos: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BirIEDYrw0Y>

</comment><comment><USER5> Here's another great video: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fsm-QbN9r8>

<comment><USER6> "If you want to be successful you have to live on 3 hours or 2 hours of sleep" ... "stay up for 3 days" ... "forget to eat" ... "sleep is for those people who are broke"

I hope nobody on my team follows this advice. :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe he's deliberately saying these things to shock the kids he's talking to into listening carefully. By challenging their assumptions about what it takes to succeed, he's hoping to get them to change their behavior. Maybe they sleep 7 hours instead of 10 + naps and spend 2 out of 3 of those extra hours doing productive work. That could make a really big difference in their lives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great post Jason. Sometimes we just need to reflect in moments of despair and think about life and the meaning of it all. We are all destined to die and nothing is guaranteed. Our lives can be cut short at any moment. Nothing else matters but now.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Obo6xCAHIG8>

</comment><comment><USER8> I like this one by ET on resiliency. The story of Mike Tyson vs Buster Douglas and why it is better to be a turtle than a rabbit.

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtkSGhvF350&feature=relmf...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtkSGhvF350&feature=relmfu)

<comment><AUTHOR> I love that story about beating Mike Tyson. ET's presentation style is really great too. You can tell he's just so passionate about this material.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great article and videos. "passion has a funny way of trumping logic".Wonderful line</comment>


Language Server Protocol, Rust and Emacs - <AUTHOR> https://christian.kellner.me/2017/05/31/language-server-protocol-lsp-rust-and-emacs/ <comment><USER2> [https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs- devel/2017-04/msg00...](https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/emacs- devel/2017-04/msg00741.html) ("I am urging the GCC developers to work on implementing the language server."). Interesting statement from RMS, given LSP is a Microsoft technology, but it makes sense. The software on both sides of the reference implementation is under a GPL-compatible license. Also, LSP doesn't expose enough information to allow expropriation of GCC's frontend, which was RMS's concern with previous such efforts.

Really says something about Microsoft's evolution if you think about it.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure RMS said something to the effect that the ship has sailed with Clang. There's no longer any point in trying to prevent people from using proprietary back ends with the GCC front end. If they want to do it, then they can do it with Clang, so there's no point anymore in trying to "adjust" GCC's architecture.

I believe a prominent example is NVidia's CUDA compiler. As far as I understand this is just a modest fork of the Clang front end and a big new LLVM back end, and it's proprietary.

However Google has developed an open source alternative CUDA compiler, which is also based on Clang/LLVM: [https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45226.html](https://research.google.com/pubs/pub45226.html)

Also I would have thought that Clang already has LSP support for C++, but maybe I'm wrong.

<comment><USER4> Another example are the companies selling compilers for embedded development.

Previously they had proprietary compilers or gcc forks that they weren't that happy contributing back.

Now they can have their proprietary clang forks and don't contribute anything back.

Plenty of slideware examples at LLVM conferences.

On one side clang was great for improving the whole safety and tooling story for C and C++.

On the other side, if clang was available to Brad Cox, NeXT would never had released Objective-C to the community.

<comment><USER5> > On the other side, if clang was available to Brad Cox, NeXT would never had > released Objective-C to the community.

Actually the Stepstone "compiler" was a preprocessor that generated C (like cfront was for C++). Brad Cox never worked for NeXT.

The Objective C front end for gcc was written by Steve Naroff at Next. Later he and I persuaded Jobs that that front end should be merged into the official gcc tree, and so we (Cygnus) worked with NeXT to get merge them and, amazingly, produce Objective-C++ in the process.

Jobs was focused on the goal. When NeXT (and later Apple) were underdogs he was happy to embrace open standards (e.g. JPEG, MPEG, MPEG-3...) when it would help and outside proprietary standards when he thought it was needed (e.g. paid the rtf license).

<comment><USER4> Thanks for clarifying how everything went, and correcting my "what if".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a vim user, I'm very excited about LSP. Neovim (close enough) may add native support, which would be great: [https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/5522](https://github.com/neovim/neovim/issues/5522)

It's possible to do a lot of the nice IDE features in vim (and I'm sure emacs) today w/ all sorts of contortions, but a standard way to get this done would be amazing.

</comment><comment><USER7> > On the initial opening of a project it will hog the CPU and spin up the fans > but that doesn't last too long. Sometimes it completely hangs Emacs. Nothing > that killall rls followed by a M-x revert-buffer can't fix.

Yep, sounds like emacs. (I use emacs, but my god is it a horrible collection of half-broken hacks. Still the most useful editor going, though. If anyone wants to fund me, I'll start a project to make an editor that combines the flexibility of emacs with a rigorous, ruthless obsession with speed and correctness. :)

<comment><USER8> emacs: Emacs Makes Any Computer Slow

Boy it's been a while since I've broken out that one ;)

<comment><USER9> It's as good a text editor as it is a terrible operating system

(to flip an old one on it's head).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The Language Server Protocol is flawed already in its concept, as this article [https://perplexinglyemma.blogspot.de/2017/06/language- server...](https://perplexinglyemma.blogspot.de/2017/06/language-servers-and- ides.html), which was also on #1 of HN before, argues.

It instead proposes to have the language server expose the entire AST and environment that is available at each point, and have the IDE uses that for autocompletion, as this is far more powerful than what is currently doable with LSP. (Currently, the editor just transmits cursor position and content to the LSP, which then does all the highlighting, autocompletion, etc. This is not only less configurable, and less consistent, but also less usable, as often the LSP isn't able to offer as smart autocompletions)

Many IDEs, such as the JetBrains IDEA platform, do exactly this with their language plugins.

<comment><USER8> I mentioned this at the time too: I think this was a deliberate decision by Microsoft and it is not a deal-breaker. LSP is a Minimum Viable Product that was deliberately kept simple to encourage uptake and not spook people away. Once people are comfortable that it is a good idea and not an EEE play by Microsoft, version 2.0 could be upgraded to support things like ASTs.

<comment><USER10> > version 2.0 could be upgraded to support things like ASTs.

That's called "you can create an entirely new API that's entirely different, but might use the same name".

That's the issue here, LSP is so fundamentally flawed you'd have to scrap it entirely to support what is needed for a real IDE.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just a warning to anyone expecting auto-completion in Rust to be anything like C++ or Java, or even Typescript. It isn't close to that yet.

<comment><USER12> To counter that I've got a pretty moderate size Rust project that uses hyper, websockets, glium and a bunch of other libraries. RLS + VSCode has been incredible solid.

It's come a long way in the last few months, I'd recommend giving it a shot again.

<comment><USER13> The lack of code-inlined error reporting is still a big miss (unless I'm using the extensions wrong somehow). It's also pretty complicated to get right in rust as the errors tend to link through to multiple files for lifetime issue and such. I started tinkering with a version of this yesterday for vscode. Hoping to get a sane v0 off the ground.

Would be cool to have a linter that can run file-by-file as well, though that's tough for clippy as a compiler plugin it seems? Maybe just hacking it to only report on a particular file would work.

<comment><USER12> > code-inlined error reporting is still a big miss

Do you mean errors next to lines? If so that works today in the RLS variant. You get a red highlight and can mouse-over for details.

<comment><USER13> For me this only seems to work in the legacy racer mode (in [https://github.com/editor-rs/vscode-rust](https://github.com/editor- rs/vscode-rust)). Have you had success in RLS mode? RLS just spits stuff into console. =|

<comment><USER14> I've gotten RLS mode to work for VSCode personally. I've had issues with larger projects, but for smaller projects it seems to work fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> How does it compare with racer-mode? Does it have roughly the same functionality or is one a subset of the other?</comment>


Researcher Demonstrates ATM 'Jackpotting' at Black Hat Conference - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2010/07/atms-jackpotted/

<comment><USER2> This is pretty much the ultimate fantasy hack. Who hasn't dreamed about walking up to an ATM, punching in some key sequence, and having it spit out an endless stream of money? Awesome.

<comment><USER3> ever since seeing terminator 2.

<comment><USER4> We're getting close: "Universal credit card in the palm of your hand..."

<http://hackaday.com/2009/09/23/universal-cc/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Awesome! Finally an easy way to bootstrap my startup.

<comment><USER6> "In the 2010s, the role of angels diminished even further as many enterprising young startup founders realized that they didn't have to give away as much of their company if they knocked over a few banks; it was risky, but not as risky as dealing with venture capitalists." -- future book

<comment><USER7> I feel like if you can knock over banks for arbitrary amounts of money you probably wouldn't bother with a startup in the first place. You'd just move to fiji and fuck around with unprofitable OSS projects.

<comment><USER8> But you can knock over banks for arbitrary amounts of money. All it takes is a gun and a bag.

Whichever way you found to do that it would be illegal as hell and you'd be much more likely to rot in jail for a very long time as you would be to 'work on your OSS projects'.

Crime sometimes pays but for the most part it doesn't. The funny thing is that criminals on the whole are stupid enough to think the 'opposition' is also stupid.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm pretty surprised to hear that ATMs use Windows CE or XP as their OS. This seems like a perfect place to use a stripped down, hardened Linux or BSD.</comment>


Babel 6.0 Released - <AUTHOR> https://babeljs.io/blog/2015/10/29/6.0.0/ <comment><USER2> When I read

> This means when you install Babel it will no longer transpile your ES2015 > code by default.

what I really see is "This means that Babel no longer works out of the box and is now harder to use."

Was any thought given to how much additional complexity this adds to what was previously ([https://babeljs.io/docs/setup/#babel_cli](https://babeljs.io/docs/setup/#babel_cli)) a very simple way to get started?

<comment><USER3> Keep reading the blog post, we introduced presets for this very reason. It not hard to setup at all.

<comment><USER4> To quote Jamie Jawinsky (Jwz):

> _You have invoked the "Oh, but there's a setting to turn off that stupid > behavior" defense. I am showering you with negativity._

<comment><USER3> You must really enjoy going through threads to say the same negative thing over and over. This is exactly why I can't stand Hacker News.

<comment><USER4> I've posted two comments discussing default behavior. Too many ("over and over")? And I can see several others raising the same issue in this very thread -- all wrong to focus on that issue?

My main concern was raised in the longer thread with you. It is negative because I don't see this as a positive move. Nobody explained why changing the default behavior is a good move (even if it's easy to add back), or what it has to do with a desire for modular internals (since those don't preclude that).

In any case, Babel has been a valuable tool and I really hope this direction comes out for the best.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Quick start for Babel 6:

      npm install babel-cli babel-preset-es2015
      echo "class Foo {}" > test.js
      babel --presets es2015 test.js

From: [https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/659806490904166401](https://twitter.com/sebmck/status/659806490904166401)

<comment><USER6> Not crazy about the lack of defaults for the old behavior, but this concerns me more...

Time to transpile "class Foo {}"

      babel 5.8.23: 0.55 real, 0.54 user, 0.05 sys

      babel 6.0.2:  2.37 real, 2.19 user, 0.23 sys

Why is babel 6.0 four times slower than 5.8?

<comment><USER3> That's concerning, this is what I'm seeing on my system:

        babel 5: 0.47s user 0.06s system 101% cpu 0.519 total
        babel 6: 0.47s user 0.06s system 102% cpu 0.508 total

Want to hop in our Slack channel? [http://slack.babeljs.io](http://slack.babeljs.io)

<comment><USER6> Regarding the very slow babel 6.0.2 timings - something odd is going on. I removed the babel 6.0.2 install, installed node 5.0.0 which ships with npm 3.3.6, ran the install commands at the top of this thread and the babel 6.0.2 speed reached parity with babel 5.8 - both babel versions ran at around 0.55s.

(edit) Then I leave the babel 6.0.2 install as is and then run it against a node 4.2.1 binary - the babel 6.0.2 speed is once again 0.55s - no difference.

So I removed both the node 5.0.0 and babel 6.0.2 installs, re-installed node 4.2.1 with npm 2.14.7 and ran the following commands:

      npm install babel
      npm install babel-cli
      npm install babel-preset-es2015
      node_modules/.bin/babel -V
      6.0.2 (babel-core 6.0.2)
      echo "class Foo {}" | time node_modules/.bin/babel --presets es2015
        2.55 real, 2.37 user, 0.23 sys

So the babel 6.0.2 speed difference is not due the node version, but may have something to do with the different npm versions and how they install node_modules, or the fact that I installed the modules one at a time.

Using Mac OS X 10.9.5 if it matters.

<comment><USER6> Babel 6.0.2 slowness reproduced on Ubuntu 14.04 using only node 4.2.1 and npm 2.14.7:

      $ uname -v
      #94-Ubuntu SMP Thu Jun 18 00:27:10 UTC 2015
      $ node -v
      v4.2.1
      $ npm -v
      2.14.7
      $ npm install babel
      $ npm install babel-cli
      $ npm install babel-preset-es2015
      $ node_modules/.bin/babel -V
      6.0.2 (babel-core 6.0.2)
      $ echo "class Foo {}" | time node_modules/.bin/babel --presets es2015
      2.49user 0.12system 0:02.58elapsed 101%CPU

Compared to babel 5.8.23 on same Linux VM:

      $ babel -V
      5.8.23 (babel-core 5.8.24)
      $ echo "class Foo {}" | time babel
      0.58user 0.02system 0:00.57elapsed 106%CPU

<comment><USER6> So I've isolated the problem - babel 6.0.2 installed with npm 2.14.7 is slow, and when installed with npm 3.3.6 is fast. OS and node version is not a factor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Contributor to Babel 6 and author of this blog post. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask me here.

<comment><USER7> I've seen some discussion between the TypeScript and Babel teams on Twitter. Any plans/thoughts about optional static typing in Babel?

<comment><USER8> This plugin is pretty cool. It provides runtime flow-ish typechecking. It shows how easy it can be to consume type signatures and operate on them [https://github.com/codemix/babel-plugin- typecheck](https://github.com/codemix/babel-plugin-typecheck)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> First I thought after ES6 is landed in all browsers Babel would be unnecessary in near future but now that ES guys decided to release a new version each year it seems that we're going to see Babel around for a long time!

Great job btw!

<comment><USER10> It's just hard knowing which browsers will support something and when. It's be nice to have a browser target config nicely built in to babel. Like, I want to support any major browser version after Aug. 2015. If something is supported in all of the browsers, drop the transpiler for it.

<comment><USER11> Yes, fantastic idea.

I have been wondering about this a lot. It feels like about a year since writing then transpiling ES6 became a fairly mainstream approach, and we're nowhere near having full ES6 support in enough (or actually any, for now at least) browsers with a high proportion of usage.

This is manageable because you can just reason "well, I'll transpile everything to ES5" and be done with it. But what happens when most browsers do support ES6, but not ES7, or ES8 - what about when people don't update browsers, etc. I am really worried about this becoming such a nightmare that the default will always to be to transpile everything to an older version (probably 5 or 6) for the next 2-3 years just for safety, even when some browsers do support new versions coming out.

Can anyone point me to any resources which address and discuss this issue? Your idea about specific browser version targeting in the transpiler is a great one, and one I'd not even considered before, thanks.

<comment><USER12> > Can anyone point me to any resources which address and discuss this issue?

[https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/631](https://github.com/babel/babel/issues/631)

<comment><USER10> Hmm, it was closed because it was considered 'out of scope'. Who does the testing on every browser/device combination seems to be the big question. Seems like something Babel should set up internally as it's their tool and thus people will need to trust when they say "on these devices and these browser versions, block scoping 'let' works." Rather than a 3rd party just saying, yeah it works...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Babel has been indispensable for us in the last year and looks to only be getting better. Congrats on the new version and I look forward to being able to transpile all the things!

</comment><comment><USER14> Given that transpiling (one of the main features of Babel) seems to be increasingly popular, whatever happened to asm.js? Naively, it seems like targeting a highly optimizable subset of JS would be a smart idea if transpiling is being used anyways. Seems like I don't hear about asm.js much anymore.

<comment><USER15> When I targeted asm.js, the result wasn't much faster than plain js. Also, asm.js recently made it into Node, but Node doesn't tell you when your asm.js code is valid or not. And when it's invalid, it doesn't produce any errors.

I decided to check back in a couple years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _Babel has spent the last year finding its place in the JavaScript > community. In February we decided that Babel wasn't just going to be a ES6 > transpiler. Instead, it needed to become a platform. A suite of tools > designed to create the next generation of JavaScript tooling._

Hmm, while this might work out for Babel, this is exactly how projects lose focus and falter.

The Eclipse IDE is a prime example of this BS -- there are tons of others.

<comment><USER3> Babel already had to build all of the things to do this, we're just exposing them to the world.

I can only see this improving things as people start using what was Babel internals directly and reporting issues on them as they are discovered.

Facebook has been doing this a lot the past few weeks and they've found a bunch of issues that we never caught.

<comment><USER4> Having modular and re-usable internals is a good thing.

But "we're now becoming a platform" raises red flags that it could mean things further than that -- the kitchen sink approach.

<comment><USER3> Well modular and re-usable internals is exactly what we mean by "platform"

<comment><USER4> But then why "modular and re-usable internals" also arrive with the removal of the default behavior of transpiling code?

(Which is what people used Babel for in the first place).

To me this signals: "we're now an abstract collection of tools for various js related tasks, no singular focus on being the best transpiler".

<comment><USER3> I'm done responding to you since you've chosen to be a dick throughout this thread rather than have a productive conversation.

If literally anyone else wants to chat, feel free to ping me on other channels.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to learn Node.js & Frontend JS Frameworks? - <AUTHOR>

So I have a basic understanding of JS and jQuery. I'd like to expand that to the backend with Node.js, Express, etc., as well as some frontend JS frameworks. I've tried a couple times to learn, but the tutorials or books that I've used have been either too simple or too difficult.<p>What are some good resources out there and how do people become better at JavaScript? <comment><USER2> Just build your own tools, like small libraries, ,maybe event handlers, pub/subs. For node, build a basic CRUD system. Building things will force you to do research on the stuff you need to know.</comment>


Ask HN: Are there *any* good JavaScript libraries - <AUTHOR> Every JS library I've seen (currently using moment) seems extremely simplistic with very few primitives for working with time.
As a former Java programmer, I'm used to having all of the following (in the standard lib no less!):
* instant: a point of time
* duration: time amount, e.g. 500 seconds
* period: time interval amount (e.g. 3 days)
* offset: time difference from UTC
* timezone: regional offset system
* local/offset/timezone date: date
* local/offset/timezone time: time
* local/offset/timezone datetime: date and time
For example, I work with a lot of legal calendar events (local date) and contract durations (period), yet everything I find requires awkwardly couching it in terms of instants. <comment><USER2> [https://google.github.io/closure- library/api/goog.date.html](https://google.github.io/closure- library/api/goog.date.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> (pending verification) Location:(pending verification) Age:(pending verification)</comment>


In a Parachute-Effectiveness Trial, Who Gets the Placebo? - <AUTHOR> http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/08/in-a-parachute-effectiveness-trial-who-gets-the-placebo/

<comment><USER2> The article cited in the NY Times: <http://tinyurl.com/6ol8fk> Is a bit absurd. While I agree that in some instances it is beneficial to test drugs without a placebo group, the placebo effect has been demonstrated repeatedly.

I can't seem to find a link to the article, but I recall reading one recently in which people were given the same painkiller but told that it the price anywhere from $0.10/pill to $10/pill (or something along those lines). People taking the "expensive" painkillers rated their level of relief much higher than those taking the "cheaper" pill.

Sure, in some situations (Cancer, AIDS, etc) we may want to do away with a placebo group, but they are still very useful in many situations.

</comment><comment><USER3> That BMJ parachute article has made the rounds for years now. I think I last saw it a week or two ago on reddit. I wonder if the Freakonomics guys are now entering the same sort of funk that Merlin of 43 Folders says he's coming out of.</comment>


Indian Central Bank banned cryptocurrencies without any basis - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/hardfork/2018/06/13/rbi-india-bank-cryptocurrency/ <comment><USER2> Not without any basis [http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2017/11/blockchain- bitcoin...](http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2017/11/blockchain-bitcoins- ponzi-part-13-capt.html)

[http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2018/04/blockchain- bitcoin...](http://ajitvadakayil.blogspot.com/2018/04/blockchain-bitcoin-must- be-kicked-out.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> this write is so lame, you're a ponzi scheme. do you even know how central banking works? fractional reserve banking? keynsian vs austrian economics?

oops. ignorance is bliss.

<comment><AUTHOR> and what is your "not so ponzi" fiat money backed with?</comment></comment></comment>


In Apple vs. FBI, More People Support the FBI - <AUTHOR> http://thesurge.net/think-most-people-support-apples-fight-against-the-fbi-check-again-new-survey-shows/ <comment><USER2> Those iPhone owners... They are traitors. When Don Trump gets elected to President we will send them all to Mexico.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, it seems foolish to me that they would want Apple to crack the phone since it risks the security of their data.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Please drop some feedback on the product - <AUTHOR> ratesome.com <comment><USER2> I don't really know what this is supposed to be. And without more context, I'm having a hard time seeing why I would spend more than about 30 seconds looking at it. I see a vaguely reddit'ish looking front-page with a lot of fairly random looking stuff, none of which strikes me as very interesting.

Maybe you could tell us more about what it's supposed to be, how it's different from (Reddit|Whatever), why you think its awesome, etc?

<comment><AUTHOR> It may resemble Reddit but it's entirely different idea.

Reddit is a place where people share content and if their content is interesting it will get upvoted by other people.

Ratesome is not about content, it's all about opinions on pretty much everything (and everyone) in life... Here is the Bitcoin topic for example: [https://ratesome.com/topic/Bitcoin](https://ratesome.com/topic/Bitcoin) It has 49 opinions, meaning 49 people have expressed their opinions. Overall opinion is +10, meaning that positive opinions are prevailing at the moment...

Another example: [https://ratesome.com/topic/Buying-a-used-2006-Nissan- Maxima-...](https://ratesome.com/topic/Buying-a-used-2006-Nissan- Maxima-3-5-SL)

A person is looking to buy a used car and needs opinions whether it's a good deal... People think it's not...</comment></comment>


The Photo Marketplace That Never Launched: Flickr Stock - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/01/12/the-photo-marketplace-that-never-launched-flickr-stock/ <comment><USER2> This is why Yahoo definitely needs a real shake-up from the top down. This would have made them lots of money and helped grow their service further.</comment>


Porsche found a way to 3D-print lightweight pistons that add more horsepower - <AUTHOR> https://www.thedrive.com/tech/34775/porsche-found-a-way-to-3d-print-lightweight-pistons-that-add-even-more-horsepower <comment><USER2> The fricking media/PR around 3D printing is really annoying.

You can't match:

1) Get benefits of strength like in forging process

2) Case hardening would still need to be done

3) Shot peening and surface hardening?

4) Speed

5) Cost

6) Robustness and reliability, how many 3D printers have various ways of 3D printing, how do you validate parts for strength? It is a monumental challenge. Traditional processes are vetted and tested for decades.

7) Material wastage

8) Footprint and floorspace (1 injection molding machine can replace about a 10,000 3d printers to match the volume).

9) Power consumption

10) Human labor and attendance (may be this is already solved)

I work in manufacturing and we have a bunch of 3d printers. They make amazing tools for prototyping and testing things out. Hell, we don't even use them anymore because its just faster and cheaper to get it from Protolabs / 3D Hubs.

3D Printing has extremely useful applications where we can optimize the shape without concerning for right angles, draft angles, chamfers, and fillets. Some of the ANSYS tools can use algorithms to optimize the shape that looks like a bio-mechanical thing because we are no longer constrained by aforementioned restrictions.

But the public needs to understand that 3D printing will not replace everything. It is like saying cars replaced bicycles when they were being used in late 1890's... no, we still have bicylces 120 years later and will continue to use them. 3D printing serves a niche purpose and a huge benefit in medical/dental industries but boy the media is doing a horrible job of explaining its advantages and disadvantages. I just see misinformation all over.

<comment><USER3> In my experience it's not the general public who is hyping 3D printing its the tech/nerd crowd. I can remember when 3D printing was getting affordable and people telling me I just didn't understand how it would change manufacturing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the article:

> _they weigh 10 percent less than their forged equivalents and feature an > integrated and closed cooling duct in the piston crown that 's apparently > unable to be reproduced using traditional manufacturing methods. The > decrease in weight and temperature results in an extra 30 horsepower on top > of the GT2 RS's already mighty 700._

So.. 10% less weight and ~4% increase in performance. But what about the increase in price? 3D printing is magnitudes slower than forging and probably many times more expensive. I guess some Porsche owners would gladly pay for these improvements.

<comment><USER5> These are limited edition cars. A relative handful are made. That's often where a manufacturer goes to more customized tooling and parts. Keep in mind Porsche owners of these types of cars will often easily spend 20-50k usd customizing the most minute details such as stitching color of the seatbelt, etc. Factoring a few thousand extra dollars in engine cost is easy.

<comment><USER6> I would assume it would be for racing, not consumers. They didn't mention cost, but looking at the process, time and materials involved I'd bet you're looking at tens of thousands of dollars. I don't see consumers going for that, but GT racing clubs? Oh yeah!

<comment><USER5> I can see some overlap on the extreme consumer end [their 300K 700hp car is probably hundreds produced at most. The profits are already really high on those vehicles so I am curious if/when/how they will release and price this tech, or if it is just some random Porsche team drumming up some marketing for mostly vaporware :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Seems like a nice PR piece. Porsche is using 3d printing to drive tooling development to cut new shapes on pistons. Awesome for r&d but 3d printing metallurgy has a long way to go before it's production ready.

> and feature an integrated and closed cooling duct in the piston crown that's > apparently unable to be reproduced using traditional manufacturing methods

<comment><USER8> To add to that, by the time it's ready for mass production, how important will piston engines be?

I suppose if will be gradual replacement by electrics but still it's not like they would have lots of life in them.

<comment><USER9> Lol I'd say we still have about 50 years to go. Plus Porsche will cater to enthusiasts. I know I will always have at least 1 gas car

<comment><USER10> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase- out_of_fossil_fuel_vehic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phase- out_of_fossil_fuel_vehicles)

Scroll down to the countries starting to ban fossil fuel vehicles. I think you're fine for the next 10-15 years, after that I think it's hazy whether fossil fuel vehicles will be permitted to be used at all if battery electrics take off. My bet is we reach a tipping point and an outright ban around 2035, if not earlier due to refinery unprofitability due to volume declines.

I do look forward to Porsche attempting a competitive EV though!

@JumpCrisscross: Throttled, can't reply to your comment. "Progress happens slowly, and then all of a sudden."

<comment><USER11> > _we reach a tipping point and an outright ban around 2035_

Zero chance of this happening in the U.S., U.K. or Germany. I imagine the Gulf, India and China will similarly retain sport driving cultures.

Mass-manufactured ICE vehicles are past their nadir. But mechanical engines will have a long life thereafter.

<comment><USER12> Based on what?

The minority may love the nostalgia, but sport racing cultures are primarily built on speed and ICE vehicles are already being left in the dust. Another 10 years and I would be surprised if there was a _single_ ICE vehicle that could beat an electric.

<comment><USER8> Only thing I can think of is growl. Some people like that.

<comment><USER12> Be easy enough to hook a speaker system to the acceleration

<comment><USER13> I think they are already doing stuff like that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How does a 10% weight reduction in such a tiny, light part as a piston (okay, 8 of them or something) result in a 5% output increase?

<comment><USER15> 10% is massive in a piece of metal rotating so quickly.

Tiny pistons is how some motorcycles got incredible power out of small displacement(and ridiculous gearboxes). 20,000 RPM engines, 150mph/240kmh out of 250cc(4-stroke as well). And this was in the 60's.

(loud) [https://youtu.be/o57JwibqCb8?t=114](https://youtu.be/o57JwibqCb8?t=114) [https://i.imgur.com/HMvaSYh.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/HMvaSYh.jpg) [https://i.imgur.com/BefSzRs.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/BefSzRs.jpg) [https://youtu.be/7d3hdDgFMrQ?t=5979](https://youtu.be/7d3hdDgFMrQ?t=5979)

<comment><USER16> > metal rotating so quickly

*reciprocating

It's also why racing engines (when not limited by regulations, or when only limited on total capacity) tended to have 8, 10, 12 or more cylinders. Despite the increase in the physical size of the engine, each cylinder would be smaller (for the same displacement) allowing higher revs and more power.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems to me that you could get pretty close to this design with traditional casting, forging, and then a pass with a multiple axis CNC machine. You'd get a little extra material down in some of those more complex curves, but how much really? And with a stronger part you could save material elsewhere.

</comment><comment><USER18> Very impressive. Too bad they take 10 hours to yield. I'm excited to see how far they can take this in F1.

<comment><USER19> Could see them used in top-spec cars. Eg; 911 GT2RS/GT3RS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I thought it might be about metal matrix composites which are even lighter than traditional forged magnesium pistons

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

<comment><USER21> My info is a little out of date (~10 years) but I did a MS thesis on aluminum/carbon fiber composites and holy hell are they impossible to produce. There are so many factors that just make these materials not want to go together (similar for Mg / carbon fiber). I would be really surprised to see any real MMC any time soon.

<comment><USER22> MMC parts are used in quite a few high performance vehicles today, particularly brake rotors. They're still premium parts, but it's stuff you can get from Ford or Honda on their more limited editions.

I know less about it, but as I understand it they're productionized in aerospace now too, again though, just generally for very high spec and price parts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's nice that they get some use out of 3d printing, but what's the point of R&D in ICE cars? It's a dying technology. In twenty or thirty years their sale will hopefully be banned in most interesting markets, or at least strongly disincentivized.

<comment><USER24> This is like the RISC vs CISC debate: 25 years ago some of the loudest individuals proclaimed that x86 was dead, and we'd all be on MIPS/PowerPC/SPARC/Alpha. Reality doesn't always match up with idealism.

Engineering has a habit of advancing due to incremental improvements. The ICE still has room to grow and become more efficient.

<comment><USER23> The ICE has no room to become carbon neutral with efficiencies that are even comparable to electrics. Getting from electricity to liquid fuel to movement probably has losses exceeding 90%. Electric cars on the other hand are like 80% efficient.

<comment><USER25> You are very wrong here. Ethanol as an ICE fuel could be done carbon neutral very quickly thru yeast, and battery technology will probably never reach comparable energy densities in weight limited applications (mobile applications). We may engineer a society where the limitations of batteries are not limiting (because we/goods never travel far), but only a fool thinks you need electricity as an energy source for carbon neutral ICE.

<comment><USER23> I think you're underestimating the amount of land you need to feed all that yeast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Pistons? They should also make some lightweight carbon fiber saddles for my horse and carriage.

<comment><USER27> Already done.

[https://www.oldsouthcarriage.com/about/our- carriages/](https://www.oldsouthcarriage.com/about/our-carriages/)

In 2014, Old South Carriage put a contemporary twist on our horse-drawn carriages. We began converting our fleet of wooden carriages to a carbon-fiber composite material similar to that used in Boeing's 787 jetliner. Our reasoning? If it's good enough for Boeing, it's good enough for us! The result is a lighter weight, more durable carriage which requires much less maintenance than its wooden predecessor. With this innovation, we successfully increased the level of comfort for both our horses and passengers while preserving the look, feel, and authenticity of our original carriages.

<comment><USER28> This article is also interesting

"The Amish Horse-Drawn Buggy Is More Tech-Forward Than You Think: _The tech inside this 19th-century conveyance isn 't stuck in the 19th century._" [https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/car- technology/a24666/...](https://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/car- technology/a24666/how-the-amish-build-a-buggy/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> somebody tell Ferrari.

<comment><USER30> Someone already did: [https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferrari-eyes- innovative-p...](https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferrari-eyes-innovative- piston-solution-thanks-to-3d-printing-870008/870008/)</comment></comment>


Tapose (Microsoft Courier squashed onto iPad screen) is released - <AUTHOR> http://tapose.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure how this will work, given a) Apple's restrictions and b) the lack of a second screen. Looks interesting though, and if done right it could be a good alternative to Evernote etc.

There's a lack of reviews so far, so I'm going to wait and see before I buy. (as an aside, mobile apps seem to rarely get proper reviews; they may be cheap, but I'd rather not waste my time with underwhelming apps)</comment>


ESPN to ISPs: Pay for Your Customers to Play Video  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wired.com/business/2009/02/espn-stands-fir.html <comment><USER2> Reverse net neutrality. Instead of the restriction coming from the ISPs it's coming from the content provider. I don't see how going back to mid 1990s style AOL ideology will ever work.

To see if your ISP is already involved in this go to <http://sports.espn.go.com/broadband/espn360/index> and click watch now. It also has a scary message if you don't have access:

 _ESPN360.com is available at no charge to fans who receive their high-speed internet connection from an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider. ESPN360.com is also available to fans that access the internet from U.S. college campuses and U.S. military bases.

Your current computer network falls outside of these categories. Here's how you can get access to ESPN360.com.

1\. Switch to an ESPN360.com affiliated internet service provider or to contact your internet service provider and request ESPN360.com. Click here to enter your ZIP code and find out which providers in your area carry offer ESPN360.com

2\. For Verizon Customers Only: Sign-in using remote access if you already get ESPN360.com_

</comment><comment><USER3> I seriously hope this crashes and burns. Various industries are trying to encourage this particular business model, and it's undoubtedly terrible for the consumer as it limits choice.

It's also worth wondering if ISPs could be accused of anti-competitive practices by encouraging 'product tying'.

<comment><USER4> If the ISPs become content providers, wouldn't they lose their status as common carriers. If they pay for ESPN's services wouldn't they become liable to the FCC for the content that they are paying for and possibly by extension the whole internet.

IANAL and I don't see an ISP losing its common carrier status over paying ESPN(It's too easy for them to buy the regulators.), but I can hope that something would stop this from occurring.

Not that I would advocate anything illegal, but couldn't someone set up a proxy from within an ISP that pays ESPN and open it up to those without access to ESPN.

<comment><USER5> Legally, ISPs are not subject to common carrier regulation today, so they are not worried about losing a status that they don't have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Ugh, one step closer to the nightmare illustrated in [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-nonneutral- isp.ht...](http://www.boingboing.net/2007/09/22/how-a-nonneutral-isp.html) Here we all were watching the ISPs closely to avoid this from happening, and it turns out that it's the service providers who would take the first step.

<comment><USER7> I agree, I didn't even see this coming. I figured content creators would want their content on as many 'pipes' as possible. Turns out they're just as greedy as ISPs.

How many times can they sell the exact same product to us?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> ESPN360 has been around for years, and I'm honestly surprised it's still running. ESPN is _the_ leader in sports, and I honestly don't know why they don't switch over to a Hulu-type thing, with free content + advertising (I'm sure they can get all their TV advertisers to switch over). I'd love to understand why because, aside from the fact that they themselves don't own sports teams, I don't get it. The day I can watch live sports online is the day I get rid of cable.

Also, Verizon paying for this really makes me excited for FiOS to hit my neighborhood.

</comment><comment><USER9> I think this is awesome. To me this represents the first step in the content providers saying "f-you, we're not paying to deliver, you're the one with the money connection to the viewers".

The ISPs that are going down the anti-NN rathole are pitting themselves against both their customers and the content providers. In macro they might make some revenue from this stuff but I can't see how it could end well.

</comment><comment><USER10> I never have and never plan on watching sports on espn's web site. I am going to be very disappointed when my bill goes up because of this.

</comment><comment> old-gregg Did you all forget that content rules the Internet just like any other form of media?

I'm sure that ESPN, Fox as well as WSJ and New York Times will do just fine. They have _content_ , something that will never become a commodity, while pipes and delivering software will be for sure (if not already). Google understands it, Yahoo understands it, this is why they're beefing up on their own content because I don't think anyone doubts that eventually the gatekeepers of information ("traditional" media) will wake up and grab the rest of middlemen by the balls. There is absolutely no reason for ESPN or anywhere else to allow all kinds of reddits to make money on their content, so they're naturally making it available for customers who pays.

What it means for us is now we have yet another vehicle for monetization: can you come up with a way to make TimeWarner a more appealing ISP compared to others? They don't want to be just another no-name pipe provider, they are desperate for value-adding ideas. They are, just look at all that shit they're putting on "Internet CDs" they advertise, like it makes "their internet" safe or faster than someone else's. So if you happen to come up with something better than customized browsers and magical malware blockers, then sell it to them.

</comment><comment><USER11> Well from a business perspective something like this or capped bandwidth/pay for overages is gonna come to fruition!

I have not had Cable TV for a few years and when I watch TV/movie content it's all thru the net. In time more will do the same and advertising will not be able to sustain the losses accrued from fewer & fewer(to zero) cable TV customers!

It will take sometime (10 to 20 years), but it's inevitable!

</comment><comment><USER12> "Switching ISPs" is too difficult. ESPN should also offer paid subscriptions, which would enable video regardless of your ISP.

</comment><comment><USER13> ESPN has always offered ESPN360 to a limited number of ISPs. For instance, I can't get it while at work because our ISP doesn't subscribe. Pretty frustrating since I'm a Verizon customer and can get it at home. Would be great if they allowed me to log in with an ISP account rather than do IP- detection.

</comment><comment><USER14> can i just proxy through a university system?</comment>


Show HN: Organize – Review your experiences with the police - <AUTHOR> https://organizeapp.org/ <comment><AUTHOR> We started our nonprofit company, Organize, because we were moved by the many stories of unarmed people dying at the hands of police officers. In our curiosity to find more information about how policing impacts communities we realized that unless someone's story was newsworthy, no one cared to hear it and that person's perspective was lost and left out of the reform process. Millions of people who encounter the police are never heard from and feel powerless to speak up out of fear that their story will fall on deaf ears.

We built Organize so that everyone's perspective can matter and add to the power of their community's voice for positive change in policing.

\- Either select a police department from our 'Top Departments' list or search for your department by clicking the search icon.

\- Rate how your previous encounters with a police department made you feel.

\- View how others rated their experiences with the department.

In many ways you think of us as the 'Yelp for Police'. We allow for unprecedented insight into how policing impacts people, but we need everyone who has interacted with the police to weigh in so that our ratings provide an accurate picture of department's impact on the community.

We're proud of what we've built, but we know that we have to make many improvements in order to achieve our mission. We hope you can take a moment to check out our website and give us feedback on how we can improve. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> How will you verify if this story or experience isn't just like spam? I see the site has serious issues being brought up, but I just wouldn't know how you would confirm.

<comment><AUTHOR> At this point we rely on our community to flag harmful content. In the long run we want to rely on our community more and more to help us not only flag but also remove content. Hopefully even police departments may be able to play a role here.

To some extent we may not be able to verify every person's statement which does not mean that it is invalid. Instead, we want to ensure that the most accurate and verified content can be surfaced while other content is pushed further down while still having some role to play in the conversation.</comment></comment></comment>


White House Tries to Prevent Judge From Ruling on Surveillance Efforts - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/22/us/white-house-tries-to-prevent-judge-from-ruling-on-surveillance-efforts.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2>
      So, [Clapper] said, he was continuing to assert the state
      secrets privilege, which allows the government to seek
      to block information from being used in court even if
      that means the case must be dismissed.

It's almost funny to see the administration's hypocrisy on full display. They seem to think that if they keep pushing this issue under the rug that it'll just go away. The Obama administration wants to have its cake and eat it to. On one hand, Obama wants to retain support from the folks who elected him to dismantle these abuses, so he sets up an "advisory board" to "investigate" the reports. On the other hand, he remains silent while his staff lies to congress, and he rejects the recommendations by the review panel.

We'll need someone like rayiner to weigh in (I have almost zero legal expertise), but some wikipedia reading says that while the state secrets privilege was recognized by the supreme court, the government's case was later found to be fraudulent [1]. Clapper's assertion is such a glaring abuse that I would hope it could set up another supreme court challenge to the privilege. More wikipedia-ing seems to suggest that might be possible [2].

I'm optimistic. The parties who have a stake in the surveillance apparatus have been on the defensive now for half a year, and it's obvious they're losing ground (example FTA: "Still, Mr. Clapper's description of the program as 'an important tool' for tracking possible plots was a downgrade in rhetorical urgency. In earlier, now-declassified court filings, he and other officials had portrayed it as 'an essential tool.'"). I do actually have hope that we could see some real reforms, and for someone like me to say something like that is a big deal.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#Supreme...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#Supreme_Court_recognition_in_United_States_v._Reynolds)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#cite_no...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_secrets_privilege#cite_note- Carrie_Newton_Lyons-1)

<comment><USER3> "I'm optimistic."

Don't be. The supremes have made it clear as recently as last year they have little to no interest in this one.

<comment><USER4> I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable. What was on the line in both Reynolds and General Dynamics was money. The justices were quite pointed about this in General Dynamics, accusing the company in oral arguments of just being greedy, etc. The assertion of the privilege in at least some of the NSA cases raises countervailing issued that didn't exist in Reynolds and GD. If the Court does decide to take up the issue, I think the government will find the privilege less helpful than they might wish.

edit to my other comment: Reynolds wasn't a contract action, but a tort action, but what was essentially on the line was damages.

<comment><USER3> "I don't see Roberts embracing a reading of the state secrets privilege that essentially makes these sorts of constitutional claims unreviewable."

Roberts didn't seem all that interested in Amnesty vs Clapper, which, while not a state secrets claim, is, IMHO, not going to be all that wildly different in terms of ideological breakdown.

In fact, they even went so far as to say "Second, even if respondents could demonstrate that the targeting of their foreign contacts is imminent, they can only speculate as to whether the Government will seek to use §1881a-authorized surveillance instead of one of the Govern- ment's numerous other surveillance methods, which are not chal- lenged here."

Which is just, IMHO, beyond throwing the government a bone and going whole hog into crazy land on government surveillance.

I'm aware of the aftermath of the oral arguments/opinion on clapper, and I could see SCOTUS taking something on because the government kinda screwed them on parts of the opinion, but I have a lot of trouble believing the court is going to be all that receptive, state secrets claim or not.

<comment><USER5> Roberts is actually the one Supreme Court Justice heavily involved in the FISA court, as he is responsible for appointing the Federal judges that sit on its bench.

See how this represents a Mexican standoff where every branch of the US government is complicit? I think the American people are going to have to offer Amnesty to one of the 3 branches to get them to roll over on the other two ;)

<comment><USER3> "Roberts is actually the one Supreme Court Justice heavily involved in the FISA court, as he is responsible for appointing the Federal judges that sit on its bench."

I doubt he really wants this, actually (and I believe he's said as much). It's simply what congress made law, so he does it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> EFF is doing such amazing work with these lawsuits. I hope people remember to help them out and donate:

[https://supporters.eff.org/donate](https://supporters.eff.org/donate)

You could also help this campaign for privacy tools which NYT and many other journalists are going to need from now on, to reach its goal:

[https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/](https://pressfreedomfoundation.org/)

<comment><USER7> One extremely easy way to donate is Amazon Smile [1]

With the Firefox[2] and Chrome[3] extensions you automatically access Amazon through the Smile portal so that Amazon makes a donation equal to 0.5% of all your purchases to the charity you chose. Even if you spend $10,000 that only comes out to $50, but it's a start.

[1] [http://smile.amazon.com/gp/charity/change.html](http://smile.amazon.com/gp/charity/change.html)

[2] [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/amazonsmilere...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/amazonsmileredirector/)

[3] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmh...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/smile- always/jgpmhnmjbhgkhpbgelalfpplebgfjmbf?hl=en-US) OR [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amazon-smile- redir...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/amazon-smile- redirect/dejndilpaooedcdalbciiopmdoepgeee)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is great - they are making it worse for themselves!

Before the Snowden revelations came along nobody took you seriously if you thought we lived in a world of mass surveillance. Now we all know all too well that we do.

As the scandal unravels the government are clinging to the 'terrorism' fig leaf. They haven't got anything else, no other plausible excuse for what they have been up to. Nobody has completely seen through it yet, or, if they have then they haven't shared with the rest of the world exactly what it is that they are hiding. (There is something else going on, the 'al-qaeda' thing is just a ruse, however nobody really believes that it is a complete, total, utter sham of emptiness. We aren't there yet...)

They are going to have to squirm for a little bit longer before the grand reveal. Exactly who steps up to do this is not known, however, there are plenty of candidates out there, getting bolder by the day. One thing is for certain though, that grand reveal will happen and, when it does, this NSA spying lark will be put into perspective. That perspective will show the spying story so far to be nothing more than an appetizing 'light snack' before the immensely satisfying main course. Compared to what we have got coming the fall of the Berlin Wall was nothing!

Anyone care to guess what the ace is that trumps the government's 'terrorism' card? (There is one!)

<comment><USER9> The "protect the children" card. It's already in full use in the UK, with mandatory opt-out porn filtering.

<comment><USER10> Canada also tried this card unsuccessfully. Lately they've been trumping up phony terrorist busts where they groom crazy people online and sell them inert explosives, then never stop talking about how great their anti terrorist squads are for breaking up plots they themselves plotted

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Basically what they're saying is "we're ok with subverting the constitution if it fits our needs".

The executive branch's power has gotten completely out of hand in the past decade, all under the guise of "security" and preventing "terrorism". The reason the judicial branch exists is to stop crap like this. If they can't do their job constitutional balance of power doesn't exist.

<comment><USER12> The 3 branches of government were for settling disputes between those in power, not for those without power.... without all out war. If you look at history, look at the division of new states into equal portions of slave and non slave prior to the Civil War. Balance of power between Northern trading/industrial interests and Southern plantation ones. In this case, the countervailing power are businesses that cannot sell overseas because of this. So if anything changes, focus on external software versus domestic where they already have you over a barrel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _"Disclosure of this still-classified information regarding the scope and operational details of N.S.A. intelligence activities implicated by plaintiffs' allegations could be expected to cause extremely grave damage to the national security of the United States," wrote the director of national intelligence, James R. Clapper Jr._

I am really getting sick and tired of listening to this dirtbag scum motherfucker. He lied to the congress (willfully knowing upfront what the questions would be), something you or me would be behind bars for 10 years at least, but yet Obama promotes him to oversee NSA program. What a joke.

<comment><USER14> Keep in mind he's not being promoted, he's the fall guy if things go south. Basically he's being setup to be the lightning rod if things go bad.

Note the new talk about possible pardons. My take on the tea leaves is that they now realize that Snowden has been saving the best for last (or later). And that he's only revealing whats needed to effect change. If they don't start damage control the right way Clapper is going to be thrown under a parked bus as fast as the media can spin it.

As soon as the bad stuff comes out Clapper is going to get to be the fall guy. He won't get replaced until something bad gets revealed. Then a "reformer" will be brought in. Least that would be the PR way to approach it. Not sure it'll work in this case but old tricks are the best tricks.

Course I could be wrong, eh we'll see.

<comment><USER15>
       My take on the tea leaves is that they now realize that Snowden has been saving the best for last (or later).

Snowden is not leaking anything. He leaked most of what he had a long time ago, and now the documents are in the journalists' hands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people."

</comment><comment><USER17> Terrorism has won.

Twelve years later, the country that was so proud to be "leader of the free world" is now affected by a cancer named secrecy and defiance ; defiance from government toward people and defiance from people toward government (well, that last part is not new, but it's not baseless anymore, which make a huge difference).

US should definitely work on trust, especially because their main strength is business and that can't exist without trust.

<comment><USER18> I'm afraid this all dates back further than 12 years (eg: see Binning at hope 9). There's little evidence the true motivation was to defeat terrorism (if for no other reason than domestic terrorism falls under the fbi, not nsa -- and is and has been arguably the bigger threat).

<comment><USER19> William Binney's keynote at HOPE 9:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxnp2Sz59p8](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dxnp2Sz59p8)

all talks:

[http://www.hopenumbernine.net/schedule/](http://www.hopenumbernine.net/schedule/)

<comment><USER20> "I played a central role in setting up this all-encompassing surveillance, but _now_ that it's been in operation for years, I realize it could be used for _naughty_ things. It's time to blow the whistle on this!"

Binney's case is interesting, to say the least.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > _But the government said that despite recent leaks by Edward J. Snowden, the > former N.S.A. contractor, that made public a fuller scope of the > surveillance and data collection programs put in place after the Sept. 11 > attacks, sensitive secrets remained at risk in any courtroom discussion of > their details — like whether the plaintiffs were targets of intelligence > collection or whether particular telecommunications providers like AT &T and > Verizon had helped the agency._

The only one who THINKS that it is _unknown_ whether AT&T and Verizon were obliged by the government to hand over data is the government[1].

I remember when Wikileaks released the cables and US government employees were not _allowed_ to read them. The rest of the world, was reading them anytime though.

In the world of governance I'd expect rationale to be above everything else. Apparently that's not the case in today's world. USA it's just another example, in Greece where I live, common sense has long been gone by politicians and population...

[1] However, there is a minor detail here. If this fact gets court proof, maybe some government members would be in terrible trouble. They can always mention _National Security_ but God forbid, what if they have to bring proof?

</comment><comment><USER22> As President he's "supposed" to fight for this, even if it's crap. That's how our "adversarial" government works. That's why it's CHECKS... As in gloves off, missing teeth, hockey checks.

It's up to the other TWO BRANCHES to get off their lazy asses and knock the Executive branch down a peg or two. They liked blaming the President but they gotta do the WORK to take things back. Shut up and FIGHT!

<comment><USER23> In the case of DOMA, Justice Scalia noted that, if Obama thought DOMA was unconstitutional, he could simply refuse to enforce it.

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-307#writing-12-307_DISSENT_5)

Doesn't this suggest that it is, to some extent, the President's responsibility to maintain his own branch?

Or do you think Scalia is wrong in both cases?

<comment><USER24> Where exactly is it said in there? I'm having a hard time finding something that means that. And in a more general sense, isn't the executive bound to laws passed by congress?

Slightly off-topic, but the fact that Justice Scalia doesn't believe that the Supreme Court has the right to judicial review. An interesting concept to me.

<comment><USER23> Sorry for the delay.

"This suit saw the light of day only because the President enforced the Act (and thus gave Windsor standing to sue) even though he believed it unconstitutional. He could have equally chosen (more appropriately, some would say) neither to enforce nor to defend the statute he believed to be unconstitu- tional, see Presidential Authority to Decline to Execute Un- constitutional Statutes, 18 Op. Off. Legal Counsel 199 (Nov. 2, 1994)—in which event Windsor would not have been injured, the District Court could not have refereed this friendly scrimmage, and the Executive's determination of unconstitutionality would have escaped this Court's desire to blurt out its view of the law."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "You can't outlaw this beacuse it's super secret" defense.

</comment><comment><USER26> The actual case dockets and documents can be found here:

Jewel v. NSA - [http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1911200](http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1911200)

Shubert v. Obama - [http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1901515](http://www.plainsite.org/flashlight/case.html?id=1901515)

</comment><comment><USER12> Obama is a politician: someone who says anything to get elected and once elected does what he wants instead of what he said he would do. A politician tries to amass power. Information is power. There is NO way the government would give up that power. Don't expect him to do anything nor should you expect most politicians nor the next administration.

</comment><comment><USER27> There really is nothing the government won't do to keep its illegal surveillance powers.

<comment><USER28> Yeah, does anybody think this will actually stop, even if the courts demand it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> James Clapper needs to be fired

<comment><USER30> He needs to experience the same treatment I would experience if I lied to Congress. This treatment would go quite a bit beyond being fired.

<comment><USER31> [http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com](http://www.hasjamesclapperbeenindictedyet.com)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I'm curous. Could someone tell me how the republicans feelings are towards all this? Are they doing something? They are in some way in a bad position. Much of the stuff has been established under Bush but on the other hand they pretend to "protect the constitution" and of course they don't like Obama.

<comment><USER33> It varies, the "national security Republicans" are all for the surveillance, e.g.

[http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/12/mike- rog...](http://www.politico.com/blogs/politico-live/2013/12/mike-rogers- defends-nsa-data-collection-180105.html)

whereas the "libertarian Republicans" are just as strongly against it, e.g.

[http://www.mlive.com/news/grand- rapids/index.ssf/2013/12/ama...](http://www.mlive.com/news/grand- rapids/index.ssf/2013/12/amash-backed_bill_aimed_to_end.html)

<comment><USER34> It really is an issue that cuts across party lines. I've found that people of a libertarian bent get offended when I suggest this. If they're Republicans, they think that the GOP is the bastion of liberty and the Democrats are the authoritarians. If they're Democrats, it's the converse. But it seems to me that the issue is pretty close to orthogonal to party affiliation.

One example is California's two senators: both Democrats, but Feinstein is famously authoritarian, while Boxer AFAIK tends in the other direction.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you split equity between founders - <AUTHOR>

If you have 2 founders, do each one typically get 50%?  What if a third joins afterward, how do you redistribute?  What if an investor invests money later, do each founder give up equal amount of shares?  I know it all depends on the particular case, I want to know what it is like typically in the startup scene.  We have a couple friends but we have no experience on these things.  Do we need to get a lawyer and sign agreement (that sounds odd between friends)?  What if one of the founder "fade out" for whatever reason? <comment><USER2> This is a very difficult topic and there are plenty of thoughts and blog posts available online. The need for a lawyer probably depends on whether you intend to raise capital or just see it as a short term project? For bringing in new founders you should look at some sort of vesting agreement to vest founders over time.

For general equity-split, the calculator below is thought provoking: <http://foundrs.com/>

However generally with two founders a 50-50 split is best as both of you need to be 100% committed for it to work out.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your reply! What do you mean by "vest founders over time"?

We are not intended to actively looking to raise capital (though we don't mind it) but neither do we see it as a short term project. We want to see growth of revenue and profit.</comment></comment>


New opioid douses pain without being addictive or deadly in primates - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/09/new-opioid-douses-pain-without-being-addictive-or-deadly-in-primates/ <comment><USER2> "kills more than 40 Americans a day"

For perspective, alcohol kills 88,000 Americans a year (4th leading cause of preventable death).

This is a fantastic advance, though. Hope it works out.</comment>