SATA controller corrupts data, writes secondary GPT in the center of the drive - <AUTHOR> http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=ru&sl=ru&tl=en&prev=_dd&u=http://avryabov.livejournal.com/5056.html <comment><USER2> I recently discovered that my Sharkoon USB to SATA dock (old version, USB2) corrupts data. It happens under both Linux and Windows and seems to only depend on the disk used. All the newer HDDs I tried are affected. For all test files larger than 256 MiB (or less, don't remember exactly) the checksums were off.

Disk corruption can be hard to detect under Linux because of the disk cache. Remember to drop it before testing backups.

<comment><USER3> You wouldn't happen to know which USB to SATA controller it is, would you? (device ID under Linux might help)

Sharkoon isn't the only one that uses those controllers (Astone might also) and I keep some of them around for testing purposes.

<comment><USER4> Before I figured out it was garbage, I bought one of the USB<->SATA+IDE dongle things I used at ex-work for use at home:

                    USB to ATA/ATAPI Bridge:

                      Product ID: 0x2338
                      Vendor ID: 0x152d  (JMicron Technology Corp.)
                      Version:  1.00
                      Serial Number: 152D203380B6
                      Speed: Up to 480 Mb/sec
                      Manufacturer: JMicron
                      Location ID: 0x24112000 / 6
                      Current Available (mA): 500
                      Current Required (mA): 2

<comment><USER5> JMicron. Figures. You ought to put one of their SSDs in one of those adapters and have a completely broken storage system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Things like this are why I like filesystems that can reliably detect corruption, like ZFS.

<comment><USER7> I don't see how zfs can detect the problem any sooner than any other filesystem.

If the problem is caused by the controller wrapping at 2tb then I wouldn't expect zfs to figure it out until later when it tries to read files back and finds damage.

Lets say zfs writes a file at 2tb but due to wrapping its actually written to 0 tb. Then zfs reads the file at 2tb to verify that is good. But the file appears to be fine because its really reading it again at 0tb. At some point zfs will detect a problem but I don't see how it can catch the problem instantly.

<comment><USER8> The difference is, zfs can detect it. The only other fs in production use that can is Oracle's zfs clone named btrfs.

<comment><USER7> Oh, I see what your are saying ... that zfs can detect corrupted files, true.

Whats likely to happen in this case is this: The first blocks of the disk contain the superblock, labels-descriptors and other filesystem metadata. Most of which will be sitting in cache. The damaged overwritten area at 0mb won't be noticed for some time - like next time the volume is mounted. The filesystem will eventually notice the damage and go into some recovery mode or halt to protect itself. Zfs has lots of redundancy so the beginning volume labels could be rebuilt.

One benefit of zfs will be that you can tell which recovered files are good or bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If only firmware development legally required developers with a national basic skills exam, all our problems would be solved!

(Actually, the real problem is the race to the bottom because most buyers buy on price alone.)

</comment><comment><USER7> I am currently working on a data recovery caused by 2tb limited bridge controller.

Customer had an external usb/firewire box with a 3tb drive. At 2tb the writes 'wrapped' back to block 0. Its a mac filesystem. Everything worked great until he wrote past 2tb. At that point it overwrote the beginning of the mac volume. The next time he connected the drive the mac thought that it was a new raw drive and told him that he needed to initialize the drive.

This is the second time he did this - the first time he didn't reinitialize it and we got it all back.

Unfortunately this time they initialized the drive. This zeroed out all the metadata, catalogs, maps etc - much bigger mess.

So some bridge controllers cannot handle drives larger than 2tb. 2tb is the last sector that you can address with a 4 byte disk address. So for sectors 0-0xffffffff .....works fine. The next sector is 0x100000000 - 5 bytes, it only sees the lower 4 bytes 0x00000000 and starts overwriting the beginning of the drive.

NTFS filesystems are more recoverable in this situation because their master file table starts 6 million sectors out on the drive so you would have to write alot more data before you start losing all your filenames and folder structures and pointers to the data.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is it just me, or is firmware quality getting worse these days?

<comment><USER10> Firmware is getting more sophisticated and expansive, so it wouldn't surprise me. Bug-rate-per-LoC seems to stay pretty stable.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, in the old days this was all done in hardware and you got hardware bugs like the infamous ones in the CMD640 IDE controller. (I think Apple had their fair share of data corruption bugs in that era too, actually.)

<comment><USER12> On CMD640/RZ1000, if OS/2 2.x actually replaced DOS/Windows instead of turning into an entire fiasco, these hardware would not likely have shipped with the problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Sounds like an integer overflow bug in the drive controller firmware.

</comment><comment><USER14> huh, interesting. Is this a HW or SW problem? 3TB drives are a bit of a sticky issue with older controllers so I wouldn't be surprised if this was the issue or not.</comment>


Building an Operating System for the Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> https://jsandler18.github.io/ <comment><USER2> If you're starting a new operating system project, you might consider using Zig[1] instead of C.

It does all the low level stuff that C does but it has some safety features as well as generics.

The standard library is usable in freestanding mode, even the data structures that allocate memory, because everything takes an allocator as a parameter.

Here are some examples:

* i386 OS: [https://github.com/AndreaOrru/zen](https://github.com/AndreaOrru/zen)

* ARM (raspberry pi) OS: [https://github.com/andrewrk/clashos](https://github.com/andrewrk/clashos)

[1]: [http://ziglang.org/](http://ziglang.org/)

<comment><USER3> Apparently this is the shill-c-alternatives thread. Here's a short list:

* Rust

* D

* Zig

* C2

* Nim

* LISP

* Ante

* Clay

Please note: I think all of the above languages (with the exception of C2) are awesome and should be looked at.

<comment><USER4> LISP Is Systems Programming

or, if you want,

LISP: Loses In Systems Programming

<comment><USER3> LISP machines?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh shoot. this is mine! If you have any questions or suggestions, feel free to ask me!

<comment><USER6> In what order should the extra information pages be read in relation to the tutorial parts?

<comment><USER5> The extra information is all linked to from the main parts. The reason it's also on the main page is so anyone looking for that info independently of this particular tutorial might find it more easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> this is excellent, i've been thinking about this as well recently. my goal has been to create a small device/appliance using raspberry pi. i tried out lots of operating systems: raspbian, ubuntu-mate, ubuntu core, windows iot, fedora, etc. i needed a lightweight x windows environment, a decent package manager, and modern linux kernel, overall none of these really seemed to match my needs. basically raspbian was too heavyweight, it was a desktop environment with way too many applications like libre office, etc that i just didn't need. ubuntu core required the use of snaps which are based on docker, i'm hosting an electron app so that's just overkill, i'm thinking in terms of preserving memory, too since there's only 1g on the rpi 3 model b so everything has to be optimized. windows iot requires a windows license, a definite non-starter for me. i even looked at chromium and android, but those didn't seem to be a good match because i want to host a golang service and i don't have a touchscreen. i even looked at fuchsia, but that seems too experimental.

i even considered doing my own os, but ultimately my goal is to build an appliance so that would be a major distraction. dietpi seems good, i will probably pursue that, but thanks for writing the article.

<comment><USER8> Why can't you start with Raspbian and uninstall most of the apps?

<comment><USER9> There's Raspian Lite, which is pretty much exactly that. You can just add a window manager onto it.

<comment><USER7> will give it a try, i think raspbian is sort of targeted at the education market for students that need a full blown desktop computer for various things. the fact that it's running debian as a base is great. how does this differ from dietpi?

<comment><USER10> DietPi is smaller, but I'm not sure exactly what it's missing that Raspbian Lite has. I've looked into it before, but I don't remember the answer. They're both Debian-based.

This has a list of DietPi's pre-installed applications and the packages that it has available for installation: [http://dietpi.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5#p5](http://dietpi.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=5#p5)

<comment><USER7> i noticed dietpi has a great list about the various hardware sbc's and their performance ratings for things like file system storage, etc. time to also check out the asus tinker board or odroid c2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I recently discovered dietpi and I am very happy about it.

[http://dietpi.com/](http://dietpi.com/)

<comment><USER12> When did 400mb linux become light weight?

Sorry, wasn't DSL debian based too... Have the basic things needed grown that much?

<comment><USER13> When it became less than 100% of the size of the smallest common OS for rpis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very nice! I've been considering attempting to port an OS that I've been writing to an ARM device like the Pi, but I've never really looked into it much. With that said, I'm surprised the booting portion is so easy, I was under the impression that for the Raspberry Pi (And ARM devices in general) it was more complex. I suppose though, this is started after the bootloader that's normally on the SD card correct? I would imagine that makes things a fair bit simpler if that's the case, since the bootloader would take care of all the secret sauce.

Do you have plans to implement paging eventually?

<comment><USER15> Yep the proprietary bootloader on the Raspberry Pi handles most initialisation leaving the SoC in a usable state. If you want to see how things like DRAM init work you can take a look at the open source reverse engineered firmware at [https://github.com/christinaa/rpi-open- firmware](https://github.com/christinaa/rpi-open-firmware) . It isn't complete but it is just about enough to also boot the Linux kernel.

<comment><USER14> Thanks for linking that, that is one impressive piece of work!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I just want to thank you for posting this over here, I've been looking for something like this. I need something where I can develop and understand code as I go, so not a completed system, but that also provides final code so I can have something that actually works. I tried following the OSDev pages to try an x86 kernel, but I gave up when I couldn't get interrupts to fire.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is fantastic. Especially the line-by-line explanations on separate pages. Thank you @jsandler18!

</comment><comment><USER18> You can also leverage yocto/bitbake/openembedded to build your own linux distro for the pi

[https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta- raspberrypi/](https://git.yoctoproject.org/cgit.cgi/meta-raspberrypi/)

</comment><comment><USER19> awesome.. might buy rpi 1 cuz of this

<comment> m-p-3 I think for the cost, a RasPi is always a nice board to tinker with. And having a bunch of MicroSD cards to experiments makes it easy to test multiple scenarios easily.</comment></comment>


Google's $19B Black Box Is Worrying Investors - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-09/google-s-19-billion-black-box-is-worrying-investors <comment><USER2> Given Google's stock price floating close to all time high, this worrying might be a pretty narrowly impacting activity.

</comment><comment><USER3> Perhaps if the box had been blue or green, it would not have been as worrying. A black box conjures up images of darkness etc.

But probably when this was brought up during the project at Google it was dismissed as "bikeshedding". Or in this case, perhaps, "boxshedding".

<comment><USER4> > _if the box had been blue or green, it would not have been as worrying_

Did you read the article? The "black box" isn't a physical object. It's figurative [1].

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_(disambiguation)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_box_\(disambiguation\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Why is it a "black box"? Is it because Google doesn't break down the number or elaborate on the details of each contract?

Also, an increase in share price (Yandex) doesn't necessarily correlate to a change in actual usage.

<comment><USER6> It's material enough on earnings to need reporting but the precise numbers are of competitive value.

Probably if more than 2/3 of it were paid to one company the CFO might consider _that_ material and then we'd learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Everyone is paying more to acquire users these days. I haven't read the book that coins them as 'attention merchants,' but it seems like an accurate description, and their product is getting to be scarce and expensive.

I've got things to do, and when I waste time I'd like it to be wasted in a way that relaxes or recharges me or the people I care about.

Not that there isn't such a thing as good advertising, but the trick seems to be targeting. If you can't target people who actually want what you're offering to them, it's a waste of everyone's time and people will start tuning you out. Worse, you really have to hit them _when_ they want what you're selling.

Like, when I go to Digikey and see an ad for some company's 48V/166F supercapacitor bank, or a new line of 16-bit ADC chips? Yeah, that sort of thing is a reasonable bet. When I go to a news story and see an ad for a VR headset? Not...quite.

<comment><USER8> A big problem is that once being a bulk attention merchant isn't appealing, they'll double-down on finding ways to creepily invade your privacy, profile you, and resell that profile to companies you'd rather _didn 't_ have your information.

<comment><USER9> We need a browser that is more private than what we have today. Something to hide the IP and separate online identities on various sites, and monitor the data being sent out not to contain your personal information, even if it was sent by your own mistake (like, referencing your secret reddit account on your public name email).

Privacy has similarities to hygiene. We have learned, through a lot of suffering, the importance of hygiene in daily life, we need to learn a new kind of hygiene now, but people can't do that unaided.

<comment><USER10> I'd go a step further and state unequivocably that privacy _is_ hygiene.

Hygiene is about _preserving the health of a system_ , and violating principles of privacy _endanger the health of social intercourse_.

This is part of a large set of dynamics associated with technology in that there are systemic side-effects of any number of technologies which affect _overall systemic health_. The emergence of and/or management of these is itself a major mode of technological mechanisms.

[http://www.etymonline.com/word/hygiene](http://www.etymonline.com/word/hygiene)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> $19bn. We all knew about Google paying Apple to stay on the iPhone. That's $3bn.[1] There's the old deal with Mozilla to be the default search engine in Firefox, but that's over. But there must be a lot of other deals to add up to $19 billion.

That Google has to pay to be on the front of Android handsets is surprising. Isn't that enforced by the bundling agreement Google requires to use the Google-proprietary parts of Android? That's how Microsoft forces their stuff onto PCs; they don't pay PC vendors.

The non-Google Android phone business is pretty dead outside China.

[1] [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying- apple-3-billio...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/14/google-paying- apple-3-billion-to-remain-default-search--bernstein.html)

<comment><USER12> I wonder how much Google pays PC manufacturers to have Chrome as the default browser. A few years ago I purchased a Lenovo laptop that had Chrome pre- installed as the default. The desktop shortcut label was simply "Internet Browser".

<comment><USER13> Back in 2012 when they were still pushing chrome market share it was $.50-$5 depending on product and manufacturer

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Google may have expected the Android ecosystem to resemble the DOS/Windows ecosystem of the past ie many diverse companies competing for market share.

It hasn't turned out that way. A few major players have come to dominate the cell phone market and the also rans have mostly exited the market.

The major's market share now gives them the clout to demand higher fees from Google. And all of this has led Google to now compete seriously with it's Pixel line of phones against Samsung and Apple. Now the big boys will battle it out.

<comment><USER15> This is not true at all. A huge number of OEMs have come out of China and (to a much lesser extent) the US over the last few years and taken substantial market share. Huawei, Xiaomi, etc.

<comment><USER13> Less than ten percent market share - whoopee, who cares?

<comment><USER16> Xiaomi sold half as many smartphones in 2Q17 as Apple. Huawei sold about as much as Apple. Apart from Samsung, the Android brands that are well known in western markets -- HTC, Motorola. Google, LG, Sony -- aren't relevant globally.

[https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42935817](https://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS42935817)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder how worse it'll play out if Google pulled the plug and stopped paying these fees. These companies would be left with nothing but inferior alternatives (Bing, Yahoo, maybe DDG?). Mozilla tried this by cutting out Google for its default search engine and I don't think it made any meaningful difference.

I think, in a certain sense, Google is a risk-averse company. It simply won't gamble with its user base, no matter how high the costs are. Considering the cash arsenal the company has, I don't think it's a bad use of capital for Google.

<comment><USER18> >Mozilla tried this by cutting out Google for its default search engine

Did Mozilla really cut out Google or did Google not want to renew the deal after it expired?

<comment><USER19> Word on the street is that Meyer was desperate enough for market share that they actually outbid Google for the Firefox deal. I think Mozilla is supposed to publicly release financial data every three years, and the last time was 2014, so we might know for certain soon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't help but have a bit of schadenfreude here. Part of what happened was that Google used to send a fair amount of organic traffic to smaller sites. And many of those smaller sites had Adsense ads.

Google's changes in search shifted much of the traffic that went to smaller sites to larger, more established sites. Ones where the cost per impression/click are higher for Google.

So, part of it is self inflicted. They did, of course, get benefits out of that in the form of less low quality sites in their ad inventory. But some babies went out with that bathwater.

<comment><USER6> > Google's changes in search shifted much of the traffic that went to smaller > sites to larger, more established sites. Ones where the cost per > impression/click are higher for Google.

Do you have a reference that Google detuned their search for profit purposes? I'm happy to believe that Google did do evil, but I would like some evidence. This kind of change sounds short sighted.

<comment><USER20> >Do you have a reference that Google detuned their search for profit purposes?

That's not what I said at all...I was saying their costs were higher as a result. They detuned it to reduce the number of low quality sites appearing in Google search results. I am speculating on one particular side effect that had. I have no proof, because only Google would have the data needed to prove that.

<comment><USER21> > They detuned it to reduce the number of low quality sites appearing in > Google search results.

Interestingly Google Search results have degraded heavily over the years, and for many topics almost entirely consist of bullshit SEO sites and arbitrary- keyword-generation sites ([http://foo-shit.com/freude-des- schadens](http://foo-shit.com/freude-des-schadens) = automatically generated page about "freude-des-schadens").

<comment><USER22> Agreed. My anecdotal experience is that the number of low quality sites has increased dramatically.

I put this down partly to the "freshness" algorithm. You get shown the most appalling crap on the grounds that it appeared within the past few hours.

If you're a share cropper in the news blogosphere, it's stupid to spend an hour checking facts or making phone calls because then you'll be 50th to post. Post any old crap and you reap the financial rewards of "freshness".

I exaggerate only slightly....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's rather sad that Google needs to pay Android makers a fee for installing it's apps, given how Google gives away source code that makes Android exist in the first place.

On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed, app cut fairly high and non-negotiable at 30% and app store rejections arbitrary at best and blatantly anti competitive at worst. In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitrary restrictions on code execution and access.

Who'd you think the EU would investigate for monopolistic practices?

<comment><USER6> > On the contrary, Apple's ecosystem is completely closed

Their App Store is a monopoly, but I have friends who use iPhones and use Google's Inbox, Google's search app, Chrome browser, Google Maps and Waze etc and don't use the built-in defaults. I guess they like the hardware. So maybe I'm not interpreting "completely closed" correctly.

> ... In the name of user centricity, their platform places arbitrary > restrictions on code execution and access.

As a software but non-iOS developer I _like_ these restrictions. Yes they can be annoying (you can't use your iPhone as certain kinds of portable network scanner because they restrict access to the MAC) but they also stop shitty and malign developers from screwing me in certain ways (jerks were using the MAC as an illicit user tracking device).

I see it like various sorts of regulation: everyone us better off if the paint factory can't simply dump its waste into the river, even the paint company.

<comment><USER24> I'm one of those people who gladly use an iPhone with mostly Google apps (namely Chrome, Gmail and Maps). My little experience with Android has always been negative.

The only real annoyance with iOS is you can't set Chrome nor Maps as default applications.

<comment><USER25> I'm in the same boat. My dream device would be iPhone HW with Android software. I like Android's flexibility, the replaceable home screen instead of the list of apps, the Intents system that lets you replace an app handler with another (Chrome & Maps for example), the much better notification system...

I have an iPhone now (because work), and it took a few months to stop grumbling, but I definitely appreciated the overall better hardware compared to my friend's Android phones, most significantly the excellent (and immediately available!) camera.

<comment><USER26> Samsung hardware has blown Apple out of the water for the last 3-4 years. I want Samsung screens and form factors with iOS. iOS is what makes iPhones great!

Android is a giant tracking/ad/malware machine. It's far too permissive to applications you install on it. My most recent negative experience were pop up ads that the Peel Remote started showing on my home screen. Peel remote is one of the force installed applications that Samsung's touchwiz installs. It's like Windows 95 with OEM bloatware, but worse.

<comment><USER27> > Samsung hardware has blown Apple out of the water for the last 3-4 years

No one familiar with the impressive lead in mobile CPU design Apple has carved the past few years would ever make this claim. It's far more than just iOS making Apple's iOS devices great today.

You're wish for a better display is definitely valid though, and arguably gets granted at the end of this month.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cats, lasers and Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> https://www.raspberrypi.org/blog/cats-and-lasers-and-raspberry-pi-oh-my/ <comment><USER2> I built this using an Arduino board once for my roommate's cat.

It played with it for a little while quickly lost interest, despite how much I tweaked the randomization algorithm. (I tried stuff like truly random points, random jumps, slow movement, etc. etc.)

I figured out that she played much longer when I did it by hand. I realized that when I did it manually, I'd wait for her to catch the dot and then move immediately, so I thought about making something that tracked where the cat was, too, but never got around to it.

<comment><USER3> I think you might be able to detect that the cat caught the dot by identifying an unplanned motion of the dot itself.

<comment><USER2> That's an excellent point and it sounds very easy to implement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem is cats get no reward from catching the red dot. For some it can be a stressful as they need to catch the prey. The key is top reward them with a treat or toy once they have caught the dot.

Just like humans, endlessly chasing something that gives no rewards can lead to undesirable outcomes and behaviours.

<comment><USER5> I get what you are saying, but one of my cats is really fucking lazy so the only time she runs around is to chase the damn laser pointer. Yeah I guess I could also give her treats. But she's so fat, I don't know if that's good either.

<comment><USER6> Well if a child loves to play mario kart with you, but very rarely plays mario kart against the AI, the key takeaway should not be "I will lock myself in a room to build a mario kart AI that plays like me". Just spend time with the living creature if you love it.

<comment><USER5> My two offspring take up every breathing second of my life after my wife & work.. cat comes after all that which doesn't leave much time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Side note: some dogs also seem to enjoy & request laser pointers.

We bought our pets a pre-built version of this for Christmas. They seem to enjoy it randomly going off during the day when we're not around or busy.

<comment><USER8> Side side note: Eastern gray squirrels, Steller's jays, and assorted chickadee and junco species completely ignore my green laser.

I expected them to chase it, run away from it, or at least look at it a bit to determine if it was a threat, but no, I have not see any reaction at all.

<comment><USER9> These are animals in the wild? I personally think that pets are generally understimulated and more likely to respond to artifices like laser points.

Like how rats were shown to get addicted to cocaine/morphine and waste away due to ignoring food/etc....when the rats were housed in tiny boxes with no other rats to socialize with, and no objects/toys to interact with except for the cocaine/opiate dispenser. However, when provided with a vibrant community of other rats and a highly stimulating environment, rats seem to generally not get addicted to narcotics: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rat_Park)

It's likely that for an animal which spends most of its time in an apartment where most of the time everyone is either gone (at work) or sleeping, a laser pointer is highly stimulating. For animals who spend their lives outdoors, sensory signals related to predators, prey, food, habitat, companions, mates, and enemies....could be much much more stimulating than a laser pointer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Why do they use a Raspberry Pi for this?

Seems like some Arduino-style microcontroller for $2 could do this just as well.

<comment><USER11> In fairness the Raspberry Pi is only $5 so it's not like it's a huge deal</comment></comment>


Stasher – Non-plastic alternative to Ziploc bags - <AUTHOR> https://www.stasherbag.com/ <comment><USER2> What the hell is wrong with people. Silicone IS a plastic. "Plastics are usually classified by: the chemical structure of the polymer's backbone and side chains; some important groups in these classifications are: the acrylics, polyesters, silicones, polyurethanes, and halogenated plastics." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plastic) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicone)

</comment><comment><USER3> [They're made of silicone]

<comment><USER2> which is a plastic lol :*(</comment></comment>


Your Brain Has a "Delete" Button--Here's How to Use It - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3059634/your-most-productive-self/your-brain-has-a-delete-button-heres-how-to-use-it <comment><USER2> So, one should spend a few minutes before bed meditating on the important events of the day?

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm still trying to grok the "record" feature.</comment>


Prominent Entrepreneurs: Our Greatest Fears, Failures, and Lessons - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/canadian-entrepreneurs-greatest-fears-failures-and-lessons-2012-10-16

<comment><USER2> Love this

</comment><comment><USER3> awesome video</comment>