Tesla Shock Means Global Gasoline Demand Has All but Peaked - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-11-22/the-tesla-shock-global-gasoline-consumption-has-all-but-peaked <comment><USER2> They call it the "Tesla shock" and the article says that by 2040 there will be 150 million electric cars. Yet a few paragraphs later they admit that there will be 2 billion cars in use in 2040 (ergo 90% internal combustion engines).

I'm not saying that the progress is not impressive, but 10% maximum market share in 24 years doesn't feel like a shock.

Also, the polar ice caps are doomed :)

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear what you're saying, but I think the shift will happen faster than is commonly anticipated. The simplest way to sense this is to just drive a Tesla. Doing so is reminiscent of seeing early iPhones. There is a strong sense of, "Ah, yes, this is obviously the future."

As soon as the initial cost of electrics becomes remotely competitive with gas-powered cars, pretty much everyone is going to want one. Yes, there will be the much-ballyhooed challenges of installing charging stations in parking garages and so forth. All those commonly cited issues will remain issues, but they'll be like AT&T's initial network congestion due to iPhones: short-term problems that'll be overcome because the product is that good.

<comment><USER3> Once you factor in the cost of the home charging station(and the required charging infra) and the battery and other electric components ,electric cars are(and will stay) more expensive ,meaningfully than ICE-cars. And ICE cars are much more reliable , they don't need an expensive battery swap every 5 years.

And when fuel is priced low it isn't more expensive than electricity.

So yes, an EV might have some extra benefits and some western consumers might be willing to pay more for that, others won't and especially not people at the 3rd world.

So only 10% global penetration rate unless there's some government incentive by 2040 and maybe longer seems likely.

<comment><USER4> As an owner of a pure electric car (and a home renter) for more than 5 years, I logged in specifically to respond to this.

In 5 years, our Leaf has needed new tires, brake fluid, and... windshield wiper fluid and blades. We didn't need any new infrastructure. We plug it into a normal outlet at night, and it's full every morning. We've been taking the money we save on not doing transmission fluid and clutches and oil changes, and all of that stuff and put it in a savings account. In another 3 years, we'll need a new battery, but by then, it will probably be twice the capacity of the old one. (Nissan has discontinued the 24Kwhr battery, so fingers crossed, we'll get a 40KWhr battery when the time comes).

From a more global perspective, even here in Northern California, electricity is very inexpensive at night, because of all the spare generator capacity. Practically everyone can plug in their car at night, and with nothing more sophisticated than a $10 outlet timer, fuel up the fleet no problem.

Will every car be electric in 2040? Probably not, because cars last a long time. But I'll bet there will be very few gas cars sold by then. Battery prices are falling over 7% a year, and that's the most expensive part of an EV.

<comment><USER5> _Practically everyone can plug in their car at night, and with nothing more sophisticated than a $10 outlet timer, fuel up the fleet no problem._

Even that expense should disappear. My Fiat 500e lets me set a timer to start its charge.

<comment><USER6> And then the next step is to talk to the grid in realtime and soak up any excess wind energy when demand is otherwise low and pause charge if there's a sudden spike in demand and get a discount from the utility company for helping them out. This is already built into some chargers, but should be standard in cars in future.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here are a few things to be considered, and have all be well discussed on hn. Some things we know for sure such as:

\- Ride sharing means much fewer vehicles needed to do the same thing. Current numbers would indicate by quite a lot, this was before pooled ride sharing was widely used.

Other things we don't know, but we will learn in years ago:

\- How do overall global demographic shifts change the demand for vehicles?

\- Will employment trend changes reduce the amount of commuting time?

\- Will self-driving tech be coupled with all-electric cars?

\- Electric seems like it will be a commodity function, but will self driving? Or will there be some other platform effect that makes the vehicle business overall look and behave much more like software?

\- How quickly does improved safety from self-driving lead to much lighter vehicles due to regulatory changes? (lower gasoline usage, with or without electric)

\- Will regulators decide to impose outright bans on gasoline vehicles for environmental reasons?

\- Will there be a carbon tax and if so will it be high enough to make gasoline unfavorable to electric?

\- Will regulators decide to ban non-self driving vehicles for safety reasons? Presumably, this would remove old cars from the road quickly.

\- Will continued improvements in electric vehicle manufacturing lead to dramatically more favorable economics over gasoline vehicles? (This seems very possible to me, given the simplification of electric motors.)

\- Will major ride sharing companies get exclusive transportation rights to municipalities or even nation-states? Will those ride sharing companies be manufacturing their own vehicles?

Whatever parts do or don't happen, it seems like a giant mistake to draw a linear line and predict how things will look in 2044.

<comment><USER8> Ride sharing means fewer vehicles existing, but many more vehicles on the road.

Today my car goes with me to work, and then it goes home with me. If I accept ride sharing, then it has to also travel empty. Each time I use the car, the car must first drive to where I am. This roughly doubles the number of cars on the road.

With self-driving, it gets worse. I can send small children places alone. This means they can visit friends whenever they like, and they can participate in more activities.

<comment><USER9> Ride sharing could also mean fewer vehicles on the road and, crucially, taking parking spaces.

Today, even if I had a car, I would not use it. Why? Because there is no place to park.

The last couple times I tried driving a car at night, I spent _double_ the travel time, just crawling around the streets near my house until I could find an open parking spot. After the last time, I vowed: never again.

With self-driving, it gets better. When driving is a monetary transaction and human-powered transportation is free, then I expect that people will feel less impulsive about just taking a quick drive. With other necessary trends in human-scale urbanism, I expect that means the small children will just have to bike themselves to their friends' places.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> People are missing one factor.

In going from an 8 cylinder to a Prius you are going to save more gas than in going from a Prius to a Tesla, and even though we might not all be driving Teslas anytime soon the majority of us will drive more efficient cars.

<comment><USER11> Sidenote: it's better for the environment to buy a used Ford pickup truck than to buy a new Prius. The pickup will have been made in one factory while the Prius is made from parts from all around the world. It's already done a million miles by the time you buy it. Tesla not only has zero emissions, but they're also vertically integrated. For me, it's not all about which is the cheaper option to own. It's about what's going to help the environment the most.

<comment><USER12> Do you have a source on that? It doesn't seem right to me. Transportation is not the largest energy expense that goes into a product like a car; the largest energy expense is extracting and refining the raw materials into processed materials that are ready to be used for final production.

There's no way that the equivalent of one million driving miles' worth of pollution is emitted merely by moving around the pieces that then get turned into a car. Bulk surface/marine transport is extremely efficient.

<comment><USER13> > Transportation is not the largest energy expense that goes into a product > like a car; the largest energy expense is extracting and refining the raw > materials into processed materials that are ready to be used for final > production.

Sure, maybe the GP's point is that (she thinks) (environmental impact of new Prius construction + n years of Prius driving > impact of n years of driving an existing pickup truck). I have no evidence for or against this, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's true for n=5 years and typical mileage/day. As you point out yourself, besides bringing the parts from all over the world, you need to mine the resources, spend the energy to cast them, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just a reminder that in California you can lease a Fiat 500e for $3500 down (only $2500 if you have any other lease already) and $49 per month.

Plus CA will give you $2500 back if you make under like 200k.

The lease ends up being like $0.12 per mile with taxes and fees.

It's not a great car or anything but it's a ridiculous deal.

<comment><USER5> I beg to differ. It's a very fun to drive retro stylish car! (I'm an owner.)

<comment><USER14> I stand corrected!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Tesla is quite good at PR, and adding Tesla in a headline gets clicks. The article does say it's all the car companies, not just Tesla though.

Also Hydrogen vehicles are a thing now. Trains coming online in Germany, and Toyota are selling hydrogen cars now in Japan/USA. There are shipping container sized hydrogen production stations being produced in Germany that run on solar.

Hydrogen powered cargo ships have already been made as well. However, I'm not sure if hydrogen generation on board ships has been explored yet. Who knows... it may be possible for ships to run without ever needing to refuel if generation is done on board.

Now it's possible to use the extra power from renewables to make Hydrogen. Often solar and wind are over provisioned so they can provide extra when the sun or wind is low. However when wind or sun is high, the extra power is just wasted. Many home solar systems for example work on charging three days worth of power in case there are a couple of cloudy days. So even though conversion is only currently around 35% efficiency, that power would have gone to waste anyway.

The writing is on the wall for fossil fuels. I think this is the main reason why so many big funds are divesting from fossil fuels.

<comment><USER5> _Hydrogen powered cargo ships have already been made as well. However, I 'm not sure if hydrogen generation on board ships has been explored yet. Who knows... it may be possible for ships to run without ever needing to refuel if generation is done on board._

Sorry. Go back and study thermodynamics again. If you have the energy to generate hydrogen, you might as well use that energy to move the ship. You're always going to spend more energy generating the hydrogen than you will get back burning it or combining it in a fuel cell. The one exception is if you start from just the right feedstock to generate the hydrogen from, like some hydrocarbon. The leading candidate now is natural gas. However, in that case, the byproduct is CO2 -- so what's the point?

Or, maybe you were thinking of hydrogen as energy storage? Batteries are far better than hydrogen as far as that goes.

<comment><USER16> Energy generation is not a problem, there is nuclear, sun, wind. Energy storage is. Currently, hydrogen should be a better option for energy storage as it is cheaper than the expensive and explosive lithium-ion batteries. Never mind that lithium-ion loses its capacity on every cycle and requires rare minerals.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Self driving cars will mean the huge shift. As rehashed many times, most people won't buy a car but rather use it on demand. Right now a car is driven perhaps 15 000 miles a year which means probably two hours a day. This will jump to 12, perhaps 18 hours a day. Maintenance costs and reliability will be king and electric cars are huge leaders in that.

<comment><USER18> Considering that use of cars is highly synchronised for commute times, and people's pride in car ownership as a status symbol extends to spending a non- trivial portion of their annual income on depreciation to ensure their car is unsullied by previous owners, I'm not so sure...

<comment><USER19> Very affordable ownership will be viable if you're willing to lend your car into the share fleet when you're not using it. Might even be near break-even; the natural benefit of fronting the capital for production.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> We'll have to see how the Chevy Bolt does. That's the first mass-market electric car.

Electric car tax credits in the US are halved after a manufacturer sells 200,000 electric cars. Chevy is likely to hit that in a year or so. So is Tesla.

<comment> srb- As a fan of all electric cars, I really hope the Bolt does well. However, my understanding is that GM/LG only have enough battery manufacturing capacity for 50,000 units a year. So that puts a major cap on how much success it can have, at least initially.

This is why Tesla longs are so bullish on the stock... even if the other car companies instantly switched all their models to electric, there wouldn't be enough battery supply to meet that demand for years. Tesla, on the other hand, should be sitting pretty with their Gigafactory 1.

<comment><USER20> Tesla's "Gigafactory" currently has just the assembly line for battery packs that used to be in Fremont. LG's factory in Holland, MI is the largest battery factory in the US and is set up for easy expansion.[1] The Chevrolet Division of General Motors has a good track record at manufacturing large numbers of cars. They can probably make as many as they can sell.

Tesla is still learning how to scale.

[1] [http://www.autonews.com/article/20151214/OEM06/312149992/lg-...](http://www.autonews.com/article/20151214/OEM06/312149992/lg- chem-quietly-surges-in-battery-race)

<comment> srb- I'd be glad to be wrong! But according to [1] LG's factory might get to 3 GWh output in a few years. At 60 KWh per Bolt that is 50,000 cars, in a few years.

Tesla is planning 150GWh eventually, but starting at least in the 10's of GWh's to start. Lets say 30. At 30 GWh that is potentially 500,000 Model 3s.

Obviously, this is all speculative on both sides. Let me know if my calculations are off or I missed something.

[1] [http://www.autonews.com/article/20151214/OEM06/312149992/lg-...](http://www.autonews.com/article/20151214/OEM06/312149992/lg- chem-quietly-surges-in-battery-race)

<comment><USER20> LG has other battery factories for EVs. One in Poland, one in China, some in Korea... Also, since the Faraday Future project seems to be tanking, and LG built up battery capacity for that, they probably have some extra capacity.

China is building about 100,000 electric buses a year. That's where the batteries are going right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have to say that it's insteresting how the IEA consistently, year over year, underestimates the growth of renewables and overestimates the growth of fossil fuels.

</comment><comment><USER22> Oil will not be cheap forever. It is a scarce resource that will only become even more scarce as we go hence the price inevitably will go up.

In terms of Tesla (and electric cars for that matter), I never had the need to own a car because I happen to live in a cosmopolitan city that has a good transportation network. However, since I am now moving into the suburbs I am thinking to buy a car and I am pretty sure it will be a Tesla because electric makes sense if you happen to care about the environment.

That being said, I am not convinced that electric powered vehicles are better for the environment in this very moment because 8% to 15% of the electricity is lost in transmission and electricity generation is not a zero sum game. However, this can change very rapidly if we happen to build more localised sources of energy such as local photo cells, etc. - and yes solar roofs is the way to go.

<comment><USER9> Oil price may run into Jevons's paradox, though. The prices are already depressed because new production outpaced demand back in 2014.

I expect as oil production continues to outstrip demand, while all this production machinery is still operational, then the price will continue to plummet. Making it more attractive to use oil frivolously, like driving SUVs into pedestrians.[0]

I'm not convinced that oil will become expensive quickly enough to avoid catastrophic climate change. Not without a major carbon tax. For the price to go up due to scarcity, we would need to extract the oil from our currently available reserves, leaving only the more difficult resources. It's better for the climate if we leave the reserves where they are.[1]

[0][http://www.roadpeace.org/remembering/world_day_of_remembranc...](http://www.roadpeace.org/remembering/world_day_of_remembrance/)

[1][https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much- wor...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/07/much-worlds- fossil-fuel-reserve-must-stay-buried-prevent-climate-change-study-says)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> More electric cars on the road means that oil will be cheaper for everyone else. The fossil fuels industry has massive infrastructure that isn't going away anytime soon, I'd guess their growth period is over though.

There is going to be a very long transition from combustion engines to electric motors.

<comment><USER24> Self driving cars changes the math of this immensely.

Your car sits idle 98 percent of the time.

Once self driving hits, you only need a 10th of the cars that you needed before. And that 10 percent electric penetration rate becomes 100 percent.

<comment><USER25> Electric cars can't drive more than ~10 hrs a day without recharging.

And that's at the upper range (250mi+ range). All the lower range cars like Leaf and Spark EV will run out of charge in 3 hours.

<comment><USER24> And they will drive for those ten hours, recharge for 30 minutes and then drive for another 10 hours that same day.

Automated recharging is especially a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> When Ferrari begins to make EV, we will know gasoline demand have been decimated, but it's an existential question for exotic supercar manufacturer with a long lineage & tradition that plays so much in to their brand.

Ferrari have stated that they will _never_ make a fully EV vehicle. I'm not sure what Enzo Ferrari would think.

I would be very interested to know what an EV supercar will look like I expect something like sub two second range with instant torque and lightweight composite material.

I get giddy thinking about the torque to weight ratio of such vehicles.

<comment><USER27> Ferrari makes 10,000 per year. What do they have to do with gasoline demand?

<comment><USER26> well they make roughly 62k from each margin. As soon as they begin to see the ROI from EV R&D (assuming in the future they do) which increases that margin, either by cutting costs associated with assembling a combustion engine and all the relevant components like the transmission, gearing, etc OR producing an engine that absolutely kills the biggest and baddest V12 engine. then it's not far fetched to say Ferrari might begin to steer towards making EV "cool".

La Ferrari's use of electric motor on top of the V12 may just be the beginning. It doesn't make sense for Ferrari to be "slow" which eventually will be the case when EV's instant torque + new lightweight materials + less traditional components adding weight.

It might be that the baseline EV model from Ferrari will be at the track spec cars like the Scuderia, Speciale series but with all of the ameneties and technological innovation that you find on a Tesla, which shows a whole different demand for cars that excel on the technological front.

That might also win Ferrari more customers, people who thought Ferraris were "uncomfortable" or "I just want from A to B while my car drives me home" etc.

All of this is pure speculation of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Clickbait.

Note the word "Gasoline" not fossil fuels burnt inside cars. The age of electrics is not here, nor does this article predict it anytime soon. Gas stations beside the road aren't going anywhere, at least not worldwide.

>> While the agency anticipates a gasoline peak, it still forecasts overall oil demand growing for several decades because of higher consumption of diesel, fuel oil and jet fuel by the shipping, trucking, aviation and petrochemical industries.

</comment><comment><USER19> The IEA has an absolutely abysmal prediction record when it comes to trying to account for technological disruption and innovation: [http://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9510879/iea-underestimate- rene...](http://www.vox.com/2015/10/12/9510879/iea-underestimate-renewables)

</comment><comment><USER29> One have to be blind and ignorant if you believe that the number of cars will _double_ by 2040. I believe they will be halved, if not quartered or more. Have they not seen any of the self-driving cars appearing, and getting here much faster than most anticipated?!

<comment><USER30> Self driving cars will just increase the amount of cars existing.

People won't suddenly shift their work schedule around, so they'll all need to use cars at the same time, still.

But they'd also use the cars for additional courier services.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I re-read the entire article twice and I still don't know exactly what they mean by "Tesla shock". Very sloppy headline.

<comment><USER32> This was my thought, but due to "Global Gasoline Demand Has All but Peaked"

They mean "global gasoline demand has peaked". They have literally said the opposite.

Is this the new way to write headlines?

It's like people saying "I could care less". The proper euphemism is "I couldn't care less" because otherwise, you actually do care.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is creating a returnable container system a startup opportunity? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> It would be incredibly capital intensive. It would need to be very nearly as easy as recycling, which would be incredibly logistically complex and expensive.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a company called Terracycle that creates programs for doing this in partnership with various brands.

</comment><comment><USER4> [Not native speaker here.]

Container as in carboard box or as in plastic bottle?

<comment><AUTHOR> Any material I guess. There's really no return-ability in our container systems at all right now so it's an open question.</comment></comment>


Explain why taxpayers pay out billions to Microsoft and get nothing in return - <AUTHOR> https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/explain-why-taxpayers-pay-out-billions-microsoft-and-get-nothing-return-while-linux-free/0PPtVNTz <comment><USER2> Worst. Petition. Ever.

Rather than a hysterical (and frankly, ridiculous) demand for an explanation, why not simply ask that the US follow the lead of the UK government which has mandated a preference for open source software.

<comment><USER3> I agree. Worst people skills ever. I'm picturing the author of the petition as that nerd on the youtube video who freaked about about node.js not being fast.

EDIT: This guy: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1e1zzna-dNw>

<comment><USER4> Funny video. Hard to watch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I believe part of the reason that governments prefer big, "overpriced" software packages from mega-corporations is support and warranty. The White House does not want to create and manage a new in-house tech support team.</comment>


Developer Bootcamp in Vancouver BC - <AUTHOR> http://codecore.ca CodeCore is an intensive 8 week, full time course that will teach you the necessary skills to excel in the software development industry. <comment><AUTHOR> It's about time Vancouver got one!</comment>


Techniques for smooth infinite scrolling in HTML5 - <AUTHOR> http://engineering.linkedin.com/linkedin-ipad-5-techniques-smooth-infinite-scrolling-html5

<comment><USER2> I get super frustrated by infinite scrolling when the site designer adds to the footer of the site menu options that aren't in the header menu. So you can NEVER click on the footer links that you so desperately need. Also wish you could kill infinite scroll w/a click or keyboard command.

<comment><AUTHOR> true, infinite scrolling and footer do not work together, unless footer is position:fixed, which is often the case on mobile. Infinite scrolling is pretty much the norm on mobile and is increasingly popular on desktop, pinterest and twitter are examples.

I have found only a couple of libraries that attempt some of the techniques used by LinkedIn team. One is [infinity.js](<http://airbnb.github.io/infinity/>) by airbnb but it is specific to pinterest-style masonry layouts, and another is [swipeview.js](<http://cubiq.org/swipeview>) by Matteo Spinelli, the great guy who created iscroll.js. We are using swipeview in [Urbini](<http://github.com/urbien/urbini>) but it is not good enough, scrolling is terribly slow. It is possible that it is some problem in interaction between jquery mobile and swipeview, so we are investigating it, but anyway swipeview is not even close to what LinkedIn guys have created. I know Sencha guys have a similar technique, [Infinite List Component](www.sencha.com/blog/the-making-of-fastbook-an-html5-love-story) but we do not want to use Sencha as it has terrible cross-browser support compared to JQM.

<comment><USER3> SwipeView is pretty good but not good enough for large scale front end application. Also, SwipeView (at the time when I looked at it) required all of the data upfront v/s letting the app pull it via a webservice. If you're looking for more info on how LinkedIn achieved the buttery performance, you might want to look into <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft9R72R7TlI>

<comment><AUTHOR> thx @trunalb, good find, will check out the video later (man, it is an hour long). I pretty much understand all LinkedIn techniques. Just lack the time to implement them and support this code for various environments. Ideally this is what JQM team should have provided as a replacement for their barebones and very tricky to use listview widget. Good scrolling/swiping performance is impossible on mobile without managing a sliding window in DOM, like good old editors used to do with files that did not fit into memory.

<comment><USER3> cool @datadiver. LMK if you need any help. FWIW, I implemented the infinite scrolling when I was at LinkedIn ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> omg, you did? I see that you used the sliding window with 3 parts. The closest pages are left as is. Then next set use the technique #1 unloading images. Then the next set of pages use technique #2 hiding pages, while the rest of the pages use technique #3 removing pages. Why not just use #3? Is there a speed advantage to still having around the pages with the fake image and the pages with visibility hidden?

<comment><USER3> Yup there is. It also takes care of the use cases if the user swipes forwards and then back again quickly.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Apple Watch is the first true mobile device - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@matthieurouif/the-apple-watch-is-the-first-true-mobile-device-cf6ebdf0275b <comment><USER2> Maybe in generation 2 or 3, but right now as I understand it the most amount of features come from it being paired with the iPhone right next to it in your pocket.

With their running example, I was under the impression for any actual run tracking you still needed your phone on you.

<comment><USER3> Hey, that's a good point. I added a note saying that non-apple apps are still not performing well enough but no doubt they'' be better in generation 2 or 3. As for running, you have to run first with the iPhone, but once the podometer is calibrated, you can run without iPhone and still have music and performance tracking. The one thing you'll be missing is the GPS but it's not that important.</comment></comment>


Dropbox 2048 - <AUTHOR> https://dropbox2048.site44.com/

<comment><USER2> Nice job, I actually prefer this colour scheme to the original.

</comment><comment><USER3> Logging in to Dropbox kicked me out of my game, losing my progress. Is it possible to open the confirmation in a separate window or tab?</comment>


Ask HN: How do you shift focus among applications on a Laptop? - <AUTHOR>

Do you use your apps mostly in maximized state? Do you click to move focus or ALT-TAB?
This is one thing I still find slightly annoying. Both clicking and ALT-TAB seem very uncomfortable to me.
Any innovative ideas on building a better experience?
Do not restrict yourself to software only ideas, dream of new hardware if the need be? <comment><USER2> I mainly click. I would love to alt-tab but I can't seem to internalize the way it works, which means that I usually alt-tab a dozen times like an idiot to pick the application I actually want.</comment>


Show HN: Weekly Machine Learning Digest - <AUTHOR> https://bestofml.com/subscribe/ <comment><USER2> you should think about posting previous issues online so people can see what they will getting. Also, for SEO. Adds trust around you as well.</comment>


Faster internet is coming, but only for a few - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/faster-internet-5g-rural-gaps-a4658995-3629-4f23-a391-d94941481dda.html <comment><USER2> I don't think I need Gb internet.

I recently upgraded from 30Mb to 75Mb. I don't really notice a big difference. Very little I did before needed a full 30 Mb connection. Is Netflix higher quality now? I can't tell.

I doubt I'd upgrade again anytime soon. I've reached a point where my internet speed's bits per second has exceeded my ability to consume data.

<comment><USER3> It's a chicken/egg problem. No one is going to develop mass-market services that require users to have a gbit internet hookup if there are hardly any potential customers. Which leads people to think they don't need gbit internet because there is nothing that requires that kind of speed.

Just like there was no need for most people to have >10Mbit internet without the likes of Netflix or Youtube existing, and no way for those sites to survive if everyone is using a 56k modem.

<comment><USER4> Yeah No. Exponential curves always mean you've zoomed in too far on the chart. There will be a plateau, and the exponential bit of the curve tells you essentially nothing about where that plateau will be. In the case of home Internet the plateau is likely somewhere in the 100Mbps ballpark. It's probably more than 10Mbps and it's probably less than 1Gbps.

\- The most important change was NOT the bandwidth increase from 56kbps to low megabit speeds. The most important thing is Always On which for most people arrived at the same time. Omnipresent Network Access changes how and why people use the network. I lived in a house that had 24/7 56kbps Internet access in the mid-1990s and it was basically the _same_ as now [except video was much poorer quality] because it was _Always On_. People who had to wait maybe a minute for Dial-up had a completely different experience because dialing up is a thing you do, like watching TV, whereas being connected 24/7 is an inherent thing like being able to understand Spanish. It felt weird _not_ having the Network if I was away. That feeling finally went away when I got a smartphone years later.

\- All the applications already existed. Youtube is a refined version of technologies that already existed back in the 1990s. It's video on web pages. Yes it's much higher quality video, and it's better integrated and so on, but those are refinements, the basic idea wasn't created when enough people had "high speed" Internet access, the idea is decades old. If your hypothetical killer app for gigabit home Internet was going to appear it already would have done so, at least twenty years ago.

<comment><USER5> Maybe I want to watch every NFL game live, simultaneously, in 4K.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm still on 15 Mbps at my home, for $30/month. I haven't found the need to upgrade even though according to the FCC, I don't even have "broadband" (defined as 25 Mbps down and 3 Mbps up). I don't often hear people complain that their internet is too slow, only that it's too expensive. I hope that more bandwidth translates to cheaper internet, but it seems like the past 10 years my ISP has had the business model of raise the price and the speed at the same time and remove slower tiers of service, basically forcing people to pay for speeds that they never use.

<comment><USER7> Interesting. I didn't realize that I don't have "broadband". I haven't had any problems streaming video or anything because our internet is super consistent at 20 down, 10 up. I'm on a fiber network with 100-BaseT for the last mile, so unfortunately I'm unlikely to get a big speed upgrade, and the top tier is just 10 mbit faster.

I've considered switching to another ISP, but the service is so reliable and I only occasionally want faster download speeds. I also like that I don't have to deal with cyclic deals like cable and DSL providers do, I just pay a flat $40/month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Verizon sold most of its landline business to Frontier over the past decade. While the few remaining Verizon FiOS customers got upgraded to gigabit, the Frontier FiOS customers were left with the old technology. Our Frontier contract just expired and we're upgrading from 150 mbps to 500 mbps for about $5 more tomorrow. But I'm not optimistic about the speed. I tried paying $150/mo for the Frontier 500 mbps package two years ago and downloads never came close to that speed, the only thing that did were speed tests. Hopefully they've optimized more.

The saddest part is that the sales rep insisted that we'd need a modem, I'm sure because the majority of their service areas have been left on DSL.

<comment><USER9> Don't most servers throttle how much bandwidth outbound traffic gets? I never expect to get full speed downloading a random file. Even a super popular torrent might not have enough peers to reach full potential before it's done downloading.

<comment><USER8> I remember never getting more than a fraction of the speed. Like maybe 200 mbps max on a 500 mbps connection when downloading a file. I assumed with the number of people with gigabit connections two years ago I'd have at least run into a few servers that didn't throttle that low.

<comment><USER5> Those servers have more than one user, perhaps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I live very far from any major town(10 miles from post office, 15 miles from a high school, 20 miles from a major retail outlet). Our current internet is $35 for a 5Mb connection and the best I can currently get is $70 for a 10Mb connection. But sometime next year I will have fiber available to me. IIRC, it'll be something like $60 for a 250Mb connection and $110 for a 1Gb.

It'll be interesting to see how fiber transforms rural areas compared to areas that don't get it.

<comment><USER11> There is a weird dynamic in the US where many rural areas have garbage level internet access ... and some pockets have insanely high levels of service.

Somehow some random telcos have found a way (presumably government subsidies (I don't think that is bad)) to provide some amazing service, while others wallow in absolute trashy telco service.

I know folks with consistently low latency 1Gb service that is just amazing, and folks where the local telco literally left lines lying across their lawn providing terrible service claiming they'd get back to it and never did.

I worked with one rural telco provider who had datacenter grade switches running 1G sfps (they could have run 10G sfps on all of the ports if they chose to do so) ... one port per household. I talked to the guy running the show there for a while and he said they just had this massive budget so "why not?". He noted almost none of the houses used their service to its fullest extent with the exception of some local teens ;)

<comment><USER8> With the amount of money Americans have spent on internet everyone could have 100 gigabit by now.

The real question is how telcos have managed to spend all of their income. I know mine Frontier spends it all on interest payments for the service areas they've bought.

<comment><USER12> > The real question is how telcos have managed to spend all of their income.

It is returned to investors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting, but purely US focused. Anybody have good data on progress in the rest of the world?

<comment><USER14> UK Has good coverage except in rural areas, and in some rural areas they've done their own FTTP (B4RN for example).

There's a big "full fibre" push from various different providers (Hyperoptic (FTTB), GigaClear, CityFibre, BT OpenReach).

Most densely populated areas have the choice of FTTC (the infrastructure is ALL BT OpenReach, however you have a choice of providers who piggy back on this), and in bigger cities/towns Virgin Cable up to 380Mbps down 37Mbps up.

Pricing is very competitive, because even with areas that are all BT FTTC lots of providers use their infrastructure and OfCom regulates how much OpenReach are allowed to charge.

I have a truly unlimited cable package for £50 a month, 384 down 37 up.

<comment><USER15> Hahahahahaha.

Openreach is utter shit outside of very very lucky areas. I live in London (zone 6) and we get 30/8 (after fighting with BT support for two months to fix it from 22/1). If you're not covered by VM and win the postcode lottery as to not have it drop constantly, you're lucky to get "tolerable" speeds.

<comment><USER16> Just count yourself lucky that you don't have an Exchange Only (EO) line, that doesn't have a cabinet and runs directly to the exchange.. I'm in Whitechapel (Zone 1) and get 8/1

<comment><USER4> There is an ongoing programme to upgrade EO lines to have their mini-cabinet so they can get vDSL. You are an inadvertent casualty of "unbundling". To promote competition the Exchange is allowed to have equipment from other providers in it (most exchanges have only one or two other FTTC providers, many have none) and that _could_ be ADSL and so the interference from VDSL _could_ break that, violating the unbundling rules, so, they just don't offer VDSL.

It would be technically easy to give you VDSL, it would just break a rule that was put in place to ensure competition for ADSL service, which you now don't care about because even that close to the Exchange it's only giving you 8/1

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Signals from space have to travel a long way, so the connection is slower > than earth-bound internet options. But in unserved places, it's better than > nothing.

Is this true for LEO projects such as Starlink and OneWeb? I thought the latency characteristics were much more reasonable there. Or is this speaking about bandwidth? The wording is a bit vague.

<comment><USER2> I think the author is remembering 15 years ago when the first satellite internet companies existed. I remember trying to play Warcraft 3 at a friend's house in the country and having 2-3 second pings.

Those companies were using Geosynchronous satellites so that dishes could point at a single spot in the sky. Unfortunately, geosynchronous orbit is at a height of 35,786 km. That means almost 120ms just to reach the satellite, plus another 120ms to get the signal back down to earth, then your request hitting the real internet and another 240ms to get back to you over the same two satellite hops.

SpaceX's Starlink will be <1000 km up in low earth orbit, so somewhere under 5ms away at speed of light. For any transmission across an ocean, Starlink will be much faster (so you just know high speed trading companies will be big customers). How much bandwidth it offers remains to be seen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This article is written like a powerpoint slide. I'm left wondering what they are trying to convey.

</comment><comment><USER19> Interesting to see discussion where people say <100 Mbps is enough. No. In Lithuania, general household internet speed is 300 Mbps. I'am with 1 Gbps and I can't imagine how other countries have average 10 Mbps per user. Wow.

It's like a car engine: it's better to have 3.0L than 1.2L, because when you need the power, you will get it.

<comment><USER20> I think it's simply a case of not missing what you don't know.

I got my first 10 Mb/s connection around 2000. At the time I found it to be as fast as I could possibly want. I mean, it's the same speed as the local network at the computer club just a few years prior.

Now I have gigabit (2 Gb/s actually, but I can't be bothered to configure network bonding), and I couldn't imagine going back to anything slower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This seems purely driven by profit. Retrofitting cell towers has a ROI that is inverse to density of customers willing to pay (broadcast distance is limited). Whereas if fiber has already been run and good Ethernet cables already laid, increasing total bandwidth for wired connections has a cost ~proportional to paying customers.

</comment><comment><USER22> Bah, should have had mobile in the title. I have gigabit fiber at the house and its fast enough that I have no idea what to do with that much bandwidth.

<comment><USER4> There isn't anything to do with that much bandwidth.

It's another space where there's a consumer product and consumers have been taught that the bigger number is better, so you advertise a 1000Mbps service and consumers think it's worth more than your competitor's 500Mbps when in reality although those numbers are "true" they're irrelevant.

Eventually consumers get jaded and learn to ignore the number, the way you'll see nobody cares when you tell them your "hi res" audio is 96kHz at 24 bits - CD audio with 44.1kHz at 16 bits was more than enough, more isn't better for ordinary users so they eventually learned to ignore it‡.

I had Gbps Internet access in 1998, and in 2015 I was buying new service for my new home. Should I buy the cheap 40Mbps package? A bit extra for 80Mbps? Or spend a lot more for 1Gbps? And I knew, which most consumers don't, that it didn't matter, 40Mbps is fine, once in a while 80Mbps would be slightly better (maybe a new video game downloads in 10 minutes rather than 20 minutes) and 1Gbps would just make some numbers bigger that I'd show off once in a while but make no actual concrete difference. So I bought the 40Mbps service, no regrets.

The main practical things 1Gbps will do for you is avoid buffer bloat since there's less need for a buffer, but you could also do that by just buying hardware that doesn't have buffer bloat.

‡ If you are a recording studio you might actually want 24-bit, and maybe at a pinch even 96kHz, but ordinary consumers needn't care. Likewise somewhere like a school definitely wants 1Gbps networking, but my mother needn't care.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This article is stupid. Urban and suburban dwellers are not "the few", they are the overwhelming majority of the population.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm happy on 4G internet.</comment>


When Good Waves Go Rogue - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/37/currents/when-good-waves-go-rogue-rp <comment><USER2> So many submissions, so few votes or comments:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11963831](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11963831)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960189](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11960189)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10498557](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10498557)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381596](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8381596)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8120697](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8120697)</comment>


Ask HN: What mistakes in your experience do the people you manage keep making? - <AUTHOR> This thread seemed pretty successful - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15033156 . Let's see what the impressions on the other side are. <comment><USER2> Being stupid about compensation was a pattern when I was managing.

Want people to be happy? Give them no benefits, no health care, no 401K, no bonuses, and plow all of that into salary. People would rather have bragging rights about how much they make. Doesn't matter if you point out that they get a bigger package when the employer pays the health care (if the employee pays then they pay with after tax money).

It is mind blowing to realize that people that are way smarter than me are stupid about money. But I've definitely seen that pattern.

I ignored what they wanted and gave them good health care, did 2:1 match into their 401K, and did bonuses so we didn't get double taxed (corporate and personal).

<comment><USER3> I have a friend who took a 1099 job over a W2 job because "they offered more money". I tried to explain that because he is now paying a higher payroll tax he's earning _less per hour_ than the other job.

He doesn't get it though. "The other company was offering X. This one is offering 5% more."

He also doesn't have PTO, 401k, or medical insurance.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, this is exactly the sort of thing I was talking about. How can you be a brilliant engineer and make this sort of mistake?

I was trying to hire a very senior guy from Sun and we didn't get him because our salary offer was lower than Sun's but the package was better than Sun's. This guy was a distinguished engineer (equal to a director in the management track). We wanted him for VP of engineering, he was smart, good people person, got stuff done. But couldn't add up all the things in a package.

Just weird.

<comment><USER4> This is interesting. Can this be thought of as the flip side of matt_s' second point[0]:

> _Thinking that pure technical merit of an idea will magically sell it to me > (manager) and above._

This, being the flip side, can be formulated as:

" _Thinking that pure managerial merit of an idea will magically sell it to me (managéè)[1] and below /lateral_".

I'm at my first job. Every time I'm asked to make a presentation I invariably ask: "Who's the audience?". I'm an Electronics Engineer by training, so my eliciting question came because I think of "impedance matching", an expression that's often used but seldom appreciated for what it really is. The first sentence of the Wikipedia entry is clear and concise:

> _In electronics, impedance matching is the practice of designing the input > impedance of an electrical load or the output impedance of its corresponding > signal source to maximize the power transfer or minimize signal reflection > from the load._

Controlling the input impedance of the _load_ (my interlocutor) is out of my control as far as I know. Controlling the output impedance of the source (me) is within my control, so this is where I start. It's also wonderful that doing this effort reveals gaping holes in my implementation sometimes.

What's your opinion on that? (that's it the flip side of the same problem of an Engineer who complains management doesn't "get it", as someone who's been in both roles)

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15047382](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15047382)

[1]: Not an actual word but I just love how content written in English uses French words with accents in all the wrong places. In case you're wondering about the order, I didn't use èé because it looks like an angry frowning dude and I aimed for dumbfounded, which is exactly what éè looks like.

<comment><USER2> I use the phrase "that's an impedance mismatch" all the time. Software guy who has done some hardware stuff. I use it in the context of humans: "Sending $ENGINEER to do that job is an impedance mismatch, they'll screw it up". Stuff like that. Love that phrase, might be misusing it, still love it.

On "is it the flip side of the same problem of an Engineer who complains management doesn't get it" I'm not seeing it. I mean, maybe, but management usually gets it in my experience. It's a much more rare event to see a manager not understand all of the costs of doing something, that's a big part of their job. So maybe it's the flip side but it's just not that common (in my experience, I've had mostly good managers).

Here's maybe why I don't see it: I see good engineers screw up on the money stuff all the time, it's very common. I very rarely see good managers "not get it". In the engineer, it's like a blind spot, it's not because they are stupid. When managers don't get it it is usually a sign they aren't a good manager. So to be the flip side, you'd have to have good managers not getting it and I believe that's uncommon.

<comment><USER4> > Stuff like that. Love that phrase, might be misusing it, still love it.

Yeah, love those concepts that lend themselves well to other systems (signal to noise ratio, inertia, etc).

What I meant, I may have "packaged" my message clumsily, was the following: is an Engineer's duty, in the context of their job, to package "technical" information for the manager not the flip side of the manager's duty to package "managerial" information for the Engineer.

The Engineer complains that management doesn't get "obvious technical" information the same way management complains an Engineer doesn't get "obvious management" information, which might cause mutual disdain, and ~°we all know°~ it's easier to have disdain for people with questionable hygiene and appearance, so there's that.

I guess an Engineer's struggle with money stuff is really the same as the inability of someone to solve a Physics problem: one needs to have the data in the right dimensions, the laws that apply to them, _and_ know how to apply them. Then practice doing so.

An Engineer's inability to "get money stuff" is one or more of the above missing (cash vs cash flow for figures of the right dimension, for example), knowing the rules to apply to money, and then the practice of applying them.

<comment><USER2> I dunno. It seems more weird to me that the engineer, um, "engineer" as in good at math, good at seeing a whole system, doesn't apply those skills to their own compensation package.

It would be a whole lot less weird to me if we were talking about, I dunno, anyone who isn't good at systems/math.

It's just a big blind spot, at least it is in the USA. I don't get it.

<comment><USER4> It should be the case.. Then again, there's the "conjunction fallacy"[0]. There's the case where the staggering majority of participants who were trained in probability got the test wrong.

Anyway, thanks for the input. Fascinating how we function.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Side-stepping management and complaining to the HR department. The HR department's job is to protect and side with the company. Often enough they will call or email the manager asking "what's going on with employee XY" and sometimes even forward the full complaint email to management. Unless there's serious misconduct (e.g. sexual harassment, fraud) expect little privacy.

</comment><comment><USER6> Assuming that leaders are promoted to mangement first and then they lead rather than they lead first and then they are promoted to management.

</comment><comment><USER7> That meetings are an open mic comedy venue.

</comment><comment><USER8> If people you manage are consistently making the same mistakes... I think that reflects back on the manager more than the individuals.

Thinking more broadly - I think a very positive behavior in employees is actively seeking and integrating feedback. Many people have a mindset where feedback comes to them. Being proactive on this front can be be really transformative.

</comment><comment><USER9> I read a few comments on the other thread. So much of the output fall's on management's shoulder to clarify, motivate, and inspire.

Thinking over my stint at running a few teams, so long as we hired well, there was literally nothing I could complain about, but there were infinitely many more shortcomings I could see in myself.

</comment><comment><USER10> This one will be harder since you have had to manage people to get some anecdotes. Its much easier (and fun) to poke fun at management. I used to manage people, doing SW engineering now and enjoying the "freedom".

* Assuming that the I (as a mgr) am in charge of their career. As a manager I can coach you but you have to have some sort of goal other than "be employed". Take some initiative.

* Thinking that pure technical merit of an idea will magically sell it to me (manager) and above.

* Under estimating the effort to get something complete.

* Not talking to people. If you go back n forth a couple times via email or chat and can't resolve something, talk in person. Before you complain to me about another person or team, please have at least talked to them first.

</comment><comment><USER11> The one that I've seen and mostly righted is them thinking that the direction of their career is my or the companies responsibilities. It's not, but I still drive them and advocate for them to grow on behalf of the company. I tell them that if they find themselves in a different environment, they might find a company or manager that cares about them and their growth. They must find ways to be self driven and drive their growth and keep learning. Learning only during projects is not enough, one must step ahead of the pack or get left behind.

<comment><USER12> It's also their responsibility to leave for a better opportunity if they can't advance their career at their current job. It's the manager's responsibility to try to retain good talent.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely, but most managers and company care only about getting the current job at hand done even st the expense of nurturing and growing their employees

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not running the tests before checking code in.

(Disclaimer: I don't actually manage them. I'm kind of a lead, but nothing more.)

<comment><USER12> You simply need a gated check-in.</comment></comment>


188.8.131.52 Cloudflare DNS Resolver Soon to Be Announced? - <AUTHOR> https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:https://188.8.131.52/ <comment><USER2> The concerning thing about this is that internet is increasingly dependent on Cloudflare, making it a single point of failure and exploitation. Somehow, people are not talking much about it, but a significant amount of sites have opted in for Cloudflare proxying, allowing it to see the traffic in plain text, while the visitors are made to believe that the connection is secure. Similarly, users will now use their fast DNS server, which is also advertised as more secure.

<comment><USER3> What about akamai? They are a much larger CDN (no one talks about it on HN because they are not a startup). I agree with your assertion that it will become a single point of failure with many web properties but also I think that HN has a sort of filter bubble on startups (for obvious reasons) and I'm not sure cloudflare is as big as people make it out to be.

Also, Google has 126.96.36.199 which could be for the same thing and has similar problems (large scale data collection, singe point of failure).

<comment><USER4> CloudFlare publishes their pricing. Akamai doesn't.

Dealing with salespeople is a massive PITA. They're not going to tell me anything that's not in the docs or support forums and I don't want to spend a week negotiating. I've seen many others make this point on HN over the years.

Maybe Akamai only focuses on large enterprise customers while CloudFlare also goes for the SMB market. IDK. The HN crowd seems to work at SMBs (startups included) or at companies big enough to operate their own CDN.

<comment><USER5> Fuck I hate this. I've avoided buying storage servers from ixsystems, despite the fact their products seem to be exactly what we need, because they won't tell me how much they fucking cost. They want to have a "conversation" about "solutions".

Fuck you. Sell me boxes and tell me how much they cost. But they won't.

<comment><USER6> I work for a vendor and I'm not allowed to tell my clients pricing because I'm not qualified to make deals. We don't even have a list price published internally, it's all at the salesman's discretion. That means some clients pay $150k, some pay $300k, some get it for free bundled with another purchase. Far too often I'm asked "budgetary pricing" but even that is a conversation with a solution architect and a virtual procurement cycle and an NDA and all that nonsense. Just so we can make sure someone is getting overcharged.

<comment><USER7> Ugh. So many terms that when I actually say out loud and try to be serious I throw up in the back of my mouth a little.

Is there room in this space for a new no-nonsense vendor? Someone who cuts out all the goddamn middlemen and just asks what hardware you want, how you want it configured, and quotes you a frickin price without all the bullshit?

<comment><USER8> abmx maybe?

<comment><USER7> First I've heard of them (but I'm not any kind of expert). Are they good? I usually just hear the usual suspects mentioned such as iXSystems and Supermicro. Linux guys will mention one called PogoLinux every once in a while also

<comment><USER8> I have bought a few servers from them (4 or so over the years), and they have served me pretty well so far. I haven't had to do any RMA's or replacements though, so not sure how good the company is about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is awesome to hear, and for all of the criticism Cloudflare has gotten in the past, they have spoken loudly against censorship, not just for people they like, but those they dislike as well. I'd much rather point my DNS at them than Google, an ad company where tracking is the whole business model.

<comment><USER10> Really? Didn't the CEO kick stormfront off Cloudflare because they thought they were assholes?

<comment><USER9> Specifically, the Cloudflare CEO kicked the Daily Stormer off of Cloudflare because the Daily Stormer had been suggesting that Cloudflare secretly supported them/their politics: [https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated- daily-stormer/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/why-we-terminated-daily-stormer/)

Had the Daily Stormer folks kept their mouths shut, they probably would've been fine.

And then Cloudflare continues on to describe why they don't think companies should censor content, whereas Google has numerous blogs and entire technologies revolving around how to censor content even more than they do now.

<comment><USER11> Ah yes. There's nothing to censor if you keep your mouth shut ;)

<comment><USER12> There's a difference between saying "[highly controversial statement]. We know company X will not censor us." and "[highly controversial statement]. We know company X will not censor us because the people at company X are really on our side!"

<comment><USER13> They really should have booted them for that reasoning rather than by feeling. They even have it in their Terms of Service (and when I looked, did have it at the time of terminating the site)

> Section 18 - Because Cloudflare has no control over such sites and > resources, you acknowledge and agree that Cloudflare is not responsible for > the availability of such external sites or resources, _and does not endorse_ > and is not responsible or liable for any content, advertising, products, or > other materials on or available from such sites or resources.

It's a clear ToS breach, a bit of thought would have avoided the whole thing. You got lawyers on hand? Talk to lawyers!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Interesting that [https://220.127.116.11/](https://188.8.131.52/) has a valid SSL Cert when you can't issue public valid certs for IPs

<comment><USER15> The certificate "Common Name" is: dns.cloudflare.com.

There is a certificate extension - Certificate Subject Alternative Name that lists the following:

      DNS Name: *.dns.cloudflare.com
      DNS Name: dns.cloudflare.com
      IP Address: 18.104.22.168
      IP Address: 18.104.22.168

Most likely the extension was included as part of the certificate signing request.

<comment><USER16> Most CAs ignore the subjectAltName extension when parsing CSRs (as it's a pain[1] for users to generate one properly). They just extract the public key, CN, and let you fill in SANs.

1 - Before Cloudflare I used to do this with OpenSSL and it requires half a dozen steps, but with cfssl you can do this quite easily: [https://github.com/cloudflare/cfssl/wiki/Creating-a-new- CSR](https://github.com/cloudflare/cfssl/wiki/Creating-a-new-CSR).

<comment><USER17> You can generate SAN CSRs with a openssl one-liner, not that hard.

<comment><USER16> With a default install/config? Do tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Well crap. I was used to going to 22.214.171.124 on my cellphone when on wireless APs that tried to redirect you an agreement page. Now there is a valid cert/website at that address.

Guess I'll have to pick a new one.

<comment><USER19> Plenty of captive portals operators use the 126.96.36.199/24 ip subnet for their authentication pages. A shame they thought these IPs would never be used

<comment><USER20> Don't some VoIP devices use 22.214.171.124 too to check connection type or something?

There was a paper from a couple years ago when 1.1.1/24 (or bigger, don't remember) was still unassigned; at some AS they logged what kind of traffic was targeted at that subnet, by IP, port and protocol and 22.214.171.124 stood out. Can't find that paper just now unfortunately. :-(

<comment><USER21> [https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/presentations/Monday/...](https://www.nanog.org/meetings/nanog49/presentations/Monday/karir-1slash8.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> So am I correct assuming they support DNSCrypt if they claim they support encryption?

If that's the case that's really nice actually. Google DNS kinda silently launched DNS-over-HTTPS in 2016 but still no DNSCrypt; opendns are the only major ones supporting it.

Of course I stopped using dnscrypt at some point because it was a pain to maintain, and wasnt supported on most of my devices :/

<comment><USER23> (Removed.)

<comment><USER24> Use dnscrypt-proxy 2.x -- The 1.x branch has reached end of life.

Cloudflare's resolvers have been supported by dnscrypt-proxy for quite some time and are even present in the example configuration.

<comment><USER23> Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There was a good experiment that Merit did when they announced 220.127.116.11/8 for 1 week back in 2010. The findings are here:

[https://www.merit.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/1.0.0.08.pd...](https://www.merit.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/1.0.0.08.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER26> >supports encrypted DNS as well as DNS over HTTPS

Are encrypted DNS requests used by default? Does 220.127.116.11 somehow advertise to your client (whether it's a browser, the OS or a router) that encryption is possible? Do I have to configure my endpoint, which may expect to be able to send normal plaintext DNS requests, for it?

I guess DNS over HTTPS will surely not be supported by normal routers, but I don't know what other protocol Cloudflare refers to as "encrypted DNS", so maybe that will work.

<comment><USER27> Encrypted DNS usually refers to making TLS-secured connection to a DNS server over port :853. You can read more here: [https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7858](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7858)

<comment><USER26> Thanks a lot, that was what I looking for. Seems most realistic to configure DNS-over-TLS on the OS level then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Lots of bad networking equipment assumes 184.108.40.206 isn't a real address and use it for things like captive portals and administration making this a terrible address to use for a service you want to be widely available.

</comment><comment><USER29> Didn't realize this wasn't official yet. A few days ago dns.cloudflare.com pointed to a landing page describing how to change your DNS to 184.108.40.206 and 220.127.116.11 and how they were not going to censor or log anything.

It also said it would support DNS over HTTPS.

Edit: Here's the snapshot from wayback machine, [https://web.archive.org/web/20180328150501/https://dns.cloud...](https://web.archive.org/web/20180328150501/https://dns.cloudflare.com/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Archived link since it seems to removed from Google's cache [https://archive.is/QB0sW](https://archive.is/QB0sW)

<comment><USER31> Thanks - I just searched the page for "archive.is" hoping to see a comment exactly like this one :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> How would one setup an automatic DNS-over-HTTPS on your home PC?

<comment><USER24> Use [https://simplednscrypt.org/](https://simplednscrypt.org/) and just pick "Cloudflare" in the list of available servers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Found the page in google cache : [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4Mdo7Yu...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:4Mdo7YuHRPEJ:every1dns.com/+&cd=3&hl=de&ct=clnk&gl=ch)

[https://126.96.36.199](https://184.108.40.206) and also every1dns.com seem to point there

</comment><comment><USER34> Wonder how much it cost Cloudflare to buy 220.127.116.11/8 from China Telecom...

<comment><USER25> Where did you get China Telecom from? The IANA released 18.104.22.168/8 to APNIC in 2010 and 220.127.116.11/24 was assigned to APNIC-LABS. The IRR Netname is actually still APNIC-LABS too. See:

[https://stat.ripe.net/22.214.171.124#tabId=at-a- glance](https://stat.ripe.net/184.108.40.206#tabId=at-a-glance)

<comment><USER34> The IANA released 184.108.40.206/8 to APNIC, and APNIC subsequently sold parts of it to China Telecom. I deduct this because neighboring IP ranges ([https://stat.ripe.net/220.127.116.11#tabId=at-a- glance](https://stat.ripe.net/22.214.171.124#tabId=at-a-glance) and [https://stat.ripe.net/18.104.22.168#tabId=at-a- glance](https://stat.ripe.net/22.214.171.124#tabId=at-a-glance)) belong to China Telecom. So 184.108.40.206 likely did too. I think the whois information may have reflected the China Telecom ownership before it was updated.

APNIC-LABS is probably just a joint partner in that Cloudflare resolver project.

<comment><USER35> No. 22.214.171.124/24 was not allocated because idiots poisoned it. For a long time address ranges like these were left unused because it wasn't worth anybody's time handling the problems but since IPv4 is now full we may as well do what we can with them.

So China Telecom will never have been given 18.104.22.168/24

<comment><USER25> Indeed, and there was always great worry about how polluted that IP space might be. I posted this link elsewhere:

[https://www.merit.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/1.0.0.08.pd...](https://www.merit.edu/wp- content/uploads/2016/01/1.0.0.08.pdf)

<comment><USER34> Very insightful slides. I was wrong about 22.214.171.124/8

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> The website at 184.108.40.206 isn't running, but the DNS service seems to be operating.

<comment><USER37> Why would there be a website at that IP? Google and OpenDNS don't serve a website from their resolver IP's; don't think I've ever seen any that do

<comment><USER38> The submitted link is the Google Cache page for a website running at that IP:

"This is Google's cache of [https://22.214.171.124/."](https://22.214.171.124/.")

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It become public on 1 April

[https://isptalk.net/d/18-cloudflare- dns-1-1-1-1-1-0-0-1/3](https://isptalk.net/d/18-cloudflare- dns-1-1-1-1-1-0-0-1/3)

</comment><comment><USER40> In case it's interesting to anyone I ran nmap against the ip and it seems that the domain associated with it is one.cloudflare-dns.com, also all of the ports are closed currently

</comment><comment><USER41> Announcing 184.108.40.206: the fastest, privacy-first consumer DNS service [https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-1111/](https://blog.cloudflare.com/announcing-1111/)

</comment><comment><USER42> This protects against a tremendous amount of local and ISP level DNS request collection which is great; however, we ultimately need a zero-trust DNS system. KPMG auditing Cloudflare provides security through bureaucracy/obscurity which doesn't help.

</comment><comment><USER43> Appears to be a joint venture between Cloudflare and APNIC, not sure the relative involvement of APNIC, they provide the IP addresses at the very least.I don't know if they retain any oversight of operations.

<comment><USER44> As with all previous times APNIC has let a company advertise that IP range, I assume APNIC will be doing analysis on the traffic that comes in

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> What are the rate limit before I start using it on my servers?

</comment><comment><USER24> To connect using DNS-over-HTTP/2, just use dnscrypt-proxy 2.x and put this in the configuration file:

server_names = ['cloudflare']

</comment><comment><USER46> All other issues aside, is it faster then Google DNS?

And I wonder if all ISP should group together to start a single / few DNS.

</comment><comment><USER24> To use this on iOS, download DNSCloak from the App Store and choose "Cloudflare" in the list.

<comment><USER47> You can change the dns server easily from wifi settings on ios.

<comment><USER48> DNSCloak app makes it uses DNSCrypt, not standard DNS you can set on the Wifi Settings.

<comment><USER24> Yep, and it works well with Cloudflare (and has for quite some time).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> How (if at all) does using this affect e.g. what Netflix content server gets assigned to you?

<comment><USER50> If it supports EDNS0 it should be fine.

<comment><USER51> Not to mentioning that running under one (anycasted) address doesn't imply having the same cache globally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Works and is a fast resolver!! Thanks for posting it.

</comment><comment><USER53> I generally go to GRC's tool "DNSBench" for a list of performing DNS responders. If 18.104.22.168 shows up on that list, I might consider it.

</comment><comment><USER54> Darn, no IPv6 address?

<comment><USER55> >For IPv4: 18.104.22.168, 22.214.171.124

>For IPv6: 2001:2001::, 2001:2001:2001::

<comment><USER44> But those IPv6 address aren't actually working, unlike the IPv4 ones. Also those addresses are owned by Telia, so I have my suspicions that those are the go-live ipv6 addresses

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> How does a company like Cloudflare come to acquire a "vanity" IP address like that? Are they just sold privately to high bidders?

<comment><USER57> It worked like this (according to the submitted website archive):

> Cloudflare had the network. APNIC had the IP address (188.8.131.52). Both of us > were motivated by a mission to help build a better Internet. You can read > more about each organization's motivations on our respective posts: > Cloudflare Blog / APNIC Blog.

The blog post links just links to the blog themselves, not actually to a post, so this submission seems premature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I can't fault them for wanting to know what DNS requests people are making. There is a gap in tracking people only via http and webrtc.</comment>


Ten-year-old severe SQLite bug fixed - <AUTHOR> https://www.sqlite.org/src/info/2df0107b <comment><USER2> When I read the subject I thought the bug was reported 10 years back and got fixed now. But this looks like it was reported very recently and got fixed immediately. The bug report doesn't have any discussion except that it says the bug even affects versions which were released around 10 years back.

<comment><USER3> It is also worth pointing out that in this case the result of a query wasn't returned, an error that would probably be noticed in most cases and bears no security implications (at least none I can see). That alone makes it far better than a 10y old security relevant bug.

The fact that it was only reported now probably shows that it rarely occurs in real world applications.

<comment><USER4> > The fact that it was only reported now probably shows that it rarely occurs > in real world applications.

And/or that those who encounter it assume they're misunderstanding left joins, and try something different.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I encountered a similar bug to this (basic JOIN semantics error) about 4 years ago. Though it had been fixed in the head version by the time I found it, it had clearly been present for years. Turned me off to SQLite ever since -- it's painful not to be able to trust query results.

Goes to show that even literal "millions and millions of test cases" don't catch bugs you didn't think of in the first place. This is a domain where a theorem prover could really shine -- checking transformation invariance in a non-Turing-complete language.

<comment><USER5> I doubt "enterprise" databases like Oracle or MS SQL Server don't have similar bugs. Actually, what non-trivial software doesn't have bugs? I had the opposite reaction to you from reading this bug. They fixed it amazingly quickly, after it was reported, no fuss.

<comment><USER4> I've used Postgres a lot more and for more complex queries than SQLite, and have never encountered nor heard of a query semantics bug with it (though I'm sure they exist). I know that is total anecdata, but my experience with Postgres is – whether thanks to more collective query hours, better testing methodology, or simply higher quality design – an experience that leads me to trust it more than SQLite.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Linux drivers for the USB rocket launcher - <AUTHOR>

Can someone give me a hint where I can find Linux drivers for this launcher: http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/8a0f/ or to find a similar gadget that can work under Fedora? Thanks! <comment><USER2> [https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Agithub.com%20ro...](https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=site%3Agithub.com%20rocket%20launcher)</comment>


Ask HN: am i a "coder" or a "programmer"  - <AUTHOR>

i can understand code very well regards less of which programming language it is.
some time i can't understand the algorithms
i like coding in scripting languages
i don't think of optimizing the code or efficiency of the code
i love open source project because i get to explore the code and get to know how that works
leave the comments please <comment><USER2> If you have to ask, you are neither. </non serious answer>

<more serious answer>

At what point did we start creating such nonmenclature by which you are either one or the other. They aren't mutually exclusive, and by most accounts, 99.9999% they are the same.

I tell people that I am a coder.

</more serious answer?

<comment><USER3> Exactly right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IMHO programmer, coder and software developer are different words for the same thing. Do you write code, program a computer or develop software? Or are they actually the same thing?

<comment><USER5> A programmer create algorithms and structures but without using a specific language. Maybe using things like pseudo code or "Jackson Structured Programming" or etc.

A coder will take the work of a programmer and turn it into usable, compilable, code written in a language.

They are often the same person. Often the "programming" is done at the same time as the "coding".

<comment><USER4> You are the only person Ive talked to who has such a strict definition for the terms. Everyone else seems to either use them interchangeably or has very loose definitions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a- pro...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2011/10/28/dont-call-yourself-a-programmer/)

</comment><comment><USER7> What do you believe the difference between the two to be? In US English I am unaware of a difference between the two in either denotation or connotation.</comment>


Visualizing the Structure of Venture Capital Co-Investments - <AUTHOR> http://www.drewconway.com/zia/?p=1534

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting information graphic & analysis on the network relationships between venture capital investments and the firms that make them.</comment>


The Internet is about to change - <AUTHOR> http://blogmaverick.com/2009/08/25/the-internet-is-about-to-change/ <comment><USER2> It's hard for me to believe that push technology is going to revolutionize the internet. Why? Because it didn't happen last time (or the time before that).

From <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PointCast_(dotcom)>:

        The PointCast Network used push technology, which
        was a hot concept at the time, and received enormous
        press coverage when it launched in beta form on
        February 13, 1996.

Since the early days of the web, people have recognized that the pull model has serious limitations. Unfortunately, pushing data to users has never been compelling enough to spark anything that qualifies as a revolution. People really want data to be pushed to them if that data is intended specifically for them (e.g. email and IM), but not if it's general weather and news data.

I do love Cuban's honesty, though:

        Would NY Times online readers pay $1 a month to be
        guaranteed that they get their news first, before
        anyone else? I dont know.

Most people would claim to be able to predict the future in order to make their point. He doesn't.

EDIT: I should add that his idea that "Huge databases can talk to huge databases and exchange data more efficiently" is cool and makes much more sense than pushing data to users. We're actually working on something along those lines right now...

<comment><USER3> I worked for Pointcast :)

The data was specifically for the individual, you could customize the data you were pushed using the client. It wasn't just a screensaver.

That wikipedia pages misses a lot of the fun back then. Dave Dorman was a really bad choice of CEO, he didn't even have a computer and his first priority seemed to be picking the type of Walnut to have his personal carpenter make his desk from.

Ah, the good old days of spending $80m...

<comment><USER4> As a Wikipedia admin, I'd love to have you update the article for Pointcast, _especially_ if you have sources you can reference while filling in the gaps & correcting information.

<comment><USER5> Since he actually worked there and experienced what they were doing, wouldn't _he_ be a first-hand source?

<comment><USER6> It's not enough for Wikipedia. References need to exist in some form of media, so if necessary, readers are able to check them.

Wikipedia Policy: Verifiability <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One of the great things about the internet is it's always about to change.

I think these services have interesting models....but I'll be damned if I'm going to let a 'sales tax calculator' blow a sale because it goes down. A rational business cannot rely on services they can't, at least in some small way, control.

<comment><USER8> In fact, complications in calculating sales tax cause many businesses to outsource their entire payments to something like PayPal. If instead they had a number of competing sales tax calculators and other services, one can imagine a payment platform built on a loose network of services with the ability to failover when one goes down.

<comment><USER9> Exactly. It would seem that one of the biggest problems facing the Internet and the growing dependence on Internet based services/applications is the fact that you are often fully dependent on (and at the mercy of) a single fallible system.

If our next generation of web services/applications relied on (is designed to be) a "cloud" based system, capable of dynamically switching between the multiple available services of a specific type, your users could rely on your service, regardless of what a single given service's stability or status is - one goes down, another one picks up. *trivial example: Think Twitter outages - if there was instead a redundant vanilla twitter-like messaging system, outages would not impact usability of its applications...

This said, I cannot help but wonder about the fiscal reality of such a infrastructure. In 'narrowing the delivered content more specifically to match the actual desired data' and 'its delivery mechanism' being hammered out, I can't help but wonder about the 'pay off'? Where is the mechanism that allows "content owners" to 'brand' and/or capitalize on "their" data.

But that is a different discussion altogether...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This technology has been around for a long time. It's fundamental to PayPal IPN, their payment notification system.

I also thought it was funny that he said websites constantly monitor the url for POSTs. I imagine a web server in an infinite loop, "Did someone post? Did someone post? Did someone post?"

</comment><comment><USER11> I don't see anyone commenting on the amount of bandwidth this will free up though.

Instead of someone's RSS Client polling 30 websites every 15 minutes, you have a single 'hub' that gets pushed data once (the hub doesn't even have to poll). This is not to mention all of those blog sidebar feeds that display things like flickr/delicious/twitter/etc.

On the other hand, this might screw up 'reader statistics' depending on how it's implemented.

<comment><USER12> I think Joshua Schachter told me something like 40% of hits on delicious return Not Modified. Because of polling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm sorry, maybe my ignorance is showing here, but in the example, aren't they pretty much just describing a cgi?

for example...

example.com/cgi- bin/gettaxes.cgi?state=AZ&longzip=85251&ammount=82521&trans_id=23894

which returns some text?

Am I totally missing the point here?

<comment><USER14> I think his explanation is just wrong. My understanding is that the web app says, "Hey, if you give us a URL, we'll POST (or GET, PUT, etc) these parameters to it whenever a certain event happens." On your machine, you just set up a script at the URL. Then whenever someone you follow on Twitter tweets, for example, Twitter will POST user=blhack&tweet=My%20spoon%20is%20too%20big to the URL you gave them. That effectively gives you a push API instead of the conventional pull APIs.

<http://webhooks.pbworks.com/>

<comment><USER15> Still, I don't see how "webhooks" help? Isn't it equivalent to having two webservices, one having a method for registering URLs?

<comment><USER14> You _do_ have two web services. If you wanted to implement what I described today, you'd have to periodically poll Twitter's API or RSS feed for data. With web hooks, there's no more polling. Twitter calls your web service when there's new data.

Actually, now that I explain it that way, it doesn't seem _that_ revolutionary. It just makes building neat hacks a tiny bit easier.

<comment><USER13> I think you just got buzzworded, ;-)...

It sounds like this magical "push" thing already exists. It is called "get" and "post".

For example, my website is a stupid news aggregator (<http://www.gibsonandlily.com>). If a story gets more than ~30 points (which is really rare since there are only a few people that post there), it calls up tinyurl and says:

"Hey...tinurl, if you wouldn't mind, could you please give me a tinyurl of this link so that I can post it to twitter?"

Tinurl responds

"Hey, I'M TOO BUY POSTING TO TECHCRUNCH, GO AWAY!"

To which my server says

"But c'mon, tinurl...pleaaaseeee????"

Tinurl:

"Fine, here, no go AWAY! Also, aren't I frigging revolutionary?!"

Then it calls up twitter and says

"Hey, uhm...brah, like zomfg wutcha doin? Check out this uber link!"

and twtitter posts it.

This isn't some revolutionary "push" feature, this is just standard cgi action.

It sounds like this is the same thing, just in reverse...which really isn't that "revolutionary", more like "duh".

<comment><USER14> What you're describing is a pull, so yes, a push would be that in reverse. Polling is inconvenient. Web hooks aren't "revolutionary", but they're still cool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Everyday the biggest databases on the internet talk to each other. Did someone forget about DNS ? I enjoy the 2.0 apps and technologies being developed, some are being called disrupted others revolutionary, If you weren't around 1.0 I can see how that's possible. PubSub looks like it could help make communication between apps/server less complicated, not a changer.

</comment><comment><USER17> Correction: the _Web_ is about to change.

The Internet, not so much. The protocols are still pretty much the same.

</comment><comment><USER18> by my knowledge he is atleast weeks if not months late, on the news ... but he does give a "reason to care" - which adds value to the conversation...

\- The web.. seems to change, slowly when we think its changing fast and really really fast when it seems boring.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think it's great this idea is gaining mindshare. However it seems like most people miss the point... even after me telling them they are.

</comment><comment><USER19> I think I'm on the outside and ignorant of this, but I don't get it. Of course I'm very used to working with subscribing to events in javascript and this sounds similar conceptually. However, I don't grok what the advantages are between urls.</comment>


Show HN: Starling - geographically analyze millions of tweets - <AUTHOR> http://theablefew.com/meet-starling

<comment><USER2> It's worth noting that Twitter had their own project called Starling, but I get the impression they've moved on.

<http://rubyforge.org/projects/starling>

<comment><AUTHOR> Ya, being over 4 years old, I'm sure we can safely assume they're working on other things. :)

Thanks for the link though!

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I posted this on behalf of Michael Tomko (we're both from The Able Few), but for some reason his post never actually published...

</comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting. Been working on a project very similar to this!

<comment><USER4> What platform are you building it on?

<comment><USER3> It will be on Ruby as well. System backend is currently MongoDB

<comment><USER4> Interesting. Would love to read more about it at some point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thanks for posting!</comment>


Fish Shell- the missing config - <AUTHOR> https://blog.gospodarets.com/fish-shell-the-missing-config/ <comment><USER2> Switching to fish was one my new-years' resolutions. I've done it already and now I'm a happy camper. It wasn't that hard to convert my old rusty bash exports/aliases/helpers collected over last 5+ years, one or two afternoons after all.</comment>


Handling storage and backup as a photographer - <AUTHOR> https://petapixel.com/2019/03/13/how-i-handle-storage-and-backup-as-a-photographer/ <comment><USER2> This article is basically an advertorial for Drobo

<comment><USER3> True but they did at least disclose it, "Full disclosure: Although I have been using Drobo devices for a number of years, I recently became a Drobo ambassador"

My experience with Drobo is less stellar.

<comment><USER4> Mine too. I've owned, 3 of them... There's no finer way to lose data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not super well versed in storage stuff, but why is it when I read on building your own NAS with ZFS I have to use all the same capacity hard drive. If I have 5x 1tb drives and 1x 4tb I don't have 9tb of storage (minus replication costs) I have 6tb.

It seems with Drobo, I can throw any different size of drives in, and it just works. How can I build something like that on my own?

<comment><USER6> Drobo adds, effectively, a chunking layer. Suppose that all drives are integer multiples of 1 TB. Split each drive into 1TB volumes, and make mirrors such that no volume is mirrored to another volume on the same drive. You gain storage efficiency at the cost of performance and complexity.

In the scenario above you could get 8TB protected by mirroring, or use a Z1, Z2 or Z3 scheme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Super important if you invest in a raid: get a battery backup for power. I had a drobo go down on my from a brownout and lost some photos. Now i have battery backup (and switched to synology) and haven't had any related issues.

<comment><USER8> I've been using Synology NAS devices for some time now and I'd definitely recommend them too. They have great support, even for their 'budget' systems, and provide many years of software updates and fixes. Their main web interface doesn't suck, and they also support SSH and command line management of the devices too.

I've not invested in backup power, but this is one area that I'm a little skeptical of... nowadays all filesystems are supposedly advanced (log- structured records, etc) so in the event of power loss, in 'theory' you should only be losing at most a few minutes of work, depending upon caching. i.e. stuff that hasn't yet been written to disk might be toast, but everything else should be safe. Or can worse corruption still happen?

(quick edit to add: I'm not saying that backups are a waste of time, not at _all_ , just that I'm questioning having a short battery power-supply backup)

<comment><USER3> Corruption can always occur if the moons and sun don't align for you on the day of the power outage.

Battery backup is usually req'd if you want to use write-caching on your RAID. You can also use flash backed RAID controllers, it's prolly better than a battery backup today.

Ultimately, keep things in perspective. The battery backup option might be the same cost as a decent UPS. You can also always build your own or get a decent zfs appliance.</comment></comment></comment>


Telltale Signs You Are A Horrible Boss - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericjackson/2012/07/27/31-telltale-signs-you-are-a-horrible-boss/

<comment><USER2> I had one boss for whom I could check mark every one of those 31 signs.

<comment><AUTHOR> The signs appear to be different manifestations of the same underlying personality [disorder].

I was able to hit 27/31, the only ones that didn't get checked would have been a "n/a" rather than a "no".

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> 32\. You are always reading the internet instead of working.

<comment><USER4> Hah, where I work there's about 10 people PAID to read the internet all day. Thanks social media.</comment></comment>