I'm Writing a Ballblazer Clone in Common Lisp - <AUTHOR> http://blocky.io/3x0ng.html

<comment><AUTHOR> For those who don't know: Ballblazer was a great game from Lucasfilm Games back in the 80's, for various 8-bit home gaming and computer systems. I've played it a bunch on the 7800 and that inspired me to write a pseudo-clone of the game, with my own spin and with more selectable variations.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I also found a really interesting paper about UNIX, Lisp, and Ballblazer: [http://www.langston.com/Papers/vidgam.pdf](http://www.langston.com/Papers/vidgam.pdf)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Previously discussed here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2475210](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2475210)</comment>


A Twist on Schrödinger's Cat Paradox - <AUTHOR> https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/this-twist-on-schroedingers-cat-paradox-has-major-implications-for-quantum-theory/ <comment><USER2> Here are a couple of things that are very rarely explained in QM pedagogy but which are very helpful in understanding Shroedinger's cat:

1\. The wave function does not exist in physical space, it exists in _configuration_ space. Configuration space is the same as physical space only in the one very special case of a single non-entangled particle. The intuitions of physical space do not generally carry over into the general case of configuration space.

2\. In order to produce interference you have to split up the wave function into two pieces and then bring those pieces back together again with a phase change. But since the wave function exists in configuration space, "bringing it back together again" becomes increasingly difficult as the number of entangled degrees of freedom grows. As a practical matter, it is effectively impossible to do this once the number grows beyond a few hundred (this is why building quantum computers is hard). But an actual macroscopic observer consists of O(10^23) degrees of freedom, and is also entangled with their environment. This is the reason that large systems behave classically and don't exhibit interference.

3\. Whether or not a system is in a superposition is not a physical fact about the system, it is a consequence of the measurement you choose to make. A vertically polarized photon (for example) is in a superposition relative to a measurement axis rotated away from the polarization axis. For a more complicated system, the measurement axis, like the wave function itself, is in _configuration_ space. But we can only do measurements in _physical_ space. This is the reason that in order to see interference in an entangled system it is necessary to do multiple physical measurements and look at the correlations between them. Doing those kinds of measurements on actual macroscopic objects is _way_ beyond the current state of the art, and may well be impossible even in principle. But this is the sort of thing that is contemplated in the theory behind these experiments. This is the reason that single particles are used as stand-ins for Wigner's friend.

<comment><USER3> Is physical space an actual thing? Or is it just a statistical interpretation of configuration space?

<comment><USER4> This entire branch of physics is the equivalent of a geo-centric earth model.

Tesla based his entire electric theory on the Aether.

This theory was wrongly suppressed by results of a Michelson Morley experiment...

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_)

...which failed to measure Aether-Drift because of the fact that it was done in a basement, and which was later contradicted by Dayton Miller when he repeated the experiment on a mountain top:

[http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm](http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm)

This scientific tragedy, likely done by powerful oligarchs, set the progression of physics back 100 years. We now have fraudulent branch of particle physics, which has a terrible track record with pretty much every prediction it has made, and which would be laughed out of the scientific community if it weren't for the sustained push by the mainstream media to hammer it into the minds of intellectuals.

We've been told that light has a set speed of propagation, yet time after time there are articles posted about light exceeding the speed of light for example gamma ray jets from quasars, which is explained by positing that the space- time fabric is moving and causing the reference frame containing the light wave to increase it's speed above the limit.

[https://www.sciencealert.com/faster-than-light-speed-in- jets...](https://www.sciencealert.com/faster-than-light-speed-in-jets-that- produce-gamma-ray-bursts)

The media has become so twisted that we now accept completely broken interpretations such as virtual particles (used to balance equations), string theory (completely made up and didn't work), multiple universes, time travel and a smorgasbord of hilarious interpretations from a fundamentally broken model of physics.

This article is just yet another desperate attempt to patch up this hilariously outdated physics branch. Einstein physics is on it's way out. And when it comes crashing down we will replace it with the work of Tesla and we will move faster in one decade the entire previous 150 years.

<comment><USER5> Wow, so much pseudo-science and just plain nonsense in one long comment. The wikipedia article on Orgone, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orgone) is a good starting place in learning just how goofy these ideas are.

<comment><USER6> I good friend of me has an esoteric coworker with a strong focus on Orgone energy and the like. The stories I get to hear and the "research" we do to read up on that stuff are fun and quite a filler for good and entertaining evenings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I haven't read the new paper in enough detail to comment, but also mentioned is the Renner-Frauchiger paper, which Scott Aaronson heartily debunks here: [https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975](https://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=3975)

The primary error there is one that people can't seem to stop making for some strange reason: if you don't measure a property X, and instead measure a (non- commuting) property Y, you are not free to say what X "would have been," and -- especially egregiously -- to use that to demonstrate a contradiction. There is no "would have been" in QM. Either you measure it or you don't, and even after you do, the value becomes invalid after it evolves or a complementary variable is measured.

Secondly, Wigner's friend was not a single particle. Asking what a single particle "experienced" only makes sense if you are a panpsychist (or "panpsychic" as amusingly misspoken in the article). In any case, it has no bearing on the essence of Wigner's question.

<comment><USER8> I think RF is a bit more subtle than that, and I'm not convinced that Scott Aaronson has really "debunked" it.

"But clearly, even if no one literally measures Charlie in the {|0〉,|1〉} basis, _he's still there, thinking either the thought corresponding to |0〉 or the thought corresponding to |1._ And likewise Diane. Just as much as Alice and Bob, Charlie and Diane both exist even if no one measures them, and they can reason about what they know and what they know that others know. So then we're free to chain together the "certainties" of Alice, Bob, Charlie, and Diane in order to produce our contradiction."

You can't use this argument without also explaining what "thinking" means - because in fact it makes no sense unless you _assume consciousness exists as a quantum state which allows a phenomenon called "thinking."_

And philosophically and practically, that's a very, very large can of wormns.

So this ends up in the usual place: it's not obvious how using an idea no one understands - like consciousness - to explain another idea no one understands - like QM - is supposed to solve any of these problems.

<comment><USER9> In order to implement the measurement described in the thought experiment, you basically have to uncompute Charlie's state back to the start of the experiment (to disentangle him from the qubit you want to measure), do the measurement on the single qubit, then recompute Charlie forward. This means that when Charlie is making deductions about the current state of affairs, like "if my qubit is |0> then the other qubit is |+>, that thinking needs to be valid during the computation _and during the recomputation_. But the conclusions Charlie is making are not correct during the recomputation, e.g. it is no longer the case that if his qubit is |0> then the other qubit is |+> at that time, and as a result the whole argument (based on Charlie's reasoning being valid so that an outside agent can use his conclusions) falls apart.

More details: [https://algassert.com/post/1904](https://algassert.com/post/1904)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find the concept of consciousness applied here a bit disturbing. Shouldn't we treat the observation as information leaving the observed system and propagating causal effects to other systems? A data recorder is not conscious, but notes information that passes through it and, therefore, observes a single state instead of a superposition.

<comment><USER11> Consciousness comes indirectly into quantum mechanics through the measurement postulate. You have to assume something special about measurement which breaks unitarity. Not all physicist are convinced, but it is the traditional way quantum mechanics is taught (all of the "transition probabilities" are really measurement probabilities). The problem is that you can't tell if your apparatus caused the collapse or if it was you that measured the apparatus that then caused the collapse. And because you can only know that something was "observed" when a conscious physicist makes that final readout you end up with a solipsistic situation where the only thing you can be certain of is that it was that last conscious observer that could have for sure collapsed the wave function. It could be that the collapse happened in the apparatus itself but as far as I know you have no way of telling the difference between it projecting the wave function of the measured system or you projecting the wave function of the apparatus into a pointer state. Basically consciousness sneaks in through the fact that there is no definition of what constitutes a measurement - what makes one physical process a measurement as opposed to all others that are unitary and the only thing you are certain of is that final "conscious" readout should count as measurement.

<comment><USER12> This is misleading at best. A measurement has nothing to do with a conscious observer taking the measurement. An automated experiment that could note down the result of an experiment would note down the result without any conscious observer having to check in and the result would be the exact same.

<comment><USER13> No, he is basically correct. Traditional QM requires an observer who is outside the system being measured to cause non-unitary evolution.

You can always consider your automated apparatus to be part of the system and hence governed by unitary evolution.

<comment><USER14> Traditional QM requires an outside observer but has nothing to do with consciousness. Consider the collision events recorded at the LHC: the vast majority have never been looked at by a human.

<comment><USER13> They have not been explicitly looked at, but they have been observed in the QM sense. That's because decoherence has spread those records to conscious observers.

If the results had been kept completely isolated from all people, you could still say a measurement hasn't occurred.

<comment><USER14> That's just not what traditional QM says. Traditional QM separates quantum systems (microscopic) from measurements devices (macroscopic). A measurement occurs when the measurement device interacts with the quantum system. You do QM by predicting the results of these measurements. Consciousness does not enter into it.

<comment><USER15> Until you get information from the measurement, it didn't happen.

<comment><USER10> Can it be considered as until it causally affects something else (the observer), its state is not defined? Isn't it a causal relation that collapses the superposition?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I read and skimmed and read and I gave up finding the substance. Can someone summarize?

<comment><USER17> honestly, i felt the same way after a good 15-20 minute read - I think it's one of those where you have to read it a few times, leave space in between, and Google as soon as you start getting confused

<comment><USER16> There's too much filler background too...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's silly to take Schrödinger's Cat literally.

It's a convenience to explain states within equations. When you say "the cat is both alive and dead at the same time", you're simply saying "in this equation, do not assume that this variable will be one or zero, calculate the results for both conditions", and the final outcome will possibly be one of these calculated results.

The more such variables you have, the more different results you may get.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Does the cat experience superposition?" Questions like these have always seemed to me like mistaking the map for the terrain. Quantum mechanics is a model, an abstraction of reality, trying to cope with uncertainties in reality that our observation & measurement technologies can't really settle. It's interesting but not to be taken quite so literally. Right? I dunno, clearly I'm not a physics expert. But I'm not a music expert either (actually I am but let's pretend), but I know that the sounds that please or impress advanced academic peers/mentors/funders rarely overlap with those that please the rest of the world. The Art and Architecture departments are like that also, and I suspect but can't prove that e.g. Economics, and more to the point, Physics, are too. I probably sound like I'm verging dangerously close to anti- intellectualism here, which I don't really want to do in the current cultural climate, but if anything it's the opposite: We should remember that believing someone implicitly just because they're an intellectual is also anti- intellectual. It's an appeal to authority which is one of the classic logical fallacies. Someone is not necessarily immune to institutional pressures (nor are they even necessarily an honest person) just because they're an intellectual. But you need to conduct your own research or at least a survey of the existing research before you can call yourself even a legitimate skeptic (as opposed to just a troll)! Which is why I'm stopping short of actually saying anything... so hey, my apologies for the time-wastage!

</comment><comment><USER20> >"Because the two photons appear to communicate _faster than the speed of light_ — something prohibited by his theories of relativity—this phenomenon deeply troubled Albert Einstein, who dubbed it "spooky action at a distance."

These concerns remained theoretical until the 1960s, when physicist John Bell devised a way to test if reality is truly spooky—or if there could be a more mundane explanation behind the correlations between entangled partners."

[...]

Such "Bell tests" have since been carried out, with a series of watertight versions performed in 2015, and they have _confirmed_ reality's spookiness."

Logic:

If you believe that the Bell Test is correct -- you must equal-and-oppositely believe that the speed of light is NOT the upper limit of speed in the universe, that is, that Faster-Than-Light (FTL) speeds are possible.

Conversely, if you believe that speed maxes out with the speed of light, and that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light -- then you equal-and- oppositely believe that the Bell Test is wrong.

But, you cannot believe that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light AND that the Bell Test is correct, simultaneously -- as this would result in a logical paradox...

(Choose one, _but not both at the same time_...)

<comment><USER21> The trick is to talk in terms of communicating information faster than the speed of light. Both relativity and quantum theories agree that there's no communication of information faster than the speed of light. Two wave- functions collapsing to opposite states lightyears away doesn't actually allow two people to communicate in an FTL way.

<comment><USER22> Exactly, so it becomes a question of the very inner working of the universe itself: How does the universe spontaneously assign the states consistently without communicating and also without assigning the states beforehand.

This is precisely why the experiment was proposed, to show this conflict in our understanding of the constraints.

<comment><USER23> If one bends a piece of paper such that two faces nearly meet then pokes a pin through the page and makes two holes in the page essentially simultaneously from the perspective of the two dimensional beings on the page it appears that the two events happened far apart and that "something must be moving information at faster than the speed of light" when the reality is more complex.

That's how I mentally think about entanglement. I doesn't need to operate through the universe as I understand (or operate within) it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> [https://archive.vn/ycC6W](https://archive.vn/ycC6W)

</comment><comment><USER25> The Schrödinger's cat paradox is a joke. Basically every time it's posted in some popular science article, it's a waste of time.

The superposition collapses way before the cat is affected, when more than a handful of atoms is concerned, way before the hammer even moves.

</comment><comment><USER26> I have a pretty basic understanding of this. I think of QM measurement, like trying to find the highest wave in the ocean.

At at any moment, there might be some n number of waves that are the highest. But not until the exact moment you measure the answer exists.

</comment><comment><USER27> In Schrodinger's Cat Paradox isn't the cat itself an observer? It has eyes, therefore it would observe the poison and be dead.

<comment><USER28> If the cat is an observer, then is the bottle of poison also an observer? Are the cells of the cat? Are the atoms of those cells? What is it that gives the cat observer status?

The intent of the thought experiment was to show that the Kopenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics is ridiculous. In the many-worlds interpretation for example there is no paradox, as time goes on more and more worlds exist where the cat died at some point.

<comment><USER27> Going off the double slit experiment, it seems the definition of an observer is something that can take in light, interpret and measure it. The examples given are eyes and cameras. (I'm not claiming I understand this, just trying to)

<comment><USER29> "observation" isn't important, it's enough interaction to decohere the superposition, or in another sense, entangle it with the environment. A polarization filter could be considered an "observer" in some sense, but I think focusing on observation results in a less clear and truthful understanding of what a measurement is. A polarization filter rather interacts with the light in a strong enough way to force conditional behavior based on its polarization. This results in photos that have a superposition of different polarizations to probabilistically become one of the polarizations, wrt the respective amplitudes of each polarization for that photon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > "The paper is an important philosophical study,"

If that line would be in the beginning, I would not have bothered to read the article :/</comment>


Tesco to use eye-scanning tech to target ads at you - <AUTHOR> http://crave.cnet.co.uk/gadgets/tesco-to-use-eye-scanning-tech-to-target-ads-at-you-50012662/

<comment><USER2> I do not trust a company like Tesco with biometric data. They were storing passwords for their website using a reversible encryption up until last year and "rumour" has it their stores held bank-card details in plain text for a month, up until last year also. I really don't want a corp like that holding biometric data on me.</comment>


Time May Be Running Out for Millions of Clocks - <AUTHOR> https://www.voanews.com/a/time-may-be-running-out-for-millions-of-clocks/4554376.html <comment><USER2> Redundancy. It ultimately equates with security -- including national security.

A reason we keep the older water navigation beacons active.

These people in DC, many of them seem to have absolutely _no_ technological comprehension. Nor basic systems understanding.

Not just in technology, but in accounting, agriculture -- essentially all sustaining human endeavors: You create and foster and innovate redundancies.

Because shit breaks. Nature is "fickle". People are selfish. And you want to survive these things.

Finally, when you do transition to newer systems (and hopefully, newer redundancies), you want to have an orderly wind-down and transition.

Something the Washington buffoons also ignore, these days. For people who claim to espouse "business", they demonstrate surprisingly little respect for a predictable, planful business -- or other -- environment.

Yes, there are always surprises -- including the inherent surprises of discovery and disruption.

But, it'd be nice to leave businesses and agencies capacity to focus on these, instead of endlessly jerking them around with whiplash policy changes and politically motivated jack-in-the-box initiatives.

</comment><comment><USER3> Let's build a $5bn wall but cut $26.6mil in funding for a necessity. Makes sense, I hope congress can stop this?

</comment><comment><USER4> Wtf? What possible good could turning off WWVB do? Are we going to have to buy digital GPS-enabled wall-clocks because the Orange Menace isn't done taking a baseball bat to the china shop? Bloody hell. GPS does works, barely, inside given the right receiver and antenna combination... at least good enough for a time fix.

<comment><USER5> There was a project on HN sometime in the last year where someone was broadcasting the WWVB signal indoors at low power. It would be a loss for this station to go off the air, but unless you're in a remote location with no internet connectivity to broadcast the time signal yourself at low power, the world will go on.

[https://hackaday.com/2014/03/22/build-your-own-radio- clock-t...](https://hackaday.com/2014/03/22/build-your-own-radio-clock- transmitter/)</comment></comment>


"Bandwidth hogs" join unicorns in realm of mythical creatures - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/12/bandwidth-hogs-dont-even-exist-says-analyst.ars

<comment><USER2> What if bandwidth just cost more on a sliding scale of current network congestion, if noone else is using the 100mb pipe shouldn't it be less of an issue if I want to sip at it than if it's completely thrashed?

I guess one problem I could see with this approach is providers have little incentive to upgrade their infrastructure, because when they do so they effectively lower the cost per mb of data flowing through their pipes,

Maybe if the base cost of traffic carriage was based on the quality of the underlying network? Even more incentive to push lower latency / bigger pipes then...

<comment><USER3> Considering the public already paid for the pipes when they were built... it's all just a corporatocracy scam and you might as well stop trying to find a technology-based solution.

This is 2009. There is zero reason for network congestion to exist. We have the technology. The reasons our networks suck is because it is in the interest of the corporate elite for them to suck. They've determined they can make more money by squeezing the public every step of the way than by allowing a quick flood of short-term-profit-destroying innovation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> haha unicorns are so FUNNY!!!</comment>


Why Facebook Keeps Beating Every Rival: It's the Network - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/technology/facebook-snapchat-instagram-innovation.html?ref=business <comment><USER3> It's hard to build a customer base when Facebook can just come in, copy you, and corner 95% of the market on the day they release.

This is the _exact same_ advantage that Microsoft had in the enterprise market. Sure, competitors could release enterprise products and have some success, but if Microsoft decided to copy you, they had an army of enterprise sales agreements already in place and would eat 50% of the available market in the first year. The network effects of their enterprise sales channel -- which existed at nearly every company in the world thanks to the ubiquity of Office documents -- made it very, very difficult to compete with them for a long time.

Network effects are much stronger in the consumer space (mostly because the consumers are poorly educated about their choices, and often have little incentive to become informed). Which is why we're seeing Facebook eat the world when it comes to consumer communication platforms.

<comment><USER4> As with all things, this advantage will wither. I heard Milton Friedman once say something along the lines "There has never once been a natural [not the result of government action] monopoly that stayed a monopoly for very long." People just need patience and faith in the free market.

<comment><USER5> Friedman simply made that assertion. I basically believe it, but like so many things in Economics it's true in theory yet of limited value in practice.

First of all, on human timescales (i.e. lifetimes) monopolies can be very long lived. The Standard Oil Trust was very destructive for decades, and though it might have collapsed due to natural causes, that destruction could have lasted for decades more. Which leads to the second problem: those long periods of stagnation are multiply destructive: not only do the victims pay a premium (which they could have spent on other goods), the monopoly's existence retards innovation.

The final irony in the case of Standard Oil is that is was worth more to John D Rockefeller after being broken up than it was when integrated. The government did _everyone_ a service by breaking it up.

<comment><USER6> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Oil)

"In 1904, Standard controlled 91 percent of production and 85 percent of final sales. Most of its output was kerosene, of which 55 percent was exported around the world. After 1900 it did not try to force competitors out of business by underpricing them... Due to competition from other firms, their market share had gradually eroded to 70 percent by 1906 which was the year when the antitrust case was filed against Standard, and down to 64 percent by 1911 when Standard was ordered broken up"

sounds like if you stop trying to compete other companies will

<comment><USER7> What do supposed compelled Mr. Rockefeller to choose to cease his practice of driving competing companies out of business? Some sort of personal awakening?

<comment><USER8> No. They were fully conscious of their position, in terms of economic power and monopoly. The Sherman Anti-trust Act was passed in 1890. They no doubt believed they had accumulated enough of the market to sustain dominance, while the overall pie continued to expand.

Rockefeller paid ransom sums for decades to buy out competitors (most of which were junk operators at best) to keep them from tanking the price of oil by dumping new strikes onto the market (a very frequent occurrence). His entire goal was oriented at market share + stability. The history of oil prices back then, was truly horrific, it was a constant boom and bust cycle that tortured most companies in the oil sector. Once Standard Oil accumulated enough of the market, including distribution (not as often talked about, they overwhelmingly controlled distribution), it could heavily control market pricing without having to own all the market. Their dominance in distribution is arguably the single most important thing they accomplished after the refining consolidation. With that gatekeeper status, they were able to demand other firms they didn't own adhere to their pricing levels, or have their distribution access cut off. In that way, they figured out how to stabilize the market pricing, without having to continue to own ~90% of the refining market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This might not be a popular opinion here (so please reply too if you intend to downvote me), and I might be biased because I just came back from F8 Dev Conference yesterday, but I don't think the reason Facebook beats a lot of rivals is network effects, it's because of Zuckerberg. He runs a very tight but organized ship. Let's be real, before facebook and all this stuff, mySpace had incredible amount of network effect and market share for those days, as did friendster (for that era of technology). Twitter had a network effect (albeit, an interest graph not a direct network of friends) and it is not doing well at all, even in areas where interest graph network effects should come in and dominate. You get my idea. I might be biased here because I got a small few minutes to converse with Zuckerberg at F8, but I think calling things simply "the network effect" and being done with it as to why facebook is so successful is a bit disingenuous, it's network effect + right leadership (aka Zuckerberg and to a lesser extent Sheryl). A lot of companies had network effects before facebook and didn't manage their advantage properly. Mark seems to be the overseer of all decisions at facebook and so far almost everything (except for crushing Snap) has worked flawlessly. It remains to be seen what happens with Snapchat.

<comment><USER10> Facebook Work was marketed as the best thing since sliced bread but I yet to see it making any waves for example.

<comment><USER11> What company only has successes? Seems pointless to try to extrapolate from a single failure.

<comment><USER12> Facebook has tried a lot to copy snapchat, even released atleast couple of apps that i'm aware of but failed. Eventually they started to copy features of snapchat in Instagram, Whatsapp, messenger and facebook app. Heck now you can send snaps in Instagram. Not stories, snaps. that is fucked

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The elephant in the room is... are people "switching" to Snapchat a thing? Is Facebook winning a war that wasn't fought?

This sounds like somebody planted a seed of FUD about snapchat that ignores what's a bigger question in my mind -- are the users who typically choose Snapchat now choosing Facebook?

I don't believe alot of Facebook narratives. Most of the people in my social circle count as part of their 1B messenger users, but all of their substantive communication is happening on iMessage. When you have billions of users, it's hard to make definitive statements about network effect, as even small variations are big. Facebook's network effect doesn't seem to have as much mojo as Microsoft or AOL did in the old days. Hell, AOL had millions of people paying $20/mo for a decade for nothing.

Per Google, they have 1.86B monthly users. Per this article, Only 60% of Facebook users use messenger, Only 1/3 of Facebook users use instagram, Only 1/3 of Instagram users use stories. That's pretty telling to me, especially considering all of the ways they trick you to click on things and gin up the numbers.

<comment><USER13> As I mentioned in another comment, joining Facebook is something that just isn't a good idea for young people. The network that is praised as the primary reason Facebook is successful in the article, does more damage to someone's future than gives them benefit in the present. Schools and Colleges running checks on Facebook for anything negative about them, finding one student and following the network for other, has affected some of my friends. As has employers and work experience checking Facebook. 'The Network' also means that family are suggested to friend you almost immediately; I don't need to explain the problems with that. Snapchat is a safe haven for creative, throw away content that isn't indexable, searchable, doesn't have a social graph or a permissions model.

<comment><USER14> First, the idea of a school running checks on Facebook sounds pretty comical to me. Your schools are definitely over-funded if they have the time and resources for that. I went to a school that is the topic of several public groups on Facebook, including a satirical web-comic that was run by a student for many years.

But more importantly, do you realize nobody forces you to post or share anything? And even if you do, it's very easy to restrict permissions to a few selected circles. Your family members send friend requests? Fine, add them to the "restricted" list. A lot of people (me included) have stopped using the main newsfeed, and I notice that most of the picture sharing is done on Instagram nowadays, but it's still a convenient tool, especially when you have friends on every continent. And it's really not that hard to keep things private.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The idea that Facebook has beaten Snapchat just because they've cloned features is such a weird proposition to me.

Facebook's problem is not that they don't have features, it IS the network that is stopping kids from signing up. Snapchat is a safe haven for creative, throw away content that isn't indexable, searchable, doesn't have a social graph or a permissions model.

<comment><USER15> Put differently, the truth is actually the opposite of what this article argues: the vast size of Facebook's network is the biggest threat to their existence. Many people I know are ditching facebook because its become too large a social graph- why would I post something edgy to a network that includes my parents?

<comment><USER16> I fully get that this feature just isn't surfaced very well ... But I don't understand why this isn't facebook's biggest priority, to make their extremely robust permissions system easier to use. As lame as it was in general, G+'s "Circle" feature was really well thought out. I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share whatever I want with whomever I want.

I've also had plenty of people _not trust_ the permissions. Like, posting pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't trust that some error down the line won't expose everything.

<comment><USER17> > I should be able to put all my family in one group, my drinking buddies in > another, and my coworkers in another ... and then I can freely share > whatever I want with whomever I want.

This is basically what people use private groups for. It feels more intuitive than posting everything as a standard post with restricted permissions.

> I've also had plenty of people not trust the permissions. Like, posting > pictures from a party, people will freak out when I tag them ... and even > when I tell them that I've locked down the album permissions, they don't > trust that some error down the line won't expose everything.

No offense, but they may also not trust that you've configured the permissions correctly, or that your definition of "locked down" is one they think is appropriate for the photo or will be appropriate for the photo in a year or ten years.

<comment><USER16> > No offense, but they may also not trust that you've configured the > permissions correctly, or that your definition of "locked down" is one they > think is appropriate for the photo or will be appropriate for the photo in a > year or ten years.

None taken, that's a good point ... upon reflection, I'd probably feel just as hesitant about someone else doing the same thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's also culture: Facebook is data-driven and experiment-happy in a way I haven't seen at any other tech company. _Everyone_ at the company wants to minimize red tape and heavyweight process, and it really shows in how quickly Facebook can develop software and in how few developers they need to do it. I've worked at Facebook; I've worked elsewhere. There are _real_ lessons everyone else should be taking from FB's engineering culture.

Managers at other companies give lip service to developer velocity, but in the end, they still end up creating the same kind of bureaucratic slowdowns that have hobbled the industry for decades, mostly because they can't let go and delegate real decision-making power to ICs. It's "Yes, we care, but _bullshit_ , so we need _process_ " over and over, stomping on the face of human ingenuity forever. Facebook _means it_ when they say they care about developer productivity and code velocity, and that should terrify everyone else.

<comment><USER19> what the f... does "culture" have to do with FB vs Snapchat. I get it, they copied the functionality fast but only because it was a twist of what FB already does not because FB-engies were the best in town but because it was too easy.

<comment><USER20> If you think it's easy then you haven't developed consumer applications at that scale and quality before. It shows in how you dismiss the process.

There's copying and then there's _copying well_ and _fast_. Copying isn't bad in and of itself - not at all.

<comment><USER19> I always cringe when a developer uses "scale" as intimidation tactic for why "my code is better than your code" and if you believe that only a handful of "facebook engineers" are the gods of scalability then you should probably switch careers.

<comment><USER20> No one said any of those things. And if you don't understand why scale matters then you simply don't have experience with it. That's fine. I don't think there's anything useful here for either of us to gain by continuing this conversation though - you seem to have your mind made up and you're clearly angry for seemingly no reason.

<comment><USER19> > No one said any of those things

>> If you think it's easy then you haven't developed consumer applications at that scale and quality before >> And if you don't understand why scale matters then you simply don't have experience with it.

 _cringe_

<comment><USER20> 1\. I didn't use scale as an intimidation tactic as you purport. Scale is one engineering requirement that makes tasks either harder or more work than if it weren't a requirement. Scale isn't only in terms of # of users or how much hardware you need to support those users. Scale also refers to complexity of product. When introducing a new feature, there are all of the considerations you need to make in order to integrate that feature into the existing product _system_. You seem to think both sides of scale are easy to execute flawlessly, and that sentiment can only come from someone who hasn't worked with these constraints before.

2\. You said that I think only a handful of Facebook engineers are the gods of scalability. I never said this. I simply intended to give credit where credit is due. They executed extremely well (in my opinion) and they deserve credit (in my opinion). Also - engineers are not the only ones who help scale a product through infrastructure. As I mentioned before, there is also _product architecture_ that needs to be considered when introducing a new feature. The larger question becomes _How does this new feature work to provide value in the context of all of the other things that X does?_. For something as complex as Facebook or Instagram, this is _hard_. A very simple example that illustrates this is user education. It's far different when you have a few users on a simple product that does 2 things and you introduce a 3rd than when you have millions of users on a product that does a thousand things and you introduce the 1,001st.

I don't understand why you're on a mission to discredit people's work or the challenges they face when building something. It's possible to not like something and still recognize that building that thing was an achievement in some way. It doesn't have to be either or.

If you have counter-arguments to what I'm saying and they're informed from your experiences or what you've learned, I'm _genuinely interested_ in hearing them. I don't care much about _being right_ as much as I do about pushing the conversation forward. But I think we can both agree that saying "cringe" doesn't really help anyone learn anything or push the conversation forward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I really find it troubling that commentators insist on seeing this as a zero- sum game: that in order for Facebook to win, others need to lose, or visa- versa. Why can there only be one social network? What is wrong with competition?

Let Snapchat be Snapchat, Twitter be Twitter, etc. The constant media frenzy over how fast everyone's growing and if they stop growing (aka Twitter) it's the end, just seems bonkers to me. The only reason for this rationale is Wall Street and public stock offerings. Twitter's stock price will sink if they don't continue a hyperbolic growth path. Never mind if the product is good, or if the existing users are happy. I would actually argue that Twitter's product has been floundering and its existing users feeling the blues BECAUSE of Twitter's need to drive growth. If Twitter had decided a couple of years ago to focus on making its existing userbase happy as well as third-party developers contributing to the capability of the network, Twitter would be in a _stronger_ position today.

So I don't agree at all with the premise of this article. Facebook isn't "beating" anybody. If everyone suddenly leaves Snapchat and goes back to using only Facebook, that's not because Facebook is evil, it's because Snapchat looses its ability to develop products people want. If everyone suddenly leaves Twitter and goes back to only Facebook, that's Twitter's own fault, plain and simple.

<comment><USER22> It does become zero sum when you consider they're all vying for similar ad dollars. For years, Twitter didn't mind being compared to Facebook because it meant higher valuations for potential growth and ad revenue. But playing that game meant it actually had to deliver on the growth and ad performance. Snapchat is interesting in that it appears to be going after more traditional brand/TV dollars, which is still evading the performant-oriented ad dollars on Facebook.

And both Twitter and Snapchat knew the game they were playing by raising so much venture capital at such high valuations. They could have stayed private longer, raised less at lower valuations and laser-focused on product and making nominal returns. But they chose to go the other route and that means they have to deliver on outsized profits eventually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If you look at the concept of disruption (not what most people think disruption is, but the actual definition from the guy who coined the term in The Innovator's Dilemma), it is a small competitor that arises that better serves a need that only a small part of the market cares about that goes on top create a true competitor. They don't have to do everything the biggie does, they just have to do one important thing better.

For instance, Instagram might have been a Facebook killer, which is why they bought them early. Oculus Rift might also have been (but that's a stretch I think). Just to play it safe they also bought them.

So what are the features that a minority of the market cares about at this point that might spawn a competitor that would challenge FB?

Someone dedicated to privacy, perhaps. Someone with a model that eliminates advertising, maybe, even if you have to pay a membership fee. Perhaps someone who does a better job of incorporating articles from third party sources without all the spam/fake news that clogs feeds. Maybe someone who does a better job of using the camera, or mobile-first/only technology, like pure audio instead of text/pictures.

Other ideas?

<comment><USER24> I would say that a lot of Facebook competitors aim for the kind of advantage you are describing. And inherently fail because of the combination of Facebook being able roll-out a similar feature, Facebook having network effect and Facebook not being especially demanding/abusive towards its customer base - <USER2> the later point, Facebook has banned posts or people registering false names but back-tracked and/or not been especially aggressive about it. They began as the tool of the early adopter but now are the tool of your grandmother with the stickiness of that.

Consider that when Google decided to invest in Google+, they dove immediately into demanding _more_ from customers than Facebook did with their real names policy.

With all its success, Facebook's profitability still comes into doubt from time to time because they aren't squeezing their customers as they could. Which is altogether is to say that all Facebook's rivals have scheme to extract more from the customers than Facebook and thus it's similar to, but as extreme as Craiglist rivals - they can never be as good they because they're constrained to come with a model they expect will eventually make more money.

<comment><USER23> So in where is the market need where having too large of a network is a disadvantage? That's where you want to hit them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was talking with a friend about this recently. I am not old enough to remember the days when Microsoft totally dominated and Bill Gates was literally Darth Vader, so in my eyes Facebook's position seems uniquely powerful and unstoppable. I'm not sure whether it's really so, or whether I'm just falling victim to a present-day bias.

<comment><USER26> I remember the days of Microsoft's monopoly, and I feel that Fakebook's position is stronger than Microsoft's, but it's not unique. I feel that Google's position is stronger still. Between them and Amazon, there is more of an oligopoly than a monopoly now. They will compete amongst each other following whatever compromises they come up with, but any one of them is in a position to squash upstarts, for the good of the group.

<comment><USER27> >> Fakebook

Can we please not indulge in this RMS-esque infantile name calling?

<comment><USER26> I swear it was a typo. I'm not going to fix it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Instagram was on the path to becoming a true rival to Facebook, that's why Mark Zuckerberg bought it. They had very savvy engineers working on a fantastic product; that's still true it's just happening under different ownership. Facebook didn't beat Snapchat with Facebook, it beat them with Instagram. They tried copying features directly to Facebook from Snapchat and that fell flat.

</comment><comment><USER29> Facebook has one thing it can't do - offer privacy respectful network. Competitors should use that to their advantage.

<comment><USER30> The vast majority (outside HN) would still choose the network where their friends are conveniently already located over privacy concerns. Especially when those concerns involve pictures of their cats or other trivial personal information.

And so the network effects remain.

<comment><USER31> \- I have many non-techy friends in their 20ies who don't post pictures or personal stuff to Facebook because "someone told them it's dangerous". They can't articulate the logic around this danger, that is the most surprising.

\- None of my sister's wedding pictures are on Facebook because of this reason – It was said loud on the mic during the ceremony.

\- My mother is very afraid of having her credit card stolen by a virus in Windows, that's why she always... refuses to install upgrades. It's not so bad: Better an old Windows than clicking on every Update button their find.

\- I don't watch people using their phones much, but when I do, I often ask them why they use one workaround instead of going straight to some place. "I was told it's better for privacy" is a frequent answer.

I'm illustrating that non-tech-savvy people aren't ignoring the "privacy" signals. They may be doing the wrong thing in the moment, but they _are_ severely frightened and they _do_ look for ways to protect their privacy.

<comment><USER17> I have my Facebook settings configured so I have to approve tags, and honestly I'd prefer people not post photos of me or comments like "had a great time with Steve!" without asking.

Most of the time it's fine, but sometimes the fact that someone's in a certain place with certain people, or not in another place with other people, is a sensitive issue. Sometimes it can even become a sensitive issue later on (imagine being tagged in a wedding reception five years ago, standing next to a then-unknown Martin Shkreli).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> do we really need a bunch of rich fucks staring at us while we're talking to our friends? how do you even make friends in that kind of environment? shouldn't social networks be, you know, personal?

we haven't won yet, but we will.

[https://www.bbnet.io/](https://www.bbnet.io/) [http://www.fediverse.org/](http://www.fediverse.org/) [https://mastodon.social/](https://mastodon.social/) [https://gnu.io/social/](https://gnu.io/social/)

<comment><USER31> This is awesome, they're just Twitter lookalikes! but better, with federation, this is just what we needed, awesome! ...but as a company, I can't do advertising, should I complain?

<comment><USER33> Are you telling me most tweets arent promotional already?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I keep wondering if Snapchat is going to end up being Facebook's Microsoft- Netscape situation.

If Snapchat goes down (almost guaranteed at this point), it's going to be universally blamed on Facebook. That blame - along with the likely howls from Snapchat and its backers - will intensify anti-trust attention. The bundling premise that got anti-trust attention with Microsoft's Windows monopoly, will draw the exact same attention to Facebook leveraging its network to smash competitors while it has a monopoly or near-monopoly in social (Instagram is dramatically reinforced by Facebook).

</comment><comment><USER34> I feel there is something shady missing between all these crazy headline stats.

For example, Facebook messenger stats seem gamed to me. I never really use it, but every time i accept a friend request it pops up a fake messenger notification telling me that i can message that contact (opening messenger of course).

Furthermore the quality of news feed has dropped of a cliff for me. It's really just posts from pages and sponsored posts now. Very few people actually post.

</comment><comment><USER35> Not sure about Facebook because I am no longer a user of Facebook. To me Facebook just felt no longer necessary once I understand that it is just trying to trick me to stay on the page by showing me things that are addictive to see or watch.

Interestingly the same network vs feature idea can be said about LinkedIn. Recently they rolled out messaging feature on the main UI like what Facebook had, pretty good move to increase user engagement.

</comment><comment><USER36> Facebook isn't beating its biggest rival (yet). Google owns 54% of the digital ad market in the US, to Facebook's 20%.

Social networking (just as Search for Google) is just data collection and distribution for its real product, ads. I wouldn't be surprised to see Comcast take a big bite of this market in the near future too (since they can now compete via data collection and distribution).

</comment><comment><USER37> I finally used snap chat a few months ago, and the experience was just annoying. Don't get me wrong, the whole take a snap of your face, make your voice sound funny is really fun and all, but the UI was just annoying, there were emoticons appearing next to my friends names, I had to google it to find out what it meant.

There was some number next to my name, next to my friends names, god knows why its there, i'm assuming something to do with how many snaps you send.

The navigation.. just really unintuitive. So as a user it makes me not want to explore the app, hye i got a snap from a friend, okay watch send a "haha nice" message and forget about the app.

While it's kinna scary to watch how much power FB has, I can't help but think its snaps own damn fault for making something that does one thing, and for not taking any measures to make it do more, to get me to stay with the app, to get me to use it more.

</comment><comment><USER38> The dominance of monopoly players will not be challenged

* until *

it's normal for majority of consumers to have an AI / middleware that can choose the best option without the consumer needing to know it's a monopoly player or not (brand)

Example: I want to create an event with my friends at a local pub.

In 2017, I create a facebook event and invite my friends. I use Google maps or Yelp to find an appropriate pub.

In 2040, I tell my Mantle / AI by voice, "make an event for me and friends at local pub, moderate price, close to downtown." Without me ever knowing what services are used, I'm told to meet my friends at some location, and they are told as well. I never have to interface with Facebook, Google, Yelp, or anything but my Mantle.

I cannot wait for this, as I am completely sick of Facebook and Google fucking up basic functionality and eating competitors. I also don't want to do the work of constantly knowing what is the best competitor to use for simple services.

<comment><USER39> Who's going to produce your AI and why won't they be biased? ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> If you feel, like I do, that if WhatsApp were not acquired by Facebook

a) their growth rate would not have been much smaller b) they would probably have just as much or greater user engagement than what FB has today

then the actual question should be:

"What is actually going on which allows such acquisitions to bypass the antitrust laws?"

<comment><USER41> I was thinking it could be a good thing to use antitrust laws to prevent Facebook dominating by buying its competitors. I mean winning by having the best product is fair play but not by buying anyone who may be a threat. I'm not up on antitrust law - I'm guessing they don't apply to social networks currently?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Snapchat's app is atrocious, and they have essentially ignored the "poor" customers. Why FB should not be allowed to provide a better user experience? I think we should be lauding Facebook/Instagram for providing their users a better more private user experience.

<comment><USER43> > more private

wat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I don't think Facebook is beating snapchat. When you start to follow you always stay a step behind. Doing that with a bloated behemoth of a product is very difficult. Camera effects were successfully copied as they were a new concept, innovative but not disruptive. But the real challenge would come if snapchat or someone else comes out with something that is already there in Facebook. If Snapchat released a better version of the like button or the wall, will Facebook be willing to risk changing the like button or the wall to match snapchat? Will it risk losing the lovers of the wall for the lovers of the new thing that replaces the wall.

</comment><comment><USER45> Question for all: would it work for a social network startup go the opposite way? copy the best of Facebook functionality, without the bloat, the overhead, and the ads?

(but then how would they make money... hmm)

</comment><comment><USER46> Yes, this is typically called network externalities, or network effects. It is an ingredient that increases defend-ability by locking a critical mass.

</comment><comment><USER47> This a good start, but I think there could be a lot more thought given to how we should think about monopolies in the context of markets where networks effects are crucial to the business value (aka. Facebook and Google most obviously, arguably Amazon, Apple), because one logical conclusion is that in a market where network effects are a major factor, the biggest network should be best positioned to provide the most value and therefore (assuming it doesn't actively eff things up on other fronts) should continue to grow until it dominates the market...which seems to pretty much be what happened, and it makes pretty good sense for the most part. in these cases, it actually seems BAD to break these networks apart, since their scale is arguably one of its primary values to the customer - this doesn't mean of course that they can't abuse their monopoly powers (I think they probably do to some degree and will continue to), but interesting to think that the traditional "break up monopolies" impulse doesn't make as much sense. this leads me to think it will just be more consumer-protection-related regulation (under the banner of consumer privacy, or maybe even public health, given all the "social media addiction" thought pieces out there these days ha).

(repurposed a prior discussion but arguably more relevant here!)

One thing I've found super interesting/impressive about Snap is that it didn't try to outcompete FB in terms of sheer network size for its usage stickiness, and instead turned smaller, tighter and more private networks into a differentiator, while at the same time providing advertisers/brands with a competitively massive audience - not an easy thing to identify, much less execute on. TBD if that differentiator is enough to keep them alive vs. FB's more traditional network-effect-driven advantage, which will be hard to beat on its own terms. I think Snap's success will depend a lot on its ability to avoid being tempted to play that game (see: Twitter!).

random other thought: this all also reminds me that Mark Zuckerberg has not made a peep about wanting FB to be thought of as a "utility" in a long time (or maybe he has and I just missed it...but couldn't find any recent mentions, see this talk from 2013: [https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/18/facebook-doesnt- want-to-be...](https://techcrunch.com/2013/09/18/facebook-doesnt-want-to- be...)), probably in part because they are now a lot more at risk than ever before of being regulated like one. Also kind of funny to hear him talk about "we don't want FB to be cool" too, because now it seems like FB very much wants to be cool again now that Snap has become cool and has threatening user counts.

</comment><comment><USER48> A leaky bucket, no matter how large, will eventually drain.

<comment><USER49> Not if you fill it up faster than it drains.

<comment><USER48> The pool of users is finite.

<comment><USER50> For more on this subject, see this relevant What-if? post:

[https://what-if.xkcd.com/69/](https://what-if.xkcd.com/69/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> While there were communities with large and working social graphs like ICQ, AIM, Myspace, etc., Facebook had a more committed approach emphasizing real identities rather than pseudonyms.

Being first to market with an accurate social graph consisting of real-life identities is what gave Facebook its advantage.

<comment><USER52> And that's biggest disadvantage for most young people.

Also, Linkedin was earlier, but real-life identities was first, because of understandable purposes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> We're talking about FB's decision to add mustaches to your face while posing for a selfie. It's couched as a debate about business ethics / innovation, but remember: we're talking about dog ears and mustaches.

</comment><comment><USER54> i swear these media outlets read hacker news/medium/any other popular blog site and just regurgitate information</comment>


This Is How Much Your Personal Data Is Worth on the Dark Web - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/spooked-by-the-facebook-privacy-violations-this-is-how-much-your-personal-data-is-worth-on-the-dark-web-2018-03-20 <comment><USER2> It's very interesting to see how little Gmail accounts fetch for, considering what other access can be chained from that. Is this low figure driven by Gmail's additional security, or is this just due to the high rate of fake/inactive accounts?

</comment><comment><USER3> "...Fractl accessed the dark web through the browser Tor."

 _SMH_ The article, author, editor, and publication lost all credibility on subject with one single clause.</comment>


Yes, Google Does De-List Pages; But When? - <AUTHOR> http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/12/18/1512228/Yes-Google-Does-De-List-Pages-But-When?from=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Slashdot%2Fslashdot+%28Slashdot%29 <comment><USER2> Google really should publicly explain their stance on this - their (and other search engines') role in the internet is just far too important for it to be left to some internal policy.

I would advocate some form of regulation of this type of thing - but the chances of us ending up with something worse than the status quo is probably a bit high.

</comment><comment><USER3> I can't believe they are capable of manually inserting a disclaimer for Michelle Monkey, but not of manually lowering the rank of Michelle Monkey. (if(!"monkey" in keywords) {results["monkey"]["rank"] -= 100})

</comment><comment><USER4> When the website has too high a ratio of content to keywords. I know this from IM.

</comment><comment><USER5> When it considers them spammy, MFA & Co or finds them cloaking. (Didn't check the link ;))

<comment><USER6> This case is discussed in the article (which you did not read, but commented on anyway).

"Google _has_ actually removed pages from their search results - not because the pages were illegal or because the webmasters were search engine spamming, but because of the page's "offensive" content."</comment></comment>


Your house keys can be duplicated with a cellphone - <AUTHOR> http://www.futureofgadgets.com/futureblogger/show/1165-your-house-key-can-be-duplicated-with-a-cellphone

<comment><USER2> any lock that fits a "house key" like those pictured can be opened with a bump key in a matter of seconds by anyone. taking a picture of someones keys and grinding a match is not necessary. those locks and keys need to stop being manufactured. they are no longer secure.</comment>


Paper cycling helmet wins James Dyson Award - <AUTHOR> http://www.thememo.com/2016/11/17/paper-helmet-paper-cycle-helmet-dyson-award-cycling-news/ <comment><USER2> I am skeptical. I want to see some side-by-side videos of this vs. a traditional helmet.The fact that this article didn't include any proof of the safety features tells me that this is a just a marketing ploy.

> "I do all my exploring by bike but I don't like riding in those cities > without a helmet," said the Pratt Institute graduate.

So buy a fucking helmet and bring it with you.

<comment><USER3> > So buy a fucking helmet and bring it with you.

Wow, that's harsh. She built something novel and potentially very useful. If you live in a city, it's impractical to carry your helmet everywhere you go all the time, and you'll surprise yourself at the number of times you need to quickly rent a bike (but have no helmet handy.)

If it passes the safety certifications and rolls out, it will very likely increase the proportion of cyclists wearing helmets.

<comment><USER2> Who are these people that think a helmet is impractical to carry? You also have to leave your bike somewhere everywhere you go, isn't that inconvenient too?

I rode a bike for 2 years in downtown Toronto, wearing a helmet the entire time, and never once did I think that the helmet was inconvenient. You carry it up to your office and leave it on your desk. Or you turn it upside down and it's an adhoc shopping basket. Or you clip it to your backpack. Or you loop it through your bike lock.

There are a million ways to answer the "inconvenience" problem that don't involve wearing a pseudo-helmet.

<comment><USER3> > Who are these people that think a helmet is impractical to carry?

People that use shared city-bikes irregularly (like me.) I don't always go out expecting to use a bike, but life isn't always predictable (subways busted, cabs not available, unanticipated change of plans, etc.)

> I rode a bike for 2 years in downtown Toronto, wearing a helmet the entire > time, and never once did I think that the helmet was inconvenient. You carry > it up to your office and leave it on your desk. Or you turn it upside down > and it's an adhoc shopping basket. Or you clip it to your backpack. Or you > loop it through your bike lock.

Good for you for not finding it inconvenient. That doesn't mean that other's also don't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The solution is better cycling infrastructure, not a paper hat. Paper hats won't magically make bike shares more popular, but they do help perpetuate the myth that a helmet makes you safe. No helmet can protect you from the things an inattentive driver can do.

<comment><USER5> Wearing a helmet decreases the possible damages to your head on a hit, and nothing else changes that fact.

<comment><USER6> Wearing a helmet can be demonstrated to be more effective in terms of number of lives saved by being worn by pedestrians and motorists, rather than cyclists. Are you saying that we should all wear helmets when out in public?

<comment><USER5> I am saying only what I said, if you doubt you can read it again above.

The numbers you are referring to[1] do not mention lives saved but rather head injuries by transportation modes. They say nothing about seriousness of the injury. And I am pretty sure that when biking downhill at 70km/h chances are that a head injury will be more serious than the one i'd get by falling on the sidewalk while walking. I actually hate using a helmet while biking, and often go out without one when I am biking at a leisurely pace. But when I go out to train or to get to places fast, I prefer wearing the helmet.

[1] [http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike- helmets](http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The few times I have gone biking in NYC with CitiBike I decided to forgo a helmet with the mindset that my exposure was limited to only a few hours. When I finally bought a bike I bought a helmet.

I think a vending machine selling these paper helmets next to bike share kiosks would probably be the best bet but I still wonder if I would have bought one due to the unattractive design.

If they could create an ultra cheap paper helmet that looked a little cooler I think that would be easier for the general public to adopt?

</comment><comment><USER8> Just this morning my son and I were playing with a "expandable vase hat" we bought in New York a few years ago - wonder if that was her inspiration -

[https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?initiative_id=QRW_20161...](https://www.aliexpress.com/wholesale?initiative_id=QRW_20161117064128&SearchText=paper+vase+hat&productId=1688781432)

</comment><comment><USER5> This other article has a bit more information about this helmet: [http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38004215](http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38004215)

</comment><comment><USER9> Essentially recyclable/replaceable at $5/each, but I wonder how well they perform in protecting the head under adverse weather conditions.

<comment><USER10> >The unusual design is made from waterproofed recycled paper,

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The important thing here is the folding. But this one seems more promising:

[https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/morpher-folding-helmet- te...](https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/morpher-folding-helmet-technology#/)

</comment><comment><USER12> It seems like an iteration with a plastic coating could make this a product with a longer life.

<comment><USER13> And then use expanded polystyrene for its superior ability to absorb energy.

Here's a previous design project paper bike hat that apparently already failed to get to market:

[http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/news/article/pulp- nonfict...](http://www.bikeradar.com/commuting/news/article/pulp-nonfiction- the-paper-helmet-37951/)

I guess this one also won't meet safety standards and won't ever be for sale.

<comment><USER14> Well that helmet looks pretty ugly and has no venting. This paper-board honeycomb helmet looks better and is well vented.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Quick plug for one of the coolest non-helmet bike helmets ever: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikYFfxpu3I0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikYFfxpu3I0)

</comment><comment><USER16> hate to be the one to say this but there's a certain aesthetic quality that's missing. How many people would wear what essentially looks like a mix between an open book and half bowling ball on their heads?

<comment><USER5> It looks light, practical and cool if you ask me.

<comment><USER16> I respectfully agree with 2 out of 3 of those adjectives :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> interesting, but does not look like the best solution to the problem of "how do we supply bike share users with helmets?", given that they can only be used a few times.

<comment><USER18> The problem is actually "how do we make bike share users safer?"

I'd suggest more effort is put into making the infrastructure better, since a flimsy helmet (made of cardboard or polystyrene) is not a solution to any problem other than sales figures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> the only time a bike helmet is actually worth wearing is when mountain-biking and then you need to wear a full motorbike-style helmet because most injuries are to the mouth not the head

<comment><USER20> Completely false, any time you're on a bike will benefit from a helmet's injury risk reduction, specifically to the frontal lobe. Especially if you're sharing the road with motor vehicles.

<comment><USER19> at any time a vehicle could plough into you while you're walking on the pavement

<comment><USER21> Anything is possible, but cars very rarely hit pedestrians, although they very often hit cyclists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Duplicate (and recycled): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12976586](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12976586)

<comment><USER23> But no discussion there, so a bit of a pointless link.

<comment><USER22> The moderators sometimes change links to point the original source (linking to the original source is one of the HN guidelines). Particularly where the link is blogspam based on a more informative source.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Helmets are counter-productive for cyclists.

[http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike- helmets](http://www.howiechong.com/journal/2014/2/bike-helmets)

[https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point- wear...](https://www.cnet.com/news/brain-surgeon-theres-no-point-wearing- cycle-helmets/)

<comment><USER25> I do agree those tiny helmets don't look like much help. But not all helmets are like that.

I use a full helmet, shaped like the one you use when riding a motorcycle, just not as heavy.

It already saved my face from scratches in one fall I had.

<comment><USER26> Enormous amounts of testing prove that those "tiny" helmets do in fact help a lot. Cyclists aren't normally exposed to the magnitude of forces that motorcyclists are in crashes, due to their lower speeds, but they're still exposed to speeds well above those that are normal for human bodies to be propelled at, and in an environment surrounded with very hard, unnatural surfaces (concrete, asphalt), so the forces they can experience are well above those the human skull is designed to protect.

I had a friend in college who worked in a university lab testing bike helmets; this was 20 years ago now. They're only gotten better since then.

But it's true, bicycling helmets don't do much for protecting your face. But that's not what they're designed for; they're designed to reduce or prevent brain injuries from knocking your skull on the road or a curb. A full-face motorcycle helmet would be even better, but there's a tradeoff there in weight and ventilation (and cost), things that are more important to bicyclists than motorcyclists. Even a lot of motorcycle helmets aren't full-face and don't protect the face at all. But the idea with safety equipment isn't to completely eliminate all possible injury, it's to reduce risk to a reasonable degree; for the injuries you're likely to experience as a cyclist, a good cycling helmet is designed to protect against those. But it's not going to help keep a branch from poking your eye out on a backwoods trail.

Finally, the charge against bike helmets from all these anti-helmet people lately isn't that they don't help prevent injuries (they absolutely do), it's that they allegedly cause _more_ accidents by making _car drivers_ more reckless around cyclists. The claim has nothing to do with physics, and everything to do with psychology. Personally, I think it's a terrible argument to make, and if there's any truth to it, it simply shows that we absolutely need to mandate that cyclists are provided with physically separate roads from cars. Considering how dirt-cheap cycling trails are to build compared to car- roads, how much better for the environment cycling is than driving in cars, and how much public health would be improved by more cycling (which would reduce healthcare expenditures greatly, and also improve workplace productivity and reduce sick time, all important factors for good capitalists), there's simply no excuse for governments to not be buildings lots and lots of safe cycling paths and encouraging cycling.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: My First Side Project to Ship – Swatches: Live Color Picker for iOS - <AUTHOR> https://swatchesapp.io/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN,

After almost shipping many iOS projects and working on a few for other people I've finally shipped one!

Swatches is a free color picker for the real world using your iPhone camera. It gives you common color formats like RGB and Hex and also matches your Swatch to the nearest Pantone and paint colors. With manual white balance and exposure control you can get actually get a pretty accurate reading. Swatches also lets you make and share Palettes super easily.

Can't wait to hear what you think!</comment>


Ask HN: Invest in Adam - <AUTHOR>

InvestinAdam.com<p>Let's start a conversation--what do you guys think? <comment><USER2> Skills?

"I call myself an "ideas" guy — like many aspiring entrepreneurs I've met. " [1]

Oh.

[1]: [http://www.adamngreenwald.com/1/post/2013/05/the-trials- and-...](http://www.adamngreenwald.com/1/post/2013/05/the-trials-and- tribulations-of-becoming-your-own-boss-and-finding-your-passion-in-the- process.html)

[#@&!]: <https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=agreenwald24>

...

" Why wouldn't I just get a loan? I could, but I don't want to. " [2]

Glad to see you're invested. I'll just put up my money instead- I mean hell, after all I've got enough to lose some, right?

[2]: <http://www.investinadam.com/your-questions-answered.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> Ok.The initiave is not bad but what worries me is this: "I have so many ideas" + "while I work to get my ideas off the ground".

It's not about being a programmer or designer.I would invest in a non-tech guy without blinking if he would have a clear idea of what he wants to build and an infinite drive and dedication towards completing his goal.

Because those people can and will change the world.But you have nothing...no mission, no drive, no dedication..only many ideas which are average btw.So why would someone follow you? That's why PG said in an interview:

"He will not fail (referring to a guy from YC)because the project is his life" or something like that.

He knows that someone who is dedicated enough to one cause, will not fail or at least never give up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Considering you want people to invest in you, you're giving away remarkably little information about yourself.

We know that you can put together a minimum viable product and that you're motivated to quit your job and... that's it. Even the LinkedIn profile is private.

<comment><AUTHOR> what would you like to know @notahacker? i'm trying to be as transparent as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think your pitch is absolutely wrong. Instead of invest in adam, it should be invest in $Product. Otherwise, given how bad this is being pitched right now, I think a week is too little time.

</comment><comment><USER6> The structure proposed wouldn't be legally enforceable, it would violate the debt bondage clause in the UN 1956 Supplementary Convention on the Abolition of Slavery.

</comment><comment><USER7> Would be worth a conversation if this guy was atleast a programmer or a designer or a business/finance guy with relevant experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi @jarsj--I do have relevant business/finance experience.

would love to chat!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Why don't you try to use <http://upstart.com>?

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe you can add a section where you show your previous work.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks @ibudiallo

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Lol first bid 40k

<comment><USER11> should have added one more zero at the end to make it look more real!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why do people assume UBI will work? - <AUTHOR> There's been a lot of exploration on the subject of UBI lately and there seems to be steadily increasing agreement that it's the only viable approach in the long run.
But there are something like 3B+ people in the world who presently live on $2.50/day or less. Even adjusting for cost of living, one is forced to conclude this income level is still just barely better than outright barbarism.
So why is UBI considered viable? What do we think is going to change about how human societies are structured between now and the future that will lift some lucky subset of (presumably first-world) citizens above a CoL-adjusted $2.50/day? Or do we assume UBI will happen and will leave people at just barely survivable income levels? <comment><USER2> I don't think anyone is assuming it will work, just that it hasn't been properly tried and it should be. We are much closer to a future now where most humans find themselves unemployed due to automation. You need to do something so UBI is currently the alternative (if you don't want mass unemployment and starvation or to start curtailing reproductive rights) getting the airtime and support.

</comment><comment><USER3> UBI can be one of two things.

It can be printing money and giving it to the poor, but everyone knows that's unsustainable because of inflation.

Ok, so that's ruled out.

The other option is redistributing wealth (taxing the rich and giving to the poor).

Phrased like this, it's clear UBI is not different at all from socialistic economic policies.

Will UBI work? Well, does socialism "work"? They're the same thing.

<comment><USER4> A lot of the reason socialism doesn't work is there's no incentive to work hard. With UBI, it's possible to have a higher standard of living by working harder. Sure, it will be more difficult to get extremely rich because of higher taxes, but it's still a motivating possibility.</comment></comment>


Meet the Bros Behind /r/WallStreetBets - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/money/5405922/wall-street-bets/ <comment><USER2> r/WallStreetBets is my guilty pleasure. Recent volatility has turned it into a sacred temple of schadenfreude. But it serves as a kind of therapy, for young people with freshly funded disposable money and Robinhood Gold. The type who can't admit to themselves they have no idea what they are doing.

My one question is that there are many who claim to get margin call notifications. And then simply delete the RobinHood app from their phones! Is this something that results in substantial losses or just cost of doing business? And I can't help think that with the sheer scale of people losing money at some point RobinHood doesn't get into trouble for not adequately warning of risks.</comment>


Show HN: Learning Go Pills - <AUTHOR> I am committed to preparing at least two "Learning Go Pills" per week to allow anyone who is passionate and intrigued to approach this powerful, fun, versatile and simple programming language.
What the heck is a "Learning Go Pill" ? ...well a "pill" is a presentation with few straight and juicy slides!
Here the new content, enjoy!

  Day #7 - <USER2>
   https://speakerdeck.com/lucasepe/maps-in-go
 Previous "pills" (https://speakerdeck.com/lucasepe):

  Day #1 - Type System Overview
  Day #2 - Constants and Variables Declaration
  Day #3 - <USER3>
  Day #4 - <USER4>
  Day #5 - <USER5>
  Day #6 - Slices
 <comment><AUTHOR> [https://speakerdeck.com/lucasepe](https://speakerdeck.com/lucasepe)</comment>


Show HN: Fast PostgreSQL Driver for Node.js Written in TypeScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.npmjs.com/package/ts-postgres <comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN. While the focus of this driver is not performance as such, a comparison can be found here:

[https://github.com/MagicStack/pgbench/pull/2](https://github.com/MagicStack/pgbench/pull/2)

What's more interesting for fans of type safety is that the driver uses PostgreSQL' extended query protocol to correctly process and encode query parameters to match the required type specification as returned by the database for a given query.

It uses binary mode only which also makes the codebase smaller and provides a significant increase in performance.</comment>


Show HN: Backdoor – Security CTF Platform - <AUTHOR> https://backdoor.sdslabs.co/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi. Admin here. Visit chat.sdslabs.co/ for queries.

<comment><USER2> CloudFlare is automatically blocking visitors from the Tor network. This being a security CTF I suggest you enable Tor users from the CloudFlare settings.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not everyone is blocked, as far as I know. CloudFlare blocks only those exit nodes which exhibit suspicious behavior. Please correct me, if I am wrong.</comment></comment></comment>


Amazon Studios to Adapt Consider Phlebas, First Novel of the Culture Series - <AUTHOR> http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2333693 <comment><USER3> I've waited almost 30 years to see the escape of the _Clear Air Turbulence_ from _The Ends of Invention_... :-)

Edit: I read CP in one go during the single day off I had studying for my final exams in my CS degree in '88.

</comment><comment><USER4> Against a dark background would work better as a series, Ian evensaid he wouldn't mind if it had a happy ending.

Miz survives and rides off into the sunset with Sharow on the Vrossul tank hunter _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER5> This could be good. I think Consider Phlebas is the least of the series but if it leads to the others being adapted then I am for it.

<comment> GCU-Empiricist That's the weird thing: If I rember right Consider Phlebas is by far the worst book to adapt to introduce the Culture, because of how prevalent the Idrian religion (an expy for various militant religious groups) is to the plot and action. As you said lets hope we get all of them, especially Excession IMHO.

<comment><AUTHOR> The merit of Consider Phlebas is the potential of a fantastic scifi/action/adventure series, its easy to make TV off, Excession is the other side of the spectrum, a bunch of Minds talking :)

In the end, Im a fan, Im glad that this happens, just a damn shame that Mr. Banks never got to see it.

<comment><USER4> I just want Pater Capaldi to voice Skaffen-Amtiskaw (full name Fohristiwhirl Skaffen-Amtiskaw Handrahen Dran Easpyou )

If they do UOW

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Yeah yeah, I'm excited too. But it figures this is being done by Amazon- for years they've been out to condition us to like having all our needs met by an inhuman yet weirdly friendly technological regime.

Good odds the Minds all sound _remarkably_ like Alexa. :)

</comment><comment><USER7> This is going to be very challenging to film...it's imagined as such a far future world. I'm sure it can be done well, but I feel like it will be a challenge and may ruin my imagined vision.

<comment><USER8> When I think of the Culture series, I immediately think of the descriptions of incredibly vast spacecraft, the General Systems Vehicles and whatnot. Even listening via audiobook, my imagination was able to conjure a fragment of the sensation that one gets when perceiving something with incredible scale. Similar to the sensation I got when I first gazed upon the Rocky Mountains.

I'm happy that the series is getting more exposure, but at the risk of seeming curmudgeonly, the series will remain on my "watch only after reading the books" list.

<comment><USER9> I just hope they don't put hulls around the GSVs...that would make me sad

<comment><USER10> Damnit... that does seem like something they'd do just to show off special effects. I guess a giant ellipsoid is not super visually appealing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Hopefully this means we'll also get _Use of Weapons_ and _The Player of Games_? Pretty please?

<comment><USER12> Hopefully they will respect the spirit of the thing, instead of what happened to altered carbon.

<comment><USER13> It's especially infuriating what they did to Altered Carbon when you consider how much of the changes _do not add anything_ to the adaptation (although a very few were improvements, like Poe); quite the reverse. They also completely castrated the books' political message - especially when it came to religion, and to a lower extent anti-capitalism/centralization.

That being said, I imagine it still makes for a watchable show for someone that knows nothing about the books.

In any case, I love both series and I pray dearly they don't fuck up the Culture adaptation.

<comment><USER14> As someone who has not read the book, I quite enjoy the Netflix series! Give me more! So much good SciFi finally coming in series format!!! Only had to wait 40 years.

<comment><USER15> I read the book and really enjoyed it. I also enjoyed the Netflix series a lot. Theyre different stories, with one inspiring the other. At least with the Netflix series I am hoping that the next season will stick to the theme and atmosphere, unlike the IMO dissapointing book sequels

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This would be amazing if they do the rest of the books as well. I think this ranks up there for me with an Honor Harrington TV series.

<comment><USER17> I'd be so excited for an Honor series. Of my favorite space operas, it's definitely one of the more readily TV-adaptable ones (arguably more easily so than Culture), especially after the success of The Expanse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is great news indeed.

I've never directed or produced a movie, and I'm impressed at the number of my fellow HN'ers who have great insight into why this isn't the best book to turn into a film.

For my own part I'm just thrilled that it may finally happen. If it's not up to scratch, it won't diminish the novel(s) for me. But if it's great, I'm going to be way pleased.

Fair to say that anyone who's read and enjoyed a book (or series of books), and subsequently seen a TV or film interpretation of the work, will almost always commend others to read, then watch. (There may be exceptions - <USER2> heard of one myself.)

Last year there was news of Amazon looking to develop series around Ringworld (maybe re-use some of the sets :) and Snowcrash. I really liked what they did with Man in the High Castle, so I'm feeling optimistic.

</comment><comment><USER19> Slightly alarming but also tremendously exciting. Alarming because Amazon have yet to produce anything truely great. Exciting because Denis Kelly's series Utopia was truely unique and special UK SF viewing with a real edge. Plan B also have excellent track record.

<comment><USER11> < Alarming because Amazon have yet to produce anything truely great.

Apply the correct latin phrase, but I've found _The Man in the High Castle_ to be one of the best shows on TV right now.

<comment><USER19> I couldn't get past the pilot unfortunately. Vikings S02/S03 is very watchable with great production values but a bit pulpy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ian M. Banks: "Money Implies Poverty"

</comment><comment><USER21> So we can hopefully look forward to seeing the Superlifter 'Prime Mover' in 'The Player of Games' follow up series ;)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Cult...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spacecraft_in_the_Culture_series#The_Player_of_Games)

</comment><comment><USER22> Yes, yes.. this is increddible- i cant wait for the minds duking out.

I have it here on my desk right now- re-reading while working on a hobby project.

</comment><comment><USER23> Cool, need something scifi that isn't dystopia. We're already living that. Warminds for president 2020.

<comment><USER4> The culture universe is not a 100% happy fluffy one (th empire of azzad for one) . And all the books are all set outside of the culture.

<comment><USER22> Even the culture interior is certainly PG-18. Remember- its all better in the culture, they all last longer - and they have those drug glands- so to be honest, how can somebody adapt that faithfully and release it in the usa?

<comment><USER24> There's also quite a few casual orgies.

<comment><USER22> Oh brave new world that hold such people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am cautiously optimistic.</comment>


GloBull Warming Hokum on 'Earth Day' - un-devmox https://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=231991 <comment> un-devmox It's always troubling when my brother, the skeptic, sends me such links. I'm not a scientist (neither is he) so I don't know what to make of such articles.

I always like to explore contrarian views, but this one doesn't sit well with me. It's as if 'skeptics' use such views to roll back all the progress we've made and to slow progress that's needed. It especially boils my blood when 'skeptics' use their argument to somehow tarnish Earth Day as Earth Day is so much more than global warming.

This opinion piece from the local paper sums up my feelings about what Earth Day does represent and what the skeptics ignore: [http://planetjh.com/2017/04/18/the-new-west-earth-to- trump/](http://planetjh.com/2017/04/18/the-new-west-earth-to-trump/)

edit: grammar</comment>


SimpleLegal Launches 'Auto Correct' Billing App to Fix Dodgy Invoices - <AUTHOR> https://www.artificiallawyer.com/2018/10/24/simplelegal-launches-auto-correct-billing-app-to-fix-dodgy-invoices/ <comment><USER2> Founder here. Cool to see the story posted on HN. Happy to answer questions until I hop on my flight. (I'm a "WiFi off and focus on one thing" kind of flier).</comment>


Bride of Son of Cheap Video: The KimKlone - <AUTHOR> http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/KimKlone/Kimklone_intro.html <comment><USER2> A prior HN thread [1] about this was entitled, "The KimKlone: a radical 6502 redesign"

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3070169](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3070169)

The poster, 0x12, had this to summary to offer:

"Guy expands 6502 to 16M address space by intercepting the databus and re- mapping unused opcodes and clever use of the spurious signals generated by the cpu when executing other undefined opcodes, adds a few registers to make the whole thing transparent from an assembler programmers point of view. In other words, there is no difference to the programmer between native and newly minted instructions.

On top of that he boosts the speed of his forth interpreter by concentrating on a frequently used construct called 'NEXT' in a way that should make anybody that has tried to optimize the inner loop of some VM or language proud. After all, what better way to optimize in such a situation than to be able to mold the instruction set to your desire.

He then uses this home-brew Frankenstein contraption as his benchtop computer for multiple years to do real work (instead of just shooting some pretty pictures and calling it a day)."

A block diagram and one-page description are here: [http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/KimKlone/Kimklone_shor...](http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/KimKlone/Kimklone_short_summary.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> He describes the origin of the name ("Bride of Son of Cheap Video") here: [http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/KimKlone/BrideOfSon%20...](http://laughtonelectronics.com/Arcana/KimKlone/BrideOfSon%20KK%20Lancaster.html)</comment>


Antibody Tests Won't Get Us Back to Normal - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2020/04/antibody-tests-herd-immunity/610762/ <comment><USER2> Daily testing for those over 60 seems like the only way to meaningfully protect risk groups.

<comment><USER3> But they are not the carriers spreading it - it's the asymptomatic people - and once they have it it's probably too late.

<comment><USER4> Realistically, you can't start testing everybody for every new cold or flu. People won't tolerate it.</comment></comment></comment>


(Very) Basic Eliptic Curve Cryptography - <AUTHOR> https://blockchain.works-hub.com/learn/very-basic-elliptic-curve-cryptography-cb5c2 <comment><USER2> I'm not really following the trapdoor reasoning. Both RSA and elliptic curves are based on having a system where 'exponentiation' commutes and the 'logarithm' is computationally difficult. RSA only needs the two generator primes to make finding the 'inverse' of the e exponent computationally tractable, once that is done the 'trapdoor' isn't used any more. There isn't an equivalent of that in elliptic curves in my understanding of them.

</comment><comment><USER3> > A 256 bit key in ECC offers about the same security as 3072 bit key using > RSA.

> This means that in systems with limited resources such as smartphones, > embedded computers, cryptocurrency networks, it uses less than 10% of the > hard disk space and bandwidth required using RSA.

What?

I could possibly understand CPU usage being significantly lower for an equivalent level of security, but how could disk space and bandwidth be affected to any significant measure?

<comment><USER4> In this example, an EC private key is made up of 256 bits of "randomness". Nearly every 256-bit number is a valid ECDSA private key.

However, an RSA private key is made of up specific numbers like a modulus, private exponent, etc that contribute to its length. In principle this is all you need. But usually other generation parameters are included that speed up calculations for the Chinese Remainder Theorem.

When it comes to network bandwidth, the number one concern relates to the symmetric algorithm used for message encryption and Message Authentication Coding (MAC) for integrity checking (this is unrelated to the choice of RSA versus ECC). Smaller embedded systems may start sessions more frequently, or the asymmetric authentication may be a larger percentage of the overall traffic and the size of the keys and signatures can make a difference. At the 128-bit security level, public keys and signatures are six-times larger for RSA than for ECC. Private keys are 12-times larger for RSA compared to ECC at the 128-bit security level. The key size generally has no impact on performance, but size matters when it comes to the cost of secure storage of the keys.</comment></comment>


Luma Labs Jammed By a Crummy Patent - <AUTHOR> http://lu.ma/blogs/news/4540122-an-open-letter-to-our-customers-past-and-future via Daring Fireball <comment><USER2> No, they gave up because their product was not successful enough in the marketplace.

It so happens that I'm familiar with them because I was in the market for camera slings within the past couple of months. I shopped around. There are a lot of different suppliers- from RainbowImaging, which seems to be a guy in hong kong to the R-strap. Luma was overpriced and while it looked like really nice hardware, their web page was a bit incoherent and I couldn't figure out the important things I needed to learn about such as whether their product would fit my frame or not, and other details. I ended up going with a wrist strap, but if I had gone with a sling, it is unlikely I would have bought theirs.

Given that there is plenty of prior art- I know I flirted with camera slings myself, well before 2007- and they didn't cite the patent (That I could see) so we don't even know if the patent covers the sling nature (or is just an extension or improvement on the concept) crying foul like this is absurd.

Frankly, the patent office does a basic check on the claims, but they are not a prior art vetting service. You can patent things that don't exist, like a perpetual motion machine, or things you haven't really reduced to practice- like a method for mining moon rocks on the moon. (or at least you can do this if you're a bit clever in your wording)... but that doesn't mean you actually have a patent on them. The patent isn't really real until it is vetted by a court.

I could sue luma labs because I find the word "luma" to be offensive. ITs unlikely I'd win and it would be a stupid suit, but I could do it. I could even, if I were willing to spend the money, potentially keep luma tied up in court for a decade, until they go out of business, with pointless lawsuits because I had a vendetta. this is due to the inefficiency of the court system, nothing more. I wouldn't need a patent to do this.

Luma decided to stop supporting their old product and think they have a better product coming. That's great.

Its just disingenuous to blame it on a competitor who hasn't even sent them a cease and desist!</comment>