WebAssembly: a binary format for the web - <AUTHOR> http://www.2ality.com/2015/06/web-assembly.html <comment><USER3> As laudable as the goal of improving performance is, I hope this never takes off. Why? Because it will take about 5 minutes from 90% of the web to go from open, transparent, easily reverse engineerable source code to essentially giant blobs of secret binary code. People will pay lip service to performance but 99% of the reason that web sites will implement this will be to cover up their code, keep secret their implementation techniques and technologies, hide poor code and poor security.

I honestly think that one of the key ingredients to the success of the web is that just about any web page you can see, just about anyone with modest knowledge can trivially work out how it was done. It is only an accident of history that it worked out that way. But the effect has been to spread knowledge far and wide and it has greatly contributed to the success of web technologies. Furthermore, I can easily look at the source code for my bank web site or any web site I want to trust and get a good idea of how solid their implementation is. Yes I can't inspect the back end, but a whole slice of front-end security issues are easy for me to check for myself. This kind of scrutiny will get a good bit harder if web assembly becomes adopted.

<comment><USER4> Yet, isn't much of the web already unreadable due to minification of JS source?

<comment><USER5> If you think minification does anything to prevent anyone from reading it you are mistaken. Is it harder? Yes. Impossible, not even close, just annoying. I've reversed engineer JS libraries with 20K LOC that were minified and uglified in less than a day, hardly what I consider a hurdle.

Now, to have worked with asm.js recently, that's a whole different ball game. That is unreadable, at least without spending copious amounts of time on it and having a deep understanding of asm.js to be able to read it.

<comment><USER6> What do you get out of reading some random website's minified javascript?

<comment><USER7> Sometimes it's just the curiuosity of "how did they do that?" In general, one doesn't go around looking at the code everywhere, but on more than one occassion I've looked into something to figure out how something was done, or why it's broken in my browser (much more common in early Firebird^b^b^b^bfox).

On the one hand, I hope it gives a real build target for Rust and Go... on the other, I hope things don't get too obfuscated in practice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> From Java applets to Java applets in twenty years.

<comment><USER9> Java applets were slow to load because fast loading was never made a priority. WebAssembly is prioritizing small size and fast loading.

Java Applets were completely isolated from the surrounding web page, and vice- versa. I tried writing XEyes as a Java Applet back in the day, but the eyeballs could only follow the cursor while the cursor was directly on top of the applet's rectangle. WebAssembly operates on the single unified DOM and its event model.

Because it uses the DOM, the text and widgets are real. The text is selectable, looks like regular text, etc. Java Applets had their own GUI/widgeting system that looked bad and behaved differently.

<comment><USER10> There was a JavaScript to Java bridge in most browsers -- you could simply write a JS event handler that called a public API in your applet.

Before XMLHttpRequest became reliable across browsers, a fairly common trick was to use a 1 pixel Java applet to do the asynchronous calls to the server, and then call back out to JavaScript to manipulate the DOM.

Java only "behaved differently" if you wanted your applet to paint a square of the screen. Which was more about the problem that browsers also didn't support SVG, so if you wanted an interactive diagram you had to isolate yourself from HTML.

<comment><USER11> Why was this downvoted? I found this quite informative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Posted some time ago, a .NET implementation and discussion:

[https://github.com/WebAssembly/ilwasm](https://github.com/WebAssembly/ilwasm)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10162793](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10162793)

I also have to think about the new image file format posted some time ago: FLIF ([http://flif.info/](http://flif.info/)). With WebAssembly you could implement this in the browser by just embedding a lib. No need to wait for the vendors to support it.

</comment><comment><USER13> As far as the intersection of (innovation in web technology) and (innovation in programming languages) is concerned, I think the focus on performance is like going backwards in time, perhaps to the mid 90s.

I feel like these innovations are being turned into a kind of "social media spectacle" with relatively little discussion of what innovation really means in this context.

For example: I don't understand why Python, JavaScript, Java, Ruby, and so on have not delivered tools that ease the path for those who wish to write applications designed to run code from untrusted sources. I think this would make the web a lot more competitive and overall healthier as an independent institution.

(Yes I understand JavaScript is code from an untrusted source that runs in a sandbox on your computer, the browser client; in this context I'm referring to the ability of a JavaScript web app to load objects (from a JavaScript source code file hosted on ANY domain, in defiance of XSS dogma) which the browser client guarantees does not exceed the bounds of a specified "sandbox" built to spec, a "security envelope" for loading and evaluating code. For example the ability to tell the client, "execute procedure P with arguments A, but kill it if it runs for more than 0.5 seconds of CPU time or allocates more than 500 MB of memory" or "only load this source code as long as the global variables it uses is on this list: ..., the names of properties is uses is on this list: ..., and it refrains from using the following syntactic keywords: ...)

Python put up a warning against its own "restricted execution" a long time ago: [https://docs.python.org/2/library/restricted.html](https://docs.python.org/2/library/restricted.html)

In the age of GitHub, why is there no interest in building infrastructure that allows programmers to define such "security envelopes" for JavaScript, Python, C, and so on and create systems which are composed of mutually distrusting modules which would, I think, simplify reasoning about their security characteristics?

<comment><USER9> > For example: I don't understand why Python, JavaScript, Java, Ruby, and so > on have not delivered tools that ease the path for those who wish to write > applications designed to run code from untrusted sources.

Probably because it is stupidly difficult to do robustly, especially when the language and standard libraries weren't originally designed to do that.

Lua is perhaps best positioned for this given how tightly you can lock it down (you can remove the 'require' function that loads other modules). But even this is considered not robustly secure against untrusted code.

[http://lua-users.org/wiki/SandBoxes](http://lua-users.org/wiki/SandBoxes)

<comment><USER14> I'd argue Haskell has the best support for this: [http://safehaskell.scs.stanford.edu](http://safehaskell.scs.stanford.edu)

<comment><USER15> Example:

[http://tryhaskell.org/](http://tryhaskell.org/)

source:

[https://github.com/chrisdone/tryhaskell](https://github.com/chrisdone/tryhaskell)

For those that just want to see the sandboxing part, I think most of the magic is in mueval but I could be wrong:

[https://github.com/gwern/mueval](https://github.com/gwern/mueval)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A good talk from a week ago on WebAssembly: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhAPPQqKCi8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhAPPQqKCi8)

<comment><USER17> Merits of the contents aside, the guy presenting has a very judgmental and condescending tone making it difficult to appreciate what he's actually saying. Saying things like "this doesn't look anything like a programming language, especially if you're coming from the javascript world" or "I will explain shared memory multi-threading in a bit, especially for the front end developers" really doesn't help. I find statements like that offensive, and detrimental to getting good conversations going. I've not finished watching that presentation on these grounds, and I'm not sure I will. It's not out of principle either, but simply because I get too annoyed to continue.

For the record, I identify myself as a software engineer. These days I mostly do front end development, but I have written code in many languages and contexts (asm, javascript, c, python, vb, whatever fits) and been well remunerated for it. I find the front/back/native/whatever splits to be silly, probably fueled by trying to make more efficient job listings. Fine that HR folks do this, but as engineers we should know better.

<comment><USER18> So you're a full stack developer. Some coders are only familiar with their domain. For example, most of my coding experience has been backend database scripting stuff, I have very little familiarity with the front end.

I don't see why you would get offended, he was talking to the specialists, not the generalists. You have to understand there's no shame in not knowing something outside your domain. For example, if you've never done AI programming before, would you be offended if an experienced AI coder skipped over some details in order to provide a more friendly introduction? It's not meant as an insult, it's not a reflection on your capability to learn about it, but rather it could be based on a consideration that you may not have taken the time to learn about it yet.

<comment><USER19> A good communicator is careful in his phrasing and keeps 'the human factor' in mind. It's not something that engineers are usually willing to admit or cater to, of course, but doesn't make it less true.

As a corollary, this is the same point that people asking 'why aren't engineers paid better' are really asking about, but can't or won't see...

<comment><USER18> Engineers don't like being talked down too, but if something is outside your field then simplifying is still pragmatic, regardless if you have extensive knowledge in other fields.

Let's put it like this, if I was the guy giving the talk, and I knew I'd get this reaction, I would do nothing differently. I'm not going to waste my time pandering to people who would take a tech talk personally. I don't care if managers get paid more, if they want to water down their words to ensure no offence to anyone, they're welcome to take that burden.

<comment><USER17> It's not about pandering, but about being inclusive in an educational setting. You're giving a talk so as to inform people, not imply they are lesser in some way. To concretize, consider replacing "the front-end developers" with "those unfamiliar with the concept":

> I will explain shared memory multi-threading in a bit, especially for those > unfamiliar with the concept.

Versus the condescending:

> I will explain shared memory multi-threading in a bit, especially for the > front-end developers.

Tiny change, makes all the difference. Be inclusive; don't be condescending.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It would be nice if the ability to reason about execution timings were one of the design goals of WebAssembly, because this could make it safer to port to crypto to the web.

</comment><comment><USER21> If the new way forward allows everyone distribute unreadable binary instead of readable, or de-obfuscatable, JavaScript, I think this definitely bad for open source and bad for innovation which depends upon stuff like: "oh, now I see how that did that. I think I can apply that technique to something else".

Of course, people can release their js, python, java, et al that compiles down to WebAssembly, but because you are not forced too, I do not think most will.

<comment><USER22> How is this any worse than minified Javascript? Without meaningful names or comments you're not much better off than you would be with WASM+disassembler.

<comment><USER19> It's the difference between a 'java decompiler' and a 'c++ decompiler'. Which is significant enough for there to be a market for commercial 'java obfuscators', but not for 'c++ obfuscators'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> can you go back to source code from WebAssembly binary? I dont want a web that serves me obfuscated binary blobs.

<comment><USER24> No, but one of the goals of WebAssembly is to have a textual representation, so in theory you could still View Source. Not sure how that'll work out in practice, though.

<comment><USER25> In practice, I think most browsers won't include a "disassembler", under the justification that most users won't need it; I can see "View Source" unfortunately going that way too.

What's wrong with that argument is the fact that although _most_ users don't need it, it's an excellent way for those interested to explore into and find out how things work, and essentially get into web development with nearly no effort. If this trend continues, in the future when browsers become nothing more than dumbed-down interactive TVs, I think there will be very few, if any, web developers who started out of their own interest and exploration instead of solely thinking of it as a profession, and that's a really bad thing. (For the corporations who want to take control, this could be viewed as a good thing - why would they want to encourage independent thought and exploration when they could have dogmatic obedience?)

Computing systems are becoming more closed and proprietary, and this will be a _big_ step backwards in terms of openness of the Web that lead to its growth and freedom in the first place.

<comment><USER26> When I got into computers there wasn't any view source button.

We had to buy magazines and books to view any source.

Still lots of us got interested and a few guys managed to build the initial web infrastructure without a view source button.

<comment><USER27> Back in my day we didn't have compilers, we twiddled the switches until the machines did what we want. Compilers just allow sub-par programmers to write code, we should better abolish them.

<comment><USER26> That has nothing to do with "view source" button.

I also doubt you are old enough to have used something like the Altair 8800 or have built your own computer from Elektor schematics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Why does everything about WebAssembly make such a big deal about it being AST based rather than a stack or register machine? Sure this is a meaningful technical difference but I don't see why it's really a "selling point".

<comment><USER29> Here are some arguments from the guys who did something like this before for Oberon: ftp://ftp.cis.upenn.edu/pub/cis700/public_html/papers/Franz97b.pdf

To summarize:

1\. Much smaller representation, which will mean faster download times 2\. More control-flow structure retained, which means less needs to be rebuilt by JIT-compilers. 3\. As a corollary of #2, we get easier and more helpful 'decompiling' of code blobs 4\. Another corollary of #2: easier analysis for safety properties

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Write once, run _anywhere_.

</comment><comment><USER31> Hi i have also found one good example here ... [http://androidexample.com](http://androidexample.com) /Global_Variable_Or _Application_Context_Variable_-_Android_Example/ index.php?view=article_discription&aid=114&aaid=136

</comment><comment><USER32> Hm – Client-side web programming is all about resource management. I can't see, how cross-compiled C++ code that originated for a completely other platform with object code in the MBs range will do a decent job. And even, if this is not the original idea of WebAssembly, this is sure to come.

(We've seen similar with emscripten: As much as I love it as an experiment, it's highly problematic in production.)

And of course, as others have already pointed out, it's likely to ruin the vision of the web as a mosaic of just a few trivial technologies that can be investigated with modest knowledge. (Compare the comment by zmmmmm.)

</comment><comment><USER33> I am someone who makes a living having a SaaS that clients use.

I've had clients who have tried to "clone" my work, but eventually come back because they couldn't figure out the backend code or scale.

I would love something that is the equivalent of installing an app on a phone, that is using a compiled app in a browser. Where the source can't be viewed.

Even better, if I can give a rich UX. By having access to the system.

Yes, I believe in some very small cases this will be welcomed. Otherwise, I think for everyone like 95% of the web, html, js, css, etc, will see be the way to go.

<comment> nv-vn So even though they can't succeed at 'stealing' your job by copying the code you still don't want them to have access?

<comment><USER33> I don't have a job. I offer a service to clients. I get paid when they use my software.

If they created their own software, they would not have to pay me any money. So without money, I have to go on welfare.

You get my point?

No, I don't want any of my clients to get access to my source code. I am not a giant corporation like redhat, google, oracle or other company that open sources it's software and then sells support or other services.

I'm a small company, who with more clients. Is hoping to them employ a small workforce and grow the company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> What will this mean for blocking ads and certain trackers? If the source of the page isn't viewable, how will users know what the code is doing?

<comment><USER35> I'm sure you can still inspect the DOM and the network calls made by the page. DOMs, URLs, and HTTP aren't going anywhere.

And the current ad-blockers almost never go through the source code of a script, only the src and the URLs

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> What does this mean for compile-to-js languages, like Clojurescript, Elm (and ES2015 one might argue)?

<comment><USER16> So far, not much. Clojurescript, Elm and most others assume that JS is taking care of garbage collection for them. Meanwhile, WebAssembly so far does not include GC support. If someone were to implement a custom GC for Elm on top of wasm's "here's a big array of bytes" memory model, it would be very interesting indeed. But, at the moment wasm is primarily a target for C/C++.

<comment><USER37> That's rather weak. How do you interop with the DOM? Explicit FFI? Are there plans to make WebAssembly catch up with the last several decades? There's no reason we can't have a proper IL like .Net or even Java at worst.

<comment><USER16> Yep, FFI. GC/DOM/Web API integration is in the eventual plans. [https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/GC.md](https://github.com/WebAssembly/design/blob/master/GC.md)

You want .NET on bare metal? Implement it on x64, ARM, MIPs and maybe PPC. You want .NET in the browser, implement it on wasm. You want Java in the browser, implement it on wasm. You want BEAM in the browser, implement it on wasm. You want Parrot in the browser, implement it on wasm. What you are not going to do is to get Google, Apple, Mozilla and Microsoft to all agree on any of those ILs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The big advantage for web assembly is that is really language agnostic (besides the performance).

</comment><comment><USER39> So could someone theoretically make flash or silverlight work via this?

<comment><USER40> Theoretically you can make those work in JavaScript. The performance might even be ok, but the limitations would still be the huge effort in reverse engineering flash or silver light code and features and secondly the browser sandbox policies which AFAIK aren't changed for WASM.

<comment><USER41> It's not just a theory, Mozilla has already implemented Flash in JS: [https://github.com/mozilla/shumway](https://github.com/mozilla/shumway)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The future! serve binaries instead of web pages!

<comment><USER43> Web pages are already a far cry from human-readable semantic markup. That's not a hill worth dying on.

<comment><USER42> careful what you wish for

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I see a future in which I write apps that run JS for the DOM, but I need to worry about neither JS nor the DOM. Glorious.

</comment><comment><USER45> Okay, seriously.

The _only_ possible benefit that this technology could have for the planet is to give Brendan Eich a reason to run yet another one of those video-game- inside-of-a-video-game demos at another one of those JS conferences that frontend devs go so nuts about.

Except this time, there will be yet _another_ video game inside of that inner video game!

</comment><comment><USER46> Awesome, I would love to see an helloworld application hosted in github

</comment><comment><USER47> I hope to see so the developers that don't like JavaScript stop writing bad JavaScript and just write it in whatever class based type based system they want instead of adding classes and types to Javascript.

<comment><USER48> But adding type system to JavaScript - as Facebook has done with Flow - <USER2> class system - as in ES6 - actually makes complex JavaScript better and easier...

<comment><USER38> I have literally heard the argument that React basically doesn't count as OOP anymore because they are now emphasizing 'functional' Javascript, even though they still rely on the main base class.

<comment><USER48> I don't really know. I use Flow, but I don't use React.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Binary blobs on the web? Have we learnt nothing from ActiveX?

<comment><USER50> ActiveX had full access to the user's system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> "Why should WebAssembly succeed where previous attempts (such as Adobe Flash and Google Portable Native Client) have failed?"

Failed????

Excuse me, I haven't even BEGUN to scratch the surface of the awesomeness that is pnacl in my own project!

<comment><USER51> If Adobe Flash was a failure, I only hope I can fail as well and as strongly in my life...

<comment><USER45> Yeah, I was referring to pnacl (as in Portable Native Client), but that is a very good point about a technology that is obviously still going strong all these years later.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I haven't looked at WebAssembly in Detail, but my feeling and worry is that this is a can of worms for security issues.

Javascript wasn't designed with security in mind and it has taken us decades to understand what implications that had (and we haven't really fixed them yet). The security implications for WebAssembly will be different, but I'm almost certain there will be a lot. (pnacl already introduced some quite unexpected issues, e.g. allowing control over cache flushes and thus making rowhammer attacks easier.)

Given that neither the linked text nor the FAQ they have does even mention and discuss that I'm even more worried.

<comment><USER53> > The security implications for WebAssembly will be different, but I'm almost > certain there will be a lot.

What can you do today in Web Assembly that you can't already do in asm.js?

<comment><USER54> Nothing. WebAssembly in its current implementation is basically a binary representation of asm.js.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> The major flaw in WebAssembly is the byte code itself. We will end up in a compatibility hell, because of course the specification will change. And there will be several implementations of WebAssembly, which will have their own quirks and flaws.

So the WebAssembly future will look like this: You will compile into WebAssembly multiple times, for different versions and implementations and you will need to deliver the correct artifacts to the clients.

The reason, the web still works is that everything is shipped to the client in source. And the client will then interpret and compile everything according to its capabilities.

WebAssembly will probably never gain traction because of this reality.</comment>


How to "get" Philosophy - <AUTHOR> http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/01/how_to_get_phil.php

<comment><USER2> Interesting. One thing I have to disagree with is where he says philosophy isn't logical (logic was actually invented for philosophy). Is philosophy just peoples whims and opinions then? Now a day's everybody have big opinions about politics, sports and so on, but what's scary is that we actually believe that after 5 seconds of thought we have found the problem or the answer (watch sports commentators for example). What's even scarier is that sometimes we even believe that we're the only ones who see the answer, seeing ourselves as smart ones who have everything figured out. Enough of a rant, let's continue. Logic is the foundation philosophy. The proof is very similar to PGs proof that good art or good design isn't subjective. A trick that most philosophers use in creating an argument is formulating it in a way that the outcome either yes or no. Like "Whether God exist". St. Tomas Aquinas, who was probably the greatest philosopher, wrote his whole summa in this fashion. I believe the concept (and the basic logical foundation of philosophy) came from Aristotle. But anyway this shows that logic is the foundation of philosophy.

Philosophy is important because what people believe has a huge influence, either good or bad on society. A philosopher is in a way a psychologist for society, but his prime goal is to discover the truth. Philosophy also doesn't have to be complicated and obscure (this is just a stupid stereotype). Philosophy is really just the most practical use of logic and common sense, which most people don't have and would do well to develop. You develop good logical thought by first learning the basic theory behind it, and then developing a mental habit of continuously using your logical faculties throughout your daily life. But first we have to stop thinking we now everything and admit we know nothing, because we then become students to Logic and we reap in the dividends for the rest of our lives.

<comment><USER3> I agree for the most part, except for the statement "we know nothing." That phrase seriously annoys me, especially when it follows a good critique of non- logical "philosophy." How is it consistent to maintain "we know nothing" as a philosophical precept, unless it is a knowledge claim and therefore self contradictory?

Additionally, while philosophy is based on logic, logic is only half the picture. Logic is syntax processing, and as such does not provide the semantics of the statements being analyzed. So, there are really two aspects to philosohpy, syntax and semantics. Analytic philosophers focus on syntax and continental philosophers focus on semantics. This split is fairly recent relative to the history of philosophy, seems to have started around the time of nominalism, i.e. Ockham. Before then, you'd find both elements in philosophical texts. I.e. in Plato's dialogues there are both logical discussions and poetic myths.

<comment><USER4> Your syntax/semantics distinction between analytic and continental philosophy is not how I think most philosophers would characterize it.

Here's a nice writeup from the Philosophical Gourmet Report:

 _"Analytic" philosophy today names a style of doing philosophy, not a philosophical program or a set of substantive views. Analytic philosophers, crudely speaking, aim for argumentative clarity and precision; draw freely on the tools of logic; and often identify, professionally and intellectually, more closely with the sciences and mathematics, than with the humanities. (It is fair to say that "clarity" is, regrettably, becoming less and less a distinguishing feature of "analytic" philosophy.) The foundational figures of this tradition are philosophers like Gottlob Frege, Bertrand Russell, the young Ludwig Wittgenstein and G.E. Moore; other canonical figures include Carnap, Quine, Davidson, Kripke, Rawls, Dummett, and Strawson.[1]

"Continental" philosophy, by contrast, demarcates a group of French and German philosophers of the 19th and 20th centuries. The geographical label is misleading: Carnap, Frege, and Wittgenstein were all products of the European Continent, but are not "Continental" philosophers. The foundational figure of this tradition is Hegel; other canonical figures include the other post- Kantian German Idealists (e.g., Fichte, Schelling), Schopenhauer, Kierkegaard, Marx, Nietzsche, Husserl, Heidegger, Merleau-Ponty, Sartre, Gadamer, Horkheimer, Adorno, Marcuse, Habermas, and Foucault. Continental philosophy is sometimes distinguished by its style (more literary, less analytical, less reliance on formal logic), its concerns (more interested in actual political and cultural issues and, loosely speaking, the human situation and its "meaning"), and some of its substantive commitments (more self-conscious about the relation of philosophy to its historical situation)._

<comment><USER3> That looks like exactly what I'm talking about. All the canonical analytic philosophers listed there tend to be best known for their contributions to logic, i.e. formal validity of arguments.

On the other hand, the listed continental philosophers are all known for the worldviews they put forth, i.e. the meaning given to the terms we use, or even new terms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My roommate for the past two years is a philosophy major, and he's gotten me hooked on analytic philosophy as opposed to continental. The former actually does attempt to pursue truth through logic and reason.

You would also be surprised how many great contemporary philosophers are out there. Philosophy, after all, evolves over time much like every other field. Aristotle and his buds are great, but people who don't follow contemporary philosophers are like those that are stuck listening to The Beatles when they could be giving new bands like Fleet Foxes a chance. Sure, life's questions don't really change, but contemporary philosophers build off the foundation the early philosophers laid out.

<comment><USER3> Or the build off the mistakes of earlier philosophers. It's a philosophical question itself whether philosophy always progresses, and therefore we can ignore the earliest philosophers. I am of the opinion, like one of the other commentators, that Thomas Aquinas is one of the greatest philosophers, and modern philosophy has become seriously fubar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Sadly nowadays philosophy is seen like a pure theoretic field but since the beginning it was both a system (theoretic) and a way of life (practical- applying the theory). Socrates already criticized sophists. They were payed to teach philosophy (and rhetoric, logic etc.) but didn't apply philosophy to themselves. Platonism, Epicureanism, Stoicism were all both a system and a way of life.

This distinction disappeared, but not totally, with Christianity. Christianity was seen as the ultimate philosophy, bringing a system and a way of life together and making it popular as the ultimate, definitive and right system. Whereas in the ancient Greece philosophy and religion were both side by side in the live of people, with Christianity they were mixed together. Only the theoretic foundations of philosophy remained and were taught, since there were not needs anymore for a way of life.

Lately some thinkers came back to this primary vision, like Nietzsche who set up a system but wanted to apply it to human begins, hopping to change them. However because of these evolutions, philosophy is often seen like a pure theoretical system.

</comment><comment><USER4> I tend to believe that "getting" philosophy is mostly a matter of liking it, and that's not something easily transmitted. Either you find questions like "what is morality? Could a computer have consciousness? Could I just be a brain in a vat being fed stimuli by evil scientists?" interesting, or you don't, and if you don't, I don't see how you could progress very far along the path to understanding philosophy.

<comment><USER7> Sometimes these kinds of questions only become really interesting after you've studied them a bit. To a naive newcomer, they may seem silly or nonsensical, but hearing some of the arguments, details and positions can bring to light a lot of interesting stuff that may not be immediately obvious.</comment></comment>


Tell HN: the Milky Way has 16 smaller galaxies orbiting it - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Milky_Way%27s_satellite_galaxies

<comment><USER2> Ugh, as soon as a galaxy gets cool, all these posters and hangers-on start to orbit.</comment>


How to Design your Resume - <AUTHOR> https://uxdesign.cc/how-to-design-your-resumes-3b86ff7d9f76 <comment><USER2> I enjoyed your piece and respect your opinion. That having been said, as a professional resume writer and career coach to global clients, I have to disagree with the length comment. If one is going to include best practices, one needs to include a "core competencies" section at the top. Additionally, if there is any semblance of full formal education and varied work experience, that requires the entire document to be 1 1/2 to 2 pages. The latter being the maximum for anyone under executive level roles. I could quibble with some other points but overall well done.</comment>


Every Major City East of the Mississippi Underreporting Heavy Metals in Water - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/report-every-major-us-city-east-of-the-mississippi-i-1754573026 <comment><AUTHOR> By the way, you can find free water testing kits at Home Depot

(the idea is they want to contact you about selling you a water filter system)

I wonder what the cost of all the bottled water is in Flint and lifetime support for all the children who drank lead - the water switch to the industrial-dumping-ground river was going to save them a whopping $1 Million per year.

<comment><USER2> > lifetime support for all the children

I doubt if what happens to them will be a positive like "support." More likely they will be seen as a cost, in criminal activity and emotional/cognitive limitations.</comment></comment>


Patrick Stewart: I find myself excited to be returning to Jean-Luc Picard - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/SirPatStew/status/1025840545216823296 <comment><USER2> This is ridiculous how excited I am about this :) Oy it's been a rough year. On top of all things, cat was in ER again today. At least Jean-Luc is coming back.</comment>


Farming at work: social media in the enterprise - <AUTHOR> http://rakkhi.blogspot.com/2010/09/farming-at-work-social-media-in.html

<comment><USER2> _If you have some coders or innovators in the IT team give them a 20% project to get a Dispora instance up and running._

You might want to hold off on that.

<comment><USER3> Diaspora? might be another security nightmare: [http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/09/22/security-lessons- learned...](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/09/22/security-lessons-learned-from- the-diaspora-launch/)

<comment><USER4> Fun fact: user patio11 (to whom you're replying) is in fact the author of the article you're linking to :-).

<comment><USER3> Yes, so he should give me an up vote :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This sounds like a solution looking for a problem.

Enterprises don't need social solutions. They need good management and good application software. Everything else is a band-aid on the wrong wound.

It seems like every enterprise I work at has almost every gadget imaginable on their intranet: policies and procedures in a wiki, tips and tricks in another wiki, special domain knowledge in yet another wiki, an HR portal, project management apps, help desk apps, integration with email, integration with Office, integration with smart phones, etc., etc., etc. And how much difference does it make? Not much, I would guess.

People need access to exactly the information they need served up exactly as the need it to solve the problem at hand. This is called "good application software". And the need the resources, guidance, and direction to do the right thing. This is called "good management". Without these two, it's hard to get anything done. With them, those gadgets aren't really necessary.

<comment><USER2> I don't know: wikis were such an enormous productivity boost at my old day job it was difficult to overstate. We had plenty of documentation in Excel files, and that got read pretty much never, for all the hundreds of man months burned up producing it. The wiki was where engineers actually kept the accumulated knowledge that ran the business. (Like the Deep Magic rituals which, when uttered in the presence of a slaughtered chicken under a waning moon, would let you successfully install the software on a production server.)

<comment><USER5> "wikis were such an enormous productivity boost at my old day job..."

For whom?

We IT people have a bad habit of thinking that a good solution for us is a good solution for everyone. From my experience in many enterprises, this is usually not the case.

First, a few numbers...

What I've typically experienced in enterprises:

      IT people (programmers, analysts, admins)       -  1%
      indirect people (office, sales, management)     - 10%
      direct people (warehouse, factory, call center) - 89%

So a 1500 employee enterprise may have 15 IT people, 150 indirect people, and 1335 direct people. (The numbers may vary some, but you get the idea.)

In an engineering firm or software house, the engineers and programmers _are_ the direct people, but I don't really think of these types of firms as "enterprise".

Remember, no one earns anything until the direct people do something. Their production absorbs the overhead of everyone else, including IT.

Why do I bring up these numbers? Because I learned from a smart mentor long ago that solving your direct people's problems delivers value magnitudes greater than solving your indirect people's problems. Kinda like Willie Sutton robbing banks because, "That's where the money is." It's strictly a numbers game.

Back to the question at hand: your people, especially your direct people need the right information and direction to get stuff done. Good application software and good management have always been the most effective way of doing this. Sure, gadgets have a place and deliver some value, but they are generally not the solution to enterprise problems.

Like wikis, intranets, and all the rest, social media is just another gadget.

<comment><USER2> It is probably relevant to both our comments that I previously worked at a software consultancy and probably 60% of our headcount were some flavor of engineer or engineering management.

<comment><USER6> I agree with the wiki sentiment (also in a software/system engineer heavy environment). The huge thing I see is the massive problem with email. There's just _so_ much information locked up in peoples email it's not even funny. Wikis provide a way to put some information in a public place that, three months later, someone else that started working on the project can now see, without requiring someone to forward the right emails. It's also generally much more easily searchable than a bag of Word docs. Add in version control and things like edit notification and it's really a huge win.

I really hate email in the enterprise these days. I can totally see where tools like Google Wave (R.I.P.) and Basecamp are coming from. Pity it will take most enterprises ten years to start using these tools regularly.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Android or iPhone? - <AUTHOR> I want to buy a smartphone for my wife. Android or iPhone? <comment><USER2> Either way, go with prepaid if you are in the US. Those "plans" the big carriers have are insanely costly. Over 10 years you are going to spend roughly $6,000 to $8,000 per cell phone.

If you go iPhone, they have iMessage for texting which costs $0 on pre-paid but you both need to have iPhones. Use WiFi where you can (home, work) and find a pre-paid option for other times. iMessage is handy if a lot of her friends have iPhones.

If her usage pattern doesn't involve lots of streaming movies or streaming audio then you really don't need a costly plan.

My wife is non-technical and the iPhone is wife approved. Her mom (in her sixties) just got an iPhone and she can use it too.

</comment><comment><USER3> I switched to Blackberry one year ago after a lifetime of iPhone and I will never go back. BB kills it with the UI and BB Hub- best experience I ever had. I know BB is not hip but who cares. My 2 cents.

</comment><comment><USER4> Yes.

Serious answer. As suggested why not let your wife decide what would fit her needs best?

<comment><USER5> I agree - let her decide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you're buying your wife a phone I'd assume she is not overly technical. If that's a fair assumption + you've got reasonable income and are time poor I'd suggest an iPhone as it tends to be the more user friendly product (at a price). That said Android is deliver an ever increasing similarly good experience.

For someone that likes to tinker, or has a lower income I'd suggest Android. Android is more flexible to customisation + the phones are at a significantly lower price point either saving you money overall or allowing for more frequent phone updates.

I currently run an Android as my personal phone then tend to run a second ever changing OS on my work phone out of general tech interest. Currently I'm on Windows as the second phone but am getting Sailfish and Ubuntu curious so I feel an upgrade coming. I wouldn't recommend the Windows phone from an experience POV (though prices can be great). It's maybe 80% as good as iPhone and still needs polishing. Windows 10 might change this as the phone will become your PC on docking which I believe will be an increasingly popular category for phones.

</comment><comment><USER7> Too many data points lacking to consider a suggestion :)

As most said, unless it's a surprise gift, let her decide.

If it is a surprise, try to get her feedback in more subtle ways (I'm pretty bad at that, but I guess asking about her girl friend's phones or something).

In general, it depends on your money availability, general use case, IT ecosystem at your house or where she'll be using it, etc.

If money is no objection, she won't be using it for programming-related stuff or obscure hobbies, can afford apps, etc. or you have a heavy Apple ecosystem, then the iPhone is probably the best bet.

If money is a concern, then it can be either an Android-based system or Windows Phone.

For the very low-end smartphones, I recommend Windows Phone, some Android smartphones are terribly underpowered and deliver an awful user experience.

Personally, I have an Android device because it's the one that fits my needs the most (but I do use it for programming), and my country is 90% android smartphones so I'll have every app available.

</comment><comment><USER8> iPhone. Interested to see how my karma will change. Please vote :)

</comment><comment><USER9> Why not a Windows Phone? They're very decent.

<comment><USER10> They also have secondary benefits.

My teenage son was playing rugby and while the game was going on the changing room was robbed.

The only thing the robbers took were phones. Interesting, only iphones were taken and the only phones left were a badly cracked iphone and my son's Nokia Windows phone.

What made my son particularly happy was that, the reason he has a Nokia is that he had his iphone stolen while on holiday and didn't have enough to buy a new one.

So, if you have a habit of leaving your phone around, the conclusion is to either smash it or buy a Windows phone!

<comment><USER11> The UK Home Office published data in 2014 about phone thefts [0], it's pretty interesting. Over 50% of thefts in London were iPhones, they were the only ones with a higher share of thefts than of the market (by miles - their market share was <15%) (page 13).

I can't find a newer analysis, but probably worth pointing out that they mention manufacturer security improvements reducing thefts, and iOS has obviously had some of those since 2014.

[0] [https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...](https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/390901/HO_Mobile_theft_paper_Dec_14_WEB.PDF)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> why don't you let your wife decide ?

its just personal choice in the end

</comment><comment><USER13> I would go for an iPhone purely because Apple seem to be taking privacy more seriously. Google learns everything about you and I am not okay with that.

</comment><comment><USER14> Have your wife go to a shop, try both, buy whatever she likes best. It is HER phone after all and should suit HER needs/tastes/sense of style/etc.

But if I must answer: iPhones seem to be extremely popular amongst women in particular (if you look at the demographics, women like iPhones, Samsung Android phones, and then everything else is a distant third).

</comment><comment><USER15> I've been pretty satisfied with my Androids, but I have noticed a number of apps getting released for iOS way before (6 months to a year before) coming out for Android. (Robinhood, EveryDollar, ShakeLaw, for example).

That can be a drag if you like having the latest and greatest apps. Other than that, Android is awesome.

</comment><comment><USER16> iPhone is best. All other sucks really. Though it is my opinion and experience.

</comment><comment><USER17> Windows Phone :D

</comment><comment><USER18> What do you use? If your wife has no preference it probably makes sense to use similar devices.

</comment><comment><USER19> iPhone if you want to feel first class.

</comment><comment><USER20> If you have much money you can try with an iPhone, if not, an Android is fine.</comment>


Myron Ebell Takes On the E.P.A. - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/12/science/myron-ebell-trump-epa.html <comment><USER3> I'm not sure why everyone thinks Obama killed coal. Cratering natural gas prices are what killed coal. So short of artificially raising the price of nat gas, coal is not coming back regardless of who is in charge.

[http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush- killed-...](http://reason.com/blog/2016/10/11/natural-gas-ambush-killed-off- coal-minin)

[http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural- Gas-...](http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Cheap-Natural-Gas-To-Spark- Another-Wave-Of-Coal-Plant-Retirements.html)

<comment><USER4> It's not like Obama did nothing that effected coal. The industry lost over 83k coal mining jobs during the last 8 years. Hillary lost Pennsylvania, a big coal mining state, by 68,236 votes.

[http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/coal-o...](http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/01/coal- obama-federal-land/424422/)

[http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/05/obama-kept-his- promise-830...](http://dailycaller.com/2016/09/05/obama-kept-his- promise-83000-coal-jobs-lost-and-400-mines-shuttered/)

<comment><USER3> Obama did some things, but the main driver was the market. In politics it makes sense to take credit/blame depending on side. Trump can remove whatever Obama did and the jobs are not coming back for market reasons.

It's the same thing with factory jobs. The US produces more than it ever has (at least the last time I checked), but many of those jobs were automated away.

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead- outpu...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/us-manufacturing-dead-output-has- doubled-in-three-decades-2016-03-28)

<comment><USER5> Same thing for gas. Obama did nothing to lower gas prices. But imagine if for whatever reason (say a hurricane came through and knocked out US refining capacity two months before the election), he would've got the blame for high gas prices. And not just Obama, the same situation kind of happened to Bush when Katrina knocked oil infrastructure offline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The coal alignment is a bigger deal than climate change. We are SOL on climate change anyway (barring a scientific miracle)--there is no point worrying about whether one administration will or will not engage in token gestures.

But coal is _bad._ The coal industry costs about half a trillion in externalized damage to health and the environment annually in the US alone: [http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755](http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/831755).

And ironically, the voters in Appalachia being courted are bearing the brunt of it so people in surrounding urban areas can have cheap power: [http://www.coal-is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy](http://www.coal- is-dirty.com/blasting-appalachian-economy).

<comment> martin-adams For those that don't know what SOL means (I had to look it up)... "S--t Outta Luck"

<comment><USER7> The urban dictionary is your best friend.

Duck duck go even have a bang command for it (!ud).

<comment><USER8> !u works too

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe it's my white straight male privilege talking, but this scares me 100x more than his racism and sexual predation, and I wish it had gotten more coverage in the debates and election.

If this happens, history will remember Trump as the Neville Chamberlain of the climate catastrophe. He won't just be screwing America's plans, this is one of those areas where "leader of the free world" isnt hyperbole - America's decisions will have massive domino-effects on related economies.

<comment><USER10> While a lot of people were never able to move beyond Trump as a laughable buffoon and despicable human being, a lot of the harm is going to come from him advancing the mainstream, everyday Republican agenda.

Repealing Obamacare, dismantling the EPA and CFPB, appointing judges to the Federal and Supreme Courts who are friendly to rolling back gay and reproductive rights, privatizing Medicare -- these are all mainstream positions.

<comment><USER11> While I agree that most of the issues you mentioned are definitely things to be concerned about, would a Supreme Court with Trump nominee's really roll back gay and reproductive rights? Who would have standing to bring a case before the supreme court that could roll back gay rights? Also, the supreme court has been more conservative for a while and nothing has really happened with reproductive rights. I don't see Roe v Wade being overturned anytime in the near future.

<comment><USER10> The fear stems from the replacement after Scalia -- if Ginsberg is replaced and Kennedy is no longer the median vote, the Court will take a sharp turn on a lot of social issues.

<comment><USER11> I agree that the Court will take a sharp turn on social issues. The question still that remains will be what cases could be brought before the Court that would actually give them the chance the overturn the previous rulings?

<comment><USER10> Typically the consequences of a Supreme Court ruling is that lower Courts resolve the cases in the direction of the Supreme Court's ruling and if you are foolish enough to appeal up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court simply declines to hear it.

There is nothing preventing the Supreme Court from deciding to hear an appeal (eg, of a Clerk who doesn't want to issue marriage licenses) and then issuing an sweeping decision completely to the opposite of the new status quo.

That is the risk of relying on the Supreme Court to recognize unenumerated rights; the recognition will only last as long as the Court remains favorable to the right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If the US withdraws from the Paris accord, other countries like China will follow, as they will not want to be the ones that try to reduce emissions at the price of being less competitive (in the short run) when one of the largest economies in the world won't do it as well. And if the climate science projections are accurate, we will miss the last window of opportunity to reduce the heating and avoid the whole climate system tipping over. And with the current power that the Republicans have and Trump's attitude towards science it's highly unlikely that someone can stop them from going through with this.

Seems it really was too good to be true.

<comment><USER13> The US is not the only country that matters anymore, I don't think China will pull out no matter what US does, they are smart enough to be making money from building renewable tech for the world and onselling it. It's really in Chinese interest to encourage the shift.

This is just another race the US is losing.

<comment><USER14> China is building 200 GW of coal by 2020 alone [http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-coal- idUSKCN0Z...](http://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-power-coal- idUSKCN0ZT09B)

<comment><USER15> Since that article in July they've cancelled 60 coal plants, including many that had already started construction. The capacity they've cancelled is equal to the total coal capacity of the UK and Spain combined.

They've still got a long way to go, but the signs that they are turning the ship are clear.

[http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal- crack...](http://energydesk.greenpeace.org/2016/10/21/china-coal-crackdown- cancel-new-power-plants/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > very strongly influenced by the "question authority" ethos of 1960s and '70s > counterculture

Sounds like he's really a shining example of those hippie ideals. Strike back at "the man" and his regulations on behalf of those poor oppressed oil, gas and, coal corporations.

Pardon my language here, since I think of hacker news as a place for intelligent and respectful discussion, but, _fuck_

<comment><USER17> The way they sell this is by appealing directly to the people losing what amounted to very high paying but relatively unskilled jobs. Coal mining, working on an oil platform, working in a refinery, etc.

That's why people believe this rhetoric even though it seems absurd on its face. They see the faces of people who have lost jobs that is largely obscured from other parts of America because it's of the geographic distribution of signed paychecks to the American middle and lower class.

To defeat that rhetoric over the next 2 years, liberals and socialists need to find a story for how they're going to solve that problem and preserve a livelihood for folks suffering.

And to be honest, that's a wee bit frustrating because as a whole millennials are already tackling these economic challenges without the safety net of a massive lobby, while being told they're lazy and valueless, and often with crippling student debt for a poorly conducted degree. But a vote is a vote, and not every citizen can or will vote against direct self-interest on moral grounds.

<comment><USER18> Frankly, we had the candidate to address this. Taxpayer-funded education would have allowed these otherwise useless people to gain useful skills.

I fear from now until the world becomes uninhabitable through climate change that these useless people will remain useless and keep voting in fascists and ultranationalists that will quite literally destroy the planet out of spite for the "elite" who were lucky and skilled enough to be useful to society.

<comment><USER17> Quite frankly, neither party has truly addressed public reeducation in a way that is economically viable for adults losing their jobs. We aren't even providing it to young people who ostensibly need it.

Until we have a way to offer adult education in a way that is financially viable to individuals AND preserves their dignity and aligns with American distaste for pure subsidy, this issue will be nothing but a token talking point for both parties.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is the stuff we should all be protesting. This is the type of appointment that can be changed in no time if enough people make their thoughts known. Come on all let the powers that be know that you don't like the choice.

<comment><USER20> How should we go about doing this? Do we call a congressperson, or do something else?

<comment><USER19> This is a presidential appointment and the senate needs to approve it. Let your senator know how you feel about it. Also, let president Elect Trump know about your feelings and he might even back down on the selection. If anything is important this is. What the US does in this area influences what the rest of the world does. Also we, as a nation, are a chief producer of green house gasses.

We are suppose to be the smart ones, the doers, the dreamers. Prove it! DO SOMETHING to change the world.

<comment><USER20> Thank you, I'll call my senator!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't think that climate change is something that you can believe in. You can acknowledge or deny its existence but certainly cannot believe in it.

The problem with the coal and fossil fuels is that we use a technology to produce energy that is literally 400,000 years old. We have the new technology ready (nuclear power) yet we stick to this old, polluting tech. This is insane.

<comment><USER22> Yes, we need to expand nuclear, develop new nuclear technologies and agree upon a target global temperature. Sooner rather than later.

<comment><USER23> The problem with nukes is the required long-term storage of the byproducts. Ask the people who live near the salt mines in New Mexico.

<comment><USER24> Yep.

I once believed that salt mines were a perfect storage place for environmental/nuclear crap. That is, until I read

"Salt: A World History" by Mark Kurlansky

[https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark- Kurlansky/dp/...](https://www.amazon.com/Salt-World-History-Mark- Kurlansky/dp/0142001619)

British towns in the 19th century collapsed when salt miners removed subterranean salt by pumping water in and brine out:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+...](https://www.google.com/search?q=salt+mining+in+19th+century+collapse&tbm=isch&sa=G&hl=en&gbv=1&sei=nEAnWNqpB8TUmwGDiIS4Bg)

Here's a nice picture(scroll down to see the leaning houses):

[http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend- part-2.ht...](http://nbgecko.blogspot.com/2012/10/wadihs-weekend-part-2.html)

Turns out that if you pour water into a salt deposit, dissolve the salt and pump out the brine, the terrain above may collapse (salt columns were supporting it). Any remaining brine not pumped to the surface may travel who- knows-where underground to dissolve other salt deposits.

England went through decades of lawsuits and legislation wherein landowners cried for recompense of their collapsed lands from salt producers. The salt producers claimed it wasn't their mining that caused the collapses and the landowners usually lost.

Fast forward to oil/gas fracking in Texas, Oklahoma and other states:

most gas/oil deposits are under salt domes. Fracking injects water (and other chemicals) into the subterranean structures, the salt dissolves and the oil/gas is freed to rise. As in England, the brine that is not removed is free to travel miles underground, removing structure that has lain dormant for eons and collapsing the land above. But fracking also uses chemicals, not merely brine, and so the chance of pollution (esp. of water wells) is increased. The frackers say it does no harm. But funny sounds are coming from below and fracking chemicals are showing up in places (e.g., water wells) where they are not wanted:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&b...](https://www.google.com/search?q=fracking+chemicals+migrate&btnG=Search&hl=en)

<comment><USER25> One famous most recent case: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayou_Corne_sinkhole](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayou_Corne_sinkhole)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> We are so screwed.

Edit: we've known about the greenhouse effect since Victorian times, why is this still so controversial?

<comment><USER27> Because: money

<comment><USER28> Because: externalized costs

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Defeat ignorance with cleverness. Create a solution that is far superior to what coal and oil have to offer. Make it so affordable that you cut the coal industry off at the knees without relying on politicians to get the job done.

This site is full of very smart people. Get this shit done!

<comment><USER30> Enter fracked natural gas, stage left.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> The climate change cheat sheet embedded in that article was rather interesting. In addition to stating what we know, it also suggests some personal actions, actions which have been routinely ignored by the population for many years. A couple of quick examples: reduce flights and reduce eating beef.

Instead of having a paternalistic government claim to solve our problems, we can do so. This election might just be a sufficient catalyst to make things happen.

Also don't forget the power to not purchase from companies based on what they are doing and who they are working with.

It is easy to get outraged and for some it is even easy to take dangerous actions, but to deprive oneself of what we want in the hope that others will do the same, that, that is hard.

<comment><USER32> Yeah right, like a couple of private citizens not eating beef anymore is going to put a dent in climate change. We _need_ governments to solve this, because they are the only entities big enough to actually affect this sort of large scale problem.

<comment><USER33> If hypothetically half of the US stopped eating beef today, that would make a huge positive impact on the US climate footprint. It wouldn't matter if the change were instigated by the government or by the people.

<comment><USER34> If my grandma had wheels...

There's some small, temporary reductions in meat consumption in some countries, leveraging religious traditions, and appealing to health reasons.

Maybe, possibly, over many generations, it could work to significantly reduce overall meat consumption. Maybe.

<comment><USER35> Use CRISPR, devise a gene driver using a virus to sterilize cattle, distribute widely. No more cows. It violates no law.

This is already in the field for mosquito control.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Meanwhile in India renewables are outpacing coal...

[https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables- Are-...](https://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/Renewables-Are- Outpacing-Coal-in-India)

<comment><USER37> Man I hope so. ~30% of Indians are without power[1], and I hear they have a lot of coal naturally, so if they're not careful they could be a large growing source of problems in the future as they grid up. It's good to hear that both India and China seem to be taking climate change seriously.

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world- without-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/world-without- power/)

(edited to add link to power fact)

<comment><USER38> Why is this comment being downvoted? Is it because the facts are wrong or because he didn't provide references?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What can citizens do about this? Trump hates women, so I'll donate to PP. Trump hates minorities, so I'll donate to the ACLU. Trump hates the actual physical earth - so what do I do about that?

<comment><USER36> You can donate to people who can take you to Mars

<comment> yoz-y How screwed up would the Earth need to be for this to be remotely an option though?

<comment><AUTHOR> At the rate we're messing up this planet, we'll need to find another planet real fast - relatively speaking, off course.

But have no bother, it won't be in your lifetime. Not this lifetime anyway.

<comment><USER39> The thing that puzzles me about this argument is any planet we find is likely to have a worse atmosphere than even a polluted Earth. If we're able to terraform Mars or whatever then we can likely also reverse the effects of global warming on Earth.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Climate contrarian?". That article was far too diplomatic about a man who stands against scientific consensus and _for_ a global catastrophe.

</comment><comment><USER40> It's worth pointing out that coal is not coming back. Far too much of industry has moved on and converted to natural gas based supply. Not to mention the costs of starting up coal mines and processing again. In the current energy market, it's rather unfathomable.

</comment><comment><USER41> Is there a difference in being the leader of an agency and leading the transition at an agency? Because the latter is what he is labeled as which makes it seems like it's a fairly temporary role.

<comment><USER42> Cabinet positions are appointed by the president and confirmed by congress. Right now, he's just some guy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> This reminds me of James G. Watt- Regan's secretary of interior. He believed it was pointless to worry about the environment since the Lord's second coming was nigh.

</comment><comment><USER44> Trump is a businessman by training. Business pivots a lot. He will probably try different things and pivot as needed in his administration. I'm sure nothing is cast in stone. With enough opposition, he will change his appointment.

He fired his campaign manager for poor result in the primary and brought on a new one who brought success to his campaign. I'm sure he will fire a number of people in the coming days.

<comment><USER45> He fired that campaign manager (Corey Lewandowski) so that he could work for CNN and essentially be the Trump talking head.

Also Trump is probably going to rehire him - [http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/12/corey-lewandowski-donald- trum...](http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/12/corey-lewandowski-donald-trumps- former-campaign-manager-leaves-cnn.html)

<comment><USER44> Corey is much more effective as a campaign manager than a token guy in CNN. He got fired because of the loss of Colorado delegates without voting in the primary. Conway proved to be a better campaign manager anyway, leading to a successful presidential bid.

The point is Trump fires people for poor performance, and he is not afraid to pivot.

<comment><USER45> He is also not afraid to let the KKK march in his name either.

For the record Trump has denounced the protests against him, but not the many white supremacy marches across the country

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I'm sure he _does_ believe in it - as I'm sure many who are "climate deniers" in positions of power do, but the profit motive to get _others_ to not believe in it is simply too strong for a man of wretched morals.

I mean, one can make the rational (with a rather callous set of precepts) argument that if it happens after you're dead it doesn't matter - I had this argument made to me by a hedge fund owner/manager last year who I queried over his heavy investment in fossils - he is essentially looking to make a fortune and isn't concerned about the "far future".

Where things will get interesting is when these figures realise that it isn't far future, it's going to impact _their_ quality of life - but by then it'll likely be too late.

<comment><USER47> Or they assume that they and their families will be rich enough to avoid the consequences of climate change. Which is probably true.

<comment><USER46> I'm not sure any amount of wealth will be enough, ultimately. You can't eat gold, and if we end up with mass displacement of people, we either go totalitarian or anarchy as the ship sinks.

I don't think _any_ of us will get out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> If this scares you, consider donating.

[http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/](http://climatesciencedefensefund.org/)

(I posted this as a reply to one of the comments but I want to make sure it's seen, given the gravity of the situation.)

</comment><comment><USER49> I just watched Before the Flood, and then right after I see this trending here.. god help us..

</comment><comment><USER50> Trump won't listen to traditional environmental groups. I think what is needed is for a right-wing organization to offer a conservative non-denier as an alternative, and mount a large public campaign to pressure Trump to change course.

Perhaps the scariest part of Trump is that he is such an unknown blank slate, but that also offers an opportunity if we recognize it.

I'm contacting my Republican Senator and making an, admittedly, futile attempt to appeal to his reason. Please consider doing the same: [http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/](http://www.senate.gov/senators/contact/)

</comment><comment><USER51> This kind of thing is what scares me most about a trump presidency (that and wondering what kind of over the top candidates are going to appear in three years to try and imitate his success) but I'm trying really hard to be positive and see a way out for the climate, and I only see two options

1\. Green energy becomes so much more competitive than fossil that trump and his cronies have to do a 180

2\. Millions more people worldwide are inspired to go green and start generating their own green power, through wind and solar technology like musks roof tiles.

Preferably both, otherwise it's goodbye civilisation in the next 50-100 years.

I have to try and be an optimist

<comment><USER52> #2 isn't going to happen anytime soon. Governments worldwide are cutting funding and subsidies for micro generation, and even though it could lead to a small profit over time, nobody wants to pay say $20k upfront[0] to have a solar system fitted.

Its kind of funny, because if we paid more in the short term we could do a lot to limit climate change, and even reduce energy costs in the future - <USER2> everyone just wants everything as cheap as possible now.

[0] Although I have seen companies offering to install panels on your property, which they own, then they pay you a % of the profits from energy generated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> > "I really think that people should be suspicious of authority," he told an > interviewer last year. "The more you're told that you have to believe > something, the more you should question it."

This amounts to a sort of intellectual homeopathy when it comes to dismissing the scientific consensus on an issue without commensurate evidence.

</comment><comment><USER54> Why is it that I can't download all the relevant climate data, and all the mathematical models of climate, and run the scenario myself?

It's all government funded, so why isn't it open and available?

</comment><comment><USER55> The inmates have taken over the asylum.

</comment><comment><USER56> Back in the cold war days it was something of a banal truism that only an objective, external threat--e.g. alien invaders--could ever get us squabbling apes to set our differences aside and work together towards some common goal.

It is very likely that within a decade the effects of climate change will go from "scientists arguing" to "transparent to everyone".

Although this will not exactly be "alien invaders"\--"real life godzilla" seems closer to the mark--civilization as we know it will be faced with an external threat that cares not for what we think--indeed, that cannot be bargained with--but only for how we act (and indeed, if we act).

If nothing else that thought experiment will become a real experiment soon; I hope we make it through.

One thing to consider is how much uglier our national discourse will likely become. For example, the narrative around our recent election seems to be settling around a rejection of urban and coastal elites and experts: middle america is tired of being ignored, insulted, condescended-to, looked down upon as ignorant yokels, and so on and so forth..."show us and our opinions some respect", they say, electing the man who's now appointing the man who's going to (literally) slam the pedal to the metal while (figuratively) rolling coal all the way.

I wonder how these people will wind up being thought-of once climate change goes from _deniable_ \--as it is now, at least domestically--to _undeniable_ (as it certainly will, and likely soon).

I mean, seriously: if for forty years you've been warned by experts that continuing to do X will eventually lead to Y, you continue to do X, and it eventually leads to Y...how can you reasonably expect anyone to respect you? To consider your opinions worth the time and energy even to listen to, let alone take into consideration? Why should you _not_ expect to be seen as anything other than an _idiot_ in the classical sense ("incapable of useful reasoning; danger to self and others")?

I do not expect this to end well--culturally and socially--and expect it will play out far uglier than the dust bowl...

I also think readers on this site vastly underestimate how radically the world will shift once change becomes undeniable; the default assumption seems to be that things will generally continue as they always have right up until it gets so bad it's game over for everyone.

In reality, as soon as it climate change begins having undeniable impacts expect a radical changes in financial behavior...which will likely have direct, pervasive impact upon daily life well in advance of the _direct_ impacts of climate change proper.

Will the 30-year mortgage remain typical for home purchases? Will 5-year commercial leases remain typical? Will it remain possible to price weather derivatives accurately enough to be viable? Will SV angels continue hobby- investing in high-risk, high-reward gambles, or turn their attention to second homes in northern latitudes?

I can only see a move to shorter time horizons and more risk aversion from the private sector.

</comment><comment><USER57> jrcii was not downvoted. it is a banned account, and you are seeing it because you have "show dead" enabled.

<comment><USER24> Thank you.

I looked at jrcii's account and see what you describe: jrcii was feeling his oats after the elections and took a Trumpic victory lap by posting a pretty snarky comment on YC. In that comment jrcii disses:

climate warning, "Silicon Valley people, LA people, NYC people, city people, liv[ing] in a bubble formed by the urban politics around you and reinforced by liberal college professors, the liberal students they create, and the liberal mass media. This is simply not reality for vast swaths of the country."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12917083](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12917083)

OK, so he does this once, just once. There's no pattern of misbehavior. He didn't threaten anyone (no "Second Amendment People" comin'!). For all we know he's the last conservative in SF and needs to blow off steam.

YC is a great forum. I think it harsh for a techie to be banned for a single scattergun comment especially after a heated election. I would think a caution would be better at this juncture, or even some ribbing: "OK, we hear you celebrating! Your guy won this time. But soon we'll find out whether he can ride the horse!" or such.

<comment><USER58> I'm not sure why you think that account was banned for a single comment. When we ban accounts we almost always do so after repeated warnings, and then we post about why we've done it: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12703655](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12703655).

<comment><USER24> My bad and I apologize for the oversight. When I reviewed jrcii's comments I failed to notice the "More" link at bottom of the first page and there is indeed a bit "More" to read!8-O

I appreciate your thoroughness.

jrcii is indeed a bit sensitive. From the nature of his last post, I suspect he regrets being banned from YC, where he was active for almost two years. Too bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I don't care what they do or don't believe in.

Will they build out nuclear power? If yes, then good.

Will they engage in feel-good unilateral emissions cuts that hurt our economy and don't do anything about climate change? If no, then good.

<comment><USER16> Actually, it sounds like he might be moving towards a situation where "we" burn a lot more coal, do a lot more fracking and, do a lot more of the things that generally release carbon into the atmosphere.

That actually is a very bad thing.

Potentially increasing emissions during a time when _not cutting them deep enough_ represents a catostrophic risk, is a really bad thing.</comment></comment>


For 3G iPhone, AT&T drops rev-share model with Apple - <AUTHOR> http://www.thestandard.com/news/2008/06/09/3g-iphone-drops-revenue-sharing-t-apple-due-handset-subsidy

<comment><USER2> > will have their existing 2-year commitment restarted when buying a new > iPhone.

Cellphone companies are the ultimate evil.

<comment><USER3> Actually I thought this was a very un-evil thing for them to do, considering my experience with cell phone companies in the past. They could have said that you can't upgrade, or that upgrading would tack on two additional years. Instead they said your 2-year commitment will restart, which is pretty awesome I think.

<comment><USER2> But they are tacking on an additional two years?

<comment><USER3> Not on top of the remainder of the 2 year contract from the last iPhone. (i.e. rather than extending your contract to 3 years, they just delete the old contract and create a new one that is 2 years)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, either way, that sucks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There goes Apple's main motivation to try and prevent iPhones from being unlocked.

<comment><USER5> Why would that be motivation in the first place? The contracts have a minimum run-time of 2 years, so Apple wins even if you pop a different SIM in the phone.</comment></comment>


Facebook tries Google's WebP image format; users squawk - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57580664-93/facebook-tries-googles-webp-image-format-users-squawk/

<comment><USER2> I think this kerfuffle does point at something that would be nice to have ratified in the HTML spec somewhere: the idea that content exists in different qualities and formats, and that when the user requests to download the content, she's presented with the different options possible. Content negotiation still only has one chosen format come down the pipe; a decision that the user probably hasn't made.

Right now, we're stuck with everybody doing something different in the page design to do something that's pretty important and fairly intrinsic to much of what happens on the web. And so users just default to the thing they know works everywhere, which is Save As... It's not surprising some of them are upset.

The only issue I can see with this is that there are security concerns with being able to override what is actually downloaded when Save As is used.

<comment><USER3> In Chrome, it looks like we're going to register as the default handler for webp images, so they're viewable post-download, similar to what's done with PDFs: <https://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=234275>

<comment><USER4> Why not trans-code the image format to something more common if the user wants to save the image? I would imagine that would be far more useful to the vast majority of users.

<comment><USER5> A good discussion on this here: [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/chromiu...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/#!msg/chromium- discuss/oUBhAMDX17U/RyvQ89PmKq0J)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The primary complaint here is users don't know what to do with a .webp when they download their photos. And support does seem limited; it looks like Photoshop needs a plugin, for instance. But Facebook could solve that specific problem by having a real "Download as JPG" button while still using WebP for inline images.

<comment><USER7> Why does Facebook have to do anything here? Isn't reducing file sizes and load times the right thing to do for them? Shouldn't the burden fall on image viewers/editors?

If the format beats out PNG & JPG, the industry will follow and image editors will get built in support.

Reducing file size is more important than short term convenience here.

<comment><USER8> > Why does Facebook have to do anything here?

Because they broke the web for their users.

> Reducing file size is more important than short term convenience here.

Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the expense (and inconvenience) of its users.

<comment><USER9> > Because they broke the web for their users.

No, they didn't. The web works fine. They can browse it without any issues. The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines.

> Not for users, no. The only gain here is facebook's bandwidth costs, at the > expense (and inconvenience) of its users.

Change rarely occurs smoothly.

<comment><USER10> > The problems occur when they're trying to do stuff on their local machines.

By all means, try to explain that to users if you like, and if you think they'd care. The issue is that it breaks the user experience, whatever technical reason you'd like to attribute that to.

<comment><USER9> I'm not explaining anything to the users, I'm just explaining to you how you're wrong when you state that they "broke the web for their users".

The users are completely irrelevant, because no matter how much they bitch and moan, they're not going to leave Facebook. Its network effects are too powerful. And so, for once, I actually support Facebook. They're using their dominant market position to push a new standard that is quite good. This will hopefully force companies like Adobe to start adding support for WebP by default. Then we'll finally able to ditch obsolete standards like JPEG and its ilk once and for all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is this really happening via the "Download" link, or is this being caused by people right clicking and saying "Save Image As..." because if you want to preserve or work with images, you probably should not be saving images from the context menu, which are often scaled and processed, and instead be asking for the original/raw/high resolution upload.

<comment><USER12> That's nice in theory, but for years, Facebook photos had no download link, and the only option was to Save As the one you could see. It's very confusing for people when the only way to do something suddenly becomes the wrong way to do it, for no reason they can see.

<comment><USER13> So we should all stand still in time because current tech is understood by this generation?

You have to draw a line somewhere. The download has in fact been there for years now, at least since late '09. I only remember because we had to download a bunch of images and our only source without giving away a surprise was FB. I was given a bunch of crappy 70% 800x600 .jpgs and I had to show the person getting the images the download like, which at the time wasn't even in the Options menu. Users...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The funniest thing about this article was the image comparison between JPG and WebP, saved as JPEG-vs-WebP.jpg. Nice one CNET.

<comment><USER15> Par for the course...

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm not sure if one user's ungrammatical post to a mailing list means much. These are the people that post angry comments on readwriteweb when they search for "facebook login" and click through to an article instead of Facebook:

[http://readwrite.com/2010/02/10/facebook_wants_to_be_your_on...](http://readwrite.com/2010/02/10/facebook_wants_to_be_your_one_true_login)

</comment><comment><USER17> Why is this even a news story? Surely if anything we should be praising the use of a new and arguably beneficial image format rather than complaining about some users incompetence to grab a view to open it on their computer.

It really seems such a bizarre thing to be complaining about. Facebook could make it a little easier by having a download as jpeg image option as well.

The world is always moving forward, why don't we just go back to bitmaps!

<comment><USER18> People care about pictures which are important to them. They don't care about the encoding scheme currently in vogue or reducing Facebook's bandwidth bill by a small percentage at a significant interoperability and thus usability hit. The average computer user has been able to use "Save As" on images for every image they've every seen online with little question that the result will work with their local applications – until now.

The most charitable way I can describe your decision to blame the user is poorly considered. I would like to see new formats catch on but early adopters have to assume responsibility for the growing pains – Facebook making the trivial effort required to make their download link more prominent is about as easy as it gets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Obligatory: <http://xkcd.com/1172/>

<comment><USER20> When I saw that link, I was expecting to open this one: <http://xkcd.com/927/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Gimp has a plugin for WebP support

<http://registry.gimp.org/node/25874>

<http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1809284>

Apparently Photoshop does too: [https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/?fromgroup...](https://groups.google.com/a/webmproject.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/webp- discuss/QU9xSMZO-A4)

</comment><comment><USER22> I remember this exact same argument about 20 years ago when JPG started getting popular. "I need a _special_ program to see it?"

The viewers and OSs and browsers will catch up soon enough.

<comment><USER18> JPEG was an enormous improvement, particularly given the far slower connections in use at the time: waiting minutes rather than hours to download an image over my 2400bps modem was huge. In contrast, WebP offers marginal compression improvements, significantly increased hardware requirements and only a few technical improvements (e.g. alpha channels & lossless, although since the latter is so much slower and less effective than PNG I'm not sure there's much of a point).

For many users, this simply isn't enough to justify pushing it through the toolchain.

<comment><USER23> It may be slower but why do you think its less effective?

[http://extrememoderate.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/a-web- centri...](http://extrememoderate.wordpress.com/2011/11/28/a-web-centric- image-compression-benchmark/)

And that's not counting the benefits of when PNG is used for alpha in otherwise photorealistic images where you can get 70% benefits at web sizes.

<comment><USER18> Less effective = lower compression savings. I was testing with source lossless JP2s in the 6MB range: PNG was 14MB and WebP took at least 10x compression time to hit 20MB (tied with TIFF LZW for least savings).

<comment><USER23> So it looks like it is effective in web use cases, like lossy photos (especially with alpha), logos, icons etc., but not for non-web cases like large, lossless photos that need to be compressed quickly. Seems like a good engineering tradeoff to me.

<comment><USER18> First, declaring everything WebP is bad at as "non web" assumes that everyone uses the web only for things they don't care about, which isn't remotely true as the original article shows. People save what they can see - and normal people don't want to switch tools for each situation.

Second, it's still not the case that WebP offers a significant advantage over JPEG-2000 or JPEG-XR, both of which are standardized, better supported, more flexible, and have much better designed file formats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Changing user-agent as article suggest is a little too extreme. Looks like no one knows about download link under options, that link servers jpg.

<comment><USER25> To be fair, "options" isn't where I would expect a download link to be.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Solution: Someone write chrome plugin that will let people convert from webp to jpeg when downloading from chrome: [https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups=#...](https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups=#!topic/chromium- discuss/oUBhAMDX17U) . Just add option "Save and convert webp to jpeg" next to "save as" if plugin detects it may be webp.

</comment><comment><USER27> Just have Facebook add a "Download as JPEG" button and let us all go back to more important things.

<comment><USER28> But then Facebook have to store two formats, something I'm sure they don't want to do.

<comment><USER29> They're doing that anyway because they serve non-webp images to users with non-webp-supporting browsers. Anyhow, this is the image that's for display, which is resized/compressed; they store and allow you to download the original no matter what.

I'm skeptical of this solution for other reasons, though (like that it assumes users know what JPG means).

<comment><USER30> Users who don't know what JPG means are not going to be attempting to edit the images in photoshop. Although perhaps they are saving the files to their local windows machine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It is a symptom of lack of interoperability. People do share images. They link them. They save them. They e-mail them. They mix and edit. They re-upload them to other sites.

JPEG has such a broad interoperability that we don't even notice just how incredibly many sites/apps/libraries/OSes/devices support it. Having WebP support only in Chrome is not enough for it to be 1st class citizen.

Just think how many apps and services need to adopt the format before you'll able to upload your avatar in WebP without worrying it won't work.

</comment><comment><USER32> I was struck by the supposed reluctance to update the browser's accept header to specify that the browser now accepts this image type. It's what it's for.

The "every time you add a byte it stays" argument is specious -- how often have we added an image format to the web?

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content_negotiation>

<comment><USER5> Actually: <https://chromiumcodereview.appspot.com/13814024> :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> My understanding is that WebP is superior to Jpeg when encoding from a lossless image but:

(1) if I upload a lossy jpeg what gains is FB really getting by using WebP?

(2) Or am I taking a quality hit on what they serve?

Let's say there's no quality hit and somehow they make a lossless WebP version of my lossy jpeg that still fits in 20% fewer bytes. Define X as the dollar savings gained by delivering these images scaled up to quadrillions of images served.

My understanding is that WebP makes it's gains by a 10x longer encode. Define Y as the dollar cost of encoding and storing trillions of images in WebP.

(3) What are the odds X is actually greater than Y?

</comment><comment><USER34> In Chrome, right click, copy image, paste in Paint.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm somewhat curious of the reason of why some users would like to download images from facebook.

</comment><comment><USER36> Has Google provided patches to all the open source image tools to handle WebP images?

<comment><USER37> This can only be a troll... 'all the open source image tools'? That seems like an intractable set to me. They shouldn't need to. I see there's an imlib2 webp loader. It is BSD licensed. I don't see that it came from Google.

So what's your point? We're supposed to be hating Facebook anyway, not Google in this article.

<comment><USER36> "Some of the most popular open source tools" would have been better.

Google is a huge company, with many good programmers.

A reference implementation is great.

Provide patches to some of the most used open source products just helps Google spread their tech, and helps all those open source products.

My post wasn't meant to be a dig at Google. Re-reading it I see that it could be read that way, and I apologise for that.

<comment><USER37> I understand. <https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/download>

There is a set of command-line utilities, a library with source, and a codec for Windows Imaging Component which has no parallel in Linux that I am aware of. (save imlib2 and friends)

I don't know any project that uses image formats in any way and does not link directly with libpng, libjpeg, lib(un)gif, or other directly supporting libraries that are tied to individual formats. There is an evas webp loader on eina, which is no help to Gnome or KDE users, and there are dozens if not hundreds of projects that probably need support to be added.

Don't know how ubiquitous Windows Imaging Component is in MS-land, but it seems like a much easier problem to have solved.</comment></comment></comment></comment>