Ars Technica founder on the AR-15 - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jonst0kes/why-i-need-an-ar-15-832e05ae801c#.tyon34x8o <comment><USER2> I understand that many politicians are woefully illiterate about what they think are "assault weapons", and I sympathize greatly with how annoying it must be to constantly be accused of being "sexually inadequate" and other ridiculous insults that distract from the real issues. The main problem with this author's argument, as I see it, is that while the AR-15 is very _convenient_ , making it easily accessible for any adults who wants one is not worth the price for society as a whole. That is - would it really be an infringement on the author's rights, if as the author points out, he would need to have 3 separate guns for sporting, hunting, and use of force?

When discussing gun control, I often personally consider my own opinions on the proposed banning/legal control over encryption in public debate. Specifically, I wonder whether it is hypocritical to want to limit the sale and use semi-automatic weapons, while simultaneously arguing that encryption must be fully legal and "everyone shouldn't be punished for a few bad apples". My conclusion is usually that banning/compromising encryption would fundamentally destroy the security and privacy of critical software for everyone on a massive scale. However, I don't think the impact would be nearly as severe for gun owners that might need to pass a few ID checks and own several weapons if needed for different uses.

So my question is, to gun owners that support existing laws regarding semi- automatic weapons like the AR-15- would limiting its sale really be really as devastatingly harmful to society at large (as to warrant those existing laws)?

<comment><USER3> Author here: I consider responses like this a win, because if we're going to talk blanket bans then the discussion should really be about whether or not anyone needs a semi-auto weapon. If we moved the gun ban debate from "AR-15" or "assault rifle" to "semi-auto weapon of any kind", that would represent a step in the direction of sanity.

I personally would prefer to forget about the "what" and focus entirely on the "who", but more on that another day.

<comment><USER4> One of the problems with weapons in the AR 15 class is that they are very commonly converted to fully automatic. I cannot say if any recent mass shooting has featured such a gun, but a few of the Bundy militants in NV/OR were cited for possession of them, or bragged about possessing them on social media and forums.

Perhaps I just live in an unfortunate part of Texas, but I know a number of people who have performed the mod on theirs… and frankly, among the people I know, these were already there people I was last comfortable knowing owned any firearms at all...

<comment><USER5> Is this a real issue? I can't think of any mass shootings where a rifle was illegally modified to be full auto.

<comment><USER3> You are correct. Nobody is getting gunned down by full auto here in the US. Now, some terrorist yahoo may yet change that before I'm done typing this reply, but as of now the number of people who've been killed by civilian full auto fire since the NFA ban is in the low single digits last I checked.

<comment><USER6> Even then, they could just as easily be brought in through mexico or other means as conversion of other arms here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I came away from this article feeling like I had a better understanding of why the AR-15 is such a popular weapon - considered configurable, reliable, etc. The historical argument about buying military-grade weapons because it's known to be reliable _because it has to be_ made sense to me as well.

However, I didn't feel like I understood why he needed that gun. Is he a hunter? Does he own his AR-15 for self-defense? As far as I could tell, the reason he wanted the rifle is because it's considered "cool" and he makes it clear that he views it as somewhat of a toy. Calling the AR-15 "a Lego kit for adults" made my stomach turn, but I understand where he's coming from.

EDIT: a commenter below mentions that the author lives on a 17-acre farm and owns a gun to take care of animals that invade, as well as for recreational shooting.

What's missing from this article is a discussion of _why_ so many guys feel like they need to own such a weapon (and usually more than one) in the first place. If you're a hunter, survivalist, preparing for the zombie apocalypse, fine, yes, you need a weapon. That's understandable.

But it seems disingenuous for the author to write such a long post without including a critique of the way the AR-15 is marketed. A common ad I've seen posted is just a picture of the rifle with the caption: "consider your man card reissued". Call me insensitive, but the person who gets fired up by that ad is not someone I want to see owning a rifle. Or any kind of weapon for that matter.

Our definition of what it means to be "a real man" needs a deep and thorough re-evaluation.

<comment><USER6> The AR-15 is inappropriate for the likes of deer or elk, and overkill from smaller animals...

The many sizes of ammo and rounds are the nature of having many weapons from many manufacturers in many cultures, mostly around war times.

Some people are just avid collectors... Nobody _needs_ to have 2+ cars per household, and teenage deaths from auto accidents are significant.

For me, it's about extending personal freedom and accepting that you can never be completely safe. In the case of this shooting, it probably would have been a bomb otherwise, and would have killed/injured about as many people.

<comment><USER8> The gun is perfect for varmint hunting. It handles anything from a coyote down and I am not sure what overkill means it all depends on the bullet style. Also ar-15 style guns don't have to me .277 they can be higher caliber suitable for dear/elk. Although I agree I would rather have a lite weight bolt action if I am walking and elk hunting alot. The modular nature is great for coyote hunting.

<comment><USER6> I mean that for smaller things, rabbits, prairy dogs etc... I'd probably be inclined to reach for a .22 LR... same regarding elk/deer. 3030 or 308 ...

As to the style, I think that's more about personal preference... I'm not concerned about people that want "scary looking" guns.

Again, I'm not an owner... but with all this talk, wondering if i can find a local butcher that carries rabbit.

... wow, just looked, didn't realize there were that many caliber choices...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For a time I was paid by the US gov't to use the AR-15 for its original purpose. I was well trained and used it very effectively. Later I was trained to smith it as well.

It fucking terrifies me that so many of you people have one.

It's a tough position for me to be in. I support the 2nd amendment but I don't think you folks should have access to this sort of weapon of war.

There are plenty of options that provide the utility of home defense, plinking, target practice, and hunting without having a 30 ROUND FUCKING MAG.

In a military context we wouldn't call the AR-15 a "mass casualty producing weapon" because there are relatively higher caliber, faster cycling, higher capacity, man portable weapons. However in the civilian context the AR-15 is most definitely a "mass casualty producing weapon" and should not be easily obtained.

<comment><USER10> When I was in Fallujah we let each household keep one AK (which was almost always full-auto). Why did we do this? Because it is immoral to strip an individual of all means for self defense, especially when we knew that we couldn't protect everybody. So while the US is not a war zone, when does such a moral principle kick in?

I don't trust everybody with a rifle, hell - I especially don't trust you given your expressed view, but I accept the fact that the police can't protect everybody - and it is immoral to insist that they depend on protection that isn't there.

<comment><USER9> Brother you know why they were allowed an AK. I did the same cordon and searches too. They faced a different threat model.

<comment><USER11> I wish my fellow warriors would learn to remember their oath to the constitution (and therefore the second amendment) in discussions like this. The fact that you don't seem to is sad but indicative of the general disregard for the importance of oaths these days.

<comment><USER9> That's a pretty serious accusation there buddy. How specifically am I disregarding my oath?

<comment><USER11> Your casual and flippant disregard for the need to arms oneself with more than a single shot pea shooter is in direct contradiction with the second amendment. Do you disagree? (and keep it on point) Also, my verbiage left room for you to correct, eg. " don't seem to", so it's not an accusation... yet. Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread.

<comment><USER12> Your comments in this thread crossed repeatedly into being uncivil. That breaks the HN guidelines. Please (re-)read [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html) and post civilly and substantively, or not at all, from now on.

<comment><USER11> Really? I am assuming you are speaking about "Be civil. Don't say things you wouldn't say in a face-to-face conversation. Avoid gratuitous negativity. "

First of all. I think that was a bad rule to be introduced in the first place. I don't think there was proper user input on that change, and the backlash was mostly ignored. That being said though...

While I can understand my comments were not put in the nicest of terms and verbiage, I in no way became uncivil. Please indicate precisely to me where I became "uncivil", and please make clear your definition of "uncivil".

Sure, I cussed a couple of times, but last I checked HN wasn't against cussing. As a matter of fact, reviewing my comments in this thread, I see nothing you could take as violating the negativity rule at all, unless you are applying an excessively broad scope to the rule that would set a precedent that would harm HN as a whole.

I do think perhaps this part might be in violation: "Also, the real discussion is in my other comment in this suspiciously flagged thread." That though, is not being uncivil, and would be a violation of another issue, and I shouldn't have said that. It's too late to edit now though.

In short, dang, you don't seem to have provided very clear reasoning for your comment, so I would like you to please clarify. I admit in retrospect this is probably why the article got flagged, perhaps rightly so, because it is a contentious subject that was/is bound to create charged debate. My comments were heated but not uncivil, and your insinuation that they were is concerning to me, especially when the other commenter at one point was making attacks on me based on my PTSD. If anything I would expect you to be saying this to him for that comment.

Dan, I eagerly await your reply, as I have always tried to be a good commenter on HN, and I am open to correction if my errors are pointed out properly.

<comment><USER12> You used phrases ("bullshit it doesn't", "didn't fucking think so", "your casual and flippant disregard", "Do you disagree? (and keep it on point)") that made your comments aggressive and personal. No one who's trying to be respectful would address the person they're talking to that way. HN threads are for respectful conversation, so please edit that kind of thing out of your comments when posting here. As a side effect, you may be surprised how much more substantive and credible they become when you do so. (You're right, btw, that cussing isn't the issue.)

More importantly, you insinuated that a fellow user had violated an oath. That's way out of line. Casually slinging such a serious charge is the kind of thing that turns internet forums into a circle of hell, so please don't do anything like that here.

I gather that you didn't mean to break any rules when posting, and probably were just expressing yourself forcefully about a topic you feel strongly about. That's natural, but if HN is going to reach the standard of civility that we strive for, we all have to exercise self-control re the 'forcefully' part. Other people doubtless feel as strongly as you do, have had different experiences that led them to different views, and—given how little information online discussions convey—may not even be understanding you correctly (or vice versa). That's a lot of opportunities for conflict, so interesting discussion depends on all of us restraining our impulses.

<comment><USER11> Dan, thanks for taking the time to type that response. I am going to take your correction to heart and try to adjust my tone in future conversations, as after having time to cool off I think you are correct that I could have expressed more self control, which would have in turn created a better discussion and debate. I'm not jealous of your job of moderation, but I'm impressed with this interaction so I tip my hat to you.

<comment><USER12> What a nice reply to come back and find here. Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> On the question of "why is there no moderate alternative to the NRA that attracts middle-of-the-road gun owners?", what a lot of people who aren't involved in the community don't understand is that the NRA _is_ the moderate alternative group. The more extremist groups include Gun Owners of America ([https://gunowners.org/](https://gunowners.org/)), Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership ([http://jpfo.org/](http://jpfo.org/)), National Association for Gun Rights ([https://www.nationalgunrights.org/](https://www.nationalgunrights.org/)), and Citizen's Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms ([http://www.ccrkba.org/](http://www.ccrkba.org/)), among many others at the national and state level.

Last I checked, all of these smaller gun rights groups still have bigger membership rolls than the biggest anti-rights groups.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't actually think at any point in this article did he really articulate why he "needs" an AR-15.

Only that he wants one.

Which is perfectly fine. However at the end of the day I don't think peoples wants should trump my -need- to be safe.

<comment><USER15> I like the analogy of swimming pools. I don't _need_ a swimming pool, and having a pool by definition makes neighborhood children and visitors with children to my house less safe.

In fact, children under 15 are about 40 times more likely to die by swimming pool than by an accidental firearms discharge [0].

I still have a pool. There are reasonable laws about having auto-closing gates and a fenced-in yard. I don't see anyone clambering to tighten restrictions on assault swimming pools.

Likewise, semi-automatic, detachable-magazine-fed rifles are responsible for something like 2% of shootings. The only real place they have significance is in mass shootings. The only refute I have to, "but if we ban these rifles we won't have shootings" is that it would just happen through a different means. The Happy Land Fire killed 87 people, not a shot fired. Timothy McVeigh killed 189 people with fertilizer... and that was in 1995 -- under the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994.

[0] [http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus- sw...](http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/gun-safety/firearms-versus-swimming- pools.php)

<comment><USER16> _The Happy Land Fire killed 87 people, not a shot fired. Timothy McVeigh killed 189 people with fertilizer... and that was in 1995 -- under the "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994._

I don't understand arguments like this at all. Is the argument that "there are other bad things so we shouldn't tackle this thing"?

<comment><USER15> It's the substitution problem. The argument (seems to be), "If we ban semi- automatic rifles, that person who wants to kill all those people won't be able to harm anyone."

History has shown us this simply isn't the case. People who want to kill people will kill people with whatever means available. Happy Land, Oklahoma City, etc are just examples of this. I didn't see a huge push to ban pressure cookers after the Boston bombings.

<comment><USER16> _People who want to kill people will kill people with whatever means available. Happy Land, Oklahoma City, etc are just examples of this._

Does anyone take this argument seriously? This is a genuine question - I find it difficult to understand how that argument seems compelling to anyone?

Of course there are lots of ways to kill people!

The primary use of fertilizer, gasoline and pressure cookers isn't killing. The primary purpose of guns is.

<comment><USER17> Keep the guns available! I'd rather have someone come after me with a gun than with a pressure cooker or fertilizer bomb:

\- The gun can be a symbol conveying intent. Possibly one can negotiate or leave the premises in time. In contrast a pressure cooker in a corner does not immediately tell me that someone is out to get me. That is, I can be surprised more easily by an exploding pressure cooker or fertilizer bomb. At least with the gun I know what's going on.

\- Fertilizer, gasoline and pressure cooker bombs do not tend to produce predictable wounds and often produce fatalities. I'm more likely to survive if an angry man shoots me than if he blows me up with a pressure cooker. Also the trauma surgeons have a better chance of stitching me up. Finally I'd rather live the rest of my life with a bullet in my butt than a pressure cooker lid up my ass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This article is absolutely appropriate for HN, had an active, engaged, and _non-hostile_ comment section, and SHOULD NOT have been banned/flagged as inappropriate. We are all worse off because it was.

I strongly suspect that those hitting the "flag" button did so on ideological grounds, in order to shut down discussion they did not approve of.

<comment><USER19> I didn't flag it and I am participating in it and I don't think it's a good Hacker News discussion. Gun control, assault rifles, the AR15, etc. are all topics covered by the US mainstream media. I've seen them regularly since Hinkley shot Reagan and James Brady became a high profile casualty. I'm too young to know much about how it was before that.

Maybe two weeks ago, it might have been a "better" story. Today, it's not unreasonable to read it as someone's reaction to the events in Orlando and to judge a love song to the firearm used there in poor taste. Even if that was not the author's intention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So I'm no gun person (I don't even live in the US), but I know a little bit and have shot some.

This post has as much misinformation as anything else you'll read about gun.

1) The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2, military rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal: shooting and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most person to person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly used for suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close range combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you can use an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but that doesn't make it a hunting rifle.

2) He's right about the "defensive rifle" nonsense. Is that even a thing people talk about?

3) He's right about the impossibility of defining "Assault Weapons" (although maybe restricting large capacity magazines isn't entirely stupid). His suggestion (?) about banning semi-automatic weapons seems reasonable to me.

<comment><USER3> I think you're probably a reasonable guy, and you've gotten your wires crossed, so please go back and read the article again, because nothing in the following paragraph is a response to anything I claimed in the piece or actually think:

"The Henry rifle thing. During the Civil War period and up until WW2, military rifles and hunting rifles were basically designed with the same goal: shooting and hitting things at range. During WW2 people noticed that most person to person combat was actually at close range, and rifles were mostly used for suppression fire. Rifles like the AR-15 were designed for this close range combat scenario - which is exactly like most mass shootings. Yes, you can use an AR-15 for hunting - they are pretty good at killing things, but that doesn't make it a hunting rifle."

<comment><USER16> I think it does. Your argument is that the AR-15 is the modern equivalent to the Henry rifle, which is true. But modern combat rifles are designed for different goals (killing quickly at close range), which isn't the use case for hunting.

You argue that police use makes it legitimate, but this is exactly wrong: police use it for the same reason the military do: killing quickly at close range.

Yes, the modularity of the AR-15 means you can adapt to to do other things. That isn't a strength from the point of view of stopping mass killings though.

<comment><USER20> AR-15s can be used for long range weapons. 5.56 is effective out to 600 yards.

You can even use a different caliber in it like 6.5mm Grendel which is a 1000 yard round.

So you can most certainly use it for rapid follow up shots at long ranges while hunting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> My take on the AR-15:

The Plaza Theater where Christina Grimmie was shot last week is less than a mile from where I went to Junior High. I saw the _Friday the 13th_ there on a group date the last day of ninth grade. My sister and brother in law drum and dance there on stage from time to time with their friends and community.

The building where the other hundred odd people were shot last week used to be an Italian restaurant. the closest to the house where I grew up. I ate in that building more than a few times...both buildings I guess if concessions count. My mom is pushing 80. She was out walking the dog Sunday morning. She asked a neighbor if they knew what all the helicopters were doing.

I'm an alum of the high school a half mile down Kaley Ave from Pulse. Sneaking into Pulse is something its current LGBT students try to do. Some are friends of my nieces and nephews. Some were taught by my sister. The carnage touched a lot of people I know.

That's what I'm thinking about. Tonight, I don't give a fuck about your gun. It's probably a difference in priorities.

</comment><comment><USER21> Here's a gun right that I'd like. I'd like the right to restrict _one other person_ from being able to obtain a weapon. Even at the cost of my own right to do so. Like an anti-concealed-carry.

A huge amount of times the people surrounding these nut-jobs seem to know in advance that they're trouble. If every person had the ability to give up their own right to bear in exchange for preventing one other person from doing the same I think it would make a difference. Think of it as virtualizing the shootout between the two, each neutralizing the other.

Or perhaps a "credit" system where endorsements vs anti-endorsements must be positive? (You'd start with +1 for your own endorsement of yourself).

Difficult to implement to be sure but interesting idea?

<comment><USER18> That's somewhat what the author was suggesting when he mentioned "network effects" near the end of the article.

And you're right: by focusing on _shooters_ —not weapons—the quote-unquote problem of rifles like that AR-15 being available to the general public becomes a lot more tractable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I love how this is twenty paragraphs of narcissistic libertarianism followed with a conclusion that hints at "shooter control" through "network effects", which is some truly Orwellian language for government targeting of citizens based on their religious, social or political affiliations.

<comment><USER3> And I love this ignorant response, because I (the author) voted for a socialist in the Dem primary, and my "network effects"-based shooter control scheme is decentralized and designed to appeal to libertarians.

<comment><USER22> I will wait for you to publish it. Does the decentralization depend on concerned citizens reporting their neighbours to the government, or is it more of a vigilante thing?

<comment><USER3> No, it's more of a shared risk/liability via voluntary associations thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I liked the article and have more of an appreciation for those that enjoy guns. For myself I never understood why people would need or want anything more than a small pistol, which this opened my eyes to the other side.

But serious question (and apologies if I missed it), what is wrong with making it _harder_ to buy a gun? Is it true that I could go to a gun show and pretty much walk out with one that same day? What is wrong with just having a more stringent background check and/or classes before one can own a gun? (This may be the case in _some_ states).

<comment><USER18> > _But serious question (and apologies if I missed it), what is wrong with > making it harder to buy a gun?_

I assume it's because it's a) in the Bill of Rights, and thus "not up for discussion—period", and b) historically, governments have disarmed their populace as a prelude to mass murder of dissidents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> As an aside, I love the Orwellian phrase "assault weapon". Out of curiosity, what would a "non-assault" _weapon_ look like? Is there such a thing?

<comment><USER24> There's no such thing as an "assault weapon". That's a media creation by people who don't know anything about guns.

<comment><USER25> By that same reasoning there's no such thing as anything, as we all define words to be whatever we want them to mean.

Semi-automatic or full-automatic + submachine + machine pistols + ... is too much to say. It's a meta-category, which we use all the time to describe things and is incredibly helpful.

<comment><USER26> In my view, attacking terminology is a convenient way of making dialogue impossible. I suspect that "assault weapon" may have originated with the gun manufacturers themselves, as a marketing term, or within military / police circles.

<comment><USER18> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_term...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Assault_weapon#History_of_terminology)

> _Prior to its use in U.S. firearms laws, the term "assault weapon" was > limited to naming certain military weapons, for example, the Rifleman's > Assault Weapon, a grenade launcher developed in 1977 for use with the M16 > assault rifle,[19] or the Shoulder-launched Multipurpose Assault Weapon, a > rocket launcher introduced in 1984._

> _In April 1985, Art Agnos introduced in the California State Assembly a bill > to ban semi-automatic "assault firearms" capable of using detachable > magazines of 20 rounds or more. Speaking to the Assembly Public Safety > Committee, Agnos said, "The only use for assault weapons is to shoot > people." The measure did not pass when it came up for a vote._

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> The debate isn't just about the AR-15, but since the AR-15 is "America's Gun", it just happens to get the spotlight.

The debate is about all military-grade civilian issue long semi-automatic rifles. The debate is about if the potential damage such a weapon can cause in the wrong hands is enough to justify an outright ban (or severe restriction on sales).

It was a well written piece and very informative, but I think it missed what the on-going debate is really about.

</comment><comment><USER28> _If, for you, my AR-15 ownership is prima facie evidence of my mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you then I honestly don't care what you think about this issue. You can go back to broadcasting your own moral superiority on social media, and I can go back to tuning you out until your rage therapy session is over._

He creates strawman critics to ridicule and rant against, which also will dissuade anyone he disagrees with from reading on and will inflame all sides, but he also claims to want reasonable, open-minded discussion.

Another missed opportunity to discuss something reasonably and bring people together. If that was really his intent, it's hard to believe a professional journalist - a professional communicator - would choose the words above.

I hope it works out better than that but I don't have unlimited time to read everything.

<comment><USER13> If you think anti-gun-rights advocates attributing gun ownership to "mental instability, sexual inadequacy, lack of a conscience, or what-have-you " is a strawman, you might like to read this link: [http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s- law/](http://blog.joehuffman.org/category/markley-s-law/) It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just that, usually in rather crude terms.

Or just read this thread.

For some reason, anti-gun-rights people seem to love to talk about how to take people's guns, and then call gun owners paranoid for thinking that people want to take their guns.

<comment><USER28> > It's a blog category of hundreds of posts of Twitter users stating just > that, usually in rather crude terms.

You can find hundreds of Twitter posts saying just about anything; we could justify any behavior on that basis.

> Or just read this thread.

I skimmed and read a large part of this discussion, and I don't see any comments of that sort. Maybe there are some but there can't be very many.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I love this line:

"You can go back to broadcasting your own moral superiority on social media, and I can go back to tuning you out until your rage therapy session is over."

Preaching on social media is so 2007, so tired and so done.

</comment><comment><USER30> Well, this article actually makes me glad to not read Ars Technica for a while, and may actively prevent me from ever reading that thing again.

Here is how every single article on this topic of this particular author goes: there is a (quite minor, in fact) challenge, therefore we should abandon ever trying to regulate guns.

Let's start with this particular piece. Sure sure, it's quite hard to differentiate between assault weapons and "defensive weapons" and "recreational weapons." But that is MISSING THE POINT! The point is NOT that all weapons can kill. The point is: how the hell do we allow self-defense and recreational fun without endangering the society at large? However, instead of this, his argument is: hey, all weapons are dangerous, so let's just allow him (decent guy, no?) to own nuclear weapons. It's, you know, defensive.

Return to the stupid argument. Yes, there is a large difference between offensive and defensive weapons. For example, caliber. Offensive seeks to destroy, so the more power, the better; defensive seeks to disable while (let's face it) retreating, so not so much power required. Or, perhaps smaller magazine size; in hunting and defending, you don't need to spray, so replacing magazine is not that bad; while you are terrorizing, the break is awesome for your victims, obviously.

As you see, there are ways to differentiate, to make hunting/recreation safe. But no. Our dear, dear author wants none of that. Because the mechanism is so reliable, he wants like the exact same power as the guns used in battle. Because it's hard to differentiate, his solution is to let innocent people die. Because it's like a fraction more convenient, well, again, who cares about those strangers, right?

Similarly, I tried (very hard) to be open minded and read his articles on smart guns. Same kind of arguments. Oh, it's not 100% reliable, so no, it should be banned, because, omg, what if I am forced to use it.

You know, in decision making books that I worked through, there is a term for all of t these "reasons." They are called "excuses." You don't want something because, I don't know, the sizes of your hands, so you make up excuses. Oh, it's not 100% reliable. Oh, the government is taking over the world. Oh, politicians are treating me like idiots. Therefore, those bastards can die so I can get that thing.

<comment><USER13> Where did you get your information on offense vs defense? It bears no relation to anything I've ever read or had training in, and has the complete opposite recommendations.

What makes you think that offense seeks to destroy, or that defensive seeks to disable? If anything, defense needs more power, not less. The key difference is that the attacker can choose the time and place of the attack, and so can either find a time and place that works with whatever amount of power they have available (note the tendency for mass shootings to only happen in "gun free zones"), or call off the attack. Defenders do not know when they will be attacked, and so they need as much power as possible to compensate for possibly being outnumbered or caught in a disadvantageous place. That's why defenders need bigger magazines and more effective ammunition.

But both ultimately seek to control, not to destroy or disable. Once you have control, destruction is easy. And if the opponent has a firearm too, then there isn't much practical difference between disable and kill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> [https://www.nranews.com/home/video/dom-raso-the- ar-15-americ...](https://www.nranews.com/home/video/dom-raso-the- ar-15-americans-best-defense-against-terror-and-crime/list/dom-raso)

</comment><comment><USER32> _" Otherwise please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait."_

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><USER18> The actual title— _Why I Need an AR-15_ —is linkbait, so "thanks" to whoever posted it for giving it a HN-appropriate title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> How depressing

</comment><comment><USER11> ctrl+f constitution

... nothing, on either the article or on HN.

You simply can't have a proper discussion about this without talking about the constitution.

Look, first, we need to back up a second and before we get caught up in every persons minute question about detail this or reason that, and look at the bigger picture. I have some British friends (classically anti-gun) who have responded well to the following discussion flow on the issue.

First, we must establish that you, the reader, understand the hierarchy of law. That is, first, we are talking about America, and in America the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This is a very important distinction, especially for those citizens living under monarchies or thinly veiled monarchies such as the British and various Europeans. The constitution was not established to grant rights, rather it was intended to secure _individual natural rights, under natural law_. The American Revolution, the Glorious Revolution, and the French Revolution all had their basis in natural law and rights. Natural law and rights existed before any state, and transcend any state.

There is no perfect list of natural rights, but there are some commonly accepted ones. John Locke called the right to self defense the first law of nature. Each and every individual has a right to defend themselves or their loved ones, and their property (I will ignore the large rabbit hole waiting for those who want to discuss how close property law is to natural liberty). If you punch me, I will defend myself. If you try to hit me with a rock, I will defend myself. If you try to strike at me with a sword, I will defend myself. If you shoot at me with a gun, I will defend myself. While the technology has changed, the principle has not.

The bottom line is I have a right to self defense, and in a world where true defense means owning a firearm, I have a right to own a firearm.

Now usually I get quite a bit of push back even on this point, and granted there is a lot of nuance to be had in the debate. What about nuclear weapons, etc... a discussion worth having but far too easily used to distract from the core issue(s). So as this point becomes tangled in confusion, I usually stop and move to the next point.

All of that aside, the second amendment of the constitution is intended as a defense against tyranny. This is not about individual or family self-defense. The second amendment is primarily about the ability of the people, from whom the government gains it's legitimacy, to defend itself from a government gone rogue, tyrannical, or despotic.

These two primary reasons, self-defense as a natural right and defense against tyranny as a natural right and constitutionally _protected (not established)_ right, are why I don't have to answer such bullshit questions as "Why do you need a $scarysoundingweapon?" I have my suggestions about the need for increased training, and concerns about the lack of respect for firearms, but they distract from the core discussion we need to be having.

I'm a combat vet, and perhaps I am just too cynical because I have seen too much of the worlds dark underbelly, but these rights are very real to me, and while Americans are cozy, coddled, and lazy today, with a turn-key totalitarian state being put in place, centralized and monarchistic globalism on the rise, growing inequality, and increasingly startling revelation of lack of the rule of law, I have a feeling people are going to need to relearn the martial arts quicker than they are prepared for.

As a side note, there are some key conditions and justifications for deadly force I think more civilians should know, even if they don't all apply to them:

3 Conditions

1.Extreme necessity 2.Last Resort 3.When all other means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed.

7 Circumstances

1.In defense of property involving national security 2.In defense of property not involving national security but inherently dangerous to others. 3.Self- defense and defense of others. 4.To prevent or interrupt serious offense against persons 5.Last Resort 6\. Escape 7\. Arrest or Apprehension

</comment><comment><USER34> "What I am not for are bullshit arguments and lies. 'Fuck off, I like guns.' It's not the best argument. But it's all you've got." ~Jim Jeffries</comment>


The IP addresses of the top 1700 (or so) websites as of 6:39 UTC 11/08 - <AUTHOR> http://paste.openstack.org/raw/588341/ <comment><AUTHOR> In case of another large DDoS attack on DYN or other DNS infrastructure.</comment>


Sweden set to sink the Pirate Bay - <AUTHOR> http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/01/28/tech-piratebay.html

<comment><USER2> Charging the founders of the Pirate Bay will stop nothing. It won't even stop The Pirate Bay.

</comment><comment><USER3> On one hand, it's nice to see traditional media being given a lesson in what people really want, eg. being able to lightly sample huge amounts of content at a low price.

On the other hand, the success of bittorrent has directly killed all development on the many great systems that were beginning to make big advances in security and improving lives. These systems would allow for goals greater than simple piracy to be reached. Goals such as freeing regions from censorship, preventing unlawful wire-tapping and curbing some types of unjust lawsuits.

So if bittorrent dies, thanks for all the free stuff! but I'm happy to see you go.

<comment><USER4> I guess you're referring to Freenet and similar projects. I doubt it's BitTorrent's fault that most people don't care about Freenet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Will this stop them just like their raid did? Oh noes! I recall someone from TPB saying that they have locations setup up all around the world that the site would switch to if this actually has a negative effect.</comment>


B&N prepping new tablet with 'revolutionary screen technology' - <AUTHOR> http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-33198_7-57473877-286/b-n-prepping-new-tablet-with-revolutionary-screen-technology/?tag=postrtcol;FD.posts

<comment><USER2> We certainly hope it will be powered by a Linux kernel.</comment>


Introducing the Data Sharing Economy - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@DataCircle_IO/the-data-sharing-economy-ec142e80a6fd <comment><USER2> was this posted before?

<comment><USER3> Yes—click the "past" link.

<comment><USER2> Ohh got it got it..</comment></comment></comment>


The Spanish-Speaking William F. Buckley - <AUTHOR> https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/spanish-speaking-william-f-buckley <comment><USER2> The "aristocratic English accent being mocked" was actually a Mid-Atlantic accent.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid- Atlantic_accent](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-Atlantic_accent)

That aside, I would pay money to hear William F. Buckley, Jr. speak Spanish.

</comment><comment><USER3> Here's an interesting debate between Buckley and Chomsky:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbTxLmbCoo4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbTxLmbCoo4)

<comment><USER4> For those with Amazon Prime, a number of "Firing Line" episodes are available with better (relatively speaking) quality from Amazon for free. I think this is the same episode that you linked:

[https://amzn.com/B007Q292FE](https://amzn.com/B007Q292FE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Buckley was not a political thinker. He was a narrow-minded ideologue who used every rhetorical flourish at his command to support his doctrinaire positions. He never saw any gray areas and never acknowledged that his opponents' positions had any value whatsoever.

A great moment was when he made the mistake of inviting Groucho Marx on his show (Marx was a liberal), who made him look like the stiff prig he was. A grotesque moment was his debate with James Baldwin at Cambridge University, during the height of the civil rights movement, when Buckley defended states' rights and racial discrimination. It's on YouTube. The students voted and Buckley lost.

<comment><USER6> > Buckley was not a political thinker.

No true Scotsman.

> He was a narrow-minded ideologue

Ad hominem.

> used every rhetorical flourish

Compliment.

> doctrinaire positions

Sesquipedalian.

> never acknowledged that his opponents' positions had any value whatsoever

Simply inaccurate.

This is really what prompted the response, you can easily find examples of him conceding points to his opponents online.

In his discussions with Hitchens, the default mode is for both participants to bounce between encyclopedic historical/geographical trivia and playfully needling one another. However there are moments where each will say that the other has made an interesting point and carry it forward further. 21:30 here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeGKcX- JHNE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeGKcX-JHNE) Earlier and later in the piece Buckley ganged up with Hitchens against Tyrell.

Most of Buckley's opinions are really dated, stuck in a version of Cold War politics that is nearly incomprehensible today, so I'm not trying to endorse his conclusions.

But he is one of the few people I've ever seen on television that has actually waited to hear what the other person says, even rephrasing it to make sure he's clear on their exact arguments before responding. That sort of patience has become a unicorn in entertainment today.

Sometimes his conversations flew off the rails, but he pulled off good conversations from time to time with people he deeply disagreed with.

Maher desperately tries to have difficult conversations, and sometimes succeeds, but it's like he's got a 30 second shot clock above the cameras measuring how often they need to slip in a punchy zinger and change the subject.

Real disagreements are just damn hard to capture on television with the attention span of most audiences. Mostly we just ended up with people shouting over each other. After watching talking heads shows today, going back and watching Buckley argue with someone is a surreal experience, easily preferable in contrast.

<comment><USER7> Good summary. Buckley had plenty of liberals on his show. Reminds me of the time he was discussing the 1963 Democratic convention with liberal Gore Vidal, and Buckley threatened to punch him in the face after Vidal called him a crypto-Nazi: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYymnxoQnf8)

<comment><USER6> Thanks. I would file that Vidal debate under examples of conversations that dove right off the rails, though it is maybe his most famous. I think there might have been some with Chomsky too.

The Hitchens discussions were better, even though they were very far apart politically.*

And he had some with sitting Democratic politicians where he would occasionally make concessions. Towards the end here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5-R2aHdul0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5-R2aHdul0)

Though he starts by setting up an unproductive definitional trap about liberalism, a recurring theme, he basically backs off after being called on it (roughly 4:55).

It's unfortunate that that full conversation (and really, more Firing Line) isn't on YouTube so we'd have more case studies.

* Perhaps ironically, because Hitchens became a lot more sympathetic to Buckley's views on military intervention and skepticism of Communism later in his career. I think that's to Hitchens' credit though, that he was able to continue turning these issues over in his mind and apply them differently to different contexts.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


MSI CEO Charles Chiang "Dies Suddenly" at 56 - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/msi-ceo-charles-chiang-dead-56 <comment><USER2> "MSI general manager and CEO Charles Chiang passed away after falling from one of the company's buildings."

Yeah, that would definitely qualify as "sudden".

Most likely it's something tragic, but after a lifetime diet of spy movies, how can one not think of some international intrigue involved...

<comment><USER3> Can Russian investors be far away ... ?</comment></comment>


PyJVM – JVM in Python - <AUTHOR> http://pyjvm.org/

<comment><USER2> Finally, the terseness of Java combined with the speed of python.

<comment><USER3> it's the worst of both worlds, for all to enjoy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There's a lot of questioning about why someone would do this.

Why can't someone just write for fun? Does everything now have to be "disruptive" and commercially viable?

<comment><USER5> It's definitely totally fine to build these things for fun, but with a landing page like this, it seems like the author built it for some purpose beyond that, otherwise I don't see the point in presenting it in this form.

If the author wanted to learn _and_ get publicity, a blog post or at least including a "why" section that says "just for fun" on the landing page would seem suitable to me.

There probably is some interesting motivation for doing this, it's just not clear what it is.

<comment><USER6> > but with a landing page like this

You mean one of github's default landing pages for projects? [http://i.imgur.com/nQgmrE5.png](http://i.imgur.com/nQgmrE5.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So I have to wonder.... why? If I was you I would put the link to [https://github.com/andrewromanenco/pyjvm/blob/master/WHY.md](https://github.com/andrewromanenco/pyjvm/blob/master/WHY.md) front and center. That's great that it was done for academic purposes but I didn't understand that from the main page.

</comment><comment> St-Clock That's an interesting take of the Python and Java relationship and although it complements well the landscape (with Jython, JPype, Pyjnius, and Py4J), I'm not sure what the need is.

(shameless plug warning) When I created Py4J ([http://py4j.sourceforge.net/](http://py4j.sourceforge.net/)), I wanted to decouple the two ecosystems as much as possible so that both could evolve independently. There is no jni, no re-implementation of bytecode or interpreter, just plain sockets working on linux, mac, windows and most versions of Python and Java.

</comment><comment><USER8> Can we run Jython on it? Why? Just because.

EDIT: Also if it can run _on_ Jython that would make a nice full circle. EEDIT: Looks like it requires Python 2.7 so this might not be the case (yet).

<comment><USER9> I can see it now

PyJVM --> Jython --> PyJVM --> Jython ...

It reminds me a bit of LISP interpreters that are mostly/entirely written in LISP.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I am usually fine with "because we could" as a justification, but . . . why? It's like making a hamburger out of lobster, Kobe beef, and truffles.

<comment><USER11> That sounds awesome in its own way. You could probably make millions in Houston with a restaurant featuring that.

<comment><USER12> There actually was a 'millionaire lunch' at a restaurant in Houston that was along those lines. Served with a glass of Silver Oak, as I recall.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Programmers add abstractions just as fast as Moore's Law adds speed.

<comment><USER14> I think you underestimate how quickly programmers can add abstractions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone make a JVM that can save its memory image in the style of Smalltalk and Lisp VMs? This would give a potential solution to the Clojure startup time problem. (There was a JVM on Smalltalk named Frost.)

<comment><USER15> Check out drip?

<comment><USER11> I'm using it. It cut the startup time in half. Saved memory images could do much better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If JVM is your thing, Doppio is a JVM in TypeScript.

[https://github.com/int3/doppio](https://github.com/int3/doppio)

<comment><USER17> Or a pure Lua JVM

[https://cowlark.com/luje/doc/stable/doc/index.wiki](https://cowlark.com/luje/doc/stable/doc/index.wiki)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This can be stacked in multiple levels, cool :) JVM on Python on JVM on Python on JVM...

<comment><USER19> Needs Parrot and Javascript in there somewhere though, for maximum coolness factor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> On the flip side there is Python on the JVM :)

[http://crudzilla.com/assets/img/info-graphics/lang- demo.gif](http://crudzilla.com/assets/img/info-graphics/lang-demo.gif)

<comment><USER21> And if I recall correctly Graal, the next generation Java JIT Oracle is working on is also working on Python support. By far not there yet but pretty cool to see them take their compiler efforts beyond Java.

<comment><USER22> AFAIK this refers to ZipPy:

[https://bitbucket.org/ssllab/zippy](https://bitbucket.org/ssllab/zippy)

<comment><USER17> What _is_ it?

[http://socalpls.org/slides/zippy.pdf](http://socalpls.org/slides/zippy.pdf)

It is a performant implementation of Python3 on the JVM.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would rewrite the title to read "JVM in Python".

</comment><comment><USER24> What is a use case for this?

<comment><USER25> There isn't one. More helpfully, the author describes it as a learning experience. How to implement a stack-based virtual machine in Python.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> >Requires python 2.7

Why? It's dead, accept it.

<comment><USER27> Dead? Python 2.7 seems to be Good Enough(TM) for much of the industry titans that I don't think we'll ever see widespread Python 3.x adoption within the heavy-weights' infrastructure.

Python 2.7 is far from dead, and the changeover to Python 3 seems to be similar to Perl5->Perl6 -- or, more to the point, not happening at all.

<comment><USER26> Python 2.7 is still dead.

>Short version: Python 2.x is legacy, Python 3.x is the present and future of the language

>Python 3.0 was released in 2008. [6 years ago] The final 2.x version 2.7 release came out in mid-2010 [4 years ago], with a statement of extended support for this end-of-life release. The 2.x branch will see no new major releases after that. 3.x is under active development and has already seen over four years of stable releases, including version 3.3 in 2012. The next release is the upcoming Python 3.4 in early 2014. This means that all recent standard library improvements, for example, are only available by default in Python 3.x.

[https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3](https://wiki.python.org/moin/Python2orPython3)

There is still software for DOS around, and DOS is still dead.</comment></comment></comment>


Algorand: scaling Byzantine agreements for cryptocurrencies - <AUTHOR> https://blog.acolyer.org/2017/11/21/algorand-scaling-byzantine-agreements-for-cryptocurrencies/ <comment><USER2> I watched the interview with that Silvio Micali on Epicenter some time ago, and that impressed me, but I don't know if I should be impressed.

Anyway, people should take these new "consensus" algorithms, like Algorand and the Stellar Consensus Protocol and implement something like Ethereum or other, more generic things, on top of it, instead of just making a new simple currency.</comment>


Can Someone Turn Me On? - <AUTHOR> http://www.tokbox.com/blog/can-some-one-turn-me-on/

<comment><USER2> I've been keeping an eye on Double and would really love to try this out. I wonder if could help solve an interesting problem... remote employees in companies that are otherwise not really remote.

I'm the only employee at my company not in SF (I'm in San Diego). We've got a fairly remote/asynchronous culture though.. there's one other engineer who works full time from his home even though he lives in SF.. but the culture is slowly shifting as we grow, especially now that we've got a real office :)

I'd be curious to see some case-studies like this one from teams that don't have skin in the game.

<comment><USER3> This is exactly the model that my team uses. We have ~40 folks on-site in SF, and about a half-dozen who work remotely. We got a Double a few weeks back, and after a slow start it's now in use most of the time.

The OP is not wrong about the qualitative difference between a 'bot and a normal video-conference setup. Things like this may seem minor (or even silly), but they go a long way to make it feel like our remote colleagues are actually present and part of the team:

<https://twitter.com/thedeepg/status/337352680840257536> <https://twitter.com/rcoder/status/336584756147916800>

<comment><USER2> That's rad to hear! I can definitely see value in that. It probably only seems minor or silly if you're not the one who's remote. I had to fly back down to San Diego because of an emergency this winter and ended up attending the company holiday get-together via iPad. They propped me up in a chair and hooked a speaker up to me so that my voice had about the same volume as everyone else's. I couldn't believe how well it worked out. Just the short distinction of being at eye-level and not angled up 45 degrees from someone's laptop screen made the experience so much more immersive. The ability to turn my 'head' would be even better :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't say enough good things about Double. At one point we at MobileWorks were the world's heaviest users of Doubles – not sure if that's still the case or if someone's caught up.

Right now one of our partners operates full-time on the robot, and MobileWorkers come by to visit the office more regularly. Soon, we'll send our MobileWorkers to visit the customers they're working with as in-office remote staffers.

It's like having them in the office here with us.

</comment><comment><USER5> It's exciting to think that people with physical disabilities might be able to use this technology to explore places and communicate.

<comment><USER6> Exactly. It's why I hope people will see this not so much as a new frontier of telecommunication nor telecommuting, but _"telepresence"_.

It's not a medium; it's a physical proxy.

I hope people will see it as more than a convenience for working remotely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd have some concerns about device that's designed to park in a rooms where private meetings are taking place and transmit audio and video to the internet...

<comment><USER8> So... you're worried about laptops?

The Double seems to be roughly a meter tall with a conspicuous screen and wheel, making it a poor fit for malicious surveillance. Show a little common sense.

<comment><USER7> Yes... I am... aren't you? Most companies I know exercise at least basic precautions against malware on their laptops, in large part to avoid exposing confidential information.

In this case, I'm not worried about someone hacking the Double and somehow sneaking it into a meeting. I'm worried about someone compromising Double's servers and listening in on the conversation. Is the AV feed secured end-to- end?

<comment><USER9> No, I'm not _more_ worried about a Double than I am about a laptop, which is the reason the laptop was brought up in the first place.

<comment><USER10> To be fair, you're the one who brought up the laptop. JshWright's point was that he's concerned about the safety of an application whose sole purpose appears to be transmitting the contents of private meetings over the internet.

It sounds like a very easy target for getting access to the private details of many companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Just wanted to throw a comment in here that I've been using tokbox for a while and love it. Anyone who needs video chat in their app should check it out. {Not affiliated in any way}

<comment><USER12> Aw! Tokbox is only as good as the applications people build with it. Thanks for using us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Thin, pale-grey font on a white background, so even though this looks like an interesting story it's going to be a strain for me to read it.

Guys, fire your designers when they tell you this is okay. Fire them out of a cannon into the SUN. Your content is why people are following links to your site, and if you make it hard to read your content, why bother having the site?

At least have DARK grey text on the white background, but better is black, with solid fonts for the main body.

</comment><comment><USER14> Are these actually shipping yet? I know a few places that would be interested in trying them out but the "shipping soon we promise!" is a hard sell.

<comment><USER15> There is at least one similar company that is already shipping.

[http://news.yahoo.com/telepresence-robots-let-employees- beam...](http://news.yahoo.com/telepresence-robots-let-employees- beam-143529632--finance.html)

NB: I have may have a bias here.

<comment><USER14> $16k is also a harder sell than $2k, especially for a pilot that may not end up being useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Like Tokbox and am intrigued by Double. Would Google Glass be a similar paradigm change if applied in this manner?

<comment><USER17> if its cheaper, there could potentially be a service where you can hire someone to take your place remotely and everything that person sees will be live streamed via google glass to you.

<comment><USER18> <http://arresteddevelopment.wikia.com/wiki/Larry_Middleman>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm curious if the ability to pilot the device is that useful - it can't navigate crowds or do stairs anyway. So for the price, an iPad on a stick that has any always on VC would seem to be much cheaper and just as effective. Easy to move around if you need, and cheap enough to put in every room.</comment>


When was the last time you had your 'mind blown' by maths? - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/ce8n6/when_was_the_last_time_you_had_your_mind_blown_by/

<comment><AUTHOR> reddit.com/r/math is one of the most helpful, interesting, and educating subreddits. Beginners and experts are treated alike with respect and encouragement. This particular thread exemplifies the sentiment.

<comment><USER2> Never liked reddit so I missed this entire resource until now. Thanks.</comment></comment>


The Facebook games that millions love (and hate) - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/02/23/facebook.games/index.html?hpt=C1

<comment><USER2> Interesting video about future of "these types" of games: [http://fury.com/2010/02/jesse-shells-mindblowing-talk-on- the...](http://fury.com/2010/02/jesse-shells-mindblowing-talk-on-the-future- of-games-dice-2010/)

and comments about it on YC: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1142424></comment>


Ask HN: Single or multiple mounting point(s) in React app? - <AUTHOR> Do you prefer using a single mounting point or multiple mounting points in React app? Most of the people use single but Facebook uses multiple. <comment><USER2> We are using a single mounting point and single aggregate Redux store for an enterprise-scale web application. I think multiple stores and multiple mounting points would be really useful in the case of truly disjoint components.</comment>


The Bowie Bonds (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://bowiesongs.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/the-bowie-bonds/ <comment><USER2> Retrospectively, did the Bowie Bonds turn out to be a good investment?

<comment><USER3> This is answered in the article. See section 3, "They (probably) were a good investment."

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, OP's argument makes no sense (especially for someone who says they used to work in finance):

"In 2004, the rating agency Moody's Investors Service downgraded the Bowie bonds (to Baa1, a step above "junk" status)...Yet this downgrade only would've been a problem had Prudential wanted to sell its bonds, as they were now considered to be of lesser credit quality. As far as we know, Prudential didn't. Instead, the Bowie bonds sat in Prudential's coffers, generating who knows how much in terms of royalty payments for a decade. It's likely his royalties decreased in the early 2000s, but Bowie was never in any remote danger of losing his songs."

The price of a bond is merely the value of its future cash flows... If the price fell as Moody's thought (to just above junk!), that implies the expected cash flows (royalties) did too, because the royalties determine the price. It is irrelevant to the question of profit whether Prudential sold them or not - selling/holding was merely a question of whether they wanted to take their losses up front (by selling them at the now lower market value) or over time (by receiving lower royalties than they had predicted when they negotiated to buy the bonds).

And we can guess pretty safely that the Bowie bonds did not do well. They were sold at the height of a bubble before the Internet impact on sales became apparent, no one wanted to do such deals after a few imitators did, the decay in bond quality was so obvious a ratings agency would downgrade them, Prudential doesn't appear to want to discuss them given the paucity of available details in this and other writeups I've seen (despite the glamor of the association & being one of the very few financial instruments the public is interested in), and Bowie's career during the described bond period wouldn't've helped the royalties outperform the general music market either (some anniversary albums, plus a lot of live touring whose income presumably didn't go to the bonds - and perhaps that was precisely why he did so many, a kind of moral hazard).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> What is the framework, procedure, or legal guidelines for securitization and the selling/trading of the securities? Where may I refer for more details on this?

</comment><comment><USER6> Did this thing interact with Chris Hadfield's recording of "Space Oddity"? I remember him telling it was a nightmare of law to actually do proper licensing and that basically it just stayed online because Bowie liked it.</comment>


Most of Scottish Wikipedia Written by American in Mangled English - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/wxqy8x/most-of-scottish-wikipedia-written-by-american-in-mangled-english <comment><AUTHOR> I found this story to be fascinating. It doesn't appear to be an act of vandalism, but rather earnest contributions from a young editor made much in the fashion of Ecce homo.

It'll be interesting to see what Wikipedia does. I'm hoping they don't ostracize the individual that did this - they seem motivated to help. Maybe that energy can be put elsewhere in a more constructive place.</comment>


Will Google Chrome have a devastating effect on StumbleUpon? - <AUTHOR>

At least temporarily anyway since Google Chrome does not offer an extension API yet. <comment><USER2> No. With less than 1% market share? ~10% stumbleupon users on my site are still using IE 6.</comment>


CIA Startup Funding. In-Q-Tel -- Investments - <AUTHOR> http://www.in-q-tel.com/invest/index.htm <comment><USER2> In-Q-Tel has been around for a while (at least 1999, perhaps longer), and while they have funded interesting companies with national security implications (I remember one of their firms was working on software to get around firewalls that they hoped to get into places like China), have they had any commercial successes?</comment>


Suggesting Technical Improvements - <AUTHOR> https://www.tildedave.com/2015/07/22/suggesting-technical-improvements.html

<comment><USER2> > _You must implement a prototype. This prototype doesn 't need to be "ready > to merge", but it does need to be a basically complete solution to the > problem at hand. You can't have a meeting to propose a big piece of work > that you'll only do if the team agrees. You are basically producing a demo. > Demos can cut corners on certain things (tests for one), but the main goal > is to prove that the idea is a viable one and will work within your > codebase. It's not useful to suggest a solution that is done outside of the > context of your technology stack._

> _Where can you find time to create this demo? You 'll want buy-in from your > supervisor (if they're a good one hopefully they'll encourage you!) > Otherwise (to steal a line from Hunter S. Thompson), I hate to advocate > nights and weekends, but they've always worked for me. (I do understand this > isn't how it works for everyone...)_

Having to work nights and weekends to build a working prototype to get in- house buy-in on new functionality makes little sense to me. If your team cannot work together well enough to agree on new features without them being built first then perhaps the issue isn't feature adoption.

<comment><USER3> The author first suggests getting supervisor buy-in as a means for allocating resources towards a demo. It doesn't sound like he's mandating that you work nights and weekends to prototype.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> So, this actually reminds me of a super sore point, and so a quick Angersock PSA:

Hey! Hey you! New founding CTO!

If somebody on your team comes to you with a technical improvement, _support them_. Ask what they need, setup dedicated work time (not some after-hours exploitation) to explore the idea, have the present, pay attention, and generally act like you give a damn about the quality of your codebase.

You don't have to promise to roll out the hottest new Reactular ES9 framework immediately, or even that you'll assign other engineering resources to it. You don't have to say "let's refit everything". You _certainly_ don't have to take such suggestions on faith.

But you can do so much damage to your team, especially your early engineers, by being negative and conservative and saying "no" or "not yet" to everything.

Don't fuck this up.

Also, never say no just because you don't understand the new tech or language. Your _job_ , as the chief _technology_ officer, is to be constantly on the bleeding edge--even if you don't use that in production.

If you say no because you're uncomfortable learning or because it might mean the team may have to learn some new things, you are being lazy at your job and your displaying mistrust in your team.

<comment><USER5> Your PSA comes from the perspective of a smart employee with good ideas falling on deaf ears with the dumb CTO.

What of the good CTOs who have mediocre teams with a lot of bad ideas that are poorly thought out?

Note: if you answer with something like "CTO should quit", "CTO should fire them", you fail this question.

<comment><USER6> In the case of a truly bad idea, it is the duty of the CTO/VP Eng/Team lead to give the employee the time to explore the idea/discuss it and realize why it's a bad idea. The employee should grow as a result of the experience, and become more valuable in the future.

On the off chance they don't learn, and the situation repeats itself, it may be prudent to refuse such requests.

That having been said, the worst situation is when the boss agrees that it needs to get done, but can't find where to sneak it into the schedule. It's effectively saying that you don't value the happiness of your employees and can't schedule/push hard enough.</comment></comment></comment>


WhisperSystems: Voice and Text Encryption for Android - <AUTHOR> http://www.whispersys.com/

<comment><USER2> Anyone in the HN community working on PGP encryption for the iPhone/Android? Not in the hushmail vein, but using the Thunderbird/Enigmail implementation of GnuPG as the model instead? Thoughts?

</comment><comment><USER3> How do you verify the identity of the other person? That is, how do they prevent man in the middle attacks?

<comment><USER4> They're using SMS for call setup, which is unlikely to be MITMed. Also see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZRTP#Authentication>

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> a question: They do not use SIP are they injecting a third party switch in order to avoid having to use Sip and thus opening themselves up to the legal back door they mention?

<comment><USER6> Pretty sure that ZRTP negotiates the session over the media layer (RTP.. thus Zimmerman RTP), thus avoiding the need for a switch to any other system outside the two users to set up the call.</comment></comment>


Large Number of Tor Sites Seized by the FBI were Clone or Scam Sites - <AUTHOR> https://www.nikcub.com/posts/onymous-part1/?resub=1

<comment><USER2> "The slapshot nature of how sites were seized suggests that rather than starting with an onion address and then discovering the host server to seize, this campaign simply vacuumed up a large number of onion websites by targeting specific hosting companies. We have tracked down the hosting companies affected and the details will be published in a follow-up."

Very interested to see the list of hosting companies that were targeted.

<comment><USER3> The most interesting question to me would be, does this means that the server administrators now have a "get out of jail free card" due to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine or similar?

Hosting a hidden service by itself does not mean doing something illegal, even _Facebook_ hosts a hidden service nowadays. The only valid justification for the seizure would be if they had traced an illegal hidden service to that host, but from what I have read this seizure sounds too indiscriminate for that to be the case (IIRC even some pure relays, which don't host anything at all, were seized).

<comment><USER4> _The most interesting question to me would be, does this means that the server administrators now have a "get out of jail free card" due to the "fruit of the poisoned tree" doctrine or similar?_

That would require the defendant's rights to have been violated. I'm no doctor of law, but even if they were slipshod enough to violate rights in investigation regarding the datacenters, I'd be surprised if the defendants rights were the ones violated (3rd party doctrine and all).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Tor TLS traffic can be distinguished by random domain in SNI during handshake ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5505056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5505056)).

If FBI can sniff all traffic originating from hosting provider, then it seems to be trivial to detect all Tor servers and go through them manually?

<comment><USER6> SNI is an extension, it's not required and makes for the traffic to be easily distinguishable, so what's the reason for Tor to send an SNI?

<comment><USER5> Probably it will be even easier to detect Tor nodes - just look for IPs which never receive SNI in TLS exchange on 443 port.

<comment><USER6> Thinking over the protocol again I think TLS wasn't a great choice for Tor - not only because of SNI but other things like server certificates are also sent in cleartext during the handshake so it's easy to distinguish and just block all TLS traffic that uses self-signed or otherwise certificates not issued by the big CAs.

Something more like SSH, not relying on central CAs, would be less distinguishable - is it Tor traffic, or is it just someone accessing his/her server remotelly.

<comment><USER7> I would suggest impersonating other encrypted protocols with heavy traffic like encrypted BitTorrent or P2P Skype (is it still P2P or MS centralized it already?). On the other hand, systems administrators are frequently blocking BitTorrent and Skype traffic so the "TLS" traffic on port 443 has more chances to pass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is quite interesting. It's initially unclear exactly what the angle of this research is, but I think that reflects the uncertainty that still surrounds this operation.

Most notable to me was that the jihad-funding site was left up while its clone was taken down. Does that mean they couldn't locate the server, or that it's controlled by the FBI?

<comment><USER6> _Most notable to me was that the jihad-funding site was left up while its clone was taken down. Does that mean they couldn 't locate the server, or that it's controlled by the FBI?_

I was wondering the same thing - and this line from the article too:

 _In a number of cases the FBI has seized the clone or scam version of a site while leaving up the real site._

Is it because all the clone/scam sites were hosted on the same set of servers, or do the FBI know where the real ones are already but are deliberately leaving it up (and just removing the fakes since they're presumably interfering with their surveillance)?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Well this is to be expected if they can force a hosting company to report when servers connect to public tor nodes for a considerable amount of traffic.</comment>


SIP-Pi: SIP Answering Machine on Raspberry Pi - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/fabianhu/SIP-Pi <comment><USER2> SIP is an interesting technology; very much replicates the traditional phone architecture of separated control/data planes, call setup and so on. But there's so many _pieces_ to it that it ends up rather inaccessible to people looking to get started with it.

<comment><USER3> I don't know that it can be said to replicate traditional phone architecture at all, for two reasons:

1) Unlike H.323 and friends, SIP is the product of rather purely Internet- orientated/IETF thinking, not ITU. It was initially designed to set up multimedia "sessions" of various kinds (few prescriptions as to what kind) over the Internet in a rather generic sense.

Aspects of "traditional phone architecture" have been painstakingly grafted onto SIP, with mixed results. Certain things that have been taken for granted for decades are extraordinarily complex to do with SIP, such as bridged/shared line appearances on office PBX systems, because ...

2) ... SIP decentralises a lot of intelligence and state, taking it out of the phone switch (or PBX) and putting it in the endpoint/handset itself.

A traditional PBX system or Class 5 subscriber switch is very all-knowing, in the way that SCCP-based Call Manager is all-knowing. SIP puts a lot more responsibility on the endpoints, leading to distributed systems challenges.

<comment><USER4> Shared line appearance is a big feature missing from SIP based systems that I find frustrates a lot of users, particularly medical clinics. Nurses are used to the putting a call on hold on line 1, then telling the doctor or whoever to answer the call on line 1.

<comment><USER5> with shared line appearance and aors this is possible. [https://www.rfc- editor.org/info/rfc7463](https://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7463)

<comment><USER4> Interesting! Are there any implementations of this?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why have a SIP answering machine when you can create a SIP Server using Raspberry Pi? [https://myvoipapp.com/docs/mss_services/raspberry_pi/index.h...](https://myvoipapp.com/docs/mss_services/raspberry_pi/index.html)

Just a question, not trying to degrade what you've done here which is really cool by the way.

<comment><USER4> I implemented a very simple SIP and RTP stack using Ruby. At first it ran terribly, but with some tweaking, and I think running a newer version of Ruby, I got it so that the sound quality was very legible. Not perfect, but good enough. Ruby certainly isn't the best language for it, but it was a good learning experiencing in understanding how the protocol works. For example, I quickly learned what the "tag" parameter does.

<comment><USER6> What audio codec were you using?

<comment><USER4> Just PCM g711u, and I sent the audio/RTP packets to a phone plugged into an ATA.

<comment><USER6> Interesting. Sounds like you were going for quality over bandwidth efficiency. Maybe a feature request, but it'd be awesome to be able to chose G.711 or G.729 based on bandwidth requirements. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So this actually has nothing to do with the Raspberry Pi platform, and is just a SIP tool that should work on just about any Linux machine.

<comment><USER8> This demonstrates a setup that runs easily on rpi -- not a huge surprise as rpi is pretty powerful nowadays, but still a useful data point.

<comment><USER4> I run RasPBX (Asterisk + FreePBX) on my Raspberry Pi and it works quite well. The distro itself is also pretty easy to manage and update. I mainly use it to record my phone calls and works well for that purpose.

See [http://www.raspberry-asterisk.org/](http://www.raspberry-asterisk.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Reminds me of DoorPI, which uses SIP software to build a programmable Doorbell that calls to your phone: [https://github.com/motom001/DoorPi](https://github.com/motom001/DoorPi)</comment>


CTO (equity) in Berlin - <AUTHOR> Do you want to be in charge of building a system architecture that delivers dynamically created interactive visuals to any piece of editorial content for up to 100 million users per month across 20 top media platforms by the end of 2016, and to integrate with game-changing advertising technology? As we set out to roll out new tools and automate large parts of the semantic analysis, content creation and integration process, we expect you to conceive a system that is highly scalable in terms of traffic and internationalisation, including seminal technology choices build up a tech team with engineers keen to owning the different system components capable of using the chosen technologies, show the ability trust and further your junior engineers' talents, lead and motivate the tech team along our product vision of making online debate more engaging and visual, as well as closely collaborate with CEO and CPO
Current stack: The backend is written in Python and webapp2, while the infrastructure runs on Google App Engine with NDB Datastore. The interactive part of the frontend is written in CoffeeScript using RaphaelJS, the editor part using ReactJS. An additional application uses SocketIO and NodeJS.
You'll join a venture-funded team with backgrounds ranging from Oxford and Harvard to Axel Springer and legendary Titanic Magazin. Other than left-overs from the last holiday party"s secret santa, our bright gallery office in Berlin Mitte is adorned by a Lead Award and a Grimme Online Award. We offer competitive pay and significant equity for the right candidate. You take holidays when you want to. <comment><AUTHOR> Interested? Get in touch: email@example.com</comment>


Show HN: Slim – Build and run tiny VMs from Dockerfiles - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/ottomatica/slim <comment><USER2> Can someone dumb this down for me? What _exactly_ is going on here?

> slim will build a micro-vm from a Dockerfile. Slim works by building and > extracting a rootfs from a Dockerfile, and then merging that filesystem with > a small minimal kernel that runs in RAM.

> This results in a real VM that can boot instantly, while using very limited > resources. If done properly, slim can allow you to design and build > immutable unikernels for running services, or build tiny and embedded > development environments.

<comment><USER3> Docker images contain a filesystem for an operating system, minus the OS kernel. This project uses Docker to build a tiny OS, extracts all the files out of the Docker image, adds a small OS kernel and re-packages that as a VM image.

<comment><USER4> So why was Docker needed to create a lightweight VM? I thought Docker was supposed to replace VMs.

<comment><USER5> Working with VM images was PITA, I don't know if anything changed. Having recipe (Dockerfile) and required files in VCS is useful as reference even when setting up bare metal machines. So Docker (and Puppet/Ansible) might have bigger impact on work organisation than on anything else.

<comment><USER6> You still have the Dockerfile and the required files in a VCS, but now what you have running is a full VM instead of a somewhat isolated process sharing kernel with other containers.

So far so good, for individual/standalone containers. But if you need thightly integrated containers (sharing networks, volumes, ports and so on) things may be a bit more complicated. And not sure about Kubernetes. YMMV

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Recently on HN (I think) and related:

\- [https://micromind.me/en/posts/from-docker-container-to- boota...](https://micromind.me/en/posts/from-docker-container-to-bootable- linux-disk-image/)

\- [https://godarch.com/](https://godarch.com/)

Really like seeing these new usecases for containers -- would have never thought to mix the two technologies in this way.

<comment><USER8> Well, containers and VMs are two different things (are they not?).

<comment><USER9> Yes, but the cool thing is definitely the single system image

<comment><USER10> Not a cluster SSI, though (shared environment, process migration between instances, etc.), as far as I could gather?

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is great! I really wish we'd always create a single system image for both Docker and Physical/VM, preferably with minimal/no-init.

This is very useful when trying to create a basic datacenter specific distro/deployment, preferably Pixie bootable as well.

</comment><comment><USER11> On the same vain, there is: [https://github.com/vmware/vic](https://github.com/vmware/vic) a docker engine for esx/vsphere.

Note work at VMware but not on this project.

</comment><comment><USER12> Wait a minute. I thought Docker was useful because you didn't want to run a whole VM. But this project turns a Dockerfile into a VM specification? Have we come full circle?

<comment><USER13> Docker can replace a VM for many use-cases, but there are times when a VM is still preferable. If you find yourself in such a situation, this tool allows you to leverage declerative Dockerfiles to build your VM. Pretty handy.

<comment><USER14> Yep, I could see this being a nice option if you're running something very security sensitive and want some extra defense by isolating the kernel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd love to see an orchestrator that made switching between bare metal, vm and containers a simple configuration option.

This is a step in that direction. Cool stuff!

<comment><USER16> There's this[1], though not exactly what you asked for.

[1] - [https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker- container...](https://github.com/firecracker-microvm/firecracker-containerd)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Would be really cool to use this to predictably build images for booting from PXE.

<comment><USER18> Try LinuxKit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Why does everything in node have to have all the dependencies in the world?

``` @sindresorhus/is JSONStream ansi-regex ansi-styles archive-type argparse asn1 async balanced-match base64-js bcrypt-pbkdf bl bluebird brace-expansion buffer buffer-alloc buffer-alloc-unsafe buffer-crc32 buffer-fill buffer-from cacheable-request camelcase caw chalk chownr cliui clone-response color- convert color-name commander concat-map concat-stream config-chain content- disposition core-util-is cross-spawn debug decamelize decode-uri-component decompress decompress-response decompress-tar decompress-tarbz2 decompress- targz decompress-unzip docker-modem dockerode download duplexer3 emoji-regex end-of-stream escape-string-regexp esprima execa ext-list ext-name fd-slicer file-type filename-reserved-regex filenamify find-up from2 fs-constants fs- extra fs-minipass fs.realpath get-caller-file get-proxy get-stream glob got graceful-fs graceful-readlink has-flag has-symbol-support-x has-to-string- tag-x hasbin http-cache-semantics ieee754 inflight inherits ini into-stream invert-kv ip is-fullwidth-code-point is-natural-number is-object is-plain-obj is-port-available is-retry-allowed is-stream isarray isexe isurl js-yaml json- buffer jsonfile jsonparse keyv lcid locate-path lodash lowercase-keys make-dir map-age-cleaner md5-file mem mime-db mimic-fn mimic-response minimatch minimist minipass minizlib mkdirp ms mustache nice-try node-virtualbox normalize-url npm-conf npm-run-path object-assign once os-locale p-cancelable p-defer p-event p-finally p-is-promise p-limit p-locate p-timeout p-try path- exists path-is-absolute path-key pend pify pinkie pinkie-promise prepend-http process-nextick-args progress proto-list pump query-string readable-stream require-directory require-main-filename responselike safe-buffer safer-buffer scp2 seek-bzip semver set-blocking shebang-command shebang-regex signal-exit simple-git sort-keys sort-keys-length split-ca sprintf-js ssh2 ssh2-streams streamsearch strict-uri-encode string-width string_decoder strip-ansi strip- dirs strip-eof strip-outer sudo-prompt supports-color tar tar-fs tar-stream through timed-out to-buffer trim-repeated tunnel-agent tweetnacl typedarray unbzip2-stream universalify url-parse-lax url-to-options util-deprecate uuid which which-module wrap-ansi wrappy xtend y18n yallist yargs yargs-parser yauzl ```

<comment><USER20> Yesterday a friend of mine told me about how they got a Node.js application from a vendor that was about 3 MiB, and after running npm install, it was over 1 GiB.

I half-jokingly said that Node apps are the new ZIP bombs.

<comment><USER21> good luck to your friend with repeatable installations :P

<comment><USER22> If you need repeatable installations, wouldn't node be the wrong tool? I mean, you'd have to freeze everything yourself and then those libraries become _your_ problem. Ugh. That's a hell nobody wants.

<comment><USER23> To be pedantic, it's "wouldn't npm be the wrong tool" (it isn't, necessarily, I believe lockfiles provide you with reproducible builds)

Vendoring/copying them is another way to achieve this (and means you don't need to depend on npm or its lockfiles).

Regardless, those libraries are your problem whether you vendor/copy them or not.

Read more: [https://research.swtch.com/deps](https://research.swtch.com/deps)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This has good potential, what are the limitations on the VM?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some limitations in terms of the vms and providers:

* If the size of the initrd is too large, it cannot properly unpack into vm's RAM --- size of RAM must be increased accordingly. We could also change [boot params]([https://www.lightofdawn.org/blog/?viewDetailed=00128](https://www.lightofdawn.org/blog/?viewDetailed=00128)), or use shared disks, etc.

* For hyperkit, apple's vmnet requires sudo to create a bridge interface on host. We've played with a version that use's vpnkit and port forwarding (like linuxkit/Docker for Mac), but this adds lots of complexity in image, and opted for the simpler approach.

* We would like a better template mechanism for reusing base images and extending. Right now, we support using base image reuse, with extensions through docker buildargs---ideally, we would want something like %include support in Dockerfiles.

* Finally, we're investigating how to make images work well on multiple providers. For example, ubuntu does not play nice with hyperkit out-of-the-box, but works fine for vbox and kvm.

<comment><USER25> What about swarm mode and orchestration? Also I presume like LinuxKit, there will be configs for different clouds e.g. Digital Ocean and AWS run ISOs slightly differently.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, one use-case is making it easier to setup/teardown clusters for local testing. Two practical scenarios for us: 1) autograding ansible/configuration scripts, 2) CI for instructions/tutorials that involve clusters/devops: [https://builds.sr.ht/~ottomatica/job/69644#task- report](https://builds.sr.ht/~ottomatica/job/69644#task-report)

Cloud-ready images is an important direction, and on the horizon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If this works, this is fantastic. Getting away from the stupidly complex abstractions around Docker is a welcome change, especially if we can still package and deploy immutable images. We already manage containers like tiny VMs, so ditching the abstractions should simplify life a bit.

<comment><USER27> Have you looked at LXD/LXC? I find it to be a great compromise between the high overhead of VMs and the complex abstractions around Docker.

<comment><USER26> Yes, it's still just more abstractions. If you look at the way people use ECS, allocating specific resource limits to each container, it's basically a micro EC2 node. And for me, the only reason I use containers is to make it easier to package and run applications immutably. If I can do that without "containerisms", all the better. It also seems like VMs would solve a good deal of multi-tenancy issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is cool. For dev, the docker runtime consumes an enormous amount of host system resources. Even with a 16gb RAM host machine, docker is really resource heavy for a development environment. If this can cut down on host system resource usage, that's a major win.

<comment><USER29> Are you on a non linux host? I assume docker is a lot less heavy on resources on linux than on mac&win.

<comment><USER14> they have to be. Docker is extremely light weight on a linux host.

<comment><USER30> I assume they are running it on Windows - I've been running Docker Desktop on Windows for years, and it's backed by a Hyper-V Linux VM, which does seem to use a lot more CPU than running Docker on Linux.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Yet another different take: footloose – Containers that look like Virtual Machines!

[https://github.com/weaveworks/footloose](https://github.com/weaveworks/footloose)

(Disclamer: I'm the author of footloose)

</comment><comment><USER32> This sounds interesting, I want to look into it further. However, my immediate thought is what about the naming conflict with the very popular PHP framework?

[http://www.slimframework.com/](http://www.slimframework.com/)

</comment><comment><USER33> this is great! This might have saved me some time I was planning on spending to learn packer. I have a docker based project and I wanted to add VM generation to the CI pipeline.

Really excited to play with this tonight

</comment><comment><USER34> Can slim be used to create an iso? So:

Dockerfile > slim > iso

<comment><USER35> From the GitHub README:

> `$ slim build images/alpine3.8-simple`

> This will add a bootable iso in the slim registry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> What would an ideal re-world scenario look like for using these micro vms?

<comment><USER16> Docker containers don't have a robust security boundary, due to the kernel sharing that they do. These micro VMs combine the low resource cost of a container with the solid security boundary of a VM, which is very useful in a multi tenant architecture.

AWS Fargate and AWS Lambda run entirely on micro VMs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm curious how this approach compares with Kata Containers. Very cool.

</comment><comment><USER22> Are we just going in circles now?

Why not just start with a tiny vm and call it a day?

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Tooling matters. Building and managing VMs has, historically, been more work.

<comment><USER38> Debootstrap has been doing the work with pretty much one command for 10+ years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Does this allow for a docker image to be run inside a browser tab?

<comment><USER40> Naturally. With this and a bit of hacking: [https://bellard.org/jslinux/](https://bellard.org/jslinux/)

<comment><USER39> Forgive my lack of technical depth, but is it actually running client-side, in the memory allocated to my newly-opened browser tab, or on bellard.org's server and syncing the input/output to my browser?

<comment><USER41> Technical depth? Did you click the link?

> Run Linux or other Operating Systems in your browser!

It runs in your browser.

If you clicked the link you would also see demo links that run in your browser.

<comment><USER40> No need to be abrasive, many companies offer things "in your browser" yet they merely send you the frontend and instruct your browser to connect to their backend.

Such as gaming SaaS thingies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Thank you!! I always wanted to have a way of quickly ssh'ing into my docker image with some sort of virtual box implementation so I could poke around. I always felt the debug tools lacking. This is perfect. Can't wait to try it out!

<comment><USER43> Here comes!

Getting shell in a new copy of container:

docker run -it --entrypoint=/bin/sh ${container}

Running shell inside a running container:

docker exec -it ${container} /bin/sh

Running sshd inside a container to let you peek inside is bad taste, and bad security, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> What would it take to get this running on iOS and Android?

<comment><USER45> You'd never be able to run this on iOS. It's far too locked down.

You might be able to add QEMU support to this, and then run it on an Android device if you have root. But it would perform terribly because mobile chips generally don't have virtualization extensions and ARM as a virtualization host is a pretty immature platform.

TL;DR - far too much to be practical.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Why JavaScript instead of something more performant?

<comment><USER47> Normally the language for doing this kind of system building would be .. Bourne shell. Or Perl/Python.

<comment><USER30> I was actually expecting Bash scripts before I looked at the GitHub repo.

TBH, I think the code would be a lot simpler if it was just Bash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Stuff used to boot off of a floppy disk!

<comment><USER49> Used to have self-replicating persistent malware hidden inside filed that fit on floppy disks.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h And now we have compromised NPM packages and Dockerhub accounts. What's your point?

<comment><USER49> My point is people used to be able to program computers and now it's all embedded browsers all the way down which is why the recommended way to install ubuntu from macos involves downloading and running (as root!) a 330MB electron app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> A neat idea</comment>


Robot reaches rank 4 in hearthstone - <AUTHOR>

Last season in Hearthstone, Blizzard's digital card drug, I hit rank 14 or 15—an impressive feat, I thought, considering I hadn't bought any card packs since I started playing back in April.
Source: http://kotaku.com/this-robot-is-probably-better-than-you-at-hearthstone-1609547028
Bot: www.hearthcrawler.com <comment><USER2> better than blizzard AI .. lol

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes</comment></comment>


Hurricane: An Infinitely Scalable Messaging System - <AUTHOR> http://icheishvili.github.com/hurricane/

<comment><USER2> The project page never uses the word "infinitely", simply "scalable". The project is obviously very new, but I have to note:

* There's no use of OTP anywhere.

* It has an inferior re-implementation of a supervisor

* None of the language implementations use BERT[1], but instead re-implements this in ways that will make common users of that language cringe (particularly Ruby)

* Does the author realizes that scalability is a lot harder than just using erlang's built-in node graph system?

Don't get me wrong, I wish the author the best, but using Erlang comes with a number of assumptions, and without these it's going to be hard to be taken seriously, especially in a field that's well dominated by RabbitMQ and ActiveMQ.

[1]<http://bert-rpc.org/> bottom of page has implementations of BERT serializers in many languages

</comment><comment><USER3> Hum, I'm not overly impressed. Yes, erlang is nice, and I guess that using it to create some messaging broker is probably good, but I don't see what this projects adds compared to zeromq for example. 0MQ having the advantage of its large community, company-backed development, and (most importantly) brokerless messaging ...

</comment><comment><USER4> Looks very cool - some suggestions for the README:

\- who's sponsoring and using this?

\- how does it compare to other message buses

\- why should someone consider moving [0mq, rabbit, activemq] to this?

<comment><AUTHOR> For the record - I'm the submitter, but not affiliated with this project in any way - I just saw it on /r/programming over at Reddit and figured that some of the people here might be interested :-)</comment></comment>