DNS Queries over HTTPS - <AUTHOR> https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8484 <comment><USER3> Please forgive me if this has been covered. AFAIK it has not.

Has anyone worked out how this will play nicely in corporate environments? i.e. avoiding leaking even more internal names, resolving internal systems first, etc? Or is it on IT departments to now customize the proxy settings for all browsers and API clients on all operating systems? I ask, because I know that most companies barely manage this on one browser, much less all of them. I am not in IT, but I am occasionally required to assist them and sometimes that requires capturing DNS requests for entire networks.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure that this is in fact _designed_ to break that kind of arrangement. The problem is that the mechanics used for corporate monitoring are almost exactly the same mechanics used for your ISP spy on you or censor things. So yes, the end result is that we will need to move monitoring (and potentially blocking if you're doing that) onto the endpoints.

<comment><USER3> You are correct and that is my point as well. I have yet to see a company that manages all proxy settings for all browsers, operating systems, API clients, etc. At least, not very well. Shops that are strictly windows can enforce this from AD. Everyone else will have to shim something in. We are a mix of Windows, Mac and Linux. Mostly Mac.

Without a decent path forward, I could imagine that many corporations may go the heavy handed route of blocking all the known DoH resolvers. I envision IP and DNS lists like firehol and various RBL databases to eventually contain these if they do not already.

<comment><USER4> The place I work blocks all Internet access.

If you want to visit a webpage, you need to use the http (clear) proxy. Most web pages are blocked, and if you need one unblocked you open a ticket and wait a week (or escalate).

<comment><USER3> I've seen that too. One of our partners has such a stringent policy that the government of China allows them to entirely circumvent their "great firewall" with their own dedicated circuits. They track metrics on every single packet to and from anywhere. They essentially built their own world-wide ISP.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm kind of sad that we're using HTTPS as a transport though their use cases make sense. It seems this is intended to exist alongside the existing & new secure protocols? Is it foreseen that this will only be used by web apps?

<comment><USER6> Yes. No.

See also DNS over QUIC.

<comment><USER7> Somewhat tangential: HTTP/3, which will also be using QUIC

[https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic- http-13](https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-quic-http-13)

<comment><USER8> Isn't HTTP/3 just the name for IETF's QUIC?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18427795](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18427795)

<comment><USER7> QUIC (Quick UDP Internet Connections) is a protocol derived from Google's Speedy project. Another protocol would use QUIC to initiate a handshake between server and client. The cool thing is that it only takes one UDP packet to do what TCP does in the typical SYN/SYN-ACK/ACK.

<comment><USER9> Well, it's not quite exactly the same thing as the 3-way handshake over a single packet.

The 3-way handshake ensures that both ends are able to send traffic to their counterpart. Just because i receive a packet doesn't mean I can send one back.

<comment><USER10> Perhaps a better way to phrase it, is that the 3way handshake does not need to be completed before sending data.

<comment><USER11> Couldn't this mean massive amplification attacks?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Google offers a similar service, but doesn't look to implement any official spec [0].

I recently had a need to resolve DNS with http only and this came in handy.

[0] [https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns- over...](https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns-over-https)

</comment><comment><USER13> bunch of other large DoH discussions (sometimes about specific implementations, but with generic commentary as well)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16166202](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16166202)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17196415](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17196415)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17222861](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17222861)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17574516](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17574516)

</comment><comment><USER14> It's 2019 and we have DNS over TCP and HTTP over UDP

<comment><USER15> DNS has always been available over TCP. The DNS packet header has a Truncated (TC) bit that tells you when you should query over TCP, as UDP responses are usually truncated at ~500 bytes.

DNS over TCP can often provide better throughput and lower latency, especially on networks with a lot of packet loss (which can be _your_ network if you're, say, batch resolving IP address PTR records from a log where your DNS UDP requests overflow the kernel and NIC TX buffers).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> DNS Queries over HTTPS.. which implies TCP. Weren't TCP DNS requests avoided like the plague? And why wrap DNS in HTTPS instead of just TLS if you are going down the TCP route? Why not DNSCrypt which is already supported by a lot of servers? Or DNSCurve.. or DNS over QUIC.

<comment><USER17> You do both. Both Google and Cloudflare run DNSoTLS on port 853 and DNSoHTTPS on port 443. DNSoTLS and DNSoHTTPS in their short lives have already gained more traction than DNSCrypt ever got.

DNSoQUIC is already in the pipeline.

<comment><USER18> > DNSoTLS and DNSoHTTPS in their short lives have already gained more traction > than DNSCrypt ever got

I'm not convinced at all that this is true. Cisco, Comodo, Infoblox, Yandex, support DNSCrypt only in their products. They have no reason to switch to protocols that would require 10x more traffic.

OpenNIC secure resolvers are all DNSCrypt. Cleanbrowsing resolvers probably get a lot of connections over DNSCrypt as well.

I run both public resolvers accessible over DoH and DNSCrypt, and the traffic over DoH is negligible compared to the DNSCrypt one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This would certainly be huge overhead at the dns server right? I'm curious if anyone manages an authoritative DNS server? I currently manage four rather large ones and the collective whole serves up between 400,000 and 900,000 responses _per second_.

<comment><USER20> 1 Million responses per second on a 8 core 2 Ghz mahine means you have 16,000 clock cycles to formulate a response to each query.

Considering that [1] claims 1.43 cycles per byte for Chacha20, and assuming requests & responses are typically 200 bytes (they will compress well with HTTP header compression), the actual encryption part of https only consumes 1.43 * 200 = 286 cycles.

The remaining 15,716 clock cycles should be plenty to read the actual responses from the cache and parse the HTTP/2 request bytes.

Obviously all of the above assumes you design your infrastructure purely for performance. Writing everything in Python and NodeJS might suddenly burn up all those 15,716 clock cycles!

[1]: [https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/759.pdf](https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/759.pdf)

<comment><USER19> I checked the cpu stats - and what you describe is definitely accurate - <USER2> boxes spend most of their clock ticks on idle...which is amazing. At 3 Ghz and 8 cores - we're talking 24,000 clock cycles to come up with a response.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> '[RFC2818] defines how HTTPS verifies the DoH server's identity.' that RFC is TLS over HTTP

How do you resolve the IP address of your DoH server? Is the answer to just use an IP address? In that case does it have a certificate for the IP addresses instead of for a FQDN?

<comment><USER22> > _In that case does it have a certificate for the IP addresses instead of for > a FQDN?_

It can be both: If you look at [https://184.108.40.206/](https://220.127.116.11/), the certificate is issued for *.cloudflare-dns.com, but it also contains the alternative names 126.96.36.199 and 220.127.116.11.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I stumbled upon this when researching wether it was something to set up with my pi as DSN resolver but it was kinda a pita, does implementing DoT would be faster?

<comment><USER10> All the major DoH providers appear to also support DoT, so DoT is a viable option. Also it is easier to implement, as it can just be a abstraction of existing implementations over DNS over TCP.

<comment><USER23> I've seen your trust-dns rust-based repo, raspian is supported, I'll give it a try! Thanks

<comment><USER10> Cool, let me know if there's anything there you'd like to see.

I'm in the process of working on a system resolver, but first have to refactor a bunch of stuff. We'll see how that goes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is the 12th time (see: past) that this subject has been linked.

The 3rd time this exact link (ietf.org) has been posted.

Except for emotions: do we realy expect a new and exciting discussion will take place?

<comment><USER25> None of the previous conversations had any comment here.

<comment><USER26> They had:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18533056](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18533056)</comment></comment></comment>


GCHQ Forced Secure Email Service PrivateSky to Shut Down - <AUTHOR> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/articles/529392/20131211/gchq-forced-privatesky-secure-email-service-offline.htm

<comment><USER2> Significant discussion here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893947](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6893947)

that submission is from a different source (itsecurityguru.org) so this one may have different details.

There's another version here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6896127](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6896127)

        The real story on the PrivateSky takedown
        (certivox.com)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is before Lavabit...</comment>


Embrace Your Inner Geek: CNC Periodic Table of Elements Poster - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fictiv.com/posts/the-cnc-periodic-table-of-elements-poster-giveaway-contest-is-back <comment><USER2> Brilliant</comment>


Can the Federal Reserve Beige Book predict GDP? - <AUTHOR> http://acompa.net/blog/can-the-fed-beige-book-predict-gdp/

<comment><AUTHOR> The short answer is "yes," but I'm trying something different here. [0]

Academic papers are opaque: data is never freely offered, data cleaning is never detailed, and (in the case of [0]) algorithms are provided by paid commercial software.

Academic papers are notoriously secretive about their details, so what I'm trying here is a transparent, "open-source" academic paper. I'll explain everything while trying to reproduce [0], including data cleaning, methodology, and any sentiment analysis algorithms.

Comments greatly appreciated!

[0] <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1132332></comment>


Analyzing the .gr domain for vulnerable components – Part 1 - <AUTHOR> http://www.projectzero.gr/2014/04/analyzing-the-gr-domain-for-vulnerable-components-part-1/

<comment><USER2> This isn't neccesarily as bad as it looks -

Although some of the software is no longer supported, a lot of people stay on an old version for as long as possible, recieving security updates for years.

Really shocking to see so much PHP 4 though. Could the figures be warped because competent admins would prevent version harvesting?

<comment><AUTHOR> As noted in the last section, the survey focuses on facts concerning the greek IT industry.

Of course headers of outdated software can be interpreted in many ways (you mentioned a few). This is why we avoided any generalization of our conclusions.</comment></comment>


Expert: Acosta video distributed by White House was doctored - <AUTHOR> https://apnews.com/c575bd1cc3b1456cb3057ef670c7fe2a <comment><USER4> I guess in all the fuss we're not supposed to notice the important part - <USER2> a microphone was being forcibly seized from a journalist?

<comment><USER5> Comparing this press meeting to Swedish press meetings it seems I am missing something. Don't other nation have one question per journalist and then rotate until there is no more questions or time is up?

For Swedish press meeting, most of the time the journalist walk up to the stand, ask their question, and _during the time_ the representative answer the question the journalist walks back to their seat. There is practically never a back-and-forth conversation during a press meeting. If a TV or news paper want a interview they book an interview.

Is this a cultural difference?

<comment><USER6> That sounds shockingly respectful. I suppose the goal is to exchange information? In the US, the goal is now to stir the pot and get ratings.

<comment><USER7> We can easily judge by looking at the questions Acosta asked. We're they not good questions?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It took several minutes of rewatching the clips to notice any difference, but I think I see it now. I'm amazed anyone was able to catch this.

</comment><comment><USER9> Acosta should have never touched that woman. I'd be fired or suspended at my job if I did that.

<comment><USER10> He didn't touch her any more than she touched him. Are you insane?

<comment><USER11> She looked very professional, went for the mic, did 3 attempts, and stood aside when pushed away by the journalist.

This time "doctored" issue is to distract people on what actually happened.

Journalist had asked his questions, and the President answered. He was, refusing to end his turn, being sensationalist and irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> When the debate is over, slander becomes the tool of the loser. - <USER3>

</comment><comment><USER13> What's the likelihood that a libel/slander lawsuit against Sanders would succeed?

<comment><USER14> Zero. She didn't claim it was realtime, and cycle accurate</comment></comment>


FTC forces Sears, Kmart out of the spyware business - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/ftc-forces-sears-kmart-out-of-the-spyware-business.ars

<comment><USER2> "Under the settlement (PDF) with the FTC, Sears has now agreed to destroy all data gained from the experiment and stop collecting data from any software still running in the wild. In addition, if it wants to do any tracking in the future, the company has committed to "clearly and prominently disclose the types of data the software will monitor, record, or transmit. This disclosure must be made prior to installation and separate from any user license agreement. Sears must also disclose whether any of the data will be used by a third party."

The thing that bothers me about this whole thing is that any company can do whatever they want and in the end the worst that can happen is that they have to destroy and not repeat it.

</comment><comment><USER3> What I want to know is:

1\. Why did they think that pulling data from participants' secure shopping carts was a good idea?

2\. Why did they even need to look at participants' webmail information?

3\. Why did anyone at Sears/K-Mart think that this was a good idea _at all?_

Pulling all of that extra customer data _increases_ their business risk. If that information was to leak somehow and damage a customer financially it would be bad legally and publicity-wise for both companies. And let's face it, K-Mart and Sears don't exactly need bad publicity at this point in the game.

</comment><comment><USER4> Even with all that data, they still suck at marketing.</comment>


Flipkart Pulls Out of Airtel Zero Partnership - <AUTHOR> http://www.nextbigwhat.com/flipkart-airtel-zero-2-297

<comment><AUTHOR> Flipkart CTO tweeted this -> We aren't just pulling out, but will also be throwing our weight behind #NetNeutrality in every way

([https://twitter.com/amodm/status/587866490260471808](https://twitter.com/amodm/status/587866490260471808))</comment>


Firefox Beta for Windows 10 on Qualcomm Snapdragon Now Available - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/futurereleases/2019/04/11/firefox-beta-for-windows-10-on-qualcomm-snapdragon-always-connected-pcs-now-available/ <comment><USER2> In one of the recent threads about Microsoft switching their Edge browser to be based on Chromium, I thought I read that one of the arguments against Firefox was the lack of ARM support.

I will continue to hold that the Edge team/leadership at MSFT made a wrong choice betting on a web monoculture here, and I hope Firefox remains popular as an alternative.

<comment><USER3> Firefox has had ARM support for a long time. Heck, there's even MIPS support in the tree, though I don't know whether anyone's exercised that code recently.

<comment><USER4> It didn't have ARM64 JIT support until very recently.

<comment><USER3> I wrote patches to the existing ARM64 code generator three years ago...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I want a phone-sized Windows 10 ARM device that runs desktop-class software such as this version of Firefox when docked (and adapts to mobile capabilities when undocked, as a responsive web-app does). Although not Windows, Purism seems the most promising runner in anything like this race today, and I'm hoping more contestants enter the race.

In any event, thank you Mozilla for supporting this platform. I hope Microsoft puts some more serious weight behind it.

<comment><USER6> This is also in the news this morning: They've got rudimentary radio support working on the Lumia 950 running Windows 10 on ARM. [https://mspoweruser.com/breakthrough-for-windows-10-for- arm-...](https://mspoweruser.com/breakthrough-for-windows-10-for-arm-on-the- lumia-950/)

Unfortunately, Microsoft will not likely reenter this arena or support phones with Windows in any official capacity, the current direction from Satya appears to be to retreat from every competitive market and cede all standards to El Goog. Microsoft promotes Android, is building a browser based on Chromium, and is abandoning Cortana. Best hope for this would be a third party building an ultraportable themselves and writing their own phone support.

<comment><USER7> It makes some short-term sense.

It seems like they're focusing on the enterprise element of their business, which is what's making more money, has fewer players to work with, etc.

I'd imagine they see their future closer to HP than Apple.

<comment><USER6> Oh, sure, Satya's strategy has done wonders for Microsoft's stock value, but Microsoft's constant retreats from various parts of their ecosystem sequentially harms the remaining parts of their ecosystem. The further they retreat, the less people have a reason to build on Microsoft's platforms.

And bear in mind, HP is a hardware company, they aren't worried about what platform is running on their hardware. Microsoft is a software company, which is a very different ball game.

<comment><USER8> They are working very hard to be a SaaS and cloud infra company. It's why they are promoting iOS and Android with Office 365.

<comment><USER6> The problem is they're playing in someone else's sandbox that way. Google is a competitor on SaaS and cloud infrastructure, and have the ability to directly integrate their services with Chrome and Android, whereas Microsoft does not.

<comment><USER9> Google is playing 3rd place on SaaS and clound infrastructure.

It is all about AWS or Azure.

<comment><USER10> In the segment of Office 365 etc?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Everyone seems to be tripping over themselves in excitement about these qualcomm SOCs. Qualcomm has a history of being pretty hostile toward everyone, because of that these have a pretty low chance of being used in any kind of device that will be able to run current software for more than a few years.

Meanwhile we have devices based on freescale IMX chips that run GNU/Linux with X11 and whatever else you want (including firefox/iceweasel) right now, they probably just don't have the on board peripherals and connectivity you want.

<comment><USER12> Well… it's a complex situation, they officially contribute to Freedreno IIRC, but the firmware is still terrible. For some reason you're always booted under a hypervisor, even. There was kind of a hope that Windows requiring ACPI would improve the situation, but they seem to still use a lot of custom crap.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> You know what would be neat? A Snapdragon mini-box that has an m2 slot, and actual full sized DDR3 DIMM slots (so I can reuse sticks I already own).

<comment><USER14> Most Qualcomm chips expect DDR3L/DDR4L, so desktop and most 2+ year old laptop ram won't work.

Additionally, the drivers for Snapdragon SOCs are a mess, and they haven't made an effort to get all their changes in the mainline kernel. For such a large company, Qualcomm has some pretty wretched development and business practices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Anybody know what happened to the x86 on ARM thing Microsoft had a while back?

<comment><USER16> It exists. Pick up a device that support ARM64 Windows 10 and it has compatibility with x86 programs (via an emulation layer like WoW64).

This announcement is for Firefox for ARM64 Windows 10 (without using the emulation layer). So, faster, uses less battery, etc.

<comment><USER17> Plus it will be great to have an ARM64 alternative to Chromium given the disbanding of the EdgeHTML renderer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm looking forward to trying this out. I have a first get Windows on ARM device and the standby battery life is amazing. If the browsing was a bit more performant it would be a much better device. Youtube is quite sluggish with Edge and YouTube TV doesn't even support Edge (at the moment) so I've been using an x86 build of Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER19> Could you run Windows 10 on an Arm phone?

<comment><USER4> There's an unofficial port for Lumia 950 and Lumia 950 XL: [https://github.com/WOA-Project/WOA-Deployer-Lumia](https://github.com/WOA- Project/WOA-Deployer-Lumia)

Raspberry Pi is probably most accessible device for running Windows 10 on ARM: [https://github.com/WOA-Project/WOA-Deployer-Rpi](https://github.com/WOA- Project/WOA-Deployer-Rpi)</comment></comment>


The Tcl War - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanderburg.org/OldPages/Tcl/war/

<comment><AUTHOR> Found via <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1616045>

Definitely a niche topic, but interesting to see what RMS in action away from the spotlight of more typical issues.</comment>


Ask HN: Has anyone gone back to get a BS in computer eng. after a BS in CS? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Why not go for an MS in CompE instead?</comment>


Xfce 4.16pre1 Released - <AUTHOR> https://andreldm.com/2020/09/12/xfce4.16pre1.html <comment><USER2> I didn't see it mentioned, but I hope they added a toggle to disable pushing windows back when middle clicking the title bar. This has tripped me up multiple times when trying to close browser tabs.</comment>


Why your brand-new plane doesn't have a seat-back TV - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2014/08/05/future-of-ife

<comment><USER2> Mainly so the airline can hire out an iPad for in-flight entertainment. They hold your credit card until you return the iPad at the end of the flight.</comment>


Private Key Extraction from Qualcomm Hardware-Backed Keystores - <AUTHOR> https://www.nccgroup.trust/us/our-research/private-key-extraction-qualcomm-keystore/?research=Technical+advisories <comment><USER2> [https://www.qualcomm.com/company/product- security/bulletins#...](https://www.qualcomm.com/company/product- security/bulletins#_CVE-2018-11976)

That's pretty much all the snapdragons in modern Android phones (page is not letting me copy+paste them here).

Has QC put out a patch yet?

EDIT: The April security patch looks like it took care of it:

[https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-04-01](https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-04-01)

EDIT 2: And of course, my Samsung Galaxy S8+, despite having received an update _in April_ , is only at the March 1st security patch level. So I'm likely vulnerable until Samsung's next update.

<comment><USER3> Yes. From the article:

> Recommendation

> Qualcomm has already designed and distributed a patch to address this issue. > Ensure that your devices are running the most recent firmware version.

Also, here's the list from that page: IPQ8074, MDM9150, MDM9206, MDM9607, MDM9650, MDM9655, MSM8909W, MSM8996AU, QCA8081, QCS605, Qualcomm 215, SD 210/SD 212/SD 205, SD 410/12, SD 425, SD 427, SD 430, SD 435, SD 439 / SD 429, SD 450, SD 615/16/SD 415, SD 625, SD 632, SD 636, SD 650/52, SD 712 / SD 710 / SD 670, SD 820, SD 820A, SD 835, SD 845 / SD 850, SD 8CX, SDA660, SDM439, SDM630, SDM660, Snapdragon_High_Med_2016, SXR1130

<comment><USER2> Thanks, I was hoping to figure out _when_ it was distributed. But your comment encouraged me to search for the CVE, and it looks like it was fixed in the Android 04-05 security patch:

[https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-04-01](https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2019-04-01)

<comment><USER4> For vendor patches, you really can't trust that value in any way... I'm afraid there is no real way to check, except for trying the attack.

Qualcomm patches are not distributed as part of AOSP security patches, and is not tested for Google certification, so there is really no reason for it to be accurate, except possibly for Pixels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not the best response from the vendor:

> March 19, 2018: Contact Qualcomm Product Security with issue; receive > confirmation of receipt

> April, 2018: Request update on analysis of issue

> May, 2018: Qualcomm confirms the issue and begins working on a fix

<comment><USER6> I worked for a big company that made some really popular networking equipment. Of all people you would expect them to handle security ... fairly ok.

Yet they struggled to get headcount for people to respond to security researchers, and despite having seemingly trained the executives there was a regular "Oh man I contacted legal we should sue this guy!" type email every few months.

Meanwhile they had a separate technical support team who knew how to respond to customers in a timely fashion, make people feel like they're being listened to, but for some reasons they had to reinvent the wheel / fail repeatedly at dealing with security researchers as if nobody had ever done basic customer service before. I was on the support team and I sat next to the security guy(s) and I would show them what to do and how to keep a customer or security researcher on track. It wasn't rocket science, but nobody thought to teach them that.

And that was beyond training engineering to stop with the "well you're using it wrong" type responses.

The scale of, incompetence in the security field is astounding as a lot of folks with security written all over their resume don't know jack squat. And the scale of incompetence just DEALING with security researchers is also bizzaro world terrible, even among companies that should know better.

<comment><USER7> I think it would take at least another 20 years to have people that are really security expert in most of the big companies!

<comment><USER8> Stuff changes. Today's young Turks, when factoring in the time and energy to get to the point they would be listened to, will have antiquated skills too.

Old people can certainly keep up! But corporate climbers often can't (I do know of exceptions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does this allow someone to decrypt a stolen device?

I moved from an iPhone to a Galaxy S9 about a year ago because I was getting fed up with Apple's hardware problems, and wanted try Android again.

I convinced myself that I was able to secure the Android phone as long as I always bought the newest one and kept it up to date.

But decryption after loss is an untenable scenario for me. I had read that qualcomm's trustzone has had software exploits in the past, but I didn't think it would happen again.

Is there any way to trust that the data on my Android device is safe? If I lost it today, someone could keep it around for a while until the next exploit drops. Has Apple ever had an exploit of this nature?

<comment><USER10> Don't ever trust anyone to keep your sensitive data encrypted by default. Make sure you get something like TrueCrypt (open source, tested by a large segment of population, security experts from open source segment, etc) that is truly secured and don't have any backdoors, and use that to lock-up your data in a encrypted container. Make backups in cloud of those containers and sleep like a baby.

<comment><USER11> The idea that it's safer to trust Truecrypt than the platform's enclave secret system because enclaves sometimes have vulnerabilities strikes me as pretty weird, since the big difference between Truecrypt and an enclave-based system is that Truecrypt doesn't have an enclave to begin with.

<comment><USER12> Doesn't seem that weird. The enclave has your secret in it, and comes attached to the storage it's protecting. Steal storage, extract key, done.

My software FDE does not keep my password in it. There is nothing to extract after stealing. I will happily stipulate though that this requires a solid password and key stretching.

<comment><USER13> ... if and only if it is off. Which is probably not a great assumption with a phone.

A DIY mitigation might be to convert a phone to having only an external battery on a long cable, which stays in your other pocket.

Philosophically I do agree with where you're coming from with contemporary devices insisting on baking in privileged keys. It's unfortunate that we're forced to choose between the two models.

<comment><USER12> Good point. Didn't really consider live or "cold boot" attacks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Possibly stupid question: If only a few _bits_ of nonce are needed to recover the key, what's preventing iteration of all possible values of those "few bits"?

<comment><USER15> Likely they can recover something like `private_key XOR nonce`. If you know a few bits of the nonce, you can reveal bits of the private key. But this is not something you can brute-force.

In other words, the nonce bits leak information about the private key bits. You can't magically create this information by trying all possible values.

<comment><USER16> store something known in the secure storage...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Could this allow bootloader unlocking, custom roms, etc. on an otherwise locked device (e.g. S7)? Tried the engineering bootloader, but horrible battery management.

I'll avoid updating until I know more.

<comment><USER18> I guess it depends which public key the device is willing to accept updates from. This exploit gets you the per-device keystore private key, which is not going to be being used by vendors to sign builds. But perhaps there's an option somewhere to allow running firmware updates if the payload is signed by the device's keystore key, I don't know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> >We demonstrate this by extracting an ECDSA P-256 private key from the hardware-backed keystore on the Nexus 5X.

Did the fixes make it to nexus 5x ? It has been EOL since December 2018. The cve date is CVE-2018-11976 though.

</comment><comment><USER20> Related topics:

* [https://jochen-hoenicke.de/crypto/trezor-power-analysis/](https://jochen-hoenicke.de/crypto/trezor-power-analysis/)

* [https://www.bearssl.org/constanttime.html](https://www.bearssl.org/constanttime.html)

<comment><USER21> The BearSSL link is the important one. For one, because they could literally have copy-pasted the code from there and would have avoided the issue outright. And second, because it demonstrates how useless the Qualcomm approach of throwing an entire Indian city worth of developers at a problem is when it comes to security. It just takes one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Are there any interesting practical consequences from this in common apps?

</comment><comment><USER23> Considering how some carriers refuse to unlock bootloaders, this may well be the only option some of us have to restore bricked phones. Other than paying Google 250 bucks to reflash them.</comment>


The DDoS That Knocked Spamhaus Offline (And How We Mitigated It) - <AUTHOR> http://blog.cloudflare.com/the-ddos-that-knocked-spamhaus-offline-and-ho <comment><USER2> I had never seen the "Internet Census" [0] paper they linked before. Researchers scanned the whole IPv4 space for telnet daemons that would respond to root/root, in one night, using the unsecured machines they found. Really cool!

[0] <http://internetcensus2012.bitbucket.org/paper.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> spamhaus.org is down for me, giving a cloudflare error page.

<comment><USER2> _www._ spamhaus.org seems to be up.</comment></comment>


Billions' worth of high-tech research seeking to make death optional - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/04/03/silicon-valleys-quest-to-live-forever?mbid=social_twitter <comment><USER2> When I see things like this, I'm reminded of a story an old co-worker told me who was a war veteran years ago in his home country. He and many others were made to go to war for their country and risk their lives. However, those who were wealthy and/or well-connected could find ways out of being compelled to go into the military and risk their lives.

One of the wealthy, well connected young men he knew who got out of going into military was killed getting hit by a bus in an accident. The guy telling the story actually went into a bloody war seeing people get killed around him, yet he somehow was alive today to tell the tale.

What's my point? I don't think it's pointless to research life-extending technology. It seems like some forms of death couldn't be avoided 'post-hoc', if one had a particular accident or the like, no matter how many resources were at your disposal, however. I guess lowering the overall probability of dying of 'something' in general would be nice though.

<comment><USER3> I agree. Even if you conquer conventional biological aging via nanobots in your bloodstream or whatever, you'd still be vulnerable to random space elevator accidents, particle beam malfunction, etc.

<comment><USER4> It's still better to have an _option_ of dying than to have a _certainty_ of dying[0]. Also, avoiding accidents and even malicious actions becomes an engineering problem to be solved too. Maybe we'll end up having mind backups, so if you die in that elevator, you'll get restored from last night's copy into a freshly-grown body?

\--

[0] - sure, when lifespan approaches infinity, the probability of dying due to external factors will approach 1 anyway, but it's still better than having your lifespan capped at 120 years or something (last decades of which barely qualify as living).

<comment><USER3> Right, I agree that pursuing life-extension is worthwhile. Even living a few more decades at the height of our productivity would benefit society immensely, given how long it takes to train humans to be experts at anything.

I'm just trying to inject a little reality into the more starry-eyed Singularitarianist fantasies about living for millions of years among the stars as an uploaded member of a hive-mind or something.

I'm not a "deathist" by any means, but I accept that one day, it is overwhelmingly likely that my consciousness will end.

<comment><USER5> I think that if we could defeat aging, living one million of years wouldn't be that hard to achieve. People would just focus more on preventing fatal accidents. Plus, more accidents would be survivable because healthcare would be much more advanced too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Probably no better chance for humanity to transcend its current perennial state of warfare and short term thinking than to make people live for a few centuries. Imagine a world where life is precious and they have to live with the consequences of their choices rather than having the next generation deal with their decisions.

<comment><USER7> Look at the values of the people who ruled a mere hundred years ago. It's a damn good thing for "savages," women, LGBT folks, etc. that ruling classes, no matter how authoritarian, eventually abdicate by dying and that the next generation views the world a little differently.

Could you imagine being governed the way that your 500-year-old elders deem fitting? We wouldn't need violent extremists to try to reimpose 16th century public morals. They would simply never have left.

To support this, you have to believe we are _perfect_ now, that there are no more controverises between the young and the old that the young need to win. Otherwise, this is one of those moments where society pulls up the drawbridge, comes full circle. We'll have leaned so far into science and technology that the next time the elders cry "Witchcraft!" they will never go away.

<comment><USER6> Suppose I could imagine being ruled by people from a couple of millenia ago when homosexuality was normal. Morality progresses and regresses all the time, unfortunately it is not guaranteed to go in the "right" direction either way. See what happened to same sex relationships in Western history. There were plenty of young folks who deemed it to be worth killing for at one point. Unfortunately the young are much more likely to give in to the latest moral fashions and mob mentality than they are to do a fully informed historical evaluation of the current state of morality.

<comment><USER4> My current belief is that morality is indirectly related to the progress of technology, by being directly related to the stability and wealth of the society. Basically, when most people aren't afraid of going hungry or getting invaded by their neighbours, they suddenly have time to discuss issues like homosexuality and generally relax the social norms that in the past were necessary for survival (by maintaining group cohesion).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What really aggravates me about this article is the exceedingly disingenuous dismissal of SENS rejuvenation research programs it puts forward.

The author settles on allotopic expression of mitochondrial genes in the cell nucleus as an example of a project so difficult it is impossible. But allotopic expression is a very poor example to pick for something that is alleged to be "a doomed labor." The work has been accomplished for three of the thirteen genes needed; this is a capability that exists, and is underway towards completion. The allotopic expression of mitochondrial gene ND4 is the basis for a therapy that is currently going through clinical trials in Europe! It exists, it works! Yes, it took effort to get there, effort funded at the early stages by the SENS Research Foundation and those who donated to it, I should note, but so does everything else.

This is one of the things that frustrates me immensely about many of the critics of SENS - they willfully ignore some of the progress that has been made, pretending it doesn't exist.

Yet their behavior for progress that is so compelling they can't ignore it is in many ways worse. Let us look at what is said - and, more importantly, not said - about senescent cell clearance, something that de Grey and other SENS advocates have been promoting as a path to treat aging for the past fifteen years, on the basis of strong evidence, that they assembled from the various groups who created it across the research community, laid out, and made the argument for. It is right there in the SENS outline; hard to miss, and has been from pretty much day one back at the turn of the century. Senescent cell clearance is a core part of the SENS agenda.

Fortunately for all of us, targeted removal of senescent cells has finally taken off these past few years, the evidence for a significant impact on aging has grown to be nigh irrefutable, and near everyone in the research community is enthused. Yet SENS and many researchers' past vocal rejections of senescent cell clearance as a part of SENS is swept under the rug, never to be mentioned. It is unconscionable behavior, and it happens in this article: despite covering UNITY Biotechnology, the senolytics company, no mention of senescent cells is made in connection with the SENS vision. It takes some brass to claim SENS to be a doomed effort and then roll right on in the next paragraph to a discussion with one of the UNITY co-founders on the topic of removing senescent cells to treat aging.

<comment><USER9> SENS was right, and they're not getting credit for being right, when everyone else was wrong. Let's hope their other predictions come true as well!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I actually believe its highly important we achieve this sooner rather than later. Because we are currently limited by death for a lot of things. One example is Inter-Planetary Space Travel. If you could live longer then you can travel farther and explore more.

<comment><USER11> As if it's not going to be exclusively available for the ultra billionaires. Immortality will be the final divider of the classes.

<comment><USER12> It's not going to be exclusively available for ultra billionaires, if it is possible at all. There are lots of things that would be powerful advantages if only a tiny elite had access to them: vaccines, antibiotics, anti-retroviral drugs, digital computers... but if a thing is demonstrated possible at all, others will figure out how to do it again. And if the first inventors refuse to sell or share the technology it will just be spread by the second or third group to figure out the trick.

<comment><USER13> Already wealth is a big factor in longevity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The financial impact of this is an interesting angle to me.

Considering that many of us hope to retire (or at least not _have_ to work a stressful job) a lot of effort goes into saving up enough money to last just ~20 years after finishing work.

I'm not sure how most of us would be able to ammass sufficient wealth to be comfortably retired even for 60 years (ie live to "just" 120-130 years of age).

<comment><USER15> If you have to worry about that you won't be able to afford these treatments anyway.

<comment><USER16> Strangely, this is both reassuring and scary at the same time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> If the ages of dogs and cats don't increase accordingly, the smart money would be on domesticating longer lived species of pets. e.g. Tortoises live up to 2 centuries.

I'm only in my forties and I've buried 5 pet cats already! I'm not sure I could live to 130 and go through the trauma of outliving quite a significant number more.

<comment><USER18> More likely would be parrots, which can in some circumstances outlive humans, and are much more intelligent and social than tortoises. Unfortunately most birds are fundamentally fractured in their braincases and they are insane uncontrollable maniacs. They act like they are controlled by a twitch stream.

[https://np.reddit.com/r/AnimalsBeingJerks/comments/42vlvs/ne...](https://np.reddit.com/r/AnimalsBeingJerks/comments/42vlvs/neighbourhood_bullies/czdvkhl/)

"A side note, I am fully convinced that ALL cockatoos are insane. They are fun to own, they are adorable to watch, but deep inside that tiny feathered skull is a scratched, perpetually skipping warped record playing the soundtrack to Silent Hill backwards. If you could experience the brain of a cockatoo first hand, you would probably feel like you had dropped 1,000 hits of premium acid and boarded the scariest roller coaster ever imagined. I love each and every one I have ever met, but they are ALL insane."

</comment></comment><comment> a-guest Supposing an incredible anti-aging pill is invented, what do you suppose the chances are the pill-taker begins to feel like one Bilbo Baggins? "I feel thin, sort of stretched, like butter scraped over too much bread."

</comment><comment><USER19> _Amy Wagers, a researcher at Harvard, told me, "Part of the meaning of life is that we die."_

I wouldn't want to live forever if I had to keep hearing this.

<comment><USER4> I'd happily wait until all who keep believing that die of old age.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> On a large scale, I don't have any objection to seeking to end human mortality. However, I'm skeptical of our ability to maintain a functional society given the existence of immortal humans. I can't even imagine the levels of inequality when portions of the population can live forever.

Never mind the ethics of figuring out how to dole out immortality, and to whom.

</comment><comment><USER21> One of the recent discoveries is mentioned:

He praised their work with enzymes that help regulate aging; with teasing out genes that control life span in various dog breeds; and with a technique by which an old mouse is surgically connected to a young mouse, shares its blood, and within weeks becomes younger.

When I originally read about that work I pictured some people with money and no moral compass kidnapping children and getting a similarly minded surgeon to perform the procedure on themselves. A recent spike in child trafficking could be a direct result of this. It makes for the most frightening villain I can think of. So lets hope they figure out how to get these benefits without grafting the young onto the old sooner rather than later.

</comment><comment><USER22> This is the ultimate necessary thing to do actually for human beings. All economics and social activities stem from the quest to live forever, though it's impossible to implement before. But today, technologies have made this promising. Believe me, it's not absurd at all.

Think about all religions, they come from the quest to live forever deeply inside human's unconscious, but today, technology and science have become the new religion, and its goal, in fact, is still the same here, because human beings never change much.

Combine biology and information theory, I think this can be done before 2500 A.D..

<comment><USER23> > _All economics and social activities stem from the quest to live forever_

This is quite an assertion.

> _Think about all religions, they come from the quest to live forever deeply > inside human 's unconscious_

Yeah, I don't agree with this one either.

I have no expectations about this stuff. I suppose I find it all pretty fantastical and I probably will until there's hard evidence all this hype is actually leading somewhere.

<comment><USER24> >> Think about all religions, they come from the quest to live forever deeply inside human's unconscious

>Yeah, I don't agree with this one either.

Follow the commandments and you are guaranteed to live forever in heaven. It doesn't get more concrete than that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "In an age of explosive development in the realm of medical technology, it is unnerving to find that the discoveries of Salk, Sabin, and even Pasteur remain irrelevant to much of humanity."

-Paul Farmer

</comment><comment><USER26> What the article doesn't discuss is genetic engineering to make longer-lived humans. That's more likely to work than a rejuvenation scheme. But it's a tougher sell; it benefits only the unborn.

A major genetic redesign might require generating a new species, one that doesn't interbreed with old-style humans. Or maybe several new species; Squibb people and Novartis people might not interbreed. That's a social problem for 50-100 years out.

</comment><comment><USER27> When finally science unlocks the secret of immortality, they'll raise the retirement age correspondingly…

<comment><USER28> Official retirement age? Once you build up some passive income sources you can retire whenever you want. And you can do that as simply as having a nest egg sitting in an investment portfolio.

<comment><USER29> Oh, it's just that easy? And I can do it whenever? I just need a nest egg? What is that exactly? Oh, but I also need a passive income source? That's all?

So explain how exactly does "anyone" pull this off, or explain how there a massive gap which prevents most people from doing this. Bonus points for explaining how one or the other situation is better.

<comment><USER28> Its simple, but that doesn't make it easy.

The most tractable way to pull it off is to dramatically lower your expenses. How much do you need to live? If you can get a consistent 5% interest from your assets (-2% inflation) then $1m will net you $30k of spending money per year without digging into the base. Saving up that much money in the tech sector over an entire career (especially one thats been extended due to anti- aging research, which is what we're talking about) is very doable. Lots of people pull it off, they just call that asset 'their house' and call saving money 'paying off the mortgage'. If you sell / rent out the house and move somewhere cheap then you can be pretty comfortable living on less than $30k/yr, depending on what you want to do.

If you want more information:

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

[https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/](https://www.reddit.com/r/financialindependence/)

<comment><USER24> Doesn't it take some time to take care of the assets though? Or are you able to get those returns without touching them at all?

<comment><USER28> There is a plethora of companies who will solve that problem for you, in exchange for a small cut of the investment returns.

Eg, [https://www.betterment.com](https://www.betterment.com) for stocks & bonds, and [http://www.ipmanagers.com.au](http://www.ipmanagers.com.au) for managing property. (For property you obviously want someone local to your area.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Or rather, humankind's quest to not die quite so very quickly.

</comment><comment><USER31> Just don't forget - eventually the universe dies, and your immortal body along with it.

<comment><USER32> I never understand why this always gets brought up. Yes, let's worry about the universe dying after a few billion years when people are currently dying at ~100 if they're lucky. Talk about scale mismatch.

<comment><USER33> I think it's because existentially, it doesn't really matter if you live 80 years or until the final heat-death of the universe. When you get to the end, you'll still want to live longer and marvel at how fast it all went by.

The miracle is that we existed at all, and that we recognized ourselves (or whatever consciousness is). Next to that, duration is insignificant. A scale mismatch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> How successful are humans at rejuvenating large codebases back to when they were new and small and fresh? (Without rewrites or replacements)

Surely human bodies will be easier to rejuvenate than that, eh?

</comment><comment><USER12> Some of these "benefits" of death are just ridiculous. If you don't like a long life you can always end it. It's not like anyone is going to invent mythology-grade immortality and then chain you to a rock to be tormented by an eagle tearing at your liver.

I don't expect that anti-aging research is going to significantly extend my own lifespan or healthspan. Biology is really complicated. But that doesn't justify sugar-coating age related morbidity and mortality. They are _really_ bad. The only thing worse than death is great pain. Old age deals out both: pain _and_ death. It torments and finally kills you. People trying to defeat death may be delusional about their prospects for success, but they are at least trying to do the best thing humans have tried to do in generations.

<comment><USER35> If you are under 40 I don't think the prospect of a fair amount of additional healthy years as a result of this research is a particularly delusional one. Actual immortality seems unlikely to me, however.

<comment><USER36> Dammit, I'm 41. Oh well, death it is.

<comment><USER18> He actually does have a point. It's pretty difficult to actually reverse aging once it has started, as everything kind of feeds back into itself. There are a few exceptions- Alzheimer's may be reversible, but things like heart damage, immune weakness or DNA degradation may not be. The way it looks right now it may be easier to stop aging from starting than to stop the damage from occuring. Once it starts happening, even if aging stops the damage will still accrue.

<comment><USER37> From a computational POV DNA damage should be trivial to repair. You have so many redundant copies in your body. Of course building a fault-free copy, creating stemcells from that and coaxing those into fixing any defects without causing cancer is still scifi, but not the physics-violating kind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Read up on Near-Death-Experiences, go with the natural and relax.

</comment><comment><USER39> "Can billions of dollars' worth of high-tech research succeed in making death optional?" No, because you were never alive in the first place. Well not that in the way you thought you were. Insert Alan Watts quote.

<comment><USER34> I have a tough time seeing that worldview as anything much different from solipsism ("it's my brain which creates the world as much as the world creates me, it's you who makes the sun bright, it's you who makes the sky blue, it's you who makes rocks heavy - so you can't say anything objective about anything") and nihilism ("everything is subjective and relative, nothing matters, not joy, not torture") and fatalism ("you can't change yourself to be better, because you don't know what better is, and the you which is supposed to do the changing doesn't exist either").

As he says, you start _learning_ that you are one with everything, because you don't realise that you always were one with everything and can never have become separated from it. A skillful person operates on two levels simultaneously.

And then he enlightenedly cheated on his wife, married again twice, and drank himself to death. (Which is not to ad-hom his position, but to point out that for all his studying and meditation, he doesn't seem to have had all the answers)

Well we do have a label of what death is, and we might have a chance of changing it, and if we prefer that, what does it help to say "you weren't alive"?

<comment><USER40> Ok, the OPs post wasn't fantastic, but I have to be honest, the logic you're applying here is a little confusing.

If I understand you correctly, you're point is Alan studied Zen Buddhism but didn't take it as the gospel, therefore the original teachings are false. Which doesn't really seem correct to me

I'm by no means an Alan Watts fan, it just seemed like strange reasoning.

<comment><USER34> My main point was: Alan Watts explicitly said that concepts don't go away once you realise they exist in your head not in the world, and concepts are useful - 'skill' is being able to see both interpretations simultaneously. Well we have concepts of life and death. The parent post saying "you can't put off death if you were never alive" is like saying "you can't take colour photos after you realise the colours exist only in your heads". But you can. It sounds connected, but it's unconnected, it's crossing over two worldviews in one sentence. In one worldview you are alive and can die and can apply medical intervention to try and live longer, in the other view a rippling part of the universe that you call 'medical intervention' connects with a rippling part of the universe that feels like 'you' and the consequence is that the ripple ripples for longer.

And it's .. the same thing. You can't really use that view to argue that it can't happen, or that it shouldn't happen.

(Intermixed with meanderings about how that worldview seems pretty dismal in some respects, and I don't really get it).

<comment><USER39> Watts also said you are the Big Bang. Think of an ink bottle thrown at the wall and BOOM ink goes in every direction on the wall, and the tiny little bits of ink at the ends are us. We are the Big Bang, and before it went boom it was 1 solid object. That's the "real you" that can never die. And the illusion you have for 100 years is that you are this separate create called a human with the name John Smith etc etc. but it's all intentional amnesia by the real you. Because, try this, it's absolutely impossible to surprise yourself. You can't sneak up on yourself and go boo and actually be surprised. You need someone else. So, just for fun, the real you broke into different selves. And once you realize this (satori) you laugh and laugh and relax and enjoy the ride to "death" which really isn't death. Therefore drinking lots of alcohol and bringing on this death quicker isn't disallowed. Or 2nd wives or any other sin you want to name.

<comment><USER34> Watts also said 'praise and blame go together. If there was only praise, everyone would get bored of it, it wouldn't mean anything. So long as you're going to get a kick out of being praised then you have to go around blaming people too. But if you see the folly of that, that praising and blaming are just creating each other, then you don't praise and you don't blame, you just dig the whole thing'.

But I feel there's something wrong with this.

Just for fun the universe broke up into pieces, OK. Go further -> just for fun the pieces invented tribes and societies and languages and technologies and 'toys' of all kinds and companies and ... anything and everything above the unified fundamental forces.

very Terence McKenna and the observation that the universe doesn't appear to be 'winding down', it appears to be 'winding up', 'generating novelty', up from the unified forces to the separate fundamental forces, up through matter instead of only energy, up through the fundamental particles, through the light elements and galactic clusters and stars, up through heavier elements, up through solar systems and planets, up through geology and plate tectonics, building on the lower levels, up through weather patterns and climatology and elemental chemistry, up through single cell organisms and electro-bio- chemistry, up through multiple cells and branches of life and sexual reproduction, up through sea creatures and reptiles and land mammals and socialisation, up through communication and languages, up through societies and settlements, up through all kinds of technologies ..

and then why say it stops here? Why take the Buddhist style view that _this_ is the arbitrary place to stop generating novelty, to say that nothing matters, to relax and enjoy the ride and get drunk? We should be increasing the number of distinctions and their interactions, that appears to be the direction of everything.

The universe has spent 14 billion years increasing complexity on smaller and smaller scales, on smaller and smaller timescales, winding up and up and up. Instead of seeing that as good or bad, what about seeing _that_ as inevitable? Instead of relaxing and saying that nothing means anything it's all just illusion, why not see the illusion as the whole point of the universe, more important than anything else?

Each layer is harder to create, more costly, than the lower levels. It's harder to get human teamwork than single interest, harder to get human intelligence seeing things as separate and distinct and divided, than lower complexity mammals, harder to get mammals than amoeba, harder to get meltwater planet temperature than extreme heat or cold, etc. Each layer is more valuable because it's more rare.

 _Therefore drinking lots of alcohol and bringing on this death quicker isn 't disallowed._

The liberated, free human who sees the world is an illusion _and chooses hedonism_ , isn't that falling into the spiritual gutter, rather than attaining spiritual enlightenment?

[https://youtu.be/Jb8XDalyT0k?t=1030](https://youtu.be/Jb8XDalyT0k?t=1030) \- he talks about the difference between people who go off the rails and turn to slovenly living and surviving on thievery when they want to live an unplanned life, vs people who don't.

He talks about what he wants - "I like drinking wine, but wine isn't me. I like me and wine together" \- well you can have more things to enjoy if you recognise more things as distinct and separate and create more things, surely?

<comment><USER39> spiritual gutter? Well, it's your choice. If you want to avoid the gutter and spend your 100 year dream doing very "pure" things and not indulging in hedonism go for it. That's a valid choice. But so is mine. You have to ask yourself if you are really not you, you are the universe, what did you want? Did you want a 100 year boring dream or a 100 year exciting dream? How exciting? And is the 100 years serious? Or is it all a big joke? Well, that your choice. What do humans do when all the work is done? Sing and dance. And the real question to ask: should this be allowed? Like how dare we enjoy ourselves!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> _" Mama always said, dying was a part of life"_

\-- Forrest Gump

[https://youtu.be/nFvASiMTDz0](https://youtu.be/nFvASiMTDz0)

</comment><comment><USER42> I just think that death gives life meaning and knowing/accepting that we will die is a part of growing more self aware and focusing on the good things in life like family and love rather than the wasteful things. Maybe that's an unpopular viewpoint in the age of technology but I also think a lot of people are scared to death that they spent decades of their life in a rat race and are desperate to get those years back. All the money in the world can't save you from death and time is our most precious resource.

<comment><USER8> Everyone devotes resources to saving themselves from death each and every day. Every time they go to the grocery store, in fact. If you are willing to undertake that action, you should be equally willing to to visit a physician to push back your day of death by a day, each and every day.

There is something about considering alterations in the current trajectory of aging that makes people say strange things. People who exercise to improve their health span, people who visit doctors to prolong their health span, people who put off death in hundreds of small ways, constantly, all the time. But suggest that perhaps aging should be modified, and people who are 100% supportive of ending heart disease and Alzheimer's suddenly develop a deep philosophical attachment to inevitable death on exactly the current schedule for inevitable death. Seems a little suspect.

<comment><USER34> Eating is pleasurable and I have a biological drive to do it.

I have no such drive, nor pleasure association, with visiting a physician.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Until science has an effective solution for male pattern baldness I think the idea that we're going to be able to cheat death is premature. (...and please don't troll me and say Propecia or Rogaine, I used both and I'm still bald)

<comment><USER44> Propecia and Rogaine don't work if you're already bald.

Just like cures for death.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> once we have a 3d cancer detection, we can gamma ray cancer out. and take telomere enhancing pills. also we could replace our limbs and nonessential parts so that there are less biological parts to get cancer or get old.</comment>


Ask HN:Could you give me some advice on how to get started in San Francisco? - <AUTHOR>

Hi HN,
Here's the gist. I'm graduating soon, moving to San Fransisco, and would like to start a career in programming. I'm a bit lost as to how to get off to a good start in the industry. So I was hoping I could get a bit of advice from you guys.
My Background
I'm 25, and will be graduating with a BS in Applied Math. My language of choice is C, although I'm just as proficient with C++ and Python. At the moment, I'm living in Colorado, but plan to move to San Francisco at the end of this semester upon graduation. From what I've heard and seen, the stretch of land between San Francisco and San Jose is the mecca of technology. I'm super excited.
The problem is that I don't really know where to start. When I look at most of the job ads on DICE, I see requests for very specific skills. While I have some experience in these areas (say, posix threads), I'm an expert in none. I started programming over 10 years ago, but I don't have any solid completed projects to show for it.
Is it possible for a guy like me to get hired without any previous working experience in the industry? I have a very strong math background, and am well versed in Algorithms and proper software design. But like I said, I don't really have anything to show for it.
My main concern is making sure that I work somewhere interesting. I want to tackle interesting problems that actually mean something. I don't want to be a digital plumber that fixes bugs in an enterprise CRM system. Obviously though, I'll take what I can get just starting out.
What advice would you guys have for someone just starting out in the software development world?
Thanks for the help. <comment><USER2> Go to meetups, meet plenty of programmers like you, talk to them. You will uncover the hidden face of recruiting: the real jobs are not advertised.

Worst case: join a pre-funding startup for a little while. I know a million projects who need coders (or visit my site: <http://fairsoftware.net/publicProjects>). That will take care of your experience within 3 to 6 months, tops.

<comment><USER3> "What Colour is Your Parachute" (great book btw) also says this (that most jobs aren't advertised). I've also noticed it in my work places. Sometimes there's a government mandated ad, but they already know who they'd like to hire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pick a project, any project, and work on it. If you aren't inspired to do your own thing, find some open source tool or library that you really fancy, and do some scut work on it. Fix bugs, write tests, help with documentation.

The Bay Area dev scene is a relatively small world, and once you get to know some of the local nerds you'll find the rest comes easily. It's the first step that is a challenge, and I find nothing beats having a public project to point at, so that people meeting you for the first time can easily figure out where to place you in their mental rolodex.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you all very much for your replies. I hadn't even thought of networking at conferences. I'll definitely put that in the plans.

Also, like idlewords said, I'll join a small open source project and see if I can contribute in some meaningful way.</comment>


Single-Pilot Cockpits Floated in NASA Study - <AUTHOR> http://www.wsj.com/articles/single-pilot-cockpits-floated-in-nasa-study-1418611930

<comment><USER2> I know that planes are mostly automated these days but I wouldn't run a large website with N+0 redundancy, let alone get in a plane with the same resilience. Not sure how I feel about this.

</comment><comment><USER3> In about 10 years we gonna see 1 pilot taking care of 5 planes simultaneously from the ground, just like it is done with drones.

<comment><USER4> I doubt it, since one of the main functions of a pilot is to be around in case something goes wrong, which in this case could include the satellite up-link going down.</comment></comment>


Researchers make a "diffusive" memristor that emulates how a real synapse work - <AUTHOR> http://nanotechweb.org/cws/article/tech/66462 <comment><USER2> Memristors are fascinating. Here's my question: How much do biologists understand about how synaptic systems work in living organisms? In other words, is this more likely to be helpful to people studying how memories and thoughts are created and retained in living organisms, or is this more likely to be helpful to people studying how to make artificial systems behave more like organic systems?

<comment><USER3> Things like memories are not well understood from what I've gathered as a Master's Student in cognitive science.

I mean, it is thought to be stored in the form of persistent patterns in neurons and we know certain areas of the brain that are vital for the formation of memories. But there is no clear model of how memories are formed.

There has been rapid increase in understanding of such things lately and I would say neural networks give some insight and ways to explore and experiment with different configurations further.

A physical model like this could probably serve as a proof of concept and maybe help further knowledge in the are, but I suspect computerized simulations will serve this purpose better.

tldr; as much of a layman I believe we know too little about the brain to make a proper physical brain.

<comment><USER4> I saw pictures labeled extracted from live brain scans. How that was done I don't know, maybe alpha or beta waves. At least that's short term memory.

<comment><USER3> Brain scans are not as accurate as one might think. Most or all methods merely show activation of neurons or groups of neurons over a timescale.

Typically you give a person, say a memory task, you look at which areas fire up as he tries to memorise a word list and from that you extrapolate whatever you can from it. I also believe working memory and short term memory are to some extent better understood than long term memory. actually the least known process regarding memory I think is how memories pass from working memory or short term memory into long term memory.

<comment><USER4> I didn't express clearly. They scanned the brain and recreated some part of what the person sees.

1\. [http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain- movies/](http://news.berkeley.edu/2011/09/22/brain-movies/)

2\. [http://gallantlab.org/_downloads/2011a.Nishimoto.etal.pdf](http://gallantlab.org/_downloads/2011a.Nishimoto.etal.pdf)

Spoilers: It is fMRI, indeed.

I'm not sure if the scan is inaccurate or the representation within the brain, but I suppose it had to be more accurate than just a fuzzy area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was surprised today that the entry on Wikipedia still qualifies the memristor as "hypothetical", and says that "there are...some serious doubts as to whether the memristor can actually exist in physical reality".

I thought maybe research was farther along than that.

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

<comment><USER6> In truth it is. To practitioners in the field building circuits or doing simulations with nanodevices, this is somewhat of a tiresome debate.

To give some background, Leon Chua made certain claims about a hypothetical fourth circuit element and these debates largely stem back to claims about circuit analysis and mathematics. Basically his models predict a perfect device which, to my knowledge , has not been experimentally realized (to the contrary of HP's claims).

However , the funny thing is it doesn't really matter. We don't need a perfect memristor to build interesting and useful nanoionic and nano-redox circuits performing non-linear computational tasks. As modelers though, we do need to be careful making ideal claims about eternal non-volatility and device life (of course). Many point out that to the contrary of being ideal, these devices are extremely variable and imperfect- which is true. Anything built using nanofab techniques at the academic level (excluding semi-con industrial processes) will be..

Btw, If you want more physics depth on this , I can recommend any paper or book by Waser. They are all good. [http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527334173...](http://eu.wiley.com/WileyCDA/WileyTitle/productCd-3527334173.html)

Edit: adding a link to the first book chapter of aforementioned book I found which is already rather good. [https://application.wiley- vch.de/books/sample/3527334173_c01...](https://application.wiley- vch.de/books/sample/3527334173_c01.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is an interesting result but until it is connected with a system that can implement the other parts of learning we're left with a model of a neuron. Back in the 90's when neural networks were the big thing the first time people built what they considered to be very accurate neuron models connected together into networks as a way of building a system.

While this gives you a way to do that in hardware, and so potentially much faster and denser than the software systems, the missing bit is the system when connects these things together and feeds them inputs and pulls off outputs such that the system can be trained. Still looking for that paper.

<comment><USER8> Could a network be trained in software on powerful expensive hardware and then programmed onto some kind of neural FPGA that uses these memresistors to be used in power/space constrained systems?

<comment><USER6> Short answer: yes. Basically there are two options for future ReRAM (memristive) learning system: in-situ/on-chip learning , in which all learning rules are locally derived and enforced, and ex-situ learning systems in which we do what you suggested- import weights from more computationally/power expensive substrates. there is probably abundant promise in both approaches moving forward. I recommend looking at some recent papers by the Strukov group [1] as well as my own [2] to see the limitations of these approaches. Strukov paper skirts around the issue to a certain degree but they admit in supplementary material scaling issues are not favorable with their approach. our work takes the 'neural FPGA' approach quite literally. But, their approach may , with some improvements , do rather well for an on-chip backprop implementation. Let's see what they do next. Lastly, as far as hybrid approaches, there is a recent IBM paper which is really nice which talks about deep neural net acceleration with ReRAM. If you're really curious let me know and I"ll try to dig it up. [1] [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7550/abs/nature14...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v521/n7550/abs/nature14441.html) [2][http://www.nature.com/articles/srep31932](http://www.nature.com/articles/srep31932)

<comment><USER9> I would love to hear more about your research, please try to dig up the links.

<comment><USER6> Glad to hear you find it exciting. I do too.. its a really hot field at the moment and I mean that in the good, not bad way ;) Lots of groups working in parallel on somewhat orthogonal design and architecture issues, with a variety of different considered devices, but a common basis set is emerging ;)

So, here's the paper I mentioned above. I think this is very methodical and inventive and definitely one of the best yet at considering confluence of DNNs and memristive (ReRAM) devices. A quick search revealed this was already on HN. [https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07341](https://arxiv.org/abs/1603.07341)

So, I already mentioned the iconic Strukov paper above and my own which is really quite similar to Strukov in learning strategy/philosophy, except for we used entirely chemical and 'slow' devices , which may be quite interesting for brain emulation. (remember the brain operates in the mS , or microsecond regime and not nanosecond).

Here's another article I just stumbled upon a few days ago but which looks quite promising and brings us into the territory of a more un-supervised /probabilistic algorithm for learning. [http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12611](http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12611)

<comment><USER10> What do you think about "chip in the loop" approach for training, which was popular in the 90s for hardware NN implementations?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DHTMLX - A JavaScript UI Library, Ajax Components & HTML5 Framework - <AUTHOR> http://dhtmlx.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Found via: <http://goo.gl/hyFUz> [Functionn - Open Source Resources For Web Developers & Designers]</comment>


Yellow Water, Dirty Air, Power Outages: Venezuela Hits a New Low - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-04-18/yellow-water-dirty-air-power-outages-venezuela-hits-a-new-low <comment><USER2> If you think socialism is cool and awesome just poorly implemented, come to Venezuela and live here a year and hopefully you will hate Chavez/Maduro and his death legacy.

If want to read more about go to [http://www.caracaschronicles.com/](http://www.caracaschronicles.com/)

<comment><USER3> The Scandinavian version seems to work a bit better. Maybe it is just an implementation problem.

<comment><USER4> Maybe Venezuela is the MySpace to Norway's Facebook :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> They still have a enormous amount of oil in the ground but not the government to use it wisely. Despite the disaster the country is with the resources in the ground it is still possible to turn the country around, but clearly not with the present leadership. Sadly South America doesn't have a good track record with coups actually improving things.

<comment><USER6> Is there somewhere where military coups do have a good track record?

<comment><USER2> Does the world war II counts?

<comment><USER7> I think a coup is necessarily internal. Wars aren't generally considered coups

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I thought this might be about Flint, Michigan when I began reading the title.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yeah, Venezuela is the new target of the media that brown-noses with Washington...

<comment><USER10> How is Venezuela a new media target? They've been in the US news media rather frequently since at least 2005 or so (when I first noticed an uptick in Venezuela specific coverage, from primarily US-mainstream sources at that time like CNN).

<comment><USER11> Latin-American left-wing are exactly like North-American right-wing: all inconvenient facts or reality are mainstream media fault.

<comment><USER9> Well, before you being wasting "paper" bashing other countries, look into your backyard first!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


I Collected a Debt from an Unscrupulous Merchant - <AUTHOR> https://mtlynch.io/collect-debt/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here! Happy to hear any feedback or answer any questions about this post.</comment>


Chrome extension to play Netflix in 1080p - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/truedread/netflix-1080p <comment><USER2> This is exactly why movie and television piracy is still big.

If you pirate, you get high quality, ad-free video files that you can play on any device, anywhere, any time, forever. You can get any video resoultion and audio quality you want, and many (toggleable) subtitles which can be extended with third-party subtitles in post for languages the creators didn't bother to translate to. Every movie and TV show ever made is available through piracy, too. All for the low price of $0.

Or you can pay >$100/year to get stupid bullshit like this. It won't work on most devices, requires proprietary software to play back, can't be used offline in most cases, has questionable audio and video quality, is locked to specific regions, and will vanish when Netflix can't renew the contract.

<comment><USER3> I am a paying customer for Netflix and Primevideo and I just had to pirate the Altered Carbon tv series because I play it on a ultrawidescreen monitor (21:9, 3440x1440) and the Netflix web player is putting black bars all around the videos (horizontal and vertical black bars). This is because the video is supposed to be played on 16:9 with horizontal black bars only. With the pirated version I can just tell MPV to apply an autocrop script and use much more space on my monitor.

<comment><USER4> I don't have that issue with my ultra wides are you using a browser or the Netflix app?

<comment><USER3> Chrome on Linux.

<comment><USER4> I think this has something to do with the chrome viewport not being reported correctly on Windows I have no problems with either any browser or the UWP Netflix app.

<comment><USER5> 3440x1440 user here. I needed to use an extension to play Altered Carbon in ultrawide. I have definitely had problems with netflix on ultrawide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one who didn't realize my Chrome streams weren't already in 1080p?

<comment><USER7> I doubt the majority of users even realize that. But since this is streamed media, does it really matter if it's 720p or 1080p in the end? I see artifacts in both versions.

All the more reasons to watch Planet Earth on blu-ray.

<comment><USER8> >does it really matter if it's 720p or 1080p in the end

For what its worth, a lot of 3rd party content is actually restricted to 480p (at least in Linux/Chrome). That, is definitely noticeable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The fact that gaining access to the 1080p stream is so trivial makes it hard not to suspect Netflix (or the content studios supplying them with content) from deliberately providing a poorer experience for users of open platforms — Netflix refuses to serve anything over 720p to users of Chrome and Firefox (or derivatives) — in order to goad you into using their proprietary clients. User/software freedom apparently is a threat to their business model.

It sucks being labelled an untrustworthy customer despite paying for 1080p content.

<comment><USER10> In Safari in macOS, Netflix uses about 10% CPU showing 1080p. With Chrome, it uses 40% playing 720p. With Firefox, it uses about 75% CPU and my fan turns on. I'm guessing it's higher on 1080p.

I don't think Netflix has any interest in you using a proprietary client. They don't gain money if you watch one way or another. They gain money if you keep paying them your monthly fee.

EDIT: Installing this extension took Chrome CPU usage to 75% for me.

Also, I'm not saying that users shouldn't be given the choice to use their CPU resources to run Netflix. Maybe it would be better if Netflix were just more transparent about it. "By default, we only display video with 720p in Chrome due to high processor usage. Click here to change that preference or watch with Safari whose direct rendering means 1080p video using less processor resources." That way, users understand the problem and can decide they don't mind other programs becoming sluggish or the fan running or whatnot. Of course, companies generally don't like giving users details.

<comment><USER11> Firefox version of the same add-on if you want to run more tests: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/force-1080p-n...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/force-1080p-netflix/)

<comment><USER12> Indeed it works just fine thx

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not entirely sure but I think Netflix might have just "fixed" this. After finishing one stream I got an error screen telling me to reload the page. After that the next stream switched back to 720p.

</comment><comment><USER14> One thing I've always found annoying when playing Netflix in Chrome on Linux/Ubuntu is if you hit ctrl+alt+shift+s to get into the debug menu, the available bitrates are always lower than what you see available when running Windows (for the exact same title). I figured that out when some movie I had started watching on Windows had a noticeable quality degradation when I later booted into Ubuntu to finish watching.

But at least Netflix lets me watch videos in HD. Amazon Prime always plays in SD, citing some kind of HDCP violation, even though I'm using the closed- source Nvidia drivers and using a DisplayPort connection from my monitor to graphics card. It's obviously discriminating against Linux because if I boot into Windows I can play Prime videos in HD no problem.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm curious if anyone has created a headless browser Netflix ripper?

</comment><comment><USER16> Since the README.md doesn't explain how to actually install an unpacked Chrome extension, for the layman, I'll explain it here because it's quick and easy.

1\. Download all the files for the extension into a directory.

2\. Open chrome > Extensions window

3\. Click "developer" checkbox

4\. Click "Load unpacked extension" and select the directory where you downloaded the extension files.

5\. Tada, extension should show up in the extension page.

<comment><USER17> There's also [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cankofcoohmbhfpcem...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cankofcoohmbhfpcemhmaaeennfbnmgp)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This is pretty cool. Much simpler than what I did to get 1080p working some time ago. I pulled out the widevine so directly from a CrOS image, replaced the one I had installed and spoofed my User-Agent.

<comment><USER19> This sounds really interesting (and more future-proof; Netflix can just choose to change the JS file with the extension technique). Can you please go into more detail on how you pulled out widevine from a CrOS image?

<comment><USER18> Sure. I figured out the relevant library was libwidevinecdm.so, normally located in /usr/lib/chromium/libwidevinecdm.so on Arch Linux with the chromium-widevine AUR package installed. I created a CrOS installation image for an x86_64 chromebook (not sure which one, I looked up a list of x86_64 ones a picked at random) using the official chrome extension (at the time, this was only possible to do from a Windows machine, not sure what the situation is rn). I mounted the rootfs of the installation image and located the libwidevinecdm.so file. I believe it was somewhere in /opt/google or something like that. This is probably the location on Google Chrome installs under GNU/Linux as well. Then I just replaced my libwidevinecdm.so with the new one. Spoofed my user agent to something containing CrOS and it magically worked. I was quite surprised then :D.

Anyway, if you don't feel like doing that (you should do it), trust me (which you should not) and are ok with a (probably) relatively old version of the binary (I don't know whether it still even works, I haven't used netflix in quite some time now), you can get it here: [https://transfer.sh/pYsRz/libwidevinecdm.so](https://transfer.sh/pYsRz/libwidevinecdm.so) SHA256: d84e87d89d8e95ccfcd3dd86157dfd608a022e1e8bee397c3d4541a162bab5c2

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I thought Netflix streamed in 4k now. Does it really restrict some devices to 720p? And, why?

<comment><USER21> > I thought Netflix streamed in 4k now.

If you have the most expensive subscription AND have hardware that has enough DRM builtin (eg. on a PC you need a Kaby Lake processor AND the native client or Edge (or Safari apparently)).

If you have the "HD" subscription, then it can be HD or full HD also depending on DRM details.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Out of curiosity, is there a good reason for Netflix to do this? I.e., why would they be interested in providing 1080p to Safari but not Chrome, even if Chrome can do 1080p?

<comment><USER23> The most likely reason is that they have contractual agreements about how easy it is to be able to get at the data by unauthorized parties (read "the person watching the video") for various resolutions.

For example, their contracts could say that for 1080p the playback mechanism has to guarantee security all the way to screen (e.g no playback over digital video cables that don't support the requisite encryption primitives). Generally this requires support from the OS and hardware, and the relevant playback application using the relevant OS functionality.

This is why you get 1080p in IE and Safari, but Safari only on OS X 10.0.3 or later. You get 4K in Edge. You get 1080p on ChromeOS (where things are locked down in ways that prevent the viewer from exfiltrating data), but not in Chrome.

Similarly, last I checked, you could get higher resolution videos from the iTunes store on iOS or Apple TV than you could on desktop MacOS, because the latter is not as locked-down. That was a few years ago, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I basically pay for Netflix and still download Marvel show episodes from our famous sailor-themed website. Why? Because Netflix won't let me watch the show offline and I want to watch uninterrupted during my long commute.

</comment><comment><USER25> JS novice here. Is this an idiomatic way to conditionally perform an operation in JS? It saves typing, but if(){} is much more explicit.

      a && this.oo.push(x.V.TH);

<comment><USER19> That's minification. The actual source code almost certainly does `if (a) { ... }`, but the minifier will shorten that into `a&&...`, thereby saving multiple bytes. Accumulate this over different if-clauses, and you're looking at serious savings.

<comment><USER25> Ah, I see. Thanks. Interesting. The minifier must be smart enough to know that you're not doing anything with the return value, since the two aren't equivalent in that respect.

      false && console.log('foo');  //false
      if(false){ console.log('foo') }; //undefined</comment></comment></comment>


U.S. customs agents are searching more cellphones - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-customs-agents-are-searching-more-cellphones--including-those-belonging-to-americans/2018/01/05/0a236202-f247-11e7-b3bf-ab90a706e175_story.html?utm_term=.aaeacefb8cec <comment><USER2> Trying to catch wolves by enforcing wool checks.

Trope: [https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gjXa44QbD7w/T2xhZWK-4kI/AAAAAAAAK...](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-gjXa44QbD7w/T2xhZWK-4kI/AAAAAAAAKio/2B0a0B7tErw/s640/wolf- in-sheeps-clothing.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER3> Do they not need a warrant? Please correct me if I am wrong.

<comment><USER4> You are wrong. Airports are not in the USA, so USA laws don't apply there. They can do whatever they wish, but they obviously generally act along the lines of acceptability. Please correct me if I am wrong.

<comment><USER5> Correct. Warrants aren't needed at border crossings, since customs represents _reasonable_ search and seizure.

The premise is that it's not unreasonable to consider smuggling as a common behavior at border crossings, and civilian citizens are only protected from an _unreasonable_ search by the fourth amendment.

They can hold you for long periods of time, irradiate you with x-rays and inspect bodily cavities with gloved fingers, or have medical personnel do it for them, and that's all considered " _reasonable_ " given the context of an international boundary.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Vili, Kubernetes Deployment System - <AUTHOR> https://makers.airware.com/open-source/vili/ <comment><USER2> Hey, I'm the maintainer of the project. Please let me know if you have any comments, suggestions or questions.</comment>


Show HN: Duo, interest-based chat with a sense of place - <AUTHOR> http://duo.chaoscollective.org

<comment><USER2> any chance you'll open source this?</comment>


Bountysource campaign to support the development of a Rust back end for GCC - <AUTHOR> https://www.bountysource.com/issues/86138921-rfe-add-a-frontend-for-the-rust-programming-language <comment><AUTHOR> After my last very successful Bountysource campaign to modernize the m68k backend ([https://www.bountysource.com/issues/80706251-m68k-convert- th...](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/80706251-m68k-convert-the-backend- to-mode_cc-so-it-can-be-kept-in-future-releases)) in GCC, I have decided to create another campaign to stimulate the development of a Rust frontend for the GCC compiler collection.

The idea is to get an independent implementation of the Rust language similar to what gccgo is providing for the Go language as an alternative to Google's own Go compiler.

The main advantage of having a Rust frontend for GCC would be to be able to build Rust code on a larger amount of architectures since GCC supports quite a lot of more of architectures as compared to the original Rust compiler which is limited by the comparibly small list of architectures supported by LLVM which is used as a backend for Rust:

> > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Archit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Compiler_Collection#Architectures)

> > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Back_ends](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LLVM#Back_ends)

There are currently two projects which aim to develop a Rust backend for GCC, these are:

> [https://github.com/philberty/gccrs](https://github.com/philberty/gccrs)

> [https://github.com/sapir/gcc-rust](https://github.com/sapir/gcc-rust)

My hope is that we can collect enough money in the community to help speed up the development of either of these Rust backends and get them merged into GCC within the foreseeable future.

I have already discussed this project extensively with multiple GCC developers and they all agree that a Rust frontend would be greatly welcomed by GCC upstream.</comment>