Display 100 Hello World Without Using Loops - <AUTHOR> http://www.ajibanda.com/2012/05/programmers-interview-101-print-100.html#.T79WN7Bo3tw

<comment><USER2> Decent enough explanation of recursion.

Why not take it further and produce a more general solution?

In JavaScript I'd write something like this:

        function recurseBetween(start, end, callback) {
          // Create a recursive function
          // which checks the limits and calls the supplied callback
          var recursiveCallback = function(i) {
            // Call the original callback
            callback(i);
            // If we're at the end, stop
            if(i >= end) {
              return;
            } else {
              // Else increment and recurse
              recursiveCallback(++i);
            }
          };
          // Start recursing with the start value
          recursiveCallback(start);
        }

Now you can use recurseBetween almost exactly as you would a for loop:

        recurseBetween(1, 10, function(i) {
          console.log(i);
        });

You could even abstract the start and max arguments as callbacks, and you could supply a callback to perform the increment too so that you're not limited to integral addition.

<comment><USER3> Or go back to C and learn that recursion is not really used like that. If you know the limits beforehand, use "for". If you don't know how deep the processing will go, use recursion.

If you must code a loop without using "for" it means you're doing a homework ;)

<comment><USER4> > Or go back to C and learn that recursion is not really used like that.

It's not used like that in C, it's definitely used like that in Erlang.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A great answer to a similar problem here <http://stackoverflow.com/a/4583502/456341>.

No loop, and _no conditional recursion_.

The flaw is to use arithmetic on stack function pointer, which is not recommended nor strictly defined.

</comment><comment><USER6> Why don't you ask "What's the least efficient way to print a string 100 times?"

Unrolling loops can be a good thing when optimizing code, but you can't get much worse than tail recursion. It's _always_ a win to eliminate this code pattern. The order of complexity is the same, but your stack will blow up for large N.

I don't know what you're looking for when posing this problem. A simple loop is already the most efficient technique.

loop good tail recursion bad

Of course, this _is_ just a homework quiz, right?

</comment><comment><USER7> These are fun.

In C++, make the compiler do your recursion:

      #include <iostream>

      template <int N>
      void pr(const std::string &msg)
      {
          std::cout << msg << std::endl;
          pr<N-1>(msg);
      }

      template <>
      void pr<0>(const std::string &msg)
      {
      }

      int main(int argc, char *argv[])
      {
          pr<100>("Hello World");
          return 0;
      }

</comment><comment><USER8> #include "stdafx.h"

#include <iostream>

using namespace std;

class HelloWorld {

      public:

        HelloWorld();

};

HelloWorld::HelloWorld()

{

        cout << "Hello World\n";

}

int _tmain(int argc, _TCHAR* argv[])

{

        HelloWorld * hi = new HelloWorld[100] ();

        return 0;

    }

</comment><comment><USER9> Or, the first thing I thought of (didn't even think recursion), was evil-y eval JavaScript:

eval(Array(101).join('console.log("hello world");'));

</comment><comment><USER10> 100.times {puts "Hello, world"}

I'm just sayin'.

<comment><USER4>
        sequence_ $ take 100 $ repeat $ putStrLn "Hello, World"

alternatively,

        mapM_ putStrLn $ take 100 $ repeat "Hello, World"

<comment><USER11>
        [see above]

<comment><USER4> Oh, didn't know about `replicateM_`. Not sure I like it much though, seems... redundant.

<comment><USER11> It's a pretty common pattern, I think it's worth its own word, at least as much as mapM:

        mapM f xs      = sequence (map f xs)
        replicateM n x = sequence (replicate n x)

Another cool thing replicateM is equivalent to: for lists, it's the cartesian power (sequence is the cartesian product). ...this is actually the primary reason I'm aware of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> jack-r-abbit Here is mine in that really crappy PHP language:

print implode(PHP_EOL, array_fill(1, 100, "Hello World"));

</comment><comment><USER12> Python version:

        exec "print 'Hello world'\n" * 100

<comment><USER13> that reminds me why I don't like Python. Ad-hoc tools (many) instead of a few general concepts working well together.

Btw at interview time this solution would not be acceptable, because you are using still a built-in language construct for looping.

<comment><USER14> Huh? This is a specific case of the * operator, which is overloaded for type string to return a repetition of the string. The only ad-hoc in the example is the print statement, which is gone in 3.2.

How do you know the __mul__ operator overload for string is implemented with iteration?

<comment><USER15> > This is a specific case of the * operator, which is overloaded

It is not operator overloading in the strictest sense, but more of duck typing. In Python (and Ruby), operators are syntactic sugar for method calls on the first operand.

Operator overloading on the contrary suggests a function add(a, b) that reacts differently through polymorphism (i.e according to the types of its arguments).

The distinction is important as overloading and polymorphism simply do not exist in Ruby and Python, only overriding.

<comment><USER14> My hope in using the phrase "operator overloading" was to bring to mind the familiar concept of operator ad-hoc polymorphism (which I would maintain duck typing is an example of) rather than to misleadingly describe the internals of the Python language. Nonetheless you are quite right on the details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> yy 100 p

or

map { print "hello, world\n" } (1..100);

or a goto or maybe even disgusting abuse of try/catch

Depending on how far I wanted to tweak the interviewer's nose. :D

</comment><comment><USER17> Haskell Solution ::

Prelude> take 100 $ cycle "Hello World"

</comment><comment><USER18> Or alternatively, "how not to write a parser".</comment>


Bruce Schneier: Banning Facial Recognition Isn't Enough - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/20/opinion/facial-recognition-ban-privacy.html <comment><USER2> Very well put together article. I don't see why this is in "opinion," considering how factual all the points are.

Banning facial recognition doesn't even banning facial recognition. Anything uploaded to FB/Google/Etc goes through software analysis including facial recognition. Anything publicly posted is crawled and the same thing happens. Even hipster polaroids can later be digitised and analysed. You need to prevent photography, to prevent identification.

Whatever bans _are_ imposed will not be on facial recognition, they'll be on specific use-cases: police, concert security, etc. That might be good, but it isn't a ban.

My instinct is to say "tech illiterate politicians," but I suspect it's worse.

Our political culture just can't really deal with the nuance and ambiguity. If it can't be sloganized to under 5 words, we can't even discuss it.

<comment><USER3> Throwaway to avoid stigma of what I'm about to say:

It's worse. This site is a good example. It's rules limit the noise like you get on Reddit which makes it easy to see without automated counting.

Commentary here is often of the "if you disagree with what I see as a fundamental truth, and contextualize, even though it's a subjective political opinion, well tldr: downvote."

The group think here is insane. Protectionism of the ideas that we believe prop up our individual identity are not allowed to be challenged.

And I've not peddled conspiracy. Just that my work and agency shouldn't be bent to the whim of elites.

It's not "tech illiterate politicians". It's society addicted to shallow consumerism.

Being addicted to novelty and such is fine, there's something to be said for that versus war, right?

But this site really doesn't defend that. It defends social norms that denigrate the masses. That put tons of effort into crap.

That's by design. Propaganda research went from military to university and was integrated into advertising, marketing, and journalism. That's not a derpy state idea. It's plainly recorded in official records.

Every generation ends and we don't plan for that. We knew fighting to cling to their rules.

While we're fetishizing their push for quarterly gains, we're enabling the continued march down the path we're on.

Gather supplies, coordinate with neighbors, and online to pick a Monday and stay home.

Even a visible enough sustained effort that direction, I feel, would create a ripple that lights a fire under politicians butts.

But let's discuss fixing tech debt problems the insane grind creates, avoiding burnout it creates, how to get one more todo app of ridiculously shallow value out there, or fetishize Paul Graham's request for a start up to build a reminder app that helps him send email? Like ffs be creative, Paul. Such low effort amateur ideas from the anointed ones. It's almost disgusting.

<comment><USER4> I think the discussions here are far more open and intelligent than the vast majority of the web.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On the Engineer's Responsibility in Protecting Privacy by Paul Baran

 _A discussion of the engineer 's responsibility to protect privacy in an age of increasingly automated personal and business documentation. Computer systems could be designed more carefully than they are at present, but safeguards that provide the protection of privacy are expensive. As the engineer has been trained to focus his attention on carrying out the task assigned to him in as inexpensive a manner as possible, concern for privacy has been too often ignored. In the absence of an organizational structure to enforce a code of ethics, a restructuring of the profession at the engineering school level is indicated. The engineering school curriculum must be modified to cope with large systems in which the citizenry are an integral part of the system, and a new curriculum be devised that would provide course material on the behavior of individuals and of organizations to balance the weight given to training in quantitative methods._

Published: 1968

[https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html](https://www.rand.org/pubs/papers/P3829.html)

[https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2018/P3829...](https://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/papers/2018/P3829.pdf) (PDF)

"There are many amongst us who would not hesitate to build equipment to compromise the privacy of any given individual provided the price is right. These are the whores of industry. They would not hesitate building systems and devices contrary to the public interest; their only concern is the buck."

From May, 1968.

<comment><USER6> Personally, I think the problem isn't in the supply but in the demand.

We've structured modern society in a way that forces demand for this information:

\- Companies must sell products to users

\- The more saturated the market for a good, the more incentive there is to game these sales (instill false desire, target vulnerable audiences, find and target users who might be convinced to buy your product through any means)

\- This kind of "gaming" requires knowing more and more information about your potential customers, because the companies that engage most in those practices are the most successful.

\</comment></comment><comment>-----

The problem is that eventually this starts to look like a nightmare Oroboros situation - We are all both employees of companies doing this targeting and the targeted users.

The snake is literally eating its own tail. Users want privacy, Employees want data. But Users ARE Employees, and Employees ARE users.

In my opinion, the only question is whether the snake chokes to death on its tail, or eventually spits it out.

<comment><USER5> This is a situation where the traditional economic focus on distinct "supply" and "demand" functions and processes is limiting, and a cybernetics/systems approach strikes me as more useful.

Or, to put this back into economic terms for a moment, the issue _is_ supply, as the demand function you've described is _induced_ demand, by way of the Jevons paradox: the information and capabilities _would not exist_ if the costs of data collection, aggregation, processing, and utilisation were higher.

Since they are _not_ higher, the data environment exists, and the demand is induced.

Back at uni in one of my econ courses, the instructor who'd returned to teaching from administration for one final term before retirement, made the following observation about computer systems planning from his experience. Roughly:

Every time a new computer system (think enterprise / academic database applications, 1980s era) is designed, you can go through the most careful capacity planning and modeling procdess, but once you actually _deploy_ the system, you find that there are a whole set of new uses which emerge _because people wanted to do them previously but were unable to._ And as a consequence, the usage levels are higher than anticipated.

It was a throwaway comment in class one day, but is among the handful of most memorable moments from my college education.

The point is that _if it 's not possible to do a thing_ then it isn't done. If it _is_ possible, and cost-effective, then there's virtually no way (absent draconian regulation fo some form: legal, social, moral, political) to _prevent_ it from occurring.

And once a process is possible, _if_ it provides some benefit, then it's not possible to _not_ do it _when competing with those who do_ because you simply cannot operate competitively.

Which is where we are now with data, and surveillance capitalism / surveillance state.

From the systems view, what you have is a positive feedback loop, where increased efficiency => decreased costs => increase capability => increased benfit => further research => increased efficiency.

There are further elements to this.

As to the competitive market element, once production or provisioning of goods and services moves beyond strictly local markets, then the actor who can claim a larger share of the market has an advantage to doing so. Being able to do that requires mass production (or provisioning) capabilities, which themselves are a feedback loop (increased capital utilisation, improved processes, greater market share, greater market brand awareness, familiarity with concepts, UI/UX, tools, support and supplychain dynamics, etc.) which further increase benefit.

(And that's excluding unfair business practices, though those also provide considerable advantage.)

An immediate consequence is that the battle for mindshare becomes increasingly fierce, and with that a reliance on advertising -- simply having a good local name, foot traffic, and a shingle on a busy high street isn't enough.

Hamilton Holt's 1909 monograph _Commercialism and Journalism_ describes the impacts of this change over the previous half-century on the publishing trade, both quantitatively and qualitatively. It comes at what we now consider to be the _beginning_ of the mass media age, but does an excellent job of laying out the dynamics of what's occurred since:

[https://www.worldcat.org/title/commercialism-and- journalism/...](https://www.worldcat.org/title/commercialism-and- journalism/oclc/639344712)

As to the emplyees vs. users dynamic, the error here is that employees are not ultimately the control agents. Managers and investors are, and they seek, increasingly, short-term direct profit with little concern to either overall social welfare or long-term impacts. So that's a very red herring and misleading analysis.

<comment><USER6> >As to the employees vs. users dynamic, the error here is that employees are not ultimately the control agents. Managers and investors are, and they seek, increasingly, short-term direct profit with little concern to either overall social welfare or long-term impacts. So that's a very red herring and misleading analysis.

This is precisely why I used the snake eating its own tail as a metaphor here. I believe that it's reaching the point where the managers ARE actually employees stuck in the same trap - or at least a large percentage of them are. (I'm with you that there is a class of investor that is still immune, you can picture this as the head of the snake)

I've been in management, it's fairly clear that user data allows you opportunities and a competitive edge. I am also very, very aware that my data is included in that pool. I don't like it, but when asked to make a decision that keeps my product profitable, I'm going to try to use any user data I can.

If I don't, I'm replaceable. If I'm not replaced, I don't have a company to manage in 5 years, because it wasn't competitive.

Add on top that market consolidation is at (frankly scary) record levels, and I'd argue that the number of humans who actually have any real agency and control over how an organization behaves are dwindling precipitously.

So already I've been swallowed.

<comment><USER5> Fair points.

Middle management is its own special hell. Sometimes even executive management.

A key differentiator is that megacorps and (at least some) very-large-scale investors are in a position to _shape the actual competitive landscape_ , through regulation and/or taxation. They're often not _trusted_ to do this (another issue, and another current HN story -- Edelman's Trust Report), but regardless.

The self-perpetuating and self-feeding nature of the process is disturbing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Focusing on one particular identification method misconstrues the nature of the surveillance society we're in the process of building."

<comment><USER8> I have watched as our privacy has been slowly eroded since 911 and the general public just doesn't care.

I have complained about mass surveillance for years and every one said it was made up, Snowden proved it and still the mass public can't accept it / don't care.

This is the first time I have seen the general public have any interest in protecting their privacy.

<comment><USER9> I don't think it's quite as simple as that.

I have many friends in their 20s and even 30s who have grown up in an Internet-enabled, mobile-connected, social-media-driven world. Many of them don't remember 9/11; they were too young to understand when it happened. They certainly don't remember a world without the pervasive surveillance we suffer today.

Many of them are also in relatively privileged social groups, rather than the minorities that tend to suffer the worst from authoritarian measures and one- sided deals.

Even so, having sometimes discussed these issues, it's clear that many of those friends don't approve of or condone such measures. They certainly don't like or encourage them. It's more a combination of not seeing better alternatives, and often for the non-techie crowd (which is most people), of having other priorities when it comes to any advocacy or political movements they want to support with whatever spare time and money they are willing to spend.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So what happens if a ban occurs, and it is inevitably discovered (via future Snowden-type leak, or whatever) that [government agency] ignored it all along? Nothing, as usual? Will legislatures once again retroactively protect those who violated the ban?

<comment><USER8> > So what happens if a ban occurs, and it is inevitably discovered (via future > Snowden-type leak, or whatever) that [government agency] ignored it all > along?

People find this stuff, it gets leaked eventually, with a law against it in place stopping it legally is a lot easier.

> Will legislatures once again retroactively protect those who violated the > ban?

Most likely but it's a lot harder to do that once the law is in place.

<comment><USER11> Noam Chomsky, commenting on 9/11 conspiracy theories, was saying that one of the things that made them impossible in retrospect is that secrets are very difficult to keep, that there are always people who will leak something.

But one thing that really stuck in my craw is how the military intelligence Chelsea Manning had access to later on was accessible by thousands of people, and there are very few who have followed her example. Similar with Snowden, except that much fewer people had his kind of access.

<comment><USER12> Or all the scary declassified stuff from the 50s onward (MKULTRA being probably the most recognizable).

<comment><USER13> Manhattan Project. Where workers discovered only decades later what exactly they did there, when they saw their workplace in a documentary, or even themselves. Compartmentalization, need to know only, culture of fear and mistrust, and _very strong_ disincentives to do anything about it.

Pictures: [https://duckduckgo.com/?q=manhattan+project+signage&t=ffab&i...](https://duckduckgo.com/?q=manhattan+project+signage&t=ffab&iax=images&ia=images)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I really plan on people snapping out of it and realizing tracking of people in public places (including faces) really should be completely banned. It does nothing for the common good, it only helps advertisers and the government. It could be outlawed if there was enough demand for it. The world lived perfectly fine before it. Let China continue on down the road of madness, but surveillance is the opposite of freedom.

</comment><comment><USER15> This made me wonder, what are the benefits of this kind of technology?

Suppose you had a way to know all this stuff about people; what could you do with it that would actually be good?

China has a social credit score system and apparently they justify it on the grounds of preventing bad behaviour of various types (fraud, crime, etc). It would be interesting to think more about this and how we might be able to maximize the benefits and minimise the downsides.

<comment><USER16> The State behaves like an organism. This is the immune system.

Would the immune system want better ways to identify threats to the state?

Humans are treated as cells. The values of Classical Liberalism and Liberal Democracy don't apply in this model. The body politic is the main focus, as it was under Fascism and other such ideologies. Corporations together with the State.

Nowhere do we see this more than in China today. The social credit system for example. In the early stages, it seems rather benign, since people will be behaving better and crime will go down. But this apparatus can go far beyond simply preventing crime. Once it is in place and the screws will be tightened, you will see an AI-powered State, with fewer and fewer people at the top in control, or maybe no one really in control, not even the leaders, perpetuating itself against all competing organized thought, whether violent or not.

Already we see it with Falun Gong, Uyghurs, Tibetan nationalism, and now with Christian churches. For example:

[https://amp.businessinsider.com/china-harvesting-organs- of-u...](https://amp.businessinsider.com/china-harvesting-organs-of-uighur- muslims-china-tribunal-tells-un-2019-9)

[https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/china- christia...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jan/13/china-christians- religious-persecution-translation-bible)

Falun Gong practitioners, for instance, may believe kooky things but don't behave violently. And yet, they have been arrested and incarcerated without due process and held extrajudicially to re-educate them:

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

Some of the re-education camps can do positive things too, like teaching farmers en masse new techniques how to grow food to feed billions. China has to quickly innovate its way out of an environmental catastrophe and feed billions:

[https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development- professionals...](https://amp.theguardian.com/global-development- professionals-network/2017/jun/02/china-water-dangerous-pollution-greenpeace)

The One Child Policy had mitigated potentially a worse disaster.

So it's hard to say, really, that everything that an oppressive state apparatus is bad. For now. It has to take extreme measures to deal with population growth, for instance.

By almost eradicating child mortality 100 years ago we are bumping up against other limits — of sustainability and ability of ecosystems to not get totally polluted and exploited.

But in every other area, except population growth, this AI-powered state will eventually look NOTHING LIKE the individual-rights-based societies we have come to value so much in the West. And it will happen in the West, just more gradually.

They say the only way evil can triumph is for good men to do nothing. Well, when a large and powerful state with many people undertakes this kind of program, it is tempting to just let it happen. Like when Nazi Germany started treating its Jews in worse and worse ways, the world simply stood by, traded with German companies etc.

Sanctions don't work. Private trade is good, it provides a counterbalance to the strength of the State apparatus. Sanctions just help radicalize a population into more nationalism and support for eg State developing atomic bombs to "defend itself". States should not become Autarkies. So what is the only alternatives?

I think international inspectors should not just be for Iran. They should be the norm, including in the USA etc. They should be composed of a randomly selected (nationality wise) groups of people, have access anywhere with warrants, and should make sure that human rights abuses aren't happening en masse. Think of it as a program funded by the international community to check that no individual "body politic" abandons human rights in favor of Fascism.

Culture is the other. We need a free internet, free spread of ideas. Free-ish movement of people. Without censorship of any ideas (however, with mandating that biased ideas that possibly those that radicalize populations to violence can be hard to share alone, but easy to share accompanied with opposing viewpoints... think Wikipedia rather than Twitter).

With no sanctions anywhere, free trade and culture, we may save human rights from the AI-powered states, at least for a few decades. China is already exporting the AI system to Venezuela and other places.

But I am afraid that, as with Climate Change, we won't be able to coordinate ourselves to take effective action.

<comment><USER15> > an AI-powered State, with fewer and fewer people at the top in control, or > maybe no one really in control, not even the leaders, perpetuating itself > against all competing organized thought

Yeah, this is a serious risk. I don't quite think you have the right solutions but you've certainly identified the problem.

I think the solution to this kind of thing might be found in zero-knowledge technology. A good system doesn't just harvest all the data and basically hand it out to any hacker or alphabet agency. A good system should only hand out aspects of the data that are actually needed. You should not be able to run arbitrary queries, but rather queries like "were any of these 5 suspects within 1km of the crime scene". If the answer is "No", then you don't need to know where those people actually were.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm disappointed by Schneier's presentation of requiring consent as a way to protect people from privacy invasion.

The practice of consent on websites right now is ridiculous. Look no further than the GDPR-required cookie notices every European website has. You know, the popup boxes you only look at long enough to find the "I accept" button? That's not meaningful consent. Nor is every clickwrap software whose 20 page license has buried in it "by using this software you consent to letting us track your every movement and sell it to data brokers" or whatever nonsense is current.

The only meaningful application of consent would be opt-in consent. Where you could use the software / website / whatever without agreeing to the invasion of privacy, and where the balance is tipped towards requiring consumers make an informed decision to opt _in_ for some significant benefit. Of course no surveillance capitalist company, nor authoritarian government, would tolerate that kind of consent requirement.

<comment><USER18> > Look no further than the GDPR-required cookie notices every European website > has. You know, the popup boxes you only look at long enough to find the "I > accept" button? That's not meaningful consent.

The good thing about the GDPR in this context, is that it grants you the right to be forgotten; in the case of the OP:

1\. It would not be legal for a company to collect information on you without your consent (if you are using their site, they are the data Controller).

2\. It would not be legal for Facebook to share this data with another company, without listing the data collector as a Processor.

3\. If you later discover that a company has shared your data to a broker, you can have them delete that data after the fact.

4\. You're allowed to opt out of any collection that isn't required to provide the service; it's not permissible to just claim "I need to transmit your PII to this data broker in order to serve you news articles".)

So at least we have remedies for the cases where a site is later found to be acting outside of the norms that folks assume when they click through the terms, unlike in the US where you cannot really put the genie back in the bottle once your data has leaked.

I agree with your point that ideally people would pay attention to the permissions that apps/sites requested, and closely analyzed them, but it's quite clear to me that most humans don't care enough about privacy to take these actions ahead of time. So insasmuch as GDPR lets you fix those mistakes retroactively, it's providing a benefit.

<comment><USER19> People do pay attention to the permissions but it's very often intentionally obfuscated. Opting in is instant whereas clicking 'no' comes up with spinners, complex trees of options, whatever else (i.e. it's not actually opt in; the default, fast path has the box checked, so it's opt out, because the active action is to have to opt out).

<comment><USER13> The most ridiculous way are the popups labeled something like 'choices' wherein you have to click every single one of up to 200 companies to _NO /OFF_, by setting a cookie on their sites, which often doesn't work, because overloaded, or intentionally? _That_ is schizophrenic!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Jack Balkin makes a compelling case that in this age of Surveillance Capitalism, the tradeoffs between free speech and privacy are complex.

[https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3253939](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3253939)

If you have the time, the first audio of his 2018 lecture is a treat:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4daIk8PCPIc&feature=emb_logo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4daIk8PCPIc&feature=emb_logo)

</comment><comment><USER21> Anyone finds interesting how right after the conclusion of the article:

>We need to have a serious conversation about all the technologies of identification, correlation and discrimination ...

There is:

> Like other media companies, The Times collects data on its visitors when > they read stories like this one.

</comment><comment><USER22> The idolization of privacy undermines American economic progress. Especially the new virulent variation which defends privacy in public.

1) Privacy in Public is impossible

Besides being a contradiction in terms, imagine what an ideal society of public privacy looks like: a society where everyone is masked, where voices are obscured, where names are anonymized, where everyone is isolated from everyone by a wall that says, "why do you need to know?" It is patently absurd to promote privacy in public. And ultimately the winners are those who don't follow the law — those in power in the first place. Do you really think governments and corporations are going to follow their own laws, or fail to ensure loopholes which only their and the cronies can fit through? Yes, look at China. The solution to advanced technology is not to pretend it can be stopped. The solution is to make it available widely and freely. Technology can't be stopped. But it can be monopolized and misused.

2) Privacy in Public is economic sabotage

Economically, the more corporations know about their customers the more that their business decisions — both strategic and tactical — will be made upon data rather than intuition. The less they know about their users — as any HN reader should know — the more their business is at risk of dying. The presumption of corporations as evil is simply unintelligent. It is especially galling to see such knee-jerk stupidity in a forum dedicated to making corporations. The greatest engine of wealth mankind has ever invented are corporations unhindered by market manipulations. The one exception being rules against monopolization and labor-abuse — i.e, practices that undermine the existence of corporations.

3) Privacy in private is overrated

I received an amber alert on my phone a few days ago. If even one child could be saved from abominable acts of evil, even if it meant privacy was abolished in public and private, I for one would be willing to make that sacrifice. Yes, I'd be embarrassed. Yes, it would put an enormous weight on me to know that anyone could find out about anything I'd ever do or am doing. But for me, a society of truth is a society without a place for evil to hide — whether that evil is kidnapping or corporate corruption.

3) Privacy is going to be lost.

The war is over. We shouldn't pretend that those who stand most to abuse privacy — the powerful — are the ones best suited to control their own behaviors. Laws won't stop those passing the laws. Only unhindered permeation of technology will.

I recognize I'm saying something unconventional if not provocative. But when people are scared they make irrational decisions. I've never seen so much irrationality among the intelligent as when it comes to privacy. People's "thinking" on this topic is akin to religious devotion, and that's what scares me the most.

<comment><USER23> Wow, that is provocative. Rather than downvoting, which I strongly want to do, let me try to address each point in turn.

Privacy in public was possible 50 years ago, and no one was wearing masks or using pseudonyms. The existence of huge numbers of cheap machines that can identify people and which have perfect memories changed the system. We can't roll back to a time when the technology didn't exist, but that doesn't mean we have to allow its installation.

> _If even one child could be saved from abominable acts of evil, even if it > meant privacy was abolished in public and private, I for one would be > willing to make that sacrifice._

That's textbook emotional manipulation and a failure to rationally consider the margins. You admit you'd be embarrassed, if two kids out of a billion make a childish mistake and it can't be forgotten, and they chose to commit suicide as a result, you've caused more harm than good. I don't even think that amber alerts do much good, most of those kids are just with one of their parents who lost a custody dispute, there have been zero proven cases where an amber alert saved one child, and I'd be willing to bet that there are more children hurt (not to mention adults, as they're less emotionally potent victims) when ten million drivers look down at their cell phones.

And your defeatist attitude towards the application of laws ignores the fact that we are not living in tribal caves ruled by the man with the biggest war club. Humans are able to organize into governments and make decisions and laws that limit some powerful people so that society is better overall.

My father assumes that a camera in a store is going to a fuzzy CRT display on a CCTV system, maybe watched by a sleepy security guard, and that the tapes will be overwritten in 24 hours. My son assumes that like a Facebook photo he's automatically tagged as having visited the store. We're likely to have a bit of a learning curve between the time that HN readers are aware of what can be and is being done with tracking cookies, IMEIs, cameras, and databases, and when the general public is tech-savvy enough to know what that means.

<comment><USER24> _Rather than downvoting, which I strongly want to do_

The bootlickers don't bother leaving an explanation for their downvotes; you're under no obligation to operate on a higher moral plane to placate the demons who advocate for our subjugation.

<comment><USER25> Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Banning ${thing} only stops the honest people, which are usually the people you don't have to worry about.

<comment><USER27> Isn't the entire point of a community to have rules on how to behave inside or else we are kicked out?

There are stories we tell the chilodren where some people form a new community without rules because they hate rules and then one guy is a jerk and eventually they have to re-invent the rules one by one.

<comment><USER28> > Isn't the entire point of a community to have rules on how to behave inside > or else we are kicked out?

We are typically talking about nations and states (which aren't necessarily the same thing). You are born into it and typically normally stay within it for the majority of your life. Community is one of those words that are commonly abused these days to the point it doesn't really mean anything.

<comment><USER27> I was thinking at historical communities like tribes not at internet communities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The public understanding as well as _awareness_ about these new technologies is so much lower than it needs to be for it to start demanding that politicians do something about it before these technologies permeate society and new generations just get used to them (just like say the new generations in China -- by and large -- get used to all the Chinese propaganda, the Great Firewall, and so on).

The vast majority of people don't really understand what it means for Facebook and Google to track every single click and action you do while on your device, track everywhere you go, who you talk to (both online and soon offline, if that isn't already the case, or even on the phone), and for every service on which they register to sell their personal data, and to tap Accept on all of the "free apps" that ask for contact list permission for no good reason.

They don't understand the implications because it's pretty difficult for just about anyone to understand the thousand possibilities in which that data could be used or who will be the thousand future owners of that data (legally or illegally).</comment>


How Much Do You Print? The Redbox Model for Printing Services - <AUTHOR> http://www.kadavy.net/blog/posts/the-red-box-model-for-printing-services/

<comment><USER2> An antiquated version of the printer vending machine existed via the grocery store copy machine - .10 per copy.

Appears Kinkos has done a better job of remaining flexible with their business model than the blockbusters and video stores of the world by accommodating remote printing.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, the grocery store copy machine still exists some places - if only there were a way to print documents to them.

The Kinko's docstore is a great idea, I think, but they need to find a way to take all of the human contact out of the small jobs.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Finding nonprofits that need help - <AUTHOR> I want to volunteer some of my time as a Web developer to a nonprofit that helps kids. Is there a place you've found that connects volunteers and nonprofit organizations? I tried a couple of places, but never received a response.
I'd really like to find a smaller organization that is helping kids.
I have over 15 years experience as a developer and have worked for companies such as Motorola Solutions, Airbus Defense and Space and NAPA Auto Parts. So, if you know of anyone looking for help, let me know! <comment><USER2> You have a low chance of getting any nonprofit to reach out.

It doesn't have anything to do with you, it is the administrative burden of bringing someone on. Someone that requires a large level of trust, and is going to be doing something that is outside of the boards/principles comfort zone.

I have actually connected with a dozen nonprofits over the years, and have only ever really been utilized meaningfully by the organizations that are geographically local to me, as in I can go to a board meeting.

All that being said. Go do something in person. Helping theoretical users/people will never scratch the itch you are trying to scratch. Real brick and mortar nonprofits do have real needs today for IT support, running wires, installing ram, replacing wires, getting licenses cheap through TechSoup. All the nitty gritty day to day of IT that is just insurmountable to an all volunteer novice organization.</comment>


Nintendo's iconic logo escaped an "age-up" remake - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/01/the-story-of-how-nintendos-iconic-logo-escaped-an-age-up-remake/ <comment><USER2> > During the recruiting process, Fils-Aimé asked to speak directly with > Nintendo of Japan's Global president at the time, Satoru Iwata, before > accepting any job. "It is not something they had planned to do," he told > Present Value. "I learned later on, it caused quite a bit of issues within > Nintendo. 'Who is this person asking to meet with our global president?'" > This phone interview with Iwata-san was eventually scheduled and originally > meant to last 30 minutes. It exceeded 90, Fils-Aimé said.

Nintendo Japan thought it was weird that a potential President of Nintendo of America would want to speak to what sounds like would be his primary superior? Am I reading that right?

<comment><USER3> Nintendo of America is sort of ignored by Nintendo of Japan. It's more surprising to me that he was able to advocate for the Wii Sports bundle in America and Europe, and even there, he emphasizes that it wasn't actually his decision to make.

<comment><USER4> I watched this 'documentavideo' a few months ago. Goes into a bit of detail of the history of Nintendo of Europe and one guy who helped it spread. I'd assume relations between the various branches have pretty strong interplay.

[https://youtu.be/SKgL8u4CPJ8](https://youtu.be/SKgL8u4CPJ8)

<comment><USER5> The term you're probably looking for is "video essay."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems like a strange argument, to claim that Nintendo's logotype would even be eligible for a "modernization". The vast majority of logos follow the same mold when they are modernized: they are simplified, rendered in sharp vector art, are made to look good even in monochrome, may use contemporary fonts instead that match this style, and so on. Microsoft's window is an example of this, Firefox is another. The thing about Nintendo's logo is that it already looks like that. Like the logo of IBM, it's already modern, because it's timeless.

<comment><USER7> I generally agree, but despite this companies still do it sometimes. UPS is a great example. Ditching Paul Rand's timeless logo for what they have today, a real shame.

<comment><USER8> The worst of all is American Airlines logo. The one designed by Vignelli was far superior in every aspect, yet we have the one today which looks awful: [https://www.dezeen.com/2013/01/21/american-airlines- debuts-n...](https://www.dezeen.com/2013/01/21/american-airlines-debuts-new- logo-and-livery/)

Another example is Library of Congress logo designed by C&G, timeless until it lasted and Paula Sher(Pentagram) destroyed it. [https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_log...](https://www.underconsideration.com/brandnew/archives/new_logo_and_identity_for_library_of_congress_by_pentagram.php)

<comment><USER9> These articles are lovely. I didn't realize until this moment how much I needed graphic design criticism in my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Like Sony, I find that Nintendo's logo is pretty much timeless.

I think that the very nature of being employed to do a job makes it harder than not to resist doing anything. I mentioned this the other day with regards to A B testing. It feels odd to do all that work and conclude with: do nothing.

I think this is exactly why you need someone like Reggie at that level of the process. As an executive he's more resilient to the sense of need to do something, anything, given how much time and money you put into the project. This is also why you need someone who lives and breathes your product. Not just generic executive cog in a suit.

I had three arborists in my forest last year. They all had opinions on what to do and they were all different. Probably because I'm paying them to have an opinion and "don't do anything" feels like you're cheating someone of their cash.

<comment><USER11> I was a bit saddened when Sony showed off the PlayStation 4 (as well as later slim versions of the PlayStation 3) and took out the little coloured logo. I loved how it also could be rotated for the upright orientation too. It helped instill a small feeling of magic with the product.

<comment><USER12> Hey, I'm still sad about _Apple_ nixing colors from their logo. Rainbow Apple is best Apple, the Apple of the Apple II and Woz.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Nintendo's corporate logo has been consistent and predates the company's pivot to video games. But each console they've released has had its _own_ logo, many of which have incorporated the word "Nintendo". So while this is accurate from a corporate standpoint, Nintendo fans have seen the company rebranded in a variety of fonts over the years. To many gamers' sensibilities, the official logo is actually retro, and reminiscent of the NES era.

<comment><USER14> Fun Fact: The N64 Logo has exactly 64 faces and 64 vertices

<comment><USER13> Not sure what you mean by "faces", but I count 24: 4 outside "N"s, 4 inside faces, 4 upper corners, 4 lower corners, 4 slant tops, 4 slant bottoms

<comment><USER15> He's just reciting this post [0] or any similar. See the top comment in that post for further information.

0: [https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/77bodv/the_n64_logo...](https://www.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/77bodv/the_n64_logo_has_exactly_64_faces_and_64_vertices/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A quote from Steve Jobs on the design of the NeXT logo:

"Most companies have their logo as just a logotype. And every once in a while a company has a logo that's sort of a little jewel, a symbol, that can be used independently of the logotype." [1]

Personally, I think Nintendo's logo is somewhat the Mickey Mouse symbol of video games. I'm glad they didn't change it, because when I see it I associate it with the quality and holistic design they're known for.

[1] [https://youtu.be/qw7VrZSAUEU?t=41](https://youtu.be/qw7VrZSAUEU?t=41)

</comment><comment><USER12> As silly as graffiti Nintendo logos seem to us now, when the brand is nearly as stable in the West as IBM or Chevrolet, back in the 90s Sega was eating Nintendo's lunch with its focus on being edgy and extreme and lax attitudes to violent and other content. Nintendo capitulated on the content standards, and for a time it would have been canny business strategy to add edge to the brand also. The 90s were very, very weird. A timeless brand turned out perhaps to have been the wiser decision after all, as Sega left the console market and became part of a pachinko conglomerate. And they _still_ can't get Sonic exactly right.

</comment><comment><USER16> This guy has an amazing last name. Fils-Aimé is French for beloved son.

<comment><USER17> The new CEO's last name is Bowser which is less amazing, but more amazingly apropos.

<comment><USER12> They even play on it in Nintendo Direct, having the King of the Koopas appear in a tie to discuss strategy for the upcoming year, only to be upstaged by the real Doug Bowser.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Japanese logos tend to be quite "timeless", mostly because they're so minimalist (think Mitsubishi logo). Even towns and prefectures have very simple emblems instead of a complicated coat of arms.

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_Fukushima_...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Emblem_of_Fukushima_Prefecture.svg)

</comment><comment><USER19> in this day and age of constant reinvention, I find that stability is of utmost value

<comment><USER20> Nintendo is known to be quite behind on innovation since the n64.

I think most gamers would consider any innovation since a gimmick or a terrible executed idea.

I don't think Nintendo could invent a new logo or new game. They seem like an antiquated company with a big marketing budget and high margin products.

<comment><USER21> they hit that sweet spot of folks who like to play games but aren't into the graphics as much as spec-heads. you can argue all you want about frame rates and resolutions and shaders, but at the end of the day, smash brothers is consistently more -fun- than any other game. that's why nintendo is basically able to keep selling us the same games over and over with each generation: they're all -fun- to play.

plus, my switch can play skyrim, so...

<comment><USER22> Also pretty much the last refuge of video games as a social activity offline. Everyone on the couch playing together.

For PS4, Xbox, and PC I never find someone with enough controllers for 4+ players. Even if indie developers make these games people don't buy the gear to play them. They're almost designed for single player and only online multiplayer.

On the other hand almost every Nintendo console will always have many controllers. They company produces high quality party games, and in the case of the switch they're literally selling joycons two at a time which means indie developers can rely on players having 4 or 6 or even 8 controllers.

I honestly think the revival of board games is because of this gap that video games created when this type of play was abandoned in favor of online experiences and graphics.

<comment><USER19> I've heard that some major titles don't even have local multiplayer mode.

<comment><USER22> This has become the norm now. High quality local multiplayer is the exception. Split screen was more common on the 30" CRT than the 60" flat screen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Man the writing really sucks at Ars Technica these days. Thanks for reminding me why I quit reading after Condé Nast took over.

</comment><comment><USER24> TIL I learned that the oval in the Nintendo logo was supposed to be a racetrack. I never realized that before.

<comment><USER25> I'm not sure that it is? The article uses the word "racetrack" but I assumed that was the author's term. Has it ever been defined as a racetrack by Nintendo?

<comment><USER26> It actually used to be an elongated hexagon[1] before the rounded rectangle design. Whether it's called a "racetrack" now, the rounded rectangle is a simple evolution of the original hexagon.

[1][https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/f/f5/Ni...](https://vignette.wikia.nocookie.net/logopedia/images/f/f5/Nintendo_1970s.svg)

<comment><USER24> Ah, so it's isn't, then. Or at least not originally...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Work on something you love (little $$) or something that has a market? - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN, I created FilmBet.com (design is horrid) two years back. It's a Box Office Betting app. I love the business side of movies. On sundays I always check how much they have made in the box office etc. So I figured what the hell, maybe others would be too. So I created it, you log on and bet on the upcoming movies on which would perform better than others.
I had thoughts of issuing monthly prizes to the users with the highest points. I tried to quickly come up with a business model: If you were a pro user (Paying a couple bucks a month) you would get double points.
I didn't research the legality of the betting angle.
I built it, and I guess when I got to the marketing and growing and how it's gonna make part I flaked out. But it's always in the back of the my head.
Considering to rewrite it in Rails and see what could be.
On the other hand, currently working on a Saas application that handle employee vacation tracking.
I guess my question is- Have you ever been torn between working on a something that genuinely interests you (but the chance of $$ is low) or something than doesn't quite interest you but there is a market for it.
Edit: Formatting <comment><USER2> There's a concept in psychology called Maslow's hierarchy of needs, which tries to answer the ? of what actually motivates people. Essentially, some motivations are more foundational than others, and you can't work on "higher" needs successfully while your mind is distracted by other problems. For instance, someone who is drowning is motivated by getting more air and will completely ignore hunger because it's a less immediate motivator than lack of oxygen. Ultimately, Maslow believes we're motivated by a need to maximize our potential, which he calls "self actualization", but it's very easy to get tripped up by motivations below that in the hierarchy.

You're asking us to help you prioritize between two opportunities. The FilmBet project sounds like something you really get a lot out of, which is pretty close to the "self actualization" need Maslow described. The vacation app will bring in lots more money which will help put you in a better place to self actualize later, but it sounds very much like a means instead of an end.

Trying to define the point when a need is met is somewhat subjective. For instance, some people are big eaters, whereas some aren't. Some folks are perfectly comfortable living paycheck to paycheck, whereas some folks want to have 2 years salary saved up for a rainy day. If you feel that you are secure enough financially, physically and emotionally, then I'd go ahead and do the FilmBet work because it sounds like you enjoy it. Otherwise, I'd keep plugging away on the vacation app because the money from that is going to help put you in a better position down the road to work on something you actually enjoy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you so much for your detailed response. I had to stop what I was doing to properly read it. Decision: To move ahead with my Vacation App ( which is at the landing page and collecting emails phase, while I wrap up the last 30%, which is taking the most time). Then to get out there and MARKET MARKET

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> A way to harness your desire and your need: Spend your day working on the SaaS app and then devote your evenings to the betting app. You'll be very satisfied from working on the betting app and that satisfaction will get you through the morning. Plus you'll be looking forward to the evening when you get to work on the betting app.

This way you'll get both done while still being happy and satisfied.

</comment><comment><USER4> If I need money, I do something that generates money.

If I don't need money, I do whatever the hell I want.

To the extent possible, I try to make these activities overlap because I occasionally need money and don't like doing stuff I don't like.

I have trouble understanding people who don't follow a similar policy. But people do weird unpredictable stuff all the time.

</comment><comment><USER5> If this is possible, you could try working on your Saas application until it becomes profitable enough that you can work on other stuff while still having a steady income from your work. That way, you can use your hard earned income to supply your passion into something that would not make enough money for you to make a living.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi Khao, This is the way I should and have been going about. Just on the rough days my mind starts to wander to other more exciting cooler/sexier projects. This may happen, if I reach a roadblock with FB. So I need to just buckle down.

Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> It might be fun to extend this idea to bet on RottenTomatoes scores before the reviews start flowing in.

And if it turns out that your users are any good at predicting movie biz metrics, there might be some value in the data you collect.

</comment><comment><USER7> Drop both, and find something that you enjoy AND has a good market.</comment>


This temporary site is a placeholder - <AUTHOR> http://www.shep.ca/ <comment><USER3> I don't mind a little whimsy, but this is _the top story_?!? People saw it at positions 2-30 and thought, _this needs more upvotes and attention_?!?

There are a nearly-infinite number of similarly fanciful digressions on the web; they have their place. But this is barely more than the 'cute animal pictures' explicitly discouraged in the HN guidelines.

<comment><USER4> People don't think about, "Let's make this number one" when up-voting. They think, "Do I like it?" (Or did it help me.)

This has everything it needs to be liked. Does it deserve it? Probably not. Does it have to? I guess every programmer needs a few laughs in a day.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was hoping I would get a "bing!" sound when I pressed J. Sad panda.

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe yes, maybe no. It's his fun version of the CV which is really innovative and creative though.

<comment><USER7> I especially like the "not so boring" Atari 2600 game manual-themed CV. Pitfall 2, Asteroids, Outlaw, and Berzerk screenshots. That takes me back.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This reminded me of _why's style! :) For a moment I even thought it is really him.

<comment><USER9> Considering the way he has guarded his identity (if only he wore masks at conferences) and his zany attitude combined with his sudden disappearance with not so much as a tweet, I tend to suspect anyone with such art as _why

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I have a theory on why his site is not complete yet. :-)

</comment><comment><USER11> Why is this on hacker news?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's interesting marketing, also I like the mockery of future proofing and his "Ship it!" type attitude (despite his lack of shipping)

Inappropriate?

<comment><USER12> I wouldn't say it's marketing, it's just a fun placeholder with some wit.

<comment><USER13> It made me click all the way through (I laughed at several points) and impelled me to click on his CV. It is fair to say it was marketing that achieved its purpose.

<comment><USER12> Well that's fair enough, it might be the way I browse pages but I didn't notice the CV link which is probably why I think it's just a placeholder :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It took far too long to load, poor ux.

<comment><USER15> It's 5.5 MB worth of small images. The author has used PNGs while he should have used JPGs, compressed them badly and coded it so that they all loaded at once. Poor user experience is often result of poor engineering practices.

edit: also, the CV page won't load in my browser because of the broken markup. Not the best way to attract employers, if you asked me.

<comment><USER16> If his prospective employers were looking for coding skill, I'd agree - <USER2> he's not a coder.

<comment><USER15> To be honest, I didn't bother to check. The broken CV page successfully repelled me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It was clever at first but they definitely got carried away.

</comment><comment><USER18> Hi Matt Shepperd, did you get any job offers today? :) Nice website btw</comment>


Coronavirus: Norway wonders if it should have been more like Sweden - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/05/30/coronavirus-norway-wonders-should-have-like-sweden/ <comment><USER2> It's probably better to act a bit too much than a too little. Human lives are at risk.

<comment><USER3> That's a common fallacy. Doing something is not better than nothing when you don't know what you're doing.

<comment><USER2> Go tell that to Bolsonaro in Brasil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The problem is you can never know if you over reacted.</comment>


For Bono and U2, Apple iTunes Partnership Finally Hits a Wrong Note - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/10/business/media/for-bono-and-u2-apple-itunes-partnership-finally-hits-a-wrong-note.html <comment><USER2> This is perhaps a bit off-topic but,

>after all, the company is fresh off a hack that allowed strangers to steal, view and share nude photos of famous actresses from iCloud accounts

Why do people still parrot this line? Unless I missed some later revelation, this was barely even Apple's fault. They may have had some subpar security practices, but it's not like their system was utterly compromised like this makes it sound.

I'm not an Apple fan, but they don't deserve the ignorantly parroted line that they let celebrities phones get compromised. And I would especially expect more from the New York Times. That statement is almost libel.

<comment><USER3> If the claims that they ignored warnings are correct, I would indeed lay most of the blame on Apple:

[http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/25/researcher-...](http://iphone.appleinsider.com/articles/14/09/25/researcher- accuses-apple-of-ignoring-icloud-brute-force-attack-for-6-months)

It may be the case that celebrities chose poor passwords, but how can you blame them? Did Apple enforce strong passwords? Did it allow an excessive password retry rate? Did it fail to follow up on warnings from security researchers?

Unless the answer to each of those questions is "no", it is entirely fair to blame them.

<comment><USER2> I suppose what mostly bugs me is using the word hack. Calling something that appears to be targeted social engineering a hack seems wrong to me. I guess the definition of hacking has been rather fluid in recent years. Course that word has been redefined and misused for a very long time so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

<comment><USER4> If you can fire up the Task Manager in windows, you are considered a hacker in my circle of friends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "It took nearly 30 years for "The Joshua Tree," the 1987 album that was U2's breakout ticket to megastardom, to reach 30 million people."

That's a bit disingenuous. More people than that would have heard all the major songs off of Joshua Tree on the radio and on MTV in one single market - the US - in just the first few years. U2 was everywhere from 1988 - 1995. It's very likely that college radio stations alone ended up playing the entire Joshua Tree album for 30 million people in the US over the first decade of its release.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, you can't compare actual album sales with free listens.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I liked his answer. Transcript:

Q: Can you please never release an album on iTunes that automatically downloads to people's playlists ever again? It's really rude.

A: Uh, oops! Um, I'm sorry about that. I had this beautiful idea. Got carried away with ourselves. Artists are prone to that kind of thing. Drop of megalomania. Touch of generosity. Dash of self-promotion. And, deep fear that these songs that we poured our life into for the last couple of years mightn't be heard. There's a lot of noise out there. I guess we got a little noisy ourselves to get through it.

<comment><USER8> Bono is a hard-core businessman, not an artist.

This is a guy who raised to fame on giving fundraising concerts to help poor children in Africa, and himself donated ZERO dollars out of 1.7 billion he made on Facebook stock.

God only knows what deals has been made behind scenes U2 vs Apple.

Edit: I stand corrected: first and foremost, he's a hard-core businessman, THEN an artist.

<comment><USER9> Sorry, still clearly an artist first. Perhaps even philanthropist would be higher than "hardcore businessman".

And Bono made way less than $1.7b on Facebook. Probably well less than $100m. Possibly less than $10m.

Simple downvote.

<comment><USER10> Some math: [http://fortune.com/2012/05/18/no-facebook-did-not-make- bono-...](http://fortune.com/2012/05/18/no-facebook-did-not-make-bono-worlds- richest-musician/)

        So, again, at best Bono gets $43 million.
        Or, in other words, just more than Britney
        Spears will make for two years of judging
        The X Factor. Let alone Paul McCartney's
        reported $1.04 billion net worth. Clearly
        Facebook has been good to Bono, but not
        nearly as good as is being portrayed…

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would have been amazing if they released the album for free but people had to download it. By making it mandatory, they showed they were very tone deaf and ruined the promotion.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nobody seems to talk about how much Apple paid U2 for the right to give the album away for free. I suspect that U2 may have made more money from this album than they did from the last-- and that's just in the free period. (after some amount of time it goes back up to normal price.) I bet even after it goes up to normal price it will do better due to the publicity of being free.

I don't think Apple got the album for free. :-)

All in all, I think it was a great deal. I didn't get the album pushed on me-- I went and chose to download it from iTunes-- and I think the "album as promotion for larger brand" method is kinda win-win. It's not relevancy U2 is chasing but awareness, and that's the trade they made with Apple. That plus bags of cash.

<comment><USER13> > I don't think Apple got the album for free. :-)

In other words, it wasn't exactly pro-Bono. :-)

 _I didn 't get the album pushed on me-- I went and chose to download it from iTunes_

Many people did get the album automatically downloaded, which is really what angered them, and not the fact that U2 is giving one away for free.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> If a moderator thinks it's worthwhile, the article headline has changed to Chasing Relevancy at Any Cost, Even Free.

<comment> jack-r-abbit This is probably due to the bookmarklet[1] that just reads the document.title from the page you are posting. It fills in the title automatically in the posting page. It is quite convenient... but often ends up not producing the actual title that is placed on the page. I believe this is the cause for a lot of HN posts not using the article title but the html title instead. And then people complain about the wrong title. And then mods make a call.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wonder if this would have blown over more if iTunes had some sort of "hide album" feature from the get go? To achieve their distribution objective, I think it had to be automatically added to libraries vs being a free "download". Comparing to Taylor Swift's removing all her stuff from Spotify, this all seems rather minor.

</comment><comment><USER14> I really don't get why people are this upset over this little stunt. I remember when I bought my first iPod it came with a U2 song. Winamp came with the "llama's ass" thing. Other players had their own promo songs. Now Apple has taken it to the next level and pushed a song to you rather than sold it with the device. It's a little weird, a little selfish, maybe even a little desperate, but I wouldn't characterize it as anything but at most mildly annoying. Who cares? Unless you ran out of room on your device and couldn't take that one in a million picture because of it, what does it matter? I am not defending it, just trying to figure out why anyone would give it more than 30 seconds of their time, to complain, etc.

<comment><USER15> Because if you don't want them to take a mile, you'd better watch out when they start taking an inch.

<comment><USER14> What? Sorry, still don't get it. Are you saying that using a branded Apple phone which you know they can completely control remotely is all good as long as they don't push music you don't want to it? If so, this is probably the last inch in the mile they are taking. There are lots of issues with how mobile phones operate and even specifically how Apple does them, but if we are doing the whole fight for our freedom thing, this is probably not the best place to start.

<comment><USER16> > which you know they can completely control remotely

That's the problem though -- people don't know it's remotely controlled, so they didn't expect this. When you think of it, there is very little to remove the notion that a Music app is not just a glorified mp3 player because the whole system is different.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Generating reports on time series data without killing performance? - <AUTHOR> I have an application which contains approximately 10 million time series records growing at a rate of 1 million per year. This application generates reports on subsets of the time series data. These reports have poor performance characteristics because for each record in a time series, another subset of time series data must often be loaded as part of the computations behind the report. Effectively this can lead to N^2 performance. The current workaround is to implement these reports as stored procedures in the Oracle database where the time series data resides. This saves network roundtrips for every time series record.<p>I've found the stored procedures to be insufficiently flexible to handle complex requirements compared to modern programming languages (requirements come in for new reports on a regular basis). I'd like to generate these reports in application code (C#) but can't see a way around the performance issue. Has anyone dealt with similar challenges and how did you work around them? <comment><USER2> That volume of data should be handled pretty easily by the right indexes and joins. At one place with that order of magnitude of data we kept an offline synced clone of the data with indexes designed for the queries we needed to run (this is basically OLAP). Have you already looked into that?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes currently all the reports operate quite efficiently on a set of indexes. The performance of the database is currently very good with the reports in PL/SQL. The problem arises when the reports are generated using application logic on another server. Let's say we have a report for the last 10,000 records. For each of those records, I have to query the database again for some other time series information. If the latency between the reporting server and database server is 2ms, that report is going to take 20 seconds to generate.

Edit: If you're saying mirror the time series data onto the application server to avoid the network roundtrip, I guess that is possible but we still face the SQL overhead with each query.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, you definitely don't want to be making those roundtrips. Why doesn't a join work?

<comment><AUTHOR> Complex domain-specific requirements preclude simple joins unfortunately. This is why I'd like to redevelop these queries in C#. There are many imperative steps performed on each time series record to decide how these reports are generated.

To give a very broad example of one report: take 10,000 latest time series records from geographic location X. Now for each of those records load the latest 100 time series records from location Y and Z. Multiply all records from Y and Z together then divide by the value at location X. Throw in lots of business rules at every one of these steps so we have no chance of representing this as a tidy join operation and so that we can make no assumptions about the data we'll need to load to generate the report :)

<comment><USER2> If it's not possible to do a few big queries to pull all the necessary base data (all the related Ys and Zs for the last 10,000 Xs) and then join/filter it yourself in code, then I think you are stuck with many queries. The options I can think of are: 1) keep the logic in stored procedures; 2) find a way to fetch the raw data in a few large queries, then join yourself; 3) let the reports be slow and generate them in the background; 4) write one complex SQL query that does all the crunching (if possible, you're saying it's not).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> 1\. 10 million records is not big data.

2\. If the rate of data acquisition is 1 million records a year, then 9 million records are the same as last year. There's no reason to hit the database again, because time series data [to be time series data] does not change.

3\. This suggests that processing the data from the Oracle database is not a requirement...i.e. it could be moved to another system and processed there. Again, it's small data and doesn't change so duplication presents neither a storage issue nor a consistency issue.

4\. The size and static nature of the data suggest that it might fit into memory on a single, moderately speced PC. An AWS type approach is also possible.

5\. The right data storage format depends on the workload...maybe something column oriented?

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> When working with time series it is a good practice to move the data in memory and vectorise both the data and the data-manipulation logic. Doing so you can take advantage of the battle tested and fast linear algebra libraries like BLAS and LAPACK (or even move the calculation to the GPU). The last time I worked with time series data I used python-pandas. Even without former python knowledge it took only a couple of weeks to get productive. It has also a wrapper around SQLalchemy so you don't have to deal directly with the ORM.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think you're probably wrong that you can't handle it in stored procedures (packages). You may even be able to do a lot of the processing in a single SQL statement? Try this first, then PL/SQL. Do the bits you can't do in PL/SQL in a java class stored on the database...

</comment><comment><USER6> I am currently on a task of processing 4 million records to produce a report. It takes me about 10 seconds in the code.

You could always use a sliding window type algorithm to keep up with the grown of the data.

</comment><comment><USER7> If the requirements allow, consider replicating data in memory with SQLite :memory: option. 10 million records will be nothing for it.

Let us know.

</comment><comment><USER8> Are these java stored procedures?</comment>


From Ubuntu to Fedora to Solus - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@darshandsoni/from-ubuntu-to-fedora-to-solus-b6a42e7a3201 <comment><USER2> Solus is great! I run it daily on my mbp. I use gnome though, can't get past losing all my favorite extensions

<comment><AUTHOR> Seems like GNOME is all about the extensions haha! I just wish more of them were added as official ones.</comment></comment>


Bebo is back (video) - <AUTHOR> http://www.bebo.com/

<comment><USER2> A funny video demonstrating that Beebo isn't, in fact, growing up at all.

+1 for "possibly the largest collection of cock and balls"

</comment><comment><USER3> That's a brilliant promotional video that shows humility and humour on the part of Bebo's founders. Great stuff.</comment>


Capsule – Package and Deploy JVM Applications - <AUTHOR> http://www.capsule.io/ <comment><USER2> I admittedly have not read the docs yet and I'm curious how this compares to Java packaging[1], SBT assembly[2],and SBT native packager[3]. I understand that containerization is a feature, but I am unsure how it improves over a simple Dockerfile using one of the aforementioned packaging solutions.

1\. [https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/deplo...](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/deploy/self- contained-packaging.html) 2\. [https://github.com/sbt/sbt- assembly](https://github.com/sbt/sbt-assembly) 3\. [https://github.com/sbt/sbt-native-packager](https://github.com/sbt/sbt- native-packager)

<comment><USER3> See my other comments but the short answer is that fat-jars often fail, and Capsule offers more -- and more versatile -- deployment solutions than native packaging (which is mostly used only by desktop apps).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Distribute a Clojure application without embedding Clojure itself in the > capsule, and have Clojure downloaded the first time the capsule is launched. > The Clojure runtime will be cached and shared among all Clojure capsules so > it will only be downloaded once.

How would that be useful?

<comment><USER3> Your artifacts would be smaller (the Clojure runtime is ~4MB; the Scala runtime is ~5MB) and you could even have the runtime auto-update if you like. But the main point is just to show how flexible Capsule is, and how you can have the deployment adapt itself to the environment in many ways.

<comment><USER5> I think "smaller" is not what we should be chasing. Given drive sizes and network speeds, I'd much rather have "simple and reliable" than "small". In other words, I prefer to save my time rather than my computer's time.

As for the project, I'm trying to understand what it provides over "lein uberjar" that I'm already using (and happy with it)?

<comment><USER3> 1\. Uberjar doesn't always work. It may cause resource collision (and even shading doesn't always work as some libraries are resistant to shading). It also doesn't support native libraries. Capsule _always_ works and is just as easy to build as an uberjar with the lein plugin.

2\. Even with an uberjar you need a platform specific startup script (to pick a JVM version, set JVM flags, set up a boot classpath if you need it or agents if you need them). With Capsule, all of that is stored as metadata in the manifest, and the capsule sets up everything on its own.

3\. Capsule provides other features, such as launching itself inside a container (and it's better than Docker because the container is unprivileged, and doesn't require an image), packaging as a native application (with icons etc.), launching itself as a daemon/service and more.

<comment><USER6> I might partially agree, though point 2 went away for us with Docker.

<comment><USER3> See my other comment about Capsule Shield: [https://github.com/puniverse/capsule- shield](https://github.com/puniverse/capsule-shield)

<comment><USER6> You're from Parallel Universe? I've played with the idea of a programming language, looking for an async layer that supports Scala style Future[T]s. Possible with Quasar?

<comment><USER3> Not entirely sure what you mean by "the idea of a programming language". Scala-like futures are already in the JDK as CompletableFuture. Quasar is something different (and, I believe, better): it provides true fibers (aka lightweight threads), just like Erlang or Go.

<comment><USER6> I've meant playing with the idea for a programming language.

With Future I've meant would it be easy to put a Future based API which I like b/c of composiblity on top of Quasar, e.g. on top of fibers.

(Futures are just an API to concurrency not concurrency itself that can sit on actors, forkjoin, ...)

<comment><USER3> Then sure. But check out this talk/blog post, which explains why such monadic futures are not a good way to compose asynchronous code: [http://blog.paralleluniverse.co/2015/08/07/scoped- continuati...](http://blog.paralleluniverse.co/2015/08/07/scoped- continuations/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> About Java packaging:

My personal feeling is that the local install approach of gem/npm has won over the pull dependency approach of Maven/Ant - at least for development, but I think also with Docker approaches.

Java will address this with Jigsaw in Java 9 at last.

[http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/doc/quickstart.html](http://openjdk.java.net/projects/jigsaw/doc/quickstart.html)

Capsule seems to be pulling dependencies if not packaged.

But we switched to JAR/Docker deployments for Scala some time ago with Jetty instead of WARs and so Capsule is welcome and we'll definetly try it. Hope it will switch to supporting Jigsaw with Java 9.

<comment><USER3> Capsule has a caplet called Shield[1] which is much better than Docker for JVM applications. It creates an unprivileged container, doesn't require building an image (still shipped as a JAR), and in a week or so it will also automatically handle piping logging and JMX monitoring out of the container.

[1]: [https://github.com/puniverse/capsule- shield](https://github.com/puniverse/capsule-shield)

<comment><USER6> Will take a look, but have the impression this one is lost. I'd (before reading) use Docker for easier recruiting, use the same for other deployments as well (Postgres etc.), more knowledge/best practices available etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've just started using Capsule for an internal project. It's an excellent library. For our use case, we need to have a bash script that runs before the app starts. With capsule this is very easy. Also, because capsule doesn't do any shading, you don't run into the compatibility issues that shaders add. NOTE: I use the Capsule Maven plugin instead of Capsule directly [https://github.com/chrischristo/capsule-maven- plugin](https://github.com/chrischristo/capsule-maven-plugin)

</comment><comment><USER8> That's an interesting project! I always liked the simplicity of `java -jar` command. Instead of that simplicity, many project choose to roll huge startup bash+bat scripts or even worse, native launchers.

<comment><USER3> Well, they have to to set java command line arguments. Capsule solves that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Caplets are classes that hook into the capsule and modify its behavior.

What problem does this solve? Because it sounds like it is going to create quite a few new ones.

<comment><USER3> For example: launch a capsule in a container, run a capsule as a daemon/service, or turn a capsule to a native app. Other uses may include reading configurations from etcd/ZooKeeper or querying information about the host and using it to set better JVM flags.

See the list of available caplets: [http://www.capsule.io/caplets/](http://www.capsule.io/caplets/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Given many people's opinion of Java, and the mess of installing Java on windows (where the installer installs adware), I would prefer something which went as far as packaging a private JVM, so my users didn't even know (or have to care about the fact) I was using Java.

<comment><USER2> This exists in the Java 8 JDK: [https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/deplo...](https://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/technotes/guides/deploy/self- contained-packaging.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> There is also this alternative [http://oss.readytalk.com/avian/](http://oss.readytalk.com/avian/)

<comment><USER3> They're not at all alike. Capsule is a deployment mechanism for _any_ JVM app and a JVM container solution (a "Docker for Java"). Avaian is an alternative JVM that supports a subset of Java.</comment></comment>


Chrome extension to inject console.image on every page - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jffry/console.image-chrome-extension

<comment><AUTHOR> Inspired by (and built with) Adrian Cooney's excellent console.image script [0] posted here earlier; now you can have it on every page!

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5962086](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5962086)

<comment><USER2> This is pretty awesome -- when did you start working on this?

<comment><AUTHOR> Adrian did the hard work - building the code that does all the console.image stuff. I wrapped his code into a Chrome extension that injects it into every page.

Figuring out how to write the Chrome extension and inject the code took < 30 minutes. From there it was just getting it into the Chrome store, which took $5 (one-time fee) and another 20 minutes.</comment></comment></comment>