Valve's Proton Improves Further Windows Games' Compatibility on Linux - <AUTHOR> https://boilingsteam.com/proton-is-getting-electric/ <comment><USER2> Now I'm wondering how effective SteamOS is at making sure it suggests the optimal Nvidia drivers that work with your given graphics card, cause all it takes is one update to the Nvidia software and now it no longer works. I'm hoping AMD has improved support so I can just replace the Nvidia card I have (I've never been an Nvidia guy to begin with anyway).

If SteamOS can somewhat maintain proper graphics driver stability I would be all in for it. I'm still unsure why they didn't base their distro off of Ubuntu instead of Debian, or hell even openSUSE (a personal underrated favorite of mine).

</comment><comment><USER3> For those wondering, there's a setting to allow all games to use proton, not just white listed games. The wording of the setting is ambiguous, but it seems to choose linux first, and proton only if linux is not supported. With Steam's generous refund policy, I've been able to try some of the indie titles I would've had to pass up previously.

</comment><comment><USER4> For those who want to mess with SteamOS - one of the gotchas I hit was getting a terminal in desktop mode.

# localectl set-locale LANG="en_US.UTF-8"

</comment><comment><USER5> Should whitelist Battlefleet Gothic armada 1. Works out of the box.

</comment><comment><USER6> Would love command and conquer generals and zero hour!</comment>


Ask HN: Tools of the Trade, 2017 edition - <AUTHOR> It's been a while since the last good "Tools of the Trade" and no doubt there are better options out there now. So what tools are you using to build your side project / startup with now?<p>Previous Threads:<p>- original 2010 thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1769910<p>- 2013 edition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5235137<p>- 2014 edition: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8028704 <comment><USER2> Google Cloud has been a great partner. My usage is nowhere near the level of some of their customers (yet). Such as a certain 10 PB real-time photo sharing app that recently went public. But I trust the service enough to (almost) place all my eggs in their basket.

The other service that has integrated nicely is the Stripe API. Being able to drill down into every segment of the payment processing pipeline. And exposing webhooks for digital goods markets. Just allows you to improve the user experience by 10X.

Still searching for the next-next-gen comms platform to blow me away. After falling out of love with Slack / Discourse / Telegram / Gitter. Something minimal is desired. Maybe a modern throw back to IRC / NNTP / ?

</comment><comment><USER3> As a (reluctant) new-comer to dev ops, Hashicorp's suite seems to be the only stuff that isn't fucked.

Packer + Terraform, and then if you them them Nomad, Consul and Vault.

You pretty much have to do everything their way, but at least everything mostly works, and if one of the tools gets deprecated there will be an obvious answer.

</comment><comment><USER4> .net developer by trade, side project is .net as well but with a twist:

Webserver; Azure ubuntu VM, nginx reverse proxy.

Application: asp.net core 2 MVC backend, plain old html/jquery frontend. Really want to upgrade to VueJS/Typescript just to see whats up.

DB: A managed database on Azure

</comment><comment><USER5> Elixir side project that I'm starting to push to production.

Database: RDS MySql instance (though may switch to another db soon)

Hosting: Gigalixir hosting

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't currently have any (serious) side projects but I play around with Elixir and if I were to build a tech business or money-generating side project I would build it with that language.

</comment><comment><USER7> CouchDB/PouchDB : I'm pretty happy with how these tools work together.</comment>


Playstation Suite: Sony Brings Playstation Games To Android Phones - <AUTHOR> http://www.mobilecrunch.com/2011/01/27/playstation-suite-sony-brings-playstation-games-to-android-phones/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is inconsistent with Google's policy of not allowing competing app stores on Android.

[http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/19/kongregate-arcade- appban-p...](http://venturebeat.com/2011/01/19/kongregate-arcade-appban-part- deux/)</comment>


Ask HN: Most secure personal computer setup? - <AUTHOR> I am becoming more and more paranoid with who has access to my data. So I am trying to find the best solution for keeping data off other peoples hands.
With that in mind I would like have a solution which require fairly simple instructions to use.
I could set up a different machine which has the most secure OS (which is ?), a Tor browser, use VPN as default but what else ?
I am looking for keeping my shit secure and as much as possible keeping people out of my personal computer(s).
How do you guys go about this, specifically with security in mind ?
Thank you! <comment><USER2> Thought about this a lot and at the end decided that the best way to not drown was to not go swimming in the first place.

My work computer runs vanilla Ubuntu. Nothing personal ever touches it. My personal laptop is a Toshiba from 2005 running openbsd. I don't store data, except code that goes to GitHub. I don't use a smartphone but have a dumb Nokia for the occasional call, but that is very rare these days.

Other than that, I guess I follow a very practical approach to data. There's no danger of losing it if I don't have any to begin with.</comment>


Why We Urgently Need a Female Elon Musk - <AUTHOR> https://www.theinformation.com/articles/why-we-urgently-need-a-female-elon-musk <comment><USER2> Elizabeth Holmes</comment>


Survey Reveals How Stupid People are With Passwords - <AUTHOR> http://www.securityweek.com/survey-reveals-how-stupid-people-are-their-passwords

<comment><USER2> People aren't stupid in entering the same password on every website. Passwords ARE stupid : Having a password for every website is completly unrealistic. According to lastpass I have a hundred accounts on various websites. If you can remember that amount of I'm very admirative.

Before that, I had three series of passwords : One for email, one for paypal and one weak for everything else.

lastpass completly solved my password problem. I don't know how I lived before, I can generate new profile in 2 click, strong password and autologin everywhere I need.</comment>


How Startups Can Defeat Bigger, Stronger and Dumber Companies - <AUTHOR> http://www.johngreathouse.com/two-brothers/

<comment><USER2> I don't think a fairytale that is predictable from the first sentence is going to teach anyone here much.</comment>


Googlebot will soon speak HTTP/2 - <AUTHOR> https://webmasters.googleblog.com/2020/09/googlebot-will-soon-speak-http2.html <comment><USER2> Given that site speed is used in ranking and the different performance profiles of HTTP/1 vs HTTP/2, I assumed they would be doing this already.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder if someone has taken advantage of this. Responding with one site for search indexing over HTTP/1 and another over HTTP/2 (which most users would actually get).

<comment><USER4> Couldn't you just use the user agent if you wanted to do this? Or does google crawl without revealing itself?

<comment><USER5> Googlebot is a well known user-agent, but they do verify with impersonation. It's a heavy penalty (usually delisting) for serving them noticeably different content (there's of course leeway, because sites are dynamic)</comment></comment></comment>


OGG audio recording in Chrome - <AUTHOR> http://felipe.astroza.cl/ogg-audio-recording-in-chrome/

<comment><USER2> Great! I can imagine how we can extend other browser functionalities using asm.js</comment>


ROP Emporium: Learn return-oriented programming through a series of challenges - <AUTHOR> https://ropemporium.com/ <comment><USER2> This is interesting (these are solutions for the challenges on the site):

[https://github.com/abatchy17/ROP-Emporium](https://github.com/abatchy17/ROP- Emporium)

<comment><USER3> There are a bunch of solutions on Github but I'm not sure how to judge these ones.

Which solution here was the most interesting to you? Were there any bugs or solutions that were clearly sub optimal?

<comment><USER2> A tag search returned two repos with solutions for ropemporium:

[https://github.com/topics/ropemporium](https://github.com/topics/ropemporium)

Thank you for challenging me on my choice of wording. I shouldn't have suggested that the repo was interesting without properly exploring the contents myself. I only discovered that git repo after reading the article this morning and since I am at work I have not been able to explore the code myself. I posted the link just to share it with anyone else that might be interested.

<comment><USER3> A regular Github search turns up half a dozen more. It feels like you've intentionally limited yourself to the less commonly used tag search in order to attempt to prove a point that isn't there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This looks like a nice variety of challenges! I've always found constructing ROP chains extremely satisfying, even more than regular exploit development.

As a plug, I wrote a blog post solving a similar exercise using a ROP chain: [http://www.kvakil.me/posts/ropchain/](http://www.kvakil.me/posts/ropchain/) . It looks pretty similar to the pivot challenge here.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is why Internet is great ! Thanks for sharing such advanced concept tutorial for free.

</comment><comment><USER6> Who made this?

<comment><USER2> I think the author wants to remain anonymous. A whois query shows that the author / owner's contact info is being kept private.

[https://www.whois.com/whois/ropemporium.com](https://www.whois.com/whois/ropemporium.com)

<comment><USER7> it's pretty standard to have private whois registration nowadays, even for sites attributable to you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Are there leaderboards or profiles?

<comment> donkey-hotei There's really no need for a leaderboard on a site like this. It's just a site to teach ROP in isolation. If you want to pwn with a leaderboard I recommend pwnable.tw where you can test the ROP skills you learned in the ROP emporium while also learning about auditing binaries for memory corruption bugs of various kinds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am pretty sure this is quite an unpopular opinion, but I think that the biggest issue we have in computer security is culture.

Information security breaches are not victimless crimes. The ubiquity of massive security failures shows that they are not rare occurrences. I believe that this symptomizes a failure of our culture, related to an inability to integrate information technology into the proper context within our society.

Sure, we need to be aware of exploit patterns so that we can make structural improvements, but we don't need to become jolly experts in them. We should stop glorifying cyber-criminals.

<comment><USER10> Not trying to be rude at all but that's a bit of a dream world. In all of human history the very second someone invents a lock, someone else starts figuring out how to break it. This is extremely unlikely to change, mostly because it's fun and rewarding.

I'd agree the biggest issue in Computer Security is culture but it's not that too many people learn what security is, it's the complete and utter disregard that the majority of developers show for the basics. Combine that with a general attitude of Security experts looking down at non-experts (I think this is getting MUCH better thankfully) and it's no wonder most systems are like Swiss cheese and full of wholes.

<comment><USER11> > it's the complete and utter disregard that the majority of developers show > for the basics

I'm not sure that can be pinned squarely on the developers. IME, it's often their management that wants to cut corners. Since proper security takes many steps, it makes it an easy target for management to _negotiate_ some of those steps out of the project. I'm sure there are a few developers that don't do it correctly out of sheer laziness, and many that don't do it correctly out of ignorance, but for large projects with many developers (e.g., banking websites, etc.) I would think that most of the developers _want_ to do it correctly, but management thinks it costs too much. Besides, there's no real ramifications for management to consider anyway (which is, IMO, the crux of the problem, but also another problem unto itself).</comment></comment></comment>


Greenspan Says U.S. Should Consider Breaking Up Large Banks  - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20670001&sid=aJ8HPmNUfchg <comment><USER3> Let's change the reserve ratio requirement to a sliding scale with larger ratios required for larger deposit holding banks, we'd see large banks broken up naturally to take advantage of the better investment deals by being small. The FTC might be appropriate now, but we need to stop being so reactionist.

<comment><USER4> Let's make the reserve ratio 100% if any other business did what banks did they'd be prosecuted for fraud.

<comment><USER5> Actually, they would be prosecuted for banking without following the relevant regulations.

That's like saying, "if any other professional did what proctologists do, they'd be prosecuted for sexual assault".

<comment><USER4> If you put gold in wharehouse and they say that you can retrieve it at anytime, and then turn around and give it to others -- how is that not fraudulent? It only works because they hope that not everyone will demand their gold back at the same time, so they can give you other peoples gold.

My issue is only with demand deposits; if you put the money in an account like a CD where you agree to take it out in X amount of time, then they can lend it out.

<comment><USER5> Your argument seems to hinge on the idea that nobody knows about fractional reserve banking. The fact is, not only is it well-known and fully regulated that banks use fractional reserves, but there is even FDIC insurance and similar programs to guarantee the safety of deposits.

Now, if there was a legally regulated system where you could do fractional reserve banking of gold, complete with a government insurance program, then it would be perfectly fine and not fraudulent at all. As it turns out, no countries have a gold standard anymore.

Comparing some guy with a warehouse of gold who doesn't tell you what he's doing with a publicly insured and regulated system with published reserve ratios is not a particularly honest or fair argument.

<comment><USER4> I'm arguing against fractional reserve banking, and the continued bailout by the government of banks - FDIC is bankrupt and will need tax dollars or new dollars (inflation). Also, I wasn't using gold because I'm advocating a gold standard (even though I do), I used it because it can be used as substitute for dollars in the example.

The problem we were discussing was one of the points from the article: "requiring higher capital ratios on larger banks to ensure the firms' safety" I was advocating that instead of tinkering with this system, we should fix it.

Just because the something is legal and "well regulated" doesn't mean that it is not fraudulent.

<comment><USER6> Just curious, do you have some sort of justification for the idea that a gold standard is somehow better than fractional reserve other than the out-dated idea that your dollar has something 'physical' to back it? Gold is just an object the only value that it gets is the value that humans give it. It's not like gold has some 'inherent' value just for being gold; a value the is constant and unquestionable.

Most people that I've talked to that support bringing back the gold standard only have some vague idea of not wanting their money to be 'just paper' and needing to have something 'physical' that backs it. But their thinking never goes any deeper than that. Most of their ideas come off as lacking in thought. Much along the lines of people that keep all their money in cash in a mattress because they "don't trust the banks;" never mind that it makes it easier for any corner street thug to break your window and steal all your money.

<comment><USER4> Oh I don't care if it's based on gold or some other physical asset, my only concern is that it can't be created out of thin air. Throughout history governments have struggled to get control of the monetary supply, separate it from anything real (give it a name deutschmark, pound, dollar), and then create more of it out of thin air. In this way they are taxing everyone who holds that currency without there direct knowledge. Eventually the money becomes worthless.

In general people are against central planning when it comes to goods and services, but are in favor of it when it comes to monetary supply for some reason that I don't understand. Throughout the history of central banking in the united states we've had all of the worst financial crises and extreme loss of value (the dollar has lost 98%) of it's value since the federal reserve took over.

I also have a problem with the way the new money enters the system. As it enters the market those who get the new money first are able to use it on prices that are set for the old monetary supply so they get great deals, over time prices will rise hurting those not receiving the new money.

Lastly, I have no problem with banks, but I do have problems with fractional reserve banking -- as I stated above I feel it's fraudulent. I do believe that through fractional reserve and fiat currency, money is produced is such great speed that when investing one must take inflation into account and seek out riskier and riskier investments to try and make any decent return. It adds one more variable to be considered whenever making a decision, for instance Harvard just lost 500Million due to an interest rate swap agreement because they didn't predict the Fed would hold interest rates at zero for so long.

Lastly, if a currency is good it doesn't have to be forced upon you; if people actually believed in fiat currencies they would allow competing systems and abolish legal tender laws.

I'd be more than happy to answer any other questions/clear up any misconceptions about this issue -- It's important to me.

<comment><USER5> "Eventually the money becomes worthless."

This is a fundamentally untestable hypothesis: there are many currencies that have suffered hyperinflation, yes, but many others which have gone on for decades without any real harm. You can claim that at some point in the future the currency will fail, and no matter how much time goes by you still won't be proven wrong.

As it happens, commodity-backed currencies aren't immune to problems either. The informal use of tobacco as currency in the colonial South led to a vast overproduction of tobacco and what we would today recognize as severe inflation (Friedman, Free to Choose). You need commodities that are inherently difficult to increase the supply of. In the 19th century, the American government had a seemingly perfect solution: a fixed ratio of dollars to silver, as well as a separate fixed ratio of dollars to gold. Long story made short, a silver rush disrupted this system and necessitated a move to the pure gold standard. The gold standard directly caused a lot of deflation though, which was a severe practical problem and a contributing factor to the Great Depression.

"Throughout the history of central banking in the united states we've had all of the worst financial crises and extreme loss of value (the dollar has lost 98%) of it's value since the federal reserve took over."

As it happens, this doesn't cause any real problems. It's ideal of course for neither inflation nor deflation to occur, but the consequences of deflation are so much more dire that, as a practical concern, we err on the side of inflation.

The economic consequences of mild inflation are as follows: there is an incentive to invest or spend money rather than bury it in your back yard, and there is a small degree of information loss in the price system as prices rise due to inflation. The economic consequences of deflation (an incentive to bury money in your back yard) have catastrophic consequences. The main advantage of fiat currencies is that it's possible to grow the currency at close to the same rate as the economy itself, so the degree of inflation or deflation can be controlled and minimized, with a bias towards inflation since that is the less harmful of the two. Any natural commodity has its own fluctuations in value, both natural and artificial, i.e. the Fisk/Gould plot to corner the gold market during the Grant administration.

Finally, some notes about gold in particular. There are a number of reasons gold is an infeasible currency base in the modern day. One is that, were the entire world monetary supply backed by gold, the price of gold would be so high as to all but eliminate the use of gold for any useful purposes. Of course, the whole world wouldn't switch over at once, but any single country that did would run into a lot of problems. A large country would increase the cost of gold to unreasonable levels--a small country would be at the mercy of any other country with significant gold reserves which could, by selling off gold, tactically devalue that country's currency.

"Lastly, if a currency is good it doesn't have to be forced upon you; if people actually believed in fiat currencies they would allow competing systems and abolish legal tender laws."

Legal tender laws predate even the gold standard, and are probably a practical necessity for debt to be enforceable. At the very least, the government has to mandate a specific currency for people to pay their taxes in, and it's probably just as important for the government to mandate a specific currency for legal judgments to be paid in. There is no actual law against you setting up shop and accepting gold as payment, but if someone runs their truck into your shop and you sue them, no court is going to bend over backwards to make the truck driver pay you anything except US dollars. What you're describing is essentially a barter system, where you only accept payment in gold, your neighbor only accepts payment in silver, your friend only accepts payment in chickens, and I only accept payment in portraits of Benjamin Franklin.

So, let's say we have a gold standard. Well, as I intimated above, a gold standard is just as much a fiat currency as a "Ben Franklin portrait" standard: the government up and tells you that something is money, therefore it's worth more than it should be for any practical purpose. Given the choice, a currency that can be managed to prevent serious financial problems is preferable to a currency that can't.

I'd be more than happy to answer any other questions, or clear up any misconceptions about this issue.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for detailed response.

1\. Bimetallism (mixed gold/silver) caused significant issues due to the fact that they were setting the price of gold/silver. Setting prices never works. 2\. The consequences of deflation IMHO are overblown -- eventually people will need purchase goods and stop saving/hoarding. Now of course these days with massive amount of debt everyone has deflation would be horrible. Massive inflation on the other hand, Zimbabwe today, or Weimer Germany (getting paid 3 times each day) are real threats and will rob the life savings of anyone who doesn't have the money invested or converted to real assets. Driving asset/speculation booms.

3 I agree legal tender laws have existed for a long time, but if you advocate competing currencies then legal tender laws will quickly chase the good money out of the system.

4\. Anything back by a physical commodity that people want is not a fiat currency: >>the government up and tells you that something is money, >>therefore it's worth more than it should be for any >>practical purpose.

The government doesn't have to tell you that something is money the market can decide on what it wants to use as a medium of exchange.

5\. The US went off the gold standard in the 1970s and gold was still used for things besides money so I don't really see how that argument holds water.

Lastly >> Given the choice, a currency that can be managed to prevent serious financial problems is preferable to a currency that can't.

Do you mean like how it's currently managed now? how it was managed in the great depression? Manipulation of the primary information mechanism in the world may be able to change people's behavior but only by misleading them, and only for a temporary amount of time.

<comment><USER5> "The consequences of deflation IMHO are overblown -- eventually people will need purchase goods and stop saving/hoarding."

Eventually, yes, but as a noted economist once said, in the long run we're all dead. The point is that there's a real and significant economic cost to deflation, one that is much greater than the economic cost of inflation to an equivalent degree.

"Massive inflation on the other hand, Zimbabwe today, or Weimer Germany (getting paid 3 times each day) are real threats and will rob the life savings of anyone who doesn't have the money invested or converted to real assets."

I don't see any risk of that happening to the currency in a major country that isn't completely corrupt or totally broke. One thing the Fed _is_ able to do is prevent hyperinflation. Mild inflation, which is what we've had instead, is probably the best long-term target for currency to take.

"I agree legal tender laws have existed for a long time, but if you advocate competing currencies then legal tender laws will quickly chase the good money out of the system."

"Competing currencies", as you put it, is simply a barter system. There's no way that civil law or tax law could even work without legal tender laws, and in any case, going back to barter would be a bad solution to a non-problem.

"The US went off the gold standard in the 1970s and gold was still used for things besides money so I don't really see how that argument holds water."

The US has been cheating on the gold standard since the FDR administration anyway--and there's been enough economic growth since then to create a really big wealth-to-gold ratio compared to what it was back then. If you take the level of M2 in the United States and divide it by the US gold reserves, which is what a US return to the gold standard would require, the resulting price of gold would be orders of magnitude above what it is now and what is affordable for any feasible purpose.

"Do you mean like how it's currently managed now? how it was managed in the great depression?"

As you yourself just noted, during the Great Depression we were on the gold standard. That was actually one of the causes of the Depression.

<comment><USER4> "In the long run we're all dead" is a cop out, and is used to back up theories that can't withstand logical scrutiny.

I see runaway inflation as a serious threat to the united states, and I think it is very possible.

Here's a good take on the FED and it's relation to the great depression: <http://mises.org/rothbard/agd.pdf>

All money is simply a barter system; money is a commodity that is traded that, there is nothing stopping and in fact many stores do have prices in dollars and euros, etc. So there is no problem with competing currencies, the problem you mention with taxes is easily fixed by specifying in what currencies your taxes will be payable in. Eventually we settle on 1 or 2 currencies, but if there was ever a problem there would not be legal reasons for creating a new one.

<comment><USER5> "I see runaway inflation as a serious threat to the united states, and I think it is very possible."

Do you have any historical evidence that it's happened in our system or in other systems like ours? The main flaw I see in your argument is your conflation of mild inflation with runaway inflation.

The kicker is, runaway inflation would happen just as readily even under a gold standard if major new gold sources are discovered, or if another major power sells their gold reserves. We have even less control over that risk than we have over the Fed.

"All money is simply a barter system..."

Yes, except you have to have a common medium of exchange that's widely accepted, and a situation without legal tender laws would eliminate that.

The thing is, once you define what currency you accept taxes in and what currency legal judgments are determined in...you have legal tender laws by definition.

<comment><USER4> 1\. Your first point is incorrect, when a massive amount of gold is found there will be inflation -- but it won't be runaway, prices will quickly come to reflect expected future increases in the monetary supply whereas when the government prints it there is no limit. That is why people advocate tying it to something tangible. To limit their ability to inflate.

2\. You can define that you accept taxes in the following currencies; and then when defining contracts you can specify what you will be paid in. The legal judgements would support that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I do wish, instead of "saving" the big banks, we had broken them up and given the chunks to the smaller well run banks. Instead we gave them the money to buyout better run banks.

<comment><USER8> I agree, though as a matter of policy you have to ask - how do you actually "break them up"? On what basis? You can't just have the government ordering companies to break up.

Unlike, say, Standard Oil, antitrust laws don't apply here (the problem isn't antitrust, it's systemic risk). So either you need some new laws, or just have to ask very nicely (though as a matter of future policy, regulators can - <USER2> should - refuse to approve these financial mega-firm mergers).

I suppose the government could have played a game of chicken (as it did with GM): "do what we tell you (break yourself up into smaller pieces) or we'll let you go under"... but if we've demonstrated that we weren't willing to countenance these institutions going under at that particular point in time, I'm not sure how credible the threat would be.

<comment><USER9> > I agree, though as a matter of policy you have to ask - how do you actually > "break them up"? On what basis? You can't just have the government ordering > companies to break up.

It's not clear that govt can't break them up now. Govt is technically the controlling entity for a large number of them. It can bring the question to the board and if the board votes for breakup....

With ordinary shareholders, there are laws protecting the minority on a fiduciary basis, but they don't apply to govts. Besides, one can reasonably argue that a breakup would increase shareholder value.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> While <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fed> is regulating the Cash Reserve Requirements why isn't <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SEC> regulating the Market Capitalization to 2 times the Company's Quarterly Sales?

"If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, REGULATE it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it." --Reagan

<comment><USER9> > "If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, REGULATE it. And if it stops > moving, subsidize it." --Reagan

Note that this is a description of govt from a criticism of govt by Reagan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Duplicate: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=884462>

</comment><comment><USER12> _At one point, no bank was considered too big to fail, Greenspan said. That changed after the Treasury Department under then-Secretary Hank Paulson effectively nationalized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac..._

Uh, actually I think the first "too big to fail" bank was Continental Illinois, bailed out in the seventies. Funny how this claim might give one the impression that the Fed under Greenspan wasn't indirectly pumping up the market based on investors relying on the credit of "too big to fail" institutions. But it absolutely was. Indeed investors relying on the "too big to fail" assumption underlay the whole subprime/AIG/etc episode and Greenspan was at the helm at this time.

Though to be fair, the collapse was somewhat hastened by Paulson and company being inconsistent in their judgments about who should fail, killing Lehman but saving AIG. This, and _only this_ , is something Greenspan might complain.

 _"Look, my house of card, you Cretans let it collapse"_

<comment><USER13> "Look, my house of card, you Cretans let it collapse"

It sounds like you're talking about Knossos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very interesting development, but it has already been discussed on YC.</comment>


Calculus of Finite Differences/Finite Calculus [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/dgleich/publications/Gleich%202005%20-%20finite%20calculus.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> I'm studying up on data structures and algorithms via MIT 6.006. At one point, I got frustrated as to why there is no mechanical way of collapsing finite sums in their closed forms. Or how I used to say a couple of hours ago "create a formula out of those sums."

So I looked some things up and this is a nice tutorial that I found on it. It's a bit crazy if you're not too mathematically inclined (like me, I know basic calculus), but it allowed me to kind of see that there is a system for creating closed forms out of certain finite sums.

Two very new things you'll learn:

1\. Falling powers (also called falling factorials).

2\. Stirling numbers (and that they are useful for converting falling powers to the normal powers we're used to).

edit:

another good resource: [http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/klappi/csce411-s15/csce411-setFDC...](http://faculty.cs.tamu.edu/klappi/csce411-s15/csce411-setFDCalculus.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> Another good resource that aided in my understanding: [http://notes.komputerwiz.net:8000/wiki/Calculus_of_Finite_Di...](http://notes.komputerwiz.net:8000/wiki/Calculus_of_Finite_Differences)</comment></comment>


City of Berkeley Blockchain Bond Proposal - <AUTHOR> https://www.bondbuyer.com/news/blockchain-bond-proposal-nears-city-council-vote-in-berkeley <comment><AUTHOR> I'm surprised that there hasn't been more mainstream coverage of this proposal. I guess making bonds available in smaller denominations could expand the pool of investors. One would have to be really enthusiastic about making sure that their money is spent only in Berkley to accept interest payments in a token form that could only be spent in the City of Berkley.</comment>


Textpattern CMS 4.7.2 released - <AUTHOR> https://textpattern.com/weblog/414/textpattern-cms-472-released <comment><AUTHOR> Disclosure: I am a Textpattern contributor.</comment>


False Realities of Being Self-Employed - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/what-i-learned-building/2f37c02e9499

<comment><USER2> I have been self-employed for many years now, and frankly, I only agree with 1/3 of your assessment. I don't get to be passionate about the work that I do, that's true; but, I am my own boss, and I do have a flexible schedule.

In a corporation, you have many bosses: your manager, his manager, etc. In order to succeed, you have to please all of them, and you don't get to choose who they are individually. The only choice you have is whether or not to work at a corporation - when you walk into a corporation, there's the structure above you, and either you accept all of it by staying, or none of it by leaving. You are not your own boss because you can't choose your bosses.

As a consultant with many clients, you can pick and choose your clients on an individual bases. Have a nightmare client? Fire him/her, find another nicer one. Have a nice client? Keep him. You are your own boss because you choose each of your clients individually, not all of them wholesale.

As for flexible hours - once again, same applies. Three months ago, I had three clients, and I was insanely busy. Right now I have fewer, and I have more free time. I _could_ have more clients right now, but I am choosing not to because I want to have more rest right now. At a corporation, you don't choose when there's crunch time, and when there's periods of lull - those are determined by your manager. When you are self-employed, you get to choose when to take on more clients and thus be more busy, vs. when you want to continue working at a slower pace for just one client. At a corporation, you either choose to work, or go on vacation.

Anyway, you sound like you are happy to have a job again with managers above you. Maybe you weren't very good at being self-employed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey Yuri, thanks for your comments. I hope you didn't miss the point of my post, which basically gives the same advice your entire post just repeated. Not sure why you seemed to inject a bit of condescension into your last line.

The point of the post was to inform people that these three were possible pitfalls that a new self-employer could fall into, and I gave advice (the same exact advice you listed) on how to avoid them. You clearly have figured it out for yourself and seem to agree with my points, so it sounds like you agree with 3/3 of my assessment and advice. I believe you misjudged the point of my post -- it is to advise newbie self-employers, not ones who've already figured it out like yourself.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for the clarification, and sorry about the snark - I regret it now. Best of luck in your new position.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Yuri. I can see how you may have found the post inapplicable to you since you seem to have it all figured out. That said, if you have any specific feedback or additions to the advice I listed (which sounds very similar to the advice you were trying to give me in your original comment), I'd welcome it from someone with your expertise. I enjoy discussions between entrepreneurs that benefit us by adding to our best practices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for the post. I am looking forward to starting my business in coming months and I guess it'll be helpful to keep your advice in mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> Great! I hope it helps!</comment></comment>


Github Ruby Styleguide - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/styleguide/ruby

<comment><USER3> There was one thing with block chaining that I was really hoping they'd hit on. They didn't. They had:

      # good
      names.select { |name| name.start_with?("S") }.map { |name| name.upcase }

I've noticed that sort of chaining is changing towards:

      names.select { |name| name.start_with?("S") }
           .map    { |name| name.upcase }

Which can be further chained (if need be) like so:

      names.select { |name| name.start_with?("S") }
           .map    { |name| name.upcase }
           .sort
           .join(', ')

Which, imo, is just better than trying to do it all on one line or using intermediate variables. It's more of a value call when it comes to the intermediate variables, though. I'd also use

      .map(&:upcase)

instead of

      .map { |word| word.upcase }

But I think it's perfectly understandable if you find the word.upcase more explicit and readable.

<comment><USER4> This seems to be a popular style in javascript (particularly when using jQuery), but it's not actually valid ruby (edit: ruby 1.8.7, that is - <USER2> reply). The first line forms a valid statement, so the dots would need to be at the _end_ of each line to indicate a line continuation. So it would need to be:

      names.select { |name| name.start_with?("S") }.
            map    { |name| name.upcase }.
            sort.
            join(', ')

Which is slightly more annoying in that you need to modify two lines to add a new chained line (the line you are adding and the dot added to the previous line).

This also creates a mild headache when refactoring, as any change to the length of the "names" variable would force you to re-align the entire chain. You could do something like:

      names.
        select { |name| name.start_with?("S") }.
        map    { |name| name.upcase }.
        sort.
        join(', ')

<comment><USER3> > but it's not actually valid ruby.

You are correct that it is invalid for 1.8.6. The code runs just fine in 1.9, though. I take advantage of many things that don't work in 1.8.6, so I'm not particularly concerned with my method chaining breaking compatibility.

I prefer the more-than-2-spaces indentation because, by the shape of the code, it is clearer to me that this is a method chain and not a change in control structure. That is also obvious by actually reading the code, though, so I'm fine putting that down to personal preference.

<comment><USER4> Great to know about 1.9 - just looked through the 1.9 changelog and saw it described as "Newlines allowed before ternary colon operator (:) and method call dot operator (.)", so it does seem like they are encouraging this specific formatting style.

I agree that the fully indented code is much easier to visually parse - whether that outweighs the refactoring cost is certainly going to vary depending on the team (in addition to personal preference, as you mention).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm not a Ruby programmer, but a couple of these things just look completely wrong:

# good

def some_method(some_arr)

      some_arr.size

end

Omitting the return statement is a good thing? How do you know if this method even returns anything? .size could be a method that doesn't return anything, right, since parens are optional?

#good

do_something if something_else

This, to me, is horrible.

If you're just scanning down the file, you can easily miss the if statement, and assume the do_something always goes off.

Also, it's incredibly hard to process when I'm mentally executing the code in my head. Generally if there's a method call on the left, you just do it... but now we hit this if statement, ok, so mentally undo the method call we just processed, now check the if statement... now skip back to the do_something and reapply the method call... and now skip the if statement and continue on in the code.

...or you could just do if something_else then do_something (if you really must have single line if statements, which I am also against, but not so much as the if statement after the method it's controlling access to)

<comment><USER6> > Omitting the return statement is a good thing? How do you know if this > method even returns anything?

All methods return something.

> If you're just scanning down the file, you can easily miss the if statement, > and assume the do_something always goes off.

This is actually one of the arguable points in that styleguide. Some people share your disapproval for inline if modifiers. Anyway it's not that bad after getting used to as long as lines aren't too long and predicates aren't too complex.

<comment><USER5> > All methods return something.

Ahh, that helps, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can't stress enough how important it is to _not_ use `and` and `or`. As a former die-hard fan of those operators, it bit me in the ass so hard when those didn't exactly work the way they were supposed to. I've been using && and || now for years and I haven't looked back. /PSA

<comment><USER8> I agree. But in all code that I write, regardless of pretty much whatever language it's written in, I always explicitly add parentheses around what I want the order of operations to be.

"1 * 3 + 4 / 20 && foo" is unreadable. No one wants to memorize the order of operations for every language they use and have to figure it out in their head. Make life easier for the people who have to maintain that line of code you just wrote.

<comment><USER9> For language-specific operators I could understand ... but to me, the cognitive load of the parentheses is worse than having to think for a moment about this particular set of operators which have the same precedence in every language I've used (and the arithmetic operators which I've had to know the order of since early grade school).

Maybe I'll eat my foot some day, but

      (a == 1) && (b == 2)

or

      (2 * 3) + 1

is nothing but code smell to me.

<comment><USER8> There are plenty of things that you can leave out when writing parseable source code, but don't because it would make the code horribly un-readable.

That is, there's a reason for whitespace around operators, after commas, extraneous newlines, etc. It makes the code easier to read and maintain. Now while I'm willing to admit that this whole area is largely aesthetic and personal, if you submitted a line of code to me that was just this without the parentheses:

> 2 * 3 + 1

I would reject the code review in a heartbeat. Part of making your code readable to others and less error-prone during maintenance is adding extraneous stuff to it that isn't necessary for the code to parse/compile/interpret.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I agree with almost everything except for using named groups over the $1-$9 variables in regular expression matching. This may be the case if there are many capture groups in the expression, but I would argue that

        /(?<meaningful_var>regexp)/ =~ string

is a fair deal more difficult to read than simply

        /(regexp)/ =~ string

Almost everybody familiar with PCRE will be familiar with the simpler form, and it's usually the case that the shorter the regular expression, the easier it is to understand and read.

<comment><USER11> The following are equivalent:

      if /(?<meaningful_var>regexp)/ =~ string
        puts meaningful_var
      end

      if /(regexp)/ =~ string
        puts $1
      end

This may not look like much, but bare in mind you may be using the current selection in several places, at which point you'll probably use the following for readability either way:

      meaningful_var = $1

In any case I think that sometimes the latter is preferable, that's why I'm not into these kind of black and white conventions. OMG, this line is 85 characters, you suck.

<comment><USER10> It is true that one will probably immediately reassign the $- variables. And that's definitely true that there are cases when conventions impede good style. I would probably say, though, that in most cases the latter of your examples is preferable.

        if string =~ /First: (.*?) Last: (.*?)\s/
          first_name = $1
          last_name = $2
          # etc...
        end

looks far better to me than

        if string =~ /First: (?<first_name>.*?) Last: (?<last_name>.*?)\s/
          # etc...
        end

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I use pretty much the same style for my Ruby work. One thing I do differently is replacing

      %w(word1 word2 word3)

with

      %w[word1 word2 word3]

both result in

      ["word1", "word2", "word3"]

I prefer the bracket delimiters since they better indicate the array nature than the parens. In % notation you can choose your own delimiters, so why not use brackets?

<comment><USER13> Both are fine.

Just don't use linebreaks or weird utf8 characters, please.

EDIT: As delimeters. Feel free to use them inside the strings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Now-a-days we have computers which can show more than 80 characters at a time. "Keep lines fewer than 80 characters", Is this recommendation still valid?

<comment><USER15> Shorter lines are easier to read. Short lines let you put up several editor windows side by side even on a cramped laptop. Short lines let you use a larger font to save your eyes.

There can also be a code win: when forced to deal with short lines, it's often easier to split a long line of code into two easier to understand lines than it is to split on an operator.

Sometimes a split line is a lot worse than a long line, which is why the rule shouldn't be applied religious -- you should only be called on it if you have many lines over the limit.

IMO, 80 is a little bit tight; I prefer 100. But I wouldn't bike shed it if there was a standard in place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm a little curious why

        %w(strings go here)

is preferred to

         [strings, go, here]

The first form requires extra work to escape spaces, the second form is a representation of an array everywhere in Ruby, including in the debugger and IRB.

<comment><USER17> > The first form requires extra work to escape spaces

The first form is generally used for symbol-type strings (word lists, essentially, hence "w"). It is less syntactically noisy, shorter and requires less waffling around with non-word keys.

That's especially flagrant if you don't ignore half the actual array,

        %w(foo bar baz)

really results in

        ["foo", "bar", "baz"]

(the quotes are rather important, because they're noisy, repetitive and annoying to type).

It's one of the few things I regularly wish were in more languages.

<comment><USER16> Ahh.. I forgot about the quotes. That's what I get for posting immediately after waking up. Thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I do not know of the single language, including the language of math, that gives equal precedence to their _and_ and _or_ operators. Sadly Ruby does, and it's a blight on the language. It's like giving equal precedence to + and \ _. It's a choice, but not one that anyone would expect.

What's worse, Ruby give the "correct" relative precedence to &&/||. I suspect this inconsistency is the reason the OP cautions against using _and _/_ or*. It's too bad because I miss the low precedence and/or operators (from perl) that can be used to avoid parenthesis that &&/|| would require in the presence of assignment, etc.

<comment><USER19> Ruby's _and_ and _or_ are for flow control like _if_ and _unless_ , not binary logic operators like (or synonyms for) _& &_ and _||_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Agree nearly 100%, except I see no problem with omitting parentheses around arguments in method definitions. I've never had any trouble parsing this and it's a bit cleaner to my eye.

<comment><USER21> In team environments you typically sacrifice convenience for maintainability and while you may not have a problem with optional parenthesis, it invites ambiguity and a more junior programmer may make a mistake because of it so the idea is to close off that edge case completely and not have to worry about it. This is the same reason a lot of shops ban the terniary operator for anything more than the simplest of variable assignments. It's not saying it's not useful, it's just that there are cases where if they had just been there in the first place coding errors could have been avoided.

<comment><USER20> I agree with your general point, but I don't really see how omitting those parentheses invites ambiguity.

def reply_to_post _text_

end

What could anyone imagine _text_ to be in this context aside from an argument? I get that using parentheses is more familiar coming from languages with C syntax, but I see no other rationale. I've never worked with anyone who stumbled over this. It's always just: 'oh cool, I didn't realize you could omit parentheses there.'

<comment><USER6> It just doesn't scan well. It's quite easy to misread this as reply_to_post_text, for example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Regarding "def self.method" vs. "class << self; def method; end", one very big advantage of using the "class << self" technique (which Github discourages) is that it allows grepping for "def method" to find the location of the method definition.

Perhaps my editor is old and featureless (and Ruby's dynamic nature doesn't help), but I grep for such things multiple times per day.

</comment><comment><USER23> This makes me want to learn Ruby so bad. :(

</comment><comment><USER24> Love it. Great read.

</comment><comment><USER25> I like what I've read, but with a couple of cavaets. Ruby is the way it is on purpose. Discouraging people from using features of the language because the OP (presumably) does not understand how to use them: that's an anti-pattern.

 _The and and or keywords are banned. It's just not worth it. Always use && and || instead._

If you find "and" and "or" not to be "worth it", it tells me that you don't understand the difference. The "&&" and "||" versions bind more tightly, and that is not always desirable. Perl has the same set of constructs, and the Perl monks have been using them correctly for years.

 _As you can see all the classes in a class hierarchy actually share one class variable._

Well, yeah. That's meant to be a feature of the language, not "nasty behavior". It's good advice to use class instance variables, sure. But let's not imply that Ruby is a badly designed language; it's quite well-designed. This isn't Javascript. :-)

 _edit: formatting_

<comment><USER15> Ruby is mostly well-designed, but it certainly has its warts. One of them is that 'or' and 'and' have the same precedence. They don't in Perl. That's one reason while Perl monks use them, but Ruby rockstars don't.

And please don't try to tell me that the lambda/proc/block mess is "well- designed".</comment></comment>


The Luckiest or Unluckiest Man in the World? Tsutomu Yamaguchi, double A-bomb victim - <AUTHOR> http://timesonline.typepad.com/times_tokyo_weblog/2009/03/the-luckiest-or.html

<comment><USER3> I'm a young guy, and all of this happened way before my time... but the ambiguous morality of the bombs' use ("Was there a different way? No, Yes, No, Yes!") does nothing to diminish the tingle in my spine when I read about this man's uncanny ordeal. I'm amazed at Mr. Yamaguchi's gracious attitude towards the Americans. He asks, "How could they do that?" and the article makes it seem like he is more bewildered or curious than angry. I hope this world--and my country, the United States, in particular--never forget the dire consequences of those brutal weapons.

<comment><USER4> Why would he be bewildered? The reasons for the bombing are _public_. He has full access to them.

<comment><USER5> Here's a thought. I'm not claiming it's true or correct, but it's how I understand things ...

Looking at it from the outside, as a non-participant who has studied (and practised!) game theory and strategic decision making, it seems obvious and clear as to what happened, and the reasons behind it.

When you're on the _inside,_ maybe it's different. Maybe it's hard to divorce feelings from reason, emotion from rationality. Maybe the reasons, although logical and reasonable, don't seem to make sense.

Surely a different viewpoint changes your perception.

Looking at it from the inside, perhaps he can't see what you can see - <USER2> and dispassionately.

Looking at it from the outside, maybe you can't understand how he feels.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Great video on the hiroshima bombing simulation: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_rHrV2QhArA>

I find it incredible someone could experience that twice in a week.

<comment><USER7> _I find it incredible someone could experience that twice in a week._

and survive to tell the story :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a testament to the power of ___________ that the morality of the bombings is widely considered to be ambiguous.

<comment><USER9> It's a testament to the power of history being written by the winners that the morality of the bombings is widely considered to be ambiguous.

<comment><USER10> The second bomb is more difficult to justify than the first, true, but I _do_ find the morality of the first bomb ambiguous. The article itself indicates that to the Japanese military leaders, surrender was not an option; with civilians considering killing their family when the enemy invades, I don't think that surrender was being considered.

The amorality of the atomic bomb is sometimes attributed to civilian casualties, but soldiers are humans too, and saving soldier lives actually has value. And although some might say that soldiers chose to be in the war voluntarily, this should not be used against soldiers. Otherwise less soldiers will volunteer, making the draft inevitable.

And having soldiers and an army in a large country is a necessity. If such a country has an inadequate army it does not get peace, it gets invaded. I do not like to imagine what would have happened to the US if its army were not stronger than the Japanese army.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> If you haven't actually read this, please do. Such a powerful read. Intense, moving, and emotional. If you're having a tough time getting into it, skip to the 2nd picture.

But a must read. Don't just vote up, skim and move on.

</comment><comment><USER12> It is a beautiful article and I'm sad that they have allowed it to be ruined by allowing comments on it :'-(</comment>


Show HN: A tabletop game for nerds - <AUTHOR> https://bug.industries <comment><USER2> You guys are doing great things! I'd love to see it live!

</comment><comment><USER3> Can't wait</comment>


Intel desktop board BIOS update end-of-life - <AUTHOR> https://www.vogons.org/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=69184 <comment><USER2> This is why projects like coreboot are very important. Open source doesn't depend on someone's marketing itch.

<comment><USER3> It depends on maintainers though. We now kick devices out of coreboot where we suspect that the code wouldn't even boot anymore and there's nobody able to prove otherwise.

We'd certainly welcome them moving to coreboot. They might even gain a new feature or two, but there's work involved on their part (and the story usually ends at that point).

<comment><USER4> Still the kicked out code is out there somewhere.

As opposed to.

<comment><USER5> It still needs someone to do something with it. And the lack thereof was the reason it got removed in the first place.

<comment><USER6> A future someone can resurrect that code via git. A future someone who wants to interact with old BIOS code that Intel just deleted doesn't have that chance.

<comment><USER3> Indeed. And if somebody brings old code up to current standards, we're happy to put it in again. Haven't seen that happen yet though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I almost wonder if archive.org could get involved here, as these sorts of things (specifically including graphics drivers) will be a prerequisite for some forms of digital preservation and retrocomputing.

<comment><USER8> See [https://www.archiveteam.org](https://www.archiveteam.org) \- they've done such things before, and they do post their work to the IA. And yes, this is something where they should be involved.

<comment><USER9> This is old news. We already grabbed it all, when it was first announced.

<comment><USER10> Where did they end up? Or are they not available yet?

<comment><USER11> They will be in the IA, I think they're in staging right now, someone has said they'll upload them soon

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I can't believe this. All these years I've been recommending Intel products because of their long term support.

I know these boards are legacy, but does it really cost them that much to host the files for occasional downloaders?

One would have thought they'd tread carefully after so many recent PR hits, but I guess not.

<comment><USER13> Is 15 years not long term enough support for you?

<comment><USER14> In some industries, that's not even medium-term.

<comment><USER15> what industries would these be?

<comment><USER16> Most of them in my experience. Many industrial machines have lifespans well beyond 15years. Big companies buy the state of the art and when they decide to replace the old machines they resell them to smaller companies who can't afford to buy the newest model.

I know many people on HN work in web technologies where last year's technology is already obsolete but I've worked in small hardware companies that still used industrial equipment controlled using a serial keyboard with a DIN connector and a monochrome CRT. I've seen people order parts for 20+yo industrial soldering ovens.

You can't really tell somebody with a highly expensive, perfectly functioning industrial machine that they have to buy a new one because you can't find the driver for the motherboard of the controller.

<comment><USER17> Case in point: McLaren uses a special Compaq laptop from 1992 to service old F1's. Why? Well, the car was made in 1992, and so was the ECU.

[https://jalopnik.com/this-ancient-laptop-is-the-only-key- to-...](https://jalopnik.com/this-ancient-laptop-is-the-only-key-to-the-most- valuabl-1773662267)

<comment><USER18> Back in my IT days we used a laptop that had a windows NT 4.0 sticker on it (running windows 2k) to run the ID printer that printed company IDs. These kinds of setups aren't that uncommon. At small scale it's easier and cheaper to keep old stuff running than to migrate.

<comment><USER19> > At small scale it's easier and cheaper to keep old stuff running than to > migrate.

Especially if the machine can be isolated from the internet (like a printer controller).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I will admit that I do not understand that move; especially so if it is a cost cutting measure.

Then again I remember arguing with a VP that storage is cheap and email size limits are draconian enough already. She was not pleased.

Maybe it is really just about the budget.

<comment><USER21> Storage is indeed cheap. Buying it through a service provider not so much.

<comment><USER22> Talking to my IT department, it seems the argument is that storage is only cheap in isolation. In the real world it aggregates across products, users and hierarchies.

Example email:

\- I want bigger mailbox to handle bigger mails incoming and outgoing. Result: bigger mailbox.

\- Then everyone else in the company gets bigger mailboxes. Result: bigger mailbox x1000.

\- Also: bigger mail-server backups.

\- Also: bigger desktop/user-profile backups, because Outlook duplicates all this info locally.

\- Also: bigger storage needs for anything also interacting/duplication selected mail (like CRM, import services, whatever).

\- Also: bigger backups needed for all those systems.

\- Etc etc.

And IMO it's a perfectly valid claim.

Maybe storage "only" costs $0.1 per 100GB in isolation (or whatever), but for a full company with all systems involved, in aggregate it quickly it may exceed 1000x that.

<comment><USER23> > \- Then everyone else in the company gets bigger mailboxes. Result: bigger > mailbox x1000.

This doesn't have to be so. Some users have genuine reasons to require more mailbox storage. Not everyone has the same needs. And if 1000 users really need more space, then either they should be given the space they require, or they're doing something wrong that can be solved by technical means (like sending links to large files instead of the files themselves).

> \- Also: bigger desktop/user-profile backups, because Outlook duplicates all > this info locally.

This can be configured to some extent.

<comment><USER24> > This doesn't have to be so. Some users have genuine reasons to require...

Indeed. Organisations cause them all sorts of problems by not allowing exceptions to the rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This will lead to people downloading potentially infected drivers from unofficial sites.

<comment><USER26> For anyone on Windows stuck doing this, I've had decent luck with the Snappy Driver Installer. ([https://sdi-tool.org/](https://sdi-tool.org/))

The project is open source, can store a complete collection of all drivers offline, and can detect and update drivers. Please do note that you should always take a system restore point, as I have had a few issues with graphics drivers installed with the tool in the past.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Ouch:

> It appears to be even worse. They're also removing old graphics drivers (and > maybe even something else )from their website too, and that is bound to > happen even earlier, the October 11th.

</comment><comment><USER28> Now if I was an AMD exec I'd suddenly announce that "all versions of all our drivers for all hardware on all platforms will be available forever".

<comment><USER29> Don't hold your breath. AMD has been terrible at marketing themselves against Intel for nearly 2 decades.

<comment><USER30> I feel like there was a period of time around 2000 when they had some edge, at least with gamers. Soon after that they disappeared for a while and only now i'm hearing about them again.

<comment><USER31> They lost a ton of ground right around 2006 when Core2Duo became a thing and they couldn't keep up.

<comment><USER32> I remember the K8, Almost every gamer I knew had one. Everybody was rooting for AMD at the time. They were the king. Dual core, 64bit support, almost double the IPC of Intel, lower power than Intel, and more stable. The frequencies weren't as high. My 2.6Ghz Athlon 64 3700+ demolished many Intel CPU's. And then I remember when Core2Duo became a thing like you said. Completely ruined AMD in every benchmark. I believe that Intel had switched their architecture over to what was Pentium Mobile at the time and refactored it. Prescott was optimized for frequency, but the IPC was terrible, as was the heat. We had 4GHZ CPU's back in 2004.

<comment><USER33> K6 was monumental by AMD, for the price those suckers ran circles around the Pentiums of the time and were more stable at that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Stories like these is why I have the habit of archiving all manuals and software related to devices I buy, from motherboards to security cameras. Internet _does_ forget.

</comment><comment> Const-me I wonder will Intel pull their drivers from Windows update repository?

As far as I remember, since Windows 7, I generally stopped download drivers from hardware vendors, used Windows update.

<comment><USER35> What you get through Windows Update is just partial (but working) support, though. At least in my case my GPU, sound and chipset's main features run poorly with just the Windows Update drivers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Sounds like it is time to call on r/DataHoarders

<comment><USER37> They've already done it [https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/d6dkoi/intel_r...](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/d6dkoi/intel_removing_unknown_amount_of_drivers_and/)

<comment><USER38> Interesting observation:

> Note that they are actively removing files, they removed near 200 between > the time I scraped the links and the time I started the downloads... shits > going fast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Extremely direct form of planned obsolescence.

</comment><comment><USER40> D865PERL looks like it was built for a Pentium 4 in 2003. Its not like Intel is saying the board wont continue to work, just no bios updates. How often do you need to update the bios on a 16 year old system?

<comment><USER41> unfortunately the same applies here: [https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/28273/BIOS- Update-...](https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/28273/BIOS-Update- BLH6710H-86A-)

<comment><USER40> OK I see that is for LGA1155 boards released 8 years ago, which isn't great but I'm not sure you need BIOS updates still.

<comment><USER41> Intel at least felt that you needed an BIOS update for it on 10/23/2018.

<comment><USER42> I'm running a DH87RL with the 2018 BIOS. It's pretty remarkable that they released those updates after 6 years of nothing, though they only changed the CPU microcode. With the number of CPU vulnerabilities being uncovered recently, they're probably deleting the BIOS files because they're tired of maintaining the microcode patches.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Why are they doing this?

<comment><USER13> Because supporting 15 year old cheap consumer products is a waste of energy.

<comment><USER44> Since this fabricated "15 year old" hardware claim is repeated for who knows what reason, I'm going to have to spam the debunking of it as well.

It's nowhere near to being true. Software is going to be gone for haswell generation,[1] boards originally released just 6 years ago[2].

1\. [https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/28295?product=7090...](https://downloadcenter.intel.com/download/28295?product=709031). 2\. [https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?pro...](https://ark.intel.com/content/www/us/en/ark/compare.html?productIds=70903,69045,69044,72031)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> HP made the same thing for desktop printers. Want to download a windows xp driver for an older printer (which is perfectly fine)?? not gonna happen from the hp site...

</comment><comment> ga-vu Not "ALL" BIOS drivers.

Just legacy ones, for boards released in the 90s and early 2000s.

<comment><USER35> > Unfortunately, they'll be removing all BIOS download links to all Intel > desktop boards on that very same date (even the later Sandy Bridge boards)

Mentioned in OP. No idea what the statement is based on, but Sandy Bridge is at least 2012'ish AFAIR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Microsoft did a similar thing silently to their downloads[1] and KB articles, but fortunately the majority of it --- if not all --- has been archived somewhere.

Now if only archive.org would make it all searchable...

[1] a notable example being "Calculator Plus", a 9x/2K/XP-style calculator with some enhancements, but the name has since been reused for a horrible bloated and slow buggy "app".

<comment><USER47> Windows Live Mail (the replacement for Outlook Express) is a good example. My dad uses it on his old Dell desktop, and it got carried over when he got hit with the Windows 10 dark pattern "upgrade".

Now he has a new laptop, but we can't download Windows Live Mail (unless we want to risk getting it from a dodgy site), and he won't even consider Thunderbird. Argh.

<comment><USER48> If the download is digitally-signed by Microsoft, you can download it via a temporary VM and verify the installer signature. Since Live Mail is around the Vista era it should be signed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> > Nobody got fired for buying Intel!

Back in the day this was said all the time at the office. Things change!

</comment><comment><USER50> Is this due to a "management" style leadership pushed on companies typically by Private Equity? I am beginning to see PE as an agent of eroding quality in after sales support and many other areas.

<comment><USER51> Normal Short termism for listed companies not just PE

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> "Intel to remove all BIOS updates _for their Desktop boards_ " seems to be a more correct headline?

<comment><USER13> For their 10+ year old End Of Life boards.

<comment><USER10> Given that 10+ year old boards are still perfectly serviceable for many applications and are still in widespread use all over the globe they may be End Of Life for Intel but that does not mean they are magically and suddenly all gone. The degree to which Intel stuff has proven to be insecure over the last couple of years would warrant at least some consideration for people who are still running that older hardware, especially if it does not cost Intel much to keep that hardware supported.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> This is why I am glad with fwupd.org and its frontends.

</comment><comment><USER54> Surely they have industrial contracts to support hardware? I'm surprised they've adopted this burn-bridges approach.

</comment><comment><USER55> What the NUC?

<comment><USER56> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Unit_of_Computing](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Unit_of_Computing)

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Corporations saving money by cutting down on the cheap things. Bang head [here].

</comment><comment><USER58> huh?

Surely the mighty Intel could just dump it on a FTP server, declare it unsupported and call it a day? I mean they're basically already there:

>All versions are provided as is.

</comment><comment><USER59> Am I the only one who hears Fallout's "wah-wooo" sound and sees a message "You've lost karma!" when hearing such foot-shooting news?

</comment><comment><USER60> > It seems Intel wants to wipe out their entire desktop board support section > from their website.

If this is true, it's the perfect opportunity to create dodgy "DOWLOAD DRIVURZ NOW!!1" websites which host modified executables.

<comment><USER61> There are plenty of them already. They'll just get more traffic from conscious users, as there won't be an official source anymore. Little cost-saving for Intel, big harm for their users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Headline is unsubstantiated and false.

Intel is no longer serving BIOS updates for at least one product that was released 16 years ago and last manufactured 15 years(!) ago. You've had 15 years to make copies of the BIOS files for your needs, and you can still use the original BIOS on your device.

Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER62> Headline is fully substantiated and I also see that 1151 support (as in boards made just a few years ago) are having their BIOS/UEFI downloads nixed as well. I just tried updating my board with my 7th gen i3. No downloads when I knew one existed before (I refused to get it because everything currently just works.)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Easiest Way to Verify Location? - <AUTHOR> I'm interested in creating a product (e.g. something that works with Meetup.com) that would require us to verify they went to the meetup location. This should be as seamless as possible for the user, preferably without them downloading a new app.
How could we: A) allow the meetup organizer to ping phones to verify the people that went to the meetup
B) use Google Maps to allow users to give us a one-time ping of their location
Edit: We'd essentially reward the organizers for getting people to show up. We want it to be as difficult as possible for them to game.
Much appreciated <comment><USER2> What is the threat model? Do the organisers have an incentive to cheat? Do invitees have one?

If the organisers can be trusted then the solution is to have a device displaying a QR code that rotates regularly (30 seconds?) at the location and have attendees scan it.

If the invitees can be trusted then the process can be reversed. Each invitee displays an unique QR code during check-in the organiser should scan.

If neither can be trusted then you'd need a neutral third-party to act as a witness by scanning both the organiser's code and the invitees'. This proves that the witness was at the event (and it was indeed open to the public) and that invitees did show up.

Out of curiosity, how do you prevent a malicious party from creating dozens of fake accounts and using them to check in at their fake event?

</comment><comment><USER3> Keep it simple. Have a sign with a QR code to check in.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's great, but we don't want to allow them to game the system. The idea is that they're rewarded for having people show up.

<comment><USER3> Location can be faked as well (besides not necessarily being accurate). You could look into bluetooth beacons that an app can detect. In the end, if there is an incentive for the organizer to fake attendance they can do that in multiple ways. However QR codes which open your app or a webpage where the user is logged in can have additional detections. Always same IP and user- agent would be an obvious indication of fraud etc.</comment></comment></comment>


Melbourne Australia Hackernews/YC Meetup, this Sun 4th Oct - <AUTHOR> http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=141595103826

<comment><AUTHOR> For those not on Facebook...

By popular demand, we're inviting Melbourne's Y Combinator/Hackernews devotees to come together for a lazy Sunday afternoon of sunshine & startup talk.

Tom & Fenn, alumni of the Winter 09 Y Combinator program will be there. If you're considering applying to YC, either for the upcoming Winter 10 cycle, or in a future round, this is your chance to talk to Melbourne's only YC startup about their experiences and seek their advice.

But you needn't be a YC aspirant to attend, anyone who procrastinates with obsessive re-reads of PG essays and eloquent dissections Michael Arrington's character is encouraged to come along, as is anyone who manages to avoid such distractions in the pursuit of startup success.

Get along and help make Melbourne the startup hub we know it should be!

Details:

3pm, Sunday, October 4th

The Order of Melbourne - <USER3>

401 Swanston St Melb

<comment><USER4> Also for us not on Facebooks; can you give us the time and location?

<comment><AUTHOR> Oops sorry,

3pm, Sunday, October 4th

The Order of Melbourne - <USER3>

401 Swanston St Melb

<comment><USER5> cool.. like a real hackers conference.. you have to engage in social engineering and pick a lock to gain access to the rooftop?

oh, you mean the Rooftop on Swanston.. um, ok :]

<comment><AUTHOR> The line breaks didn't help me much there... It's at The Order of Melbourne, at 401 Swanston St, on the rooftop level

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looking forward to it. Whenever someone's brought up the idea on here previously there's been a fair bit of interest, so hopefully we get a decent turnout.

</comment><comment><USER7> Booo!

A friendly troll on behalf of NSW :-D

<comment><USER8> Well -- after guys turned all of Sydney YC-orange the other day, I guess they felt they had to top it...

<comment><AUTHOR> Sydney turned orange the very night Fenn and I rocked into town. Co-incidence? Hardly.

<comment><USER8> ... And Melbourne turned grey.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks like people will be tweeting with the hashtag #ycmelb <http://twitter.com/#search?q=%23ycmelb> Thanks Tom et al.

<comment><USER8> Plus the awesome follows of @tomhoward and @ycmelb naturally.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A bit off topic but I'll ask hoping to take advantage of all of the Aussie HNers who will surely drop by---

How are the startup scenes in Melbourne and Sydney?

Are they startup up friendly cities? Is the technology meet-up phenomenon present there as it is in the States?

(All this talk of sunshine has rekindled my desire to get out of Chicago before winter comes...)

<comment><USER6> I don't feel qualified to answer your question, but seeing as nobody else is...

Melbourne has a lot of technology meet-ups. Twitter meetups happen at least monthly, and there are also mobile tech meetups, social media meetups, The Hive for entrepreneurial talks and the like, and regular meetups for [programming language of your choice]. Sydney has a lot of similar things happening, but I'm not as familiar with the scene as I'm not there.

In terms of startup scenes we have a long way to go to match the US. Sydney and Melbourne have a friendly rivalry going -- Sydney likes to think they're more Silicon Valley-like, and Melbourne beg to differ ;) Both have good, albeit small, groups of enthusiastic hackers trying to create a tighter-knit startup culture.

This Melbourne meetup is one of the things we're doing here to try and bring everyone together and get more of a community happening.

One of the other things everyone mentions is how much harder it is to get VC funding in Aus, which is one of the reasons the startup culture is a little stifled.

<comment><USER8> Probably also worth mentioning Melbourne Jelly, which is a great regular event: <http://wiki.workatjelly.com/JellyInMelbourne>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Surprised Adelaide hasn't turned up (must be all the serial killers). Any folks interested in meeting up at some point?

<comment><USER11> Heh short notice to fly from Adelaide.

<comment><USER10> Actually, I was referring to people from Adelaide, meeting up in Adelaide. My mistake. There are very few startup related events, and it would be good to meet some fellow HNers.

<comment><USER11> Yeah not sure about HNers but there is The Startup Club.

<comment><USER10> Yeah I've been to a couple of recent presentations - am part of it on Facebook. There are a couple of characters, but most attendees seem to either be aspiring life coaches or business parasites. I've yet to meet a programmer (at least one who knew what he was talking about).

<comment><USER11> Yeah similar experience, hence haven't really been back.

<comment><USER10> Hence, why I made the original suggestion - anyone else we can coax into a meet up?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Melbourne is brilliant.

With all the banking (and money) in Melbourne, wouldn't it be the logical place for the startup ecosystem to thrive in Australia?

I really hope it does - if I ever go back to Australia, Melbourne is where I'd probably settle. It's one of my very favourite cities.

</comment><comment><USER13> Looking forward to meeting more of Melbourne's web/tech startups.

</comment><comment><USER14> Any interest in a Canberra meeting?</comment>


Apple's auto ambitions sideswipe electric motorcycle startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/19/apple-motorcycle-idUSL1N12F2JZ20151019 <comment><USER3> I really don't get or condone the use of the term "poach" here. Company A has great employees, can't pay them according to their value. Company B comes along and does pay them that, they leave. How is this not the best possible outcome ? Company A was not competitive and disappears, employees are better paid, Company B gets some great employees. Or are engineers considered property now ?

> Apple never tried to acquire Mission Motors, Kaufman said.

Well why would they ? There's no need to pay off the investors and executives when you just want to hire some engineers, unless said executives did their job well enough that said engineers don't want to leave.

When Musk was talking about engineers Apple was "poaching", it did not reflect very well on him either in my opinion.

<comment><USER4> In this case I would agree with you, since this company and its product wasn't competition for Apple. They simply hired some people and a company failed because those people left.

But when done to a direct competitor, the intention isn't always just to get a good employee and pay him what he deserves, it's also to weaken the other company or to acquire important knowledge/knowhow. In that case, poaching doesn't sound that bad.

<comment><USER5> The word poaching means to illegally hunt game that is not one's own.

In medieval Europe, the king was the only person allowed to hunt in the king's forest. The animals in that forest were the king's property.

By using the word "poach" you're saying the engineers are the property of the company they work for, and someone else is unjustly taking that property. Employees are not property. They are people with the right to move between companies as they please.

Even if they were hired to hurt the original company, it wouldn't be taking that company's property unjustly. You could call that a sabotage hire or a betrayal, but call it a word that deals with people as free to make choices using their own agency.

<comment><USER6> Depending on how it's done it could be viewed as anti-competitive. To give an exaggerated example, imagine if Apple, using its big pile of phone money, came into your company and offered 10x market rate for every company willing to leave that day with a guarantee of 3 years of employment at that rate. In my opinion that should trigger anti-competitive laws. And if that's true, then we're just talking about to what degree this type of behavior is allowed before it crosses the line. It doesn't sound like any lines were crossed to me in this case, I just thought it was an interesting thought experiment.

<comment><USER7> Big fan of capitalism, that is exactly within the boundaries of why the system works, because in practice this should not happen (shareholders would not approve), yet if it did, the winners are the engineers either way.

<comment><USER6> I don't understand how having safeguards against anti-competitive behavior is in any way anti-capitalist. To say the engineers are the winners is very short sighted. The best scenario for all engineers on the market is to have multiple competitors competing for the best engineers with good salaries. It's not to have one of the vendors take a temporary loss in profitability in order to put everyone else out of business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Some close to Mission Motors said it had reached a point of no return by > last fall, when departures to Apple, and other companies, accelerated after > a long struggle to find funding and a sound business model.

So is Apple really to blame here, or is this yet another case of 'who needs revenue strategy anyway?' On the part of Mission? You can't blame the engineers moving to a much higher paying - and likely just as exciting - <USER2> at a large company which has less risk.

<comment><USER9> probably just the last few nails in the coffin. They made a good product but the motorcycle industry is not that large and new players have a tough time getting their name out.

Figure the engineers leaving near the end merely saw the writing on the wall.

<comment><USER10> I went and chatted with some people at Mission Motors ~18 months ago. They had recently split off Mission Motorcycles to do the motorcycle thing independently. Mission Motors seemed mostly focussed on electrifying construction and farm equipment by then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Its a bit tangential, but I would love to know what the core skill sets of some of these engineers were and why they were so valuable. I understand battery chemistry and all of the subtleties associated with them warranting poaching/hiring away/etc., but fundamentally electric vehicles are pretty simple. I am sure there is a bit of 'I don't know what I don't know but at the same time, I have built an electric go cart, and solar powered car in middle school and high school respectively. And that was spec'ing parts, selecting system voltages, wiring design, battery configuration, mechanical selection, chassis design, and physical construction. I would imagine one could hire good engineers from SAE challenges out of the universities quite easily and its just hard to understand where the killer skill set is. Perhaps it is understanding the supplier ecosystem, institutional knowledge to testing and regulatory rigour? Maybe its industrial design talent? Or maybe that within a 1 hour radius of Apple is a limitted supply of non-strictly-software engineers? I would love a bit more insight than the article provided and I am sure someone on HN has a bit of an inside perspective?

<comment><USER12> Just like in software, it's much easier to hire someone already doing the exact same job than it is to evaluate candidates by other means.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > ... after a long struggle to find funding and a sound business model.

So the company was already doing poorly and engineers switched to a better paid job in a stable company. Hardly Apples fault that Mission Motors was a shitty place for an engineer to stay.

<comment><USER14> Can you elaborate on how Mission Motors was a "shitty place"?

<comment><USER15> Apple were able to pay them more? Mission Motors hadn't made any money? Why do you think they choose to leave?

<comment><USER14> Those are valid reasons to leave, but they do not equate "shitty place".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Would you pay 100$ for a can of tomato sauce? - <AUTHOR> http://giangonz.com/cio-essays/pagarias-100-por-una-lata-de-salsa-de-tomate/#english <comment><USER2> For some reason I can't reach the site, but I can answer the question. No. If I really wanted tomato sauce that bad, I would grow and jar my own tomatoes. That was a valuable lesson I learned from family members that lived through the great depression. They could easily live off their garden if need be.</comment>


Linus Torvalds says "f–k you" to Nvidia  - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/06/linus-torvalds-says-f-k-you-to-nvidia/

<comment><USER2> How many times will this be submitted?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4121698>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4123480>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124097>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4124645>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4125890>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4126185>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4126272>

<comment><USER3> If moderators hadn't gratutiously retitled the most popular thread about the incident - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4121698> \- it'd have been a lot fewer, I'd guess.

<comment><USER2> Personally, I doubt it. It seems to me that items like this get submitted many times, regardless. The "perfect storm" of Linus being rude, nVidia being insulted, and a specific rude word in the title and the text means it's nearly ideal for people to submit it, and most will do so without checking if it's been submitted before.

<comment><USER3> To a point. It was on the front page for some time though. If it had kept the F-You title, though, more people would remember it being on the front page, especially with the language used.

Long term, it would be nice if HN showed you potentially similar items like MetaFilter does..</comment></comment></comment></comment>