Ubuntu Snap auto updates broke my development setup, can't turn them off - <AUTHOR> https://raymii.org/s/blog/Ubuntu_Snap_auto_updates_broke_my_development_setup.html <comment><USER2> The more I read about Snap, the more its user-hostile behaviour bothers me.

I've read again and again (on here, of all places) that snap packages are _great_ for server administration, but I feel like production machines are a place where you wouldn't want a random assortment of packages updating. I can hear the sysadmins scream already, from here.

With the fact that Snap (and Flatpak) package releases are often delayed due to whatever vetting needs to take place (plus packaging or rollout delays?), combined with the fact that it can and will auto-update without your approval, _even if you 've told it otherwise_, it sounds like the worst of both worlds.

For what its worth, Pop!_OS also doesn't use snap... and of all things, the reason why I switched from Ubuntu 20.04 to Pop!_OS was because the calculator took five seconds to load (of course, being a snap package) on Ubuntu, and milliseconds, on Pop, as it should.

<comment><USER3> I don't understand who wants auto-updates.

The best practices I'm familiar generally have immutable things (images, containers), with new versions deployed continuously (with a build & validation pipeline). In-place upgrade just adds new failure dimensions, let alone _automatic_ in-place upgrade.

<comment><USER4> "Microsoft is doing it"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I believe the author is (partially) wrong. You can use 'snap revert' to revert to the working version of CLion. For example for the hugo snap.

sudo snap revert hugo

will revert the hugo snap to the last version.

He is right that you have (almost) no control over snap updates. The snap will be refreshed if a new version after the latest is published according to the docs.

[https://snapcraft.io/docs/getting-started#heading-- revert](https://snapcraft.io/docs/getting-started#heading--revert)

I am a little disappointed in this. I expected to be able to pin a software version or at least be able to access a lot more than the very last version of a snap. A lot of software publishers (both proprietary and open source) like to break compatibility with plugins that would break your workflow. You may be waiting a while for your plugins to update (or you give up on your plugins once other plugins show up or the new version has matured enough for you to move over).

A quick search of Flatpak shows that you can revert an older version and have more options to choose from.

[https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/552688/is-it- possib...](https://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/552688/is-it-possible-to- roll-back-a-flatpak-update)

Also, Flatpak's 'mask' command may allow you to pin a version?

[https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/3078](https://github.com/flatpak/flatpak/issues/3078)

Perhaps someone familiar with Flatpak can chime on it. Last I used it Atom was still popular.

</comment><comment><USER6> This mirrors my experience. I've been a mostly happy Ubuntu user since 5.04/Hoary, baring a few bumps like Unity and pulse audio becoming defaults before they were polished enough for general release.

But after upgrading to 20.04, and fighting with Snap slowdowns, and yet another change in desktop direction, the weird data sharing of searches with Amazon, and weird power management problems on hardware that had previously "Just Worked", I just had had enough. I switched to Mint a month ago, and haven't look back.

I love how Ubuntu has brought Linux into the (somewhat) mainstream, but I'm just over how much it keeps changing direction, and releasing things before they're ready.

<comment><USER7> Get over that damn Amazon link already. It's been gone for years!

<comment><USER6> > It's been gone for years!

That's simply not true. It was there until earlier this year[0].

Regardless, even if it had been removed years ago. It wouldn't have made any difference to my remarks or decision. It's just one more straw on the proverbial camel's back.

[0] [https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2020/01/ubuntu-removes-the- amazo...](https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2020/01/ubuntu-removes-the-amazon-web- app)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Snap auto updates brought down a 4 node Raspberry Pi 4 lxd cluster I was running in my home lab. One of the nodes went down and before there was a chance to address it snap decided to auto update lxd on the remaining nodes. Since the down node wasn't updated this caused the entire cluster to fail because not all the cluster members were on the same lxd version. I was able to force remove the down node from the cluster to bring things back up.

As soon as possible I moved away from lxd which is a shame. It met my needs better and was easier to manage than k3s which replaced it. Unfortunately as long as it is only available as a snap it is a non-starter for my lab. I don't see how it could possibly be considered for a real deployment.

<comment><USER2> Seriously? You aren't able to install LXD via apt any more? Suppose that's what you get when a product is owned by Canonical...

<comment><USER9> That's right.

You used to get LXD over APT but they changed it and now you can't.

Well there's an APT package, but it simply tells Snap to install using Snap. You can do the latter yourself and get the same result either way.

Most of my servers use LXD for containers, and started doing so when it was over APT like any other package.

Then it was like a much improved LXC, and pretty nice. Things "just worked".

It's just as well it's like an improved LXC, because the commands are both "lxc" \-- to maximise confusion! I need both old-style LXC and new-style LXD- pretending-to-be-LXC installed at the same time, because some LXC container images fail to run under LXD.

The change to forcing Snap is literally the only use of Snap on my host servers now. It's annoying and disconcerting. I'm still not sure if it will auto-update or not, and I daren't find out by switching to the current version of LXD. I'm sticking with an old version, which seems safer!

I could study Snap and get to know it, but that seems silly given I don't use it for anything else.

It's also annoying because of the mount points and data isolation inside Snaps, which I've basically had to workaround. I appreciate the benefits of container isolation, of course, but it did require some bind-mounting to accomodate my existing images and configurations.

In due course I expect I will switch out LXD for Kubernetes. That will be a pain, because K8s/Docker are not optimised for running distro images, but I don't think the pain will be any worse than trying to obtain certainty about LXD+Snap's evolving behaviour, and daily familiarity with K8s has far higher market value.

Which is a shame, because LXC and LXD are great technologies, and the various packaging and relevance issues have made even old-style LXC something to move away from.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yes, it's weird that it can't be turned off, but the snap documentation is very clear about the auto update.

Snap versions also can be reverted.... it is annoying, but the article is a bit overdramatic, since it's not a secret..

RocketChat has this issue to. They work around that by delaying the snap release for weeks. And they also provide different update channels.

<comment><USER2> You can use the revert command to revert to the last version, but what if you want to pin to a specific version? From what I've heard, that is not possible.

... and what if you revert a package, and a new version gets published, will it pull the rug out from under you and update again?

<comment><USER10> Then don't use snaps.

It's not snap that broke the IDE/Workflow. The author decided to use an install method that auto updates and the authors of the plugins didn't checked compatibility with the latest version.

This is more of a lesson of "don't auto update important tools" than "snap bad".

<comment><USER9> Under Ubuntu, you don't have a choice any more.

Some packages that used to be found under APT, in older versions of Ubuntu, are now only available via Snap.

<comment><USER11> Chromium was due to the absolute nightmarish amount of manpower on Canonical's part it took to keep up packaging with releases. Copying Debian's work wouldn't have helped because they had and still have fewer resources than Canonical did to commit to packaging it.

LXD ships a private version of a library as it has changes not accepted by upstream. It pretty much needs to be a snap as it doesn't fit into the realm of .deb packaging due to that.

Two fits "some". Off the top of my head I cannot recall anything else that has a .deb that diverts to snap. More might come in the future perhaps. 2020 has not been the kindest of years to bookmakers in Vegas and elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I, for one, refuse to use snap. While I do admit It makes some things stupid easy to install, there are trade offs. First. The fact that it's breaking things is bad. Second, for every snap install there is a '/loop/blah" entry in your did output. This is severely annoying and not needed IMHO. While breaking things is far worse, little annoyances have an effect. I will personally avoid snap and stick to installing things the way I always have.

</comment><comment><USER13> Every single time that I've tried Ubuntu it's been killed by an update.

Manjaro is the only distro that was stable enough to keep running without fail. Been running it for 2 years now. One of the best things it has over Ubuntu is the ease of installing software. No more hunting down keys or PPAs.

</comment><comment><USER14> I guess Ubuntu will provide a enterprise edition of Snap in future. It will allow users to suspend updates.

</comment><comment><USER15> Don't use snap.

</comment><comment><USER16> There will never be any such thing as a free lunch.

</comment><comment><USER17> I have never understood why so many people think installing Ubuntu is a good idea. It's not like there is any shortage of absolutely outstanding distributions. Debian, Arch, Nix, Suse, Fedora, Gentoo -- something for everyone, none habitually weird.

<comment><USER18> I can tell you why it is a good idea for me.

After having tried most (major) distros available over and over again, I decided about 2 years ago that I will just stick with Ubuntu in the future. Why is that?

\- Stuff just works (better). No matter which hardware I used, Ubuntu was always the best out of the box configuration. I am getting to old to spend 2 days on setting up an obscure printer driver on arch e.g. These days I just want to be able to print as soon as I boot the first time and use my time for better things.

\- It's polished. It just has the best desktop experience of all distros. The fonts look good. The theme does not look like a mess of things jumbled together.

\- Most software is available in the repos or you can download a .deb package or use PPAs. The rest I can as usual just build myself.

The only "downside" for me is that it is not a rolling release.

<comment><USER19> Ubuntu UI, snap, search, some small design decisions is annoying though. So I'd recommend try Fedora or Mint first, for a more polished experience.

<comment><USER18> Well I disagree. As I said, I basically have tried them all.

I like the Ubuntu UI. I have customized shortcuts a lot but I like the current gnome.

I am still undecided about snaps. I have only a few installed and I am glad they were available as snaps (emacs 27 e.g.).

Not sure what you mean with search.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Republicans move to sell off 3.3m acres of national land, sparking rallies - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jan/31/public-lands-sell-congress-bureau-management-chaffetz <comment><USER2> > To outdoorsmen like Amaro, selling off individual parcels of national land > creates a "multiplier problem", where a small parcel of land turned private > can cut off access for many. That's what happened in Coronado national > forest, he said. Ten acres that led on to hundreds of thousands of acres of > public property were turned into state trust land.

> "Access has been eliminated for much of the forest. The private landowners > now effectively have their own private hunting preserves by not allowing > public hunters a way into the national forest," Amaro said.

Sounds pretty bad - given the precedent they should at least amend the bill to ensure public access to public parts.

<comment><USER3> Part of me says "It's bad to block access to public land". but the other part says: "if they want an access, so they can hunt, then I wish the block to continue existing."

<comment><USER2> Lol, yes - I don't know why I stopped short of saying exactly that. Definitely not a hunting fan myself.

<comment><USER4> In many places where we have removed apex predators, hunting is necessary to keep ecosystems healthy.

I'm mostly vegan, so this is near and dear to my heart. It makes me sad how many vegans don't realize that without predators animal populations fluctuate wildly causing animal suffering and permanent ecological damage. You can either A) do the killing yourself, B) support apex predator populations, or C) wipe out all animal habitat altogether.

Sadly, C) is the option most vegans support, which makes no sense. Till the land every year, kill any animals that would interfere with the growing of plants, and then sell those plants to humans. But because vegans are so sensitive about being attacked (again, as a longtime vegan I get it, I really really do) the conversation never gets started. It's sad to me.

<comment><USER5> > hunting is necessary to keep ecosystems healthy

This is a common cliché that would merit some discussion. 'Healthy' is a problematic concept to apply to a machine and ecosystems are like machines in many senses. A 'healthy ecosystem' in this context is often a synonym of 'convenient for hunters'.

Ecosystems without apex predators are more unstable but not necesarily in danger. A breed colony of emperor penguins or a small lake in winter after the resident couple of loons migrate is not an ecosystem about to collapsing or that must be fixed. Many desertic, arctic and pelagic areas are free of apex predators 340 days/year. Apex predators quit and recolonize areas constantly. Is a natural process.

If preys can fly/run away and are free to quit the area the ecosystem will be fine.

If not, a smaller predator will be quickly 'hired' for the job. Could be a desert fox, a parasite or a bacteria, but the ecosystem is constantly fixing itself and will be quickly rebuild with the remaining items.

Hunting can be a temporary solution, but is neither the only answer to this problem nor the best necessarily (and is an obstacle to the recolonization of the area for apex predators in the future, that should be the real goal here). You can always explore other valid options: relocating the surplus animals, creating ecologic corridors, etc, etc...

<comment><USER6> At the moment, US is having a _massive_ problem with deer. And the major reason why that is, is that we've eliminated most of their natural predators, and lobbied very aggressively against hunting. So now you have millions of deer destroying crops in US, but of course any time anyone mentions culling, people immediately get aggressive about cruelty of hunting. I mean, I get that, and I wish there was a better way, but deer are literally worse than pests at this point.

[http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many- deer/](http://blog.nature.org/science/2013/08/22/too-many-deer/)

<comment><USER7> Guess what kind of places don't have problems with deer overpopulation? Places with strong hunting cultures.

Besides, venison is delicious, lean meat. I know hundreds of people that hunt deer religiously every November, and they are not jackass trophy hunters, they are primarily hunting to fill their freezers.

<comment><USER8> Michigan tends to manage the deer herd in a way that keeps the population high, to make hunting better.

A couple of aggressive seasons could dramatically lower the population without impacting viability of the herd, but the state DNR won't do it because it would impact license revenue and tourism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The BLM owns a third of the land west of the Mississippi. Being public land that is leased for both public and commercial uses, it's exceptionally poorly managed, with overgrazing, soil destruction, and erosion being common problems. This is one of those private property things that many on HN will resist, but private property (especially farmland) is generally better managed.

The BLM is a relic of 19th century expansion. All of that land should be sold to private buyers or designated with a function, such as being transferred to the National Parks Service.

Edit: As others pointed out, it should also be noted that this is less than 1% of BLM land... they should be transferring more. The story itself is liberal sensationalism.

<comment><USER10> I'm not from the US, but I love the landscapes there and visit fairly frequently to hike and camp.

Aren't there differences between public use of national parks and BLM land? e.g., most national parks have quite strict rules for camping, while the BLM areas are much more flexible and relaxed? Personally, I think it's great that the two options exist and are distinct. I don't want to discount your general point, but more so wonder if ALL of that land should be set aside for purely private or NP use.

(Arches NP has put backcountry camping on hold. In the best areas of Zion NP, there are fixed camp sites that are quickly reserved in advance, or camping is not permitted. Tourist attractions are getting busier and busier with each year, so BLM options for backcountry overflow make sense to me.)

I'd be worried that it's easier/cheaper to privatise these lands than the reverse.

<comment><USER11> There are differences, for example flying ultralight aircraft (hang-gliders, paragliders) is prohibited in the national parks.

Private land in the US is barb wired, often with no access at all. (This is different from private land in Europe, where the norm is that a forest, in private hands would not be barb wired, and there are sometimes easements for recreational use.)

<comment><USER10> There is a great 99PI podcast about barbed wire, in case you haven't heard it. Talks about the freedom to roam and the limitations that arose after the American West was settled. I find those desert and grazing lands pretty magical, so I can sympathise with the romantic ideals of travelling, camping carefully, moving on, etc.

Devil's Rope: [http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils- rope/](http://99percentinvisible.org/episode/devils-rope/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I tried to gain perspective of this size compared to the whole.

According to table 1-3 of [https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf](https://www.blm.gov/public_land_statistics/pls15/pls2015.pdf) , there are 643.2 million acres of public lands, making this just over 0.5% of the total. Alternatively, they want to sell off one Connecticut, out an area of over 6 Californias.

<comment><USER13> Yet the job of the government isn't to sell the land for cheap; it's for public enjoyment or economic investment that benefits the public, such as roads, railroads, the power grid, etc. It should not be sold so a wealthy few can get it for cheap, then reap the economic reward with little return for the public.

<comment><USER14> Who says they're not going to sell at transparent and fair prices? Land is sold in public markets, it's not hard to tell if there's any cronyism. The public owns land with a certain value, a lot of that land is not being used for much in particular, the public will benefit more by having the cash in hand than some claim to random acres out in North Dakota.

The public is absolutely getting a return, nobody's "getting it for cheap."

<comment><USER15> Random fantastic pheasant hunting acres in North Dakota?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When this year is over, US citizens will hold the world record for protests against their own government.

<comment><USER17> That's if we're allowed to continue protesting. The GOP just introduced bills across many states to make it more difficult, including such things as a felony and 5 years jail plus $7500 fine for blocking roads during protests (impossible to have a large one without doing this). Land of the free _.

_ Some restrictions apply.

<comment><USER18> It's one thing to protest peacefully. But it's completely different to protest by infringing on the rights of other people to travel.

<comment><USER19> Because 5 years in jail + felony conviction + $7500 fine is totally about other people's right to travel, and not about hammering down public dissent.

<comment><USER18> Is that the minimum or maximum penalty? If that's the minimum, it is excessive. If that's merely the maximum, then for reference if you steal mail (also a federal offense), the maximum penalty is 5 years in prison and $250,000 which seems much worse to me. There has to be some deterrent to prevent unruly protesters from forcibly preventing people from getting to work and potentially being fired as a result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm upset and I'm not even American!

<comment><USER21> Agreed, selling of public land without an actual reason is almost always a bad idea, even economically.

<comment><USER14> Why do you think that? Which land is better owned by the government and which is better owned by private citizens? The reason in this case is "it's sitting around and not being used for much except random public access once every few weeks or months, and we could make some money selling it." What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and empty.

<comment><USER22> > What benefit do you personally get from having some desert scrub available > to access? Take into account there are plenty of beautiful parks out there, > more than you could ever visit, while this land is simply nondescript and > empty.

I'd rather camp here: [http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG](http://www.andyintherockies.com/photos/bartlett_3937.JPG)

It's a different experience from the parks.

<comment><USER10> I think both NP and BLM options are great, but there's certainly something special about the freedom and isolation of that sort of place you've linked. I'm really surprised it doesn't appeal equally to both sides of politics.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A tale of openness and secrecy: The Philadelphia Story - <AUTHOR> http://www.physicstoday.org/resource/1/phtoad/v65/i5/p47_s1?bypassSSO=1

<comment><USER2> A more familiar example can be found from 1944 with John Campbell, Analog and a short story: <http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/John_W._Campbell,_Jr>.</comment>


NDA = Not doing anything - <AUTHOR> http://www.brianoberkirch.com/?p=846 <comment><USER2> On the other hand, sometimes your major sustainable competitive advantage is your IP. My current employer has developed an algorithm that pretty much blows anybody else out of the water for what we're doing and they most definitely don't want anybody else learning about it. Granted, their strategy is simply don't tell anybody (All I know is we have the algorithm, not what it is), but protection of IP can be important in some cases. If what you're protecting will be obvious once your product is out there, then yes an NDA is pointless. However, if you want to protect some behind-the-scenes technology that won't be evident to anybody using your product, then an NDA may be in order.

</comment><comment><USER3> I agree with the post. When an idea is new there is a tendency to feel like it needs protecting. If you're serious about it, though, and get your hands dirty with the details of implementing whatever it is, NDA's seem more and more silly. By the time you get a real good idea working you won't care if the whole world knows. You know that as simple as the idea sounded, it's really thousands of hours of blood sweat dollars and tears. You'll say- "oh, you want to do it also? go right ahead and try."

<comment><AUTHOR> yeah agree. Another cool metric is "if your idea can be given away by telling someone" then it doesn't have enough depth" Most simple things are way more complicated when u do them - and thats in the thought of the implementation.

Just look at eBay - a platform for auctioning goods. The depth comes in generating a trust system (how?) then making it easy to list, and for people to send each other goods. Then each of these ideas can be fleshed out. So its not really one idea - its a whole bunch including design decisions, customer acquisition strategies, page element preferences, copy, bug fixing - a whole load.

<comment><USER4> i couldn't agree with this more if i wanted to. ideas are commodities, execution is the only thing that matters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Many NDAs require the disclosing party to describe, list, or specify the confidential items disclosed. But often I find when very early stage inventors ask people to sign NDAs they often fail to specify what is disclosed even though their agreements require it. If you ever have to enforce an NDA, trying to argue that the entire conversation was confidential is much harder than simply producing the list of disclosures. Also, I've never asked an investor to sign an NDA. Asking someone to sign an NDA indicates a lack of trust. IMO if you don't trust the people you are talking to you probably shouldn't be talking to them at all.

Recently I've been asked to sign NDAs as part of employment interviews. This seems to have almost become standard practice now. I don't really think this is a great idea, and I often won't take an interview that requires an NDA. But sometimes if I am certain that I won't be developing my own ideas in the field I'll sign one. Inevitably I find that these employment related NDAs are the most frivolous, silly, and irrelevant ones I sign. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER6> For the sake of completeness, what might be some of the situations where an NDA or secrecy of the idea is important?

I'm guessing an example would be if you are entering negotiations to be bought out by a public company.

<comment><USER3> Go ahead and keep a secret when you really strategically need to keep a secret. Don't get emotionally attached to it being a secret though- because one day, probably soon, it'll get duplicated. And do you have a thoroughly thought out realistic business reason to keep it (temporarily) secret in the first place? Usually not in my experience.

<comment><USER5> "Attachment creates delusion."

\-- Buddhist saying

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is easy to come up with ideas, but some ideas are better than others. Maybe I can agree to the level that "ideas in nuthsells" are worthless. For example anyone can have the idea to "create a really elegant computer", yet most people agree that only Steve Jobs can pull it off (just look at the TV computer design challenge by intel - so depressing). But I think in his mind the idea is more than just the nutshell description. And having THAT right idea doesn't seem to be trivial to me.

</comment><comment><USER8> About an year ago, a company hired me to code a corporate instant messenger. There was no technologically innovative angle to it; yet, my employer insisted that I sign an NDA before the project be disclosed to me. The process took about three weeks and wasted time that could've been spent on actually coding it.

In my opinion, NDA's are more useful when they are used to protect a "technology" rather than a "product".

</comment><comment><USER9> The worst thing to me about the rise of the NDA is the return of the colloquial phrase, "i could tell you... but i'd hafta kill you"

:-P</comment>


Dissent – Accountable anonymous group communication - <AUTHOR> http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent

<comment><USER3> Some paper reading shows that while interesting, the technique being used has issues with churn. This means small, reliable groups can use a tool like this. Anonymity is only provided within the group! You cannot hide your membership. In such a situation, anonymity is only improved by making the group larger and because their solution cannot handle churn, it will not scale larger.

In general anonymity and scalability seem to be at odds, so this is not surprising. A breakthrough showing this to be the case would be awesome but (I think) unlikely.

<comment><USER4> What does this churn involve? Too much traffic?

<comment><USER3> Churn is when members join and/or leave. This protocol requires a fixed set of participants to start and they must all participate for it to succeed. So If I join late, I have to wait a cycle. If I leave prematurely, the cycle fails. The more participants, the more likely this is to happen.

<comment><USER5> Could that be mitigated by having a fixed number of available slots for participants, with each person taking an available slot, and random data submitted for any unused slots? Anyone leaving the cycle could send the same random data as if their slot hadn't been used, and in the next cycle random data would be submitted. Obviously there's a flaw that you'd need to predetermine the number of participants and choose a number of slots higher than that, and it'd be less efficient because you'd be sending data that isn't necessary, but might be worthwhile if the benefit of the communication is great enough.

<comment><USER6> Not exactly.

"Neighbor nodes" have to share cryptology data with one another for verification. If you simply join a session and you inherent data from the old seat, how do you know that the data you are being handed is valid?

You don't unless you rebuild the cryptology verification with your "neighbor nodes".

The problem is the theory and documents kinda of just hand-waves inter-node communication as being "unconditionally secure", which in practice is difficult to obtain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "Dissent seeks to offer accountable anonymity, giving users strong > guarantees of anonymity while also protecting online groups or forums from > anonymous abuse such as spam, Sybil attacks, and sockpuppetry. Unlike other > systems, Dissent can guarantee that each user of an online forum gets > exactly one bandwidth share, one vote, or one pseudonym, which other users > can block in the event of misbehavior."

Looking at some of the documentation this doesn't seem correct. It seems I could still connect multiple devices to this pool as different entities even if they are all still me.

Perhaps they mean that I would have to have multiple connections open to send multiple votes/messages. One connection cannot send multiple votes/messages.

<comment><USER8> Dissent does not specify or care how exactly a group is formed, and the sybil/sockpuppetry attack protection it provides is inevitably only as strong as the group formation mechanism. Dissent's accountability guarantee basically means that - unlike most anonymity protocols - it is not any _more_ vulnerable to sybil or sockpuppetry attacks than (say) an otherwise-comparable group communication protocol offering no anonymity.

For example, if Dissent is used within a completely closed group setting, in which all members are convinced that all other members are real people and not sockpuppets, then Dissent will guarantee that no real group member will get more than one pseudonym or bandwidth share in any given communication round. At the other end of the spectrum, if Dissent is deployed in a completely open setting that allows anyone to join at any time with no barrier to entry at all, then any user will be able to create sybils or sockpuppets just by joining multiple times, and Dissent offers no sockpuppet protection - <USER2> neither would a non-anonymous group communication protocol.

More realistically, groups might operate at intermediate levels of openness with different sybil/sockpuppet protection tradeoffs, and Dissent preserves whatever protection that group management mechanism provides. For example, a group might require users to deposit a bitcoin in an escrow account on joining, which they would forfeit if the group later votes that the user is misbehaving and should be banned. Sybil attacks would still be possible but would cost money.

<comment><USER9> Here's the claim in the article: _Unlike other systems, Dissent can guarantee that each user of an online forum gets exactly one bandwidth share, one vote, or one pseudonym, which other users can block in the event of misbehavior._ That's a very useful property. We really need something that allows creation of pseudonyms without allowing one party to create lots of them cheaply and spam. Facebook, Yelp, and Wikipedia would be standing in line to buy a technology for that.

Unfortunately, Dissent can't do that. All the system really does is guarantee that in an established, stable group, each group member can vote anonymously, but not more than once. That's much less generally useful. It doesn't help with sockpuppets.

If you make people pay for a pseudonym/account, that helps, but then you don't need Dissent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Won't this suffer from scaling issues? Provided I'm understanding the theory correctly.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

For every bit sent on the network to all users, each node has to transmit 3 bits to check if that 1 bit was sent by either a member of the mesh, OR an outside forgery.

While you don't authenticate the check bits (aka recurse infinitely), you do want the communication between node to node to be unconditionally secure which is fine in theory, but practice its complicated.

Also each 1 message bit, translates into 3 authentication bits (2 to neighbors, 1 to general network). Which works out to:

        1 + 3 * nodes  //with multicast
         nodes + 3 * (nodes ** 2) //without multicast

of network traffic as it has to be relayed to each node. So the cost is in practice (without multicast) is exponential. Sending 1 bit to 10 people costs 310 bit transfers, while 1 bit to 100 is 30100. Communicating 1 bit to ~1000 people costs ~300Mb.

<comment><USER8> In principle the DC-nets scales just as well, asymptotically, as non-anonymous multicast communication.

Consider a standard tree-based multicast protocol, where in every "communication round" the root node sends an L-bit message to its B immediate children, those children resend the message to their <=B immediate children, etc. Each node receives L bits and sends BL bits in one round.

Now consider how we could (in principle) implement DC-nets in the same tree, this time with a plaintext message originating anonymously at one of the N leaves of the tree. All N nodes create L-bit DC-net ciphertexts and send them up the tree. Each interior node obtains the <=B cipher texts from its children, XORs them together with its own L-bit ciphertext, and passes the result up the tree. The root gets the XOR of all N of the L-bit cipher texts, the (anonymous) sender's plaintext pops out, and the root broadcasts that plaintext down the tree exactly as for standard tree-based multicast. During the DC-nets phase each node receives <=B*L bits from its children and sends L bits to its parent, exactly equal to the bandwidth total cost of the (subsequent) downward multicast phase.

So in principle the fundamental cost of adding DC-nets anonymity to a tree- based multicast protocol, via this approach, is thus basically 2x over non- anonymous multicast. This applies equally to bandwidth, latency, and processing costs.

This is "in principle" of course, because there are many caveats: it's not so obvious how to make this theoretically scalable tree-based approach deal with churn or disruption, or do all the other things Dissent and other more practical systems have to deal with. Actually bringing this theoretically achievable level of scalability into practical reality is one of our goals but still very much "work-in-progress".

<comment><USER6> With a tree based multi-cast protocol you have to have 1 node act as an authority over all others, which defeats the point of the DC-Net, as that node can simply lie provided its corrupted? While you can claim the network is distributed provided the root node changes at a constant interval, there will the chance that [1/nodes] messages can be forged. (if it doesn't changed you don't have a distributed network).

You could reduce this chance by having multiple root nodes.

While this would increase traffic redundancy

         roots * traffic

you would lower the probability of a forged message by

         nodes ** roots

And still allow for each client to verify each root node's results with each other.

With as few as 3 root nodes and 15 nodes you'd be around <0.05% of forged messages. If you increase to ~100+ scale nodes only 2 root nodes are necessary.

But as always the devil is in the details.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm impressed by the number of papers already written about this. Which one is the 'canonical' paper to read first?

<comment><USER11> Try this one [http://www.cs.cornell.edu/People/egs/herbivore/dcnets.html](http://www.cs.cornell.edu/People/egs/herbivore/dcnets.html)

<comment><USER10> Thanks, this seems to be a great next step after reading the Dining Cryptographers Problem [1]! Any recommendations for papers that describe this specific implementation?

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_cryptographers_problem](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dining_cryptographers_problem)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's a slide deck on how it works: [http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/papers/ccs10/dissent- slides...](http://dedis.cs.yale.edu/dissent/papers/ccs10/dissent-slides.pdf)

Very interesting work!

</comment><comment><USER13> Interesting and surely useful, but it has a ways to go yet. I think that their nod to defense against sockpuppeting is going to become increasingly necessary to platforms/systems whose main purpose is anonymous discussion.

Any difficulties in scaling will be a major obstacle to mainstreamization of this technology, as others have mentioned.

On the one hand, I am glad that people are working on tools like this, but on the other hand, it seems to silently reiterate the elephant in the room: our government fights against us. The public is still a bit behind in the information technology arms race.

</comment><comment><USER14> What are some of the potential usecases where this could be used, in place of Tor?

</comment><comment><USER15> Dissent, paid for by DARPA.

</comment><comment><USER16> Curious to see this sitting atop HN with no discussion. What do folks think about this?

<comment><USER11> While Cryto is interesting, it is also very easy to get wrong. Hence the high interest but low comments. The comments on password hashing in article illustrate that [http://arstechnica.com/staff/2014/12/ars-was-briefly- hacked-...](http://arstechnica.com/staff/2014/12/ars-was-briefly-hacked- yesterday-heres-what-we-know/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Dissent can guarantee that each user of an online forum gets exactly one > bandwidth share, one vote, or one pseudonym, which other users can block in > the event of misbehavior.

Dissent seems like a strange name for a protocol that enables minorities within the group to be silenced.

<comment><USER8> The Dissent protocol itself only guarantees proportionality: each group member gets one and only one transmission slot in a given communications round, with exactly one fair-share quantum of transmission bandwidth. So at this level the protocol definitely does _not_ enable minorities within the group to be silenced; it just prevents minorities (or _any_ subset) from using more than one slot per round.

How groups are formed and managed is another issue that Dissent doesn't determine, and group management policy may or may not enable minorities within the group to be silenced. For example, one group might have a policy in which a majority of group members can vote to silence or outright ban some member; in that case certainly the majority has the ability to silence the minority. But the Dissent protocol itself in no way endorses or requires such a policy. Another group policy might be not to provide any group-wide silencing mechanism, but only an individual-block mechanism - where any user can opt to stop seeing messages from any pseudonym they deem annoying, without affecting any other member's ability to continue seeing messages from that pseudonym.

In short, Dissent the protocol is completely agnostic to what kind of blocking mechanisms you might deploy, if any: it just provides the proportionality property you need to implement whatever voting or blocking mechanisms you might want reliably.

<comment><USER17> Thankyou for clarifying.</comment></comment></comment>


Is Homomorphic Encryption really a step forward? - <AUTHOR>

... or aren't we supposed to work on schemes to better and more easily move computation to data?<p>Asking for a friend... <comment><USER2> Let's say it's secret encrypted data, and only someone remote has the key (or more likely, someone who doesn't trust you ;-). Then, in order to move the computation to the data, you'd have to be able to do computation on data that is still encrypted. That's what homomorphic encryption is all about!</comment>


Tor.com Reviewers' Choice: The Best Books of 2019–So Far - <AUTHOR> https://www.tor.com/2019/07/09/tor-com-reviewers-choice-the-best-books-of-2019-so-far/ <comment><USER2> Honestly thought this was something related to Tor Project[0], but is actually a site about science fiction and fantasy books. From their site:

> Tor.com is a site for science fiction, fantasy, and all the things that > interest SF and fantasy readers

[0] [https://www.torproject.org/](https://www.torproject.org/)</comment>


Star Wars: Episode VII Set to Roll Cameras May 2014 - <AUTHOR> http://starwars.com/news/star-wars-episode-vii-set-to-roll-cameras-may-2014.html <comment><USER2> They already leaked the first behind the scene image: [http://imgur.com/xYZwMfl](http://imgur.com/xYZwMfl)

(sorry, i could not resist)</comment>


Apple cuts off Wordpress app to get a cut of domain sales - <AUTHOR> https://www.reviewgeek.com/51511/apple-cut-off-wordpress-app-updates-because-it-wants-a-cut-of-domain-sales/ <comment><USER2> I come from Italy. We call this mafia.

</comment><comment><USER3> By now it should be clear that Apple intends to milk its ecosystem for what is is worth. It is also clear that there are plenty of people who seem to be fine with it - viz. remarks like "I'd pay $2000 for an iPhone to feel safe" as someone wrote here yesterday and even some of the comments in this short thread like "As a consumer I'm on apple's side which is not all about top slicing cash". While I do not like Apple and its practices I think they should be free to sell to the faithful at the price the faithful are willing to pay. Those who do not like these practices should withdraw their products from the walled garden and concentrate the (much larger) market outside of Apple. Once enough products and with that users start disappearing from the walled garden Apple might change its stance.

<comment><USER4> Another possible way for businesses to deal with this is to allow purchasing on the store but with the apple tax added onto the actual price and notify users that it's cheaper online or show the apple tax as a line item.

<comment><USER3> This suggestion has come up several times recently but it seems to be explicitly disallowed by Apple to charge higher rates while alluding to an Apple tax.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Quote from the other thread: " _If I tap on "Plans", the app opens Safari and shows the plans._ "

This isn't allowed according to Apple policy.

I think it's ridiculous, but it's consistent.

<comment><USER6> Wow so just linking from the app to the internet where something is for sale is not allowed without a cut? If I use the app know as Chrome on iOS and I click on a link to a page on amazon.com where I purchase a chair, by that logic does Apple also want a 30% cut on the price of the chair?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apperently, Apple wants a cut from everything in their store.

<comment><USER6> Well in the present case, it's more they want a cut from everything everywhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Tim "The Taxman" Cook.

</comment><comment><USER9> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238229](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24238229)

</comment><comment><USER10> This seems too extreme to be real.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is getting out of hand.

</comment><comment><USER12> This is all about perspective and how you write your headlines.

As a consumer I'm on apple's side which is not all about top slicing cash. I want one place to manage my subscriptions rather than having to sign into 50 different accounts with different cancellation and billing policies. Some of them even make it difficult to understand on purpose.

The main objectors to all of this are businesses who want to set their own policies and rates. I suspect that the rate is less of an issue considering Apple's infrastructure taking a lot of cost away but it is being used to leverage policies which might not be good for the consumer.

<comment><USER2> This is called extortion and those fanboys who blindly and uncrtically support everything this company is doing are just making things worse.

<comment><USER12> I'm not a fanboy. But I know the other side of the coin and it's even more of a shit show. If there isn't standardisation it turns to a race to the bottom where predatory tactics such as perpetual micro transactions and auto renewing difficult to cancel subscriptions reign.

<comment><USER13> What's preventing Apple from having a locked-down default and you having to tick a checkbox with a clear warning to side-step the App Store? That doesn't really compromise security, especially considering malware was being hosted by Apple on the AppStore itself in the past.

<comment><USER12> The first thing everyone does is check the box and the next thing you've got is android which is a complete privacy and security shit show to the point I know and work for organisations that have banned it.

<comment><USER13> > The first thing everyone does is check the box

If that is the first thing everyone does, it is clearly a desirable feature. Yet I don't know anyone who is not "in tech" with an Android device that has the box checked.

Android is a privacy and security nightmare because neither Google, nor the OEMs really care. They do not provide timely updates for the majority of devices, do only a lax automated check on the Play Store, the hardware components are not vertically integrated etc.

This has nothing to do with the ability to sideload apps with an obscure checkbox. The problems are architectural and cultural. In fact, I'd wager that F-Droid, (a 3rd party store), is safer than the Play Store.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Twitter's top management just announced a massive exodus – on Twitter - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/601844/twitters-top-management-just-announced-a-massive-exodus-on-twitter/?utm_content=buffera8020&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer <comment><USER2> ... by posting a screencap of an email, because their platform won't allow messages of that length. I wonder if this is intentional humour?</comment>


Ask HN: Questions about a Microsoft Offer - <AUTHOR> So a couple weeks ago I got a linkedin message from a microsoft recruiter, one thing led to another, and I just got a "Congratulations" email today. I've been working at a startup since I graduated a couple years ago, and I really like it. The startup is doing well, and I make 120k cash and my options are valued at about ~35k per year (we just raised a Series B).
I haven't interviewed anywhere since starting this job, and I wasn't really planning on leaving until this microsoft interview fell into my lap. I'm still waiting on the details of the offer, since they make you pick a team prior to discussing compensation etc.
My questions are:
1. Do you think Microsoft's reputation on my resume is similar to a Facebook / Google? E.g., do you think it will help me get more senior positions at companies after my tenure there?
2. Is Microsoft's compensation on par with FB/Google? My college roommate just started at FB and makes at 250k a year all in (stocks + signing bonus + $$), is that a reasonable ask at microsoft as well?
3. How would you value startup options that were pre Series A after a startup has raised a Series B? Most signs at my current company are positive, although there are certainly some scaling issues.
4. My second year annual review / raise is upcoming at work. Is it considered poor form to bring this microsoft offer to the table and ask for more money / whatever else I might want (e.g. more vacation, more options)?
5. Can I negotiate this Microsoft offer to its max without offers from other big companies? I have outstanding interview offers from Google and some other companies that I've been pushing back since I wanted to prep first. I have a sense of how much friends of mine make at these companies, but do I need an actual offer to push Microsoft's up? Even if I'll walk away if they don't match those theoretical offers?
Sorry this is slightly disjointed, this was a quick process and I'm still organizing my thoughts. <comment><USER2> 1\. Yes. Microsoft is still well respected, so having it on your resume will likely open doors for you in the future.

2\. No. Microsoft's compensation is generally below Facebook/Google's compensation packages. Be sure to keep cost of living differences in mind though.

3\. I personally value options at $0. Unlike RSUs, which are actual stocks, options' value is derived from the difference between the value at strike and the value at liquidation. You'd have to be extremely lucky for your options to be worth more than the money you could be making at a tech giant.

4\. It depends on the climate of the place you're working at. If you think it wouldn't be received negatively, go for it. You're the best judge here.

5\. You can try to negotiate (it's always worth trying,) but you'll likely fail. Standard negotiating tactics don't work at tech giants due to the large volume of applications received and number of offers being extended. This is doubly true because you're early in your career, so you don't really have the experience needed to leverage a better offer out of thin air.

</comment><comment><USER3> I really appreciated this article: [https://thehftguy.com/2017/01/23/career- advice-and-salary-ne...](https://thehftguy.com/2017/01/23/career-advice-and- salary-negotiations-move-early-and-move-often/)

Hope it helps you the way it has helped me.

</comment><comment><USER4> 1\. Yes but more important is what you personally are working on, not what company you're at. As a new grad at a bigco, you are unlikely to have a significant position, so purely as a resume builder, the "rep" isn't going to be useful. That said, bigco experience is very valuable, even if you switch back to startups.

2\. Yes and Yes

3\. To 4 decimals: $0.0000. That's not being snide.

4\. No

5\. Yes/No/Yes. All companies know what other companies are paying for typical engineers. If you are a particular standout in a particular specialization (eg AI) then you'd have an edge by getting a competing offer, but otherwise not.

You didn't state where you are and where the job is, but I take it both are bay area.

> I wasn't really planning on leaving

Then you may be putting the cart in front of the horse. If you like your job, and like the company, are learning things, why change? I hope you realize it's completely different working for a bigco than a startup.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I definitely feel like I'm learning stuff, but I also could probably learn at a big company as well. Most of the engineers at my current company are very inexperienced, for most of them this is the only company they've ever worked for, so all of my learning is very self directed.

Current job is in the Bay, but Microsoft would be in Washington (which I prefer, and is essentially a free 5% raise on top of whatever else due to taxes).

At what point do you start to value options above that? Uber isn't public yet but I think it's safe to assume their options are worth something.

<comment><USER5> Disclaimer: MS employee.

You say 5% raise excepting taxes. Friendly reminder Washington state has no state income tax, as this impacts consideration of Seattle income vs Bay Area.

<comment><USER6> I read it as saying "Because there is no state tax in Washington, it is a de facto 5% raise, all other things being equal."

<comment><USER5> I assume so as well. OP seemed incredulous of the relative $ amount between Bay Area BigCo and Seattle BigCo and that they lacked parity. I don't have any context for the startup and its pay scale, but figured the clarity may help.

E: on a third reading, OP may have meant 5% raise in addition to dollars gained due to tax differences.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry I assumed the pay would be equivalent between the regions for the same job at the same company. The 5% raise would just be a result of no state income tax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd like to offer this advice:

1\. Besides salary and options..would you like to work at Microsoft?

2\. Do you have a family or are planning one? Does Microsoft seem like a place you can have a work - life balance? If your significant other wants to go on a date night, can you go or is it likely work will demand your attention?

3\. What does your gut tell you? Sometimes above all else you have a feeling about things. I listen to mine.

4\. If you walk into Microsoft, day 1, and they say "hey, we have possible bugs in this string library, please read the bug reports and fix the bugs"....are you down? Of are you gonna be like: "I left startup xxx for this.....". Usually newbies get some grunt work to prove themselves.

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Frankly, no, but I think it might enable me to be better at and have access to work that I would like to do in the future.

2\. Work life balance seems good.

3\. Tough to say.

<comment><USER4> 1\. then the answer is quite easy and you needn't have gone through these machinations. get the offer to see what you're worth, but turn them down. personally, i'd turn them down "on the spot" when you get the offer without thinking about it. don't actually laugh, but say that their offer isn't in the ballpark. don't give a counter, just thank them for their time. you never know, they might come back with significantly more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Hey kiddo. I will share my career history with you. I'm not sure if it will apply in today's market or not. I started at a startup and had lots of good times and made some life long friends. It wasn't about the money at that time, it was the love of the game. Coding for hours on end then sleeping next to desk in sleeping bag so I could get right back to work when I woke up. Offers from other companies came and went but my loyalty to my fellow coders was top priority. After the company went public I was able to write my own ticket there. Today I am retired at forty-five years of age. My family and I live a nice comfortable life + I have lots of loyal and g great friends from the trenches that stay in touch. But like I said this is just my experience, today's market might be a total different ballgame. Good Luck to you and yours.

<comment><USER9> Today's market vs the market when you were at the startup wouldn't necessarily apply. It would be a crapshoot then or now to find a startup that succeeds and goes public. Your average startup is more likely to crash and burn or go nowhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Microsoft has been pretty toxic recently regarding what they're doing with Windows 10 and it's privacy implications, the Skype dumpster fire, etc. Do you really want to contribute to this?

</comment><comment><USER11> Don't compare to what your friends are making, compare to what you need to make to live well and save up for early retirement. If you'd earn double but would also spend double in a year from now, you're not in great shape financially. Look into your financial spending history, and make up your mind.

Anyway, all three companies are doing evil in the world, as far as I'm concerned, so I'd rather stay with the startup. Then again, I'm just your average freetard open source / freedom advocate.

<comment><AUTHOR> All the teams I'd be working on at microsoft are working on at least partially open source products now. But I do have some ethical qualms about the big corporations, although I've essentially setting those aside for the early part of my career until I've established myself more.

As far as money goes, I was just using that as a reference to what could be expected at a big company like Microsoft. I already make more $$ than I could spend, and my COL wouldn't change with job. Extra money is just more financial freedom for my future</comment></comment>


How Microsoft mobile tags are killing QR codes - <AUTHOR> http://blog.getsharesquare.com/wild/how-microsoft-mobile-tag-and-att-are-killing-consumer-qr-code-scanning-in-utero/ <comment><USER3> Here's what Microsoft says:

Microsoft Tag vs. Other 2D Codes

Linking real-world objects to deeper experiences on mobile phones started in Japan with QR Codes. Microsoft Tag provides a next-generation solution that offers many useful improvements. Tag is an end-to-end system that provides many capabilities beyond simply opening a URL, and is built upon a highly scalable and flexible architecture.

The Tag system uses a cloud-based back-end that provides access to data that just isn't possible with earlier QR codes, such as reporting on how frequently and where your Tags are being scanned. In addition, Tags allow you to dynamically change your data source – unlike other 2D codes that are associated with a single, permanent URL, Tags can be updated as frequently as you like to point to new websites, allowing you to reuse campaign materials.

Tags can be created in a much smaller size and can be read faster and under a wider range of lighting conditions. Tags can also be customized to your brand's specific look and feel, creating visually exciting codes that enhance your message and brand. Learn more about creating Custom Tags.

The Tag Reader application runs on all major phone platforms, and unlike older formats, every Microsoft Tag can be read by every Tag Reader, so there is no consumer confusion from incompatible solutions. Tags just work.

<http://tag.microsoft.com/overview.aspx>

<comment><USER4> That feature list in paragraph two is pretty weak.

Put google analytics on the page being retrieved by the tag, and you've got frequency and macro-location.

'Dynamically changing data-source?', I assume they are suggesting that the content retrieved is dynamic. Yet if the code is static, than the variables for the dynamic content aren't coming from the tag. So, again, this can be accomplished with any webpage.

The 'customized look' of the microsoft tag is probably its greatest weakness. If you look at the examples they provide, they aren't instantly recognizable as scannable tags, and they look horrible.

<comment><USER5> There is no way what they are talking about is a function of the tag. It is more akin to a physical URL shortened, I imagine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have not once ever felt the need to scan a QR code to "learn more" - <USER2> it's not because of incompatible code types.

<comment><USER7> A while aback people, like you, said very similar thing when displaying your www addresses started getting popular. "I have never felt the need to type in an URL to "learn more""

I'm real fucking glad those people were ignored. I hope you are too.

<comment><USER8> A number of differences. 1) I don't recall all that many people complaining about URLs, not like people ignoring QR codes. 2) I don't actually type URLs in that frequently, I search. 3) I can see a URL and remember it to visit later. Good luck seeing a QR tag in the subway and reconstructing when you get home. 4) The kicker. Can you name a company that based their entire business model on putting URLs on posters?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> X-Istence I decided to see what it would take for me to create a very simple "tag" that I could use to direct visitors to my personal website. Note I didn't adequately document my steps before writing this post, so it is from memory.

1\. Go to the Microsoft tag website: <http://tag.microsoft.com/> 2\. Click the tag manager 3\. Log in with your live id 4\. Consent to a bunch of terms 5\. Click create 6\. Follow the steps to create 7\. Click render 8\. Accept more stuff: <http://tag.microsoft.com/resources/implementationguide.aspx> 9\. Get a PDF of your new tag

The URL for managing your tags is called "ManageAds.aspx".

Then looking at the implementation guide we find this little gem:

 _"Because the idea of scanning bar codes with a mobile phone camera is fairly new to most people, Microsoft requires you to provide basic instructions near each Tag that explain to users how to download and use the Microsoft Tag Reader application. [...]"_

Instead with QR codes I go to <http://zxing.appspot.com/generator/> generate a tag, and place it where ever I want. None of my visitors first get redirected through a Microsoft website/URL which looks like this:

      http://rs.tag.microsoft.com/U5SS544JBBGQWZDY5SO3SJJIX346OUSE.aspx?Level=1&VID=5%2B0%2B0&afid=0&TH=_exokqW8DE19hOgWheA%24&CS=U8&PL=qqEVoS0iWnsgtvRRahUwDpOP3lT4xjm1ZQhbA1v%2B33Y_XTYDgevcIqCcZPkuEjELB_S2dmR7FAfr_dAU7ZpsqHgSe3FE77BcYAwWfau1zELNpxfdJk1Vein5v3cjXUd7%2BOHZPti%2BEtwgRV8TLufSDUotLWae4rA4wq5i1EErTH1B89lyMg%24%24

If I want to provide redirect features I can use a QR code that points to example.net/qr-code-poster and have it redirect anywhere in the world. I am still unsure as to why I would ever want to use Microsofts tagging stuff when clearly the user experience with QR codes is much simpler, AND I have more control over the content of the tag, and I can't just have a tag shutdown at the whim of a corporation if that is what it came down to.

</comment><comment><USER9> I used QR codes to get data (usually text or URLs) onto my phone all the time. I've never once thought about using a 'ms mobile tag' instead. And I don't know anyone who has.

The death of QR is being greatly exagerated.

<comment><USER10> But if you saw an MS tag, or Mobile Tag, or ATT Tag would you say, "Screw that, where's the QR Tag?". Probably not. You'd just scan it too. No one really cares what the tag technology is as long as it works.

<comment><USER11> That's just the point: it doesn't _just work_. My phone has Zebra Crossing (Google's open-source barcode reader), which scans everything from UPCs to QR Codes to Data Matrix... but not Microsoft Tag or AT&T's mobile tag format. Given that I am not keen on the idea of installing three new apps for these various proprietary tag formats, it doesn't just work. Instead, I have to recognize it's in a non-standard format, find/download the right app, etc. That's a big pain for something that already works quite well.

<comment><USER10> It's a day for someone to add all three of the formats listed on that page to Zebra Crossing. Now people may not want to do it for political reasons, that's fine. But I have no empathy for that.

If I had an Android phone, I'd do it myself.

<comment><AUTHOR> Right, and where exactly will you get both the specs and license for reading proprietary MS Tag codes ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This claim that Microsoft's custom tags are "killing" other codes seems a little weird to me when I don't recall ever having seen one in the wild.

<comment><USER13> "Trying to kill" would have been more apt I suppose. They're pouring tons of money into getting placements in women's mags. Which would also explain why most of us haven't yet seen one.

<comment> X-Istence The biggest issue I see with the Microsoft tags is that the colours are blindingly annoying. For some reason my eyes try to blend the colours together and it gives me a headache. I don't have any such problems with QR Codes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Don't worry, QR Code took over the rest of the world already.

</comment><comment><USER15> While the article has a point, I don't like the misleading headline of this post. It went from what it should be, "Competing Implementations are Slowing 2D Barcode Adoption", to the blog post's slightly more sensational "How Microsoft, Mobile Tag, and AT&T are Killing Consumer QR Code Scanning In Utero", to this post's "How Microsoft mobile tags are killing QR codes".

Please try to phrase your headlines a little less sensationally, instead capturing the essence of the article.

</comment><comment><USER16> if Android and Apple both integrate QR code scanning into their native camera apps, this problem would be solved.

<comment><USER17> It's not first party, but Barcode Scanner is very much a standard app for Android.

<comment><USER18> the difference between first party and a popular app is pretty huge, I have always been confused at why they dont just bundle barcode scanner, it was originally built by google to be included

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> For all of the "unique features" offered by each format, they all have the same primary feature in common, which is that they are primarily plastered on ads and take people with enough free time on their hands to scan them to yet more ads. Fragmentation isn't killing QR codes, businesses like ShareSquare are killing QR codes.

Mobile tags/QR codes/whatever will have more potential when people stop thinking of them as a way to take users to a webpage or show them something and start using them as a way to help users _accomplish_ things. Show me a tag that adds a movie to my Netflix queue, adds a friend on Facebook or to a contact list, or puts a memo on my calendar.

<comment><USER13> Here's an invite so you can make your own: bit.ly/ShareSquare. We're initially focused on allowing artists to better connect with their audience (by experiencing their music, downloading content, Liking on FB, etc) but I think you'll be inspired by some of the available functions, like running an Instant Win campaign. More on the way of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As far as I know the Microsoft tags are patented, but the patents on the datamatrix codes lapsed in 2007, so that they can be freely used for any purpose without battles over royalties.

</comment><comment><USER21> We chose to use Code 128-C one-dimensional barcodes--the same kind the United States Postal Service uses for Media Mail ZIP+4 routing--for our payment system (<http://www.facecash.com>) because they're cheap and easy to read. I can't imagine why anyone would want to use Microsoft Tag. Normal barcodes have done quite well since their introduction in the 1960s.

<comment><USER22> Out of curiosity, have you had any legal trouble with Facebook, given that they've trademarked "Face" and associated common nouns?

<comment><USER21> <http://www.facebook.com/press/releases.php?p=102338>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I can't imagine its hard to implement all of them on a device. Let the vendors decide which ones they want and the customers choose which they view as most valuable.

</comment><comment><USER23> Though I agree that proprietary bar-codes are a no-no, I am not sure why QR codes are to be picked as the basis of a universal standard as opposed to datamatrix.

The two pictures shown on the right appear to be datamatrix barcodes....

</comment><comment><USER24> I really don't understand at all. What's Microsoft's interest in pursuing an alternative format to the QR code? What could they possibly gain from it?

<comment><USER25> The same reason they tried to establish MSN as the only Internet there is.

<comment><USER26> And what was that reason?

<comment><USER27> Controlling the system people use allows more opportunities to profit.

It's the exact same basis that almost every corporation operates on: control what people are using so that you can monetize them (either by charging them directly, or charging other corporation who want to reach them, or both).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28>
      Can you imagine an internet with hyperlinks that only work on Windows computers?

Nope, I love the internet just as it is, with all its hyperlinks that _only_ work on Windows.

</comment><comment><USER29> great analogy about the codes being like URLs.

those tags are like the AOL keywords of yesterday. No matter how much they advertise it on TNT, it's dead.

</comment><comment><USER30> Microsoft - Rebranding the wheel</comment>


Black Girls Code - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=3dsB2SSZAjs <comment><USER2> Cool, more "reverse racism" and "reverse sexism". Remember folks, if we want to be unified we need to segregate. Love is hate. Peace is war.

Orwell must be rolling in his grave - doublespeak is truly the language of the future.

EDIT: Since the view that affirmative action is positive is so prevalent, and that I hadn't previously given it an in-depth look, I've been reading around the subject.

From the horse's mouth (<http://www.mat.jhu.edu/~sormani/affirm-impact.html>):

> As an illustration of what that would mean, they constructed a rough profile > of 700 black students admitted in 1976 under race-conscious policies. Of the > 700, 225 obtained professional degrees or doctorates; 70 are now medical > doctors, 60 are lawyers, 125 are business executives and more than 300 are > civic leaders. Their average annual earnings are $71,000.

As expected, getting people into higher level education substantially improves their quality of life.

> A more troubling question, the authors acknowledge, regards the white > students whom these black students displaced. Would society have been better > off if they had attended instead of the blacks?

> "That is the central question," the authors write, "and it cannot be > answered by data alone." It is a clash of "principle versus principle, not > principle versus expediency." They come down firmly on the side of admitting > the blacks, saying that society needs them because of the scarcity of black > professionals.

> "In the case of universities and colleges, race turns out to be very > relevant because we are interested in what students can teach one another > and race is a part of that in an increasingly diverse society. Well-prepared > minorities have a special leadership role because there have been so few in > the past. So what is fair involves the question of the purpose of a > university. And, ultimately that question is not soluble with data."

In summary, a subset of people are earning substantially more than another subset, where both were equally qualified for the position, because their skin was a particular color. The justification for this is that the minority is a minority. The proponents assert that whether this is right or wrong is a question of principal. They assert that this causes a minimal impact on the majority population and a significant benefit for the minority population. They do not apply concrete numbers to this last assertion and instead state percentages. Ofcourse, those percentages translate into living, breathing human beings who, in the absence of race-based discrimination would be living a very different life.

Fairness is not an obvious thing, it seems. Fairness depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If your target is making sure that the year book photos have the right balance of color, by all means discriminate. If your target is giving people a fair opportunity based on their abilities then a meritocracy might suit you better.

Can't we all just be equal? Can't we just share with people who have less than us and help them get on their feet without disenfranchising someone else? Can't we make room for everyone, no exclusions? Call this idealistic but I'm just being real about it.

<comment><USER3> ^ This. If you're good, your sex/race doesn't matter. Stop trying to force your shitty "equality" politics on a field that does very well without.

<comment><USER4> Your account is 40 minutes old.

The way HN works nowadays (per my observations) your comment will almost indubitably get deleted and your account banned, because you've made a worthless comment (void of any reasonable argument or explanation).

But I'm requesting HN mods that be to _not_ do that please. Because this is such a recurrent response, I'd rather that one of our elders and wiser ones respond to this with their insights. Bigotry is best expunged from minds and hearts by free speech -- talking about it openly helps clear up things a lot.

<comment><USER5> Could you elaborate on how the GP's post was bigoted. All I read from it was the claim that racism/sexism does not exist, and a request against affirmative action.

Granted, the entire comment was void of any argument, and meets my definition of worthless, but I do not see the bigotry in it.

<comment><USER2> >All I read from it was the claim that racism/sexism does not exist, and a request against affirmative action.

I'm actually making the argument that prejudice is alive and well and that that is the whole problem. We should be blind to who prejudice is directed at and attempt to reduce it as a whole, not "fight fire with fire" or "racism with racism."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Millennials want a work-life balance - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/millennials-want-a-work-life-balance-their-bosses-just-dont-get-why/2015/05/05/1859369e-f376-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html?wprss=rss_AllWPStoriesandBlogs&tid=sm_fb <comment><USER2> Doesn't everyone want work-life balance? I don't think this is something restricted to millennials.

<comment><USER3> No; workaholics are plentiful, especially among startup founders. Some people, when asked what they would do with an extra ten non-burnt-out hours in the day, truly respond "get another ten hours of work done!"

<comment><USER4> Which is a fine attitude to have, as long as you don't impose it on others and work regulations don't cater to that choice.

We should not all be slaves for the minority of workaholics. I don't mind that you hustle, I'd rather have a beer at the beach with my wife, work 4 days a week, and lead a more simple life.

"The days are long but the years are short."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Actually I just want to be able to afford a nice condo in a major city, which precludes work-life balance for awhile.

<comment><USER6> Do you get paid by the hour? If not, why does having work life balance mean you can't have a nice condo in a major city?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would really appreciate it if HN started flagging posts with "Millenials" in the title.

</comment><comment><USER8> If I was in a job I hated and had to do it to live, then that is one thing, in which case I would try to spend as little time working as possible. I think most people are in this situation, so it makes sense in that regard.

As a general ethos though, I don't get it. I don't want to be doing something that doesn't fully engage me. I quit my cushy government job last year to go full in on our startup and while the hours are something like 12-15 hour days, it doesn't feel like work most of the time. So in this sense I don't really get the idea of "work-life balance" because the work I am doing is what I want my life to be.

It seems like the idea of having your "life's work" is a luxury or alternatively something that slightly insane people have. In the cases where it works and the vision is big enough you get these outsized figures who do amazing things. Why anyone would _choose_ otherwise - I don't really understand.

<comment><USER9> There's a continuum of positions between "hating your job" and "living and breathing your job". Many of us like our jobs very much thank you, but we also have other things we want to do. Besides, not everybody can be productive doing something 12 hours a day (or even 8!) even if we love it when we do. I love dancing but I still only do it a few hours per week. You should try not to generalize from a single point of data (yourself).

<comment><USER8> No generalization, I'm simply stating that I don't _understand_ it. Agree with you however that the desire to work is probably normally distributed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Please don't editorialize titles when submitting stories to HN. (Submitted title was "40% of young Americans considering emigrating due to work-life balance concerns".)

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

<comment><USER11> I don't see how quoting a statistic from the article is "editorializing"...

<comment><USER10> By editorializing we mean putting your own spin on the article or framing it a particular way for the reader. Cherry-picking one detail and making that the title is not only editorializing in this sense, it may be the most powerful form of it. If you want to say what you think is important about an article, the place to do that is in the comments, so your view is on a level playing field with everyone else's. On HN, being the one to submit an article doesn't confer any special rights to frame or interpret it for the audience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wouldn't regard myself as a "young American" as I have grey hair now.

But I am considering emigrating to Europe. I've lived in Italy and in France; I'd like to go back someday.

[http://www.warplife.com/mdc/resume/](http://www.warplife.com/mdc/resume/) if you have a job for me there.

Germany would be cool too, I studied German in high school.

<comment><USER13> Do you think there are enough tech jobs in Europe? Because I am from Europe, but studying in the US. Considering going back after I am done here, but many people say the tech scene here is a lot better.

<comment><USER14> Can only speak for Scandinavia, but there is plenty of technology work available, for both locals and anyone who speaks fluent English (it's a plus, but not necessary, to also speak a Scandinavian language). True both at "tech companies" and in many, many places in other parts of industry. For example in Denmark, Maersk (a global shipping/logistics company) hires large numbers of technologists, ranging from straightforward programming jobs, to data-science / operations research / mathematical modeling type roles. They are perhaps uniquely easy for foreigners to work for as well, because they have a workplace language policy that comes close to "English-only" (with so many global offices they really, really do not want anything in Danish, not even email chains, out of fear that it will slow down inter-office communication).

The finance industry is another traditional sector that's frequently hiring in tech. The jobs there pay well and are good for work/life balance (no overtime, not much stress), but have a reputation of being staid and boring. You might even have to wear a suit to work (I have seen this explicitly mentioned in job postings). They also tend to require at least a bachelor's degree, and look positively on an MSc.

There is a ton of freelance work as well; lots of companies, government agencies, etc. seem to be regularly in need of someone to build an app, redesign a website, build a "serious game" / "training game", analyze some data, etc., and some are even willing to pay well for it. The freelance gigs are harder for foreigners to find, though, unless they speak the language and have developed a good local network.

What there is generally less of is: 1) salaries in the $150k+ range; and 2) venture capital. But there are plenty of good normal jobs, and a small mostly- bootstrapped startup scene.

<comment> atom-morgan So if someone was interested in a job in that area, would you simply suggest applying through their websites? Should I update my location on LinkedIn and wait for recruiters (if that's big there)?

<comment><USER12> I haven't actually posted any Scandinavian companies yet, but over the weekend I'll post a few at [http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/](http://www.warplife.com/jobs/computer/)

I just looked at the LibreOffice spreadsheets that I've been collecting these in, I have five for Sweden, one each for Norway and Denmark. Of course there are many more that I could list but do not yet know about.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Crowd rank community photos, a different way to enjoy content - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=org.pixide.app <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, Pixide is the app that we worked on in the last year. It's an app about photo contests, we're currently in beta testing and we'd love to have your feedbacks. We're a team of 7 people from Italy, we hope you'll like it :) If you have an iPhone please send me your email at firstname.lastname@example.com or submit your email on www.pixide.org so I can invite you on TestFlight. Any comment/suggestion is really appreciated!

</comment><comment><USER2> Very nice UI and overall idea, but I can't see any competition.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks very much for your feedback! When you are voting the photos, at the top there is the name of the competition (animal, nature, people...). You can also see the ranks of the various competitions (it's the second tab from the right)</comment></comment>


Congratulations Apple, you made the iPhone less stable than Windows Mobile - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.zdnet.com/mobile-gadgeteer/?p=1351

<comment><USER2> From the last paragraph:

 _I just have to keep remembering this is the early days of the iPhone and I suppose it is similar to the early days of the Pocket PC when stability was also an issue. I did cut Microsoft and Nokia a break back then when they were starting out and I'll keep using my original iPhone..._

If I only had a nickel for every news article that would be dramatically improved if the last paragraph -- the one where the author apologizes for the linkbait headline -- were moved to the top.

Windows Mobile is somewhere between 5 and 8 years old. The release version of the iPhone OS is all of one year old and version 2.0 is only a month old. If you don't want to be burned like an early adopter, don't be an early adopter.

Incidentally, the rate at which MobileSafari crashes dropped a lot, for me, when I installed iPhone OS 2.0.1. This article doesn't say whether or not the author has done the same. And I agree that 3G and GPS may not be worth the additional monthly fees and the reduced battery life... which is why I bought a 2G iPhone on eBay.

<comment><USER3> I think I have seen a lot less safari crashes. However, iphone apps seem to crash my phone a lot, and in particular, the app store crashes my phone about half the time I try to use it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The first rule of Apple products is you don't talk about bugs or issues with Apple products.

<comment><USER5> Heaven forbid they release an unfinished, buggy product and we rant and rave about it to no end. (Oh wait, we'll save that for Microsoft products only - namely Vista).

<comment><USER6> Early versions suck. Whether in technology, ideas or _anything_. This issue isn't exclusive to anything or anyone.

<comment><USER7> This is version 2 of a year old product. It's marginally different than version 1, but significantly more buggy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Huh? I had to reboot my Windows Mobile phone (BlackJack) every day, else the mobile IE would refuse to display any web page. Mobile Safari has yet to crash on me. Statements like this "you made the iPhone less stable than Windows Mobile" are useless.

<comment><USER9> It's just the new "twitter doesn't scale". They'll get bored and move onto something else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> amusingly safari crashed on me just as I finished reading the article on my iphone

</comment><comment><USER9> Funny. Mine is as stable as my Macbook - eg very. But then I haven't installed any 3rd party apps, so maybe that's the difference.

<comment><USER11> Virtualization support would be great for 3rd party apps. You could have two tiers of apps. 2nd tiered apps would run sandboxed and virtualized, while 1st tier apps would run native with access to background processes. Certifying the 1st tier would be a lot harder, however.

<comment><USER12> a) Safari's unstable, and it's an Apple app

b) Any OS that lets user-mode apps break it has major flaws and needs to be fixed (and AFAICT no third party apps install drivers).

c) Virtualization is not a fix for b).

<comment><USER11> Agreed. I'm not proposing virtualization as a fix for stability specifically. I'm thinking mainly about security with stability as a pleasant side effect. The OLPC folks gave the XO laptop this capability to ensure 3rd party app security in what they thought could be the "largest software monoculture in the world." Turns out the iPhone is further along on that than the XO. (Blackberry is even farther along, but they seem to have avoided catastrophes. I wonder if the Black hats just haven't learned that it pays to be subtle?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm just glad that people are starting to recognize that there are other mobile phone OS's out there. For a while there it seemed like everybody thought that the iPhone was the first phone ever to have computer-like capabilities.

</comment><comment><USER14> Pretty senseless post. It's not really Apple's fault that he happens to have bad 3G reception in his area.

I'm not sure why I even finished reading this 2-page rant that was obviously not going to mention anything people don't already know by now. He didn't even bother making his rant interesting, funny, or concise.

<comment><USER15> From the post: _The 3G has been very spotty, especially compared to the solid reception I am seeing on the Nokia E71-2, N95-3, and HTC Advantage._

From your comment: _It's not really Apple's fault that he happens to have bad 3G reception in his area._

Cognitive dissonance on your part? He compares with other devices and says that Apple's iPhone is bad at 3G.

<comment><USER14> My mistake. I don't know why I read over that part. I guess I was biased since I haven't had any problems with 3G reception on the iPhone.

Edit: And I do acknowledge some of the flaws he mentions, but overall it just seems he exaggerated the gravity of the issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Erm, just don't download/update apps on the phone. Worked for me...

</comment><comment><USER17> Hey at least it's more stable than Vista.

And hibernation/powersave probably works better than on Ubuntu.

<comment><USER18> Those aren't phones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Apple are in uncharted territory. Providing an SDK to the iPhone is equivalent as allowing different sets of hardware running OSX. It would be interesting to see how long will it take Apple to bring the goods (if ever...)

<comment><USER7> It's not at all equivalent to supporting different hardware. Providing an SDK for the iPhone is like providing an SDK for Mac OS X. In fact, it's exactly the same -- and the SDK for the iPhone (Cocoa Touch) is a direct derivative of Cocoa for Mac OS X.</comment></comment>


Add Product Placement to Your YouTube Videos, After You've Filmed Them - <AUTHOR> http://www.linkrap.com/ZunaVision

<comment><AUTHOR> Someone posted this earlier today but with a random headline so I am reposting in case people missed it.

</comment><comment><USER2> thats actually pretty cool, I bet Google will buy them if they don't have something like this in the works already

</comment><comment><USER3> I get a "403 forbidden"...</comment>


The new way police are surveilling you: Calculating your threat score - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/the-new-way-police-are-surveilling-you-calculating-your-threat-score/2016/01/10/e42bccac-8e15-11e5-baf4-bdf37355da0c_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_policesurvellance920p%3Ahomepage%2Fstory <comment><USER2> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10878509](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10878509) 58+ comments</comment>


Ask HN: Getting Buzz for your site on popular blogs & media, how much is really PR? (Yes, Techcrunch sucks) - <AUTHOR>

This question reminds me about some startups I had seen that had not get coverage on Techcrunch, Mashable and Readwriteweb. Personally I think the Techcrunch guys are quite arrogant. If you send them an email about a useful startup and if you don't know someone there, it's unlikely they will review your startup, even if it's a quality product.
I said this because, I also had seen stupid product ideas and getting coverage on techcrunch, one is like a tinyurl for google searches (this is very simple, in just some lines of code), the other is the simple idea of the google fight (two queries, see who has more results).
So my question is how much is knowing the right person, rather than having the right product?
To get coverage, to get the first buzz. <comment><USER2> I'm fully opposed to anything TechCrunch does anymore. I pointed out how they were wrong multiple times and instead of fixing them I had Arrington call me wrong and blame it on someone else. I was later blocked from their twitter account. TechCruch is just posts about whatever Arrington or someone chooses to biasedly write about and to me is loosing its credit more and more every week. I would love for it to go back to how it used to be when they were reporting on interesting start-ups that readers would love to hear about.

<comment><USER3> I think infamy is getting to arrington a little. He does tend to exhibit more and more arrogance as well as some classic signs of heading int oa midlife crisis.

I havent stopped reading Techcrunch but I am always extra careful with all the stuff on there now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> its probably both, as well as a chicken/egg problem.

having said that, techcrunch has gotten kind of insular and ... i dunno. weird.

if there were a more open/objective(hopefully) version of techcrunch, would there be interest? i've kind of been mulling that idea around for a while, if nothing else than to try and snag some sweet private beta invites :)

</comment><comment><USER5> Techcrunch is 100% biased</comment>


2012 Voting Machines Altering Votes - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdpGd74DrBM

<comment><AUTHOR> In this day and age where things can be so easily (well, it's more feasible to say the least) faked, how can people know if this is legitimate or not?

I'd love someone with more knowledge in this area to weigh in.

<comment><USER2> Reputation and details. The poster just joined youtube today. If this were fraud, wouldn't you tell friends, and wouldn't one of those friends already have a youtube account? Where was this? Why isn't that specific information included?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Same video, very few comments or upvotes yet:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4748783>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4748736>

<comment><AUTHOR> HN should detect duplicates on submit.

<comment><USER3> They do when they're identical. Unfortunately, all these links are subtly different.

        When someone says "I want a programming language
        in which I need only say what I wish done," give
        him a lollipop.

            -- Alan Perlis ACM-SIGPLAN '82,
               Epigrams in Programming

I invite you to suggest a solution to the problem of duplicated content.

<comment><USER4> No something changed, I have seen several links I and others have submitted from tech sites duplicated, they are 100% identical.

Example:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4749228>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4749070>

Same exact title, same exact link.

<comment><USER3> I can't check, because one of them has been deleted, but I know that there are rare occasions when this happens. I also know that most of the time when a duplicate link is submitted it acts as an upvote on the existing item.

I also know that this doesn't work unless the earlier item is in the cache.

I _also_ know that the duplicate detection mechanism is currently working because I just tripped it, so it's either more complicated than you think, or I haven't understood you fully.

HN does (usually) detect exact duplicates, and your comment seems a bit simplistic. The duplications of these videos about the voting machines are _not_ identical URLs, and I haven't recently seen an example where the URL was identical, and yet was not detected. As I say, your references can't be checked because one has been deleted, but I have several times seen people claim a duplicate was not detected, only the find that the URLs were not, in fact, completely identical.

I am unconvinced that anything has changed.

<comment><USER4> Here is another duplicate of the same story:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4749252>

Simplistic, but exact matches none-the-less.

<comment><USER3> Nope, not exact duplicates, because one has a trailing backslash, the other doesn't. Sometimes that matters.

<comment><USER4> Here are the resulting links to each of the three examples I showed:

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk- space-a-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk-space-a-bit- better-and-a-bit-worse-than-microsoft-says/)

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk- space-a-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk-space-a-bit- better-and-a-bit-worse-than-microsoft-says/)

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk- space-a-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/surface-disk-space-a-bit- better-and-a-bit-worse-than-microsoft-says/)

They are 100% identical, no?

<comment><USER3> They are as you quote them, and they are what they resolve to eventually, but one of them at least is not the URL actually in the item.

This item: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4749070>

Look closely at the URL as it's actually in the submission, not in the URL bar after you click it. There is no trailing slash on the URL, so you are not quoting the URL as it was submitting. That matters.

And when I say that it matters, it's possible that two URLs that differ only in a trailing slash actually deliver different pages to you. For that reason, URLs that differ in a trailing slash have to be considered different. Indeed, URLs that are completely different sometimes end up delivering identical content.

The DupDetector I wrote actually downloaded headers and titles, resolved URLs, followed links, and generally tried to work out what would actually been delivered. It was never production standard, and it's hard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The largest discussion has ended up here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4749574></comment>


Configuring Go Apps with TOML - <AUTHOR> http://benaiah.me/posts/configuring-go-apps-with-toml/ <comment><AUTHOR> Author here, if you have any questions.</comment>