Worlds first 'flapless' plane - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11431662 <comment><USER2> If I'm understanding this right, it's a similar idea to what several F1 racing teams have been using this year, a concept that's been dubbed the "F-duct". [1]

The idea is that downforce on the car is generally paid for by aero drag, and thus if you want grip in the corners, you have to sacrifice straight-line speed. But what if you could aerodynamically disable that wing on the straights, so you don't suffer from the drag? (mechanically movable wings are illegal)

They devised a completely passive system that routes some air from the front of the car back to the rear, dumping it out behind the engine intake, just in front of the rear wing. When the driver seals the duct with his knee (or hand, in the case of Ferrari), the air can flow through this path, thus stalling out the rear wing, significantly diminishing its aero effect both in terms of downforce and drag.

From the video, it sounds to me like the plane is doing sort of the opposite: directing air not to stall, but to cause an aero effect over the normal surface.

[1] [http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mclaren-f1-f-duct-how- it...](http://www.suite101.com/content/the-mclaren-f1-f-duct-how-it- works-a256163)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the explanation, I've been hearing about these F-ducts on Formula 1 cars (I follow F1 vaguely) and wondering what the hell all that was about. Is this the technology that Brawn pioneered last year?

<comment><USER2> No, this is new this year. It was first seen on the McLaren at the beginning of the season.

Last year's Brawn innovation was the "double diffuser" -- and I understand what the diffuser does even less than I understand this.

<comment><USER3> Ah, I see. Skimming an article on the double diffuser, it seems to just be a creative interpretation of the rules which allows an extra piece of wing to be attached by some means that the rulebook-writers didn't think of. It's not particularly interesting, since it's based more on legalese than on physics.

Personally I find the most frustrating thing about F1 to be the way they keep inventing new rules in an attempt to make the cars slower. Don't they know that people watch Formula 1 because they want to see _fast_ cars race?

<comment><USER4> A friend of my dad's was really good at finding gaps in the rule books of dirt track speedway. Like, for instance, it might specify you could only have a radiator of a certain capacity in the car to cool the engine, but it didn't specify where it had to be mounted. If you can find somewhere with less mud being thrown at it or better air flow, then you've got a competitive advantage.

Eventually some Nascar teams became aware of him. He told them his time was worth a lot of money. "Money's not a problem!" "If you're serious you'll send me a blank check."

Two teams sent him checks. He filled in some unnamed amount, waited to see if it cashed and then ripped up the other one.

He spent a few months in the States, came back, and bought himself one of the biggest houses in town.

Sometimes chutzpah pays off. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm reading a book all about the Wright brothers at the moment (and this story made me think about it), absolutely fascinating to see how unbelievably revolutionary they were.

And in a way this highlights just how much; (one of) their great innovation(s) was flaps and wing warping for control, it put them light years ahead of other inventors (who mostly were trying for "automatically stable" flight). It's fascinating to see that it is only now we are (in a sense) re-innovating their invention.

If you get chance to read up on the Wrights it is worth it; they were simply brilliant hackers. They were smart and creative, and had no concerns about disagreeing with established theory if they thought it was wrong (in fact going to great lengths to correct theories).

My favourite "story" about them, though, is that the propeller was an after thought - they spent so long perfecting the wings, flight control and the engine and had assumed a normal boat propeller would work. When they realised the error - just a few months before making their attempt they - they hacked something together using wind tunnel data collected for wing designs. And when they went to Kill Devil Hills in 1903 were simply confident "it would work", because they had calculated it to do so.

You may gather I'm a little in awe of them :)

(all of which is not entirely related to this story, but still seemed an interesting semi-relevant thing to share :))

EDIT: although as pointed out below I am assuming that by "flaps" they mean all flaps because Ailerons were _not_ a Wright innovation (they used Wing warping) but a rudder and flaps were part of the Wright flyer and crucial to the control.

<comment><USER6> What's the name of the book?

<comment><USER5> The Wright Brothers: The Aviation Pioneers Who Changed the World by Ian Mackersey

<http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0751533688>

Recommended read (it is a bit effusive in places but also relatively balanced)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Minor nit: this is not the world's first flapless plane. The Wright Flyer used a technique called "wing warping," where instead of movable control surfaces, they flexed the wing to change its shape and lift properties.

NASA has a neat simulator to show how this works here: <http://wright.nasa.gov/airplane/warp.html>

Also, the article seems to refer all control surfaces - aileron, elevator, rudder, etc. - as "flaps." I have several hundred hours logged in Citabria 7ECA and 7GCAA aircraft, neither of which have flaps.

"Flaps" in aviation refers to movable panels that increase the wing surface area and angle of attack in order to produce additional lift at low speeds for takeoff and landing. Again, NASA has a pretty good explanation: <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/flap.html>

<comment><USER8> Was about to post exactly this.

The novelty here is a plane which does not change the shape of the wing in any way to attain maneuverability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> And you thought ice on wings was a problem now, de-icing would be an absolutely crucial part of this system. If any one hole is even partially obscured, the balance between both sides is off. Clearly this is computer controlled and can be compensated for, but it seems to me that there's quite a few problems to overcome before it comes back to the mainstream.

<comment><USER10> Off the top of my head: that plane had a jet engine, so they could just route their air lines near the engine for heat, or siphon air from the jet directly. Then just constantly 'leak' some warm air from all the holes on the wing surface when in icy conditions.

Or just electrically heat the metal around the holes, like is currently done for the pitot tube (speed indicator).

<comment><USER11> Large airplanes usually have electrically heated leading edge surfaces in addition to pitot tube and stall indicator heat. As you point out, something like that would work well in this application. There is something of a drawback, though.

On mid-size planes rated for icing flight, "ice boots" are generally used. Boots are a rubber surface over the leading edge of the wing that can be inflated on command. Once ice buildup is sufficient to warrant their use, the pilot engages the system, which compresses air and then inflates the boots violently, breaking the ice off the leading edge.

The reason this is more popular for smaller airplanes is because electrically heated wings take much more power than you can reasonably expect to generate on something smaller than business jet sized (e.g., Cessna Citation), especially on approach when engine output is reduced (and when icing can become the most problematic). Even medium-large twin turboprops like the Beech KingAir 350 rely on boots.

An alternative technology for smaller airplanes that's pretty unpopular is the weeping wing, wherein a deicing agent is pumped out through small pores in the leading edge. It's unpopular because you either have to carry a lot of weight in deicing solution or risk running out. My father flew a Beech Bonanza A36 that he had retrofitted with the weeping wings, and he's remarked on many occasions what a pain in the ass they were.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I assume they mean aileronless rather than just flapless?

Or is "flap" a general term for flaps, ailerons and rudder surfaces?

<comment><USER12> Flap means something to pilots, but not to popular audiences, I guess. What I gather from the article is that jets of air replicate the forces that the ailerons, rudder, and elevators normally provide.

From watching the video, it also seems like it's missing flaps, because of the shape of the wing. Landing is something they can worry about later ;)

<comment><USER13> It could just be that the aircraft doesn't need flaps. The purpose of a flap is to change the wing geometry such that the aircraft can fly at a lower angle of attack. This allows the plane to fly slower without stalling the wing. If the aircraft can already fly sufficiently slow to land then it doesn't need mechanical flaps to adjust the wing geometry.

As for replacing the control surfaces with jets of air, I can't help but wonder how that affects airflow around the aircraft. I'd bet something like this doesn't scale well to larger aircraft.

<comment><USER12> _I'd bet something like this doesn't scale well to larger aircraft._

I think you're right. I've seen people's model DC-10s that they build, and apparently at that small scale, they don't even bother with coordinating the turns. If you want to turn, you just jam the rudder all the way left or right, and then the plane goes there. In a real DC-10... that probably doesn't work so well.

(Tried this in X-Plane, and it doesn't really do anything. But the "edge cases" are poorly handled there; I can't even get a Cessna 172 to spin.)

<comment><USER13> I don't know that full rudder deflection is really a corner case! In fact, the roll orientation of a plane shouldn't affect the effacacy of the rudder so long as the plane isn't in a slip or spin. The whole purpose of a rudder is to correct for a difference in lift between the wings in a bank. If there is no bank, and therefore no difference, the rudder should cause one.

<comment><USER12> The airflow over the wings when stalling is the "corner case". The usual models don't apply; if they used a model that could handle any arbitrary airflow, then the sim would run at 1 frame per hour. So they make some assumptions for normal flight that are easier to calculate, then they make some other special assumptions for stalling, and switch between the models as necessary. I think.

But apparently they don't do anything special for spins or uncoordinated turns, so you can't try this in X-Plane and be confident that a real plane would perform well.

Anyone have a DC-10 they don't want?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> While not exactly 'flapless', blown flaps have used compressed air as part of the flap system for quite some time (it's even had time to fall out of favor due to complexity and costs!)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blown_flaps>

(Though it does look like the article linked refers to ailerons and elevators, not flaps proper).

</comment><comment><USER15> Didn't Orville and Wilbur's prototype steer by twisting the wings?

<comment><USER16> Yes, they called it wing-warping apparently - <http://www.pbs.org/kcet/chasingthesun/planes/wrightfly.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> What do you do when it loses power and you have to land?

(and WTF is with the greenwashing statement that guy made?)

<comment><USER12> Presumably, the same thing that you do when the motors driving the hydraulic pumps that drive the control surfaces on a conventional aircraft fail -- control the plane with the other, non-failed control surfaces and with the engine thrust.

There have been a few cases of big airplanes losing all control surfaces but still being able to land:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_232>

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shoo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Baghdad_DHL_attempted_shootdown_incident)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Figures that this is right on the heels of the news of the first (successful) human-powered _flapping_ plane.</comment>


Scientists create mutant enzyme that recycles plastic bottles in hours - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2020/apr/08/scientists-create-mutant-enzyme-that-recycles-plastic-bottles-in-hours <comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g0920d/scientist...](https://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/g0920d/scientists_create_mutant_enzyme_that_recycles/)</comment>


Introducing Hulu Plus: More wherever. More whenever. Than ever. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hulu.com/2010/06/29/introducing-hulu-plus-more-wherever-more-whenever-than-ever/

<comment><USER2> Not being able to ditch ads is quite disappointing. Especially for $10 a month.

<comment><USER3> That was the only thing I wanted out of Hulu Plus to be honest - I just want an uninterrupted viewing experience. Up the damn thing to $30 a month and I'll pay for it if I never have to see that 5 hour energy ad on Hulu again.

<comment><USER4> The way Hulu seems to repeat ads seems a little absurd, especially given that a web service can track identity and ad views in a way that broadcast cannot. A couple impressions of a funny ad can have the desired effect, while 20 views of the same ad can backfire and end up creating a negative impression of the brand. Seems like it would be in the interest of both Hulu and advertisers to make a better effort to mix it up, especially if they want to replace traditional broadcast rather than merely supplement it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _has to work for all three of our customers, and those are our end users, our advertisers, and our content suppliers_

I'm not sure how I feel about end users not being their primary customer... I can't see the split in effort working well in the future (too much of a difference between end users and content suppliers). However, it's nice to see them being upfront about it.

</comment><comment><USER6> My intuition about slogans is that I shouldn't have to read over them several times to make sure I'm reading/parsing them correctly.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have been waiting for Hulu to gain a more Netflix like mentality to get their service onto everything. Ten dollars a month isn't bad either especially when stacked up to cable and satellite.

Hopefully in the future they will add more tiers of service like premium movie channels and sports.</comment>


SBCL: The Ultimate Assembly Code Breadboard (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.pvk.ca/Blog/2014/03/15/sbcl-the-ultimate-assembly-code-breadboard/ <comment><USER2> See also "Coq: The world's best macro assembler?": [http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/nick/coqasm.pd...](http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/nick/coqasm.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Discussed at the time: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408807](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7408807).</comment>


Beautiful Reading via Flex 4 - <AUTHOR> http://anirudhs.chaosnet.org/blog/2009.09.01.html

<comment><USER2> I prefer using my Readability bookmarklet: <http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't work for me with HN.

<comment><USER3> It is mostly for articles, not for forums: as you can see in the example, a single column of text is displayed. Threaded conversations do not fit this model.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Getting redirected to <http://sdf.lonestar.org/> Where is this article/tool?

<comment><USER5> The user's quota was exceeded.

<http://anirudhs.chaosnet.org/>

<comment><USER6> There is a mirror of the article at: <http://anirudhsasikumar.net/examples/readefine/>

The actual tool is at: <http://readefine.anirudhsasikumar.net/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is great. It looks like something I've always wanted, but never realized until now--a much more pleasant way to read text on a computer.

</comment><comment><USER8> Seeing this makes me want to learn Flex. Wonder if there's anything like this but open-source?

<comment><USER9> The Flex SDK is free, but Flex Builder (the IDE) is not.

<comment><USER8> I meant something like the Readefine application.

<comment><USER10> He says this will be open shortly in the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I have nothing against Flash. I use it for creating tutorials. But can this kind of page be rendered to (x)html using Tex (LaTex)?</comment>


HD Radio Is Crying Out to Be Heard - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/09/technology/personaltech/09pogue.html?_r=1&em

<comment><USER2> HD Radio vs all the radio and music on the Internet.

For me I choose the later, it's more personalized and what I want to listen to seems infinite!

HD Radio might become the standard, but Im thinking the Internet(iTunes, Internet Radio and Pandora's of the net) will kill it as it has done w/Satellite Radio!

</comment><comment><USER3> hd radio is dying because ibiquity charges $50 per receiver for decoding. ibiquity is dying because hd radio is dying.

</comment><comment><USER4> Short of a government mandate, as done with over-the-air TV, it will never gain significant marketshare.</comment>


World's biggest fake conference in computer science - <AUTHOR> http://sites.google.com/site/worlddump1

<comment><USER2> Wow, this is fascinating. I never knew there was money to be made in holding fake conferences.

</comment><comment><USER3> Seen it. [http://www.google.com/search?q=sites.google.com/site/worlddu...](http://www.google.com/search?q=sites.google.com/site/worlddump1)</comment>


Apple online store shows iPhone 5c with TouchID, which doesn't exist - <AUTHOR> http://store.storeimages.cdn-apple.com/4583/as-images.apple.com/is/image/AppleInc/aos/published/images/M/GR/MGRM2/MGRM2_AV1?wid=650&hei=650&fmt=jpeg&qlt=95&op_sharpen=0&resMode=bicub&op_usm=0.5,0.5,0,0&iccEmbed=0&layer=comp&.v=1432157940611

<comment><AUTHOR> Sources: [http://store.apple.com/us/product/MGRM2AM/A/iphone- lightning...](http://store.apple.com/us/product/MGRM2AM/A/iphone-lightning- dock), [https://modmyi.com/content/19186-apple-goof-up-shows- iphone-...](https://modmyi.com/content/19186-apple-goof-up-shows- iphone-5c-touch-id-new-lightning-dock-web-page.html).

Archive in case Apple removes it: [https://archive.is/4xF58](https://archive.is/4xF58)</comment>


CoreOS (YC S13) Raises $12M to Bring Kubernetes to the Enterprise - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/04/06/coreos-raises-12m-funding-round-led-by-google-ventures-to-bring-kubernetes-to-the-enterprise/ <comment><USER2> Maybe it's just me, but I fail to see how all those project make the developer/devops person's life less complex. I don't have the experience to have managed a cluster of 1000s of machines but I HAVE managed a cluster of ~50 nodes with MySQL, ElasticSearch, RabbitMQ, ZeroMQ, PHP, Clojure and the whole gang at various points in time. I am yet to see a single project (Mesos, Kubernetes, Docker, whatever) that would DRAMATICALLY make my life so much better. Not trying to be overly negative here, just looking for answers and better solutions.

EDIT I also continuously wonder how do things like Ansible fit into the picture. Are they competitors? Are they supplemental to the likes of Mesos/Kubernetes? Are they orthogonal?

<comment><USER3> Disclaimer: lead engineer on kubernetes here...

It really depends on how you do deployment. Containers provide deployment (and more important rollback) that is better than other deployment tools like Puppet/Chef/... because they are atomic (they either work, or they fail, they don't get stuck in the middle) and they package up all of their dependencies within them, so that they don't have the "well it worked on my machine" problems.

Systems like Mesos and Kuberenetes, decouple applications from the individual machines (and the operating system on those machines), and are online systems with self-healing properties (so that they will fix themselves rather than waking you up in the middle of the night)

k8s and mesos turn containers into an API that spans an entire fleet of machines, and enables you to dynamically use (and re-use) the fleet of machines for multiple different applications. No more dedicated boxes for mysql, mongo, etc. This in turn enables you to have an easier ops experience, because every single machine in your fleet is homogenous (same OS, same patches, etc) OS management is abstracted away from Application management, so that they don't interfere with each other. Since things in the API are expressed in terms of applications, it's easy to add health checks and automatic restart to the system, and provide self-healing properties as well. Both kubernetes and Mesos also make replication a first-order primitive so that it is easy to scale in response to load.

Ansible is sort of orthogonal to systems like Kubernetes and Mesos. Kubernetes and Mesos are designed to be online, self-repairing systems. Ansible is a way to easily execute commands on a bunch of machines. I can see collaborative use cases, where you generally use Kubernetes for deployments, but use Ansible for querying some data while debugging, or somesuch.

Anyway, sorry for the extended response. There actually is way more that I could say about the topic ;)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the detailed response. The point about atomic deploys is a good one. However, if we all agree that immutable deployments are a good thing, I've been wondering how is that fundamentally different from launching new instances via AWS/Rackspace/Google API? Is there really a fundamental difference between shipping a Docker container to a set of servers, or just relaunching/rebuilding servers?

You also mention the "no dedicated Mysql, Mongo boxes" etc. I am 100% for that. However, how can you really make that work with databases/systems like MySQL which were fundamentally designed to work on one machine, and scaling them across machines is usually very painful, or at least, let's say, not very "idiomatic" (if I can use that word here lol). I can see the auto scaling part working with distributed databases like Riak/Cassandra, but even there the solution is not clear-cut and "out of the box". It still feels like some manual orchestration work is needed - correct me if I'm wrong.

I can totally see the "online, self-repairing point" but only for application servers that were designed from the scratch to be easily scalable by just adding servers. Which is the case for most scripting languages PHP/Ruby/Python et al and for well designed JVM/CLR/native/Go applications as well. However, I would argue scaling the app boxes/containers is the EASY part. Again, you can always scale up by "just" copying machines (I know, it's always harder that that). The hard part comes with managing the database servers or your cluster of messaging queues, or some other stateful thing that has to persist data SAFELY. Does Kubernetes/Docker REALLY make my life easier with those kinds of things? Is the answer to use DynamoDB/BigTable/RDS/managed queues and forget about that hassle of managing a database or a queueing cluster? Looking for answers :) . Thanks!

<comment><USER4> > I've been wondering how is that fundamentally different from launching new > instances via AWS/Rackspace/Google API? Is there really a fundamental > difference between shipping a Docker container to a set of servers, or just > relaunching/rebuilding servers?

There's two perspectives to this:

* From a user's perspective, ignoring performance implications, containers should be the same as VMs.

* From a hardware perspective however, containers are much more lightweight in terms of CPU, Ram and Disk space, since they all share at least the kernel.

Why should you care? Well if something is less resource consuming, it means that (a) you could run it for less than what you pay for VMs or (b) it can be sold to you for less. There's some additional benefits like fast "boots", strict decoupling of persistant and non-persistant storage (which I find an advantage, restarting a container cleans up whatever you don't care for), but at the end I think it comes down to money.

<comment><USER5> To add to this. Sure you can spin up ec2 instances and you don't have to worry about atomicity. However, what happens if you want to run more than one service per VM? That's where containers allow to take full advantage of the system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > we set out to build and deliver Google's infrastructure to everyone else

This statement rings pretty true as Kubernetes (also known as k8s) has some Google biases. Not all cloud providers will have such an easy time providing all the infrastructure necessary to run CoreOS + k8s smoothly.

For example, Kubernetes assigns each Pod (k8s unit of computation) an IP address, which is only simple to do if your cloud provider supplies something like a /24 private block to your nodes. CoreOS came up with the VXLAN-based Flannel project to make this model more portable[0], but Layer 2 over Layer 3 isn't something I'd like to throw haphazardly into my production environments. Google Compute Engine conveniently provides this setup as an option.

Another example of Google-favoritism is the strong preference of centralized storage--particularly GCEPersistentDisk. At first I was concerned about centralized storage by default as we know disk locality is a Good Thing (TM), but after reading a paper that claimed networking is improving faster than disks are[2], I felt somewhat better about this. However, it's still pretty obvious that a Google Persistent Disk is the way to go with k8s[3].

That said, I'm really happy that Google has open-sourced this project because it is indeed a functioning, tested, and easy-to-use distributed system. I'm sure that the devs aren't aggressively shutting out other cloud providers and that these biases are probably just a side-effect of their resource allocation process and the problems that they intend to solve (e.g. GCEPersistentDisk used to be a core type instead of a module--it has since gotten better). It's still important to evaluate a technology's biases and potential evolution before throwing your product on it.

[0] [https://github.com/coreos/flannel](https://github.com/coreos/flannel)

[1] [https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/blob/maste...](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/blob/master/docs/volumes.md)

[2] [http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ganesha/disk- irrelevant_hotos2...](http://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~ganesha/disk- irrelevant_hotos2011.pdf)

[3] Do you see any other providers here? [https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/tree/maste...](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/tree/master/pkg/volume)

<comment><USER7> I'm working on adding AWS support for Kubernetes. I just last week finished Load-Balancer (ELB) & Persistent Storage (EBS) support, and they're currently going through the pull-request review process. Once they merge (I'd guess a week or two?), AWS will be on-par with Google Cloud Engine feature-wise.

I have found the Kubernetes team to be nothing other than extremely supportive of efforts to support AWS & non-Google platforms. It takes a little longer to translate some of the Google-isms to other platforms, but I'm happy for the thinking behind those decisions, vs just adopting lowest-common denominator.

<comment><USER8> I also see quite a lot of IaaS providers here:

[https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/tree/maste...](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/tree/master/docs/getting- started-guides)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Congrats to the team! Interesting to see a big focus on Kubernetes going forward--doesn't CoreOS kind of compete with Kubernetes? (even though Kubernetes builds on CoreOS tools like etcd)

<comment><USER10> Also interested how the Rocket/Docker debate will fit in with this?

<comment><USER11> This is a great question.

CoreOS is currently working on adding support for Rocket[0] to Kubernetes. There is still a lot of work to do here, but things are progressing nicely. Kubernetes is a true opensource project and accepts contributions that makes sense. Supporting another container runtime engine makes sense in terms of choice for the community and forces clean separation between Kubernetes, the cluster manager, and the underlying container runtime engine.

When it comes to Rocket vs Docker I think the competition will be good for both projects and the community as a whole. At the end of the day, both projects and the communities behind them want people to be successful with containers.

[0] [https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/pull/5518](https://github.com/GoogleCloudPlatform/kubernetes/pull/5518)

<comment><USER12> > both projects and the communities behind them want people to be successful > with containers.

I think it's better said, Docker wants people to be successful with containers, so long as it's Docker containers.[1][2][3]

We've seen a lot of very open work coming from the CoreOS team with Rocket and the ACI... unfortunately we've only seen negativity and mud slinging coming from the other camp.[2][4][5][6][7]

Docker is more interested in having an "open" implementation, rather than an open specification. The things is... an Open Specification is far more important for industry changing technology like containers.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683705](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8683705)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8938409](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8938409)

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8789181](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8789181)

[4] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8938066](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8938066)

[5] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8938176](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8938176)

[6] [https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10643](https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/10643)

[7] [https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9538](https://github.com/docker/docker/issues/9538)

<comment><USER13> Don't kid yourself...it's been negative on both sides. CoreOS called Docker fundamentally flawed, though they've backed away from that a bit.

From what I can tell, CoreOS was happy to let Docker, Inc control the container platform and build orchestration tools on top of Docker, since it's pretty clear that no one is willing to pay for the base containerization layer and the only money to be made is in orchestration. But then Docker released their own orchestration strategy and that started the current period we're in where both companies have come off as being very unprofessional and concerned only with their own future success.

Between Docker trying to build almost everything into the actual Docker executable (it's a container runner, API server, build tool, process monitor, cloud provisioner and orchestration tool...those last two are only not the case because they got called on the strategy) and CoreOS's pointless pushing of rkt (rkt itself isn't pointless, but the PR to add rkt support to Docker was, as was implementing Docker support in rkt). Both sides have foolishly put their own interests ahead of the container ecosystem.

To say that either of the two companies has been the bad actor in all the drama would be biased. They've both come across like spoiled little children trying to get their way. As someone who has been pushing my company (~8000 employees) to consider implementing a containerized deployment strategy, it's been hugely inconvenient to have to concede to people arguing against containerization all the points around how unprofessional the companies in the space have been, both in behavior and coding practices.

<comment><USER10> +1, This has been my interpretation too, I feel like a lot of the rkt PR was subtly aimed at Docker, it was very much "this is why it's better" rather than "this is why it's good".

<comment><USER14> Honestly, as a consumer of both projects, I'm happy that rkt exists because it provides a working demonstration of a solution where container images are orthogonal to other concepts such as orchestration. If it went the other way, our vendors would be swearing up and down that the only way for this container thing to work is if we install their complete solution.

I love my Apple MacBook Pro and its soldered components, but I need my data center to be meaningfully upgradable.

<comment><USER5> I love Docker, but it feels a lot like the days of incompatible VM images, where you got super locked in, and if you tried anything that wasn't what they had designed for, then you got screwed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Aren't they doing the same thing people have been complaining about Docker doing? Running with features but not stablizing? Is CoreOS not as unstable as the impression I've gotten of it from comments led me to believe?

<comment><USER11> It's true, the CoreOS team has been moving really fast. It's what startups have to do in the beginning -- before the money runs out :). While our announcement today introduces Tectonic and some funding, it also communicates that we have found our market fit. This means we have the right set of features to go to market with, and add value by making people successful with containers.

Now it's all about execution.

CoreOS is now focused on balancing new features with maturity and stability. For many of our projects this focus started almost a year ago. Take etcd for example. CoreOS spent the last 9 months effectively rewriting etcd and it's raft implementation to meet the stability requirements we need going forward. Other projects have demonstrated great signs of stability such as CoreOS Linux, our Linux OS focused on containers. It's not perfect, but there are many people that run CoreOS Linux in production today. We expect this trend to continue.

I should also note that we have many more team members employed by CoreOS than we did a year ago. It takes time to build the right team, but so far I think we have done a fantastic job. I'm still amazed at the number of projects we actively maintain and ship with a team our size. Now we have the people power to make our projects/products solid.

Thanks for raising the question and hopefully we can continue to answer it with actions and shipping products that you will fall in love with -- or at least get the job done without the pager going off.

<comment><USER16> > CoreOS spent the last 9 months effectively rewriting etcd and it's raft > implementation to meet the stability requirements we need going forward.

Yeah, I noticed that. It almost seems like it would have been better to just glom on to Zookeeper or some other directory service that was a bit more established, just for the sake of being able to work on other things for the last 9 months. Do you ever look back in retrospect on that?

<comment><USER17> The reality is that etcd is still probably a year or 2 away from being production ready.

In the mean time Zookeeper has shipped dynamic ensemble configuration which bring parity to the only thing etcd had any advantage in. (Not that it -really- mattered, most people that were running dynamic ensembles were already using Netflix's Exhibitor)

Zookeeper is also faster, has more features and you need it anyway if you are running SolrCloud, Mesos, Hadoop etc.

<comment><USER16> Zookeeper definitely has some advantages both in terms of maturity and features.

I'm not sure though that Zookeeper is universally faster than etcd (certainly as you add nodes it slows down... though most people don't need more than 3 or 5 nodes).

Dynamic ensemble configuration is definitely a place where Zookeeper was lacking before, but it isn't the only difference that matters. The big difference I remember with etcd was partition tolerance. Last I checked Zookeeper was all on the consistency side and it's partition tolerance basically just wrote off the smaller partition. Either choice can be a good thing or a bad thing for a directory/orchestration store, but particularly as you scale up to large numbers, partition tolerance semantics seem to better match the use cases.

So I don't think etcd is all inferior to Zookeeper, and I understand the desire to build a system where all components are fundamentally AP, but sometimes having a bit of impurity and some duct tape hackery in your model can help you get out the door faster and focus on more significant technical challenges that will help you build your community. Once you have a community, you have more resources to address that duct tape.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Kubernetes will become a dominant container orchestration platform and API. It's what Mesos should be, but with the backing of Google, kubernetes is more likely to push into that space a lot quicker and with a lot more momentum. Notice, there are a lot more startups forming around kubernetes than mesos. Even still, competition is healthy, having multiple forms of large scale orchestration and resource management systems are important for the tech ecosystem. I imagine we'll see a couple more over the next few years. Docker with their own. I'm sure we'll see one to solve these problems at a smaller scale that is easier to manage. And perhaps another focused on a niche area like AWS lambda functions but as an open source project.

<comment><USER19> Kubernetes is not really a container orchestration platform. It helps organize containers into logical groups with dependencies, but orchestrating resources on your physical machines is well within Mesos' domain. Keep in mind that Kubernetes and Mesos aren't mutually exclusive. Kubernetes has been [implemented]([https://github.com/mesosphere/kubernetes- mesos](https://github.com/mesosphere/kubernetes-mesos)) on Mesos.

My opinion is that Kubernetes is closer in identity to Docker: tons of OSS excitement, many companies jumping on board, and really pluggable. As to whether its going to become the critical infrastructure piece that gets enterprise to pay $$$... that's a stretch.

<comment><USER8> Abhay, perhaps you can disclose in your biased answer that you are employed by Mesosphere?

<comment><USER20> Perhaps you should have disclosed in _your_ answer that you're a founder of a Kubernetes-focused startup.

<comment><USER8> Noted! Apologies.

<comment><USER20> Thanks, and cheers. :)

<comment><USER8> Cheers. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There seems to be some feature overlap between fleet and kubernetes. Anyone knows are they planning to reconcile those two?

<comment><USER22> What more do you want fleet to do? It's a simple scheduler and seems to be pretty much complete.

Expect CoreOS to shift resources towards proprietary revenue streams while allowing the community to pick up slack on open projects.

<comment><USER11> I hope not!

I can tell you first hand the majority of our team members work on our opensource projects. It's one of the main reasons I came to work for CoreOS over a year ago. But the concern is still valid -- will CoreOS really keep funding our opensource projects or will CoreOS pull a fast one and go open core?

So far our actions prove we are committed to opensource and that continues with todays announcement. We wanted it to be really clear that CoreOS is all about opensource projects and collaboration, even if that means our competitors can compete with us, that we took major effort in keeping the two brands separate. There is coreos.com for "Open Source Projects for Linux Containers", and tectonic.com that combines those projects in a commercial offering. There are some non-open bits in the commercial offering, but they don't conflict with the opensource projects.

You are right that we will allocate more resources towards making money, which is required if we want to continue the good work we are doing on the opensource front. You are also right in that the community will pick up the slack, but please keep in mind that CoreOS is part of that community and we plan to continue leading the way.

<comment><USER14> Does k8s replace fleet in a tectonic system? It's been asked several times on this thread, but there hasn't been a straight-forward answer yet.

<comment><USER22> I don't think they want to say anything that would potentially alienate anyone, which is why you're unlikely to get a straight answer.

fleet will exist indefinitely, but kubernetes essentially replaces it with something (promised to be) better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> How does this compare to Redhat's Atomic Host?

<comment><USER11> It's better to compare RedHat's Atomic Host with CoreOS Linux. Both projects are focused on providing a slimmed down Linux OS focused on running containers in a server environment.

Tectonic would be closer to RedHat's Openshift project/product, but that's not quite right either since Tectonic is not a full blown PaaS solution.

<comment><USER24> > _Tectonic is not a full blown PaaS solution._

Granted, but let's be serious for a moment.

Nobody with widely-recognised components is going to just _stop_ moving up the value chain to selling turnkey systems. That's where the serious bucks are waiting.

I expect that before too long, my employers' sales team will be seeing CoreOS and Docker sales folk as well as the existing competition from Apprenda, Salesforce/Heroku, IBM and Red Hat.

(And, again, I don't speak for my employers).</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: boilerplate incorporation documents? - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to incorporate my side project that's getting out of hand & noticed that the boilerplate YC docs don't appear to be for an initial Delaware filing but raising money after you already have a business entity.
Does anyone have a pointer to initial incorporation documents that have the dual class share structure and all the other goodies startups should have nowadays?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I found this: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5357618](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5357618)

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, that's awesome! Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> [IANAL]

C-corps come with the burden of corporate scale tax and accounting compliance requirements. Unlike closely held entities I've never seen anything which led me to believe that a Delaware Corporation was a do it yourself undertaking.

Hire an attorney. Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> OK, thanks for the tip and perhaps I'm jumping the gun. I might just continue as a sole-proprietorship with lots of insurance for awhile longer.

<comment><USER3> [IANAL]

There is a gradation of limited liability business types between sole proprietorships and Schedule C corporations. Each comes with its own set of advantages and limitations. There might or might not be one suitable for your situation. If one is then it will almost certainly be vastly less burdensome than a C Corporation.

A C-Corp could be right, but even on HN, I don't think I have ever seen a story or comment indicating a DIY success story.</comment></comment></comment>


Marc Andreessen "tried really hard not to invent anything new" - oscar-the-horse http://www.horsesaysinternet.com/startup/marc-andreessen-hard-problem/ <comment><USER3> Let me just ask - When has anyone ever actually invented anything totally new?

The telephone? It was referred to as the "speaking telegraph" (telegraph + speakers).

The car? Horseless carriage (engine + wheels + steering + brakes)

The plane? Glider + engine. The Wright brothers invented powered flight - <AUTHOR> flight. The difficulty was getting the weight to lift ratio high enough with a primitive heavy engine on board. Gliders already existed - you just couldn't go anywhere with them! You can't just jump off a cliff and glide to China.

Google? A more advanced MITS algorithm + inktomi's commodity cluster map- reduce architecture + inktomi's PPC. Indeed, had inktomi doubled down on search instead of their CDN, we might well be talking about inktomi and not Google.

General and Special Relativity? Nope - [http://www.quora.com/If-Albert- Einstein-had-never-existed-at...](http://www.quora.com/If-Albert-Einstein-had- never-existed-at-all-in-the-world-would-relativity-theory-have-been-found-and- proposed-by-others-by-now).

There are no really new ideas out there - merely combinations old ones that "hang in the air". There are no new ideas - merely old ones combined in unique ways.

Everything is a remix (<https://vimeo.com/14912890>).

<comment><USER4> Upvoted, but I disagree. I think you are spot on with suggesting actual progress does not happen by inventing anything 'new' from scratch. But I do not agree nothing new is ever invented.

Arguing that things come about as combinations upon combinations of small, 'not completely new' inventions is begging the question. When you compare the state of human affairs in 5000 BC with the state now, you can't possibly mean that no 'completely new' things have been created.

This is the same problem as e.g. distinguishing species in biology. Of the countless intermediate forms, you cannot point to a single one as a 'completely new' species. However, 1000 generations after an earthquake, the species on both sides of the created ravine have diverged so much they can no longer interbreed. There are now two species where there was one, so a new one must have come into existence, right?

Andreessen is completely right in suggesting you don't want to aim to invent something 'completely new' on the spot. Nevertheless, if you can see where something could be going, you could aim for something new say 10 years down the road.

<comment><USER3> Wait long enough and things will appear new and magical. My point is merely that any invention is still the gradual accumulation and unique combination of previous ideas (and so forth). Even if you lack the knowledge about how something came to be it does not change the fact that: Everything is a remix.

 _> Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic._

 _> if you can see where something could be going_

This is kind of a punctuated intellectual evolution. The idea is to "go where the puck is going to be" - which is perfectly reasonable as intelligence is not constrained by natural evolutionary mechanisms.

YouTube's Jawed Karim said this exactly when he stated that their success was a "confluence" (see what I did there) of Dot-com bust dark fibre lighting back up, the introduction of cheap DSL broadband, the integration of computers in all American households, the domination of Adobe Flash and the rapidly decreasing cost of storage/computation.

He also stated that YouTube was nothing new. It was merely a combination of other technologies which arrived at the right time to be held up by a rich society and progressive technology to become one of the biggest internet properties the world has ever seen.

A confluence of events if you will.

<comment><USER5> _Wait long enough and things will appear new and magical. My point is merely that any invention is still the gradual accumulation and unique combination of previous ideas (and so forth). Even if you lack the knowledge about how something came to be it does not change the fact that: Everything is a remix._

No one disagrees that all inventions build upon older ideas and inventions.

Your attempt to redefine what the word "new" means in the realm of inventions doesn't logically prove anything. It's just kind of a semantically-induced logical dead-end.

 _A confluence of events if you will._

This reminds me of arguing with a Creationist about the statistical likelihood that DNA would have assembled randomly from the primordial ooze. They claim that man must have been "created" because of the statistical unlikelihood that base chemicals would just randomly assemble into a living creature. Their arguments always ignore the electro-chemical and evolutionary forces that drive the "confluence" and turn it from a random coincidence to a statistical likelihood. Likewise, you appear to ignore the drive of the individual inventor in assembling and delivering pre-existing technologies.

Were the technologies unavailable to make YouTube before it was made? No. What was new was the assembly of those technologies at the proper time when they could be supported by the environment. As individual technologies, nothing was "new". As a whole, it was definitely new.

Once again, I perceive your argument as an exercise in semantics to denigrate the new by redefining "new" in order to make some larger argument about the incremental contribution of inventions made by inventors. In order to reach your same conclusions, one would have to pretend that there was no novelty in the way that pre-existing things were assembled.

There are negligibly few atoms on the Earth that weren't here 4 billion years ago, yet I doubt you'd argue that nothing new has appeared on the Earth since then.

[Edit: Clarified the Creationist point]

<comment><USER3> You do realize that there were other video hosting sites founded just before and just after YouTube. If they didn't exist someone else would have taken their place. Any individual person or team is not special. There are always equivalent teams out there that would have gladly taken their place. If you understand the concepts of evolution, path dependence, statistical randomness, catastrophic failure and causality you would realise that ideas and people are a product of their times and not the other way around.

Whoever said that DNA was the only thing to have been created from randomness. There were probably many self-reproducing molecules created by randomness. It does not follow that DNA was special or that any one strand was - there were always analogues ready to take its place. What was special was the environment these molecules evolved in.

<comment><USER5> _Any individual person or team is not special._

Completely contradictory to my personal experience as well as to my observations in society.

In my personal life, I've known a few special people who are smart enough to be visionaries with acceptably unique visions in their fields. They inspired and drove others around them and produced successful enterprises while our competitors floundered. Without them, we would have been mediocre like our competitors.

If Steve Jobs had not returned to Apple, Apple would not have become dominant and might just have gone out of business. I was there. We had Sculley, Amelio, etc. They put the lie to your "no one is special" theory. They failed and almost drove the company out of business. Jobs came along and completely turned the company around. He made it look easy.

 _there are always analogues ready to take its place._

Citation for successful analogues to DNA driving multi-cellular life, please. We know of none. Any analogues that may have developed to prevent or replace DNA's rise may well have never advanced beyond simple single cells. I'd say it's a ridiculous notion that an analogue to DNA would have filled the vacuum if DNA hadn't come to pass.

<comment><USER3> _> Completely contradictory to my personal experience as well as to my observations in society._

Irrelevant. These observations are coloured by selection bias.

 _> successful enterprises while our competitors floundered_

What about all the visionaries that failed? What about the non-visionaries that succeeded?

 _> Without them, we would have been mediocre like our competitors._

Presumption that competitors would not have done what you had done given enough time. Presumption also that your success makes you not mediocre - <USER2> in fact it merely indicates success.

 _> If Steve Jobs had not returned to Apple_

Some other company would've released a mp3 player, a tablet and a smart phone. Your not that special - it is foolish to be arrogant enough to think that you deserve what you get and that because your sole reason for success is your own work. This is a fundamental attribution error.

 _> They failed and almost drove the company out of business_

Jobs came back in 1997 correct? After Windows reached its dominance correct? So the cash stops bleeding just after Windows has dominated and there is really nothing left to do but join up with them.

 _> He made it look easy._

Maybe because it was.

 _> Citation for successful analogues to DNA driving multi-cellular life_

Well how do you know DNA was unique and special? Because it succeeded? That does not follow. What if the environment changed - such that it favoured DNA molecules over another just through randomness - well then the other molecules get wiped out.

It is foolhardy to assume that DNA could be the only useful substrate for multi-cellular life. But we can't rerun the damn test because - wait for it - EXTREME PATH DEPENDENCE.

I end this conversation.

<comment><USER5> _I end this conversation._

I guess it shouldn't really matter since someone else equivalent to both of us will step in to continue it. I mean, if Albert Einstein is easily replaceable as you said, you and I can't be important for the continuation of anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's really hard to build a company. It's really admirable to build a successful tech company, no matter how lofty or straightforward the project. The Instagram guys are also heroes to me.

Zip2, Elon's first company, didn't invent anything new or solve any hard problems either (it started out as an online yellow pages). But it was really important that Elon learned from that process. And I know that he enjoyed it, I remember meeting with him when they were 10 guys in one room. And Zip2 was worth $300M to Altavista, which is how Elon paid for the Maclaren mentioned in the recent video.

I'm also glad that Peter Thiel and Max Levchin and others have started to create social pressure for us to think about how to do big things that really benefit society. And maybe we only need to feel that pressure after we've done one or two successful things. As individuals it's also ok to ignore it and say hey I really enjoy building companies and don't need to change the world in a huge way.

<comment><USER3> Did Elon get screwed by the VCs during the formation and sale of Zip2? Apparently his brother, their friend and Elon got diluted out during later funding rounds. They squeezed his take down to a "measly" $20 million.

At least that's what I've read (it's also probably the reason he started all over again with X.com which eventually morphed into PayPal).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "we borrowed protocols, formats and even code from the world wide web project ... our goal:easy to use, fun graphical front end"

It's a classic university commercialization effort:take ip from university for some important problem, integrate it together and give it a commercial appeal, and sell.

But it's not as easy as writing some crud site.

</comment><comment><USER8> Be real with yourself: Cleverness is a finite resource, even yours. Leverage it in the most efficient way possible.

(So alpha-geek pissing matches are clearly a waste. Everything should be focused towards furthering your company's goals while avoiding bugs and making refactoring easier.)

<comment><USER9> It takes all kinds. The world would be a duller place if all of us were chasing current goals.

<comment><USER8> Note: I never said "current." 2nd and 3rd order goals are fine and sometimes require cleverness.

<comment><USER9> Alpha geek matches are often about people arriving at problems that are not widely realised.

<comment><USER8> We are vehemently agreeing here, seemingly in part to defend the good name of alpha geeks everywhere. Alpha-geek behavior isn't going to go away. It's such a potent force, a company better damned well harness it for its own good. Otherwise, it's like a rocket without a dependable guidance system. To neglect this is to court disaster.

(Even better, an Alpha Geek better damned well harness it for her/his own enlightened self interest, or I won't work with them.)

(Or, did you just want me to say that Alpha Geeks are all just like saints? They often wish they were _kensei_.)

<comment><USER9> I think we are in agreement - the part about good companies finding a way to tap alpha geek energy rings very true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> oscar-the-horse Here's one of the quotes from the video (Marc): "We tried really hard not to invent anything new. And we also tried not to solve any hard problems. Which makes it a lot easier to actually get something done"

</comment><comment><USER10> Note that he is talking about NCSA Mosaic, not Netscape

</comment><comment><USER11> _There's an ongoing debate about whether startups should focus on harder problems._

Is there a really a debate or am I missing something? This is honestly the first thing I have seen supporting _not_ solving a problem.

Really I think there is a place for both. He mentions avoiding the problem of search, which happened to be the foundation of a particularly successful company.

<comment><USER12> > Really I think there is a place for both.

There is, but the sense is that things have shifted out of proportion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Netscape no longer exists as a company (or meaningful subdivision of AOL) so that might not have been the best strategy. Copying got them ahead quickly but didn't keep them there.

<comment><USER14> Poor business decisions and copying by a competitor is what killed Netscape.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> My favorite part of the video is when he advanced the slide, and you realize you are looking at an overhead project with printed transparency instead of PowerPoint.

1994, simpler times.

</comment><comment><USER16> Seems pretty standard for a commercializer. The goal is to take some existing research funded by someone else (out of a university usually, though sometimes a corporate lab or government lab) and turn it into a product with the minimum additional modifications.</comment>


Show HN: Create an app for your event for free - <AUTHOR> https://chapsule.com <comment><AUTHOR> I used to organize a lot of small events (under 50 people; $10 tickets). We used a bunch of different tools to help enhance the event like Sarahah for live Q&A, Google Forms to collect feedback, Eventbrite to sell tickets, FB event page to relay information.

It worked okay but the problem with having a bunch of different tools was trying to convince our attendees to hop on all these platforms to participate. Waiting for people to load up Sarahah, enter the code,and start to ask questions added friction to our event.

The solution is to have a centralized platform with all the tools built in so there's no problem with onboarding. Currently that exists in the form of event apps but event apps are really expensive (thousands of dollars) so we couldn't afford them for our small events.

That's why I'm creating Chapsule - a self-serve platform to create your own event app. The goal is to eventually get it to a state where the platform is robust & customizable enough to service ALL types of events (conference, meetups, parties)</comment>


Ask HN: About launching a .FM music web service - <AUTHOR>

I'm interested in targeting a niche music genre and my goal is to make at least $100/year to help pay for the FM domain. I was wondering what would be the best way to get some sort of revenue?<p>Please not that I don't want to clutter my site with too much ads. Thanks! <comment><USER2> Your question is kinda lacking details but maybe you could post reviews of albums or artists in this genre and if their music is on iTunes or Amazon's music store you could post an affiliate link in your review. This way if they purchase it through your site you get a small kick back.</comment>


Introducing Google One - <AUTHOR> https://one.google.com/getupdates <comment><USER2> Comments moved to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067168](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17067168).</comment>


'Contagious' wi-fi virus created by Liverpool researchers - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-26352439

<comment><USER2> Interesting, but it still relies on the default username and password on the router. I think this points at a glaring hole in router security, why aren't password and username changes forced on the first bootup of the device? Having the password as "changeme" is not good enough for your everyday user, they are very unlikely to ever use them without being forced so will plain not know they are meant to at all.

<comment><USER3> FWIW, the last few routers I've had (supplied by UK ISPs) have had random admin passwords set by default, printed onto a sticker.

<comment><USER4> The random admin passwords would be great if they weren't also leaving in backdoors.

[https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Xmlset_roodkcableoj28840ybtide](https://wikidevi.com/wiki/Xmlset_roodkcableoj28840ybtide) [https://github.com/elvanderb/TCP-32764](https://github.com/elvanderb/TCP-32764)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like a worm, not a virus.

Technically correct, the best kind of correct.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think it makes nice story but I would be very surprised if such a virus could spread. You have many router brands and versions and you would need to develop and test your firmware on many of those to make sure it can spread. Also, correct me if I am wrong but not many routers have easy way of uploading new firmware.

<comment><USER7> Well, base your virus partially on DD-WRT or any other open source router OS and you're in the game. Consumer routers usually have a button "upload new firmware" somewhere in the administrative web UI.

<comment><USER8> You do know that there's more than one hardware platform for routers, right?

<comment><USER9> You'd be surprised how similar they are, at least the consumer versions.

<comment><USER8> Ok, so you have a lot of stuff based on similar SoCs and common platforms like MIPS (although ARM is in use it tends to be more low power on consumer routers, broadcom's MIPS certainly is the major player). However most of the routers have different components, memory configurations and here's the bit that kills random firmware upgrades: Different Memory Technology Device (MTD) layouts. Think of this a little like partition layouts. The flash upgrade process will vary by vendor and will often flash MTDs of specific sizes. If the sizes don't match, it won't work or worse it'll brick the device.

Source: 2 years ago I spoke at Blackhat EU on breaking into MiFi hotspots[1] and I've been breaking Linux-based hardware devices since about 2011.

[1] - [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZAjtxmxTkg](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ZAjtxmxTkg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Terrible article, I expected more from the BBC. Basically "stuff you should be afraid of but we won't explain how it works or provide links to the original work."

Here's the link to the research, which is primarily concerned with methods of detecting AP-AP viruses, the actual Chameleon virus seems to be just some kind of proxy to test spread and detection of real viruses.

[http://jis.eurasipjournals.com/content/2013/1/2](http://jis.eurasipjournals.com/content/2013/1/2)

</comment><comment><USER11> It's an episode of Doctor Who!</comment>


Ask HN: More Sites Like Gwern.net? - <AUTHOR> Falling in love with the writing style and the quality of research at gwern.net. wanting to find more sites that offer similar experiences or maybe something completely different but still intriguing. <comment><USER2> There is no place quite like Gwern's. But still, for interesting hypertext, perhaps see:

* [https://meaningness.com](https://meaningness.com)

* [https://philosopher.life](https://philosopher.life)

* [https://ribbonfarm.com](https://ribbonfarm.com)

* [https://nadiaeghbal.com](https://nadiaeghbal.com)

* [https://subpixel.space](https://subpixel.space)

* [https://slatestarcodex.com](https://slatestarcodex.com) (adjacent to gwern somehow)

I make it my business to dig up sites like these. [https://kickscondor.com](https://kickscondor.com)

</comment><comment><USER3> Similar thread from a few days ago with good responses.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21928170](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21928170)</comment>


Links between coffee and health - <AUTHOR> http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2015/09/how-coffee-loves-us-back/ <comment><USER2> This is a difficult topic to study properly, because:

\- Coffee consumption is not uniform throughout the population. For example, I'm willing to wager that people that eat a lot of truffles and Beluga caviar are among the healthiest and longest living people in the world. Anyone care to wager why?

\- Long term controlled studies on human subjects are tricky. Can you imagine taking 100 people at random (not volunteers!) and forcing half to drink coffee, and half not to drink coffee for 30 years?

\- Plausible mechanisms are always incredibly easy to postulate since we still have lots of things we do not understand about the human metabolism.

Unless the effect is very, very strong, observational studies are going to be rife with false positives and spurious correlations due to Simpson's paradox. Ignore this awful article, and almost all dietary advice in this vein.

<comment><USER3> These are fine points, but if we factor in the probability that researchers carrying out these studies took them into account, we don't need to ignore "almost all dietary advice in this vein."

<comment><USER2> I would agree with this if researchers were not under insane pressure to produce findings (as opposed to understanding).

If a researcher designs a great experiment, but after collecting and analyzing all the data comes to the conclusion that there is no link between eating chocolate and health, then she will a horrible time publishing it in a respected science journal, even if that's what the data says.

<comment> lloyd-christmas I strongly disagree. The vast majority of published articles I stumble across conclude with "we didn't find anything". They are published in journals, but almost never make it into The Times. I'm definitely not saying research pressure doesn't exist or doesn't have an impact on research quality, but I think selection bias is hard at work here.

<comment><USER4> "We didn't find anything" is fine for a random journal (there is a saying in academia that everything gets published eventually), but that's not going to get you into Cell, Nature, or Science, or a similarly top-tier venue. That's where the stress lies, and why negative results are pointedly lacking in the literature.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From wikipedia's caffeine article: "Caffeine can increase blood pressure and cause vasoconstriction.[37][38][39] Long term consumption at sufficiently high doses has been associated with chronic arterial stiffness.[39] Coffee and caffeine can affect gastrointestinal motility and gastric acid secretion.[40][41][42]

Caffeine increases basal metabolic rate in adults.[43][44][45] In postmenopausal women, high caffeine consumption can accelerate bone loss.[46][47]"

I wonder how partial this article and/or harvards caffeine research is..

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Side_effects](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caffeine#Side_effects)

<comment><USER6> Yet, my grandfather and his friends drank it--coffee--their entire lives, and they all died in their late 90s. A few of them also smoked.

We all know it is a combination of things: the food you eat, how active you are, the air you breathe, the work you do, etc.

<comment><USER7> I agree. If you eat Mc Donald's all day, but drink X cups of coffee, it wouldn't make a difference.

<comment><USER8> A hamburger made at home is no better than McDonald's if you eat them every day too McDonald's is just a restaurant no the Devil.

<comment><USER9> I disagree. A hamburger you make at home is unlikely to contain the crap that is in a McDonald's burger. If you get actual meat, add a few veggies and a whole wheat bun then a burger can become an excellent meal.

It's even better if you skip the fries.

<comment><USER10> I'd trust McDonald's buns and meat to contain LESS preservatives and other bizarre compounds than a pack of burger bread and patties that I'd pick up at my local grocery store. The main reason is that McDonald's is a well-oiled supply-chain machine with (probably) low storage durations for the various ingredients, whereas consumer grocery products can suffer weeks on a store shelf before purchase. The second reason (also just speculation) is that the intensity of regulatory agencies' scrutiny of McDonald's ingredients (especially with regard to meat) would dwarf that of the small packages I would be able to buy for a barbeque.

I believe in staying away from foods high in lipids in general, but fast food burgers don't scare me. It's fries and pizzas that I abhor.

<comment><USER9> I wasn't talking about store bought burgers. They may or may not be as bad as a McDonald's burger. Get the meat, add some spices(and maybe Worcester sauce) and you'll have your own delicious patty. The whole thing takes around 15 mins and you can customize any part of the process.

However, I agree with your point that there are healthier food options out there if you have the choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> To me this reads like a sponsored article/advert. The research wreaks of the type that is sponsored by a corporate/brand who would benefit from improved public perception of coffee.

<comment><USER12> Oh so you have some good sources about negative literature about coffee? because I'd certainly like to see some if you are knowledgeable about that.

I don't see why "drinking coffee is good" is any more controversial than "eating fruits is good". When people talk about the benefits of fruit juices do you accuse them of sponsorship ?

<comment><USER13> That's a bad examples. Whole fruits are obviously healthier. but juices have almost as much sugar as coke because they are so concentrated and lack fiber which is actually what makes fruits so healthy in the first place.

<comment><USER12> Well if you dont want to talk about fruit, then talk about Tea. There's about zero debate about tea being not healthy, and I don't see massive differences between a tea-based drink and a coffee based drink - they actually have lots of commonalities.

<comment><USER14> "Healthy" is such an abstract concept that it's really not a useful metric, though.

Even if we say "healthy" means a prevention of disease and/or a longer lifespan, tea still needs the "in moderation" addendum. Fluorosis is common among people who drink large quantities of certain types of green tea, for example, and fruit juice could obviously contribute to diabetes. Having one alcoholic drink a night has a lot of measured benefit that disappears when you pass 2 drinks.

In other words, "healthy" (as defined above) is not an attribute of just the substance but also the quantity and duration and a bunch of other important things.

Which is why "_____ is good for you!" can be generally discarded as standalone advice.

<comment><USER15> > and fruit juice could obviously contribute to diabetes

not only that, Steve Jobs' obsession with fruit juices has been speculated to have caused or contributed to his pancreas cancer _.

_ [http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/soy- alert/veganthi...](http://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/soy- alert/veganthink-dr-john-mcdougall-explains-the-death-of-steve-jobs/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The video and research highlights imply that 2 or more cups a day is more beneficial but personally I feel the dependency created by such large amounts of caffeine would outweigh the benefits. Even at one cup a day an interruption such as travel causes withdrawal symptoms such as headaches. That means you'd have to always bring coffee with you or stay within easy reach of a cafe. Not much fun when your travel or activities don't include daily time out for coffee.

<comment><USER17> That seems a bit overwrought.... In my experience (and anecdotally from friends), the withdrawal symptoms are real, but not particularly severe.

For me it's just very mild (as in I barely notice) headaches and a vague under-the-weather feeling; to others I probably seem a bit grumpy. After a day or two of abstaining, the symptoms disappear.

Sure, it's vaguely annoying, but nothing more. When I travel or something and end up not drinking coffee for a while, it's simply not an issue.

<comment><USER18> For me symptom were extremely severe over several weeks. In end, I could quit coffee for good.

Recently, I had some stomach troubles and doctor told me to cutback or completely stop drinking coffee to help stomach heal.

I decided to go cold turkey. Figured it would speed up recovery. A bad mistake. Headaches and irritation was easy to control and disappeared within couple of days. But my body is so dependent on caffeine. I had constipation, I could not motivate myself to go workout in evenings, I felt the world was moving at different pace than me. I just felt all sorts of wrong and I keep on thinking it was just a pace it pass soon.

Finally, I could not take it. Went back to drinking as much coffee as I needand life is great now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> _"That first cup of coffee in the morning is happiness." Chopra said. "It's a real joy."_

That's what I thought. The I went through a rough patch with no money as a student and couldn't afford it. The first two weeks taught me that it was actually a monkey on my back. I can't think of a better term but I felt like boiled shit.

I only drink water now.

<comment><USER20> How poor do you have to be that you can't afford coffee? Maybe not the $5 a cup starbucks bullshitaccino, but you can get a cheap electric drip pot and a month's worth of grounds for $20.

<comment><USER21> You don't even need the drip pot, you can always make it on the stove like my grandparents...

<comment><USER22> Of course, that presumes they either have skillz or some willingness and ability to get them. These days, a lot of people seem dependent upon microwave meals and fast food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The cochrane collaboration have a nice document about what we know about caffeine and health.

[http://www.evidentlycochrane.net/caffeine-and-health- evidenc...](http://www.evidentlycochrane.net/caffeine-and-health-evidence- from-cochrane/)

It's a short list.

</comment><comment><USER24> > A mathematician is a device for turning coffee into theorems.

Said by Alfréd Rényi about his friend Paul Erdos.

<comment><USER25> Erdos was on serious high test, Benzedrine. He quit for a while but said his math suffered too much.

<comment><USER24> Yes, I saw that too. But amphetamines have some nasty side effects.

Methamphetamine was the standard military "go pill" for decades. Then dextroamphetamine. Now there's interest in modafinil, which has milder side effects.[0,1]

[0] [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22764609](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22764609)

[1] [http://goflightmedicine.com/stimulants-sleep- aids/](http://goflightmedicine.com/stimulants-sleep-aids/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It seems that some people use coffee as, say, a stimulant to try to deal with ADHD. I wonder how much this self-medication impacts the results. Perhaps unusually, I recently did a little self-inventory and decided to consciously up my coffee consumption. At this point it seems to have a good effect on my ability to concentrate, and I could see this improving other health outcomes as it increases follow-through on exercise etc. (Caffeine may also reduce DOMS symptoms, again allowing for more exercise. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24164961](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24164961))

</comment><comment><USER27> Algorithm: studies published in even number months say coffee is good for you. Odd number, bad for you.

</comment><comment><USER28> I love coffee, I drink atleast 2 cups a day, I love hearing that coffee is good for me, but it still makes me wonder if any of this information about coffee is misinformation. After all, doctors and scientists are human.. for instance, [http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/smoking/smoking...](http://img.timeinc.net/time/photoessays/2008/smoking/smoking_01.jpg)

<comment><USER12> Doctors tend to be actually heavy smokers, from my experience. I have talked about this with a couple of them and they say that it helps them facing the stress of their everyday duties - even though they are aware of the health risks.

<comment><USER29> In the U.S. at least, doctors smoke at a _much_ lower rate than the general population. It might be that they stand-out more when smoking if you know that they are physicians.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a pretty interesting article, and there's been a lot of positive research regarding coffee consumption in the past few years. I am a coffee fanatic, and hope that my three cups a day will lead me to a longer life.

I have a lot of ideas for future directions of study regarding coffee: my primary interest is teasing the health impacts of espresso beans vs regular beans in varying roast states, if there are any such differences. Additionally, I wonder if there's any studies on the social impact of coffee consumption. I take most of my coffee alone, but I used to have a raucous coffee group a few years back, and it's well understood that social interaction is good for your health. I also wonder if there's any studies which examine the rates and contexts/reasons that people in different professions consume coffee. All of the lawyers/scientists/doctors/software engineers I know tend to always have a cup in hand-- especially the doctors.

</comment><comment><USER31> > repeatedly that none of the patients with liver ailments drank coffee

I did a time-management course, a part of which required writing down how I spend my work hours. I saw an hourly cycle of get coffee, work 1 hour, pee, repeat. If i was drinking enough water to pee hourly my liver may also be great!

</comment><comment><USER32> I love tea and coffee, albeit tea more which is why I created a tea blend (disclaimer: I run actiontea.com).

Seeing studies and science like this makes me wonder though. People do know that coffee and tea is healthy for them, so why use it still in advertisment?

Smoking is bad for people, yet people do not need convincing to continue consumption.

Is it an additional argument for you when you're buying coffee or tea, that it's healthy for you?

</comment><comment><USER33> Surprised they don't mentioned anxiety. I cut back on caffeine because I seem to get anxiety for no reason when I have too much.

I started to drink more tea, but annoyingly I have kidney stones and tea has a lot of oxalate. No such problem with coffee.

<comment><USER34> You can use coffee topically.

<comment><USER35> It is advisable to let it cool first though. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Coffee is addictive, takes time to make and consume, and costs money. Even if you make it cheaply at home, this is still money and time you would not need to spend if you were not addicted to it. The more often you drink it, the more you need to drink it every day in order to feel normal. You get to the point to where you need to make it a part of your morning routine. Our lives are complicated enough without it. What happens when you have one of those mornings where you simply don't have time to make coffee? You have to buy some somewhere, which is even more time consuming and expensive and typically creates temptation to buy a less healthy coffee. Coffee is acidic. It kills the good bacteria in your gut, which goes against the very core of taking care of your health. Because it quickly gives you an energy jolt, it is an addictive drug. Any time you introduce a drug like that into your body, your body adjusts to it. Whatever body function was necessary to achieve the affect the drug does for you starts doing less work, which always has bad side effects because it goes against how your body is designed. Caffeine consumption negatively affects your sleep, which is another key to health. Most people feel that as long as they don't consume it too late in the afternoon, it does not affect their sleep. But what happens when you regularly consume an addictive drug that gives you an energy jolt? Over time you need more and more of it to feel normal. Eventually you will need at least a small amount of it in the afternoon in order to not feel exhausted and be able to continue to be a productive, happy person into the late afternoon and evening. If want to, go ahead and believe these studies conducted by people you don't know, who haven't earned your trust. Believe that they conducted it in an intelligent and controlled way. Believe that they interpreted the results correctly. Believe that it is totally impossible that someone paid someone to get the results they wanted to publish. Or you can become in tune with your own body and reason about experiences you have had and will have.

<comment><USER37> Fortunately its relatively cheap, universally available, and extremely effective. It could be considered the best, simplest performance drug possible.

As for emotional arguments about 'going against your body' that's religion. Your body was designed to resist constant parasitic infestation, never be washed and exercise hard every day, all day. Who wants to live that way? You could consider 3 meals a day as 'going against your body'.

<comment><USER38> The problem is we when live less and less in the way our bodies were designed.

For example, we were built to receive all sorts of positive side effects from exercise. If you don't exercise at all you lose those benefits. It's doable -- many people don't exercise -- but it's a loss to be sure.

Another example, using your three meals... We were not built to be eating as much as most of us do as consistently as we do. Take one look around you and see how many people are headed in the direction of obesity.

When you combine the eating and the exercise you get a deadly combination.

And there are other examples of "going against the grain," which when taken individually are not hugely detrimental but when you add them up they are harmful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> In other news, 4 out of 5 doctors agree that smoking Camel cigarettes is good for the throat!

</comment><comment><USER40> Define "cup". How many grams of ground coffee is that?

</comment><comment><USER41> Coffee is awesome. If you don't love it and appreciate a good brew, you're missing out on life.

</comment><comment><USER42> Correlation doesn't mean causation.</comment>


Ask HN: Tools for recording product ideas - <AUTHOR>

I am looking for tools to document and present product ideas. I will be using them mainly to share ideas with hackers, but occasionally with others as well, so impressiveness is definitely a criterion. Presentations are too lame and mindmaps are too abstract. I liked prezi but not the pricing plans. Suggestions for alternatives? <comment><USER2> One part of my idea tool kit is def balsamiq mockups :) / other than that - evernote is good ,drop box or base camp - but as far as one tool ... perhaps that should be your one idea.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use Microsoft OneNote for jotting down my ideas. I found it pretty fuctional and free flowing for my use. I can also just output a project notebook as a PDF and send it over.

I am proud of whoever at MS made that piece of app.... for some reason it feels different than any of their other stuff.

<comment><USER3> Although Evernote is also pretty good i heard.

<comment><USER4> I like Evernote because it's free, and makes good use of tags and web publishing/sharing. Yet, it's got a long ways to go to catch up to OneNote in terms of the user interface behavior on Windows.

The interface for the EN native app on Windows feels a lot like (what I imagine the reality is) that they've got other priorities than to make it feel perfect. It's glitchy, the keyboard shortcuts aren't very good, it doesn't remember sorts, it doesn't sync with the share quite as cleanly as I'd like, etc.

Ctrl+Shift+B to start a bulleted list? Really? In a note taking app? What's wrong with detecting an asterisk?

They'll get there-- Evernote is great for adding neat features to it that OneNote will never have (e.g. "View in Google Earth"), but what I really want first is a smoother note-taking experience and I'd happily trade out some of the fun integration features.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use paper and a pen. But anything that I don't plan on using right away goes on <http://folist.com> \-- It's simple, but works.

<comment><USER6> I've just tried creating an account and logging in to folist, but I get the "You don't have a board" page, and then nothing happens. Am I doing something wrong? There doesn't seem anyone to ask, any links to click ...

I'm confused.

<comment><USER5> Hm. Did you try clicking "Create a New Board"?

<comment><USER6> Yup. Nothing happened.

I've never got Linux to work with the wireless on my laptop, so I'm booting into a secure(ish) version of Windows. I'm using IE7.

I wonder if it would work with Firefox or Chrome or something else. It's not working for me with this setup.

I'll try it later with a proper browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I use a firefox plugin called "Pencil" to make GUIs and design interactions. For more complex stuff I go back and forth between DIA and Paint.NET (a graphics editor.)

The first is good for designing networks and servers, as you can draw lines between "nodes" and the lines snap into place. The second is good because it has layers. I put each object in a separate layer for maximum ease of use.

<comment><USER8> Dia has layers too. See Diagram -> Layers.

[Says the Dia contributor :)]

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I usually just use a text file (Textmate is my editor of choice) to create a spec sheet describing what my idea is and how it works. From there I share that planning doc with my partner and we start making mockups together (or more likely, she does, since my Photoshop skills suck). If I need to make a mockup for her to clarify something in the text file, I use Photoshop, or since my Photoshop skills suck, pen and paper (not that my pen and paper drawing skills are any better).

No wow factor, but it works for us.

To present ideas to people on the outside, I usually just do it verbally or via email. You should be able to explain your idea in relatively simple terms using nothing but words, imho. Again, no wow factor, but it works for us.

</comment><comment><USER10> I like to explore my ideas verbally and wish I had a better way to refer back to those audio brainstorms which I sometimes record. One problem is that the audio file is rarely "tight" in terms of signal-to-noise, which makes review tedious. It would be nice if I could cheaply outsource that work to a secretary type who would listen to my rantings and just return to me the salient bits, eliminate the pauses or maybe just transcribe what I say. I've looked into CastingWords but can't justify their prices (~$120 to transcribe a 90-minute recording, 2+ weeks ETA). I think there are strong opportunities for service developers in this space.

</comment><comment><USER11> I personally use Things (<http://culturedcode.com>) with a simple "Projects" project created to dump them in. (at least, for directly recording)

However, I also use a whiteboard to scribble stuff on and these can be a great solution for presenting ideas, especially if you can add to them as you present.

I would suggest Balsamiq Mockups too, especially for drawing up interfaces, although you might find that using a "thinner" solution better for you. (Mostly related to the size of the elements in Balsamiq.

<comment><USER12> I've been using Things to keep track of ideas as well.

Actually, I've started using things for all kinds of notes and code snippets. I love it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> whiteboard + beer

<comment><USER14> A camera might be in order for some sort of record keeping. Though if too much beer is involved then you might not want the record.

<comment><USER15> We used this software when it was originally Pixid Whiteboard Photo to capture some complex whiteboards.

The whiteboard photo software cleans up the glare/angle to present the whiteboard as a 2-d flat drawing. You can download a free trial.

[http://www.polyvision.com/ProductSolutions/WhiteboardPhotoSo...](http://www.polyvision.com/ProductSolutions/WhiteboardPhotoSoftware/tabid/284/Default.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Hacker News? Seems like you are using it for that now.

</comment><comment><USER17> vim ~/ideas.txt

<comment><USER18> cat ~/ideas.txt

thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Blank piece of paper and a pen.

</comment><comment><USER20> I like Omnisio , nothing beats a screencast of a prototype</comment>


A TV Anchor Tries to Gift Bitcoin On Air, Is Immediately Robbed - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/a-tv-anchor-tries-to-gift-bitcoin-on-air-is-immediatel-1488636715?utm_campaign=socialflow_gizmodo_facebook&utm_source=gizmodo_facebook&utm_medium=socialflow

<comment><USER2> That's 1.0 technology for you. When will the fanboys admit that current BitCoin is absolutely flawed for mainstream adoption? Please down vote me.

<comment><USER3> He showed his private key on live television, this is hardly a typical scenario.

<comment><USER4> The general consumer doesn't know a damn thing about private keys.</comment></comment></comment>


AI-enhanced journalism offers a glimpse of the future of the knowledge economy - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/artificial-intelligence-enhanced-journalism-offers-a-glimpse-of-the-future-of-the-knowledge-economy-117728 <comment><USER2> The hate bubbles up inside me when I read this. I read an article by the late Robert Parry, describing the meticulous work he did combing through records in presidential libraries to uncover important stories. Then to read the assertion that a machine will do "journalism" is maddening.

<comment><USER3> Meticulous work is what machines trend to be best at. The hard part for the machine would be figuring out what is importance it interest to readers.

<comment><USER2> No, repetitive work is what machines are best at. Meticulous implies attention to detail and nuance, exactly where machines fall down.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _> Humans still have an edge over non-Hollywood AI in several key areas that are essential to journalism, including complex communication, expert thinking, adaptability and creativity._

Bizarre sentence. The phrase 'non-Hollywood AI' reads as if the author were blithely suggesting that humans don't have such an edge over 'Hollywood AI'...</comment>