In future we will all work for Google: L.A. govmt - Google cloud? - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/technology/la-me-public-records17-2009jul17,0,7532216.story <comment><USER2> Google will probably do a better job in every way, including security, than the city of L.A. I'm sure leaks from city employees or people stealing physical paper will far outweigh any IT related leak.

The funniest thing about this article is it is supposed to scare you that L.A. is switching to google services, but the article mentions Washington D.C. is already doing it.

<comment><USER3> As someone who worked for the city of Los Angeles I doubt the security part of your claim is true. People assume the government system is so backwards that it must be inferior in every way but that backwards-ness actually makes it more secure because a lot of their documents aren't on a publicly available intranet. Their system is so antiquated that most transmissions are done via modems which, if you think about it, is more secure.

I'm not suggesting LA stay backwards for the sake of security. But once they jump into the world of putting docs on servers that can be accessed by the public there's going to be a lot of new risk involved. Google's security track record isn't exactly great ([http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/05/google- failings-say-lit...](http://broadcast.oreilly.com/2009/05/google-failings-say- little-about-cloud-computing.html)) which makes me question the wisdom of trusting them simply because they're the cheapest option.

Put it this way. Next time you're bidding on a contract against a guy who will do anything to win how secure will you feel knowing all your private records (medical, divorce, business) are housed on Google Docs?</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you like to have local communities for remote workers? - <AUTHOR> We are testing an idea of developing communities in different places in Europe, here's the first try: http://nomadclub.co/ In case your answer could be yes, what do you think the website should have and what do you think it'd be important for the service to provide? would you use it? we're happy to take any feedback! :) <comment><USER2> I don't see anything that is particularly tuned to remote work. While I think there might be some market for something like this, as a business I would consider targeting the service toward enterprise rather than individuals because:

1\. Enterprise is less price sensitive.

2\. A single sales transaction can be for many remote workers in many locals.

3\. It is easier to identify sales leads among corporations than individual remote workers.

4\. It is hard to see a bottom line financial benefit for an individual remote worker.

Good luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you, I think you are making a very good point here, We will test that out, definitely!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hmmmm, I believe the having communities would be nice, but it will probably be difficult in the beginning, I would add pricing to your website since it doesn't say anything and I would also make it easier to buy directly (e-commerce)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we want to make it into an e-commerce with a clear pricing included, this is our first sketch and we wanted to prove it could be a good idea, thanks for your comment, we will definitely follow that line!

<comment><USER3> Then ok, I didn't know it was that early stage, but yeah, gather feedback, improve it, get feedback again and repeat this process for as long as needed.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I agree, we wanna test everything out before we offer our exact solution, we started out during Christmas time with this project and we believe is something that can definitely give value to it's potential users.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Tale of Two Moons: Peter Lik's Photographs Called Out by Science - <AUTHOR> https://fstoppers.com/critiques/tale-two-moons-peter-liks-photographs-called-out-science-218194 <comment><USER2> I really can't stand compositing in natural-looking photographs. If you're going for surrealism, or abstract, or some other synthetic aesthetic, or you're fulfilling a commercial contract like make the product look good, then go for it. Composite away. But when I see a photo that looks like a natural scene, and then I find out it was composited, I lose respect for that "photographer."

Why? Because the emotional power of a photograph is in the implicit promise that it captures and portrays a real moment in time--not just in matters of technical merit like color, composition, and sharpness. What makes a strikingly original natural photo impressive is the effort that it takes to really capture that moment.

Gluing a moon into the background of a nice photo is like walking around wearing a Google t-shirt and telling people you founded Google. It's fake. And it's not fair to the people who really did the thing you're claiming.

You can tell the matter of authenticity is important because of how many photographers lie about their compositing work. If compositing is indeed a valid artistic technique, why not lead with that in the title or photo description? But so many people and institutions, even very top folks like National Geographic or Art Wolfe, have failed to disclose compositing--and that's done on purpose. Even worse are folks (like apparently Peter Lik, based on this reporting) who invent stories (i.e. tell a lie) about the personal efforts they went through to get a particular photo.

Folks, please: don't composite natural-looking photos. And if you do, be 100% honest and up front about doing so.

<comment><USER3> I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the article.

Compositing used to recreate what an observer at the right place and time would see is ok by me. Again, if disclosed.

Creating an impossibly sharp and smooth moon, not oriented correctly and _in front_ of clouds... might as well put a howling wolf silhouette too.

<comment><USER4> > I have a lower bar: don't composite an impossible image. And if you > composite, don't claim the opposite like Lik is quoted as claiming in the > article.

I have an even lower bar: compositing impossible images is perfectly fine[0], just don't lie about it.

[0] There are plenty of interesting and thought-provoking visuals to be had there. A few years back there were compositions of gas giants instead of the moon which were interesting and beautiful, also the discussions of taking the picture quick before the entire scenery is torn apart by tides were funny

<comment><USER5> Agreed! I don't mind crazy composites at all. I like looking at all kinds of photography. I hate that he tries to claim its not composited. That seems impossible considering the clouds appear to be behind the moon. Also, how long of lens would be needed for that kind of compression? Seems impossible to have something that sharp at that kind of length. Several things point to a composite IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The moon in front of clouds... that is all you need to know right there.

It is an aesthetically beautiful photo, but it seems difficult to appreciate once that feature is noticed.

Early scientists in the pre-telescope era (I forget who), actually used the fact that clouds only appear in front of the moon to determine that it was a distant object.

<comment><USER7> I think it's important to note that the clouds are behind _and_ in front of the moon. I suppose some clouds could look like they were behind the moon if they are thin enough and the moon bright enough to punch through them.

<comment><USER8> Not sure why your comment got downvoted. It's wrong, but raises a good point not previously addressed. Clouds can be thin enough so that their presence is undetectable against the "noisy" surface of the Moon. But that's not what's going on in this photo for two reasons. 1) The clouds are obviously too thick, and 2) the clouds would be illuminated by the Moon, with the brightness falling off exponentially further from the Moon. Also, the Moon's illumination would be the same color as the Moon (barring light pollution).

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I wasn't saying I think the photo is real, just that the clouds looking like they're behind the moon isn't such a telltale sign that it _is_ fake.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Thanks for posting this link!

I don't care at all if a photograph from a photographer whom I've never heard of is a composite, but today I learned about the location of the moon North Pole, moon libration, and moon roll, and that's really cool.

</comment><comment><USER8> There are lots of "lies" told with fine art photography. I'd see a photo of a cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the photographer had to wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to photograph it that well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch from a nice tree and put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another large photo as the background. I use a similar technique with macro photography, bringing bugs into my kitchen and creating a small scene for them. Yet, even when I tell people how they were done, they're still impressed. And I'm still impressed by good bird photos, as well as photos taken with many other "tricks" I've learned.

But I think there's a clear difference in what Lik has done here and all of the other styles of tricks. It doesn't have anything to do with "in camera" vs. Photoshop. I can take an impressive photo of a spider standing on a sheet of paper, the scene I set up is more to avoid adding distracting things into the photo rather than to "lie" to the viewer. Also, virtually every photo you've seen of the Milky Way with a clear foreground view is a composite, but it's a composite of at least one, possibly two impressive photos that could stand on their own.

When you look at Lik's photo in the linked article, the individual photos are completely unimpressive in every way. The only thing that makes them impressive is the composite. The reality of it is, any rank amateur could have produced that photo. And I think that's way so many more people consider this type of "lie" worse than all of the other "lies" that appear in all types of photography.

<comment><USER10> > I'd see a photo of a cool bird in an awesome tree and wonder how long the > photographer had to wander around the woods to get close enough to a bird to > photograph it that well. Then I learned the trick was to cut off a branch > from a nice tree and put in on a tripod near a bird feeder with another > large photo as the background.

I have never heard of any photographer ever needing to do that. Could you please elaborate? I, as an amateur photographer (like really really amateur) can easily manage to shoot birds super close up.

[https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2](https://photos.app.goo.gl/hIhzs4WDhiBM0smE2)

<comment><USER8> You've got some good shots, but they're a bit grainy when you zoom in. With a staged scene you can use a flash or use the position of the Sun to make sure you have enough light so things don't turn out so grainy. I just Googled "Bird Photography Setup", and all of the top links had plenty of info about how it's done. Below is a video from a local (to me) guy, I learned of the technique from a colleague of his who he does workshops with.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeKEEUBMHyY)

<comment><USER10> >You've got some good shots, but they're a bit grainy when you zoom in.

That is because I have a cheap lens and don't use a full frame camera. It's as simple as that. My camera has twice the noise of a professional full frame camera. And using a professional lens would mean I can lower my ISO further reducing noise. I have shot with a 500 F/4\. Its incredible, but I can't justify buying a $9000 lens.

>With a staged scene you can use a flash or use the position of the Sun to make sure you have enough light so things don't turn out so grainy.

Sure, but that doesn't require a staged scene. I would just hang out with the setting/rising sun behind my back and shoot in a narrow 30 degree arc of where the light is the best. To your point, yes staged _anything_ is easier than spending hours finding the perfect shot. But I don't think what you're saying is indicative of how a professional or amateur bird photographer goes about producing their work. One other thing, rare birds don't just hang out in your backyard,, you have to go to them - they don't come to you - making staged photography almost impossible.

<comment><USER8> If that works for you, great. But I can attest that this absolutely is a method used by many professionals. I've since met dozens of people who make their living off of photography who use it.

For birds that don't come to bird feeders, there are other techniques. E.g. if you want to shoot bald eagles, you can go to lock and dam 14 on the Mississippi (Le Claire, Iowa). People use slingshots to shoot fish out into the river so the eagles will dive in close.

There are forums for birding groups to post where rare birds have been spotted hanging out. Photographers will "flock" there and bait the birds to get a shot. So, a bit of a combination of going to the bird and bringing it to you.

For a hobbyist, spending hours out in the woods, to maybe get a shot, maybe in descent lighting, might make for a fun, relaxing way to spend some time. But people counting on getting shots for a living are going to use whatever methods make them efficient. The "honest" photographers will get beat out of the market by competition.

<comment><USER10> I don't think its dishonest to increase your odds of taking a picture, and sorry if this sounds rude, but I don't believe you that baiting is mainstream/necessary/all that useful. We're just going in circles so there's no point in arguing. You have your opinion and I have mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was completely unaware of this photographer's work until an acquaintance mentioned that she wanted one of the photos as a gift from her partner. The impression I got at the time was there was an aspirational quality to owning one because they were very expensive.

She also wanted a Rolleiflex camera because that is what Lik uses.

I didn't think too much of the interaction until looking up details and finding the various allegations of fakery, and so forth.

I see a great deal of similarity between Lik's work and marketing and Thomas Kincade. And all that's fine and good, and people can spend their money on what they want.

But the statement Lik made about "pressing the shutter" (sic) makes me a little bit sad and angry. Leave aside the "false-advertising" angle. I'm bothered equally by Lik setting up a scenario that's unrepeatable. Anyone wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is destined for disappointment.

<comment><USER10> >Anyone wishing to repeat what Lik claims to have done in a single shot is destined for disappointment.

Well, getting the right conditions with the right kind of cloud cover and light is equally improbable. Also, personally, I don't think that this shot is particularly difficult to achieve. Not identical, but very close is entirely possible.

<comment><USER11> I'd invite you to try to replicate the image on the left of the article, with the moon behind the cliff. Good luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The one of the left ("Moonlit Dreams") is just obviously fake-looking, to me, even before the article's tells. The clouds-behind-the-moon issue is pretty obvious, which might be twigging my "blatantly fake / videogame capture" detector.

To everyone saying "it's Art, they can do whatever they want" ... I think that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art that looks better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van. So the demands are a good bit higher once you're no longer claiming the implied authenticity of an actual photograph.

<comment><USER10> >I think that's true, but if that's your approach, then you need to make Art that looks better than something I'd airbrush on the side of a van.

Why? Art isnt't all about realism and never was.

<comment><USER12> I mean "not cheesy". I'm not talking about how realistic it is.

<comment><USER10> Either way, its a bad idea to define what art should/shouldn't be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The older photo, Bella Luna, also has the shadow of the moon darker than surrounding space, which is weird.

Or maybe that's possible. Am I wrong?

</comment><comment><USER14> Aren't there tools that can detect photo manipulation?

<comment><USER15> You can tell by the pixels and from having seen a few shops in your time.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can Uber drivers make money when pool rides are so cheap? - <AUTHOR> I've been taking Uber pool a lot lately.  Sometimes rides are as little as $4 and I go clear across town from SOMA all the way to the north end of the city.  How can they possibly make money on rides this cheap?  Lyft prices on the other hand are much higher, sometimes as much as 4x. <comment><USER2> If prices are surging here & there thru the day/night we are not making a dime. Uber's take on me is 25% (I WAS ONE DAY BELOW THE CUT OFF DATE TO BE AT THE 20% RATE) then wear & tear if you drive regularly would exceed 25-30% Then gas is +- 25% AND since we are "independent contractors we get 1099'ed & so at the end of the day we make no money. I enjoyed it at first but now that I look at the big picture after paying my taxes this year & all I can brag about is that I probably saved quite a few people DUI's & met some fun people along the way!

</comment><comment><USER3> "I asked if they considered to pay the driver more? [...] He then added that I must realize that they were not competing with Taxis for the drivers, but rather with Walmart."

[https://www.alexkras.com/my-interview-at-uber/](https://www.alexkras.com/my- interview-at-uber/)

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been driving my own car with/for uber for over a year now. I have the grandfathered 20% Uber share fee deal and driving for them is barely break even. For the past 6 months, I've posted signs facing the PAX, taped to the back of the front seat headrests that clues them in about Uber's misinformation campaign which convinced riders that the tip was included and that it was distributed to drivers. Also I printed out any of the numerous national magazine stories (U.S. News and World Report, for one) and stuffed them in one of the seat pouches for PAX to read. The tipping in some cases has been generous ($15-$20) and in others, just a few dollars. The tipping makes the Uber driver experience marginally profitable until something better comes along. Most PAX feel good about tipping once you diplomatically clue them in. Like some will say "nice car, very clean." That gives me the opportunity to thank them and say it helps by encouraging tips. They're all surprised at that until I explain that Uber is fighting to be the low cost rideshare—especially when compared to lift, which includes a tipping mechanism in their app. When the rider compares destination estimates—which may be materially the same—Uber wins it for them because they really believe that the tip is included and that you don't have to add it as you do in Lyft's app. This is another example of how the unscrupulous and immoral Uber continues to climb to the top on the backs of the drivers... who, trust me, are not getting rich and barely making expenses.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've seen many drivers complaining on Reddit as to how many trips are effectively a net loss once one includes things like wear & tear, much less opportunity cost.

Most drivers seem to loathe pool.

<comment><USER6> If you're using your own car, it's a losing proposition, unless you never drive in between rides, which is impossible because you have to drive unpaid to pick up the rider. Vehicle costs $0.61/mile to operate, ridesharing platforms pay $0.83-$0.88 per mile. So do the math, if you're driving more than 1/3 mile unpaid for every paid mile, there's a loss. Don't forget paying the vig to the Rideshare network of 20-35%.

I'm not factoring in the time component of the fare, because for average rides it is immaterial. In Los Angeles, Lyft pays $9/hr for regular Lyft and $6.60/hr for Lyft Line. Only when there's a rider in the car. So if you wait 3 minutes after drop off for the next request (like if it's busy and you aren't in an alligator pit of drivers competing for requests. You can also end up waiting an hour between rides if you're really unlucky or get taken outside of the hip zones where riders are plentiful), then take 3-10 minutes to arrive at the pick up, then give a typical ride of 5-6 minutes, your time payments are less than $5/hr. Possibly less than $1/hr.

The only way to eek out a slight profit is to rent a vehicle under a partnership and hit your ride quota to get the rental cost bonused back to you. At that point, your expense is fuel, and if you hypermile the right vehicle, the cost is about $.10/mile. Then on top of that, you need to win the lotto several times daily and get the vaunted long ride with a $12-$20 fare or $80-$90 if you hit the jackpot and you'll then be doing better than working in fast food. But don't forget there are plenty of unpaid miles. Getting back to your hot spots to increase ride count/decrease idle time, returning from the sticks after the jackpot ride, and driving home from the other side of the region when you're too tired to drive any more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Well isn't this multiplied by the number of people in the pool? What is the normal rate for such a ride? Is is four time cheaper than Lyft because they are taking four people?

Uber's gameplan is to dominate the app market so when self-driving cars are invented they can own every car on the road.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's Uber who loses money on those rides, not the drivers. They are trying to get you to use them, instead of the competition. If their strategy works then they can eventually start charging more because they'll be the only rideshare in town.

<comment><USER9> > It's Uber who loses money on those rides, not the drivers.

If you want to view it that way then it's both drivers and Uber that's losing money.

I do Lyft on the side over summer as a poor grad student. I only have 3 pool ride and those three the passenger didn't have to share any ride with anybody and I made less than if those ride were not pool.

You're also implying that in the long ride Uber will win if it works as if the speculative end will justify the mean.

Which, personally, I think a flaw and weird way of seeing it.

<comment><USER8> When Uber offers promotional discounts to first-time riders, does that discount come out of the driver's pay? I was just trying to say that what the customer pays and what the driver earns aren't always directly linked.

And you're putting words in my mouth. I didn't say the end justifies the means. I was speculating as to what Uber's goal is for subsidizing rides, rather than charging what they cost.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I use Lyft Line almost exclusively and they are only slightly pricier for me (vs Uber Pool. I always compare and take Lyft if it is under $2 more expensive).

</comment><comment><USER6> Are you comparing to Lyft or Lyft Line?

<comment><USER11> I was about to say, I live in the SOMA and the prices were about the same between Pool and Line last I checked (Started using Lyft exclusively recently).</comment></comment>


Do computers make us more safe or less safe? - <AUTHOR> https://blog.computationalcomplexity.org/2020/07/do-computers-make-us-more-safe-or-less.html <comment><USER2> >" _The drone on its own was going to bomb a car. But the human noticed that there were red roses on the car, so it was a wedding couple, not a terrorist. If a human had not been involved the drone may have killed an innocent just married couple!_ "

 _> This scene bothered me. It could EASILY be the other way around: the human wants to bomb and the drone (which has better vision) notices the roses. Or there may be many other ways that a computer could be BETTER than a human_

The issue with the rose isn't better vision but better contextualisation, creating a plausible narrative around what is seen that changes how to act. That's something at which humans vastly outperform machines, or even more strongly a skill machines don't at all possess. It could not be 'EASILY' the other way around, at least at the current levels of technology.

A human can always consult a machine for better raw vision or image classification, but no machine right now can substitute a human for these high level judgements. Maybe in a few decades when we have AGI or whatever, but then the distinction between machine and human is moot anyway.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most safety standards that address software's contribution to hazards use some notion of "controllability" to determine risk. For example, ISO 26262 explicitly calls it controllability [1], and it directly contributes to how rigorously the software functionality has to be tested.

MIL-STD 882E uses "Software control categories" that determine the risk introduced by software [2, page 15-17]. Since those definitions are hard to track, they also provide a table near the end that tries to be a little more specific [2, page 96].

In other words, the safety community already takes into account the need for human or mechanical intervention when it comes to risks introduced by software.

[1] [https://neweagle.net/how-iso-26262-2018-update-affects- you/](https://neweagle.net/how-iso-26262-2018-update-affects-you/) [2] [https://www.dau.edu/cop/armyesoh/DAU%20Sponsored%20Documents...](https://www.dau.edu/cop/armyesoh/DAU%20Sponsored%20Documents/MIL- STD-882E.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER4> Personally, I don't think computers make things more or less safe than any other tool or machine does. They fix some safety problems, while adding entirely different ones. Computers are tools like any other, they can be uses.safely or unsafely. It's the application of the tool, rather than the tool itself that is safe or unsafe.

Before anyone brings up guns, I realize they're an example of an inherently unsafe tool, they can be used safely, but this example of a tool designed for murder is not what I'm referring to. I meant more general purpose tools, which computers are. Though, as mentioned in the article, computers can be used for murder, it's not their primary intended purpose the way guns are.

</comment><comment><USER5> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23969257)

</comment><comment><USER6> Really depends upon the scope of "us", no?

For small values of "us", some bad error handling or a dodgy sensor can be fatal.

For larger values of "us", small amounts of "us" debris are so much stochastic noise.

MORAL: strive to be the one who gets to manage the definition of "us".</comment>


Show HN: Write down your goals&project, motivate yourself looking them everyday - <AUTHOR> http://i.imgur.com/M1veV.jpg I want to show you my desktop wallpaper, it worked for me and maybe it will also work for you. I made sort of list of logos of my startup projects, which were not realized 2 years ago, and iconic main goals, so seeing them everyday I don't forget them and concentrate on them.
In my opinion, startups should not be the main goals, but they must be the stepping stones for your main goals in this life. So, it's important to write down your goals, and motivate yourself, why you really want this startup(s) so hard.
Using this technique, I already found 3 of 5 my startup projects and they are very successful today.
P.S. if you want to ask which language on the wallpaper it is, it's azerbaijani. <comment><USER2> Great idea, could you release a PSD?

<comment><AUTHOR> yes of course, here it is. www.sciplex.com/wall.psd</comment></comment>


How to Sign Your Emails - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/02/AR2009080202073.html

<comment><USER3> I always always sign off using my first name now and _nothing else_. I've found this the best way :)

The only time I dont is on my work email when interacting with clients - <USER2> I use regards.

<comment><USER4> I do the same as well. Saves quite a bit of thinking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I always say "Rock out with your cock out," but only in formal contexts.

<comment><USER6> I always preferred "Erotically yours," in a business setting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What an obsessive waste of time and ink.

</comment><comment><USER8> In Norway, "mvh", an abbreviation for "med vennlig hilsen" (literally, "with friendly regards") is standard. I'm often asked how to translate that into business English, and I'm as stumped as everyone else. There doesn't seem to be an obvious choice.

<comment><USER9> "Kind Regards" is pretty common in English English, find this often on business missives.

I often use "sincerely", but never "yours sincerely" - I'm sincere but I'm not the chattel of the recipient.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to sign my emails the way Presidential candidates sign off on TV commercials:

I'm [enter my name here] and I approve of this message.

</comment><comment><USER11> We need a Washington Post article for this?

</comment><comment><USER12> Looking forward to seeing you on Web 3.0,

\--Jim

</comment><comment><USER13> I let my From: field do the signing.

</comment><comment><USER14> So this past year I was working some for LargeCorp and had the same question: how to sign off emails?

I really liked "V/R" or "VR" that the Navy uses, so I decided to go with that. But what about a tag line? A contact card? Some kind of indication of who I was and where I was working?

After some thought, I put together a V-Card with my contact information. Also, just to screw with people, I put a nice little latin quote at the end. I think the first one was "Sona si Latine loqueris"

Or translated, "Honk if you speak Latin"

Nobody spotted it.

Well since I got away with that, I couldn't let the experiment rest, so I changed my latin quote every month or so. I had "Age, catamite - fac mihi hunc diem felicissimum!" -- go ahead punk, make my day. I had "Te audire no possum. Musa sapientum fixa est in aure" -- I can't hear you, I have a banana in my ear. One of my favorites was "Utinam logica falsa tuam philosophiam totam suffodiant!" -- may faulty logic undermine your entire philosophy! Which, unfortunately, was true for many of my correspondents.

Nobody ever bothered to look this stuff up. I imagine as long as you're not directly insulting to the reader, it's not that big of a deal. (But if you're a bit of a prankster, there's some fun to be had!)

<comment><USER6> Do you actually know Latin, or are you using a translation service?

One of my signatures for the longest time was "Eta erat cuando hic adveni", which I believe means "It was like that when I got here", but I'd really like to get someone to verify that. (Someone who aced some difficult exam - GRE? GMAT? - proudly said they knew Latin, and were pretty stumped.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I was expecting this to be about digital signatures and was slightly disappointed when I found out it wasn't the case.

Silly me for assuming a technical issue would be addressed on Hacker News.</comment>


The Expanse has been cancelled by SyFy, lets hope they'll find a new home - <AUTHOR> http://deadline.com/2018/05/the-expanse-canceled-syfy-after-three-seasons-to-be-shopped-1202388026/ <comment><USER2> This is super disappointing. It's about the only scifi show in recent years I actually like.

Here's hoping Netflix picks it up.

<comment><USER3> I'm not so sure Netflix picking it up would be a good thing, I've really enjoyed this series and don't want to see it go down the drain. I hope someone does pick it up though, I don't want it to end.</comment></comment>


Geoengineering: The Billionaires' Guide to Hacking the Planet - <AUTHOR> https://psmag.com/ideas/the-billionaires-guide-to-hacking-the-planet <comment><USER2> Not sure what the agenda is here but this reads like a piece sponsored by rich people intended to test the waters in terms of public opinion.

I think that geoengineering should only ever be done by consensus not unilaterally and only when we have a really good idea of the consequences after all our current situation has been brought about by myopic views on new technology.

Stopped reading when the article diverged into an imaginary future.

No, thank you.

<comment><AUTHOR> > this reads like a piece sponsored by rich people intended to test the waters > in terms of public opinion.

I kinda doubt it. _Pacific Standard_ has a left-liberal editorial slant and is generally skeptical of billionaires. To the extent this piece has an agenda, it's probably to scare voters into taking action on climate change through democratic policy, or else risk the rich going rouge and poisoning the skies.</comment></comment>


Learn Programming by Doing with Code School - <AUTHOR> http://www.codeschool.com/

<comment><USER2> I consider myself something of an intermediate .Net guy who didn't think of trying Ruby on Rails much... but I'll admit that the set up for learning it presented here is interesting enough for me to change my mind about it!

</comment><comment><USER3> This is a cool concept--I think other professions need a bit of quirkiness in their training to make it this enjoyable!</comment>


Pyston 0.2, the LLVM-based Python JIT from Dropbox - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pyston.org/2014/09/11/9/

<comment><USER2> Really looking forward to Pyston, curious why they say they're targeting better performance in 0.3 and not finish up the language compatability from 0.2.

Also, does anyone know if GVR is involved in this at all? Seeing as he works for dropbox and all.

<comment><USER3> We could work on language compatibility forever :P

Guido advises but isn't actively involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> With this work with Dynd, Numpy scikit learn etc and arbitrary python extensions ? That would be amazing :p</comment>


CTVT – A contagious cancer that spreads from dog to dog - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/08/ctvt-tumor-broke-all-rules/595246/ <comment><USER2> This is widespread with street dogs (and "street" dogs) where I live in Mexico. It can get pretty nasty.

Female dogs will typically get tumor growths on the vagina, and at its worst will look like someone took a meat grinder to her parts. It will blow up in size and at some point the dog will succumb and die.

The male dog will get it in the penis, and typically will be caught sooner as bloody discharge from a male dog is something that raises a red flag quicker.

My mother-in-law has had 3 dogs get infected at different points in time, one female that had to be put down and two male that recovered.

<comment><USER3> That's sad, because it's trivially curable, supposedly. Man, if they'd snip those male dogs' with a vasectomy, what an improvement it would be...same here north of the mexico-us border.

<comment><USER4> Can't you just avoid this if you spay and neuter dogs?

<comment><USER2> Sure, but who pays for spaying and neutering the plethora of street dogs in the poorest states in Mexico? And many people have dogs without the means of paying for this (or any) kind of surgery.

Between us and my MIL we have 10 dogs, and all of them except one are fixed. I've made sure of that. I'm not able to win the argument over the last one, but it's old now anyways. The dogs she had that got sick was from before I was in the picture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Three weeks ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20590682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20590682) and [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20593109](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20593109).

One year ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489382](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17489382).

5 years ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7118621](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7118621).

</comment><comment><USER6> Coolest finding in the paper:

"Our analyses reveal a mutational signature, signature A, that occurred in the past but ceased to be active from about 1000 years ago. A recent study (37) detected evidence for an excess of C>T mutations at TCC contexts, the mutation type most prevalent in signature A, accumulating in the human germ line between 15,000 and 2000 years ago. If this human mutation pulse is due to signature A, it could indicate a shared environmental exposure that was once widespread but has now disappeared."

There will now be a small academic race to identify this mysterious carcinogen which both humans and this dog cancer were previously exposed to.

</comment><comment><USER7> See also DFTD, which affects Tasmanian Devils:

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

<comment><USER8> Thanks. I was wondering if there was a correlation

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The actual paper: [http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau9923](http://doi.org/10.1126/science.aau9923)

</comment><comment><USER10> I was told in grade school that cancer is not contagious... well, turns out that was just lies to children. [1]

This reminded me of the Radiolab episode "Devil Tumors" [2], featuring a similar kind of contagious cancer in Tasmanian Devils.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to- children](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lie-to-children)

[2] [http://radiolab.cs.odu.edu/radiolab-devil- tumors.html](http://radiolab.cs.odu.edu/radiolab-devil-tumors.html)

<comment><USER11> Clonally transmissible cancers are typically only seen in highly inbred populations. Tasmanian devils qualify because they went through a population bottleneck when they first colonized the island. Dogs qualify because of human breeding. (It's pretty unlikely that CTVT could be transferred to a wolf, even though pet dogs and wolves are the same species.)

The reason most cancers aren't transferrable, is the same reason that organ transplants are so hard. Most individuals in most species have unique antigen profiles. The immune system attacks any foreign bodies without matching antigens. An internally generated tumor works because it's cloned from an individual's own cells.

But a foreign tumor, is very unlikely to have a matching antigen profile. Therefore the immune system will attack and destroy with extreme prejudice. However a highly inbred population may lack the sufficient genetic diversity to have individually unique antigen profiles. In the extreme case if we were all clones we could pass tumors back and forth with ease.

The short answer is that it would be virtually impossible to see any widespread cases of clonally transmissible cancers in non-immunocompromised humans.

<comment><USER12> So does that mean that cancer is contagious among identical twins?

<comment><USER13> I suppose it depends on their individual immune systems. If they didn't live in close contact, they may not share the same immune system. One may have a weaker immune system than the other making it possible for the cancer to spread easily one way but not the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> mutation, replication, natural selection. This is all you need for evolution. So evolutionary cancers makes sense once you add transmission.

</comment><comment><USER15> "It's very mysterious," Murchison says. "This cancer was exposed to something that caused this very particular mutation, and has never been seen in any human cancer ever, and that seems to have stopped 2,000 years ago. We don't know what that carcinogen is, and we'd love to. I guess it was probably something in the dogs' environment? This is a very crazy idea and we don't really believe it, but maybe ancient people who owned the dogs tried to treat [their tumors] with some kind of chemical?"

This feels wrong - surely particular carcinogens don't cause particular mutations. Isn't this just chance?

<comment><USER16> The article states that different carcinogens do cause particular styles of mutation.

> Many carcinogens mutate DNA in distinctive ways: Sunlight, for example, > creates a very different pattern of mutations than cigarette smoke. > Murchison's team found that CTVT contains a lot of those sunlight > signatures, especially at lower latitudes, where the sun is stronger. For > example, CTVT in Mauritius has more sunlight-induced mutations than the same > tumor in Russia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This seems to stretch the definition of cancer. The tumors do not share DNA with the host, it's more like a bacterial infection or parasite.

<comment><USER18> That's largely the point of the article, isn't it? That it's arguably its own species?

> "CTVT is like its own organism," Murchison says. "It isn't really a dog. Is > it a cancer, still?"

<comment><USER17> Missed that, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I send my dog to day care all the time. now I'm thankful that they require yearly shots and full examinations.

</comment><comment><USER20> So if dogs have a caner that spreads deom dog to dog...

Do humans have anything like that? If we did would this not cause a panic?

<comment><USER21> Without having read the article, and not being a biologist ... is this anything like HPV/Cervical cancer for humans?

<comment><USER22> The third paragraph:

> To clarify, several cancers can be caused by infectious entities; cervical > cancer, for example, is the work of HPV, a sexually transmitted virus. But > in those cases, the cancer itself is not infectious and cannot spread. CTVT > is different: Each cancer cell is a free-living parasite that can set up > another tumor on another dog.

Put another way, HPV is a virus whose effects can cause cancer. That is, it causes mutations in _your own_ cells that cause them to become cancerous.

CTVT is essentially a parasitic cell line — not your cells hopping a ride on you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Is anyone else terrified by this?

<comment><USER18> A six thousand year old cancer? Why?

<comment><USER24> What does the age of the cancer have to do with this?

<comment><USER18> We've coexisted with it safely for six millennia. As such, it seems odd to be terrified of it.

<comment><USER24> SIV appeared somewhere between 1000 and 20000 years ago. Then ~100 years ago, it mutated to HIV and shortly after infected humans. We never know what could happen.

<comment><USER18> By that logic, we should be terrified of _everything_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Its future is uncertain, though. While failing to acquire beneficial > mutations, CTVT is also failing to weed out harmful ones. That's > understandable, because much of its DNA comprises genes for building a dog. > It can afford to let those mutate into obsolescence. But over time, the > genes that it still needs will also take hits. Slowly, the tumor will become > weaker and less efficient.

I wonder if there's an analogy to governments and laws. As our laws become more complex and "mutate," governments gradually become less effective.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you find good web development studios to build idea? - <AUTHOR>

Looking for top notch small or large development company to build prototype. <comment><USER2> Do you already have a development stack picked? Is there one you either know or can learn the basics of?

You can get in contact with me on twitter @spinuplabs</comment>


Spoilt for Choice - Springboard, UK based startup incubator  - <AUTHOR> http://springboard.com/spoilt-for-choice/ <comment><USER2> Interesting to see some US in there! How can they legally work in the UK? UK immigration is a mess right now [1]. I would know, I barely got in on my Tier 1 - which no longer exists [2][3].

[1] - [http://www.economist.com/node/17581736?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/the...](http://www.economist.com/node/17581736?fsrc=scn/fb/wl/ar/thefirenexttime)

[2] - [http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/infs/inf21pbsgeneral...](http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/infs/inf21pbsgeneralmigrant)

[3] - [http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/aboutus/newsroom/?view=News&...](http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/aboutus/newsroom/?view=News&id=484948682)

<comment><USER3> if it's only for 3 months, why wouldn't you just lie and say you're a tourist?

<comment><USER2> IIRC, if you get caught you're banned from entering the country for 10 years. Not worth it.

<comment><USER4> The brother of a friend of mine from Oz went to the States and somehow ended up joining the circus as a carnie where he worked illegally for a couple of years. He was caught when the circus went in to Canada for a while and they checked everyones papers when trying to reenter the US. He was denied entry, got banned from the US for 10 years and the rest of the circus waved goodbye and left him at the border.

Totally worth it just for having such an adventure for a couple of years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's interesting that they're disclosing numbers, almost none of the other seed accelerator funds disclose how many applicants they've got.

<comment><USER6> Its not a bad idea though. Its only been the last few years where people have been blogging about their business' finances, this is a similar kind of change to my mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is it just me, or is "CIS" and unusual geographic region?

<comment><USER7> Guess I should have, like, just done a search: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_Sta...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commonwealth_of_Independent_States)</comment></comment>


Adobe CS4: Yet another lousy Adobe installer - <AUTHOR> http://www.betalogue.com/2008/11/13/adobe-cs4-installer/ <comment><USER2> Well done, I always like a well written rant, and get irritated whenever I have to run through the CS installer.

It's the same for updates too which really annoys me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Swell. I just got install media for 19 computers' worth. I'm not looking forward to helping people install these. :(

</comment><comment><USER4> Setup is hard to do well yet few companies schedule much time for it since users see it only a few times per version.</comment>


Show HN: Control RGB LED lights from your phone or browser with Arduino and DMX - <AUTHOR> https://coderagora.com/2016/09/05/control-rgb-led-lights/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is my guide on how to control RGB LED lights from your phone, web browser, or using "Ok Google" by using an already present DMX decoder and an Arduino microcontroller.

It's just another way to improve the control of RGB LED strips... so I can finally get rid of the annoying remote that came bundled with the decoder.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you promote a dev tool and build community around it? - <AUTHOR> I'm sure many of you have launched before a product targeted at fellow developers. I wanted to ask if and how did you manage to get it off the ground before you raised any money?
Let me give you some context first. I'm working on a product for web developers which:
- is free and we intend it to keep it so - is serverless and we host all the necessary backend for it - has a JavaScript library as its frontend - is relatively easy to understand and use - isn't open-sourced (at least not yet) - is ready for a private beta
I guess a reference product you could compare it to is Firebase.
I've always thought the best way to gain the first users would be through tutorials. But it seems these days that if you post somewhere a link to a tutorial of a free product some (many?) will consider it a shameless selfpromotion. At the same time, the web is full of similar content about established products.
What marketing strategy did you use to get your first 10-50-100 beta testers?
thanks, Ann <comment><USER2> One option would be is to use a showhn post right here which is intended for promoting projects

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course. We can post and ask for feedback in various places. Then we can submit to ProductHunt and 10s of other directories, but what next? How can we create an honest dev-to-dev marketing strategy?</comment></comment>


Two Different Kinds of Illustration - <AUTHOR> https://www.subtraction.com/2018/01/03/two-different-kinds-of-illustration/ <comment><USER2> The main point they author is making is:

"the prevalence of a single, monocultural aesthetic that seemingly almost every startup and tech company and would-be industry disruptor out there has adopted, it's worth wondering if there's some other voice—or even a different modulation of this same voice—that could be appropriate."

This, of course, extends far beyond illustration (the topic of the article - the examples provided are striking). I would love to see more variety - especially for styling UI components because I think we can do so much better than Material Design/Metro or Bootstrap.

<comment><USER3> Don't mind having a go at answering the appropriateness of this vector-based style, from a design/psychological perspective;

It might be inherent to the mathemetical precision of this drawing style. The clean-cut shapes and geometrical shapes imply a strict adherence to rules, purposeful determination and look clean, clear and predicatable.

In short: they make your product look well thought out.

As opposed to a sketchy drawing style. (Sketchy. What's in a name?)

<comment><USER4> I do not think "they make your product look well thought out." is why.

I think the need is to read a clean, clear symbol instantly. Apple, Golden Arch, Handicap-Sign. Because of this, a lot of design majors learn this branding style. Readability is super important in mono-culture, so is clean interface.

Furthermore, vectors are used due to their ability to scale to any-size, and the standard tool, Illustrator, just more naturally makes this look than say a St Gaudans Buffalo Nickel design.

It's a typical copycat style that happens in design and art. Around 2005, I noticed flying bird silhouettes everywhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the one word that sums it up is 'safe.' Few people would be willing to spend millions developing an app, then risk it all letting someone express themself. The NYT lower stakes lets them be better.

<comment><USER6> I think you're on to something here. An image on the NYT website has a viewership that decays exponentially over a couple of days. And NYT gets to cycle through dozens of articles every day. So, images are designed to hook a user's attention, and even if happens to be annoying, nobody looks at it after a day or two.

On the other hand, an app's interface is something the users look at for a much more extended period.

To compare with newspapers, think about the web interface of different newspapers (or even the layout of most print newspapers) -- you'll be amazed at how similar they are! I just looked at: [https://www.nytimes.com/](https://www.nytimes.com/) , [https://www.washingtonpost.com/](https://www.washingtonpost.com/) , [https://www.bostonglobe.com/](https://www.bostonglobe.com/)

So, while I would like more variety in interfaces, I think it's a very hard problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Step back and you might mistake these as excerpts from a children's book, except that they depict grown adults doing ostensibly grown-up things. One could argue that they effectively infantilize their intended audience,"

</comment><comment><USER8> The real reason the author doesn't even touch on. They are viewing it from an artistic angle rather than a marketing angle.

A consistent style of illustrations is part of the guidelines for most online brands. All the illustrations need to share a common language across the whole product.

* Atlassian has a style-guide

* OK Cupid has one (they just changed it and had to redo all their illustrations)

* Trello has one

* Tunnelbear has one

Having a traditional artist involved in these illustrations rather than a designer means that the 'hit by a bus' factor is much larger. It is much easier to imitate a vector art style than it is physical technique.

Furthermore, these illustrations have to share the same guidelines as the app itself, which is limited by CSS rules. Natural textures are hard to do in CSS and wasteful, wheras flat colour, borders, and gradients are all up for grabs.

On a similar note, one could complain that the New York Times have terrible consistency with their illustrations, and the differing illustrations fail to portray a cohesive brand image.

So ultimately the author is saying that marketing != art... No shit...

</comment><comment><USER9> One is a collection of very interesting and diverse styles and approaches to a subject I can't stand looking at. The other is a collection of interesting and useful products in a narrow range of styles that I am completely tired of. But both seem more effective for their intended purposes than if the boring style was representing the abhorrent subject matter, and vice versa.

<comment><USER10> so the illustrations of the subject that we can't stand to look at must be specifically made to initially appear as something else in order to capture our attention, that explains the diversity. the 'boring style' is just the design equivalent of WWGD, What Would Google Do...

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> From what I've read I don't get the feeling that he has considered that more often than not, illustration in products often serves as an affordance. As such it needs to be highly legible and brief. Sometimes similar to editorial artwork, but usually with entirely different needs.

</comment><comment><USER12> It's not just people working with computers. Stuff like the demo scene is quite different, and games too. Or at least used to be.</comment>


Survival of HIV+ patients starting antiretroviral therapy between 1996 and 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhiv/article/PIIS2352-3018(17)30066-8/fulltext?elsca1=tlpr <comment><USER2> I wonder how the results would change if they had considered countries like Brazil, which offers a cocktail of ~17 drugs for free for everyone HIV positive since 1996 (when patents were fought in the supreme court IIRC). Many americans and europeans (also japanese) come here every year to get some of these medicines for a fraction of what they would cost back home.

<comment><USER3> I'm not a big fan of drug company profits (and the patents that provide them), but to be fair, I wonder how the results would change without American- and European-developed drugs.

<comment><USER4> It costs a company 2.5 billion to bring a new drug to market. [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to- develop-n...](https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/cost-to-develop-new- pharmaceutical-drug-now-exceeds-2-5b/)

With all of the countries mandating fixed pricing, America subsidizes the rest of the world.

Take away profits, you take away the company's ability to bring Rx to market or do new research.

No one pays their fair share for this research, except the U.S.

<comment><USER5> This would be more plausible if the companies in question spent more on R&D than marketing. Also, there are plenty of other ways to fund drug research besides the exorbitant system we use today.

<comment><USER4> It's a typical engineering fallacy that if you build it they will come.

The public, including doctors, have so much information to consume that if they aren't re-educated on treatment choices the drug will die and so too may the company.

Advertising is absolutely critical in recouping R&D costs. And that's assuming the drug makes it to market (which a majority do not).

>In the United States, it takes an average of 12 years for

>an experimental drug to travel from the laboratory to your

>medicine cabinet. That is, if it makes it. Only 5 in 5,000

>drugs that enter preclinical testing progress to human

>testing. One of these 5 drugs that are tested in people is

>approved.

<comment><USER6> Educating doctors is not a job for the pharma companies.

<comment><USER7> The funny part is: this "education" often happens on turist attractive locations like remote islands where doctors can come with their families... and pharma companies pay the costs... sad reality...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "I dont have to practice safe sex, because there is pill for it" As this article shows the pill doesnt always work.</comment>


Man creates kinetic sculpture that moves and lives on its own - <AUTHOR> http://www.wimp.com/kineticsculpture/

<comment><AUTHOR> Theo Jansen, hacking together Engineering and Art. More links via YouTube...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcR7U2tuNoY>

Very interesting.</comment>


Show HN: LinkedInfo.co, a queryable website links technical articles with tags - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedinfo.co/ <comment><AUTHOR> You can select your language preference, currently support English only, Chinese only or both.</comment>


Catching integer overflows in C - <AUTHOR> https://www.fefe.de/intof.html <comment><USER2> D has an unusual approach where the characteristics of an integer type can be mixed and matched as needed by the user:

[https://dlang.org/phobos/std_experimental_checkedint.html](https://dlang.org/phobos/std_experimental_checkedint.html)

<comment><USER3> Interesting. Does this compile down to the appropriate assembly instructions for checking for overflow, if available, or does it end up emulating it with a couple dozen instructions? That is, is this low-cost or does it have a measurable performance penalty and should only be used in debug builds?

<comment><USER2> It depends on the implementation, which does what it has to do to work with the backend. If the backend supports intrinsics that efficiently check for these things, then they'll be used.

It's really the same issue any language would have with the particular backend it uses.

What's different about the D approach, however, is that the user can select which of several behaviors on overflow, and then select which of several responses to overflow, instead of being stuck with just one or two options. The tests we've run shows it generates the same code as if one had done it by hand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The correct thing to do these days is to use compiler builtins, but assuming you can't (such misery), the correct thing to do for multiplication involves division (because the performance cost of treating multiplication as fixed width 2s complement is so high ;) )

Specifically for

X = a * b

You have to do:

If (b == 0) X = 0 Else if (MAX(type of X) / b >= a) X = a * b Else Handle overflow error

Oof

<comment><USER5> Using compiler built-ins makes one's code instantly unportable and is therefore unacceptable.

<comment><USER6> On the contrary, compiler built-ins can make your code _more_ portable (across different hw architectures) at the expense of some other compilers.

GCC and Clang have mostly compatible compiler intrinsics and with those two compilers you can compile your software to almost any platform out there.

If you need to get your code compiled on MSVC or ICC or some niche C compiler, you can work around this by adding some kind of wrapper around them with #ifdefs (not pretty).

With compiler built-ins you get SIMD, atomics, bitops (popcnt, clz, etc) that are portable to almost any CPU instruction set out there. Without them, you have to re-write that code for every instruction set you intend to support.

So your options are:

1) Stick to standard C and write code that compiles to suboptimal output code (such as using division to get multiply-with-overflow)

2) Use compiler built-ins and get portability across different HW at the expense of not supporting other compilers

3) Write wrappers around compiler built-ins with #ifdefs to support all the compilers you want (add fallback to standard C if you need to)

4) Write your code using HW-specific intrinsics or inline assembly

Out of these, option 2) will give you maximum portability with least amount of effort. The other options are more effort and the benefits are arguable. If you think there are other viable options, please do share.

<comment><USER7> A variant of (3) that seems close to ideal is to use conditionally defined functions as suggested, that someone else has already written and generously shared, such as portable-snippets [0]. It has a component specifically to offer cross platform builtins with fallback/emulation on plaforms without direct support.

[0] [https://github.com/nemequ/portable- snippets](https://github.com/nemequ/portable-snippets)

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the link, that looks quite useful if compiler portability is needed. It's still more effort than option #2, but quite an acceptable trade- off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've found int overflow one of the most pernicious issues in C programming, and have been maintaining notes (which reference this article) at:

[http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/gcc/integer_overflow.ht...](http://www.pixelbeat.org/programming/gcc/integer_overflow.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> Rust decided for overflows to cause panics in debug mode, but continue normally in release mode. They have special function calls for the few times that you actually WANT overflow. This seemed to he the only good option. It allows the programmer to express intent. In the future, if hardware allows for cheap hardware traps in the case of unintentionally overflow, they reserve the right to use them in release mode. C seems pretty hopeless since there is no way to know whether or not the coder intended on overflow or not.

<comment><USER10> > It allows the programmer to express intent.

Can the programmer express the intent that this will not overflow? i.e. is it possible to coerce the Rust compiler to optimize (x*2)/2 to x? "Cheap hardware traps" cannot substitute for such a compile-time optimization.

> C seems pretty hopeless since there is no way to know whether or not the > coder intended on overflow or not.

Well this doesn't matter: if signed arithmetic overflows the code is undefined, regardless of intent.

In practice comments can express intent, and unsigned arithmetic can with some finessing produce most codegen. Explicit operators would be a big improvement though.

<comment><USER11> I don't know much about rust specifically, but the overflow traps happen in debug (i.e. -O0) builds, and are not emitted when optimizations are enabled.

LLVM's constant folding and canonicalization passes will convert (x * 2) / 2 from

%0 = mul i64 %x, i64 2

%1 = div i64 %0, i64 2

to

%0 = shl i64 %x, i64 1

%1 = shr i64 %0, i64 1

Which constant folding will reduce to just %x.

<comment><USER10> Well ok but (x*3)/3 will be a lot worse :)

<comment><USER12> Not by a lot, the divide by constant can be optimized to a multiplication, if you're doing it in a loop (why would you care if you do it only once), you can reach a throughput of one multiplication per cycle, so (x*3)/3 would take 2 cycles on average.

<comment><USER10> This is a silly line of argument; optimizing (x*3)/3 to x unlocks further CSE, inlining, etc. so the benefit may be arbitrarily large.

Rust made the right tradeoff here but it is a tradeoff!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Most (all?) modern processors have instructions and flags specifically for querying and reacting to integer overflow/carry.

This seems like a situation where dropping to assembly to perform the addition and testing the flag makes sense. GCC has a mechanism for inline assembly where you list the variables you read from, you write to, and registers you modify and the optimizer plays nice with you. You could provide it as a function to use instead of doing the addition in C.

<comment><USER4> The issue isn't what the hardware can do, but rather that the C spec leaves it undefined. Over the last decade have increasingly abused this idea basically making the spec a land mine of UB and then claiming that UB allows them to do whatever they want, even when the programmer intent is obvious.

That said in modern clang and gcc you can (and should) use the overflow builtins which are all essentially:

      Bool __builtin_[operation]_overflow(type a, type b, type* out)

Returning true if the operation overflowed. These produce "ideal" code, e.g

if(overflowoperation(x,y,&out)) ...

Produces the platform branch on overflow instructions.

<comment><USER14> > The issue isn't what the hardware can do, but rather that the C spec leaves > it undefined.

Eh, the undefined nature of signed overflow in C is a bit of a red herring. The most common overflow bug in practice is actually 100% well-defined and still 100% wrong: multiplying two numbers to feed into a malloc.

In practice, the undefined signed overflow really only comes into play when you're trying to explicitly check for overflow by doing the operation and then seeing if it overflowed. But, as you mention, compilers give you bultins to do this kind of checked overflow which is quite frankly a much easier way to solve the problem, especially since it's more likely to actually get matched to using hardware flag bits to check for overflow.

<comment><USER4> Yup you are right on that, but the obvious way to check for overflow is UB so gets optimized out. Many security bugs in code people thought was correct. The correct, standard compliant non-UB way to check for the overflow requires a zero check and a division. It's super non obvious. I like to imagine C committee has made standardized definition for the current builtins but I also have low expectations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> These are all work-arounds: the permanent fix is to expose the processor's carry and zero flags in C.

<comment><USER3> Not every processor has these flags.

<comment><USER5> Processors had these en masse (6502, Z80, MC68000) since the '70's of the past century. Without those, it's extremely difficult to implement basic arithmetic with numbers larger than what the processor's registers support.

Which contemporary processors don't have the C and Z status bits?

Post scriptum, since "Hacker News" is of the opinion that I'm posting too fast:

MIPS does have a status register, and this register does have an overflow bit:

[https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/lab/secondyear/spim/node10.html](https://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/lab/secondyear/spim/node10.html)

<comment><USER3> MIPS?

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

Addendum addressing your updates:

> MIPS does have a status register, and this register does have an overflow > bit:

Yes, it does, but it doesn't function as a simple carry or zero bitfield. In MIPS, there are two instructions for performing addition: add and addu. add generates a trap which you can respond to in an exception handler (which is where you check for this exception code)–as opposed to addu, which overflows silently. Most programs explicitly looking to check for overflow just use addu followed by a sltu (set less than, unsigned).

<comment><USER5> "u" in "addu" means unsigned, so if I'm using it, I understand what the implication is.

<comment><USER3> What implication are you talking about?

<comment><USER5> That there is no bit used for the sign, and so I know when the registers will overflow. A lot of the assembler code I wrote exploits this very fact, since when used cleverly it's a performance optimization.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your favourite VSCode Extensions? - <AUTHOR> I have the following packages to make me more productive -
Babel ES6/ES7
Prettier
ESLint
Prettier - ESLint
React Native Tools
npm IntelliSense
Path IntelliSense
Prettier - JavaScript Formatter
Settings Sync <comment><USER2> It's pretty much required if you're doing F# work with VS Code, but I'll give my shoutout to Ionide[0]. I'm largely an F# dev these days, so I spend a ton of time with Ionide, and it's a great example of the open source community filling the gap where businesses have not done so (Microsoft in this case, since they focus F# resources into Visual Studio proper). The extension can be a little slow even on my fully-loaded Surface Book, but I suspect that's more to do with the underlying F# tooling than the extension itself.

[0]: [https://github.com/ionide/ionide-vscode- fsharp](https://github.com/ionide/ionide-vscode-fsharp)

</comment><comment><USER3> Auto Close Tag

Auto Import

Auto Rename Tag

Beautify

Better Align

Quokka

Color Highlight

Custom CSS and JS Loader (for font italics and ligatures)

Debugger for Chrome __*

GraphQL for VSCode

Highlight Matching Tag

Path IntelliSense

PrettifyJSON

Quokka

Rainbow Brackets

TODO Highlight

vs-code-styled-components

WakaTime

</comment><comment><USER4> Bracket Pair Colorizer

GitLens

Bimbo Theme

Settings Sync

Vs Live Share

Todo highlight

</comment><comment><USER5> Settings Sync

Chef

Inspec

indent-rainbow

Diff

vscode-icons</comment>


People Are Stupid - <AUTHOR> http://www.collegeanswerz.com/people-are-stupid

<comment><AUTHOR> Can I get some feedback? I see via google analytics that 73 people viewed this, but no upvotes.

<comment><USER2> I'd be careful about discounting emotions. A closed heart is just as dangerous as a closed mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agreed. However, I think you're misinterpreting my point about emotions (probably because I did a bad job making that point clear).

I didn't talk about this in People Are Stupid, but emotions can be useful. Sometimes they help you by motivating you and triggering appropriate thoughts. Without them, often times you wouldn't reach the same thoughts as you do with them. HOWEVER, often times they're used improperly. Often times things like anger, spite, frustration and ego lead people to... be stupid. And again, this happens both frequently, and about very important things.

It is this that is my point. I think it is both true, and important to say. You can't solve a problem without admitting it. People are stupid, and the world would be much better off it people weren't. So I'm saying it.

<comment><USER2> Well, labeling people as stupid is shaming. Instead of containing your anger and frustration about their behavior, you're putting them down with shame. The world would also be much better off if people didn't shame each other.

I think the answer is not simply more rationality but more self-awareness. Awareness of one's thoughts, one's emotions, one's past and present experience, one's hopes for the future, and the interplay between these things. So the real challenge is encouraging people to embark on a quest for self-awareness. People generally don't do this unless life's circumstances force them to.

I think you didn't get any upvotes because it's essentially a philosophy essay (i.e. it's kind of off-topic) and because we've all encountered ideas about closed mindedness and assumptions before.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for you're explanations. They're useful.

I understand and sort of agree with what you said about the upvotes. I know that it isn't really anything new, but I thought that I did a solid job of articulating things that people think, but don't necessarily know how to say. I know that personally, I always sort of thought them in an abstract sense, but after writing this essay I became more aware of what it is I was actually thinking. So for that reason, I thought people might like it enough to give it significant upvotes.

Anyway, I understand what you're saying about this being insulting, and about self-awareness, but I respectfully disagree. While I may have came across as an asshole, I am actually a benevolent person. I care about the world and the happiness of society. There are a lot of things I think I can do in my lifetime to drastically improve the world. One of them, is making people more rational.

I think that self-awareness, among other things, would be a consequence of rationality. By thinking rationally, by definition - [http://lesswrong.com/lw/31/what_do_we_mean_by_rationality/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/31/what_do_we_mean_by_rationality/), you're making the right choices. Encouraging self-awareness would have its benefits, but I think that encouraging rationality would have those same benefits, as well as many many others.

Regarding the insulting nature of calling people stupid, I think it's necessary. I feel hesitant to do so, but I really really think it needs to be done. In our culture, people are so reluctant to disagree with one another and offer constructive criticism. It is ridiculous. People are always encouraging irrational thought by saying "you can think whatever you want to". It's ok to disagree. Me calling people stupid is my way of proclaiming mass disagreement. Granted, I could do so in a less insulting way. Still, I think that the costs of me insulting people are outweighed by the benefits of 1) the fact that it gets peoples attention, and 2) it more clearly conveys my point than me saying that "people make epistemically and instrumentally irrational decisions both frequently, and about important things".

Note: I think this conversation would be more productive and clear by me giving an example of people being stupid, so you could picture that in your mind instead of the abstract concept of people being stupid. People don't put thought into what they're going to do with their lives. They just choose from the handful of options that are common for the neighborhood in which they grew up. See [http://www.collegeanswerz.com/i-graduated-high-school-now- wh...](http://www.collegeanswerz.com/i-graduated-high-school-now-what) and [http://www.collegeanswerz.com/being-wrong-about-what-you- lik...](http://www.collegeanswerz.com/being-wrong-about-what-you-like).

<comment><USER2> What does rationality say about subjective experience?

<comment><AUTHOR> It says that subjective experience can be analyzed in terms of desirability, and that you should maximize desirable experience. (At least that's what I say. See [http://www.collegeanswerz.com/morality](http://www.collegeanswerz.com/morality))

<comment><USER2> I went through all these things when I was around your age. I wrote about as prolifically as you. I used to think we could maximize happiness levels around the world. You might be interested in a book called The Happiness Hypothesis.

I don't really know what to say. You're asking a lot of deep and important questions. Keep reading, keep writing. Broaden the scope of your reading. One thing that helped me a lot was to have somebody more experienced than me to talk about these things with in person, in a kind of student-teacher relationship.

<comment><AUTHOR> I looked into that book, and I'll definitely read it. Thanks for the recommendation.

<comment><USER2> Hey you're welcome, thanks for the conversation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rumor: VMware in talks to acquire Engine Yard - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2010/06/10/vmware-in-talks-to-acquire-engineyard/

<comment><USER2> "VMware acquired Tungsten Graphics, a company with core expertise in 3D graphics driver development on November 26, 2008.

On August 10, 2009, VMware announced the acquisition of SpringSource, a leader in enterprise and web application development and management.

On January 12th, 2010, VMware acquired Zimbra, an open-source collaboration software tool, from Yahoo.

On May 6th, 2010, VMware acquired GemStone, to be operated under VMware's SpringSource division."[1]

And now Engine Yard?

I am trying to see a coherent strategy in all these acquisitions. Anyone?

[1] Source: Wikipedia

<comment><USER3> Don't forget a minor, but relevant, acquisition (Redis).

<comment><USER4> And RabbitMQ.

<comment><USER5> Woah. I missed that one. I thought RabbitMQ was written by the LShift guys, which based on the fact that the LShift website has a big banner saying "SpringSource acquires Rabbit Technologies" is accurate, but is LShift dead, in favor of the obviously spun off Rabbit Technologies? Or is LShift going to continue to be around, but with a few less people. This has probably been discussed before--will search.

 _EDIT_ doesn't look like LShift is dead. From the press release, they spun off another company for Rabbit, potentially in response to acquisition inquiries, and will just lose a few people it seems.

<comment><USER6> No, indeed I can confirm that LShift is very much alive and shifting into new ventures. Some of the guys moved over to Spring/VMW but the rest of us are still here on the corner of Hoxton Square, but we are recruiting like crazy right now...so if you happen to know anyone who fits the profile, please point them our way... Mike

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure the founder of EY is the one (not) mentioned in this TechCrunch article... [http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/28/oops-beware-the- accidental-...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/28/oops-beware-the-accidental- post-to-twitter-contemplating-an-acquisition/)

I hope it's true and I hope it changes his life. VMWare has a decent track record considering they're a big company.

</comment><comment><USER8> Say it ain't so!!

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been thinking about this quite a bit tonight and I think it'd be a good move for VMware. They've made some interesting, and smart, moves lately towards becoming _sort of_ the next _Sun_ (in a brains and technology sense, not the hardware company that unceremoniously gets acquired by Oracle sense). Bringing Redis onboard, as well as purchasing Gemstone Systems, are two things that stick out for me.

A VMware acquisition of EY would be interesting for the Ruby world in particular, as VMware would then have the JRuby team, most of the defacto core Rubinius team, and the Maglev team on its payroll. An acquisition of Phusion, Heroku or similar players in Ruby implementations and deployment might then be natural next targets - and with over $2bn in cash, VMware easily has the money to make these deals without breaking a sweat.

<comment><USER8> Ah, very interesting possibilities! I'm still worried about taking an ultra productive startup like EngineYard and placing it in the "machinery" of a big corporate entity like VMWare. But maybe it would allow some really cool teams to work together closely to build the ultimate ruby deployment platform.

<comment><USER9> I wonder if EngineYard really qualifies as "ultra-productive" still...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I made a political comparison site with gatsby - <AUTHOR> https://joevsbernie.com <comment><AUTHOR> I was really impressed with how I could get a perfect lighthouse score app build so quickly using gatsby and tailwind css. I only had a weekend to do this and I'm thrilled with the results. Hopefully this can get some reach before the Tuesday primaries.</comment>


UK government 'most transparent' in the world - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30883472

<comment><USER2> Lifted from the comments section: "My frosted glass bathroom window is also transparent".

I think it sums this up quite well. Just dumping data and statistics doesn't make a government transparent. Being open and answering direct questions with direct answers (MP expenses, Iraq Dossier, Rochdale scandal, Allegations of a Westminster Paedophile ring etc), rather than half-answering or outright delaying reports and inquiries until people forget about them or the general election has passed and the current government are safe in their seats for another 4 years would make them transparent.

</comment><comment><USER3> The phrase "damned with faint praise" comes to mind…</comment>


CALLBACK — NASA's monthly Aviation Safety Reporting System newsletter - <AUTHOR> https://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/publications/callback.html <comment><AUTHOR> "... includes de-identified ASRS report excerpts with supporting commentary in a popular 'lessons learned' format."

</comment><comment><USER2> I am unfamiliar with this newsletter, is the name an acronym?

<comment><AUTHOR> From Wikipedia: "If the ASRS staff has questions regarding a report, it can perform a callback and request further information or clarification from the reporter."</comment></comment>


Hacker News Home Page Parody (Inspired by Brad Conte) - <AUTHOR> https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1362509/web/hn-parody/hn_home.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! This is something that I created in an hour, after getting inspired by Brad Conte. This is just a joke and I hope you all enjoy it.

If there are any concerns, please let me know. I hope nobody is offended with this.</comment>


Ask HN: Hacker School for SF? - <AUTHOR>

Last week, my brother (also a dev) said, "Hacker School sounds amazing. I wish there was something like that in SF."
Why not?
Let's do it:
20 great hackers in a room together for 8 weeks, full time. Build together and learn together. Pairing & TDD strongly encouraged. It's free; we help you find a job, and take a recruiting fee from the company if it works out.
Interested? <comment><USER2> I'd love this, though I'd have to move to SF first, which is something I want to do anyway. My question about these hacker schools is how you pay the bills in the meantime? I mean, it's full-time, which presumably means you don't really have time for another full-time job on top of it. Or am I just missing something about how these work?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, generally you don't have time for a full-time job on top. The idea is to save up what you can before the hacker school. Part time consulting gigs during the hacker school may also be an option.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> was just going to post, asking if something like this existed.</comment>


Heartbleed and TOR in practice - <AUTHOR> http://digitalassurance.com/blog/heartbleed-and-tor-practice

<comment><USER2> Combined with rumors that the NSA knew about Heartbleed, this makes me wonder if they actually were involved in outing Silk Road. As far as I know, we still haven't seen any indication on how the FBI managed to find and image the Silk Road server.

<comment><USER3> I dont think heartbleed was necessary to crack Silk Road server - after all its just another php server, those arent really known for being air-tight.

Especially the programmer who basically copypasted stuff from stackoverflow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> After all the NSA leaks and then Heartbleed, being anonymous anywhere really seems like a pipe dream to me.

<comment><USER5> Large-scale traffic analysis (dragnet surveillance) + hacking into exit nodes already made compromising TOR users technically feasible before the heartbleed exploit.

The whole cypherpunk/online anonymity movement which spawned TOR was largely predicated on nation states acting legally. But when they can secretly hack into every router, fiber cable, and gateway endpoint without any question of legality then anonymity and privacy online is no longer an option for anyone, even the most technically-proficient.</comment></comment>


Spin.js, a pure JS spinner - <AUTHOR> http://fgnass.github.com/spin.js/ <comment><USER2> I hate to be _that guy_ but this takes up 45% cpu under firefox for a simple spin animation.

<comment><USER3> 100% on Chromium 13

<comment><USER4> Same here, on Chromium 12 (wait, 12!?! Time to go fix that...) on Ubuntu 11.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A spinner generated from <http://www.ajaxload.info/> is 673 bytes. The minified javascript from this is ~3K. I suppose the trade off is features and flexibility, but I don't find myself needing much out of my ajax spinners.

<comment><USER6> Also keep an eye on:

      <input type="range"  min="0" max="100">
      <input type="number" min="0" max="100">

<http://www.w3schools.com/html5/html5_form_input_types.asp>

<comment><USER7> Please don't link to w3schools. Thanks <http://w3fools.com/>

<comment><USER6> The w3schools site provides an excellent overview of the new input types and there browser support in this case. So maybe next time please don't link to w3fools (stupid site imho) but provide a better link.

<comment><USER8> They might provide information but there's a good chance it's either half bullshit, missing information or just completely wrong. Re-read W3Fools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think the possibility of dynamically changing the speed of the spinner is interesting. If your spinner was representing a file upload, for example, you could conceivably adjust the speed based on the current upload rate.

<comment><USER10> Doesn't that defeat the purpose, though? Progress indicators are designed to make you think things are going faster than they are. If you want to display accurate information, why not just _display_ it?

<comment><USER11> "Progress indicators are designed to make you think things are going faster than they are."

Says who? I think progress indicators are intended to communicate more- granular details about the true progress towards some goal ... hence their name.

<comment><USER10> That doesn't even pass the sniff test. What progress indicator can you come up with that provides more or better information in the same space than "95% loaded" or "10.7/75MB of files copied"? Why do you think progress bars so frequently do _not_ include that straightforward information?

It's a scam. It's a nice scam, of course, since it makes computers seem faster, and that's most of what really matters, but a scam nonetheless.

<comment><USER12> It's not about better information, it's about speed of information. You can look at a progress bar and instantly gauge the progress of your task. "10.7/75MB copied" is more precise, but of less intrinsic value--I have to calculate in my head where the halfway point is. To get a percentage in my head out of those numbers is even harder.

<comment><USER10> Try it. Half of 75 is about 37, so I'm a little under a third of the way to the halfway point. I'll be a quarter done at ~19. Takes about two seconds. Even faster for a computer, of course.

Now do that with a progress bar. You _can't_. What do you do, hold a piece of paper under the bar and fold it in half? Then guess whether the bar is measuring estimated time to completion, percent of data transferred, or percent of files transferred?

You can ballpark it at a glance, sure. It's obviously under a quarter done. Obviously over a tenth. Is it under a fifth? Maybe. We're just not good at judging those things. And progress animations are deliberately designed to make it _even harder_.

And don't get me wrong-- it's _nice_ to be able to ballpark it at a glance. It reassures me that it's moving at all. It gives me some idea of how much longer it will take. _It makes it seem like it's going faster._ That's what I'm saying.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not realizing what was meant by "spinner", I spent a few seconds waiting for the cool javascript demo to load before I realized.

</comment><comment><USER14> Are there any GIF loader generators that have all this options (speed, sizes, color) available? Could be good to use this as a preview, and then generate the final GIF.

<comment><USER15> I'm a fan of <http://preloaders.net/>

<comment><USER16> That site is awesome! Very nicely laid out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is cool just for fun, but practically there are sites like <http://ajaxload.info/> that generate spinners for you, if you don't know how to do it yourself

<comment><USER18> I tried them and they produced poor quality. They couldn't even get the white background correct! I suppose their #1 ranking on Google is making them complacent.

<http://www.loadinfo.net/> is much better presented and actually respects the color values you type in! (And no, I don't have any relationship with them.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> What's the battery drain like?

<comment><USER20> It's not like animating a gif doesn't use up CPU cycles.

<comment><USER21> I accidentally upvoted you (trying to view your profile, I dont have downvote privileges). The CPU use of just about any GIF spinner is trivial compared to this, even in the browser this runs best in. Sure its a solid enough _concept_ , but not something that'd you actually use in practice yet.

<comment><USER20> I actually agree that a JS spinner probably uses too much CPU to be justify its use, but I seriously doubt it would have that much effect on the battery.

EDIT:

It also seems the actual spinning is done with CSS, not JS

<comment><USER22> > It also seems the actual spinning is done with CSS, not JS

that means it'll be hardware accelerated where supported, which will increase battery life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Tested it on my iPhone 3gs - after some scrolling around and zooming (trying to reach the controls) the spinner "locked up" - it's no longer spinning, every bar is simply pulsing together in time, like a luminescent jellyfish.

I wonder if this could happen in a regular browser, too?

</comment><comment><USER24> It was noted in this thread that this consumes a relatively large amount of resources, and it was suggested that flipping through PNG frames would be less CPU-intensive.

I have a hunch that's correct, but don't know.

I _do_ however have an unanswered question on Stack Overflow seeking, ideally, a generator of JavaScript + PNG throbbers. First one to make ajaxload.info with PNG sprites and/or Canvas generation in supported browsers wins! (No need for most of the hideous ajaxload designs though.) [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6937149/best-practice- too...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/6937149/best-practice-tool-for- ajax-loading-indicator-as-animated-png-sprite/7018520#7018520)

</comment><comment><USER25> The only reason to use this is for scalable throbbers, and since you're only going to configure it once, it'd be much easier and more compact to just use a generated SVG+SMIL instead.

</comment><comment><USER26> Ugh. Surely thats what CSS transforms and transitions are for. Javascript animations should be a last resort...

<comment><USER27> The DOM for the spinner is created with Javascript, but the spinning is entirely CSS.

<comment><USER26> Ah ok thats better. The description did not make that clear. Should have read the code...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Surprinsingly, it worked on my Samsung Focus.

It was spinning very slowly, but the Mango update supports CSS3 well it seems.

</comment><comment><USER29> My gif spinner is 1152 bytes, not sure what you are using that's taking much more.

</comment><comment><USER30> Read through quickly at first and got mislead by 'target' assuming that anything passed as a target will start spinning and tried to spin an image :), which of course is not the case. Nice effort though.

</comment><comment><USER31> This would be perfect for canvas games. It means that image.gif doesn't have to load, which typically requires initializing a new Image() and attaching an onLoad function. This simplifies all that.

</comment><comment><USER32> For those who want something minimal.. <http://jsfiddle.net/4mrCU/2/embedded/result/>

</comment><comment><USER33> Very cool - love the way it's configurable, good job.

</comment><comment><USER34> Best thing I've seen all week. Yet another nail in the coffin for image assets on the web. Thanks, CSS3!

</comment><comment><USER35> Amazingly IE7 on XP (work PC) handled that like a trooper! Good job

</comment><comment><USER36> _Resolution independant_

Independent.</comment>