String overlap detection in Python - <AUTHOR> http://neil.fraser.name/news/2010/11/04/

<comment><USER2> As I understand this, the KMP function uses an optimal algorithm, while the indexOf version uses a suboptimal algorithm but takes advantage of a native (C) implementation found in the standard library.

It follows that the fastest approach should be to implement the KMP algorithm natively, using Pyrex rather than C should make this fairly trivial.

<comment><USER3> besides Pyrex, there's also Cython (I don't know if one superseeded the other or what exactly their relationship is)

<comment><USER4> Pyrex is the original. Cython is the fork by people who wanted to add more features.

I think their relationship is reasonable, but not reasonable enough for the two projects to link to each-other.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His implementation of the KMP algorithm starts by constructing a table for the whole of one string, to use in matching the other. But the full table is seldom needed. I wonder how much of the performance is taken in that construction, and how much of a difference only constructing part of that would make.

</comment><comment><USER6> The problem statement: "How does one detect when two strings overlap?" is inadequate. If "overlap" means "at least one substring in common", a trivial test for overlap would be to determine whether they have a character in common.

<comment><USER6> I do not understand why this comment was down voted. When analyzing algorithms, a clear and correct statement of the problem is necessary and the one made here is clearly inadequate. For example, while the problem calls for an algorithm to "detect" overlap, while the algorithms described produce a list the overlapped strings. Moreover, there is no definition (other than the programs listed) for what is meant by "overlap". Consider "abc" and "abcd". The overlapping strings might be "a", "ab", "abc", "bc" , and "c" under one definition, or simply "abc" under another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> >The IndexOf algorithm is also O(n)

The author doesn't seem to understand big O. His indexOf approach is a linear algorithm in the average case, but not in the worst case - the author himself demonstrates this.

>Computer Science (always suspect any discipline which feels the need to add the word 'science' to its name) is often an exercise in compromises.

This kind of pissed me off, which was probably the intent. CS is about math, not implementation. Once you start engineering things of course you have to take practical considerations into account (such as the classes of strings your algorithm is likely to be fed as input), but that doesn't invalidate (or devalue) proofs which make no claims about practical usage.

<comment><USER5> _> The IndexOf algorithm is also O(n)

The author doesn't seem to understand big O. His indexOf approach is a linear algorithm in the average case, but not in the worst case - the author himself demonstrates this._

I suspect that you have the surprisingly common misconception that Big-O is about worst case scenarios. This is absolutely not true. Big-O is a notation to describe the growth of functions. The functions themselves can describe anything you want, including either the average OR the worst case. The usage you complain about is therefore correct.

See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_O_notation> for verification.

 _> Computer Science (always suspect any discipline which feels the need to add the word 'science' to its name) is often an exercise in compromises.

This kind of pissed me off, which was probably the intent. CS is about math, not implementation._

It is actually a very unoriginal quip. I've been repeating it for years. Furthermore it is a quip with a lot of truth. Sciences are fields of study that use experiments to test hypotheses and refine theories. As you point out, CS is a lot like math, and unlike science, in that it is a field of knowledge which is in a large part based on our ability to construct ideas on top of each other and prove things about them rather than being built on experiment.

In short "not science" is descriptive, not pejorative.

<comment><USER7> >I suspect that you have the surprisingly common misconception that Big-O is about worst case scenarios...

I appreciate what you're saying here, but I think this part of the Wikipedia page is relevant:

>A description of a function in terms of big O notation usually only provides an upper bound on the growth rate of the function. Associated with big O notation are several related notations, using the symbols o, Ω, ω, and Θ, to describe other kinds of bounds on asymptotic growth rates.

Upper bound implies worst case. I _was_ going to say that big Theta is average case, but after some brief research I actually think I was mistaken on that.

<comment><USER8> "Upper bound implies worst case."

No it doesn't. You can talk about upper bounds on average case running time. The function under consideration can be _any_ function, best case, worst case, average case, or _any other_ function.

O-notation is used to represent "asymptotic upper bound" on _any_ function. (Omega-notation for lower bounds, Big Theta for simultaneous lower _and_ upper bounds and so on, on _any_ function).

The upper or lower bounds of functions have nothing to do with the "case- iness" (best/worst/average running times etc) of algorithm running times.

The "meaning" of the function (or for that matter the argument "n"), is completely orthogonal to its bounds. O(n) by itself does not say anything about what the function represents. The function does not have to be about algorithms.

E.g: It could represent the error between an approximation and actual calculated value. You can use O notation to bound such functions, to state the upper bounds on the rate of growth of the error of an approximation. (Gilbert Strang uses O notation thus in his book "Calculus" for example).

As another example, Knuth applies this notation to dozens of non-algorithm- running-time functions in Chapter 9 of Concrete Mathematics.

Even when using such notation to discuss algorithm running times you really have to say O(n log_n) worst case (or best case or average case) running time for e.g, if you want to be clear.

Thus (for example)from Cormen et al's "Introduction to Algorithms" book, emphasis mine (section 3.1 for anyone interested),

"The Big_Theta(n^2) bound _on the worst case running time of insertion sort_ does not imply a Big_Theta(n^2) bound on the running time of the insertion sort on every input.... when the input is already sorted _insertion sort runs in Big_Theta(n) time_ "

Big-Theta is applied to both best case _and_ worst case running time functions in the above paragraph and the author clearly specifies what he is applying the bound to in each case.

iow btilly is right (about how O notation can be used to represent any function, not just worst case running time functions) and you are wrong (when you say "Upper Bound implies worst case" ). As btilly states, this is a common misconception.

Another common abuse of the notation is to use Big-Oh-notation when Big-Theta is intended.

<comment><USER7> >No it doesn't. You can talk about upper bounds on average case running time.

Hmm. At first read I agreed with this, but now I don't again. A bound is a theoretical limit. If certain inputs to a function cause it to exceed your "bound" then your "bound" isn't a bound.

I do now agree that "big O" applies to average case - not that I ever intended to deny that average case analysis is a thing; it was just a question of terminology. I think the way to resolve what btilly said with the Wikipedia quote I gave is that the "usually" in "big O notation _usually_ only provides an upper bound" gives rise to the common misconception.

>The function under consideration can be any function, best case, worst case, average case, or any other function.

Could you clarify this? "Average case" describes a class of inputs, not a function. Perhaps I'm just experiencing a parsing error.

<comment><USER8> ">No it doesn't. You can talk about upper bounds on average case running time.

Hmm. At first read I agreed with this, but now I don't again."

You should really just read some textbooks (not being patronizing, just saying that explaining this whole thing from scratch on HN takes too much space and time).

Average Case bounds _are_ used in algorithm analysis.

E.g Lemma 5.2 from Cormen et al's "Algorithms"

"Assuming that the the candidates are presented in a random order, algorithm Hire-Assistant has an average case total hiring cost of O(c ln n)"

Hmm that seems to be an upper bound (hence the O) on an average case. Cormen knows something you don't. ;-)

Earlier in the chapter "Thus we are, in effect averaging the running time over all possible inputs. When reporting such a running time, we will refer to it as the average case running time".

Thus, irrespective of your "agreement", stating the bounds on an average case [whatever] _is_ valid. Sure you have to define what "average" is. In the statement "average case" is defined as a "random order of presentation", iow as a probability distribution represented by a Random variable. Iow, the distribution of the input is a part of the definition, but the _bounds_ are still on a function.

Which brings me to

">The function under consideration can be any function, best case, worst case, average case, or any other function.

Could you clarify this? "Average case" describes a class of inputs, not a function. Perhaps I'm just experiencing a parsing error."

You are being pedantic here . In the very first sentence I said (emphasis new) "You can talk about upper bounds on average case _running time_."

So yes, A mapping of n to average_running_time_with_n_inputs _is_ a function, often a reccurrence. The definition of average case just constrains the n inputs somehow. It doesn't change the meaning of "bound". And as shown above, from Cormen, (and stated by btilly above) "average case running time of operation foo is O(blah)" is perfectly valid.

Strictly speaking, The Oh notation on the RHS of an "equation" shouldn't be using the equal to sign and should be using an "element of" sign from Set Theory and the terms on both sides are really sets and so on. All this is explained in most good texts.

I also suspect you learned O(n) strictly through algorithms (and not math) and _maybe_ (just guessing here) that's why you are confused about how the various terms map to this or that aspect of algorithms.( I quote you from your post above "Upper bound implies worst case. I was going to say that big Theta is average case, .." etc. )

Again a good book on the fundamentals is the best way to resolve this (vs argument on HN). I suggest "Concrete Mathematics". Chapter 9 explains O, Theta, etc with functions with no algorithms in sight.

Once you learn the underlying math, applying that math to algorithmic analysis is trivial. Going the other way might lead to fundamental errors (though it need not, really) as demonstrated in your reply to btilly for e.g.

Now, with respect, I will exit this thread. I've given plenty of references to the proper definition and use of Oh, Theta etc notation in both algorithmic and non algorithmic contexts in my posts. (Strang, Knuth, Cormen etc).

If you want to follow up and read those, that's fine. If not, that is fine too. _Arguing_ over mathematical notation without first reading the texts is (imho) a waste of everyone's time.

This thread is getting too long. Over and out.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What's Not Included in Facebook's "Download Your Data" - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/whats-not-included-in-facebooks-download-your-data <comment><USER2> "But 'Download Your Data' hardly tells you everything Facebook knows about you. Among the information not included:

\- information Facebook collects about your browsing history;

\- information Facebook collects about the apps you visit and your activity within those apps;

\- the advertisers who uploaded your contact information to Facebook more than two months earlier;

\- ads that you interacted with more than two months prior.

Download Your Data is particularly spotty when it comes to the information Facebook taps to display ads."

\---

TL; DR When you get too close to their business model, Facebook clams up.

<comment><USER3> PSA: Facebook looks at what websites you visit in an incognito window, provided that the incognito window is open the same time as a regular browser.

<comment><USER4> How does it do this?

<comment><USER3> Apparently, incognito mode uses the same temporary cookies folder as regular chrome, so FB looks at this folder if incognito is open in one window while FB is being used in another.

<comment><USER5> Are you sure about that? Wouldn't it mean that all third party trackers could continue to track you while in incognito mode? How could it be called incognito mode if sites can still read your non-incognito cookies?

<comment><USER3> I'm 95% confident. And yes, I think it does mean that. The trackers have to be active in a non-incognito window for it to work. It reads the shared temporary cookie folder.

<comment><USER5> If incognito mode is that broken in Chrome, and still allows sites that are open in normal tabs to track you, that would be very newsworthy.

<comment><USER3> agreed

<comment><USER5> I had to know the answer, so I wrote a quick script to test it. It appears that incognito windows can't read cookies from normal windows. I've linked to the source code there. If I've missed anything, let me know.

[https://cookiechecker.netlify.com/](https://cookiechecker.netlify.com/)

<comment><USER3> "It appears that incognito window can't read from cookies from normal windows."

To be clear, the claim I'm making is that normal windows can read cookies from incognito windows.

<comment><USER4> A simple test suggests otherwise, using Gruez's recipe above but swapping the private and non-private windows.

There are potential information leaks, such as the combination of IP address, user agent, screen size, and fonts available. And there may be bugs in 3rd party plugins like Flash that fail to respect private mode. But it doesn't seem to be anything as simple as cookies being shared.

<comment><USER3> Thanks. If they're not using the temporary cookies folder, I'm curious how Facebook shows ads based on incognito browsing. Some form of device fingerprinting?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Thought experiment: if after 5/25, I download my data, then revoke consent and delete my account, then a while later reactivate my account and log back in -- if any of my previous personal data is tied to my "new" account, have I proven that my personal data wasn't entirely deleted since Facebook could still uniquely identify me?

<comment><USER7> Yes. I'm waiting to delete my account until after the 25th because:

* There's slightly more of a chance they'll actually delete my data

* If they don't, I'll be entitled to be a part of any class-action.

<comment><USER8> Same, and I'll be encouraging others to do so.

<comment><USER9> What timezone are we using for this? Is it midnight Zulu on the 25th, the 26th?

<comment><USER10> FFS, just delete it on 27

<comment><USER9> Sorry, I'm not hip to most of this stuff. I just thought it would be a fun event. Perhaps it's already on the social media calendar, complete with a cat logo?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm surprised this article does not mention Max Schrems, who requested all data Facebook had on him in 2011:

> He later made a request under the European "right to access" provision for > the company's records on him and received a CD containing over 1,200 pages > of data, which he published at europe-v-facebook.org with personal > information redacted.

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

<comment><USER12> Just a heads up, your Wikipedia link doesn't work.

<comment><USER13> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max_Schrems)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not covered here: it does not really export your social graph. Just a list of names. No way to easily import that into contacts etc. This is making quitting Facebook time-consuming, but I'm getting there.

Similarly with birthdays, although it's quite easy to work around that via their calendar link.

<comment><USER15> > No way to easily import that into contacts etc. This is making quitting > Facebook time-consuming, but I'm getting there.

Also, IIRC, all the photos are resized smaller and recompressed, while the full-res versions are still accessible through the Facebook website. This also makes it harder to quit if 1) you don't have the original photos and 2) don't want to live with the unnecessary sacrifice of quality.

Facebook really ought to include the best versions it has of the data you've uploaded, even if it makes the archive size enormous. The option to shrink things should be a _non-default option_ only, since the download might be a prelude to an irreversible account deletion.

<comment><USER16> > since the download might be a prelude to an irreversible account deletion.

Is it not one of their aims to make it always reversible?

<comment><USER17> that's what disabling your account is for, but deletion is deletion.

<comment><USER16> > but deletion is deletion.

Is it? Cases like this [0] make that seem unlikely.

[0] [http://europe-v-facebook.org/](http://europe-v-facebook.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This 'Download Your Data' tool is highlighted every few years when ire toward facebook is renewed, but while appealing it's never seemed more than table scraps to me looking at the data.

Even without looking, the idea that a data broker would just willingly give us all the information it has is unbelievable. The scale is so large, how would you even know?

<comment><USER19> They don't have a choice under GDPR.

<comment><USER20> That's yet to be seen. Can you imagine the ire when Europeans are able to download a rich set of information on how they're being tracked and so on, whereas Americans and the rest of the world has no access to that information? I can't. What is more probable is tha FB will try a legal trick claiming they are an American company and they follow the laws of California, not EU, even if they gladly accept European advertisers's money via Ireland.

<comment><USER21> This is why FB has moved data for 1.5b users back to the USA

<comment><USER22> According to Reuters[1], "Facebook said the latest change does not have tax implications." If they are still paying taxes through Ireland for the profit they make off those 1.5b users, they seem to be choosing to EU jurisdiction (which would include the GDPR) regardless of any contract of adhesion they forced users "agree" to.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-eu- exclu...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-facebook-privacy-eu- exclusive/exclusive-facebook-to-put-1-5-billion-users-out-of-reach-of-new-eu- privacy-law-idUSKBN1HQ00P)

<comment><USER23> Facebook could have made a startegic decision to permanently repatriate profits based on US tax law changes before making the GDPR decision, which would make the GDPR decision tax-consequence free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> One thing is clear. If they delete my data upon my request, they do not,for obvious reasons, delete it's contribution to any ML that was trained with it. Also, when deleting data, I wonder whether they delete any derived scores based on my data.

<comment><USER25> This is a very good point and one that I've been wondering but not seen much discussion of.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> An important omission is the data that Facebook collected on you using browser fingerprinting.

Since a fingerprint is like a hash, it is theoretically impossible for Facebook to determine if the data really belongs to you, or to someone else who happened to have the same browser fingerprint.

This means that if Facebook is legally obliged to offer a complete user data download, then the practice of fingerprinting is illegal.

<comment><USER27> I don't think fingerprinting in the interesting target here -- it's whether anything derived from somoene's data is part of their data and if so where the boundaries are.

* Can I use differential privacy? Can a user request a correction to such a dataset?

* If I train a ML model on some user data what responsibility do I have with acquisition or deletion?

* Can I anonymize my data-sets?

* How do I handle aggregate statistics?

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> In case, anyone is wondering how to get to the "Your Categories" option on Facebook. Go to Settings -> Ads and the tab will appear.

I have always been paranoid about sharing information on social media. So, this section has only Facebook access information - 4G, Ipad etc. Couple of categories are even incorrect.

</comment><comment><USER29> Despite never enabling location services, Facebook once (briefly) gave me a weather forecast when I was traveling. Spooked me quite a bit.

The best I could figure is that I temporarily enabled access to my camera roll so I could post a few photos (ordinarily I just copy/paste them to keep Facebook out of my photos), and either it scanned the photos' exif data during upload or directly from the roll once I enabled it.

I wasn't remotely surprised to find that particular piece of location data wasn't part of the data download.

<comment><USER30> Could just be IP geolocation

<comment><USER29> Geo IP location is possible but unlikely: the location was very precise and accurate, and I would assume Verizon (wasn't on wifi) wouldn't be handing out IPs with that level of specificity.

Plus it only ever happened that once.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Funny that the website is entirely unusable for me unless I turn off ghostery.

<comment><USER32> Well, not very surprising

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> The irony to see the "Would you like to login using facebook"-popup on the wired article..

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm thinking, GDPR is not live yet. They might expand the type of data they export in a month.

<comment><USER35> In theory, GDPR doesn't change very much in this area. Data subjects already had similar rights to access personal data about them under existing law in much of the EU. The potential fines for non-compliance may be much bigger, though. There is also some expansion in what constitutes personal data under the GDPR, which might be relevant if we're talking about areas where you could have tried to argue they didn't count before but they're going to be explicitly covered in the new scheme.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm not familiar with FB's APIs...do they allow for programmatic download of your data with the same set as via the manual download tool? Because if they do, then a neat little script - leveraging their API - could be used periodically to download one's data to at least address the issue with 2-month expiration on the ad data.

</comment><comment><USER37> Not long now ... [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject- acce...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/nightmare-letter-subject-access- request-under-gdpr-karbaliotis/)

</comment><comment><USER38> There is a potentially disastrous blow to FB's business model in the GDPR that relates to this sort of profiling. It is _forbidden_ under GDPR, unless the user grants explicit consent (opt-in). See [1].

Without this, FB's targeting abilities for ads just evaporates. It is going to be interesting to see how this pans out.

[1] [https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general- da...](https://ico.org.uk/for-organisations/guide-to-the-general-data- protection-regulation-gdpr/individual-rights/rights-related-to-automated- decision-making-including-profiling/)

</comment><comment><USER39> In my experience it doesn't have your comments, posts, etc in groups.

</comment><comment><USER40> The zip file Facebook provides doesn't include full resolution photos I uploaded, only heavily compressed low-resolution low-quality previews. Useless.

</comment><comment><USER41> > Wikileaks, Julian Assange, and alt-right provocateurs recommend giving it a > whirl.

Classic guilt-by-association propaganda technique.

<comment><USER42> I really can't even figure out what posessed the writer to put that line in there. It has absolutely nothing to do with the story, and kind of comes out of nowhere.

<comment><USER43> The author linked to Tweets from said individuals who were mentioning the tool. So it's relevant, however a bit odd they chose those specific examples when I'm sure they're are other "celebrities" who also linked to the tool. Maybe the author thought of these people as those _most interested_ in data privacy?

<comment><USER41> I'm not so sure, considering how their coverage of the DNC lawsuit read like a press release, with zero journalistic objectivity. It treated the currently unproven claims of a civil suit as if it was already assumed fact.[0] It contains this gem of a paragraph:

> The leaks continued steadily from there, as the suit details. Guccifer 2.0 > struck again on June 27, June 30, and July 6. On July 22, WikiLeaks took the > wheel, releasing nearly 20,000 internal DNC emails. The following day, > according to the suit, multiple DNC employees received an email that said: > "I hope your children get raped and murdered. I hope your family knows > nothing but suffering, torture, and death."

All evidence suggests, as Wikileaks has maintained, that their emails came from a physical source, and not Guccifer 2.0.

I think there is a larger editorial bias at play at Wired.

[0] [https://www.wired.com/story/dnc-lawsuit-reveals-key- details-...](https://www.wired.com/story/dnc-lawsuit-reveals-key- details-2016-hack/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> How complete is this data? Does it include content like comments?

It'd be nice to download my data and import it into a competing social network.</comment>


The Wealth Of Warren Buffett, The Legendary Investor [INFOGRAPHICS] - <AUTHOR> http://www.sociableblog.com/2011/10/09/the-wealth-of-warren-buffett/ <comment><USER2> Better version, w/o blogspam: [http://columnfivemedia.com/work-items/mint- infographic-the-h...](http://columnfivemedia.com/work-items/mint-infographic- the-house-of-buffett/)

<comment><USER3> Or you know, Perhaps you could link to the original version (Which your post linked to): [http://www.mint.com/blog/investing/whats-inside-the-house- of...](http://www.mint.com/blog/investing/whats-inside-the-house-of-warren- buffett-092011/?display=wide)

<comment><USER2> Hmm. I posted what I could find in Google. I specifically googled for Mint and Mint.com but none of the titles suggested this infographic. I can see now that the "What's inside the house of WB" link was what I was looking for. It assumed it was literally _what's in his house_. What can I say, it was late night.

Thanks for the original(?) link. Perhaps next time you can be nice about it. (That's not my site btw, which you could easily have determined by making the 10 second effort to read my comment history.)

<comment><USER3> Sorry about the snark. It just seemed strange you posted a "non-blogspam" link to a blogspam site. Especially since the article you posted linked to mint.com as the original source.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I screwed that part up. :) All good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Warren Buffett definitely is one of the greatest investors of all time, but it's a myth that he was a aw-shucks buy-and-hold-forever investor. Just like how complex Berkeshire Hathaway is, the actual From an article:

"Buffett likes for you to think that he just picks up an SEC filing, makes a phone call and seals the deal before he purchases a stock (and Wall Street wants you to think this as well), but Buffett is far more savvy than he leads on. This is exemplified by the complexity of Berkshire Hathaway. Berkshire Hathaway isn't just your average insurance company. The brilliance behind Buffett's investment in Berkshire is astounding. He effectively used (and uses) Berkshire as the world's largest option writing house. The premiums and cash flow from his insurance business created dividends that he could invest in other businesses. But Buffett wasn't just buying Coca-Cola and Geico as many have been led to believe. Buffett was placing some (short-term AND long- term) complex bets in derivatives markets, options markets, and bond markets. The myth that Buffett is a pure value investor is just that. And it has been fed to the public hook line and sinker by people who entirely fail to understand Buffett's genius, but benefit from an investing public that continues to pour money into the "hold and hope" myth."

<http://pragcap.com/the-many-myths-of-warren-buffett>

Also, he's really good at coming in as a vulture and putting the screws into companies. The deals he did with Goldman Sachs and Bank of America were of great value, but if you followed him blindly, you wouldn't have gotten nearly as good a deal as he did.

<comment><USER5> I agree with most of your points, but I would argue that Buffett does buy and hold for much longer than most other investors. Looking at a number of the companies in his portfolio (See's Candies comes to mind), he has owned them for a long time without any changes in ownership. I think the key is that he finds great businesses that either produce cash, giving him more to invest year after year, or he strategically uses cash flow to generate incremental profits (ie his insurance businesses).</comment></comment>


Economist Says Online Advertising Will Grow During Downturn - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/business/displaystory.cfm?story_id=12684861

<comment><AUTHOR> This is consistent with what we are seeing. CPM is actually up for us year over year, and the seasonal trends remain similar. No rush away from online advertising yet - though I'm worried about Q1 09.</comment>


Show HN: Categorised Twitter Threads (400+) - <AUTHOR> https://awesomethread.com <comment><AUTHOR> I love reading twitter threads and find it to be a great source of information. Yeah finding twitter threads are hard. I do it manually so I can categorise it.

<comment><USER2> Finding good threads are hard. :) A quick "unroll" or "thread" search will uncover thousands of threads every day...

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Can anyone help me with finding more twitter threads?

</comment><comment><USER3> Do you find twitter threads useful? It's a real pain to find good ones.</comment>


China's Overrated Technocrats - <AUTHOR> https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/07/04/chinas-overrated-technocrats-stem-engineering-xi-jinping/ <comment><USER2> > ... engineers raised with a strong ideology, whether Islamism or communism, > can be among the most rigid of thinkers. Engineering is "more attractive to > individuals seeking cognitive 'closure' and clear-cut answers as opposed to > more open-ended sciences," Gambetta and Hertog wrote. And that training > seems to encourage the idea of a toolbox that can be applied to any problem, > such as the application of Marxist ideas to society, producing the rigid > cruelties of the Maoist era and the crushing of dissidents under Xi in the > 2010s.

I doubt I'd ever vote for an engineer president. We've had 2 (Carter, Hoover) and they've both been stinkers.</comment>


Bike Sharing Is Doomed to Fail in Most American Cities - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/vby5j4/bike-sharing-doomed-to-fail-dallas-limebike-ofo-transportation-cycling <comment><USER2> That was my general thesis which is how do these companies solve for the problem of random bikes all over the place? I guess you can incentivize users enough for them to dock it but then does that become a burden and uneconomical for the company.</comment>


Ask HN: Optimal office relocation (London) based on journey times of employees - <AUTHOR>

A variant on the shortest path problem - we have multiple employees with access to underground stations around London. What would be the best way of choosing a new office location given the starting points of the employees with the primary goal to keep average transit time using public transport to the new location a minimum? And has anybody done this already? (Mapumental have an open service but it seems to be the wrong way round for my purposes). I've not been able to find anything but perhaps I've been asking the wrong question. the ability to weight the importance of various key staff would be nice as well. Of course, we might well end up just schlepping over to Silicon roundabout.
edited to clarify that Mapumentals service is not wrong, just the way I want to use it <comment><USER2> It's a problem which is common in the transport sector to decide on where to build warehouses. Unfortunately I don't have recommendations that are open to use, most seem to be custom in-house solutions.

A big question is what you are optimising for? If it's average time, it could be that it is far for everyone. Or are you employees living in clusters that can carry a heigher weight? You already talk about different staff carrying a different weight. etc. etc.

It's typically not even easy to properly define the problem :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> Can't you run Mapumental for each home and then combine the results somehow to find the best location?

Actually, do they already support this? They say "Mapumental handles multiple start or destination points too."

I was thinking just overlaying the maps as semi-transparent PNGs would reinforce the color gradient of the nearest places.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, not sure if it's exactly what I want as details are scarce but I've dropped them an email, thanks for the nudge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I would probably start by asking your staff their nearest 2 underground stations. Upload the spreadsheet to something like ZeeMaps to pin all the locations to a map and getting a visual idea of where clusters appear. You could even do this on your office wall.

However is the best office one that has the shortest journey? Surely neighbourhood, space, cost & local facilities are equally important.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are probably a fintite number of points that are your best guess and near a station. Use station locations inside a radius.

Then run them all through mapumental to get distances. Weighting can be done in code or a spreadsheet.

Or implement a hill climbing algorithm using mapumental and the weights to make your cost function.</comment>


John Bogle: Trading Is Investors' Enemy - <AUTHOR> https://www.thinkadvisor.com/2018/11/27/john-bogle-rias-are-the-future-trading-is-investor/ <comment><AUTHOR> Q: Any regrets?

A: No regrets. I'm not a "trillionaire" like Abby Johnson [Fidelity chairwoman], who is supposed to be worth [$15.4 billion]. I wouldn't even know what to do with a number like that. We have a nice, small house. We have shelter when it rains, snows or is windy. The kids and grandkids are well. I have the Armstrong Foundation, which has now reached a decent size — and I feel like it could do some good for others.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Q: What's in your personal investment portfolio?

John Bogle: I'm 50% bonds — 50% Vanguard bond funds — and 50% stocks. Half the time I wonder why I have so much in stocks; the other half, I wonder why I have so little.</comment>


Secret court declassifies opinion providing rationale for metadata sharing - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/09/secret-court-declassifies-opinion-providing-rationale-for-metadata-sharing/

<comment><AUTHOR> Direct link is here: [http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/br13-09-primary...](http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/courts/fisc/br13-09-primary- order.pdf)</comment>


Gox.com Domain Name Acquired by Mt. Gox Parent Company - <AUTHOR> http://www.domaininvesting.com/andy-booth-sells-gox-com/

<comment><USER2> This lends even more credence to the document: [http://www.scribd.com/doc/209050732/MtGox-Situation- Crisis-S...](http://www.scribd.com/doc/209050732/MtGox-Situation-Crisis- Strategy-Draft)

<comment><USER3> Considering the term goxxed is a staple of bitcoin vernacular I wonder why they decided to use it as their rebranding.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ominous html comment on mtgox.com

         <body>
            <!-- put announce for mtgox acq here -->
         </body>

But please mind the source here

</comment><comment><USER5> I would love know how much he got paid. He might be the last person to make a buck out of this fiasco.

<comment><USER6> He probably got paid in BTC that mtgox was holding so maybe not.

<comment><USER7> I'm not so sure that many people selling three-letter .com domains accept BTC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> the only source of this appears to be the updated whois information...

<comment><AUTHOR> I have been emailing with the former owner who sold the domain name (Andy Booth) and the broker (Joe Politzer). Andy commented at the end of the article.</comment></comment>


Information Operations and Facebook [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://fbnewsroomus.files.wordpress.com/2017/04/facebook-and-information-operations-v1.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> This pdf was posted 4 months ago, but without discussion. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212657](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14212657)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> and the actual blogpost ([https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information- operations-...](https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2017/09/information-operations- update/)) was posted 10 hours ago, again without discussion [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15186693](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15186693)</comment>


Google Chromecast: Expectations Versus Reality - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/OurielOhayon/status/360283214004240384/photo/1 <comment><USER2> Various people are reporting that it's powered just via their HDMI out, though Google don't seem to be making much of that ability, possibly to save confusion as it'll be a rare TV that can do it. There's some confusion whether it's HDMI 1.4 or MHL that's required for this to work, or even just manufacturer differences.

But even if that's not possible for you, this is probably the more immediate fallback position for most people:

[http://i.imgur.com/uZZpqFl.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/uZZpqFl.jpg)</comment>


Microsoft account passwords can contain up to 16 characters. - <AUTHOR>

http://i.imgur.com/yJfhAqY.png
I tried to login to my Microsoft account today from my mobile phone. My password is longer than 16 characters and I received this error. It's worked in the past, but not now.
This worries me, how could entering the first 16 characters work? Wouldn't that mean the password is stored unencrypted. Besides that, why the heck are they limiting to only 16 characters? Seems like a bad security policy IMO. <comment><USER2> Yeah, their password policy is silly, especially for Office 365 accounts. They don't allow space characters either; its like nobody there reads xkcd, let alone any modern recommendations. I suppose they rely on their lockout verification policies, like a lot of banks (your bank password is likely not case sensitive, as an example)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why would you think it is stored in plain text? I imagine they were probably only using the first 16 characters and silently discarding the rest.

<comment><USER4> My employer migrated to MS hosted exchange, so I am also experiencing this. I think at the time I had a 20+ char password, and it never complained. For some reason though, they have changed their UI's now on things like live login pages, and it is HERE that you can't supply your full password any ore. I had to reset my password to be 16 chars to be able to use the web interface. The back end was working just fine with 20+.

<comment><USER3> Did you ever try only the first 19 or 18 or 17 or 16 of your 20+ password in the past? Just because they are alerting you to something now does not mean that in the past they did not silently ignore any chars past 16.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Are Police Unions Blocking Reform? - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/09/19/why-are-police-unions-blocking-reform <comment><USER2> There are other considerations as well. No community likes being reformed by others. Nobody likes being told to "be more like us" by others who (maybe) don't understand the issues at hand.

For sure, there is entrenched power, but there are other issues like "what am I allowed to do when a suspect high on PCP attacks me? I can no longer use a choke hold, so I guess I have to use my gun. What if it's crowded?"

Here are a few glaring problems that people have admitted need(ed|s) fixing that resist outside dictating: * Removal of Saddam Hussein * Improving inner city schools * Removal of children from a household * Endorcement of civil rights in the south

In all cases, there are/were people on the inside who agree the thing must be done, but objected to outsiders doing it because * it made them feel annexed * it made them feel like they would be judged poorly on everything else * they suspected they would be punished forever * they questioned the real motives for the intervention * they didn't trust the intervention to go all the way. If the greater power left part way through, the local leaders would extract revenge. * ...

<comment> vertex-four The fact that the police is a community which is "other" than us is the problem, though. This is never going to be solved as long as there's an external group with power over us which rejects accountability.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think the only people who would say "yes, I want more oversight and accountability" are those who weren't seeking power in the first place, having it thrust upon them by circumstance and fully understanding the responsibility they bear, and maybe a little horrified at the potential for abuse.

</comment><comment> nappa-leon Maybe because the power they get from beating people without accountability is one of the perks of their jobs. They're super power hungry and know that even the slightest amount of oversight will show that the breadth of corruption is much deeper than anyone though

</comment><comment><USER4> because the incentives for a union is to maximize the compensation and privileges for their members not to curtail their own behavior. this is why you hear stories about union shops not firing employees that show up drunk and cause accident because it would cost more to fight the union than to deal with it.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why are unions blocking reform? - I think is a slightly more appropriate question. If you can answer that question I think you can then add the police prefix to specify why they are different than other unions.

</comment><comment><USER6> > _" A work stoppage to punish a player for expressing his opinion may seem > extreme"_

They said, without any hint of awareness of the irony...

<comment><USER7> Care to spell that out? I'm missing the irony

<comment><USER6> CK wasn't protesting on his own time, he was at work, in uniform, and refused to do something.

<comment><USER8> He took the knee, to protest the train wreck of criminal justice. He was still respecting the flag.

He wasn't stopping the game, he wasn't delaying anything. He did it at the same time as everyone else.

All he did was a different position to respect the flag, while also protesting the treatment of PoC in America.

If we want to talk about disrespecting the flag then we need to talk about those football ceremonies with the flag dragged horizontally across the field, or flag themed clothing and costumes, or advertising that uses the flag. Because those are explicitly disrespectful, and a violation of the flag code (4USC section 1)

<comment><USER9> Don't forget worshiping the confederate flag which is to disown everything America stands for.

<comment><USER8> oh yeah. The confederate flag is by definition the flag of treason. If you are flying or using the confederate flag then you're literally pro-treason. Well, that and slavery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Unions protect the interests of their members. That's their job. From their perspective, the regulation needs to be better than the alternative.</comment>


Ask HN: Best way to get people to particpate in a survey - <AUTHOR>

I need to quantify how time is wasted in the software development processes, so I need to do a survey. I work in the Ottawa region so there is a lot of high tech companies for me to query and I was wondering what is the best way to approach them.
I was thinking about offering each company something like a $100 gift certificate that can be given out to winning employees who participated in the survey.  I figure if I buy the certificates in bulk, I should be able to work out a discount.  Or would it be better to just pay a company to do the survey?
On a side and begging note, if you can explain how you are wasting time, I would greatly appreciate that as well.  I'm focusing on how you are wasting your time answering questions that are related to your software changes.  These can be questions from verification teams, management, senior management, executives, etc.  I'm also looking for examples where a lot of time was wasted to fix something because there was poor communication with regards to not understanding what was changing.
Thanks <comment><USER2> You are already starting with two preconceived notions. First that you need to quantify how time is wasted in software development. Second that you need to do a survey. I don't know what you're trying to achieve, but those may not be necessities (well unless of course what you're trying to achieve is exactly and only raw data on how time is wasted in software development as would be obtained by a survey).

The use of a survey especially seems more apt to be flexible. Especially when you consider the simple fact that all survey answers are lies to some extent whether the responder intends for them to be or not. Is there perhaps an opportunity for direct observation? Can you perhaps check how time is spent by looking at commit logs of open source projects? Can you track stock values over time to see which period of time was least utilized? The list goes on.

I'm not saying a survey is necessarily a bad idea, but they have lots of flaws (such as lying and not providing the right answers (or questions)).

<comment><AUTHOR> The product that I'm working on is designed to improve how we communicate and access information. It's based on a system that I had designed and implemented for a very large software company where errors and missteps tend to have a cascading affect.

It was fairly easy for people to not know what was going on around them due to the complexity of the software. The problem was also exasperated by people having different skill sets and social skills. You'll be surprised or maybe not, but people will waste time trying to find an alternate way to get an answer, if they know the person who can answer it is not sociable.

What I'm hoping to better understand is how we spend our time answering questions like, "what did you do?", which requires e-mail and/or meetings and/or reports. And if these types of question could have been self answered if the person asking could have figured this out themselves.

The main selling point of my product is I make it very easy for non developers like managers, seniors managers, verification, etc. to understand what is changing. It also makes it easy for developers who have to deal with a very large code base.

In order for me to show customer value, I'll need to quantify how buying my tool, will help their bottom line.

I do understand that lying would be an issue but I also think if I can come up with a good set of questions. That those frustrated will be more than glad to provide honest feedback.

The challenges that I'm faced with is defining all the questions, which is something I can work on. But in order for me show customer value, I'll need to quantify time wasted, with real world metrics. Time is money. And in this market, if you can't save somebody money, they probably won't listen.

<comment><USER2> If I understand correctly, your product helps people keep track of what's going in the development of a project.

That may be even more susceptible to lying in surveys. First of all, people don't want to admit that they don't know things, especially things directly related to their job. I would have a hard time admitting I had no idea what was going on with a project I was working on [of course, I'm the only developer where I work, so that's not usually an issue ;)]. Also, those frustrated by not knowing what was going on are likely to exaggerate the impact of that lack of knowledge ("I couldn't do anything at all for 3 weeks!" or something like that).

This is a case where I think the best selling points may be testimonials from previous customers. Another thing you might consider is offering an audit service to evaluate how much time you think your product could save.

I'm not trying to discourage by any means, but surveys are hard to do right, so I'm just trying to suggest other options that you can use to supplement and strengthen the results of whatever survey you end up doing.

For me, my likelihood of doing a survey is [assuming I'm not unintentionally lying too much ;)] based more on the quality of the survey and how much I care about the product/process I am being surveyed about. I would be more than happy to take an interesting survey about Web.py (a Python web development framework).

The problem is most surveys are neither interesting nor about interesting things. If your survey involves rating statements Disagree Strongly, Disagree, Neither Agree Nor Disagree, Agree, Agree Strongly, you've already failed... epically. If your survey involves rating a long list of things on a scale of 1-10, you've failed epically. In fact, if your survey involves answering a long series of similar questions of ANY kind, you've failed epically. When I see a survey like that, I go into 5 mode (or 3 mode if it's 1-5). The answers are meaningless after about the 3rd question, and I'm not convinced that people can rate things at the granularity level of a 1-10 scale anyway. If you must have a scale, use 1-4. It's impossible to answer a middle meaningless answer and it's small enough that the answers may be accurate (what's really the difference between a 6 and a 7 or a 2 and a 3 on a 1-10 scale?).

Surveys should be dynamic and look like they were actually written by people, not machines. Ask questions in different ways. Ask open questions and give plenty of room to answer. Don't try to limit answers to an unreasonable set of options. Don't ask too many questions (I think about 20 should be considered the limit).

<comment><AUTHOR> I hear what you are saying. I'll definitely need to come up with something that can translate into dollar signs. Thanks for the input.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The one kind of founder vcs will never fund - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/the-one-kind-of-founder-vcs-will-never-fund-67c68d496da0 <comment><USER2> This piece is excellent advice. It's way better to retain integrity and build on that than to dissemble and fudge things, if only because maintaining separate realities is a tax on your brain.

However, the title is completely false.

Anyone who has been around the industry knows that both founders and executives can achieve success through exaggeration, distortion, "acting as- if", "fake it till you make it", dissembling and outright lies.

These things create low-trust toxic environments, but people can still make a lot of money in those environments.

Don't engage in these behaviors. They make the world worse for both you and everyone else.

But don't gaslight yourself into thinking that people are not successful because of them.

</comment><comment><USER3> TLDR: "...a founder that doesn't tell the truth is the one kind of founder that VCs will never fund.""

</comment><comment><USER4> Clickbait title but right-on punchline.

A business partner that is perceived to "lie" will kill your business, no matter what business you are in.

<comment><USER2> True in the limit, but they can easily be funded and create the impression of success for a long time, and even exit before that outcome.

Theranos, and WeWork would be good examples.

<comment><USER4> Right, some people certainly do manage to build a business around lying, and how they get past the societal defenses against that is a question -- "WeWork" is a unicorn precisely because it is an exception to the rule.

<comment><USER2> It's only an exception because of how large/egregious it is.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Love to Learn - <AUTHOR> http://jacquesmattheij.com/Love-To-Learn

<comment><USER2> The learning never stops - and that's a good thing (it would be boring if you were done at some point).

In my case, I finished an M.Sc. in computer science, and really loved all the subjects we were exposed to. When I graduated, I had decided to go back and do a Ph.D. to be able to continue learning about cool stuff.

But I worked in industry several years before going back, and loved that too. I quit the Ph.D. program after one year, mostly because I liked working in industry better. And by that time (yes, it took me that long), I had realized that learning doesn't have to take place at school/university. You can keep learning your whole career, which is one of the things I love about being a programmer - it never gets boring.

</comment><comment><USER3> One thing that certainly helps is online courses like Coursera, Udacity and others.

In my case this works wonderfully because I work so much better when there're multiple deadlines for the assignments, instead of a vague end.

</comment><comment><USER4> I think this is one of the most important things in life-- to keep your curiosity intact. It isn't easy. There are a million organizational forces that will try to discourage you from having it, in their efforts to push everyone into mediocrity, but I _think_ that if you keep your head up a bit and don't lose that spark of creativity, there _are_ rewards at the end of the slog... somewhere, after ups and downs that most people can't tolerate.

I enjoy learning at work, especially if working on something no one told me to do. You really gain an appreciation for the value of education when you steal it from a boss.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think, We are learner born to death.

</comment><comment><USER6> You are a domain squatter. It's a shame people like you lurk on HN.

<comment><USER7> And you are totally clueless. And I'm not exactly lurking here.

Let me give you a hand so that in the spirit of the linked article you may educate yourself on the subject:

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

<comment><USER6> I don't think people in HN like to encourage domain squatters.

<http://jacquesmattheij.com/auction-of-domains-for-sale/>

<comment><USER8> An important part of that definition appears to be:

" _using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else_ "

Looking at the list of domains on that site I can't see any that meet that criteria. If someone wants to speculatively registers domains that don't conflict with existing trademarks or company names I don't see what the problem is.

<comment><USER9> Just yesterday I wrongly typed musicbrainz.com, looking for the powerful open source music tagger. It appears to be in the list. I don't mind grabbing a few bucks from a big Corp when they forgot to get their domains, but I find it a bit vulturish to squat names of open source projects.

It might be the case that Jacques did register this name without knowing, but it seems not very likely.

<comment><USER7> There was a rumour that musicbrains was going the route of CDDB (now gracenote) and I registered the domain on the off chance they were going to close the data.

A similar thing happened with freedb (hence freeddb), which ended up powering daz.com for a couple of years but with better replacements out there the project was shut down.

Funny how everybody is always so ready to see malice.

Check out reocities.com for one that did work out as planned (at least, according to me, I'm not sure Yahoo would agree with me there).

<comment><USER9> Well, if you appreciate the current work of MusicBrainz team but foresee the possibility of them going commercial, maybe you could, meanwhile, link or redirect to their official <http://musicbrainz.org/> site. That could be a fair solution for non lucrative project domains.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How the United States threatens our security - <AUTHOR> https://www.kowabit.de/how-the-united-states-threatens-our-security/ <comment><USER2> I'm kind of surprised by the response here. For one thing this helps European telecoms suppliers. On top of this there is this weird expectation that the way things have been is good and should continue. I don't see this justified. Huawei exists in large part because of the history of the US opening it's markets to China which helped the Chinese economy grow immensely (not to mention copying Cisco).

I'm not going to defend the US on everything but it has its own interests and nobody should be surprised over the coming decades if it starts closing off its market and withdrawing its guarantees on securing other countries trade.

Europe has had a lot of time to grow up and should at this point realize this probable future and decide what such a future means for it, and decide how it wants to present itself in such a world.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. When the going gets rough, the US is just as willing as any other authoritarian state to sacrifice all justice, friendship, goodwill and fairplay to secure their profits.

Why should the EU follow the US into their dirty game? The first 70 years after war, the US at least tried to keep the illusion of being decent. Now everything's an all-out free-for-all, and EU should be looking after themselves than the interests of somebody else.

<comment><USER4> US is also threatening to stop business with whoever doesn't ban Huawei, so that's why

<comment><USER5> Without trying to imply some kind of opinion as to Huawei or Trump here: I don't think that's a serious threat.

It's one thing to make a lot of tough-looking noise as a matter of protectionism to curry favor with voters thus protected - it's quite another to actually hurt those same voter's economic interest fairly quickly without clear, short-term benefit. In other words: protection classical industry makes some sense politically (whether or not it's a good idea), setting off a real trade war with your allies when you're also in a trade war with china makes no sense at all.

Also, I doubt Trump needs to. He's quite capable of harassing Huawei without much foreign support. Why risk a recession - and thus reelection - if you don't have too?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For mobile telecom equipment: 1 Huawei 2 Ericsson 3 Nokia

How helping out 2 of the largest actually competitive companies in EU to gain more market share in US threatens EU security is beyond me

<comment><USER5> It may help those two firms, but the point isn't to make these two private entities _rich_ it's national (and union) security: Huawei's existing customers - which exist in the US, but particularly in the EU - must now rely on a partner that through government fiat suddenly cannot be a reliable partner anymore.

Also remarkable is how little power has to do anything about it. If they wanted to ensure continued reliability of existing infrastructure and infrastructure investments they can... try to nationlize huwawei's relevant IP? Nationalize Google's relevant IP? Both are extremely far-fetched, not to mention the fact that it's not just a matter of IP - replicating those companies respective skillsets probably isn't even feasible. The executive order could probably be subverted by passing along whatever info/IP huwawei needs since that info is likely also present in places outside of US reach, but that threatens escalation (and it's possible EU leaders don't trust huawei either, so they might not even want to do that, even if they could).

Additionally, the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because there is _less_ competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU- owned) firms is pretty absurd. Less competition is almost certainly _bad_ for the EU (and the US), regardless of who gets rich, simply becuase there are vastly more and more important users of this network tech than there are sellers. A nepotistic short-term win won't even budge the GDP needle, but reduced innovation in tech might.

However little empathy you might have for Huawei's shareholders, the consequences for their clients at the very least bear pause.

<comment><USER7> >the implied suggestion that the EU is somehow better off because there is less competition for EU-headquartered (but not necessarily EU-owned) firms is pretty absurd

Distantly that has been part of the argument that somehow that allows for the EU to legislate the internet as it has .... but considering the legislation I'm not sure it has proven to be a positive.

<comment><USER5> Where did anybody argue that "regulating the internet" is a good idea because it reduces competition for EU-headquartered international companies?

Oh well, people say crazy things sometimes. It's definitely a bad motivation - I don't think it's even remotely relevant as a practical motivation however, not least because there's just not a lot of upside to be had.

<comment><USER7> The idea has been put forth here and other places quite a few times that a lot of the recent EU regulation exists because of a lack of influence of those companies.

Granted, you also would want to belive those regulations and laws are good things to enjoy that argument.

I agree it is a strange POV. If anything I'm pointing out how kinda terrible that is as an argument.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a part of USA culture that thrives on cold-war-style paranoia. It's in conflict with another part of our culture that thrives on openness and cooperation.

The paranoid part of our culture is in ascendance in these decades (partly due to the success of malicious state actors exploiting our openness and cooperation.)

This has been a back-and-forth struggle for much of the USA's history. It's never static. This balance will continue to change in future.

In the meantime, of course, it's helpful to their careers for politicians to stir up fear of ghoulies and ghosties and long-legged beasties and things that go bump in the night.

<comment><USER9> You do realize things do go bump in the night ? The world isnt all that nice.

<comment><USER10> And that's why the military and intelligence agencies get funding. But what good does it do to get _the general public_ scared and worked up about these issues?

<comment><USER7> Voters should know what is going on.

<comment><USER10> There's a vast difference in making information available and to "stir up fear of ghoulies and ghosties".

<comment><USER7> How do you define "stir up fear of ghoulies and ghosties"?

Concerns you personally don't share?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > China itself could, of course, also impose bans on American producers and > products. A stand-still would possibly bring peace again.

I think we are missing something here. China is already banning western services. No mainland Chinese person is using Google directly. No Outlook, Gmail, Facebook, Skype, AppStore, Google Play, etc. I don't think they can ban USA services even more.

China can only ban exporting to USA, but it's like cutting off your own legs to make a point. In a certain sense, China is losing the game they started a long time ago.

While Europe... Well, we are a total disaster in the IT sector anyway. Nobody gives a damn about the EU.

</comment><comment><USER12> Realistically, the best bet for Europe is to play the part of the USA in the lead-up to WW1. By remaining unaligned with either the axis or the allies until the war was essentially decided, they came out of the conflict as the sole winners.

Unfortunately, I expect that the EU will stick with the US, and get dragged into whatever that entails. I hope that the world has changed enough that total war between incumbent and upstart great powers isn't possible - but I don't really see any clear reasons why it shouldn't happen.

What I hope is that China is aware of the parallels between their situation and the situation of pre-WW1 Germany, or pre-WW2 Japan, and goes a different route. If they simply wait, focus on soft power, and ignore all provocations, they'll no doubt end up taking the USA's place.

<comment><USER13> In the book, "The Next 100 Years: A Forecast for the 21st Century" by George Friedman, the author predicts that China will start to fragment. Although this hasn't been happening probably because of the increase in strict authoritarian rule. Perhaps this trade war will intensify the pressure until some kind of uprising against the authoritarian rule emerges. Besides, China is more keen on keeping economic harmony than fighting a war. History has shown us what happens when its citizens aren't happy time and again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I find it amusing that the US is accusing Huawei of doing to the US for China exactly what Xerox did to the USSR for the US.

<comment><USER15> "Something something it's righteous when we do it but evil when they do it"

<comment><USER16> > "Something something it's righteous when we do it but evil when they do it"

That's too simplistic a take. There's a moral angle that you're missing: "they" are authoritarians with terrible human rights records (see: Dissidents, treatment of), "we" are a liberal democracy that's quite a bit better at human rights (though not perfect).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The good news is that Huawei already sucked at making security updates and even claimed to have updated, but hadn't, so it's no huge loss. [https://www.wired.com/story/android-phones-hide-missed- secur...](https://www.wired.com/story/android-phones-hide-missed-security- updates-from-you/)

<comment><USER17> Here's another part of the story. Huawei were not able to show what they used to build their software. When they tried, the end result did not match the source code they said they were using: [https://commsrisk.com/interpreting- huaweis-failed-uk-securit...](https://commsrisk.com/interpreting-huaweis- failed-uk-security-audit/)

<comment><USER18> Fair enough, but reproducible builds are hard, especially on an OS scale.

And I'm all for demanding verifiability, but why should manufacturers from particular regions be singled out? Just because the US is trying to fan their domestic "reds under the bed" paranoia for political reasons?

<comment><USER19> I don't agree. Android builds aren't that big

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In terms of the monster I want living in my attic, I won't swap the US for China any day soon.

<comment><USER3> But we only have a monster in the attic, because we choose to choose one of those two.

I believe that's the point the article is trying to make: That the EU should stand up and be an actual 3rd party and possibly mediate between China and USA. But then the article also concludes that it's not surprising that doesn't happen considering the parties in Europe.

<comment><USER7> What would "mediate" mean?

The EU is hardly in a position to actually address any security concerns.

<comment><USER21> why do you think that?

<comment><USER22> Really, German government even failed to see any security threat in Kaspersky Antivirus on computers of public servicemen, and it is literally a backdoor for the Russian secret services.

<comment><USER23> How is this different from using an OS that sends the names of the files you have accessed to a foreign country if you don't use its enterprise version or have misconfigured it? A situation that is true throughout public services and across your entire country's industry.

<comment><USER22> Not quite sure what you're referring to. They also failed to replace MS products with open-source alternatives, because, you know, the icons are on the wrong places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Let's hope this mess brings us at least a stronger FOSS mobile ecosystem...

<comment><USER25> Free Open Source Software is easy, Free Open Source Services are harder, not impossible (OpenStreet Maps, Wikipedia, IRC (Freenode specifically)), but it is really hard because the cost increases with users unlike software. And what Google brings is service, very reliable and high quality one at that, though the history of Google search quality is up to debate as of recent.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Good luck hearing anything from EU.

EU should get permission from US to buy gas & energy or who to deal and business with, such a joke!

</comment><comment><USER27> I'm not sure I agree on the last part re: LineageOS et al. They've not failed, they don't gain traction as it's more difficult to install them (in the case of aftermarket firmwares) due to having to gain root. For Purism or hardware+os combos, then they've not got the same market share or share of mindset. If a big player made a (truely) open Android, I'm sure there would be people all over it. If they went down this path, it may actually open up the Android ecosystem. (then again, the hardware still probably wouldn't be completely open)

<comment><USER28> How does OnePlus's Oxygen OS fit into this? I believe it's based on Cyanogen, which is an open version of Android which, if I recall correctly, was not allowed to distribute the proprietary parts of Android.

So doesn't a big, open version of Android already exist there? Or is it just as tied to Google as stock Android is?

<comment><USER29> Honestly while using OnePlus Two I didn't feel it being open at all. In fact I have a very strong suspicion that OnePlus is using OS updates as planned obsolescence.

One day my OnePlus Two installed the system upgrade causing the battery to fully drain in a span of 30 minutes - 2 hours and the phone getting super hot while idle. I tried doing all the recommended steps of fixing the problem (clearing cache, factory resets etc.) without any improvement.

As soon as I installed Lineage OS I started getting a 24+ hr battery life and didn't experience any issues so the issue was not related to hardware.

<comment><USER27> There was the instance a couple of years back whereby they were sending lots of data back to base, made me very dubious of them since.

<comment><USER28> My Fairphone had an issue a couple of month where it managed to use a couple of GB in a matter of minutes and drained my data subscription. I still don't know why, but I think it's a genuine bug, and not anyone trying to steal my data.

That said, I would prefer an OS that provably puts my in charge and doesn't allow foreign companies access to everything I've got. Then again, I also like convenience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> i do not know what the espionage evidence was. it must have been a lot to throw a lot of european consumers under the bus like this. definitely an issue for diplomats, but it could in the long run lead to more competition on the software markets, with neutral play store clones gaining a foothold.

</comment><comment><USER31> Don't tell me there is also a single country that controls the global (oil- trading) currency?

<comment><USER32> Most oil trading is done in US dollars, but by no means all. It's a convenient and popular unit of account for international trading, but the Euro and Yuan are used too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't disagree, but I think the perspective is a bit weird. Especially this part:

>But the fact that the market power of the Americans has such a big influence is our own fault. European governments have failed to create framework conditions to create competition here as well. If you know which parties in Europe are in charge, it is not surprising.

Europeans have been specifically willing to let the US and China dominate these markets. Most of Europe literally relies on the US for their security with NATO. Many of our companies have been sold to China, or are manufacturing in China. Of course we can't have our cake an eat it too. (Unless it is something like this that you meant).

<comment><USER34> I agree, and I understand the OP to say that as well.

I don't know if it is/was incompetence to not support domestic industries, or the wish to not anger the US by competing on this area, or something else, I don't know. I believe most of these areas (the hardware, the software, the services) are of such high importance that is indeed of national (talking EU wide) interest to not have to rely on foreign interests.

We trust Google to not unfairly kill hardware vendors, to not manipulate search results, but ultimately, we're powerless if they do, and having to "trust" a foreign government on these essential things sounds bad. Whether it's China or the US ("America has no permanent friends or enemies, only interests") is secondary imho. Yes, we have better relations with the US, but who can tell whether our interests will align 10 or 20 years down the road?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Yes, EU kind of 'outsourced' large part of technical platforms to US much like what happened to NATO (many european countries don't have real military forces to speak of and rely on US armed forces for protection). EU has no search engine to speak of. European antiviruses are a joke. There's no european 'office suite' that I know of. Should the United States apply the pressure, Europe has very little to counter the pressure with.

<comment><USER36> Qwant.com is European.

And very European in that it favours user privacy.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, but last I checked, I think half a year ago, they were (still?) getting their results piped from Microsoft's Bing search engine.

I'd find it more important to develop the search engine technology than to, well... just rebrand another US search engine, essentially...

<comment><USER37> The problem with some of these European initiatives is that they sound more like a political project than a technical one. Lots of "values" being discussed – granted, decent values to support – but very little technology.

Perhaps I'm too jaded an engineer, but if a solid product or technical idea isn't at the base of a project, no amount of values and goodwill is going to glue it together into a reliable working whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I feel most of the comments here don't correctly lasso this on a fundamental level. This article describes a single data-point in a context where protectionism becomes a guiding policy principle. The world coalesces (will coalesce) in economic alliances with military power to back their interests, and it is an extremely dangerous path.

To people who want to point fingers at individual players, saying "it is the fault of Trump, (China, Putin or whoever)" please don't, unless you want to be part of the warmongering hysteria that lies ahead.

It's not anyone's fault, this is just the result of economic and political history. What we need is to make sure this doesn't end in a man-made catastrophe, larger than anything hitherto.

</comment><comment><USER7> Considering the spotty nature of updates as it is... I'm not sure I buy into the idea this is a dramatic change as far as risk goes.

</comment><comment><USER39> > By order of the American government, Google must now end its Android support > for Huawei.

Google will continue to support existing Huawei phones.

<comment><USER40> To provide a source here: [https://twitter.com/Android/status/1130313848332988421](https://twitter.com/Android/status/1130313848332988421)

Resulting article: [https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/19/google-says-its-app- store-...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/19/google-says-its-app-store-will- continue-to-work-for-existing-huawei-smartphone-owners/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> (un)ironically, Huawei recently stopped allowing bootloader unlocking, now they will probably have to use AOSP

</comment><comment><USER41> AppStore? Or did they mean Google Play?

<comment><AUTHOR> AppStore ... Better for understanding for the most Readers.

But you are right. Google Play Store.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> After reading this, it occurs to me that a side effect might be the EU getting its act together and provide some real competition to US tech dominance. I would consider that a good thing. Not sure that's what Trump intends...

<comment><USER43> I would love to see that but I doubt it would happen - there seem to be major cultural problems holding the EU back - which is something that isn't unique to them - every nation has their own frankly stupid cultural dysfunctions which if addressed could make things so much better for everyone at no real cost except selfish and irrelevant vested interests.

The EU nations are generally far too protectionist and unwilling to allow disruption or breaking of fiefdoms - just changing where ancient province lines for agriculture regions fills them with rage - let alone absurd. Then there are the issues with German publishers and Spanish newspapers.

Until that changes they will unfortunately fail to have more than a relatively minor presence - they really should have a larger tech industry for their size and educated population base.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Quite disappointing that German anti-Americanism goes as far as siding with China. And quite ironic that the author plays the Trump card, who has gained a lot of his notoriety by having ties to another authoritarian regime.

<comment><USER3> I don't find the author is siding with China, I find he's playing fair.

Everything (?) the US accuses China, the EU could accuse the US of as well.

I'm guessing it's for historical reasons things are the way they are now, and because of economic inertia that this has yet to change.

I don't want to be pro-China nor pro-US. But I see two people wanting to sell me something, and one of them is trying to stop me from buying the better product.

<comment><USER22> Siding as in not morally but practically - doing/willing to do things that favor someone, not necessarily liking someone.

> But I see two people wanting to sell me something, and one of them is trying > to stop me from buying the better product.

This willingness to compromise on global security for a little profit is siding to me. Exactly the same willingness as in Gazprom/NordStream case if you follow the topic.

> Everything (?) the US accuses China, the EU could accuse the US of as well.

It could, but what the author seems to propose is tolerating China's violations, not opposing these of US (which EU couldn't realistically do anyway).

<comment><USER43> To be fair "global security" has been cried wolf about enough given its use as a scurtiny terminating cliche for reasons that are irrelevant like embarrassment to officials that it could be replaced with "nothing" and have approximately the same meaning. If you don't trust the message the argument goes the other direction it becomes "compromising nothing for a little profit". Why leave money om the table for the sake of a known bad actor?

If you sincerely believe it that loss of credibility should be deeply troubling. If you don't it is as it should be - they lost their abused cudgel and can deal with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Because Europe is the bastion of morality.

<comment><USER45> It is.

<comment><USER46> No morality without free speech.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> the US cannot disclose why as that would disclose capability used in detection that would teach the others how to circumvent it.

I for one support the decision and would rather have my data and whereabouts in the hands of the USA rather than CHINA.

<comment><USER48> What does China do with your data that the US government doesn't do?</comment></comment>


Show HN: EasyPad is simpler than Etherpad and installs with just one php-file - <AUTHOR> http://www.databay.de/easypad/index.php?s=a07c36b1c1fc8484fd06dfc9ef3b2574

<comment><USER2> 1) delete an 'information' doesnt work. 2) i really like the real time experience of etherpad and miss this feature in your application. 3) how would you merge or split an 'information'-block? 4) it would be nice if someone can edit the text just by clicking in its block. 5) if i only could write properly on handheld devices i'd love to see a touchable interface ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> on 1) might be a bug... I check this.

on 2) The real-time-experience is a cool feature, but the most times there a not 2 persons really at the same time editing the same text-position. In EasyPad if two are editing seperate blocks the other one will see the changes as soon as the first one will save.

on 3) good point. didn't think on this...

on 4) thought about it, but sometimes I needed to copy a text-part and did't want to start editing.

on 5) ?? did't catch the point. Would you explain?</comment></comment>


How Hollywood Got Hacked: Studio at Center of Netflix Leak Breaks Silence - <AUTHOR> http://variety.com/2017/digital/features/netflix-orange-is-the-new-black-leak-dark-overlord-larson-studios-1202471400/ <comment><USER2> I think the author means XP and not Win7?

<comment><USER3> Why? Windows 7 has vulnerabilities too.

<comment><USER2> win7 is totally fine if you're up to date on patches.</comment></comment></comment>


Apple iPhone ad banned by Advertising Standards Authority over misleading internet claims - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/aug/27/apple.apple <comment><USER2> That ad wasn't overly misleading. Saying "all parts of the internet are on the iphone" and then adding "except java and flash" wouldn't really flow well into the ad, so its no suprise they left that out. I don't think the commercial was intended to be misleading at all, but rather just showcase that the iphone internet experience is much more capable than the competition. Its really up to the consumer to do the research on the particular technologies that the iphone does and dosn't have. Hard to frame everything in a 30 second tv spot.

<comment><USER3> >but rather just showcase that the iphone internet experience is much more capable than the competition.

Except the competition does have both Java and Flash, so it depends how you define "capable" doesn't it?

It's interesting how they're criticising them over the use of browser plugins and not their dubious use of 'the internet'.

<comment><USER2> I guess i'd define "capable" as having the best browser experience ever experienced on a cell phone. The competition may have java and flash, but the competition also dosn't have the touch based technology combined with the the design aesthetics that the iphone has. So when I mention "capable" and they use "the internet", you can say in a sense that they are talking about the iphone internet experience thats unique to that device even without the java and flash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Of all the things, they probably picked the least misleading bit to ban them. The "twice as fast" was an easier pick. Also, "half the price".

<comment><USER5> In fact, the "twice as fast" was removed from the ads in Canada and replaced by something like "pretty fast". Also absent from Apple Canada website (<http://www.apple.com/ca/>)

The "half the price" part is indeed a very annoying marketing trick.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Apple should advertise the lack of Flash as a feature :) All joking aside I don't find it _that_ misleading. I suspect that the people who complained to the ASA were not the general public but competitors just looking to take Apple down a peg or two.

</comment><comment><USER7> Claiming support for an extensible technology should not then require that all extensions are supported. Further, many websites require custom ActiveX controls, which non-MS browsers cannot support. While I am a proponent of accountability and upset about the lack of flash support on the iPhone, I'd rather see "Unlimited" have its meaning restored than chasing ambiguous edge cases like this (but I don't know if they even have that problem in the UK.)

Then again, they are just banning the Ad in its current form, and not taking other action against Apple. If Apple added "standard" to their description of the "entire internet", then they should be free and clear while also furthering the case for the <canvas> tag. That'd make me happy.

</comment><comment><USER8> Here is the ASA Verdict page on the topic: [http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44891....](http://www.asa.org.uk/asa/adjudications/Public/TF_ADJ_44891.htm) (via Daring Fireball)

"All the parts of the internet" is clearly wrong, there is no support for VoIP for a start. So, yes, good call.

</comment><comment><USER9> How about something like 'all web pages are on the iphone' instead of 'all parts of the internet are on the iphone' as this is patently false.</comment>


OS mapping data: a new landscape unfolds - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/nov/19/ordnance-survey-maps-free-online

<comment><USER2> I was excited to find out how you would map Operating Systems until I found out that that wasn't what OS stood for.</comment>


Smog Meringues - <AUTHOR> http://www.ediblegeography.com/smog-meringues/

<comment><USER2> Conceptually crisp and vibrant writing style:

"'As it turns out, Arie Haagen-Smit, the man known as the "father" of air pollution science, was originally a flavour chemist who rose to prominence thanks to his work on pineapples.

Flavour historian Nadia Berenstein pointed me to a '50s speech by Haagen-Smit, explaining his shift in research from fruit flavours to smog science to a room full of his former colleagues. In it, he explains, "I am engaged at the present time on a super flavor problem—the flavor of Los Angeles."'"

<comment><USER3> Nicola Twiley is a very engaging food writer and has a great podcast as well: [http://gastropod.com/](http://gastropod.com/)

<comment><USER4> Nice post

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Given this, it occurs to me that fart meringues should be possible. Celebrities who are particularly, ahem, full of themselves could auction theirs off for charity.

 _Ask HN: whose fart meringue would you quaff?_

Hey!!! To the tune of the Beach Boys' Barbara Ann:

Far far far / far fart meringue ...

<comment><USER6> Thomas Pynchon, is that you?</comment></comment>


Near misses fuel gambling addiction - <AUTHOR> http://scienceblogs.com/neurophilosophy/2010/05/near_misses_fuel_gambling_addiction.php

<comment><USER2> Having worked in the slot machine biz, I can tell you that a good number of slot machines are set up to create the "near miss" situation a lot more often than is statistically possible. And it comes down to the granddaddy of modern slot math: the IGT/Telnaes patent (US 4,448,419).

The idea is simple: if you have three reels on a machine with 11 symbols and 11 blanks in between those symbols, there are only 10,648 outcomes (22 x 22 x 22) when there is an equal chance of stopping somewhere on a reel (local gaming laws usually dictate this to be "fair" to the player). Assuming one combination is the "jackpot" position, that still only means you can pay out less than 10,648 times what you got in...if you want to stay profitable.

Telnaes proposed a radical change: let's make the reels _virtual_ , which a much higher number of stops per reel (say, 1000). Then let's map those positions to spots on the physical reel. Voila! Now you have a billion possible outcomes. You can award higher jackpots. The gaming board is happy since the virtual reels are still evenly spaced.

The gaming companies eventually realized those mappings don't need to be equally spaced to be legal. So now every one of those losing outcomes can be mapped to BAR-BAR-space, if you want. Oooooh, so close. You almost had it. But in reality, you were miles away.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sounds similar to a recent comment that someone made on HN about how irregular rewards are more addicting than regular rewards.</comment>


Universally Accessible Operating System - <AUTHOR> http://hypra.fr/Universally-Accessible-operating.html <comment><USER2> Am I reading this right? It's a version of Debian that costs 770 Euros? I must be missing something.</comment>


Ask HN: Carrier advice, a bit confused - <AUTHOR> Little background. I am a three year experienced Python Backend dev. Currently I work for a start up that pays well. I am at crossroad currently. I am juggling couple of carrier choices but cant seem to decide which way to go.
Options

  1. Slog on LC and aim for BigN.
  2. I already know JavaScript and have built front
     ends. Pick up React and along with Python
     transition into a Full Stack dev.
  3. Take a plunge into Machine Learning.
 I am unable to choose among the three. I would appreciate if you guys could critique each of the choice. I am really looking to a discussion over these three options. Thanks. <comment><USER2> I think maybe the term you're looking for is not "carrier" (which people think of as a cell phone service provider) but "career". You might get more responses if you reposted with the correct spelling.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have hid that submission. I feel like fucking dumb donkey :(. My career aspirational thinking is hold on now as I got some good deal in the current job.

<comment><USER2> please don't feel dumb. Everyone makes spelling mistakes and typos.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Help Required in Google GTFS - <AUTHOR>

0 down vote favorite share [fb] share [tw]
Help Required in Google GTFS I am working with GTFS format.I have a concern for example consider a little complex network where a user want to travel from a source 'A' to Destination 'B' and actually there exist no direct route from A to B.But we can reach B from A thru a stop C. i cant see a way mentioned in GTFS to know that there exist some route to reach B in our example(A->c->B). Do i miss something here? or there is no way to do that but to implement our own algo? or is some third party already implemented the algo in java (i believe someone did it ;) ).
Thanks in advance.
Cheers <comment><USER2> I think you just specify A->C and C->B and they do the rest?

but i'm pretty sure you will have more luck in place like stackoverflow.com than here.</comment>


This startup wants to kill the CPU and GPU in one go - <AUTHOR> https://www.techradar.com/news/this-startup-wants-to-kill-the-cpu-and-gpu-in-one-go <comment><USER2> The startup is Tachyum and they're based out of eastern europe. Here's their webpage: [http://www.tachyum.com](http://www.tachyum.com)

I really hate clickbait styled article titles on HN.

</comment><comment><USER3> Bold claims. Either this company will be bogged down in patent lawsuits for decades or they'll be acquired if there is even a hint of them being genuine. Doubly so if they have the in house patents to defend themselves. Reading between the lines suggests acquisition is the goal. Ramping up production is going to take lots of investor cash, which they may not actually have. I hear Intel is getting mildly panicky about their loss of relevance ...

</comment><comment><USER4> So what do the experts think about the Tachyum founder's claims, like that the chip is far faster because there are far fewer, and far shorter wires between the transistors. Does this make sense?

<comment><USER5> Shorter interconnects do make for quicker signalling, and the transistor count on a single core of an i7 is high because of all of the pipelines and lookup tables and all the things that make an i7 much more performant than an i486 would be at the same clock speed.

So no. Fewer transistors alone doesn't make computation faster.

Now, with those shorter interconnects, if they can get the CPU clock up to something like 10GHz then maybe they have something. Sort of. They still need to be able to talk to RAM quickly and so long as that is not on the same die as the CPU it will not be a fast communication bus. Not 10GHz anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This guy doesn't have confidence issues.

Q> Why can Tachyum succeed where larger organizations have failed?

A> I would have to say it is due to my technical instincts born from hard won experience, along with learning from others' mistakes, and disciplining myself to work only on important challenges. Even in large companies such as Intel and NVIDIA, the real innovation usually springs from a small group of innovators. At SandForce which I founded, my competitors were Intel, Samsung, Toshiba, Sandisk, Micron, Western Digital, LSI, Seagate, and many others with 1000s [of] engineers, and with less than 100 employees we won.

</comment><comment><USER7> These guys have been around for a while:

[http://icubecorp.com/products/](http://icubecorp.com/products/)

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm waiting for NVidia to do away with the MB, CPU and memory.

</comment><comment><USER9> good god techrader is annoying, redirecting if they can't show the ads, luckily you can bypass that by simply blocking first party scripts as well</comment>


Future Interfaces - <AUTHOR> http://futureinterface.tumblr.com/

<comment><USER2> Frankly, I think the thing that they all get so wrong is over-estimating the amount of time that would actually be spent on the interface design.

Ex: [http://24.media.tumblr.com/d1443e589eb392e808a8c57b3d4dd0c9/...](http://24.media.tumblr.com/d1443e589eb392e808a8c57b3d4dd0c9/tumblr_mysfkqkKc71tobjxho3_1280.jpg)

Why display a nicely-tiled "Emergency" screen, when you could just pop up a dialog box and use the built-in exclamation icon?

</comment><comment><USER3> See also: Andy Baio's archive of computer interfaces in movies:

[http://screen.waxy.org/screenshots/](http://screen.waxy.org/screenshots/)

More info in this post on his blog:

[http://waxy.org/2013/07/screens_on_screen/](http://waxy.org/2013/07/screens_on_screen/)

</comment><comment><USER4> What's most striking to me is _how_ the older films got the future wrong. Mechanical and computer interfaces of their time were gray and clunky, so they imagined future interfaces would be even more alienating (as things got more "high-tech"). Now the "future interfaces" in our movies have sleeker, more beautiful displays.

</comment><comment><USER5> Whoa: [http://futureinterface.tumblr.com/post/75732307855/memory- of...](http://futureinterface.tumblr.com/post/75732307855/memory-of-a-broken- dimension-2013)

Apparently this is a independent, minimalist atmospheric sci-fi game currently in development.

</comment><comment><USER6> Here is a more complete list of user interfaces sorted by TV Show, Movie, Designer, and more:

[http://www.noteloop.com/kit/fui/](http://www.noteloop.com/kit/fui/)</comment>


Fogus leaves Relevance and Clojure/core - <AUTHOR> http://blog.fogus.me/2012/07/27/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-queue-fish/

<comment><USER2> To where does Mr. Fogus go? I'm dying to know.

<comment><USER3> One of the tags at the end of the post is "LinkedIn". Could be a red herring, but that would be my guess (seeing as his post doesn't otherwise refer to them).

<comment><USER4> Many of his posts are tagged LinkedIn: <http://blog.fogus.me/tag/linkedin/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> No one has mentioned yet, but clearly we will be hearing more from Mr. Fogus:

[https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/the-reemergence-of- datal...](https://thestrangeloop.com/sessions/the-reemergence-of-datalog)

I cannot attend physically this year. Maybe we can figure out how to get a streaming feed somehow . . .

puredanger, are you out there? How can I give you money for this?

</comment><comment><USER6> There's a fogus on reddit, posting a lot of alternative os articles besides pointers to blog.fogus.me, if it really is Michael Fogus, then I hope his next project will involve os design (kernel and user), especially since he mention AI, wouldn't it be nice to have a little bit of prolog inference in our daily routines ?

</comment><comment><USER7> Will miss Fogus talking and writing about Clojure and the Clojure philosophy.

<comment><USER8> Well, he does imply that he'll neither leave the Clojure community nor stop blogging, so I'm keeping my hopes up. Besides, whether they are Clojure- related or not, his blog posts are almost always interesting.

Best of luck, Fogus!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> good luck. and thanks.

</comment><comment><USER10> Out of curiosity, what's the series of symbols in the title?

<comment><USER11> Fish - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_Long,_and_Thanks_for_All_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/So_Long,_and_Thanks_for_All_the_Fish)</comment></comment>


Salt water as fuel? - <AUTHOR> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07252/815920-85.stm <comment><USER2> Looking more into the details, and for instance the videos, one see that the "inventor" collects water in a small pool next to his house which is full of seaweeds (it happens in Florida).

An obvious possible explanation is that the fuel is just methane diluted to saturation in the water. The micro wave shaking produces the same effect as when shaking a bear, champagne or a soda. I don't know if this is the right explanation, but apparently this possibility has never been checked. Looking at the video it seem that the flame is not lasting forever. This would be normal once the methane is exhausted.

It is totally misleading to say that this guy is producing energy from salt.

</comment><comment><USER3> So they're using RF to cause the salt water to release hydrogen, but when you burn hydrogen you get water. Unless there's some other reaction going on in there, all they're doing is converting electromagnetic energy to chemical energy to thermal energy. I don't see how this can even be used for energy storage, let alone energy generation.

</comment><comment><USER4> Kind of cool, but not giving any numbers for the efficiency means it can't possibly be practical.

</comment><comment><USER5> No, unfortunately not</comment>