99Dresses Emerges as Hottest Startup at Y Combinator Winter 2012 - <AUTHOR> http://www.marketwatch.com/story/99dresses-emerges-as-hottest-startup-at-ycombinator-winter-2012-2012-03-28

<comment><USER2> Intuitively this has seemed like a good idea to me for a while, but whenever I've pitched it to women they've always hated it. I think it's telling that the two people they mention loving the idea are both men. Not saying it's a bad idea, but I don't think Scoble's opinion is a valid predictor of success either.

There are actually three or four different versions of this idea on the list of 999 business ideas here:

<http://www.sixmonthmba.com/2009/02/999ideas.html>

This was my version:

"Pandora for clothes. A service that drops off a different set of clothes for you to wear on whatever days you want each week. (E.g. only on Friday and Saturday.) It shows you a complete wardrobe on the website, and if you don't like it then you get to veto it. You get up to three vetos each day, and if you veto three wardrobes then you automatically get the fourth. Then the clothes get delivered to your apartment. You have the option to buy the outfit at the end of the day, but if you don't buy it that day then you never get the option to buy it again."</comment>


Ask HN: How can I get better at negotiating? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> 1\. Listen well. Sometimes this means talking much less. Know what they want. If you do only one thing, it should be this.

2\. Be nice. They're more likely to concede if they like you.

3\. Don't be assertive. Be calm and cool, act like you know what you want. Assertion encourages them to push back.

4\. Say no without saying no. Something like "I really wish I could do that, but it doesn't work for me."

5\. Label every fear they have, and label all their advantages. Sometimes they point out an advantage of their product (or the job) in hopes of pushing you back.

6\. Instead of proposing solutions, ask for their opinions. It exhausts them mentally, and it puts them in control.

7\. Try to be yourself, and don't try to mimic other people's negotiating strategies. Some people are more accommodating, some people are more stern, some are rigid. That's all fine. Learn what you are like and make use of your strengths.

</comment><comment><USER3> Just read this: [https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary- negotiation/](https://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/)

:)

</comment><comment><USER4> If you are curious about the topic check out the book "Never Split the Difference: Negotiating As If Your Life Depended On It" written by FBI hostage negotiator Chris Voss. No first hand experience with the book but it's on my to-read list because of all the good recommendations.

<comment><USER5> Just finished it, definitely a recommended read!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Know what you want. Do they have it?

Know what they want (listen; try to see their perspective). Do you have it?

Remember that leaving money on the table might seem a sub-optimal negotiation, but think of it as an investment in the relationship - for if you ever deal with this person again (which you will).

</comment><comment><USER7> I read this article back in 05 and it changed the way I looked at negotiation - [https://classic.esquire.com/article/2005/2/1/haggling-for- ho...](https://classic.esquire.com/article/2005/2/1/haggling-for-hot-dogs-and- other-real-life-adventures-in-the-neglected-art-of-negotiation)

<comment><USER7> This seems to be the non-login / paywall version - [https://startupcollection.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/negotiati...](https://startupcollection.wordpress.com/2007/08/29/negotiation- haggling-for-hot-dogs/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Research based recommended reading:

 _Getting to yes._

 _The mind and heart of the negotiator._

Both were required texts for my college class on negotiating and conflict management.

Also, understand your BATNA and get as much data as possible. Good information facilitates a win/win scenario.

</comment><comment><USER9> By creating alternative options for yourself other than the thing you are negotiating for.

E.g. 3 job offers rather than 1.

E.g. pay raise, but if they have no budget how about an extra week of leave.

</comment><comment><USER10> Have time on your side

More time = more options

No time = desperation</comment>


It's Official: Mexico City Eliminates Mandatory Minimum Parking Requirements - <AUTHOR> http://usa.streetsblog.org/2017/07/19/its-official-mexico-city-eliminates-mandatory-parking-minimums/ <comment><USER2> That's pretty excellent.

San Francisco, unfortunately, occupies a pretty dismal place in the parking hierarchy. It's just dense enough that having a car is generally a hassle, just sparse enough that about half the city is very car dependent. The fascinating thing is that SF actually made a decision to become this way, although it was a long time ago. We actually added driveways and garages to buildings that didn't originally have them, along with curb cuts that ironically take away almost as much parking as they add!

This is a pipe dream, but I'd actually support the removal of driveways and garages. People are doing this anyway - they use their garage as a workshop, for storage, or even illegal living space, and they just park on the driveway, and/or on the sidewalk in front of their house, and/or on the street in front of their house, using the curb cut as a "reserved" parking space.

Here's an interesting read about curb cuts in SF (vs NY), and what they do to street live. The sad thing is that we actually legislated this situation into existence with various parking minimums and so forth.

[http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist- article/2008-06-01...](http://www.spur.org/publications/urbanist- article/2008-06-01/eye-street)</comment>


Show HN: Mostly Real-Time Logging for Firebase - <AUTHOR> https://firerun.io/firebase-logging/ <comment><AUTHOR> I was getting annoyed with the firebase-tools CLI not streaming logs, so build this simple tool to poll for new logs + color the logs and format the time. Code on GitHub: [https://github.com/fireRun-io/firebase- logging](https://github.com/fireRun-io/firebase-logging)</comment>


Ask HN: What is the worst codebase you have ever seen? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> A mainframe application written in COBOL, running in some kind of Java-based emulator, running in Tomcat, presented over the web.

When browsing to it you were literally presented with a terminal and had to enter insanely obscure commands (all single letter or two letter if they got fancy e.g. A L 1 (applications, list, select option #1 which you knew happen to be stock), X (exit/terminate), J L (jobs, list), J L 1 X (jobs, list, option #1, terminate), etc).

Oh and nobody knows how the COBOL code works because there is almost no documentation, nobody who wrote it still works there (or is alive?), and they cannot hire a COBOL programmer.

This is still used by a multi-national for all of their ordering/inventory/stock/etc. Instead of updating it or replacing it, they're just built a bunch of cruft around it which convert the outputted formats into whatever they need (e.g. binary format into CSV, CSV to binary).

I won't name the company, but you'll find their products in the entertainment section at all major retailers.</comment>


HibernateD – ORM for D language (similar to Hibernate) - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/buggins/hibernated

<comment><USER2> Why not DHibernate? Just wondering, since there is already an NHibernate for .NET.

<comment><AUTHOR> Not entirely sure, if I had to guess it's probably because "hibernated" sounds more like a word and is verbalized a lot nicer than "DHibernate" would of been.</comment></comment>


As IPOs Pick Up, Big Startups Hold Out - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/as-ipos-pick-up-big-startups-hold-out-1494154807 <comment><USER2> I am a big fan of Matt Levine's recurring theme: "Private Markets are the new Public Markets" \- [https://www.bloomberg.com/view/contributors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matt...](https://www.bloomberg.com/view/contributors/ARbTQlRLRjE/matthew- s-levine) \- many of his "people are worried about Unicorns" sections address this.

The core of his argument is that public markets come with regulations, which discourage IPOs, and that as long as investors are tolerant of companies staying private, they will. So, in this market (generally up over the last few years), people aren't worried about cashing out, so they let private companies stay private, and reap more of the theoretical rewards.

<comment><USER3> At some point these investors need to turn their theoretical rewards into real ones. At smaller valuations they could pass the bag onto the bigger, public, tech companies. The only path forward now is via the public markets.

<comment><USER4> Do they? I have less than zero idea of what getting LP funding is like, but it may work out better for them. As long the unicorn hasn't IPO'd yet, it's not a failure. Once it's IPO'd it is what it is, and if it's bad it's bad. Bad returns + high potential may be an easier sell to a pension fund or family office than what the actual numbers will be.

<comment><USER3> The problem with that approach is that VC valuations are almost entirely predicated upon hype and future performance, way more so than the public markets. So more VC funding = higher valuations that the Unicorn then needs to meet in the public markets. If they can't match private valuations, alot of people get wiped out; first and foremost the employees and founders.

So it's like a game of brinkmanship until something breaks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'll probably get some flack for saying this on this community, but after working for a unicorn, I understand this:

"Reflecting broader concerns about whether they can match the rich valuations offered by private investors."

It feels like a Ponzi scheme. I haven't called the end yet, but I finally feel like the end is near.

</comment><comment><USER6> Two primary reasons companies go public 1) cash out and 2) raise capital. I don't think Air BNB or Uber need money currently and I suspect they don't want the additional scrutiny/headaches an IPO brings to their businesses yet.

<comment><USER7> Maybe they don't want the scrutiny, sure, but do seem to need funds.

Airbnb last raised money through equity in March:

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/airbnb/funding- round...](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/airbnb/funding-rounds)

Uber last raised money through equity last June

[https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding- rounds](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/uber/funding-rounds)

(but has taken on other financing since then).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's going to be interesting to see how long private markets can maintain irrational bubbles hidden away from transparency.

I think a lot of people are "rich on paper" and scared to know exactly what that means.

As a corollary to this, I've recently seen private secondary markets boom quite rapidly. There's probably a huge opportunity there.

<comment><USER9> Private Secondary markets are a huge opportunity.

I'm not sure the lack of transparency is a big issue, except for employees. The VCs generally know what's going on, if not the mutual funds that get in late.

What generally corrects markets quicker is the ability to short. When you can't short (or make a bet that something will go down) then it's only the optimists who are setting the price.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, very fair point on this. Are private secondary markets just by default eternal bull markets? What's the price correction mechanism? Devaluation due to massive supply/demand imbalances?

Interesting space to get involved in, for sure.

<comment><USER9> If the market is small enough and there isn't leverage, you can have long term price dislocations. (Example: penny stocks) If the purchases are funded by borrowing, then eventually the debt payment come due and force corrections.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> With all the bad PR Uber has gotten lately it makes sense that they may wait longer but I'm surprised AirBnB hasn't already gone public.

<comment><USER11> I am a big AirBnB fan, but I think that Uber is imploding. If Uber imploded while AirBnB was public it would drag AirBnB down as well.

<comment><USER12> Do you think the whole of the tech industries success is linked to Ubers?

<comment><USER13> There is a lot of skepticism in the 'sharing economy' and Uber is the de facto representative of the model. Any negativity they suffer will likely affect other companies that use the model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm pretty impressed at the way cloudera has handled their "downround IPO" by telling their half truth half BS "Intel strategic investment shouldn't count" story.

The market seems to be alright with it.

Pretty bad for latecomer employees though =\

</comment><comment><USER15> [https://airbnb.myshopify.com/products/belo- keyring](https://airbnb.myshopify.com/products/belo-keyring)</comment>


Ask HN: is there any distributed pub sub framework built using node.js? - <AUTHOR>

I came across following two link where the authors claim to have built a pub sub framework. But I see that they are single server based. All publishers and subscribers are talking to one same server.
I need something where there are multiple servers arranged in different kind of topologies.
Is there any such thing already ? <comment><USER2> I don't see the links you mentioned but I came across this one the other day: <http://pubsub.io/>

You can also build one using Socket.IO

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunatley the links did not get pasted .

I was talking about <https://github.com/jazzychad/fanout.node.js> <http://blog.redistogo.com/2010/08/18/node-and-redis-pub-sub/></comment></comment>


White House petition to bring down paywalls on taxpayer-funded research - <AUTHOR> https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petitions/%21/petition/require-free-access-over-internet-scientific-journal-articles-arising-taxpayer-funded-research/wDX82FLQ?utm_source=wh.gov&utm_medium=shorturl&utm_campaign=shorturl <comment><USER2> Why waste time with this kind of thing? Is there any evidence that any congressional office or other significant legislative influence checks the "White House petition site" and uses it as a serious barometer of public interest? It just seems like a distraction, a waste of energy. Why not call your Congressperson instead? Why not start a rally that will be picked up by the local news station? Why not get everyone you know to call your Congressperson on the matter? These things all seem much more effective than promoting a petition on whitehouse.gov.

<comment><USER3> This is part of a social media strategy. This petition will spread thru Facebook and Twitter.

It worked against SOPA.

<comment><USER4> I would say that what work against SOPA was big names like Google and Wikipedia weighing in on the matter.

<comment><USER3> If the internet population wasn't behind it, I don't think Google or Wikipedia would matter much.

The noise generated on Twitter and Facebook made politicians take a closer look on SOPA and companies voice their opposition to it.

<comment><USER2> I don't think that Google and Wikipedia used the number of signatures on the petition on whitehouse.gov as a major component in their decisions to come out against SOPA.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Seems like this should be the default; that publicly funded research is free for the public.

</comment><comment><USER6> whitehouse.gov petitions have proven to be an absolutely useless way to effect change or even to raise awareness of issues. In the best case scenario a "successful" petition is met with nothing more than a form letter.

If you want to stand up and be heard contact your senators and your congressional reps and send a separate letter to the whitehouse as well. Don't waste your time with these useless virtual petitions.

</comment><comment><USER7> I would go further: Any intellectual property funded with taxpayer money should be put in the public domain.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is this important when stuff like the items below is going on:

[http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to- lift-p...](http://www.buzzfeed.com/mhastings/congressmen-seek-to-lift- propaganda-ban)

and

[http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/obamas_new_free_speech_threa...](http://www.salon.com/2012/05/16/obamas_new_free_speech_threat/singleton/)

<comment><USER9> Why yes, it is. Very much so.

<comment><USER8> why? Should we all just accept your pronouncement as truth?</comment></comment></comment>


Mozilla: Stick to Your Ideals, Shun H264 - <AUTHOR> http://www.osnews.com/story/23031/Mozilla_Stick_to_Your_Ideals_Shun_H264 <comment><USER2> I've grown increasingly annoyed with Thom over the last two years. The man is an ego-maniac.

 _The problem is that there's no standard codec for HTML5. The main contestants are H264 and Theora, and so far, it seems like on the browser side of things, Theora is winning out; with a Theora video you can cover Firefox, Chrome, and Opera users - whereas with H264 you miss out on Firefox and Opera users. Since Firefox is by far the largest HTML5 browser, encoding your video in H264 alone is shooting yourself in the foot._

Theora isn't in any position remotely favourable. And definitely not "winning out".

 _It helps that H264-specific chips are available on just about any mobile device, whereas Theora (or other possible patent-free contestants, like Dirac) does not have this luxury._

Dedicated mobile hardware is a necessity, not a luxury, not until li-ion batteries are superseded by a new breed of whatever with 10 times the charge.

<comment><USER3> I've always found the mobile hardware argument a bit strange. I've never watched any full-length movies on my smartphone, the screen is simply too small to be comfortable. I might watch short Youtube videos once in a while but does it _really_ drain the battery significantly if 3 minutes of video is not hardware accelerated? I find that hard to believe, especially considering that Wifi and 3G already drain tons of battery.

I'd rather watch full-length movies on my laptop, which has a programmable GPU meaning that it's possible for someone to make a hardware accelerated Theora decoder.

<comment><USER4> They can write software to give you "hardware" accelerated Theora decoders on your phone too, as long as the phone maker lets them. Apple doesn't.

Nokia (who are actively campaigning against Theora) do, so voila:

[http://www.schleef.org/blog/2009/11/11/theora-on- ti-c64x-dsp...](http://www.schleef.org/blog/2009/11/11/theora-on-ti-c64x-dsp- and-omap3/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is harsh and misleading:

 _"Opera's refusal to license H264 hasn't got anything to do with ideals, obviously (Opera being proprietary and all), but the Norwegian browser makers believes the license is simply too expensive."_

a) it's possible to be idealistic about royalty-free standards without also being idealistic about open source (personally I think both are somewhat pragmatic choices too but whatever), and more importantly:

b) Opera was actually the ones who proposed the idea of the video tag and the use of Theora 3 years ago:

<http://my.opera.com/haavard/blog/2007/03/05/1>

</comment><comment><USER5> Mozilla: Stick to your ideals but don't fall on your sword. The openness argument is worth making right now before HTML5 video takes off. It probably won't radically slow the adoption of HTML5 video, or change H264 being the preferred codec, but they might have a chance to make Theora and equal player. They just need to flip WebKit and Microsoft would probably follow. Not totally impossible. Worth the fight in my opinion. What Mozilla needs to be careful of is taking it too far and weakening their market share reducing diversity of browsers if HTML5 video really delivers a better experience than Flash video (and it probably will) This would only serve to strengthen Apple, Google and Microsoft's role in controlling the browser. Mozilla needs to know when they're beat and live to fight another day. I give it another 12-18 months or whenever IE9 hits Windows Update.

</comment><comment><USER6> It seems to me that the author purposely avoided to discuss the reasons against Mozilla not adopting H264:

\- Firefox may be the most used browser on computers, but on mobile devices H264 is clearly winning. And that's where companies want to go right now.

\- A lot (the majority?) of online videos are already encoded using H264.

\- Flash is also proprietary. So, if you shun H264 for your ideals, you should do so also with flash.

<comment><USER7> Flash is provided to Mozilla as a third party plugin, so Mozilla doesn't actually have to deal with the licensing fees. If they use H264 for the video element, Mozilla has to license it for their own software.

<comment><USER8> Why not allow third parties to perform playing <video> tag?

<comment><USER9> Mozilla won't allow any kind of plugins for <video> because they want to force you to use Theora. You're getting freedom, and you're going to like it. (Because who doesn't want freedom?) The cost of the H.264 license is not the issue.

<comment><USER7> Now you're just making assumptions. As far as I know, there isn't a single browser that uses plugins for displaying elements defined as part of the HTML specification. With <video> as part of the HTML5 spec, any browser supporting HTML5 is supposed to render <video> tags without relying on 3rd party support. This is the entire reason for <video> existing in the first place.

<comment><USER9> I don't think this is an assumption: [http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_fr...](http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2010/01/video_freedom_a.html) [http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directsh...](http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2009/06/directshow_and.html)

I always thought it was a mistake that <img> wasn't extensible (e.g. Mozilla would display PNG with <img> but for IE you'd need <embed> or <object>) and I think that mistake is being perpetuated with <video>.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm pretty tired of all the Mozilla bashing and all the H.264 praising. I'd say: give the people their damn H.264, let them face the consequences 10 years later and then tell them "I told you so".

<comment><USER10> Presumably similar consequences to the ones we suffered for using GIF and JPEG images, and MP3s? Those were tough, I must admit.

<comment><USER4> JPEG was specifically created to a be royalty-free standard. JPEG 2000 is the more advanced format with patent royalties that no-one uses on the web for that very reason.

<comment><USER11> No it wasn't. There was arithmetic encoding option, which was owned and patented by IBM and was not royalty-free. As result everyone implementing codecs had to stick with less efficient, but free Huffman encoding.

<comment><USER4> Interesting, so that amends my statement to:

Baseline profile JPEG was specifically created to be a royalty-free standard. JPEG-arithmetic is the more advanced optional extension to the format with patent royalties that no-one uses on the web for that very reason.

(Though to be fair to IBM, though the situation appears vaguer than I'd like, it seems they were happy to licence their patents royalty-free, but other companies that also held patents weren't: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding#US_patents_on...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arithmetic_coding#US_patents_on_arithmetic_coding,))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There's a flip side to this issue that adds a layer of complexity.

Right now video content owners are encoding video (at a fairly significant cost) to (generally) H264 for streaming media. This includes a wide variety of platforms - not just the web, mobile, internet connected TVs and the new over the top boxes like Roku all support H264 so it has already become a defacto standard for encoding.

Having to re-encode an existing media library to something else like Theora would be a significant cost to content providers with large library archives of content.

<comment><USER3> Why does anybody need to recode anything? Youtube didn't had to recode all its H263 video to H264 when they switched. You can have both at the same time and only encode newer things in new codecs.

I don't understand why most of the tech community thinks that it's a black- and-white situation. I don't believe that any video site will have the guts to force everything to be H.264 HTML5 video - did you forget that 70% of the visitors, those using IE, cannot watch HTML5 video regardless of the codec? No, if they support HTML5 they'll ensure that they have a Flash fallback and things will work fine on Firefox and Opera even if H.264 is the codec.

<comment><USER13> Yeah that's the point. HTML5 + h264 by default, Flash + h264 for legacy browsers (like Firefox).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> H.264 predominance in web video will probably not affect Windows, Mac or Linux users but it will certainly affect BSD and alternative OS users.

I can't see flash content now because my OS of preference doesn't have the plugin. I've been doing fine with out YouTube videos and flash sites. I think I will also be fine with a bigger library of content I can see under Theora and more standard compliant sites even if I can't see H.264 content. But I think Firefox should use the available multimedia frameworks in the different OSes and leave video decoding to the users system.

</comment><comment><USER15> Even if Mozilla sticks to their guns it doesn't prevent someone from writing a plugin that uses the H264 codecs shipping in Windows & Mac, or x264 on Linux. Sure, it won't be "officially" supported, just like flash doesn't ship with Firefox, but everyone has it.

H264 is baked into silicon, there it's already been decided. Holding out for Theora is like holding out for ogg. Yeah, Wikipedia might use it, but no one else will.

<comment><USER16> Actually, the video implementation in Firefox makes it extremely difficult to add support for other codecs. Word has it this is _specifically_ so you can't easily add H264 support. So yeah.

<comment><USER17> "Word has it"? This is an open source project, you can find the reasoning on the bug tracker and the mailing list. I would like to call 'bullshit'.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why can't firefox just use the already licensed codec for H264 present on the majority of OSs if it's present? Then they'll have support for Therora and H264 on OS X and Windows, and Theora support on Linux.

Costs them nothing and is a win for most of their users.

Am I missing something obvious? I hope they're using DirectShow and Quicktime already anyway for the hardware acceleration.

<comment><USER19> And why can't other browsers integrate an Ogg codec? It would cost them nothing. The img tag supports several formats, so why should browser developers decide which video codec web companies should use? Especially if their choice is one that costs millions per year. Mozilla is right to promote the free option for us all. They should add Matroska/Dirac/Vorbis in the future, just like they support both JPEG and PNG.

<comment><USER20> why is codec support even a browser issue? the system is supposed to manage my codecs, and the browser is supposed to use system APIs to play any and all videos i have a codec for.

i'm guessing this is because linux doesn't have a single video codec API, but everything has to explicitly link against codec libraries...

<comment><USER21> Desktop distributions do have single video codec API (gstreamer).

But browsers are unlikely to use OS-provided libraries for anything downloaded over net, if they can avoid it. If there is a exploit found in third-party code, the browsers cannot work around it and they get the blame (remember the Firefox-on-Windows shell exploit?).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I predict this to be just about as successful as the attempts to get everyone to switch over to ogg vorbis as a sound file format.

</comment><comment><USER23> This quote by Sidney Morgenbesser seems apt. About pragmatism:

"It's all very well in theory but it doesn't work in practice."

</comment><comment><USER24> What a stupid, contradictive, misleading and deceitful reply from Mozilla (surprised? they are after all interested in stuffing their pockets). And, yeah, I _will_ stick to my ideals: good video; H.264. Please stay out of HTML5, Theora.

add.: I really misread both source and addressee on this one. Seems I cannot manage both breakfast and news digest at the same time. I'll still stick with H.264, though... and breakfast.

<comment><USER4> This is quite stupid, contradictive, misleading and deceitful but it's not written by Mozilla, it's by a blogger on an obscure news and community site. Therefore the people being asked to stick to their ideals is Mozilla, not you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Umm, FireFox is already losing market share. After I switched to chrome (and everyone I know have, including my 60 year father, sister, co-workers, etc, anyone who I can show it too, the speed is a killer feature).

How irrelevant would they like to become?</comment>


Metis: MIT's Multicore MapReduce in C++ - <AUTHOR> http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/metis/

<comment><USER2> The paper indicates good performance increase compared to phoenix. Very welcome and useful, thanks!</comment>


What Does The Future Hold For Subtitling Tech? - <AUTHOR> http://www.technologeek.net/future-hold-subtitling-tech/

<comment><USER2> A movie theater in Italy is actually using Epson Moverio glasses to show subtitles (hopefully more will follow). No digital projector required :)</comment>


Are Law Schools Lying To Their Applicants? - <AUTHOR>

Sorry but I'm posting it this way, but The Last Psychiatrist blog is autokilled by the HN submission form..
I don't think this is right, as it's pretty good writing and "gratifies my intellectual curiosity", so to speak.
Link here:  http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/are_law_schools_lying_to_their.html <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable: [http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/are_law_schools_lying...](http://thelastpsychiatrist.com/2011/01/are_law_schools_lying_to_their.html)

</comment><comment><USER2> yes they are!</comment>


US judge in California directs Apple to help FBI break into cell phone - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/AP/status/699758200770445313 <comment><USER2> It's important to realize that Apple cannot be seen as voluntarily handing over data. Sometimes this is as simple as "Yes we can help, but please force us to". That saves them from PR damage and potential liability.

This was also the basis for several of the warrantless phone collection cases, according to the leaks. One or more of the major telcos was eager to cooperate, but politely asked that they be "forced" to. The FISA court was happy to oblige.

<comment><USER3> They'll have to go to the Supreme Court in order to to appear not to be volunteering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Apparently the judge is ordering Apple to essentially disable all features that prevent or slow down brute-forcing, updates and quotes here: [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160216/17393733617/no- ju...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160216/17393733617/no-judge-did- not-just-order-apple-to-break-encryption-san-bernardino-shooters-iphone-to- create-new-backdoor.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER5> Why don't the investigators review video of Farook's work to see if they can make out the pattern of his phone pin?

</comment><comment><USER6> Unless its running iOS 7 or earlier, good luck with that one.

<comment><USER7> Why? I'm no particular expert on iOS internals but ultimately the data on the disk is encrypted with a pretty weak (often just 4 digit) key. Shouldn't that be pretty trivial to brute force?

Is there something I'm missing?

<comment><USER8> Page 11 of the iOS Security Guide should help explain a lot: [https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf](https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf)

The user passcode is combined with the UID Key embedded in the Secure Enclave to create an encryption key used for the filesystem (Apple calls this "tangling"). That means you can only crack the key for the filesystem as fast as the Secure Enclave lets you crack it, since every guess is composed of Passcode+Secure_Enclave_Access.

And boy, does the Secure Enclave not like to go fast. Every incorrect guess gets fed back to the SE and it gets slower and slower until you can only try 1 guess an hour or, if the user set it, total device erasure after a certain number of failed attempts. See the table on page 12 of the iOS Security Guide.

This is why disk crypto on iOS is far better than comparable alternatives on Android. Having a hardware crypto chip with a key embedded at manufacture time on every single phone they produce is something that only Apple can really do.

The top poster is correct: in iOS7 and prior there were many default apps that did not use the Data Protection API (aka file encryption). Post-iOS7, most default apps and many 3rd party apps have defaulted to using Data Protection. This means you get very little if you're trying to forensically acquire a disk, as the FBI is, without access to the phone passcode.

Sidenote: My company released a crypto abstraction library for interacting with the Secure Enclave last week. It lets mobile app developers instruct the SE to create an ECC private key on their behalf and then sign things with it. This way, you can make passwordless authentication and device binding on iOS possible for your app, potentially improving UX, increasing security, and simplifying your server-side code. Check it out at [https://www.passwordlessapps.com](https://www.passwordlessapps.com) \-- we couldn't have made these kinds of security guarantees without the Secure Enclave. We'll eventually support Android, but we'll have to give up some security benefits to do so.

EDIT: I've been informed the device in question is an iPhone 5C (no TouchID == no Secure Enclave). This should make things a lot simpler for the FBI. Now I actually do wonder why they're having trouble?

<comment><USER9> That's good info, but the device in question is an iPhone 5C. The 5C uses the A6 SoC, which has no secure enclave. I'm not 100% sure what security features it _does_ have, but it sounds as if Apple could load a custom version of iOS that lacks the erasure feature. Even then, decryption is not certain. Files are encrypted with a combination of the passcode and the SoC's unique key.[1] That means unlock attempts have to be done on the phone hardware. If you imaged the device for parallel cracking, you'd need to figure out the 256-bit AES key in addition to the passcode.

Still, a 4-digit PIN would certainly be broken. An 8-digit PIN would probably take months to crack (100ms * 10^8 == 116 days). An actual passphrase? Good luck.

1\. See the Encryption and Data Protection section of Apple's 2014 iOS security guide, starting on page 9 of [https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1302...](https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/1302613/ios- security-guide-sept-2014.pdf)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


NYC Street Tree Map - <AUTHOR> https://tree-map.nycgovparks.org/ <comment><USER2> In case anyone's interested in the data -> [https://public.enigma.com/datasets/new-york-city-street- tree...](https://public.enigma.com/datasets/new-york-city-street-tree- census-2015/8c077846-7a6e-446c-a9c0-4b43b8514f84)</comment>


Ask HN: Is an IP address sufficient cause to suspect people of CP possession? - <AUTHOR>

It is becoming more and more common for the legal system to rely on IP addresses as a basis for identifying criminal activity. Is there a better way? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/22/nyregion/dozens-arrested-in-new-york-state-child-pornography-investigation.html <comment><USER2> No. It might be becoming more common but an IP address does not identify a person. You need to search a suspect's possessions before you can have any evidence. It might be reasonable for the police to use this lead to obtain a physical address then search for CP but an IP address along should not be sufficient.

Thankfully courts are beginning to realise this fact in regards to copyright infringement. [1]

[1] [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140122/07375025953/court...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140122/07375025953/court- dismisses-copyright-lawsuit-noting-ip-address-is-not-enough-evidence- infringement.shtml)

</comment><comment><USER3> An IP address (which is matched to a specific "customer" MAC address or login name. ISPs do log this stuff.) is enough for probable cause and a search warrant. The law enforcement agency then executes a search warrant and finds evidence, and the case is further built off of this. If the case goes to trial, the IP address is a mere stepping stone in the prosecution's case, and not much more.

</comment><comment><USER4> Suspect, sure. Convict, hopefully not.</comment>


Why you can't read 9to5Mac on Instapaper - <AUTHOR> http://9to5mac.com/2012/09/10/dont-call-it-instascraper-why-you-cant-read-9to5mac-on-instapaper/ <comment><USER3> This really, really sucks. I like Marco's take on development (both software and career) and entrepreneurship, and he has a "no bullshit" approach to technology.

But what the heck is going on today? He questions The Verge's integrity (despite having nothing more than the absence of a iMac/HP Spectre One comment), tries to backpedal on it, then starts blocking sites he's feuding with?

Lame. He's normally the most level-headed of the popular Mac bloggers.

<comment><USER4> I don't understand any defense of the Verge here.

HP comes out with an all-in-one. Instead of resembling a generic monitor, which would be the obvious choice for a computer meant to look like a simple display, it resembles an iMac to a bizarre degree. (Note: I don't even like how the iMac looks)

How do you defend writing a long article about it without mentioning the resemblance even once? I'm not suggesting motives; I just can't understand it. Yes, I've heard the "oh it was obvious so it didn't need to be said" defense, I just don't get that.

<comment><USER5> As somebody that's pretty good friends with somebody that's been a long-time writer/editor at a couple of well-known tech sites, the simple answer is they just plain get tired of it.

These guys look at gadgets all day long. What it comes down to is they get tired of ripping on every new gadget that comes out with "lol, they ripped off Apple" and instead focus on other things because there's absolutely nothing interesting about writing the same thing over and over and over again. After a while, it _does_ get to the point that it's so obvious that pointing it out becomes superfluous.

And I mean, in the case of the Spectre One, it's not even as direct a knock- off as the Envy line. The stand design is bulky and inelegant compared to the iMac. When viewed from the side or rear, it's fairly clear there are _far_ worse offenders in the "steals from Apple" category.

Which isn't to say it isn't there and it isn't a shameless aping, just that if you look at gadgets for a living, it doesn't really stand out enough in that regard for it to feel worth the energy to point it out.

>How do you defend writing a long article about it

This may be a bit of a nitpick, but both the posts Marco accused of shilling for HP are under 500 words; that's not really a long piece at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I just canceled my Instapaper paying subscription.

I don't care about this story, I just care about the provider of a service that decides to block _me_ for his personal matters.

Sorry but it just feels like an insult to me.

<comment><USER7> I do agree that if a developer has some personal beef with a website that should not allow him/her to think they have the right to block it from their users. Apple wouldn't dream to go as far as to block google.com or samsung.com on their OS's for example just because they have some serious business disagreements. The fact is though we only really have one side of the story here, so hopefully Marco will explain his side of the story (perhaps on his podcast <http://5by5.tv/buildanalyze>).

To be honest though I simply cannot believe he would think such a thing acceptable, he seems like a pretty clued-in guy this would be a blunder of epic proportions if true, there's something more to this story.

<comment><USER8> For the record. Apple has pushed Google Maps off the iPhone in iOS 6. Not sure they'll allow it either as it would 'duplicate core OS functionality'

<comment><USER9> So were you part of the meetings that decided this? Because I could, for the record, say that Google pulled its Maps app off of the iPhone in iOS 6.

I don't think either is an appropriate characterization of the situation. More likely, Apple had features they wanted that Google wouldn't license (eg turn by turn), so Apple decided to develop its own product. The license terms of the agreement for which Apple was paying Google included shipping the Google Maps app, so when Apple decided not to renew the agreement, they had to stop shipping a product called Google Maps.

<comment><USER10> > Because I could, for the record, say that Google pulled its Maps app off of > the iPhone in iOS 6.

Someone with in-depth knowledge of the licensing agreements! You must know exactly what happened, based on your assertion of credentials, here.

> More likely, Apple had features they wanted that Google wouldn't license (eg > turn by turn)

Wouldn't? Or couldn't? Do you know? Do you care? It seems your mind is made up despite _not_ having the inside knowledge you assert.

<comment><USER9> You're right, I don't know (don't care, either). I was _trying_ to make a point that there is probably a story that involved more than 1/2 a sentence.

My mind is not in the least way made up. I'm curious where that came from, honestly. That's a strong assertion that I actually tried to keep out of my post as I hypothesized what I saw as a plausible scenario given only whats been in the media.

I have no clue, and I highly doubt anybody posting here does, either.

<comment><USER10> > That's a strong assertion that I actually tried to keep out of my post as I > hypothesized what I saw as a plausible scenario given only whats been in the > media.

You said it was "more likely," implying you had some reason to believe it besides what people say on the Internet.

<comment><USER9> That's a good point. My intention was that it was more likely that there was a much richer story than "X is trying to screw Y". Thanks for explaining so I can make my comments closer to what I'm trying to say.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Adding editorial opinions to Instapaper seems like a Bad Idea. People using it just want to read content, and being told "I disagree with this site" is only going to piss them off.

<comment><USER12> Worse yet, how many users will write it off as a technical error, shrug, close the window, and move on to read other things? Instapaper has found a way to stifle the readership and mindshare of whomever they choose, that, for non-HN readers could have it's cause masked from view.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Marco Arment made a mistake here. I know the feeling well. He will get over it, and so will all of you.

Is there much more to say about it than that?

I will never understand why people personalize so much what what Arment says. He's an independent developer; he's one of us. He happens to like iOS more than a lot of HN'ers. "Liking the wrong operating system" seems like a much smaller sin than "shitting all over an indie developer".

<comment><USER14> > I will never understand why people personalize so much what what Arment > says.

Perhaps because his writing, frequently obnoxious and bereft of charm, makes him very easy to dislike. Even for people like myself who might otherwise agree with his positions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> As a long time Instapaper user, I've been slowly migrating to Pocket since they released multi-page saving, but now plan to move completely.

The Instapaper error message should at least be more truthful, or the opt-out list made public so you know restrictions before purchasing the application.

<comment><USER16> I just started using Pocket, and have found it a much nicer experience than Instapaper all around. This reminds me to take the Instapaper button off my bookmarks bar...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> In an email to Buzzfeed, Marco stated (as he posted on Twitter) that it was 9to5Mac's willingness to write potentially libelous statements that he didn't want to deal with:

...I really don't foresee doing this for any other site unless they explicitly request it. What 9to5 has consistently written about me and Instapaper goes far beyond what's acceptable, is potentially libelous, and could cause potential legal issues. This has never happened to this degree from any other site, and would certainly never happen from a professionally run publication. I will not tolerate their behavior or the potential legal risks of interacting with 9to5 or Seth at all, so I removed the ability for Instapaper to interact with their site.

[edit] Marco's tweet: <https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/245163432758878208>

<comment><USER18> Sounds like someone wants to be a big shot but doesn't have a thick enough skin to deal with criticism. His app is completely worthless without other people's content.

<comment><USER19> I think, trying to read through the pettiness and petulance of it all, that Marco has a fine point to be argued. He just makes it in a really insufferable way.

<comment><USER20> He _had_ a fine point to be argued until he brought it into his app functionality. Seriously, not only is that is ridiculously childish, but it's totally unnecessary—he has the audience to make his point in full editorial glory. If it's libel then sic a lawyer on them, don't play games with your user base, most of whom don't and shouldn't give a fuck.

<comment><USER19> Blocking someone describing your product as tantamount to illegal activity (scraping) is cheaper than lawyering up.

Marco's current problem is that he's put himself in such a bloviating position that relenting and whitelisting 9to5Mac is going to make him look like a huge idiot.

Someone with a thicker skin would probably have asked the guys whether they really thought Instapaper was illegal, and whether Marco should disable Instapaper support for them. That way, he wouldn't be editorializing his articles.

This measure also creates a precedent where site owners can petition him to disable support for their website - which, taken far enough, is going to make Instapaper very undesirable to prospective users.

Those of us who've paid Marco money would rather that he didn't take a service we've paid money for to use as a bargaining chip.

<comment><USER21> 9to5Mac isn't the first site to describe Instapaper as scraping

NyTimes: [https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/magazine/04FOB- medium-t.h...](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/04/magazine/04FOB- medium-t.html?_r=1)

Technology Review: [http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419326/why- instapaper-w...](http://www.technologyreview.com/view/419326/why-instapaper- will-never-be-booted-from-the/)

BusinessInsider: [http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-23/tech/30193029...](http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-09-23/tech/30193029_1_business- insider-instapaper-rss)

<comment><USER19> Worth saying is that at the time, The New York Times's idea of scraping was very inclusive: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1414235>.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Marco is exhibiting exactly how not to act. If you want people to use your product, you don't censor things on their behalf. That's an incredible example of crossing the line.

</comment><comment><USER23> Argh, why do I waste my time reading about famous devs vs. blogs vs. bloggers vs. journalists? It's like a car crash.

I guess it is time to turn the minaway setting up...

edit: Actually it's more like watching Jersey shore. A fantasy world where people have problems that everyone should listen to.

<comment><USER19> FWIW, pg blocks BuzzFeed articles, which prevented me and other people from submitting a more unbiased article on the subject.

The whole he-said-she-said minutiae of it all are pretty dull, unless people want to get on some kind of tired free speech horse.

<comment><USER23> It's not that it's dull, it's just that (today in particular) I am wasting time reading about X famous dev vs. Y popular tech blog. I'm just lamenting that I should be developing code because reading about X vs. Y is not helping me to someday become an X. None of this is anyone's fault but my own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Truly shameful behavior that permanently destroys the huge amount of trust Instapaper has built up with users. Instapaper, as any such product, is a service to its users, not a bludgeon for political battles. That is a hard line in the sand that once crossed reveals a lack of integrity from the operators.

</comment><comment><USER25> Neither side especially comes off well in all of this. 9to5mac misspelled his name? I don't see how that's especially funny (and it is childish), but Arment needs to lighten up about that. I also don't see how even the accusations regarding the servers the FBI seized hold water, but there is a polite way to deal with it (read: not blocking a site and making it look like anyone but you is at fault).

Ultimately, I'll still use Instapaper as long as Arment keeps making a quality app and keeps his personal choices out of what I see in the app.

<comment><USER17> Marco's response on Twitter seemed to indicate that people had, in fact, already begun to blame him for the UDID leak. At the very least, that's a foreseeable reaction to publishing a story claiming a potential link.

<comment><USER26> Something Marco did himself, even calling that app "a likely culprit" - <USER2> is pretty strong wording.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Marco has posted an apology: <http://blog.instapaper.com/post/31303984531>

<comment><USER24> The apology doesn't reflect an understanding of the gravity of what he did. He mostly apologizes for using the wrong mechanism and generally overreacting, not for the betrayal of his users and the abuse of power for personal reasons.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> What's the point of the service, if its author can selectively disable functionality for his own reasons, whatever they be?

<comment><USER29> What is the point of commenting if pg could hellban you from HN whenever he wants?

Because the service is useful, and incidents are rare.

<comment><USER28> But pg doesn't take money for this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> So Mr. Marco is upset by some blog and that's why I can't use it in Instapaper? I don't even read 9to5mac but it's reason enough for me to cancel my Instapaper account.

Are there any alternatives I should know about?

<comment><USER31> Pocket is fairly popular: <http://getpocket.com/>

<comment><USER32> I came here to recommend Pocket. Free. Natively supports iOS, Android, Firefox, Chrome (and has bookmarklet and other web app support for anything else). No ideological baggage or jerkiness.

<comment><USER33> Pocket, because it's bullshit-free.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Developers don't like being branded as scrapers, as it carries the implication that the service in question is stealing content from others to provide its service.

The absolute worst thing Instapaper can be accused of is implementing an old- Readability style function that strips pages of non-article content, most frequently ads.

By that definition Safari Reader is a scraper, so is AdBlock, Reeder, or any other app that tries to improve on the average abysmal reading environment most websites provide.

<comment><USER35> I am a major fan and paying user of Instapaper and similar services. But how are they not stealing content from others to provide their services? Read it later apps are useless without content. Websites may provide an abysmal reading experience, but it is their property and they can present it as they please. Even if I don't like it and prefer to use Instapaper, it is still theft of a certain kind. So, yes, Instapaper/Safari Reader/Adblock/Reeder are scrapers in my estimation.

<comment><USER36> Copying, not stealing.

<comment><USER35> Eh, I hate arguing this point cause I find myself doing it a lot and never really getting anywhere interesting, but here goes. I believe copyright infringement is a subset of stealing. The common definition of stealing is taking something you don't own without permission. The fact that the owner still has a copy is immaterial. Acting like depriving the owner of their copy is a necessary component of stealing is just a remnant of a time where it was much harder to make perfect copy of valuable property. I know the copy vs. steal debate is touchy, but I also feel it is just a distraction from the larger issue.

<comment><USER36> In most copyright infringements, the infringers are either sharing what they legally bought and own or accepting something that was shared with them and sharing it themselves. There is never any "taking" involved, for any definition of the word.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Wow. Why is he acting so childish. He shouldn't be taking personal matters and forcing them on users.

</comment><comment><USER38> Looks like today is International Fuck Marco Arment day.

(no disrespect meant to Marco)

<comment><USER39> To be fair, he's mostly instigating it himself with incendiary posts and tweets. I can't keep up with how many people he's told to f--- off in the past 48 hours.

<comment><USER40> Marco has a history of doing this. He's a developer, and an opinionated one at that (which is saying something for us guys.)

His actions here stink of foul play rather than any genuine worry. Maybe he has another side to this – but if he does, telling people to fuck off isn't the way around it.

<comment><USER41> > He's a developer, and an opinionated one at that

Too often this is a euphemism for "he's a jerk who's unwilling to consider anyone else's perspective or requirements".

You can kinda get away with that in software development if you're incredibly smart, but it's an awful attitude to bring to any other part of your life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I can completely understand Marcos reaction here. 9to5/Seth seems to have been persistently badgering him. For example (Seth's words):

      But in updating, I spelled his name wrong —"Marcus Armento"—as a laugh.

and..

      I also linked to his Tweet above about spelling his name wrong and the funny replies it received.

and more...

      I (also jokingly) called his app "Instascraper," which publishers often
      call the app because it removes ads from the websites it views. "Scraping"
      is what publishers call bots and other robot services that strip content
      from a site and republish it without any financial payment

That was in addition to the stories of Instapaper as a source of the leaked UDIDs and previous unflattering commentary.

Marco isn't completely blameless, however I completely understand why he was upset. Banning 9to5 was a step too far however he realized his mistake and owned up to it.

Dare I ask - what else do you want?

</comment><comment><USER43> It's also worth noting that the popup is _still_ a lie. Instapaper _can_ save articles from 9to5Mac, but chooses not to. It's an important distinction for the user, who probably will think that it is something wrong with 9to5Mac.

</comment><comment><USER4> 9to5Mac, a notoriously unreliable rag, claims Marco is censoring them. I should believe them... why?

There are sites Instapaper does not scrape. For example, ArsTechnica does not allow scraping of full articles. Instapaper respects this whereas other scrapers ignore ArsTechnica and scrape anyway.

My point is, just because Instapaper refuses to scrape a site does not automatically mean censorship has occurred.

<comment><USER44> C'mon, do some basic research before posting. This has already been well covered in this very thread.

<https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/245163180479885312> <https://twitter.com/marcoarment/status/245165731120033792>

<comment><USER4> I read the link at the top of the article, which failed to explain it. Should I have realized that since the linked article is 9to5, it would of course have failed to present the basic facts underlying it's own article?</comment></comment></comment>


A New Theory of Time – Lee Smolin (2013) [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Hi4VbERDyI

<comment><USER2> Right off the bat the professor himself admits this is a philosophical work, it's not scientific. And in fact, the more he explains about it the clearer that notion becomes. This "theory" is intended to fix a perceived problem with philosophy and theology, not to achieve any kind of scientific progress. There are several points in this presentation where I feel our current scientific understanding of the universe is being grossly misrepresented.

At best you could view this as an effort to build a bridge between those two worlds, but I've yet to see an instance where such an intention resulted in something that remained scientifically valid. This gap is exactly as wide as the difference between the willingness to see nature as it is on the one hand, and the need to reserve a special corner for humans on the other hand.

I'd imagine philosophers object to the characterization, but my guess is very few scientists would argue that this work is intended to advance cosmology or indeed physics as a discipline.

<comment><USER3> > _this is a philosophical work, it 's not scientific_

BTW, logically and historically all science _is_ philosophy and vice versa. The special branches of science are philosophies limited to certain areas unified by the all-encompassing concept of rationality.

<comment><USER4> No. While historically this has been true during the pre-scientific era, the terms "philosophy" and "science" have diverged towards their specific modern meanings since the 17th century.

Both are grounded in rationality; that's not specific to just science. That's not how you define Science. Science is defined as a process of systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, leading to the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses --things that the more abstract field of Philosophy is not concerned with.

<comment><USER5> I think that's true if you're talking about a university class, and most of the people who are associated with philosophy are not scientists, but I also think it's important to acknowledge that science is only valid because of epistemological assumptions we arrived at through reasoning. I would be even be comfortable saying that science is an experimentally-focused branch of epistemology. Denying the relationship undermines the validity of the scientific method. Without the connection, scientific assumptions become just as valid as any arbitrary prophetic system of belief. Here's a helpful definition of philosophy from Wikipedia:

Philosophy is the study of general and fundamental problems, such as those connected with reality, existence, knowledge, values, reason, mind, and language.[1][2] Philosophy is distinguished from other ways of addressing such problems by its critical, generally systematic approach and its reliance on rational argument.[3] In more casual speech, by extension, "philosophy" can refer to "the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group"

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> He argues that time is constant, that natural laws vary within time and space, and that this leads to mean our existence cannot be calculated or precisely described by a set of mathematical expressions because the constants we would use to describe the future are not constant, but rather another set of variables.

I can't see how this makes the future any less knowable[1]. It just adds more state.

___

[1] Obviously, we can't predict the future as we haven't the resources or the current state of everything. Naturalism just states that were we to have them, we could predict the future.

<comment><USER7> If laws change, there are causes to these changes that are tied to other laws. Indeed it add more states, and one more layer of laws as I understand it.

English is not my native language and I'm left wondering. Does he talk about the _why_ he thinks the laws could change ? It sounded to me like a vague hypothesis but I'd love to understand better.

If I follow my own musing after watching this I would say time could be the path of least information in an isotropic adimensional space. The axis or path along which compression is the easiest. This would explain nicely why how our brain handles it in such a particular way. If Lee Smolin is wrong it would be the path along which energy cannot be absorbed and entropy can't increase as state relationships are static. Something like a visible effect of the strongest possible force. This could be a simple definition of time. Sadly I'm a layman and most probably completely off the mark.

<comment><USER8> Why is it neccessary that there would be causes to these changes?

What if the changes to the constants are random?

<comment><USER7> I try to be open-minded but I have a very hard time believing in acausal events. Saying change can happen from nothing is like saying that energy can appear from nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So I watched the whole thing and only understand parts of it, but is his main theory that the laws of physics which were previously thought to be unchanging may indeed change over time and that itself is the proof that the universe is temporal?

<comment><USER10> That appears to be it. The talk struck me as a philosophical consideration on a traditionally young-earth-creationist viewpoint. The idea being that physical laws and constants, namely the speed of light, change over time.

While the scientific portion of the suggestion lacks merit, considering the hypotheticals is certainly interesting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I thought time, at the bare iron of the universe, was the slow but sure thermodynamic change into a state of pure information. What's he talking about? Time as it relates to relativistic theories?

</comment><comment><USER12> Is it just me or has HN become less rigorous and scientific and more into sensationalistic pablum in the last week or two?

</comment><comment><USER13> Bollocks.</comment>


Fairphone Livestream: A new milestone for fairer electronics - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5mfSD_K9fA <comment><AUTHOR> Fairphone has introduced the new Fairphone 3+, now with 48/16MP cameras and 40% recycled plastics.

To watch just the ad [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnao1Dm5vKg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnao1Dm5vKg)</comment>


How to Crack Billions of Passwords with CPUs, GPUs and FPGAs - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@ScatteredSecrets/how-to-crack-billions-of-passwords-6773af298172 <comment><USER2> i know its a pretty simple design really but that FPGA cracker looks a lot like an old bitcoin mining ASIC rig</comment>


Ask HN: How would you define a "junior" software engineer? - <AUTHOR> How many years of experience, number of years at a company, big co or startups etc?<p>Seems like having some gauge from a decent sample size of engineers could help to have loosely defined in specifics? <comment><USER2> "Years of experience" is a massively variable measure. I've known devs who have "one year of experience ten years in a row" and know far less about programming than some college graduates who have done internships at three different companies during college. "Years of experience" isn't as critical as "range of architectures" or applications/situations in which you've worked. You _always_ learn something new at every shop where you work... if you're not getting a lot of variety in your job then seek it out -- or think about getting more experience at another employer.

</comment><comment><USER3> My definition of junior is "an engineer who can't complete start-to-finish general tasks alone". To unwrap it, it both requires certain knowledge and working experience which certainly couldn't be quantified in years (e.g. my current employee had a 21 y.o. lead developer on a certain system who had a 5 years of directly relevant experience hence the role).

</comment><comment><USER4> Several traits or indications I mostly come across with junior engineers is that guidance from seniors or on-boarding might be slightly more involved for them to bring them up to speed. Usually, they have less experience in working with production-grade environments or have some internships under their belt to make up for the entry-level experience gap. I would say that "years of experience" isn't enough to define/assess if an engineer is "junior" but my definition fits in with their ability of communication and critical thinking.

I would regard a "new grad" as "experienced" if they can objectively explain their choice of technology with evidence on their decision and if they can reason with the team with a proposal. Repeating this with good feedback and a ROI makes them experienced. Some projects in the open-source world are meritocratic, with a number of significant patches == commit access which makes them a trusted maintainer.</comment>


Dissection of the Apple A4 - <AUTHOR> http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Apple-A4-Teardown/2204/1

<comment><USER2> 256 MB of RAM. Same as iPhone 3GS.

        This is the SDRAM inside the A4.
        Yes, that's a Samsung logo. No,
        that doesn't mean Samsung designed
        the A4—just the RAM.*

<http://s1.guide-images.ifixit.com/igi/i41Jh6tuFo6RFBVE.large>

There's also a great side-cutaway shot, showing the 2 RAM dies.

<http://www.ifixit.com/Misc/iphone_processor_crossection.jpg>

<comment><USER3> Wow only 256MB RAM? Anyone else surprised?

<comment><USER4> Not at all. This thing runs a slim Unix-based embedded OS. Why would it need more memory?

I use a netbook with 1.5 gigs and a non-slim Unix-like OS with X and Gnome on top of it and it rarely hits swap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> this doesn't actually tell you anything about the processor, just that it's in the package, under two ram dies, and that it's single core "so must be an a8".

<comment><USER6> It tells you more than that: it's not an A9 and does not contain a GPU. So doesn't it dispel some rumours? What did you expect?

<comment><USER7> No, it just asserts that because there's only one core it has to be an A8 (superscalar, no provision for SMP) not an A9 (out-of-order speculative issue superscalar, single core and 1-4 cores SMP versions).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd love to see a full layer-by-layer teardown of the actual die. Multi-die packages are nothing special. Getting past metal8, even it it means going straight to silicon, would let you pick out individual blocks.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why are wafers round? Is there a part of the process that requires spinning the wafer?

<comment><USER10> I believe its because the wafers are actually sliced of a single large crystal of silicon, which grows in a circular cross-section.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wafer_(electronics)>

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I bet reverse engineering is against the license agreement.

</comment><comment><USER12> anyone know how much this process costs?

<comment><USER7> Enough that they didn't pay to have the metal layers "peeled off" one by one (or just all of them as Arubis suggests) so that we could start to guess what it really is....

<comment><USER8> The consumables involved in stripping off metal and oxide layers have a negligible price point. Most of the cost is engineer time, though how much depends on what equipment/techniques are used (liquid chemistry, manual polishing, plasma processing, etc.).

This isn't the case with all circuit forensics techniques: once you start loading parts into more expensive equipment (even electron microscopes) you're paying for tool time to offset training and tool value depreciation.

I know that's not really quantifying things, but that's something you'd have to get from the lab that actually performed the work.

EDIT: if it helps, the actual process of removing a metal layer and an oxide layer varies with the process, but would generally take under an hour (and usually well under). There exist techniques to skip all that and go straight to silicon significantly faster, though as these are all destructive processes, you lose the ability to go back and see what was there before.</comment></comment></comment>


AR Drone That Infects Other Drones With Virus Wins DroneGames - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/ar-drone-that-infects-other-drones-with-virus-wins-dronegames#.UMD0EHJvf8o.hackernews <comment><USER2> This reminds me of a time in high school where I participated in a physics olympics competition. One of the events was to construct a bridge out of provided materials capable of supporting the most weight. The score you received was calculated as:

      (sum of weights supported) / (time taken to place weights)

The winning team placed a really small amount of weight in what the judges measured as 0.1 seconds of time. They cleverly gamed the rules to take advantage that a small time would act as a multiplier. Our team came in second for that event even though our bridge supported many times the weight theirs did, even if you took as long as you wanted to place the weights. It was a bit of an abuse of the rules and I felt it went against the spirit of the competition which was to engineer a solid bridge.

In this situation, by crippling potentially better drones the virus copter may have ended up technically winning but the measure by which it won may be different than what was intended. That said, it will definitely bring to the forefront a better approach to security which will have long-term benefits.

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure your analogy applies in this case. The team that won the DroneGames HAD the BEST strategy: crippling the other drones!

This reminds of a story I heard a long time ago about a fighter in the middle of some nasty civil war who complained to a TV reporter: "no one here respects the Law of The Jungle anymore!"

<comment><USER2> <http://dronegames.co/> doesn't state what the judging criteria is. If it's "survive to the end" then why not heavily shield your drone, bolt it to a fixed stand, affix a heavy EMP generator, and fry all the other electronics in the room? Your drone won't be able to do anything useful as it's bolted down but its shielding will at least allow the electronics to blink some lights and technically you could win on that fact alone.

Presumably such a tactic would violate the spirit, which I take to be demonstrating cool and unique capabilities without having to deal with hostile threats. However, I haven't been following, so perhaps drone to drone interference is actively encouraged and expected.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> A clever strategy that few thought of; it deserved to win.

On the downside, this is surely going to give me nightmares about government drones getting infected with a terrorist virus and unleashing drone-botnet- mageddon on the masses.

<comment><USER4> How quaint, a terrorist virus? No, it'll probably just be normal government drones with normal government software that unleashes drone-ageddon on the masses.

Whether it's a robot uprising, or a bug/oversight in the software, or Big Brother, is up to your own personal taste in dystopian horrors.

<comment><USER5> The terrorist virus is simply plausible deniability so the government can continue it's progression towards new world order.

I mean, who really thought Bin Laden had that much power or legitimacy?

<comment><USER6> Bin laden had legitimacy? I'd say that he did until he started organising the killing of people.

<comment><USER7> I don't remember anyone in the West complaining when he was organising the killing of Soviet soldiers.

<comment><USER8> Maybe it's because these soldiers were on Afghani terrain without Afghan people permission?

<comment><USER7> Oh - I wasn't trying to defend him - he was a monster. But, like Saddam Hussein, the West regarded him for long periods as a _useful_ monster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What's interesting is the "virus" could be combined with the second-place winner ("multidrone") to make a drone botnet instead of just having the infected drones "run amok".

<comment><USER10> Could we set up a mesh network on that drone-botnet? How much storage would each one have? We could hide that datacenter in a cloud!

<comment><USER9> Actually, there's some practical application for that. In an emergency situation where communication is down, a network of drones could be setup to provide a network for first-responders and aid-workers to coordinate their efforts. It could even tie-in to base stations that would have the long-range power to connect different meshes. (note: I know nothing about these drones, but looking at what's been done already, it's seems feasible).

<comment><USER4> Or you could just use skilled radio operators.

Though I suppose those _have_ been getting scarcer than sophisticated drones anymore :(

<comment><USER11> Can you run IP over Skilled Radio Operators?

That kind of drone network could be useful for transmitting video, or other important data that isn't that good to send by voice. Not to mention remotely controling the other drones, that would do things like searching for people in the rubble.

<comment><USER4> Not sure if TCP/IP has been done, but packet radio [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Packet_radio>] is a thing.

That said, you don't need digital transmission for a video signal [<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow-scan_television>] or for remotely controlling things. A more sophisticated network like that provided by TCP/IP is always a nice thing to have, but you pay the price in terms of lost range when you start trying to use WiFi for everything. My little handheld radio can reach up to 5 miles; my WiFi station might go 500 feet. Which link would you rather have in a disaster?

It's true, robots can enhance the capabilities of rescue operations, but the comment I replied to was specifically talking about using drones to establish lines of communication. My point is that we already _have_ that, and it doesn't require a hundred drones in the air.

You might also be interested in APRS [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_Syst...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automatic_Packet_Reporting_System)]

<comment><USER9> Well, it's a pretty far-fetched idea anyways, but, a few things to consider:

\- I never said you have to use wifi. You're right that radio would have a much greater range. \- The main advantage I can think of for a system like this would be speed of deployment. In an area with poor line of sight, they could be used to bridge the gap until a proper base-station can be positioned. \- They're more versatile. For example, they could be used as a mobile PA system. \- Of course, it's all hypothetical. Nevertheless, it'd be fun to implement and more useful than the Pirate Bay's idea of a flying datacenter.

<comment><USER4> Even better, how about using teams of drones to _deploy_ basestations? :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What I liked about this the most is that the winning team thought outside the box. While most people focused on "how do we make this drone fly better?" these guys focused on "how do we sabotage the other drones?"

</comment><comment><USER13> The source code for this is on Github: <https://github.com/substack/virus- copter>

<comment><USER14> Did I read that correctly, that you can simply telnet to the copter's IP address and get a (root?) shell just like that?

<comment><USER15> Not awfully surprising. It's a toy, not a Predator. Security likely was not a major design concern, and I don't really blame them. Probably even intentional to a degree, to make (owner-sourced) hacking easier.

<comment><USER14> Not complaining, just slightly surprised. I thought you'd have to go to an extra effort to remove the username+password prompt from the standard telnetds :)

<comment><USER16> Random factoid: the prompt actually comes from getty, not telnetd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The Game of Drones. Winter is coming.

</comment><comment><USER18> This 'virus' shows how open the drones truly are. Let's get started on a security module!

I think the AR Drones provide a great platform that non-programmers can get excited about and in turn want to program themselves.

The drone is a perfect combination of functionality and openness.

<comment><USER19> "Security module"? You can't bolt-on security.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This sounds weird to me. How do they infect a system that they never saw before? Did the wrote the virus on the fly? Or those drones have a common library with a bug or something.

This is like a Hollywood movie with a bad script

<comment><USER21> The drones are identical for this competition; and are running an unprotected telnet server on the same wireless network. Just look at the code: <https://github.com/substack/virus-copter>

This only proves that the organizers had no technical background whatsoever.

<comment><USER22> These are the retail standard AR Drones with their own Wifi APs and telnetd enabled. It's not the organizers job to secure them. Would you expect the Defcon organizers to do the same for the attendees?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I know it's science-fiction, but the 2010 book The](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quantum_Thief>The) Quantum Thief makes use of weapons like these: basically firing a missile to get physical access to your adversary's computer systems with some sort of payload, and that payload of which will scan and disrupt the opponent's system.

<comment><USER24> More realistic episode was in <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kikokugai:_The_Cyber_Slayer> .

Physical attack on enemy corporation was just a diversion. The real attack was on corporation network. Main computer gone nuts and started selling and buying in most ineffective way. Corporation was destroyed after several minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> They tried this in Terminator Salvation, it was just a honeypot. Here's another nefarious use for AR drones: [http://static.usenix.org/events/woot11/tech/final_files/Reed...](http://static.usenix.org/events/woot11/tech/final_files/Reed.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER26> Next time they should combine these with this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNPJMk2fgJU>

</comment><comment><USER27> Is there any video of this in action?

</comment><comment><USER28> OMG!!! What if terrorists did the same thing to turn drones against us?? We need more drones to fly above the current generation of drones and monitor them NOW!</comment>