FBI Statement on Clinton Email System - <AUTHOR> https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/statement-by-fbi-director-james-b.-comey-on-the-investigation-of-secretary-hillary-clintons-use-of-a-personal-e-mail-system <comment><USER2> "To be clear, this is not to suggest that in similar circumstances, a person who engaged in this activity would face no consequences. To the contrary, those individuals are often subject to security or administrative sanctions. But that is not what we are deciding now."

In other words, "don't think that because Hillary can get away with it, you can, too."

<comment><USER3> <humor>Why so much hatin' here? I thought the HN crowd would love someone who had their own email server.</humor>

<comment><USER4> Hillary probably lost HN support when it became apparent that her security policy was "Oh shit, we're under attack. Shut it off and hope they don't try again tomorrow." ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, _110 > e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to > contain classified information at the time they were sent or received_. > Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time > they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and > eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of > classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were > "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not > been classified at the time the e-mails were sent.

(emphasis mine)

This seems like a clear contradiction of a common Clinton talking point, that none of the e-mails were classified _at the time they were sent_. Director Comey even goes so far as to use the same language the Clintons have been employing. Will we see a walk-back of that line in light of this?

<comment><USER6> >This seems like a clear contradiction of a common Clinton talking point

Straight from her website:

>Clinton only used her account for unclassified email. No information in Clinton's emails was marked classified at the time she sent or received them.

[https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/1...](https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/factsheets/2015/07/13/email- facts/)

<comment><USER7> Still there. I guess we are through the looking glass where a documented lie (on your own website) about how you handled classified information doesn't disqualify you from running for president.

<comment><USER8> > I guess we are through the looking glass where a documented lie (on your own > website) about how you handled classified information doesn't disqualify you > from running for president.

I mean, if she were running against someone who didn't lie constantly, maybe it would? But she's not, so here we are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> ThinkProgress posted an article attempting to explan why the bar is high in prosecuting:

[http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary-...](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2016/07/05/3795414/hillary- clinton-isnt-getting-indicted-heres/)

"Yet, as ABC News Legal Analyst Dan Abrams explains, several key words in this provision also weigh against charging Clinton. For one thing, a 1941 Supreme Court decision interprets the phrase "relating to the national defense" to require "'intent or reason to believe that the information to be obtained is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation.' This requires those prosecuted to have acted in bad faith." That's a high bar — there's no apparent evidence that Clinton had reason to believe that her use of a private server would cause information to be obtained that advantaged a foreign nation or that would have caused injury to the United States."

<comment><USER10> It feels like this was the bar:

"All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here."

Interestingly, those who are strongly opposed to HRC use the term "traitor" frequently. It'll be interesting to see if the more fringe elements pick up on "indications of disloyalty to the US" as the reason why they think this should be prosecuted.

<comment><USER11> I am strongly interesting in seeing her prosecuted less because of my political feelings, but more because I _know_ without a shadow of a doubt that if I, as a person who once had to handle classified information, had done what she had done, I would have been promptly fired and prosecuted to the full extent of the law (and probably then some).

This gets at the root of the kind of unrest that has led to Trump: there is one set of rules for the elites, and another for the rest of us. There is nothing more un-American.

P.S. - this is certainly not to say that Trump is or would be any better: he totally isn't. But this kind of phenomenon is partially to blame for the anger that has led to his candidacy.

<comment><USER10> The thing is, these are like conspiracy theories. Any rebuttal is proof you are hiding something!

The Director of the FBI lays out very clearly what he found, why he won't prosecute, and that this was impartial. But you dismiss all that and say it's because she's an elite. I understand if you believe that - but it's apparent you have already made up your mind and that his response would just confirm one of your two conclusions. She should be prosecuted or she should be prosecuted but she won't because she's an elite.

<comment><USER12> Eh, the director of the FBI doesn't prosecute, _prosecutors_ do that. The job of the FBI is to collect and collate the evidence.

Prosecutors in fact explicitly ask police and others they rely on to _not_ substitute their own judgement for what merits prosecution and what not.

<comment><USER10> Great catch. I should have said "why he isn't recommending prosecution"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> From the U.S. Code, 18 U.S. Code § 793 (f):

 _(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both._

EDIT: IANAL & this might not be the correct code, though I believe it is.

<comment><USER14> No mention of intent... But read section A, first line says it all.

 _(a) Whoever, for the purpose of obtaining information respecting the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to the injury of the United States, or to the advantage of any foreign nation, goes upon, enters, flies over, or otherwise obtains information concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of defense, navy yard, naval station, submarine base, fueling station, fort, battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal, railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine, telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal station, building, office, research laboratory or station or other place connected with the national defense owned or constructed, or in progress of construction by the United States or under the control of the United States, or of any of its officers, departments, or agencies, or within the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, or any place in which any vessel, aircraft, arms, munitions, or other materials or instruments for use in time of war are being made, prepared, repaired, stored, or are the subject of research or development, under any contract or agreement with the United States, or any department or agency thereof, or with any person on behalf of the United States, or otherwise on behalf of the United States, or any prohibited place so designated by the President by proclamation in time of war or in case of national emergency in which anything for the use of the Army, Navy, or Air Force is being prepared or constructed or stored, information as to which prohibited place the President has determined would be prejudicial to the national defense;_

<comment><USER13> Gross negligence doesn't require intent. My original quote was, in fact, one of the parts of the law that mattered, but there was another: 18 U.S.C. § 1924.

In July of 2015, the DoJ pursued another case, bearing similarity to Clinton's, against Bryan H. Nishimura, a Navy Reservist.

 _Nishimura's actions came to light in early 2012, when he admitted to Naval personnel that he had handled classified materials inappropriately. Nishimura later admitted that, following his statement to Naval personnel, he destroyed a large quantity of classified materials he had maintained in his home. Despite that, when the Federal Bureau of Investigation searched Nishimura's home in May 2012, agents recovered numerous classified materials in digital and hard copy forms. The investigation did not reveal evidence that Nishimura intended to distribute classified information to unauthorized personnel._

In this case there was also a finding of no intent, and yet they pursued the case. And there were conseqences:

 _U.S. Magistrate Judge Kendall J. Newman immediately sentenced Nishimura to two years of probation, a $7,500 fine, and forfeiture of personal media containing classified materials. Nishimura was further ordered to surrender any currently held security clearance and to never again seek such a clearance._

Really the main difference is that my original posting was for a felony charge and 1924 is a misdemeanor.

For reference: DoJ Announcement [https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press- releases/2015/folsom-na...](https://www.fbi.gov/sacramento/press- releases/2015/folsom-naval-reservist-is-sentenced-after-pleading-guilty-to- unauthorized-removal-and-retention-of-classified-materials)

The Charges [https://www.justice.gov/usao- edca/file/641316/download](https://www.justice.gov/usao- edca/file/641316/download)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So basically "the evidence says she broke the law, and we recommend no charges be filed". That makes perfect sense.

<comment><USER16> Seems a good strategy. Given she wins, they can ask for things they want for themselves.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I think you nailed it. It's just a little sad to be reminded, once again, how our legal system is hardly "blind" and unbiased. If you're a regular Joe (or Aaron Swartz, or Weev, etc.) you get the book thrown at you and the keys to the jail buried somewhere... if your name is Clinton and you happen to be Secretary of State and candidate for President, you get a wink and nudge and another opening for more "smokey back room" deals.

Of course, this story isn't completely over yet, and the Justice Department _could_ still choose to file charges. But still... I think we can largely see the writing on the wall here.

<comment><USER17> >Justice Department could still choose to file charges.

Not a shadow of a chance

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Out of curiosity, do people think that Comey made this recommendation based on politics?

This report definitely proves that this scandal is serious. But I can't really think of any reason that I would find this report to be more credible from someone else.

I'd expect that if this was a political investigation, that the recommendation would fall along party lines. But Comey is a Republican. I've heard that there is some personal animosity between the Clintons and Comey. And Comey has a reputation of being highly principled. [http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton- should...](http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/hillary-clinton-should-be- terrified-that-jim-comey-is-investigating-her-email-crimes/) (I don't normally read the blaze, but it does show what right-wing conservatives thought about Comey.)

I definitely see how it could appear that Clinton was treated differently than other people, Comey admits that people would face administrative consequences for her actions and explains that away by saying the investigation was criminal and not administrative. But I think that Comey would have delivered a recommendation to prosecute if he believed that was the best decision.

<comment><USER19> My guess is it was as a political decision but not in the way you discuss.

I would guess Comey knows that Clinton, due to being Clinton, would not be successfully prosecuted, so decided not to recommend prosecution and waste further resources on it.

<comment><USER20> yes, because repubs have been really good at avoiding waste in the prosecution of HRC...

<comment><USER19> Yes, many politicians in general like to waste government resources on all kinds of things(republicans, democrats, and third parties).

That doesn't have any relevancy to whether or not Cromey specifically is doing it to avoid waste.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "...a very small number of the e-mails containing classified information bore markings indicating the presence of classified information." How, as a U.S. Federal employee, does someone (Hillary, an aide, an admin, etc...) see classified markings on an unclassified system and not get goosebumps in terror let alone consult proper authorities in or outside chain of command escapes me.

</comment><comment><USER22> It seems to me like Comey is basically saying that the FBI does not believe that there is enough evidence to suggest that Clinton's intent was to violate the law. Therefore, regardless of the effects of her actions which might have had consequences in a different context, the evidence is not substantial enough to prosecute her.

<comment><USER23> You don't need intent. From the press release [emphasis mine]:

> Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information > was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation > of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information > _either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way_ , or a second statute > making it a misdemeanor to knowingly remove classified information from > appropriate systems or storage facilities.

<comment><USER24> Given the small number of emails, I'd assume they reckoned it to be negligent but not grossly negligent.

<comment><USER25> Keeping mind that HRC's attorneys screened the original emails collection for examination by the FBI. Seems she might need some better attorneys if they let 130 get through that screen.

<comment><USER24> The entire thing seems fishy, sure, but playing devil's advocate, you'd wonder if they wouldn't screen out all the confidential emails. Of course, Comey _did_ say even with the filtering, he did not see _intentional_ obfuscation.

The only thing in question now is how the public will view this, and I'm pretty sure the only people who will be convinced are Hillary supporters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Did anyone really believe that the laws governing the handling of classified material applied to HRC? There was zero chance of an indictment. Snowden should be so lucky.

</comment><comment><USER27> TL;DR: She was careless, not criminal.

<comment><USER28> I hope you never have to experience a loss because of carelessness.

<comment><USER29> I certainly have. Who has experienced a loss due to HRC's email policy? I'm just curious. I mean, Benghazi had clear losses, but no firm cause that pointed to her negligence. Then we have emails with clear negligence but no obvious adverse consequence. Guess we luck out either way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > "There are obvious considerations, like the strength of the evidence, > especially regarding intent. Responsible decisions also consider the context > of a person's actions, and how similar situations have been handled in the > past."

That is arguably the most important part of the statement -- since it is the explanation for why they recommend no charges. But it is also unfortunately the most vague and weasely.

It basically says there are "considerations" around intent, context, and similar cases -- but it doesn't say what those "considerations" are. Text book example of weasel words.

</comment><comment><USER31> >there is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

>Our investigation looked at whether there is evidence classified information was improperly stored or transmitted on that personal system, in violation of a federal statute making it a felony to mishandle classified information either intentionally or in a grossly negligent way

What is the difference between "extremely careless", which he says she was, and "grossly negligent", which he implies she wasn't?

</comment><comment><USER32> Why is this dead? This is relevant information directly from the source. Isn't this the kind of information that should be on the front page?

<comment><USER33> One can only assume, but PG is a big supporter of Hillary, and so is @dang.

<comment><USER32> I like this post over the others because it is an "unbiased" source of information about the case. In that it is a statement directly from the investigation authority. Most news sources only provide sound bites from this and include a spin. However, this statement can be read either way based on how you feel.

In a conversation with my dad I stated that all emails were classified after the fact, I now know better. I sent it to him for two reasons, 1) because he never seeks out sources 2) because it shows that I was wrong, but includes the full context for him. He will still think she is a criminal, and that the FBI should prosecute but now he'll know why.

I wish there was a way to "antiflag" a post that's being moderated to death.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Saw this post being "flagged", wonder why...

<comment><USER35> @dang... what gives? This is definitely HN-worthy.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks like it got unflagged. Thanks to dang if he was the one who did it.

<comment><USER33> Only cosmetic. It's nowhere on any actual page.

<comment><USER36> "Most active current discussions" link is quite useful for finding big heated (possibly flagged) discussions like this one:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/active](https://news.ycombinator.com/active)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> While I'm not happy about this outcome, at least it is consistent with the way that I assume our government/legal system operates.

</comment><comment><USER38> Of the 30,000 (plus more found by investigators), 8 email chains were Top Secret, 37 secret, and ~2,000 confidential (a vast majority of those upgraded after the fact). I'm actually surprised it's not _more_ , but that's still ~10% of the volume.*

(* It's hard to compare apples-to-apples with individual emails vs. threads.)

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm not too surprised in this outcome. It has nothing to do with Hillary being rich and famous and everything to do with her being a Presidential candidate, and the front-runner, to boot.

Imagine this scenario: The FBI indicts Hillary. The trial itself would derail the election cycle, and there would be a fantastic chance that it costs Hillary either the nomination or the general election. Then further imagine that the FBI fails to convict her through a jury -- or even if they did convict her, imagine one of the upper courts overturns on appeal. The FBI would have accused (indicted) a front-runner presidential candidate and destroyed her chance at winning... only to fail to convict.

That would not only unfairly destroy a found-not-guilty Clinton's presidential ambitions, but it would obliterate any trust in the FBI to remain, at least to the public eye, apolitical.

There's a reason the Attorney General passed the buck, and there's a reason Director Comey declined to recommend charges, and it's this: this is not a slam-dunk case. She may very well be guilty, but for Hillary Clinton, front- runner for the national election for President, the standard of proof is so high that there must be a 100% guarantee of conviction for the FBI to bring forth charges.

Yes, if a normal person had done these things, they would be charged. But if a normal person had allegedly done these things, been indicted by the FBI, and then found innocent, the nation-wide and political trust in the FBI wouldn't go completely down the drain. In all likelihood, a normal person would settle out of court -- something that's not in Hillary's best interest. She needs to be found not-guilty to be President, and settling out of court would look guilty, so they'd go to trial -- again, there's a non-trivial chance that she'd be found "not guilty" by the jury, and the FBI can't risk that in such a high-profile case with such disastrous consequences.

So again, this isn't super surprising when you think about the consequences of indicting Hillary but failing to secure a conviction. The risk to the American legal system just isn't worth it over a couple of emails.

With that in mind, this isn't necessarily Comey declining to charge Clinton; this is Comey passing the buck to the Senate.

Now, once she's a sitting President, the Senate can impeach her, and we're in different territory. The Senate is _supposed_ to be political in ways that the FBI is not.

TL;DR The problem isn't that she didn't commit enough of a crime to indict, the problem is that it isn't a guaranteed SLAM DUNK case, and since that's true, it's TOO RISKY to the election cycle and legal system to indict her.

<comment><USER40> On top of that, here's an even worse nightmare scenario:

Clinton gets indicted, destroying her chances in the race, and Trump wins by a landslide. Now, let's take a look at how Trump deals with his rivals. He endorses political violence [0]. He wants to use libel laws to destroy journalists who say bad things about him. Now imagine the lesson Trump would learn from Clinton's indictment: the government can hand the presidency to one candidate by using indictments to take out their only significant rival. Sure, the timing of Clinton's presidential campaign and the email investigation was mostly coincidence, but it won't be coincidence in 2020. Because President Trump, using Clinton as precedent, would order an indictment of whoever the Democrats run against him in 2020 and thus guarantee his re-election. And then, in 2024, he'll use indictments to make sure his hand-picked successor will become the next President of the United States.

You want to save the election system? Don't ever indict a major-party candidate during general election season, especially not when the only remaining candidate is as vindictive as Trump.

[0] [http://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2016/3/12/11211898/do...](http://www.vox.com/policy-and- politics/2016/3/12/11211898/donald-trumps-ideology-of-violence)

<comment><USER41> I guess we had better immediately cease all legal action against Trump then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> There is probably a conflict of interest here. If Clinton becomes President, won't anyone at the FBI involved in the investigation be subject to retaliation. It would be in the best interest to try to not advise her prosecution and instead suck up to the future President.

</comment><comment><USER42> This is the statement of the FBI and I respect the finality of their recommendation that comes with this letter and the authority of the person making the recommendation.

If there is to be any debate against this outcome it shall be from a successful attack on one of the premises:

* "... we cannot find a case that would support... " is a very strong statement. A single court proceeding meeting that criteria could invalidate Comey's recommendation. * Emails were deleted before State gave them to FBI. If a single email between Clinton and an aid related to "clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information" this could change the outcome. NSA and adversary's signal collections may have a copy of such an email. A leak may change Comey's decision. * FBI was not given full access to Clinton's emails (they were whitelist-filtered first) and Comey does not believe this counts as "[effort] to obstruct justice". Another case which found "efforts to obstruct justice" based on a similar action could invalidate his reasoning. * "But that is not what we are deciding now." If there is any case of DOJ prosecution resulting in "security or administrative sanctions" then it would invalidate Comey's stance that "no charges are appropriate in this case".

</comment><comment><USER43> > I should add here that we found no evidence that any of the additional work- > related e-mails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them.

Maybe I'm being overly paranoid but he doesn't say the same thing about any of the other emails. Is it plausible that this is intentional? That other emails were intentionally deleted in an effort to conceal them?

</comment><comment><USER44> If this occurred under the Bush administration there would have been a special prosecutor. In fact, there was a SP for a much more minor issue.

What we are witnessing is the dismantling of the rule of law. Obama has politicized every branch of the executive.

<comment><USER45> This isn't even in the same ball park as the long list of war crimes committed by the Bush administration, committed with the full cooperation of the Justice department concocting tortured legal interpretations to condone them. Not justifying what's happening here, but Bush administration is very bad comparison if you are trying to show Obama breaking new ground in "dismantling the rule of law".

<comment><USER44> This is worse. This is a secretary of State hiding her correspondence from the american public (eg. FOIA requests), letting it get stolen by foreign governments, lying about it, colluding with an existing administration to avoid prosecution while running for president.

Bush "war crimes" were not political in nature, were bipartisan (evidenced by how little has changed under Barack Obama), are subject to FOIA, and did not put state secrets at risk.

<comment><USER46> Subject to FOIA? Not so fast... [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy)

<comment><USER44> Yes, so fast genius. Was there any war-crime suspected, accused, or even hinted here? No.

The Hatch Act prohibits the use of government resources, including email accounts, for political purposes. The Bush administration stated the RNC accounts were used to prevent violation of this Act.[2][26]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> All animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others. (c)

</comment><comment><USER48> TLDR: "Gross Negligence, but no case." Yeah....

<comment><USER49> That's not at all what they said. They said "Clinton and her colleagues...were extremely careless." Gross negligence is a term of art with a very particular legal meaning, even if there's some vagaries in the case law. The two aren't the same. Gross negligence can include extreme carelessness, but it's generally accepted to go well beyond just that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Well, the post's been flagged--into the memory hole with it!

</comment><comment><USER51> The piece is brilliant. He is giving ammunition for thousand kill shots while recomending not procecuting her. Brilliant.

</comment><comment><USER52> Basically what FBI is saying is that she broke the law, compromised national security, could have been hacked by foreign actors but we don't have enough evidence that she did it intentionally so no charges!

 _From the group of 30,000 e-mails returned to the State Department, 110 e-mails in 52 e-mail chains have been determined by the owning agency to contain classified information at the time they were sent or received. Eight of those chains contained information that was Top Secret at the time they were sent; 36 chains contained Secret information at the time; and eight contained Confidential information, which is the lowest level of classification. Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up- classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent._

 _It is also likely that there are other work-related e-mails that they did not produce to State and that we did not find elsewhere, and that are now gone because they deleted all e-mails they did not return to State, and the lawyers cleaned their devices in such a way as to preclude complete forensic recovery._

 _There is evidence that they were extremely careless in their handling of very sensitive, highly classified information.

For example, seven e-mail chains concern matters that were classified at the Top Secret/Special Access Program level when they were sent and received. These chains involved Secretary Clinton both sending e-mails about those matters and receiving e-mails from others about the same matters. There is evidence to support a conclusion that any reasonable person in Secretary Clinton's position, or in the position of those government employees with whom she was corresponding about these matters, should have known that an unclassified system was no place for that conversation._

 _With respect to potential computer intrusion by hostile actors, we did not find direct evidence that Secretary Clinton's personal e-mail domain, in its various configurations since 2009, was successfully hacked. But, given the nature of the system and of the actors potentially involved, we assess that we would be unlikely to see such direct evidence_

 _Although there is evidence of potential violations of the statutes regarding the handling of classified information, our judgment is that no reasonable prosecutor would bring such a case._

<comment><USER53> >> "could have been hacked by foreign actors"

I think we're past that at this point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> _Separate from those, about 2,000 additional e-mails were "up-classified" to make them Confidential; the information in those had not been classified at the time the e-mails were sent._

I don't think that's how this works. Information is born classified.

<comment><USER53> Someone has to decide to make the information classified, it doesn't do so on its own. It's possible information can go through the chain all the way to the President before it's marked classified.

<comment><USER54> Sure, but the SoS is a classifying authority, it's not like this is some grunt in the army that doesn't have any ability to classify information. I'm not going to insinuate that there's no possibility at least _some_ of this information could have slipped under the radar and had no reason to be classified at the time, but I'm not enough of a fool to believe that applies to _every_ instance.</comment></comment></comment>


Go-hn: command line client for Hacker News, written in Go - <AUTHOR> http://codeblog.shank.in/go-hn-command-line-client-for-hacker-news-written-in-golang/ <comment><USER2> Here's one in Python, for those who want choices: [https://github.com/donnemartin/haxor- news](https://github.com/donnemartin/haxor-news)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, Golang again!

Let me show my web client for hacker news [http://hackernewsroom.com](http://hackernewsroom.com) built with Golang too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Why does it need phantomjs? There is an official HN api that can be used. If it uses phantomjs why not just use lynx/links/links2?

<comment><USER5> He did it as a quick hack, I imagine he just didn't notice the API

<comment><USER4> But there are dozens of quick hacks like that on the internet. I have 4 similar things on my github account. Nothing special about them. I never though there might be any need to put that on a HN.

<comment><USER6>
      Nothing special about them. I never though there might be any need to put that on a HN.

Apparently they are special enough to get more upvotes than other stuff. Maybe you should reconsider submitting one of your hacks. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like that this is posted on Gitlab, even if GL interface needs work when I compare it to Github, at least it's not GH (in an era where all open-s0urce code is on GH). Diversity is inspiring to me!

<comment><AUTHOR> I wouldn't say it needs work. It's just... different. We got so used to GitHub that we kind of expect other projects to just copy its design. GitLab is not doing that and I respect it. Who cares if I need one more click to see the files in the repo?

<comment><USER7> Thanks! We're open to improvements but the default view will probably stay the same. If you want you can change the default project view [http://i.imgur.com/mlkPInw.png](http://i.imgur.com/mlkPInw.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I like better the universal command line client, i.e. w3m. Pity that some websites are so strict about js.

<comment><USER9> I actually started browsing HN using Links the other day. Neither Links nor w3m really work with the comments though (they aren't properly nested). Plus points to w3m for having mouse support. I don't see go-hn supporting comments either though I haven't tried it yet).

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How's this better than links? [http://www.aboutlinux.info/2007/02/links2-cross-platform- con...](http://www.aboutlinux.info/2007/02/links2-cross-platform-console- based-web.html?m=1)

<comment><USER11> I'm going to give it a shot, hopefully it does text wrap nicely and provides a proper hierarchical view. I tried HN in all the text browsers, and those are two problems that are common to all of them. I've stuck with my preferred choice, elinks, and it does pretty well otherwise.

[edit] Oh, phantomjs... I don't want to install that on this machine. :|

<comment><USER10> Hierarchical view is a no-go, alas. Some people might view this as a feature :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> hn-cli?

</comment><comment><USER13> Why should I care in what language it's written in?

<comment><USER14> The only way that it affects you it's because Go programs can be compiled to a static binary. So from the final user perspective you just download it and put the executable in your path.

Contrast with Python, Node, Ruby... apps where you have to install via Pip, NPM, Gems.

But the real answer it's that Go is in the top of the hype curve right now (I say this as a Go fan myself).

<comment><USER15> I agree with your comment, but I want to respond to one part:

> But the real answer it's that Go is in the top of the hype curve right now > (I say this as a Go fan myself).

Hype is irrelevant to the advantages of using Go. End users of Go programs benefit for technical reasons, not social ones.

<comment><USER16> > End users of Go programs benefit for technical reasons, not social ones.

I see developer benefit if they enjoy the language, but what are the benefits to the end user?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What a load of old rubbish: MMOs. They're doing it wrong. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.parallax-rising.net/2008/03/mmos-theyre-doing-it-wrong.html <comment><USER2> Several of his complaints seem to stem from a desire that each player should have a brand-new experience, unique from any other player's. I find this desire odd. If I am reading a novel, I do not pause to lament that others have already read the same words, and if I am playing a board game, I am not worried that someone may have used exactly the same strategy as mine.

I'm not so certain that procedurally generated content would be more entertaining than custom content in an MMO. Procedural games like Angband (and descendants like Oblivion) are entertaining, but they do not command the audience that WoW does. Most MMO players are not troubled by their repetitive experiences, so I wouldn't say the MMO's are "doing it wrong".

<comment><USER3> The appeal of being a person in a virtual world is in creating your own stories. If your experiences are identical to everybody else's, if you can't have a real effect on the world, then you're a passive observer rather than a real participant.

Passive interactivity (it's an oxymoron but I think you get my meaning) can be fun, of course. The problem is one of expectations; if you come into a static game expecting a virtual world, you'll be disappointed. It doesn't help that MMORPGs "look" like worlds, or that (to some extent) they're marketed as them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Suppose someone ( _cough_ we _cough_ ) were already working on everything this guy's talking about - would you play it?

<comment><USER5> Depends. I have yet to play a (MMO)RPG with procedural content that is more engaging than one with well-crafted static content. IMO it works for strategy games, but not so much for RPGs. Yes, the procedural world is larger and has more replayability, but once your brain becomes used to the algorithms used to generate it, it becomes as repetitive as anything else.

I'd be happy to find a game that proves me wrong (not that I can afford the time to let myself get sucked into an MMORPG anymore...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> There are two camps; people that want to make/play games, and people that want to make/play worlds. For now at least, it's easier to make games than worlds.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. This guy's problem is that most MMOs are MMORPGs -- games. He doesn't want to play games. He wants to live in a virtual world. So: false choice. He's complaining that an apple isn't an orange.

<comment><USER3> I think it's more charitable to say that he's complaining that nobody's selling oranges, but fair enough. :)

<comment><USER6> Perhaps, and I'm all for being charitable. :-) But he does spend a fair amount of time complaining about the apples.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Ignoring gameplay issues, I think another interesting feature of procedural game dev is the memory/CPU tradeoff.

For example the 97,280 byte FPS: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.kkrieger>

</comment><comment><USER8> Ultima Online was on the right path.

Everquest set MMO's back 10 years in my opinion. :(</comment>


Thanks HN: Glowforge will open-source its firmware - <AUTHOR> http://glowforge.com/gpl-licensed-open-source-firmware-for-glowforge/ <comment><USER2> This doesn't change the huge red flag that should give prospective customers pause.

The device will still operate only as long as Glowforge's servers stay up. If there are internet outages, or the company goes out of business, the device will no longer function as a laser cutter.

The firmware is a very small piece of the puzzle. The cloud service is being portrayed as doing all of the heavy lifting. That's image processing, CAM, toolpath creation, and motion optimization/lookahead. Once the motion is optimized so that the motion system will move as fast as possible within its acceleration limits, the result is a list of explicit instructions for the motion system and laser. Accelerate at rate A for T seconds. After X steps, pulse the laser at a power level of P.

Thus, the firmware simply processes these instructions, and actuates the motors and lasers. That's not to say the firmware is trivial. But in comparison to the overall codebase, it is a very small chunk of the complete CNC system.

I'm not arguing that Glowforge is under any obligation to open source anything. But this is a fairly small concession that does not address the main concern that most people have voiced, the inability to run the complete system on your local machine.

<comment><USER3> These folks didn't invent the CNC ecosystem. They didn't even invent the realatively inexpensive laser cutter. If the firmware is GPL, I'm fairly certain plenty of existing toolkits will get drivers for the it in short order.

<comment><USER4> CAD/CAM software is not cheap either. When their cloud suite goes dark, you'll have to cobble together your own toolchain.

<comment><USER3> The maker world already has lots and lots of alternatives for existing laser printers, homebrew things etc. The toolchains are getting more robust by the day - heck the CUPS just added compatibility layers for gcode based "printers" (laser cutters, 3d printers, etc). This simplifies even further the common use case for low-end laser cutters - turning an illustrator or pdf file into a cut device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is outstanding. I want to order one of those lasers now. Not only because I like the product, but also because I want to support companies going this way.

I'm sure this will also help them attract talent. Amidst this patents/walled gardens/copyrights debate, someone saying: _" If you buy it, it's yours – you should be able to do what you want with it."_ is someone you might want to work with. Privacy advocates feeling scared to be tracked using their laser cutter will also welcome the news favorably.

<comment><USER6> See [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10276430](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10276430)

They open source the firmware because the firmware is a dumb client; all the logic that controls the laser (aka makes it not set your house on fire) is hidden in the cloud.

<comment><USER7> But that logic is hardly complicated. The firmware is the bit that would be really annoying to reverse engineer. The rest anyone can write fairly easily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a great step in the right direction, but I wonder how difficult it may be to actually use considering they've removed so much of normal laser hardware. Anyone know how feasible it will be to control it?

[http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/20/glowforge- series-a/](http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/20/glowforge-series-a/)

 _How defensible is Glowforge's laser cutting tech? Shapiro says the key innovation the team has come up with is moving a large number of functions out of the hardware itself and into the cloud. "We have ripped out huge amounts of hardware from the machine — from a typical laser design, and replaced those with software that we run in cloud servers instead of running locally," he explains.

One example is the motion controller board used on many traditional laser cutters to translate whatever line the person wants cutting or engraving into a series of electrical pulses that choreograph the motor. Instead of using that type of component, which Shapiro says starts at $400, or even using a cheaper alternative controller like an Arduino, the Glowforge uses cloud software to do the grunt work. "We simply send down the ones and zeros for the motor to the machine over the internet which reduces the cost by a factor of 100," he notes.

"The thing that's relatively easy to clone is the hardware, although we have some interesting innovations and patents there, but the place where we think we can really add a great deal of value is in the software," he adds._

<comment><AUTHOR> (Glowforge CEO/cofounder here)

Glowforge has enough horsepower to work offline if someone built the custom firmware, albeit without the features that differentiate it from a traditional CNC laser cutter/engraver. We started out the design with a minimal microcontroller but decided to bump up the capabilities of the onboard processor along the way.

<comment><USER9> Why "the cloud"? Certainly there's more than enough horsepower on my local PC and enough bandwidth in my USB cable to direct it, or even better, allow my PC to queue up the movement instructions and just hold them in a memory buffer in the cutter. Then I can use it without my internet connection being up.

<comment><USER10> I think that TechCrunch article makes it quite clear: they're using the cloud to make it harder for people to see what their product is actually doing and clone it. Basically, trying to get their laser cutter to work without access to their cloud service should be as hard as building a new one from scratch, by design, since they claim to have put all the hard parts of their system in the cloud.

<comment><USER9> I agree, I just wanted him to say it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Oh man, this is the second best thing I could have hoped for after their earlier announcement today. The best thing would have been also open sourcing their cloud software, but I can see how they'd be reluctant to do that given that it is a competitive advantage over other laser cutter manufacturers.

I'm really really tempted to buy one now.

<comment><USER12> That would be a great move for VolksWagen too ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It great that they're open-sourcing the firmware, but its still not great that the product depends on "a cloud" in order to operate. I hope that is one of the very first things that gets addressed by contributors .. as someone who has orbited around some nice laser firmware projects in the past, I'll be interested in their source release and see if I can help in some way .. so, kudo's for the open source! Now lets get rid of that cloud ..

</comment><comment><USER14>
        PS: no pentalobe screws either.

This makes me happy :) Also, any chance you might demo one of these at Metrix on Capitol Hill sometime? I'd love to check it out in person without having to pay $2,000 first!

<comment><AUTHOR> I cut (engraved?) my teeth on the laser at Metrix - love to get them one at some point soon, but it'll be after preorder campaign is over I'm afraid. We'll be at the Geekwire event next week if you'd like to check it out, though. (and are at Maker Faire in NYC this weekend for those eastwardly inclined)

<comment><USER15> Any way-out future plans to offer deals to hackerspaces? makehackvoid.com in Canberra, Australia could probably make great use of one of these. (As could many others, just wanted to get a shoutout in)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can watch the latest video tour here [https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/videos/101536135477696...](https://www.facebook.com/RobertScoble/videos/10153613547769655/)

</comment><comment><USER17> I love to see this kind of immediate, positive, appropriate response to feedback.

</comment><comment><USER18> Outstanding! I say this as the owner of a 100% FOSS & open hardware laser cutter...

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm glad I found this, but saddened it relies on "the cloud".

I'd rather support a company that didn't have this silly restriction - I'm not willing to throw a few grand down the toilet if somebody else's servers stop working.

</comment><comment><USER20> Might want to consider Affero GPL. Without that, there's a possibility some competitor comes along, improves the software, puts it behind a cloud-only service, and never publishes the code.

<comment><USER6> That's... Glowforge's business model. The high-level control logic software is in the cloud.

<comment><USER20> That shouldn't make it Affero GPL incompatible as long as they make the code available. Regardless, if they own the copyright, they don't need to follow Affero GPL despite licensing it that way; it only applies to those who don't have copyright.

edit: ok it's only the firmware that's being open sourced. Still I think my original comment applies. Maybe a competitor improves code from the firmware and puts it behind the cloud.

<comment><USER21> Considering the firmware is the code that directly interfaces with the hardware, how would it even be possible to move it to the cloud?

<comment><USER20> You're probably right, but I don't see the harm in making firmware Affero GPL. For instance, intimate communication between two programs tends trigger GPL provisions. So there's an argument to be made that if a competitor improves the firmware for another device with a different cloud-powered backend, then that backend code must be released if the firmware is Affero GPL.

But my original thought was that maybe there's some useful logic in the firmware that's extracted to cloud. And on that point, it's pretty speculative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Class act.

</comment><comment><USER23> Awesome! Thank you.

It's a daunting thing, at first, to open up a proprietary security blanket.

May the market treat you well!

</comment><comment><USER24> Good move in response to a rather vociferous desire.

</comment><comment><USER25> I want this so badly... still no money :/</comment>


The AI of GoldenEye 007 - <AUTHOR> https://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/TommyThompson/20190709/346311/The_AI_of_GoldenEye_007.php <comment><USER2> It is fascinating to see how many AI techniques were developed from the need to produce realistic agents/behaviors/mappings in video games. This document of Left 4 Deads techniques blew me away when I read it. (Not having worked in the industry but as connoisseur of video games).

[https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/2009/ai_systems_o...](https://steamcdn-a.akamaihd.net/apps/valve/2009/ai_systems_of_l4d_mike_booth.pdf)

<comment><USER3> Another notable game AI that is still considered quite outstanding is the AI from F.E.A.R that uses a planning-based approach.

Article: [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/04/03/why-fears-ai- is-...](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2017/04/03/why-fears-ai-is-still-the- best-in-first-person-shooters/)

GDC presentation by the developer: [https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear...](https://alumni.media.mit.edu/~jorkin/gdc2006_orkin_jeff_fear.pdf)

<comment><USER4> I wanted to post this as well. Whenever I think of game A.I. the two games that always come to mind are Half-Life 2 and F.E.A.R.

<comment><USER5> Half-Life 1 as well, it was pretty novel how soldiers would take cover behind crates and then throw grenades

<comment><USER6> I remember that as well, and made for a very exciting experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > a notable example is the guards on the dam which can't see you until you > approach their walkways and this is because the STANs at the top of the > ladder can only see those at the bottom.

It's a credit to the game that I never noticed this and other AI shortfalls. Somehow the combination of fast paced action, tense stealth gameplay, level design, and good enough AI was enough to transcend any critical faculties I had. I guess the lesson there is whether it's CGI, VR, or game AI, when you understand your limitations and design to them, you can get the audience to do the rest of the work in their head completely unaware of the shortcomings that are not only hidden from them but that they may be compensating for.

<comment><USER8> Did folks who knew how to program back then still love games like GoldenEye?

I loved it and we played it all the time but I was a kid and didn't understand computers or programming yet. I'm wondering if understanding how something was made would have made it less enjoyable? Less addicting?

<comment><USER9> I didn't love Goldeneye in particular, but I was in college for CompSci and had done a little OpenGL.

No, knowing (roughly, from a very 50,000 foot kind of view) how those games were made did NOT diminish my love for them.

If anything, it really enhanced my enjoyment and appreciation for them. Having made my own simple programs I was very appreciative of the gulf between my weekly programming assignments and the massive amounts of technical wizardry and craft that went into something like a polished retail game.

I don't think video games ever really fooled me into thinking they were anything but simulations operating according to some underlying rules.

After all, even if you know nothing about programming, your goal as a player is to figure out those rules in order to beat the CPU and win the game!

But those rules often delighted me anyway, and I always had a hefty dose of willing suspension of disbelief, so even something like a 16-bit RPG could really connect with me emotionally....

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They spent all that energy on NPC AI yet the multiplayer respawn points were incredibly predictable after you memorized the sequence. Eventually multiplayer wasn't fun anymore when playing against other people who knew the sequence. You could easily kill a player and then sprint to the next spawn point and kill them again. Wash rinse repeat. Fun if you were the one on the spree, not fun if you got caught in that cycle.

<comment><USER11> Haha yep! My brother and I even got the minimum distance to spawn figured out. Basically, if you got too close to the spawn point, the AI would skip it and move to the next. But you could be just a little ways off and not trip the proximity. It was a vicious cycle indeed. Turning on License to Kill basically guaranteed whoever got the first shot of the game would own the rest.

<comment><USER12> > But you could be just a little ways off and not trip the proximity.

Speaking of which, proximity mines didn't trigger this proximity either ;)

Once memorized you could get around on many levels just as fast as re-spawns could happen and your opponent couldn't break the cycle. At some point 3 players is a must.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article mentions the expansion pak but this wasn't even released at the time of the game. The sequel, Perfect Dark, relies heavily on the expansion, while Donkey Kong 64 requires it due to a game breaking bug.

<comment><USER14> The only reason the game came with the expansion pak was to fix that one memory bug, IIRC.

They couldn't figure it out, but realised the game didn't crash when it had a bit more ram so they just gave everybody an expansion pak.

<comment><USER15> That's hilarious, I wonder how much that ended up costing them?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I keep hoping someone'll remake it for the Quest VR headset. The cartoonish graphics would fit in beautifully, and it'd probably be a blast.

<comment><USER17> Are there any good games for the Quest that you recommend ?

<comment><USER16> Thus far, my favorites are Beat Saber (typically not my thing, but it's great exercise), Superhot (makes me feel like Neo in the Matrix, including rolling around on the floor - the room scale stuff shines here), and Space Pirate Trainer. Vader Immortal has potential, but right now there's only the first episode so it's short.

Oh, there's a free ISS game that's quite good. You can explore the station and go for a space walk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> >>> Released two years after the launch of the film

That explains the weird sort of feeling I remember about this game - that I had missed out for ages on this game (and clearly was not a member of the cognoscenti) and so was playing what everyone else already knew about.

Weirdly no young person in the age of wikipedia will feel that for long anymore...

</comment><comment><USER19> Damn I miss the old Rare.

</comment><comment><USER20> Now that industrial AI has taken off, it's even more striking how pompous it is to call simple game enemy logic 'Artificial Intelligence'.

<comment><USER21> I don't think so at all. Just because better AI exists today doesn't invalidate earlier efforts. That would be like taking umbrage at people calling the BBC Micro a computer because we have more powerful hardware today.

<comment><USER22> People have also used similar techniques (neural nets) to 'industrial AI' in game AI long before as well[1]. It's also silly in an industrial context to use a more fashionable technique when a less fashionable one will do the job better.

[1] [http://www.ai-junkie.com/misc/hannan/hannan.html](http://www.ai- junkie.com/misc/hannan/hannan.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Firefox 3.6 vs 8.0 - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/see-what-youre-missing-firefox-36-vs-firefox-801/16809

<comment><USER2> Firefox 8 is light years ahead of 3.6 in performance and memory usage. It's light-weight and blazing fast. If you've been away for a while, delete your old Firefox profile and re-import your setting. You'll be surprised at how much better Firefox is.

<comment><USER3> Is that manual cleanup really necessary?

<comment><USER4> No, but many of the "Firefox crashes a lot" are caused by profiles who have gotten corrupted over the years, and many of the "it eats 2G of RAM" are caused by that and extensions.

Old Firefoxen also tended to fragment their SQLite databases heavily on disk (and in some cases, internally as well), which can show as sluggish response and "hanging" whenever disk I/O is involved. There were changes to ensure that some critical database files don't get fragmented any more, but if you already have those files from an old install you're SOL as it can't defragment them while its using them.

If you have serious performance or memory issues with Firefox, and you're a longtime user, at this point cleaning your profile is probably at least as likely to help as waiting for the next version.

Edit: Just to clarify, the manual cleanup is necessary because uninstalling (and reinstalling) Firefox never deletes your profile. This means that a serious problem can never be fixed by a reinstall - a behavior that probably should be changed.

<comment><USER5> To defrag your databases, first close Firefox then run:

      for i in ~/.mozilla/firefox/*default/*ite; do sqlite3 $i vacuum; done

<comment><USER4> Note that this does not defragment the storage on disk, just the internal SQLite pages. So it's not a complete solution.

<comment><USER6> Actually, that command will also rewrite the entire .sqlite file, and if you have enough free space, the filesystem will most likely rewrite it in a contiguous manner.

I tested this with filefrag.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In my opinion, Mozilla should have put more effort into seamless background updates before starting their 6-week release cycles. (Unleash the fanboys...)

<comment><USER2> I'm the Director of the Firefox Desktop product (I wasn't at the time of the move to the new release cadence) and I agree with you 100%. We've been busting our butts for the last couple of months to get our updates ironed out and smooth. We've already shipped some of this in Firefox, including not nagging users to restart, killing the "What's New" tab that would interrupt your start-up, and reducing the number of incompatible add-ons by helping users get rid of add-ons they never requested (add-ons that were sneakily installed without user consent.)

We've got "install add-ons in the background" code finished and in testing. We've got "bypass the UAC prompts" code finished and in testing. We've got add-ons defaulting to compatible with a blacklist for broken ones (reversing from a default to incompatible with a whitelist) coded and it's in testing. We'll be shipping these in Firefox 10 and 11 so the remaining bits are going to arrive very early in the new year.

<comment><USER8> I'm really hoping you can get the remaining 3.6.x users to force-upgrade. We still have a couple people using 3.6 on our web app (where some pages won't render properly--we've labeled this 'wontfix' in our system since Firefox 7.0+ renders these pages properly.)

Any word on whether there is any way to get them to upgrade? Last I saw, it upgraded them to a newer 3.x version, but then opened a page on your site with a tiny-font-sized line of text that said "This isn't the latest version"--not exactly obvious that 3.6.x is pretty much ancient at this point.

<comment><USER9> Firefox 3.6 user here. I'd love to upgrade, but the new versions don't run on PowerPC

<comment><USER4> I'm not a PowerPC Mac user, but I understood PowerPC Firefox is now entirely handled by the community in the form of TenFourFox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Inaccuracies: SunSpider was not developed by Mozilla (it was Apple), and kraken is not based on SunSpider.

</comment><comment><USER11> What about HTML5? A LOT of HTML5.

Firefox/Gecko has support for tons of HTML5 features that Chrome/Webkit doesn't support (or didn't until recently).

I wish some things would be pushed faster from Aurora into the other branches.

The only thing I dislike about Firefox is that there are a number of CSS1 features that still aren't supported. I just know Opera supports them, so I am not sure about the others. One can't style some form parts. There has been a bug report for this for ages.

Oh and to all web developers out there: Start checking for features, instead of browsers, PLEASE! It's so annoying to always read "Your browser doesn't support XY" when that's not true, because I am using a recent release, beta or the aurora branch of Firefox.

</comment><comment><USER12> I made the 3.6 to 7/8 switch only a few months ago.

Here are some extensions I found critical to my sanity to keeping things somewhat familiar:

       Status-4-Evar   <<<<<<</comment><comment></comment><comment> a must
       Add-ons Manager Dialog Returns
       Back/forward dropmarker
       Restore View Source for Firefox 6+

and

       Firefox 3 theme for Firefox 4+ (v2.0)

Then once you are in FF8 treat yourself to extensions you can only running in FF8+ like Font Information which shows you what fonts are being used on the page in the page info dialog.

Now my FF8 looks a lot like 3.6 but works several times faster.

<comment><USER11> This has been fixed in Firefox 10 (or 9?). Until then you could use this extension:

[https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on- compat...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on- compatibility-reporter/)

<comment><USER12> If you are responding to "only can be used in FF8" the font information extension only works in FF8+ because of the api hooks needed are not available in previous version. It's not a min/max versioning issues.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just carried out some Kraken 1.1 runs on Firefox on OSX, here on my iMac 8,1 (2.6ghz c2d/4gb ram).

I've got all major versions of Firefox installed side by side using my shell script (<https://github.com/omgmog/install-all-firefox>), this allowed me to test Firefox 184.108.40.206, 3.0.19, 3.6.24, 4.0.1, 5.0.1, 6.0.1, 7.0.1, 8.0.1, 10.0a2.

Results: <http://omgmog.net/kraken.html>

For Firefox 22.214.171.124 and 3.0.19 the browser kept crashing, so I was unable to finish these, but all of the other versions ran well.

</comment><comment><USER14> Is it a coincidence that the last version of Firefox that will ever run on PowerPC macs is being surprisingly resilient to those calls to upgrade?

I'd be curious to see how many of the 3.6 laggards really are on old macs and are simply unable to upgrade until they budget in some new hardware.

<comment><USER15> Analytics for me says, for the last month:

      Firefox 8.0: 2.68% Mac
      Firefox 7.0.1: 9.53% Mac
      Firefox 3.6.24: 13.47% Mac

So it's definitely appreciably lower for 8 than for 3, but the closeness between 7 and 3 makes me wonder whether it's actually an effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So, what a Firefox 3.6 user is missing out on is running a bunch of artificial benchmarks faster?

<comment><USER17> If you haven't tried updating past 3.6, you should. Benchmarks may not be 100% accurate, but you can see the difference in JS-heavy apps (like GMail). The UI has been cleaned up and revamped. There are a ton of new HTML/CSS/JS features. Better memory management, and Firefox as a whole is faster. Restartless add- ons. The list goes on and on :)

<comment><USER16> Oh I have upgraded, and there are things that I like about it. However the title "What you are missing" isn't really addressed by showing a bunch of benchmarks. Having a real-world section talking about subjective performance on actual sites used by people would have done that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> So the only thing I get from Firefox 8 is faster javascript? Why is that useful when I would lose so much? I block all javascript with NoScript and go a few steps further with RequestPolicy and Ghostery.

Whereas I want my browser to look like a standard Windows classic theme window.

</comment><comment><USER19> The title made me imagine it was between Firefox and V8

<comment><USER20> <http://arewefastyet.com/>

<comment><USER21> [http://arewefastyet.com/?a=b&machine=8](http://arewefastyet.com/?a=b&machine=8) probably more representative

<comment><USER22> <http://arewefastyet.com/old-awfy.php> is the most impressive

<comment><USER21> true, but i meant that most people reading HN are likely to be running the 64 bit version

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Did Mozilla just pad their version number? Last I remember, there was Firefox 4 Beta. Why is it at 8 now?

<comment><USER24> They are now on a six-week release cycle, just like Chrome.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for your reply. Not sure why HN decided to downvote my question.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I just tried it. Guess what? The interface is still broken.

You look at the page contents constantly, at tab names often, at the bookmarks toolbar sometimes, at the URL occasionally, and you almost never look at the page title. In 3.6 these are arranged in order radiating from the center.

8.0 completely breaks the flow by sticking the address bar below the tabs. WHY. Also, where's my status bar, with all of my plugin status icons that I use constantly?

4.0+ is still broken, so I'm still going to use 3.6. Simple as that.

<comment><USER17> There's a difference between "broken" and "not the way I use it / am used to". Mozilla released a video explaining the transition of tabs [1]. Still don't like it? Right click somewhere on the title bar and deselect "Tabs on Top"

As for the status bar, just hit "ctrl+/".

The best thing about Firefox is that if there's something you don't like, there's probably an add-on for it. Try searching for add-ons that do what you need. [2]

1) [http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are- on-t...](http://blog.mozilla.com/faaborg/2010/06/24/why-tabs-are-on-top-in- firefox-4/)

2) [http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/01/16/how-to-customize- firefox-...](http://blog.fligtar.com/2011/01/16/how-to-customize- firefox-4s-ui/)

<comment><USER25> Why would I use 8.0 and spend time and effort turning it back into 3.6, when 3.6 already does everything I want or need it to?

<comment><USER26> Because it's multiple times faster and being actively updated.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I would love to use Firefox but I can't bring myself to do it. Firefox got really terrible and bloated and whenever I use it I am just waiting for a hint of terribleness to appear. Then I switch to another browser.

The main thing Firefox need to do is drop the version numbers all together. These numbers should be for developer's only. I could even argue developers do not need the version numbers and could work just fine with feature detection.

The fact is that most people do not care what version of Firefox they have. All they want is Firefox Latest. The latest and hopefully best version of Firefox will allow for the fastest and smoothest browsing experience. When I hear FF7/8/9 is out I sigh. Firefox automatically updates now, why all the grand announcements, especially considering for the majority of users the changes between 7 and 8 are fairly irrelevant background changes that won't be noticed.

Chrome is on what now? v15? Does Chrome continuously shout about how version 15 is out? No.. it just updates.. the user doesn't really know about it. The user doesn't really care about it.

Please.. just call the damn product [Firefox - no version number on the end] and be done with it.

<comment><USER11> First of all this is pretty much where Mozilla is heading towards anyways.

Firefox isn't bloated in terms of memory consumption, when compared to Chrome. It's interface has more nice features though, which I greatly enjoy though.

Did you actually test a recent version?

Oh btw. the Beta version of Firefox is an officially supported one, meaning if you find something that is bad for security bug you will receive the grant and stuff.

<comment><USER27> I have used a recent version of Firefox. It has a load of HTML5 goodness but not many website's run these bleeding edge features.

It still looks incredibly ugly on the Mac. The last time I used Firefox on Mac it was wobbly. I only now have it installed for testing. The change in versioning was a mistake which caused a load of confusion. Firefox may be getting better in performance or memory usage but does it matter? Other browsers are already there.

I will keep tabs on Firefox but I see no reason to switch from Safari or anything else for that matter to Firefox at the moment. It is a bit like IE tbh. It is getting better but for a generation of users the reputation damage is already done.</comment></comment></comment>


Firefox Discontinuing the Tab Groups Feature - <AUTHOR> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/tab-groups-removal <comment><USER2> It's been ported to be an addon: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/tab-groups-pa...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/tab-groups-panorama/) (GitHub repo: [https://github.com/Quicksaver/Tab-Groups](https://github.com/Quicksaver/Tab- Groups) )</comment>


A Tiny Screw Shows Why iPhones Won't Be 'Assembled in U.S.A.' - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/28/technology/iphones-apple-china-made.html <comment><USER3> Now imagine we went to war, and China was not on our side. We have the headstart, but if we needed to start manufacturing more equipment, we're at a disadvantage.

I think this kind of supply chain issue is a national security concern.

<comment><USER4> Military equipment is manufactured in the US or allied countries to avoid this concern I think?

<comment><USER5> Just as one example, China has massive dominance in "rare" earth elements which are components of many different military and communication devices.

Check this out for full scope of current disparities [0]

[0] [https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASS...](https://media.defense.gov/2018/Oct/05/2002048904/-1/-1/1/ASSESSING- AND-STRENGTHENING-THE-MANUFACTURING-AND-DEFENSE-INDUSTRIAL-BASE-AND-SUPPLY- CHAIN-RESILIENCY.PDF)

<comment><USER6> With regard to Batteries Rare Earth is anything but, it's more messy than anything and China wins on price. The States has plenty of capacity in that regard and a mine just recently reopened in California. Borderline Slave labor, lax environmental laws and state subsidized shipping make for a much lower price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> While I'm sure the requirements of the engineering required custom screws to meet size and scale needs, I sure hope this doesn't turn out to be a "protection scheme" making custom screws to prevent user repairs. While an old article, it reminds us that Apple seemed to really love this approach, at least in the past: [https://www.wired.com/2012/08/if-theres-a-screw-theres-a- way...](https://www.wired.com/2012/08/if-theres-a-screw-theres-a-way-custom- screws-wont-stop-the-diy-community/)

<comment><USER8> Security screws don't prevent repairs. Glue prevents repairs. iFixit has been releasing screwdriver kits for Apple for years, but the hardest part of taking apart modern Apple is dealing with the glue. Hair dryers, putty knifes, and forcing things that feel like they're going to snap.

<comment><USER9> Security screws do inhibit repair (in general), certainly have prevented me repairing things in the past. I've seen "head stripping" too, damaging the head to prevent removal (stopped me replacing my multimeter battery - <USER2> immoral).

Tri-screws (Nintendo), were one of the first things I had to buy "single-use" screw-drivers for.

<comment><USER10> I tend to drill them out and replace them with standard fasteners. Ends up cheaper than having 3 trays of obscure bits that still somehow don't fit. Pay close attention to length however. Some laptops will ground out with a screw 1 thread too long.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The headline, as usual, is wrong.

The tiny screw shows not why it won't be assembled in USA but why it should be assembled. Making a phone or laptop requires an entire industry to back it up. Making those things in US makes it possible that these industries will come back.

Also, just for US security it is probably not important that the screws are imported. What is important is that the electronics are not handled outside US and US retains its ability to make practical electronics and not rely 100% on China.

<comment><USER12> _Making those things in US makes it possible that these industries will come back._

Isn't that a chicken-and-egg scenario though? The industry won't come back if manufacturers don't bring production back, but manufacturers won't bring production back until there's a local industry to bring it back to.

<comment><USER11> There is an important incentive to manufacture some category of products that are necessary for security. How do you feel about EVERY single non-trivial chip and piece of electronics manufactured outside US? Can you, currently, buy ANY kind of computer that is not being handled in China?

It sure will cost more, but the industry does not grow overnight and people do need time to get experienced and I think it is vital that some country other than China supplies electronics, too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> On the other hand, Apple is one of the companies that could make a dent in the other direction (if they thought it made sense financially and overall): They have the cash reserves and the option for long-term planning that they could e.g. have financed better-suited machinery for the screw-maker as part of a long-term contract (if there's really not enough manufacturing capacity for custom screws around). They'd probably be able to set up an apprenticeship program training the numbers of employees they need, with more pull over other, less well-known companies. Of course for that for that to make sense, they'd need to commit to building something long-term, and can't just access an existing pool. (Although I'd assume they spent lots of effort getting the flows at Foxconn et al worked out properly too)

And I suspect scale matters here a lot, so a relatively small experiment is going to have supply issues where a large project would create enough demand that investing to fill it makes sense.

<comment><USER14> Absolutely.

Manufacturers sent manufacturing jobs overseas thirty years ago, so few Americans learned manufacturing skills for thirty years, now manufacturers use the effect to justify the cause. But of course the real reason was simply that they didn't want to pay American wages.

If manufacturers brought the jobs back Americans would learn the skills.

<comment><USER15> I agree.

I think we'd have to make that fiscally worthwhile (large tax carrot/stick) to make that happen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The engineer in me is judging them... why the heck did you make a design that required 3 weird screws? Screws are standardized parts; creating an esoteric hardware design in a vacuum with an "oh we'll fix that in production" [literal meaning of production] seems to be the actual problem.

<comment><USER17> You just used Apple and the word "standards" in a sentence without the requisite "eschews".

<comment><USER18> I voted you down, your comment seems to think that the engineers couldn't possibly have a reason for custom screws.

Without knowing the requirements, you'll never know if they had a good reason for custom screws. As such this comment is not constructive at best, and just standard "apple is bad cause no standards" drivel at worst.

<comment><USER19> Not to mention Apple's non-standard-compliance is a notable exception, not the rule. The 30-pin connector and Lightning are basically the only proprietary connectors they've had in recent history, and one is phased out while the other is being phased out as we speak (for the standard USB-C, I might add).

Firewire, USB-C, Bluetooth, POSIX, etc... Apple doesn't do as much non- standard stuff as people on the Internet would have you think.

<comment><USER20> I agree with all your points, but have you ever disassembled an iPhone or an aluminum Intel Mac? Everyone has them now, but when they started producing them, no one had triwing, pentawing or those microscopic torx bits. And let's not even start on bricking items repaired by non-"apple-approved" shops months later.

<comment><USER19> I would differentiate between "standards" vs "easy to repair". You're not going to find too many standard parts inside of a cell phone no matter who the vendor is. Even if Apple supported replacing the battery yourself, you'd still need an Apple-compatible battery that's not compatible with a Samsung.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Apple only ordered 23,000 screws. That's not enough to justify making the tooling for production by progressive stamping. Caldwell Manufacturing has automatic screw machines. Those are general-purpose machines for making things out of wire and small rod stock. They do good work, but are slower and higher cost per unit than stamping. If they'd gone to a company that's primarily a screw supplier, like KD Fasteners or US Micro Screw, they probably wouldn't have had the problem.

Apple has shot itself in the foot before by being too tough on suppliers. They want suppliers to invest in production capacity without guaranteeing a big buy. Remember the sapphire screen debacle.

<comment><USER22> Have you actually reviewed the story of GT Advanced?

Apple bent over backwards to forgive late delivery, and GT Advanced repeatedly lied about what they'd actually achieved.

Apple surely turns the screws on it's suppliers, but GT Advanced isn't a very good example of this, the producers just lied about what their capabilities (and mid-stream accomplishments!) were.

<comment><USER21> _Have you actually reviewed the story of GT Advanced?_

Yes. They originally wanted to just sell furnaces to Apple, but Apple pushed them into a deal where GT Advanced took all the risk of making the end product. The management of GT Advanced should have rejected that deal, but they took the "fake it til you make it" route, and it didn't end well. There's still litigation underway involving Apple.

[1] [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gt-advanced-tech- bankrupt...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gt-advanced-tech-bankruptcy- apple/gt-advanced-says-fell-victim-to-bait-and-switch-by-apple- idUSKBN0IR2G220141107)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The screws has to be one of the weakest claims for several reasons. It is more a "we suck at planning" story on several levels. Even if they went with Chinese screws doing it in advance and in large numbers would give them the best price per unit. This isn't even a "we accidentally made it an antenna" screw up but a "we failed to do basic math and planning ahead".

<comment><USER24> Yes because the _Tim Cook_ of all people doesn't know anything about supply chain management and producing at scale.

<comment><USER23> Fair point. I guess he shoukd have hired someone from a supply chain industry for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Disclaimer: optimistic wishful thinking ahead

I think the scenario is:

\- China has tons of cheap labour \- manual manufacturing in US is expensive \- most companies have the problem of over-reliance on Chinese manufacturing \- Apple has tons of reserves

I see this as an opportunity for Apple to invest in more and more sophisticated mechanization driven by the smarter robotics. It may be difficult for a machine learning algorithm to tell a bird from another but equipment/machines are much more defined than fuzzy. Further, Apple being a sought-after employer in general shouldn't have problem attracting top talent for this exciting and growing area of work (with all its issues, US still attracts the best minds it needs for such research).

If they invest and get to a state where they are not only making phones but smart machines that can make machines that make phones or whatever, they will open up a new world for themselves and can solve a problem much bigger than making phones cheaply (while still making phones cheaply).

<comment> shaki-dora As the article illustrates, it's not labor cost that drives manufacturing to China, but competence, or network effects.

Robots may well be coming, to a factory in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> to be honest, this whole article smacks of public relations defense of Apple's continued manufacturing in China regardless of all the human rights issues, spying, and trade secret disputes.

sorry, but their actions in support of charities and other rights issues world wide will always be tainted by their association with the Chinese government. they are there only because its cheaper to operate and its only cheaper to operate simply because you have a government which does not respect rights, property, personal, and in many cases intellectual.

</comment><comment><USER27> > _When Mr. Melo bought Caldwell in 2002, it was capable of the high-volume > production Apple needed. But demand for that had dried up as manufacturing > moved to China. He said he had replaced the old stamping presses that could > mass-produce screws with machines designed for more precise, specialized > jobs._

this looks like yet another example of what US-based globalization promoters have been pushing as the "prosperous future" of the US manufacturing sector: custom, high-precision, high-quality, high-end etc.

but this "plan for prosperity" has pushed high-volume, low-cost manufacturing capabilities out of the US. it should have been obvious to Apple beforehand.

</comment><comment><USER28> >"China is not just cheap. It's a place where, because it's an authoritarian government, you can marshal 100,000 people to work all night for you,"

I don't understand how she came to that conclusion or what this sentence even means really.

<comment><USER29> She means the government can force people thousands to work for foreign companies cheaply because XI is a dictator. For example, if you need to churn out thousands of custom screws. She came to the conclusion because the CCP has done just that for 30 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> So Dell can make Laptops in TX, Nokia ran the largest Cell Phone Factory in the world in TX (Alliance Corridor). You have Texas Instruments and probably dozens of more high tech electronics manufacturers and Apple can't build it's Macbooks or whatever in the USA because it can't get enough screws, really?

Most of the parts for Apple devices are not made in China.

[https://www.lifewire.com/where-is-the-iphone- made-1999503](https://www.lifewire.com/where-is-the-iphone-made-1999503)

China is basically an assembly location since slave labor can be used to maximize profit.

Another trash article from the NYT's.

</comment><comment><USER31> Can some top notch hardware be made in USA ? For sure. Did someone made a top notch hardware, even some prototypes ? Please tell us who. Perhaps the real issue is that nobody is excited to make hardware anymore in the US as westerners expect to retain ownership of the working capital in the Chinese industry, which is getting less and less relevant when China is getting richer and richer. The western world needs a mental leap as Tesla did with the car industry if it wants to keep up with China in this ground.

</comment><comment><USER32> > "China is not just cheap. It's a place where, because it's an authoritarian > government, you can marshal 100,000 people to work all night for you," said > Susan Helper, an economics professor at Case Western Reserve University in > Cleveland and the former chief economist at the Commerce Department. "That > has become an essential part of the product-rollout strategy."

Never mind the screws, it's the humans which are important here.

</comment><comment><USER33> Did anyone thought about using simpler screws or will we pretend it's okay to invent am an annoying screw and get it done somewhere just 'cause you want it?

apple always fucks up on that, even usb extensors can have a "dent" so it doesn't fit regular usb cables.

that part of apple is the most disgusting.

</comment><comment><USER34> Erm... Why not use standard screws?

<comment><USER35> Then geeky users would be able to fix it themselves.

<comment><USER34> If it were a tiny and thin iDevice or a razor thin laptop, I'd understand, but there is nowhere in that machine that a special screw would be needed. The space constraints simply aren't there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> One notable fact that's missing from the article is that China will lie and bend over backwards to secure business. They have no problem telling a potential customer that they can meet specifications they cannot meet. They will greatly overstate their capacity and capabilities and then bullshit their way to success by "throwing a handful of shit and seeing what sticks." Meaning they will produce and produce and produce products, ship them to the customer, and accept whatever they get for RMA's. They barely do any kind of inspection. They just ship parts and hope not a whole lot will come back.

Here in the USA our companies take liability into account. Our precision manufacturing sector is much older and more experienced, but also each entity is smaller due to America being truly capitalist.

Apple is the kind of customer that small American companies don't want to deal with. Their buyers are demanding, uncompromising, and don't understand manufacturing. They want to buy 100,000 screws and cannot understand why they aren't already on a shelf somewhere waiting to be shipped. They don't care either, they just NEED the screws. If Apple is a customer of yours, you probably don't do business with many other companies. Apple deadlines and requirements don't specifically disallow it, they just don't leave enough foom for it.

Just ask GT Advanced Technologies what it's like dealing with Apple as a supplier. They signed a contract with Apple, spent all their capital acquiring Apple approved manufacturing equipment, and then fought with Apple QC about acceptance criteria that their Apple approved equipment couldn't meet. They did this until GT ran out of money and went belly up. They spent so much resources trying to satisfy Apple that they couldn't satisfy anybody else.

</comment><comment><USER37> We exported all our manufacturing overseas at the behest of the masters of business administration as a matter of pure cost cutting. It isn't coming back easily.

<comment><USER35> It may require federal regulation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I know they 3D print some jet engine parts. Why could custom screws not be 3D printed?

<comment><USER13> 3D printing is generally interesting for things that are made in small quantities. Making many thousands of the same screw by printing is horrifically inefficient, and slower and more expensive than whatever they did to make them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Why does reducing the American cost of living never come up? American workers have just become too expensive in many industries, which is why immigrants fill whole classes of jobs. Or maybe that's just Seattle's homeless problem talking.

</comment><comment><USER40> They really don't need this level of customization, but manufacturing in China lets companies do things like this for components that probably could just use standard sizes.

</comment><comment><USER41> Tiny screws for tiny hands. China's child workforce is as strong as ever.

</comment><comment><USER42> I am okay with giving trump his stupid wall if he can successfully bring back manufacturing from china. So far the only issue I can support him on is his (long overdue) war with china.

<comment><USER29> Yeh, China is starting to scare me the more I read. I don't feel good buying their products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> As long as they remain "Designed in California", the feel-good is still there. You are not buying cheap Android China shit.

<comment><USER44> Android is also "Designed in California"...

<comment><USER34> The kernel is most certainly not.</comment></comment></comment>


Scaleway Is Growing Too Fast - <AUTHOR> https://blog.scaleway.com/2015/11/03/scaleway-is-growing-too-fast-out-of-stock/ <comment><USER2> I guess this is the downside of designing and building your own hardware. You can't just go out and buy some more servers to rack up. You'd think they would have ensured they had capacity before they slashed their prices, though.</comment>