Ask HN: How do you rationalize the enormity of the universe and everyday life? - <AUTHOR> I'm constantly haunted by the fact that there is so much danger, beauty, and unknown in the universe. I feel I owe those around me, and that I need to help humanity progress. But I'm no genius, and my problems are so mundane. If I struggle here, how can I ever transcend and do my people justice? Does anyone else feel like this? <comment><USER2> "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is very important that you do it." \- Gandhi Simply existing progresses humanity, but I feel you should find something you are passionate about and do the best you can at it, whatever it is, it will benefit someone somewhere somehow. You should stop fearing the "afterlife" and worry more about this reality.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well said, friend. Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> In 1675 Isaac Newton wrote in a letter to Robert Hooke "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". While this is poetic, and shows humility and respect for those who came before him, one should be careful not to convince yourself that these giants are superhuman or that they had no help themselves. Humanity is where it is today after millions upon millions of incremental advances each supported on all sides by thousands more that came before them.

We would not be here were it not for the early farmers asking a question and exploring the answers to eventually develop agricuture. We would not be here if many thousands of years ago there were not people who noticed a tiny piece of something strange amidst the coals of a hot fire to plunge us into the bronze age. Those people no longer have names to immortalise them, but neither do the people around them that helped them become the people they were destined to be. Their families, their friends, their communities, and those they traded with because there was some benefit or progress to be made. And these people are just as important to humanity as any whose name will be remembered forever.

Galileo didn't invent the telescope. But he was among the first to point it to the heavens. You should not look to imitate what Galileo did however. But you can certainly follow his motivations. Learn what you can about all things around you. Satisfy your curiosity. Build your knowledge. Learn your tools. Follow your passions, whatever they are in life. Strive to do good, and greatness may find you. But most of all, keep your mind open to the possibilities. You may not become Newton, but you may just become the person to cultivate that apple tree, without which we may not have had Newton at all.</comment>


PUT or POST: The REST of the Story - <AUTHOR> http://jcalcote.wordpress.com/2008/10/16/put-or-post-the-rest-of-the-story/

<comment><USER2> Quick summary: PUT is idempotent, and should be used when you're sending the full text or properties of an item, or otherwise doing some where doing it a second time is harmless. POST is not, and should be used for requests like "increment this field" or "add a new sub-item to this parent item" where doing it twice will give a very different result than doing it once.

<comment><USER3> No. <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.6> versus <http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html#sec9.5> makes it clear that you PUT something somewhere and that you POST something to the resource located somewhere. That is the difference. The idempotence follows from that, but it is not the important semantic part.

<comment><USER4> Personally I feel that idempotence should be the only important semantic component of PUT.

Although the spec makes stronger assertions about its semantics than this, namely that the body of a PUT is supposed to a full replacement for the resource at the URL in question.

However I don't think any clients or middleware take advantage of this or would reliably be able to take any useful advantage of this.

Whereas idempotence is something which client and middleware can usefully take advantage of - eg a browser can safely re-try an idempotent request whereas it can't safely retry a general POST.

Allowing PUT to be used for requests which are idempotent but not technically full replacement updates (eg partial updates) would allow middleware to know that they're safe to repeat.

<comment><USER4> To summarise my point there:

By constraining the use of PUT to 'full replacement' updates, you deny people a useful way to signal idempotence for other more general kinds of idempotent updates.

<comment><USER5> That is what PATCH is for.

<comment><USER4> Again the (in this case draft) RFC begs to differ:

[http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-http- patch-...](http://greenbytes.de/tech/webdav/draft-dusseault-http- patch-11.html)

"PATCH is neither safe or idempotent as defined by [RFC2616] Section 9.1."

The only semantics it has seems to be "change this resource in some way". Sometimes such a change might be idempotent, sometimes not, and the PATCH method provides no way of communicating this.

Personally I see little advantage from adding a PATCH method. Its semantics, as far as any generalised client software or middleware are concerned, seems the safe as POST.

Really the question which this raises is: for what reasons are new REST methods justified?

I think Fielding et al are vague on this topic, and I think the vagueness shows in HTTP (and in proposed extensions like PATCH)

Personally I think new methods should only be justified where they have generalised semantics which can be exploited by middleware (or middleware-like layers in client software) and where no existing method is available to express these semantics. Terms like 'safe' and 'idempotent' are relevant and useful properties to consider at this level.

The data-level semantics (like 'applies a diff to' or 'does something approximately like a full update to') aren't really relevant when it comes to request methods, unless they are properties which it's genuinely useful for generic middleware to know about.

I say this because hypertext and standardised hypertext media types and relations are already great at helping people discover available operations, together with their data/domain-level semantics, without the need for any new request methods.

<comment><USER5> The idempotency of the patch is determined by the content-type of the request entity, instead of being inherent to the method. The idempotency and safety of GET, DELETE, and PUT are shaky too, because Fielding and others say that side effects of these methods are not required to be idempotent. Really everything about the semantics of HTTP is very hand-wavy.

I believe that PATCH was created because people couldn't come to a consensus on whether PUT was required to replace the whole entity or whether it was allowed to have patch-like abilities.

<comment><USER4> Hm, yeah the wording when it comes to idempotence does seem slightly vague now I look at it again; SHOULD, rather than MUST in the RFCs at least.

It is hand-wavey isn't it. The whole REST concept smells of post-hoc generalisation based on just one significant example, HTTP, and as such there seems to be a lot of confused but zealous hermeneutics involved in determining the One True RESTful Way To Do HTTP both from the HTTP RFCs and Fielding's other writings (which can be rather pompous and/or opaque).

Instead, I'd like if people went back to first principles and thought hard about what actual value certain kinds of semantics have which justify (or don't justify) making them part of the protocol, as opposed to just standardising the semantics as part of some media type or other.

Idempotence, to me, seems like something which is genuinely useful and justifies itself as part of a transfer protocol, so I'd like to see HTTP take a clear and useful stance on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The idempotency of PUT is supposedly useful with caching web proxies, but I don't know of any caching web proxies that support PUT. Are there any?

<comment><USER7> Hehe, a proxy cashing PUTs can spice up your REST experience. How exactly will the proxy know someone else haven't updated a resource between 2 requests and it's safe not to pass the 2nd request to server?

<comment><USER4> Yep - it's not safe to assume you can cache a PUT in that way. AFAIK no caches do this.

What they should do though is purge their cache for that URI when they see a successful PUT has happened.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One reason I read HN, is to learn how to come up with good titles :)

</comment><comment><USER9> I can't agree with last few paragraphs. "Location" header should be used for redirections. There is "Content-Location" header which should be used to identify real location of the content.

So, for example, for newly created objects ("POST /objects/"), you should return content with header "Content-Location: <http://website.com/objects/object_id> ".

<comment><USER4> The RFC begs to differ :)

<http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec9.html>

"If a resource has been created on the origin server, the response SHOULD be 201 (Created) and contain an entity which describes the status of the request and refers to the new resource, and a Location header (see section 14.30)."

<comment><USER9> Erm... I stand corrected, you're right. I think I was confused by the description under section 14.30 ([http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14...](http://www.w3.org/Protocols/rfc2616/rfc2616-sec14.html#sec14.30)).

<comment><USER4> No worries.

Some of those HTTP RFCs are pretty crufty - there is a cleanup project in the works apparently: <http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/httpbis/charter/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> it's worth remembering that firefox won't let you PUT an attachment from a form, it must be POST which is a real pain for dealing with couchdb sometimes

<comment><USER11> Not just Firefox - all HTML 4 forms support only GET and POST (though XMLHttpRequest supports any method.) HTML 5 forms do support PUT and DELETE though not HEAD. (I think this is accurate. Corrections appreciated.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I ~love~ REST!

People who don't know anything about building distributed systems hop on the REST bandwagon and before you know it they've got a monstrosity that doesn't work.

I come in as a $150 an hour consultant, explain really clearly that it's ~very~ hard to get business rules and transactions working right in a REST situation, re-architect the system with POX RPC and get it working.

When I see blog entries about the "finer points of REST" I hear ka-ching, ka- ching, ka-ching!

<comment><USER7> You're obviously (by your rate and believes) a newcomer to enterprise architecture ;) Distributed transactions are an anti-pattern even with WS- Transactions. And business rules belong to the services themselves, not to the service infrastructure.

<comment><USER12> That's the whole problem with REST; getting transactional semantics requires distributed transactions.

In RPC you can do everything you have to do in a local transaction and package it as one RPC call. Fast and simple...

<comment><USER13> If only SOAP wasn't the face of RPC to most people, you probably wouldn't get downvoted so hard. ;) SOAP is horrible but REST is worse. JSON-RPC is elegant and simple. I wish more people would use it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


In defense of cash: why we should bring back the $500 note and other big bills - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/in-defense-of-cash-why-we-should-bring-back-the-500-note-and-other-big-bills-85880 <comment><USER2> This article is blog spam. It was written by someone with only a rudimentary understanding of the topic, which is pretty evident if you read it.

The entire purpose of this article being written was to get a good looking (SEO-wise) back link to the domain "businessmacroeconomics.com". If you look at all the links in the article, they are almost all to major news media publications (safe links to make the page look good). Then the real link appears at the end of the second-to-last section (the perfect spot for SEO). It's the only link not to a major news outlet, and if you look at that domain/website, it's some guy selling a book no one's ever heard of.

This article was 100% paid, for SEO purposes and written by someone who has no idea what they're talking about. They just ramble for 500-1000 words to get good (human-sounding) content so that google will trust it's a good backlink to the author's website and put him at a higher rank in the search results.

Either a voting ring got this post to the front page of HN, or 29 HN readers (at the time of this post) were swindled into thinking there was any substance here at all.

<comment><USER3> It is the article author's own book. Their list of publications: [http://u.osu.edu/zagorsky.1/sample-page/](http://u.osu.edu/zagorsky.1/sample- page/)

</comment></comment><comment> white-flame Bigger bills would also be nice when doing things like privately purchasing used cars, or more expensive Craigslist items. Multi-thousand dollar items are common on the used market.

But one thing seriously needs to change as well: The level of cash considered "suspicious" by law enforcement.

<comment><USER4> This is especially relevant in our current environment of unregulated civil forfeiture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Am I missing something or does the author not explain why bring back specifically the $500 bill? The defense seems to be, "Well, in case of catastrophe, we should have cash," which I agree with, but that still doesn't explain why the $500 note. If anything, the author makes a good case for maintaining smaller denominations.

<comment><USER6> > Am I missing something or does the author not explain why bring back > specifically the $500 bill?

Inflation? "[...] despite the amount of inflation that has occurred since 1969 (a $500 bill is now worth less, in real terms, than a $100 bill was worth in 1969)." -[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_denominations_of_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency#Passive_retirement)

The $500 bill pictured in the article is a gold certificate: "Redeemable In Gold On Demand at the United States Treasury"... Looks like all $500 gold certificates were printed in 1928, as the 1934 high-denomination bills were only used for intra-federal reserve transfers:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_denominations_of_United_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_denominations_of_United_States_currency#High- denomination_.28HD.29_banknote_issuing_data)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Okay... let's say we should avoid a cashless society and encourage people to carry cash. Why is a $500 note useful? If you look at businesses today, you'll find several with signs that say "no bills greater than $20 accepted." If you think it useful to keep cash stuffed in your mattress in $500 notes, and there's a massive disaster that shuts down all the banks... where are you going to convert that $500 into everyday spending money?

As I once saw a survivalist say, hoarding gold for a post-apocalyptic world is a dumb idea, because it's too valuable to be fungible. High-value currency notes have a similar problem. They're not really usable except for high-value transactions, and the number of transactions that meet the criterion is actually quite low (I've paid rent in cash using $50s before, and the most problematic thing was getting them), especially in disaster scenarios.

<comment><USER8> > If you think it useful to keep cash stuffed in your mattress in $500 notes, > and there's a massive disaster that shuts down all the banks... where are > you going to convert that $500 into everyday spending money?

Since the Fed, which issues currency, is, in large part, the banks themselves, if a disaster causes a general banking collapse, you've got bigger problems with the value of your cash than whether you can convert denominations.

<comment><USER7> This is less "collapse of the financial system" and more "all the infrastructure be fucked and ATMs don't work," as posited in the article.

<comment><USER9> > all the infrastructure be fucked and ATMs don't work

Which is not that far away. A few months ago, in my town, underground workers dug in the wrong place and cut a central internet connection, and ATMs and other cash terminals in the better part of the city center stopped working. I luckily carried enough cash, otherwise I wouldn't have been able to do my shopping.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The most important function of cash is to limit the power of the government to control private economic actions. There needs to be more acknowledgement of the fallibility of government, and other mitigation strategies proposed for government abuse than just "we'll vote in a better government". Society needs non-political checks on state power, like cash.

</comment><comment><USER11> It would be a much stronger article if the author did more to counter the reasons for eliminating large denomination bills than simply to say "the positives outweigh the negatives". In particular, the argument that cash is useful under catastrophic circumstances seems very weak against the problems large denomination bills cause _in everyday life_.

<comment><USER12> What problems do they cause in everyday life?

The standard argument is money laundering, but we just had a case not long ago where a multinational bank facilitated billions in money laundering. So criminals seem to have found a way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Such a dumb article. In case of natural disaster, you might risk losing your cash in your house, something that can't happen with digital currency. Also, the problem is not just the access to ATM or cellphones, but lack of energy and cellular data at all: by creating a more robust grid and connections you already solved all the issues related to them. Having cash handy doesn't solve the real problem, only partially patch it up.

</comment><comment><USER14> In a disaster, buying a few bags of ice, or a few gallons of gasoline is unlikely to cost more than $50. What cash-only vendor will be able and willing to provide change for a $100, let alone a $500?

If any cell service were available (think Project Loon) then a vendor with a Square reader could do business without cash, or, if willing to break ToS for trusted customers, could act as an ATM, providing cash in trade for credit or debit card charges - with the risk of charge backs, of course.</comment>


The Difference Between Existing Markets and New Markets - <AUTHOR> https://larrycheng.com/2015/01/21/the-difference-between-existing-markets-and-new-markets/ <comment><AUTHOR> An existing market is a market where customers already spend money buying more or less the same product or service that a given company is selling. That product or service may be delivered or sold in a different way, but at the end of the day, the customer that you're targeting is already spending money on substantially the same thing...

A new market is a market where the end product or service is new – in other words there isn't really existing demand, but there could be...

When investors and entrepreneurs go after a truly new market – the advantage is usually there are not entrenched competitors so if the market materializes as quickly and dramatically as they hope, market leadership is more attainable. In addition, new markets can grow exceptionally quickly, far faster than existing markets – and a rising tide can lift all boats as the saying goes. So, there is no doubt that you can win and win big in a new market. That being said, the risk one takes with a new market actually emerging is often profoundly underestimated. My guess is the most common reason companies targeting new markets fail is primarily because the market never really emerges at the pace and size that the company and investors expected. You can have great management, a great product, excellent sales and marketing, but if the market isn't there, then it's easy for a company to get stuck. It's hard to have good product/market fit, when there's no market after all...</comment>


An Update on Our App Investigation and Audit - <AUTHOR> https://newsroom.fb.com/news/2018/05/update-on-app-audit/ <comment><USER2> Facebook claims that Facebook suspended the apps because their CEO claimed that they will.

Meanwhile, they offer no real evidence of doing so, not even a list of names. Just a number. And even that number isn't exact, since it's _around_ 200 out of "thousands", which is by itself a ridiculously high percentage.

Also, why the fuck would you first suspend 200 apps, publish a blog post, and _then_ investigate what they did with the said data? Can you imagine any other app store denying service to 200 teams or individuals and _then_ investigate any possible wrongdoings?

<comment><USER3> >Can you imagine any other app store denying service to 200 teams or individuals and then investigate any possible wrongdoings?

The government does stuff like that all the time although usually it's ~200 people over the course of a year or two, not all at once. It's something along the lines of "Whoops, looks like CPS wasn't actually doing their jobs right and we took 200 kids from otherwise not too terrible parents, well here's an official apology and a pledge to investigate this internally, don't worry we'll conclude we did nothing wrong. Maybe if we feel really guilty we'll force someone to retire a year early or something."

You can replace the above with other examples of systemic mistreatment if you want.

Sleazy utility providers and businesses with local monopoly do similar but not quite so bad things and nobody gets any recourse unless they get a check from a class action.

These kind of things typically makes the state or regional news for a day with maybe a 10sec follow up when the apology is actually issued or they find themselves innocent of wrongdoing.

When you have monopoly or near monopoly position there's less accountability and more wiggle room to behave like a jerk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "To date thousands of apps have been investigated and around 200 have been > suspended — pending a thorough investigation into whether they did in fact > misuse any data."

Sounds like typical PR spin, with a "no update" update. No proper numbers mentioned. Adjectives used to hide the real numbers. Most of the time this is done because the worst case scenario is being hidden. When it says "thousands", it could mean 2000 and a few more. When it says "around 200", you bet it's 190 or so.

When they find violations they're just going to ban the app? That's it? Don't they even consider legal action where possible?

What a waste of time and what an insult to the intelligence of the readers.

<comment><USER5> > Where we find evidence that these or other apps did misuse data, we will ban > them and notify people via this _website_

The website in question is Facebook. My bet is this didn't even go through a PR. Rather as this slowly unfolds I really doubt if Facebook even has a PR team.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That feels like a very small number to me.

<comment><USER2> That's a ridiculously high percentage: 200 out of "thousands" tested.

Judging by their use of "thousands", I'd bet that the number is somewhere between 2000 (making 1 in 10 suspended) and 8000 (making 1 in 40 suspended).

Now if that number was out of _tens_ of thousands or _hundreds_ of thousands, then the number would indeed be quite small.

<comment><USER7> However, it's possible that they prioritized this early investigation to look first at certain categories of apps that may be more likely to get suspended.

Also, it's possible that they are just being really conservative in suspending apps. The suspension sounds like a possibly temporary thing while they investigate them further.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> We approved what these apps did for our benefit originally. Now we got caught and will unapprove them for no stated reason because it might be embarrassing.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you believe a word Facebook says, I have a country to sell you.</comment>


How Bitcoins Involved in Crime Can Be Seized by the Feds - <AUTHOR> http://businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-18/how-the-feds-can-take-even-legally-earned-bitcoin <comment><USER2> Hypothetical: Suppose you owned a car, and this was stolen. If the car were sold intact, then presumably you could reclaim the car from the buyer because of the _nemo dat_ rule.

But now suppose the thief sold the car to a salvage yard. The salvage yard breaks the car down into scrap metal, which is melted down and recycled for use in other products.

I'm not very familiar with this area of law, but presumably you would no longer have a claim to the car or the scrap because the original piece of property to which you had title, the car, was destroyed. You might have a claim against the scrap yard for not checking title on the car and could recover the fair market value of the vehicle.

Same with bitcoin -- once someone comingles the stolen coins with other coins, the original balance of coins has been destroyed. There is no action against parties further down the blockchain. Your only remedy _should_ be to recover the fair market value of the coins from the party that "destroyed" the coins.

<standard "this is not legal advice" disclaimer goes here>

</comment><comment><USER3> The article seems to miss out a very key point: How do they seize them?

Do you knock on your door and demand your private keys? How can they do that if you've broken no laws? How do they even know you have them in the first place?

<comment><USER4> You don't have to seize them. You can just declare that funds will not be accepted from any wallets that receive Bitcoin from the flagged wallet. If an entity with enough market power started flagging wallets, services would quickly build in functionality to reject funds from flagged wallets.

<comment><USER5> And how would this work in practice. Let's assume you have one "clean" Bitcoin and I have one stolen/flagged Bitcoin. I'm now sending you 0.1 Bitcoins and you don't know that those are flagged.

So how would this influence your remaining Bitcoins? If you send 0.1 Bitcoins to someone else: Would you sell the stolen Bitcoins first? Would you sell the clean Bitcoins first? Are all of your coins tainted by a given percentage?

(Yes, I know that just receiving those coins would create a separate input that you can ignore in order to avoid tainting your coins. But at some point clean and flagged input will be merged together into a single one.)

<comment><USER4> Every wallet that receives funds from the flagged wallet is tainted until they send it back to that wallet. All of the funds, not just the tainted amount.

<comment><USER5> This doesn't work in practice. Transactions using Bitcoin "addresses" are just one (out of many) transaction types. As far as I understand the protocol it's possible that you receive those coins via a transaction type that doesn't have an associated Bitcoin sender address.

<comment><USER6> "Every wallet that receives funds from a tainted wallet becomes tainted" doesn't (in any way I see) conflict with the notion that there are transactions without a sender.

<comment><USER5> I meant the "until you send it back part". If "every wallet becomes tainted" and "you can't send it back" this would make it trivial for an attacker to taint a large number of wallets in the Bitcoin network.

<comment><USER6> If there is no sender, how does the receiver become tainted?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have US dollar bill B03542754F in my pocket right now. I wonder about its "blockchain" and how it has flowed into and through our economy. I wonder if it at anytime in its life has been a part of illegal activity.

<comment><USER8> "Money is not generally subject to a replevin action unless it is marked or packaged in such as way as to make it distinguishable."

Source: [http://rjcesq.com/?p=15](http://rjcesq.com/?p=15)

<comment><USER9> How is "US dollar bill B03542754F" not distinguishable?

<comment><USER8> I never said it wasn't. :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If no one gives what he does not have, then no one takes what he cannot hold.

The Feds cannot seize your Bitcoins unless they have your cooperation or can obtain your private keys by other means. In order to search your property and make a seizure, the police must at least have a reasonable suspicion that you, yourself, have committed a crime, and that the property to be seized is either evidence of or proceeds from that crime.

That's the legality. In reality, police will illegally search your computers, transfer your coins while you are cuffed, and then you will have no practical recourse.

Begin protecting yourself with encryption and strong passwords now, and help your non-technical acquaintances learn how to use it. It is only a matter of time before you or someone that you know ends up on the wrong end of an injustice.

<comment><USER11> Even if they do have your private keys, they have no assurance that they have the only copy of them.

If you're forced to hand over private keys to a wallet that more than one person has keys for, there's nothing that prevents the other person from (with bad intent or otherwise) moving those funds to another wallet.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure what your point is. Upon seizure they'd presumably sweep the coins to their own account.

Multi-sig transactions can prevent any one person from running off with the funds, and will likely become common in the next year or so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > The FBI already owns 5 to 10 percent of [bitcoins], which are now out of > circulation.

Given that money laundering and drug transactions have become major parts of bitcoin's current use case, law enforcement's tendency to seize bitcoins puts yet another deflationary pressure on the system. The biggest obstacle to bitcoin becoming a currency rather than a speculator's darling is the stability of its value. Meanwhile, the system's incentives seem to promote hoarding in hopes of a price spike.

Not that this is problem in and of itself. Bitcoin's decent anonymity creates very real value, and it looks poised to be a medium of exchange. It just puts a damper on the hopes that future transactions will be denominated in bitcoin rather than dollars.

<comment><USER14> That is only if the FBI holds onto them forever. However, unless something has changed, I was under the impression that they plan on auctioning them off just like any other seized asset

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/01/16/the- feds-...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirhill/2014/01/16/the-feds-are- ready-to-sell-the-silk-road-bitcoin-kind-of/)

<comment><USER6> You raise an important point, but I think you state it too strongly. If the FBI shows a tendency to hold an increasing number of bitcoins (on average, over time) it's a deflationary pressure even if they're not "the same bitcoins". It's similar to other demand by people who want to hold, I guess, except that the FBI doesn't need to pay for theirs at market rate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Absurd. No one demands that you give cash back if it turns out to have been used in a crime. Imagine if your employer was accused of a crime, or sold something to a criminal, etc.

<comment><USER16> I read your comment and thought, yes it would be absurd to apply this to cash and therefore it seems also absurd to apply it to bitcoin. However, there are people who would like bitcoin to fail, perhaps because they are part of the established financial system and so, it's possible that a court might rule that because an individual bitcoin amount can be traced back to a crime it should be confiscated.

The thing is, that potentially that causes problems for cash. As soon as technology is capable of tracking cash in the same way the same legal argument could be used. This is already relatively easy for electronic balances, but technology that tracks bank notes is quite easily imaginable.

I wonder what the case law for electronic cash balances is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Trustless mixing will make this nearly impossible for the Feds.

<comment><USER18> Unless they decide that all the money coming out of the mix is tainted.

<comment><USER9> Law enforcement in general only works effectively when a small portion of the population is a target for enforcement. If mixing exchanges represented a significant fraction of bitcoin activity, a "tainting" law would be practically unenforceable.

<comment><USER19> That assumes that "a significant fraction of bitcoin activity" is not also "a small portion of the population"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >The FBI already owns 5 to 10 percent of them, which are now out of circulation

The FBI has seized around half a billion dollars worth of bitcoin, and they've just "taken it out of circulation"? I realize that half a billion isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but still, this hardly seems like ideal management of seized assets.

<comment><USER18> That BTC is going to be auctioned; it's only out of circulation temporarily.</comment></comment>


PhpSysInfo - <AUTHOR> http://phpsysinfo.sourceforge.net/ <comment><USER2> This is a pretty common piece of software. Any specific reason you posted it?</comment>


Casync – A tool for distributing file system images - <AUTHOR> http://0pointer.net/blog/casync-a-tool-for-distributing-file-system-images.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure I buy the embedded/IoT use case; OSTree is a really good model there and is more featureful. The "well, if your filesystem image delta happens to be in the form of a lot of very small files it's not so great for CDNs" doesn't strike me as a terribly good reason to give up everything OSTree gives you (especially with stuff like the meta-updater [1] Yocto integration).

[1] [https://github.com/advancedtelematic/meta- updater](https://github.com/advancedtelematic/meta-updater)

(Full disclosure: I work for Advanced Telematic, the creators and maintainers of the meta-updater Yocto layer.)

<comment><USER3> Well, I am pretty sure IoT devices should be designed with security in mind, and that means that they need to be protected against offline modification. And that's something OSTree can't really deliver, but dm-crypt can. And casync works pretty well for delivering dm-crypt enabled disk images.

I think OSTree is great — but for embedded devices that are installed in the wild, humm, uh, I don't think so? I am pretty sure there are better options than that.

<comment><USER4> Please elaborate on 'need to be protected against offline modification'?

<comment><USER3> Think of cell towers or wind power turbines: they both are primary hacking targets in today's world, and they are placed in the wild, in uncontrolled and unprotected locations. This means more or less anybody can just walk by, temporarily cut the power source, take the harddisk out, plug it into their hacking laptop, install an OS trojan on it, place it back into the original device and restore the power. From the PoV of the cell company or the power company this was just a short power cut, and nothing changed. I reality the system was just hacked. And in order to protect yourself against that OSTree can't help you, because disk accesses aren't validated. The only validation takes place during downloading. dm-verity OTOH will protect every single access, and if deployed properly then such "offline" modifications to the OS will result in the device not booting anymore, which is much preferable over accepting that the device was hacked with no scheme to detect it.

And it's not just cell towers or wind power turbines: pretty much any device which is around people not unconditionally trusted needs to be protected against such offline modifications. In fact, if people today build cars, TVs, surveillance cameras or anything else like that and do not deploy dm-verity in some form to make sure the devices cannot be modified offline without noticing are just participating in turning IoT into Internet of Shit.

<comment><USER4> But physical access == game over? Whatever software layer you add imho.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply dunk the whole device in some epoxy preventing access to the hardware with some anti-tamper deadman switch?

<comment><USER3> trusted boot and TPMs with remote attestation exist precisely to ensure that physical access does not mean game over. It's all there, people just need to make use of it in their systems. And yes, trusted boot and TPM has issues, but without all this the attack surface is massive, and I think needlessly so.

<comment><USER4> (trusted boot and TPM are afaik already compromised albeit you need to bring a near rocket scientist)

I will always think physical access is game over whatever 'rocket science' or re-invented old principles people come up with software wise and i'm not sure, but hardware probably too but software is easier to mangle.

And indeed yes, security is layers, layers that make it more difficult, and having many options for layers to choose from that is great.

Also didn't hear about OStree before really, reading up on both for some future project.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you read the internals description it could just as well be about Borg, very similar principles here, though the application is very different.

By the way, both buzhash and SHA-256 are kinda poor choices for a new system, especially one that targets servers.

<comment><USER6> Yap borg is the first thing I thought of. It already does a lot of this an more: encryption, configurable encoding, a rolling hash computed by the Buzhash algorithm and so on.

Maybe it wasn't geared for CDN delivery during restores but otherwise I've been impressed by borg so far (haven't deployed it in production, only played with it locally though).

[https://github.com/borgbackup/borg](https://github.com/borgbackup/borg)

This is a description of the internal design:

[http://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/internals.html](http://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/stable/internals.html)

<comment><USER5> The "latest" version of that page has seen significant additions: [http://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/latest/internals.html](http://borgbackup.readthedocs.io/en/latest/internals.html)

<comment><USER6> Thanks. That is a better reference indeed. It's got nice diagrams as well. Can't edit my post any longer, so hopefully others will just see your message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Great. The chunked model (inspired by Borgbackup/Tarsnap) seems preferable to Docker layering, and diff-based approaches.

As far as I can tell, the advantages compared to Borgbackup seem to be:

* casync offers control over which FS metadata is included

* casync, the server, exposes chunks over HTTP

* casync, the library, is written in C so is more easily used by systems software.

I'm betting we'll see machinectl integration. Excellent!

<comment><USER7> Oops. Just realised my comment contains a mistake.

casync does not act as a server. Its on-disk representation and client behaviour is designed in such a way that the server need only serve static files. This makes deployment easy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> All these great Unix based tools make me wish I did not have to work on Windows Servers all day.

</comment><comment><USER9> What is the difference between Casync & rclone ([https://rclone.org](https://rclone.org))?

<comment><USER10> rclone is a nice cloud cloning solution for files and folders. casync is intended to clone and delta entire filesystems, in a way that makes them nicely deployable. rclone is very cloud focused while casync says nothing of the details of how images are served.

casync also has fs composition, a multitude of recorded file attributes, automatic reflinking/hardlinking, uid/gid shifting, and so much more.

tl;dr: rclone is for files, casync is for entire filesystems/deployments.

<comment><USER9> Thanks for explaining

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think this is a very useful tool if working with arbitrary file changes on block devices, but it's still very low level and would need a crapton of modification/wrapping to make it useful in a complex system. I would rather use Kickstart or the like to distribute changes intelligently, or barring that, rsyncing hardlinked directory trees, or zsync (but RPM/Yum would really be ideal due to the features gained)

</comment><comment><USER12> I'd be really interested in creating full disk images and then cloning to another disk. If that is a use case (I think I skimmed the post correctly) it could be very useful and performant over dd and similar disk cloning tools.

</comment><comment><USER13> It sounds like a sort of half done distributed filesystem, a lot of similarities.

</comment><comment><USER14> This sounds like a centralized BitTorrent.</comment>


Hipmob launches messaging libraries for Python, NodeJS and PHP - <AUTHOR> http://www.hipmob.com/api.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Ayo from Hipmob here - Ruby, Java and C# coming soon; if there are other libraries you'd like to see supported, tell us!

<comment><USER3> I'd like to see more documentation, not more libraries. What does this do? What problem does it solve? I can't tell.

Is this for sending SMS messages to.. website visitors...? Somehow? I'm confused.

Can we see a demo video of the "mobile chat" in action? That could go a long way to clearing this up.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey there - happy to help. Not entirely sure what you're asking as it's all linked from the page, but Hipmob is an SDK for adding live chat or instant messaging to your iPhone/Android app. Here's a quick rundown on some of the things you can do (have already posted some of these before so sorry for dupes):

More documentation on the REST API (which is basically for automating messaging to users directly from your backend - without human intervention): <http://www.hipmob.com/documentation/api.html>

Add live chat to Android apps (for user support): <http://www.hipmob.com/documentation/android.html> Add live chat to iPhone & iPad apps (for user support): <http://www.hipmob.com/documentation/ios.html>

Adding instant messaging between users (think peer to peer chat but with a server component): <http://www.hipmob.com/documentation/peer-to-peer.html>

Hope this helps. I'm firstname.lastname@example.com if you want to ping me directly, or you can ring at 650 762 6513

EDIT: Didnt see your comment about a demo video. Working on one - <USER2> shortly.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Should I keep building my current business or seek new ideas? - <AUTHOR> Some background info about me.  I'm 22 years old, college dropout, based in Toronto.  Over the past 2 years I built a solid Internet business.
I will call my current business "B".
B is currently making $500k / year profit.  If I keep building it full time, it will make several millions a year.  However, B is not a very impactful business, nor will it ever scale into a billion dollar company.  It's a great lifestyle business, not much more.
As I built B, my ambitions broadened.  When I think of what I really want to do with my life, I realized my dream is to build the next great company (e.g. Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google).  I also realized I don't even care if I succeed or not - as long as I am chasing the dream, I believe my life will be fulfilled.
As a result, I stopped working full time on B in April 2019, I explored a bunch of new projects, ranging from other Internet projects, a video game, to a chair (yes, designing a chair).
I got deep into some of these ideas.  The video game for example, I spent 4 months full time on it (Nov 2019 - April 2020).  For awhile, I thought I was going to fully commit to building video games for many years to come.  Then eventually the idea fizzled out after I thought more about it.  I realized a video game company wasn't the right path to my ultimate goal, so as of now, it's been a month since I touched the game and pretty much abandoned the project.
I'm currently in "The Search" phase once again.  And it feels really bad.  Life feels directionless when there is no vision.  I wake up each morning feeling lethargic, instead of energetic and excited to work on a project.
I'm scared of getting trapped into a cycle of working on new projects that go nowhere.
My question boils down to this - Should I keep building B full time and hope to indirectly discover a new idea along the way, or should I directly focus on exploring new fields, new opportunities and new ideas?
tl;dr Got a solid business going but I dream of building a much greater business.  Not sure if I should spend my time focusing on current business or looking for new ideas. <comment><USER2> Don't abandon cash cow. Keep operating if you can. Diversify into other investments that will allow you to continue exploring new ideas. What did Edison say - I dint fail I only discovered 1000 ways that don't work. Something like that but you get the point</comment>


How Kodak was bankrupted by one of its own innovations - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/failure-inc/3e1d3fc4a3e

<comment><USER2> "Even if this latest "pivot" is successful — and a lot of people think it's a stretch — the company would be reduced to helping other people make the boxes used to ship the devices that will take the photographs of the future."

Marginalization epitomized.</comment>


Typography Spacing Research - <AUTHOR> http://aldusleaf.org/rhea.php <comment><USER2> The tl;dr of this article is that the author summarizes some really interesting leads on automated letter spacing, but so far hasn't come up with a winner. There are a number of loose ends in there that might be interesting for others to pick up and run with since he's made much of his code available.

Most promising to me is the concept of bubble kerning, which not only appears to work in the limited testing the author does here, but also meshes with my intuition about how to space letters.

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, what a beautiful site, and beautiful typeface (reminds me a great deal of Minion, which was chosen to set _The Elements of Typographic Style_ ).

And an absolutely fascinating investigation. It's almost like the famous quote of not being able to define something (pornography), but knowing it when you see it. [1]

Typography, with its rhythms, is almost the purest example of this. It's so easy for a good designer to kern, set linespacing, etc. until it "looks right" to your eye. But I wouldn't even know where to begin to try to translate this into an algorithm -- because it's not just about spacing between letters, but having that spacing be harmonious as well with the structures within letters (like the horizontal rhythm of an "m").

I personally suspect it's something close to trying to equalize the "area" between adjacent letterforms, but the problem is that depending on angles, case, etc. that "area" is a "blob" we feel, not an easy calculation. I wouldn't be suprised if the best approximation involves some kind of fuzzy- bitmap blobs, rather than any hard of hard exact calculations.

I look forward to reading more research results!

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_know_it_when_I_see_it>

<comment><USER4> The "famous quote" is about obscenity, not pornography.

<comment><USER5> _The most famous opinion from Jacobellis, however, was Justice Potter Stewart's concurrence, holding that the Constitution protected all obscenity except "hard-core pornography." Stewart wrote, "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."_

<comment><USER4> Pasting a wikipedia article does not end an argument.

Have you read Jacobellis? When you do, please respond using your own words. In case you do not have WestLaw open in front of you:

[https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/378/378.US.184.11....](https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/US/378/378.US.184.11.html)

<comment><USER5> And here I thought my appeal to the anonymous, crowd-sourced authority of Wikipedia would totally work.

Thanks for the link. I've read it, and all I can say is that, in my highly unqualified opinion, the two things seem to be treated with enough overlap that we'd be, at best, quibbling, at least relative to how much I care about the distinction, if nothing else. That said, for someone with extensive formal training in the subject, I can also see how the distinction would make all the difference. The devil being in the details, and all.

So my response, then, is this:

You originally took issue with it being about obscenity, and not hard-core pornography (which seems to be the more common view, correct or not). Stating that it's about obscenity, not pornography, does not end an argument. And, when you cite the decision, please offer your own words supporting your own interpretation.

You started out with an unreasoned, unsupported correction to his comment. I accept that you're trying to support it by citing Jacobellis, which may be sufficient in a room full of lawyers, but I don't think it is here.

I'm completely open to being convinced on this, but you're probably going to have to do some actual convincing for that to happen.

And while you're at it, if you think Wikipedia's wrong and can so demonstrate, please go correct it, and add your reasoning to the Talk page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Am I the only one where the typeface on the site bugs? Or perhaps it's supposed to look like this, but it's really hard to read. Windows 7 with Chrome, no uncommon setup.

Is's really ironic how most typography blogs have this problem. Same problem occurs on Linux too by the way, which I run on my desktop (this is a laptop). No localized issue.

<comment><USER7> I also find it hard to read (on Firefox in Linux). For example in "snugly should" in the first paragraph the space between "s" and "n"/"h" seems way too big. In general, the spacing varies wildly and the text looks very uneven. Not sure what causes this and if it's supposed to look like this though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> His _Crimson Text_ font is very attraactive:

<http://aldusleaf.org/crimson.php#download>

<comment><USER8> Google WebFonts serves his font here: <http://www.google.com/webfonts/specimen/Crimson+Text>

I've been using it on my blog for a while.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Considering that humans are the judge of what constitutes as a well spaced font, one should look at the workings of the human brain. It turnes out we already know the algorithm employed by the visual cortex for edge detection, the _Gabor filter_ <http://authors.library.caltech.edu/2653/1/MALjosaa90.pdf>

Also Wikipedia has a fantastic overview for the Gabor filter: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gabor_filter>

Of the approaches mentioned in the original article, "wavelet" masks, are the ones closest to the calculation done in the V1. A quick search on <http://scholar.google.com> for "Gabor space visual cortex" uncovers that much research was dedicated to this topic.

</comment><comment><USER10> Interesting. I haven't attended TypeCon in a couple of years but last time I went algorithmic kerning was a fairly hot topic amongst event-goers and some of the people giving talks. Machine kerning is still sort of looked down upon as far as I can tell (in the design world) but as a practical tool it's great that people are working on it and it has certainly improved many times over.

It looks like a great article and I'm looking forward to going over it fully to see if there's anything really new but overall it looks quite clear and covers at least a few things that I've tried (maybe less than successfully) to describe to others.

</comment><comment><USER11> Wow, this is pretty intense. I'm a designer, but even for me it's almost too dense. Would be really if there was a cheat sheet with the main takeaways.

</comment><comment><USER12> A fantastic deep-dive. If you want to know just how deep you can take the craft of presenting beautiful type, this is a great example.

</comment><comment><USER13> This was really interesting! It's great to see someone taking a quantitative approach to design. Art schools would never teach an algorithmic approach to kerning, but for the programmers/artists who are smart enough to learn it, a breakthrough permitting effective use of this approach would be invaluable.

</comment><comment><USER14> Sidebar renders poorly on my nexus 7.

<http://www.imgur.com/1z5Vv.png>

The math was quite interesting though.

<comment><USER15> Fixed positioning + allowing zoom is not a good idea.

</comment></comment><comment> mh- Misspelled _letters_ within the first twenty words of an otherwise-excellent article about letterfitting. :)

</comment><comment><USER16> Am I the only that thinks "Wow people actually give a shit about this?". It seems comical how much people are willing tolerate this typographical circle jerk disguised as "designing".

I for one, cannot take this guy seriously when the title of his post isn't even antialiased (funnily enough with no kerning present). Or when he commits binary and swapfiles into his git repository.

<comment><USER4> _"Am I the only that thinks "Wow people actually give a shit about this?". It seems comical how much people are willing tolerate this typographical circle jerk disguised as "designing"."_

A lot of people care about the finer points of typography. If you really want to see some "circle jerking disguised as designing" take a look at a book by this nutjob named Donald Knuth:

Digital Typography by Donald E. Knuth (Stanford, California: Center for the Study of Language and Information, 1999)

 _"Or when he commits binary and swapfiles into his git repository."_

Committing binary files is such an atrocious act. I for one am glad that github does not condone such immoral acts by showing the difference between images.</comment></comment>


High-efficiency concentrating solar cells move to the rooftop - <AUTHOR> http://www.kurzweilai.net/high-efficiency-concentrating-solar-cells-move-to-the-rooftop

<comment><USER2> I guess the idea here is that although there are still cosine losses because the panel as a whole doesn't rotate, it can be comparatively cheap and efficient because the total solar cell area is much smaller than that of a standard non-concentrator panel, and so high-efficiency gallium arsenide cells can be used.</comment>


Inside Nintendo 64 (1997) - <AUTHOR> http://n64.icequake.net/mirror/www.white-tower.demon.co.uk/n64/ <comment><USER2> The N64 development manual and SDK leaked a few years ago. Here's the documentation for the curious: [http://level42.ca/projects/ultra64/Documentation/man/](http://level42.ca/projects/ultra64/Documentation/man/)

<comment><USER3> I wonder what the legality of using the manuals in homebrew and emulator development is.

<comment><USER4> In the US, it's almost certainly illegal. (though admittedly very unlikely to be prosecuted)

All materials used for RE must have been obtained legitimately, and as far as I'm aware any legit way to obtain this sort of manual for console development involves/involved signing an NDA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Even the mirror of the mirror doesn't load for me. Here is a Google-cached copy:

[http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_aGYRQK...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:_aGYRQKt5AIJ:n64.icequake.net/mirror/www.white- tower.demon.co.uk/n64/)

<comment><USER6> Cached wasn't working for me, here is a snapshot from the wayback machine:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20140117054854/http://n64.icequa...](https://web.archive.org/web/20140117054854/http://n64.icequake.net/mirror/www.white- tower.demon.co.uk/n64/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> A video tear down with a knowledgeable electrical engineer: EEVblog #491 - Nintendo 64 Game Console Teardown

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScicrgZwvg4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScicrgZwvg4)

<comment><USER8> This guy's channel is absolutely full of amazing gems. All kinds of retrocomputers with some pretty great commentary on the design of the hardware.

<comment><USER7> [https://www.youtube.com/user/bkraz333?feature=em- subs_digest](https://www.youtube.com/user/bkraz333?feature=em-subs_digest)

is another very very good channel

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > Designed for 1024x768 resolution and Netscape Navigator 4

Wow, we come so far in so many ways, but screen resolution is not one of them.

<comment><USER10> Nah, we _have_ come a long way in screen resolution. The pixel count goes up by four when you double the resolution, and graphics hardware doesn't improve _that_ fast.

It wasn't too long ago that 320x240 was a pretty normal resolution. At 1080p, we have quintupled the number of pixels more than twice- from 76,800 to 2,073,600

<comment><USER11> No, you're just old. 320x240 was normal, on cellphones, a damn long time ago.

Desktops (and game consoles) really haven't kept the pace with everything else.

<comment><USER12> You guys who complain that it's taking too long to evolve don't seem to realize you need to build new facilities every time you want to increase the density of pixels. New factories take years to develop and years to get proper ROI as well. There's not much incentive to build super high resolution LCDs, it will cost much more to make, end up with massive reject rates, and nobody will want to buy them at much higher prices anyway.

On top of that, I'd add that even if the resolution has not improved THAT much over the past 5 years, we have made massive progress into having better looking pictures out of LCDs and OLEDs - with much better contrast and refresh rates. Ghosting is pretty much a thing of the past, and narrow angles of vision as well (still not perfect but much better than 5-10 years ago).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Love this.</comment>


Over 40% of cancers due to lifestyle, says review - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-16031149 Nearly half of cancers diagnosed in the UK each year - over 130,000 in total - are caused by avoidable life choices including smoking, drinking and eating the wrong things, a review reveals. <comment><USER3> I have a lifestyle cancer: melanoma.

That said, I didn't realize "going outside with short hair and no hat" was a bad lifestyle choice until it was too late, so I'm posting here:

Hey fair skinned folks! Just wearing sunscreen _IS NOT ENOUGH_. Wear a hat if you're going to spend more than a short time outside! If you have a family history of skin cancer, ask your barber to keep an eye out for moles when you're getting your hair cut.

<comment><USER4> Using sunscreen reduces the body's production of vitamin D, a potent anti- cancer agent:

<http://greathealinggetaways.com/Sunscreenarticle.html>

Sunscreens often contain carcinogens:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_health_risks_of_sunsc...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Potential_health_risks_of_sunscreen)

Consequently staying indoors and using sunscreen may _increase_ your likelihood of developing cancer.

Children who avoid sunshine will get rickets, a disease that was once almost absent from the US population:

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8128781/Middle-...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8128781/Middle- class-children-suffering-rickets.html)

Nonetheless, the fair-skinned must balance their exposure carefully. Good news is that their skin produces vitamin D more efficiently than darker skin, so the fair-skinned can obtain vitamin D in a shorter exposure period (minutes a day):

[http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2009-04-19-your-...](http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/painter/2009-04-19-your- health_N.htm)

<comment><USER5> Vitamin D deficiency is extremely common in the US. If you are going to take a single supplement, make it 1000 UI/day of D.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypovitaminosis_D#Cancer>

That said, if you are going to spend time outside, the benefits of wearing sunscreen and a hat undoubtedly outweigh whatever risk they may induce.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Dr Rachel Thompson, of the World Cancer Research Fund, said the report added to the 'now overwhelmingly strong evidence that our cancer risk is affected by our lifestyles.'

"Dr Harpal Kumar, chief executive of Cancer Research UK, said leading a healthy lifestyle did not guarantee a person would not get cancer but the study showed 'we can significantly stack the odds in our favour.'"

Many of these lines of evidence where developed originally by looking at environmental differences among different countries, as well as time series in cancer rates as lifestyles changed in countries over time, and comparisons of immigrants of varying ages of arrival (who adopt the lifestyles of new countries either as children or as adults) with relatives who stay in the old country. Then the best-understood models of cancer risk factors are further investigated through controlled experimentation on laboratory animals or on cell lines in vitro. Today it's plain enough that avoiding smoking, eating a varied, balanced diet, and maintaining normal weight through a combination of exercise and moderate eating offers substantial reduction of risk in all-cause mortality, including but not limited to death from cancer.

After edit: the second reply here asked how a diet higher rather than lower in fruits and vegetables can protect from cancers other than colon cancer. According to what I've read about the research, it's thought that some tendencies of healthy body cells to go into uncontrolled growth (cancer) are made worse by lack of micronutrients, which may be lacking in the diets of people who don't eat varied diets. It's also thought that the evolutionary arms race between plants (which tend to evolve tough husks but also phytotoxins as protections against being eaten) and animals (which have to eat some food source ultimately derived from autotrophic organisms, that is mostly plants) results in complex animals being selected for incidental adaptation of phytotoxins to kill off errant cell lines. What's poison in a large does can sometimes be medicine in the therapeutic dose and in the right time and place. All human beings eventually die of something, but the epidemiological evidence (and some laboratory evidence) shows that plant intake reduces chances of dying young of cancer, and these mechanisms are some of those suggested as reasons for that observation.

<comment><USER7> >After edit: the second reply here asked how a diet higher rather than lower in fruits and vegetables can protect from cancers other than colon cancer. According to what I've read about the research, it's thought that some tendencies of healthy body cells to go into uncontrolled growth (cancer) are made worse by lack of micronutrients, which may be lacking in the diets of people who don't eat varied diets. It's also thought that the evolutionary arms race between plants

antioxidant is keyword here:

[http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/anti...](http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/prevention/antioxidants)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The top comment is from a healthy smoker of 65. People always love to discuss how they or someone they know has smoked their entire life and never had a problem. I know lots of smokers who still aren't convinced of the health issues. Seems like there's still a long way to go.

<comment><USER9> It depends on the person,

I got a nan, 96, walks to town 3 times a week, still rides her bike, been smoking 60 a day for 40 years, and recently cut back to 40. If i compare her to my other nan 86 frail and pretty much falling apart, now guess which one has had the better lifestyle? the second, very well off always comfortable.

At 96 i think she gets up to keep smoking, and if that keeps her alive then keep doing it.

<comment><USER10> This is like saying the dangerousness of Russian roulette "depends on the person," because you have a grandmother who's played a bunch of times and didn't die.

<comment><USER11> That's probably not correct. The grandmother playing Russian Roulette is truly the beneficiary of random chance. She's still susceptible to bullets.

The centenarian smoker likely was never susceptible to smoking-induced lung cancer in the first place.

<comment><USER12> The hammer is cocked when your embryo is conceived, and you can find out if the chamber was empty a few decades later.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This was on BBC news the other day.

Apparently eating well, drinking in moderation, not smoking and regular exercise reduce the risk of cancer.

When interviewed, man hiding under rock expressed surprise and gratitude for the update.

<comment><USER14> _eating well_

I'm not sure "eating well" has the same meaning for everybody. :) Perhaps we should say "eating safely" or something.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Related to this topic I think you might find Dr. Terry Wahls' story fascinating, she pretty much 'cured' herself from Multiple Sclerosis by adopting a 'paleo' diet. She presented her findings at the 2011 Neuroscience conference ("Effects of intensive directed nutrition, progressive exercise program and neuromuscular electrical stimulation on secondary progressive multiple sclerosis (PDF)[1]") She also had a TED talk[2] taking us through the process of getting out of her wheelchair and the specific food she ate.

I know this immediately turns on your B.S. sensors, but she changed her lifestyle after spending hours on Pubmed doing research on nutrition's impact on the brain and specifically the mitochondria. I highly recommend the talk, it is both very informative and very moving. And there are some saddening statistics about the lack of vitamins and minerals in the American population.

[1] <http://www.sfn.org/am2011/pdf/prelim/SUN_Poster_PM_v2.pdf> [2] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLjgBLwH3Wc&feature=player_embedded)

<comment><USER16> As a Paleo eater, I'm happy to see this in the research.

(also replying as a form of bookmark)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So if these 40% of cancers were eliminated, what's the chances that the survivors would have ended up with one of the remaining 60%?

You have to die of something. What's important is years of high-quality life, rather than merely avoiding death from any specific ailment. And of course, quality is ultimately a subjective measure. All the behaviours that you must conform to, to avoid these specific deaths, may themselves detract from your quality of life.

<comment><USER18> Eating healthy and exercising improves the quality of your life right now, as well as in the future. As does cutting back on alcohol, and smoking.

<comment><USER17> Almost all food advertised or described as "healthy", I've found to be neutral at best, to actively unpleasant. High fibre, lots of vegetables, fruit, etc.; I actively dislike almost all of it. My favourite foods are lamb, butter, cheese and freshly baked goods, to the point that my morning ritual, before breakfast, involves a (scooter) trip to a bakery.

Similarly, I've never enjoyed exercise. I used to cycle to and from school every day, about 6 miles, fairly high intensity (due to my laziness, I'd start late). My aerobic capacity was certainly higher then; I could run for perhaps 30 minutes, where I'd hazard a guess that I'd be out of breath after 10 minutes now. I'm not overweight, have no difficulty walking, jumping, running, climbing hills etc. when I get the occasion to on vacation and such. But the thought of actively exercising fills me with weariness. Not enjoyable.

What I'm getting at is that I have a lifestyle that I _massively_ enjoy, and it took a lot of experimentation and experience to discover the things I like best. Whether it is specifically healthy or not is secondary, by a long way, to how enjoyable it is.

<comment><USER19> A still useful definition of eating healthy is to eat approximately the correct amount of calories.

Obviously the what is also going to have impact, but it is easy to observe that the great majority of people are not walking around with severe nutritional deficiencies.

<comment><USER20> Debatable. They clearly have enough _calories_ , but you need more than just that to live and be healthy. I would strongly argue that omega-3's and vitamin D3 are essential nutrients that a substantial portion of the population are deficient in.

<comment><USER19> I said severe because there are clear complications for severe deficiencies (rickets, scurvy, etc.). The science surrounding correct levels and consequences of not quite correct levels of such nutrients is much less settled.

So among the group of people that are not basically falling apart from a nutrient deficit, the ones that eat about the right amount of calories tend to be (quite a lot!) healthier than the ones that eat far more or far less calories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> In more depressing news: 60% of cancers may not be due to lifestyle. The correct phrase would probably be "known lifestyle choices". But seriously, shouldn't people be surprised lifestyle only accounts for 40%. What if I rewrote the entry paragraph in the following way:

Nearly half of low intelligence diagnosed in the UK each year - over 130,000 in total - are caused by avoidable life choices including not reading, debating, or thinking about interesting problems.

<comment><USER16> How many of the remaining cancers are colon or insulin resistance related?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I look around at my colleagues and see apparent misuse of the body. Carbs and fat for lunch every day, smoking, no exercise, sitting in a chair all day long, buckets of coffee, stress, poor posture and body alignment, doing the same shit every day, poor outlook on life, no sunshine on you during half of the year, etc. Of course this is going to wreck a person.

Yet no one seems to even be conscious of the wrongness of this.

<comment><USER23> Where is the evidence that dietary fat and coffee increase cancer risk?

<comment><USER22> It was just a remark on poor health in general.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> OTOH, discounting tobacco, most cases of cancer (78%) are unrelated to lifestyle choices. I also have problems coming to terms with the idea that occupational hazards are lifestyle choices.

</comment><comment><USER25> Can someone explain how lack of fruit and vegetables leads to cancer?

I can understand it leading to colon cancer, but does it also lead to other kinds of cancer?

AFAIK even if you never eat fruits/vegetables you aren't lacking any micronutrients?

<comment><USER26> Fruits and vegetables contain antioxidants.

<comment><USER27> Antioxidants may not do anything to prevent cancer.

([http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/10/02/antioxida...](http://scienceblog.cancerresearchuk.org/2009/10/02/antioxidants- and-cancer-%E2%80%93-the-plot-thickens/))

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> From the headline I expected this article to be about over working and exhaustion, a topic I'm sure many here can relate to in some way. In the authorised biography of Steve Jobs, he comments on how he believes the exhaustive hours worked in 1997 when driving back and forth between Apple and Pixar were the cause for his cancer. In a similar vein, there seems to be a higher ratio of cancer sufferers in high pressured environments like financial trading. As a developer wanting to achieve amazing things, working what others consider crazy hours, the worry does occasionally cross my mind. I love what I do, but I do wonder how much harm can be caused by over working, regardless of the fact that there's nothing else I'd rather do with my time.

<comment><USER29> _"Steve Jobs […] comments on how he believes the"_

Steve was lots of things, but I think few would say he was an expert in medicine. For another data point with more or less the same weight: If I had to guess, I would blame his stay in India, in particular the hepatitis he reportedly got there. I know that is an unverifiable statement, and am willing to change position once a fact presents itself, though.

 _"there seems to be a higher ratio of cancer sufferers in high pressured environments like financial trading"_

Believes aren' worth anything here. Show me the numbers. For what it is worth (zero), I would guess on lower incidence, due to higher risks of heart attacks and of accidents with fast cars, all others being equal.

Summary: nothing to worry about, there, except for your own worries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Thank god coffee wasn't on the list.

<comment><USER31> Most of the research on coffee that I've seen is mixed-to-modestly positive for moderate amounts (1-2 cups day). Essentially: if you're having a few cups, have no problems with it, and enjoy it, no need to stop. Some people do experience sleep and stress problems.

I've found that relying on tea through the course of the day (after a morning mug of espresso) keeps my energy levels more even. Dittos knocking off the carbs -- much more even energy levels, and no post-lunch slump.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Does anyone know why there's a little thumbnail of "reproduction" there?

My understanding is that in women, a lack of reproduction causes cancer. Basically, each period you have adds to your risk of breast cancer. Did the BBC just get it wrong or is there something I'm missing?

</comment><comment><USER33> Right, I'm off to find some fruits and vegetables! Or do I get enough antioxidants as a tea-drinker? I'm conflicted because I know I don't get enough fruit in my diet, but the recommended daily amount of fruit seems difficult to get in the winter.

<comment><USER34> I eat fruits with every meal. Not a ton of them, just making sure I get some nice tasty "vegetable candy" every time I eat food.

Also focus on getting enough fiber. Auto-magically this will ensure you get a lot of veggies, minerals, vitamins, and so on - as long as you don't rely on artificial means such as fiber supplements. Lettuce, cucumbers, cabbage, tomatoes, stuff like that - all those are good.

I do eat meat, eggs, dairy and so on, I'm not a vegetarian by any means. I just try to avoid eating too much red meat, or stuff heavy on cholesterol and saturated fat. I emphasize fish, turkey, chicken, lean meat, etc. Once in a while I will enjoy a good steak - it's not like you'll drop dead from eating it, and cholesterol is actually used by your body to make hormones and so on.

As a remnant from my weight lifting days, I try to eat some protein with every meal, and I try to avoid carbs-only meals. I think the low fat diets are ridiculous; controlling the calories overall, and the carbs in particular, and exercising, are far more important.

I reduced very drastically starchy foods. Bread, rice, potatoes - gone or greatly diminished. Eat a salad instead (for dressing, use oil and vinegar, not the sugary junk that most people use). Popcorn and potato chips are blacklisted in my household. Ice cream - I'll eat some once in a while when the kids are craving it. No candy. No soda.

I do eat a small amount of chocolate, Nutella, or drink some hot chocolate, almost every day in fact, in the evening; cocoa has antioxidants too, and the sweet taste gives you a serotonin boost when you're tired. This is the "vice" that I indulge in. :)

My preferred drink is green tea. Black is fine too. I drink lots.

I take one fish oil capsule in the evening, unless I had fish for lunch or dinner, in which case I skip it. I take one resveratrol capsule in the morning, one in the evening; there is some controversy re: this substance, but overall it still looks good; if the science changes, I'll change my habits accordingly.

I don't always drink alcohol, but when I do (sorry for the rage comics pun) I drink red wine. Mostly on social occasions.

I do strength exercises ("weight lifting") twice a week, maybe half an hour; often this is just going out to a park and doing pull-ups on a tree branch or something, then a few sets of clapping push-ups on soft ground, then one-leg squats holding on to a tree, stuff like that; the gym is nice, but it's optional. I ride the bicycle a few hours every week-end; I've a nice road bike that takes me far over the hills, towards the ocean, or wherever I wanna go. I walk every day about an hour - often I'll eat my lunch walking instead of sitting in a restaurant. When I take a break from work, I go out and walk; it's very relaxing and mind-expanding; a lot of innovative, out of the box ideas come to you when you're outdoors daydreaming.

At 182cm (6') tall, I weighed 61kg (135lb) a decade ago and I was a couch potato geek with awful eating habits. Then I started working out, changed lots of things. After a while I weighed 85kg (187lb), no fat, and I was bench pressing 100kg (220lb). Nowadays I scaled back lifting a lot, I eat less calories, I weigh somewhat less, maybe 78kg (172lb) - I don't know for sure and I don't care. The bathroom scale is full of bullsXXt, the mirror will tell you the truth. I feel I'm in great shape, and I was told I do look very much "in shape".

Sounds like a lot, but all this stuff was just a gentle, slow, very gradual change in habits over a long period of time, years really. I never forced the issues. If you take a vow and fail, so what? Tomorrow is another day. You turn around and try again. This is not a sprint, it's a decades-long marathon. Once the habits are changed, it takes no effort to keep the regimen. Nowadays my diet is the way it is because I actually like it. E.g. I developed an intense dislike for popcorn (tastes like flavored cardboard) and fast food (it's way too salty and greasy). The body gets used to exercising and it gets restless if you don't work out.

Slow gradual gentle changes, never forcing the issues, drive the habits deep into the psyche. If you feel you can't keep this up for decades to come, you're trying too hard - so scale back a notch. That's it. Good luck.

<comment><USER35> tl;dr: I believe in taking care of myself, and a balanced diet and a rigorous exercise routine. In the morning, if my face is a little puffy, I'll put on an ice pack while doing my stomach crunches. I can do a thousand now. After I remove the ice pack I use a deep pore cleanser lotion. In the shower I use a water activated gel cleanser, then a honey almond body scrub, and on the face an exfoliating gel scrub. Then I apply an herb-mint facial masque which I leave on for 10 minutes while I prepare the rest of my routine. I always use an after shave lotion with little or no alcohol, because alcohol dries your face out and makes you look older. Then moisturizer, then an anti-aging eye balm followed by a final moisturizing protective lotion.

<comment><USER36> Perfect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> What about the other 60%?

I'd argue that for, a lot of people living in developed countries, things like exposure to poor air quality should be considered a lifestyle choice.

<comment><USER17> Such things aren't choices in any conventional sense of the word - they're package deals, and you don't get to renegotiate the package. You can live in London for the opportunities and culture, but you can't easily escape the crime and traffic pollution.

<comment><USER38> And it's illegal or impossible to leave London? You can't renegotiate the package, but you can always choose a different package.

<comment><USER35> Perhaps, but the health benefits may be outweighed by moving from a city with a large economy out to the country where you'll have to subsistence farm for a living.

<comment><USER38> You are confusing the UK with India and China.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't smoke nor drink alcohol (at all), but I can't remember the last time I had vegetables or fruit in large quantities either. Time to get some ;)

</comment><comment><USER40> Eating <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turmeric> powder will prevent cancer.

<comment><USER34> Lots of spices do that. Cinnamon is pretty good too. Ginger. Horseradish. Garlic. Goes on and on.

<comment><USER41> Go easy on the cassia cinnamon though - it contains coumarin, which is a known hepatotoxin. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin#Toxicity_and_use_in_fo...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coumarin#Toxicity_and_use_in_foods.2C_beverages.2C_tobacco.2C_and_cosmetics)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> The thing that I dislike about cancer reporting (and don't get me wrong I'm all for improving ones lifestyle through better nutrition, exercise and social engagement) is that cancer is fundamentally different from a disease like the flu. If 40% of all flu cases were caused my lifestyle then it would be reasonable to say that you could change your lifestyle and dramatically cut down on the number of flu cases. But cancer is a disease of old age. Basically all of us are going to die and the long you live the more likely it is that you'll die of cancer, if not of the esophagus, then of the stomach, if not of the stomach then brain cancer, or pancreas cancer. So a healthy life style on average will delay the onset of cancer, but will by no means reduce the like- hood that you'll get cancer in your lifetime by 40%. Actually it probably has the perverse effect of making you much more resistant to cardiovascular decease, and therefor MORE likely to die of cancer, albeit at a more advanced age than you would have otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER43> What I always wondered about eating healthy is, is it the unhealthy foods on their own that is the root cause, or the fact that unhealthy eaters don't eat wholesome foods?

For example, if I eat McDonalds, but then I also eat a bunch of fruits and veggies, would that mitigate the risk?

</comment><comment><USER44> I don't get one thing, which is by luck...Steve Jobs died of cancer...and he was vegetarian

<comment><USER45> That's not how statistics work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> there is trend in the 'key cause of cancer' down in the article, throat and colon cancer follow power distribution, while breat cancer kinda follows uniform dist

for breast cancer: the highest offender = obesity is 8.7%, only a multiple of two to the mean <4%

to me it only means that the cause of throat and colon cancer is relatively known (smoke and meat) while it's gray area for breast cancer

smoke -> throat kinda makes sense meat -> bowel? (turns out meat contains no fiber, and lack of fiber accounts for 12.2% so lumping meat and lack of fiber equal a whopping 33.3%) ... makes sense?

</comment><comment><USER47> Reproduction is a key cause of cancer? WTF is that?

<comment><USER48> The incidence of breast and uterine cancer is lower the more children you have.

I think the link is tentative, but pregnancy and breast feeding reduces your lifetime exposure to estrogen which can be a promoter of certain types of cancers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> i find it interesting that 'meat' is not written (thus not searchable) in the main article (it's down there in 'key causes of cancer' as icon)

FTA (scroll down): Colorectal / Bowel : meat 21.1%, obesity 13%, lack-of-fibre 12.2%

it's not surprising meat and lack-of-fibre are correlated (meat contains no fibre)

</comment><comment><USER49> While the study did consider fruits and veggies, it did not account for factory farmed meat and dairy consumption, genetically modified foods, animal protein intake, food dyes, cell towers, etc. In 20 years from now we might finally realize that genes alone play a very small role in development of cancer cells. Time will tell.

</comment><comment><USER50> i wonder where in the world the "occupational hazard" number is highest, and what the number looks like

</comment><comment><USER51> With socialized medicine, these people are stealing from the state. Britain should outlaw smoking, drinking, and eating fatty foods. Two servings of vegetables per day is now compulsory, enforceable by a fine of 20 shillings.

<comment><USER52> Or they should drop socialized medicine so that people can do whatever they want.

<comment><USER53> "people can do whatever they want"

People _can_ do whatever they want in the UK when it comes to healthcare - <USER2> can go to the NHS or go private if you want. Nobody _makes_ you go to an NHS hospital.

Of course, what you can't opt out of is the tax bill that pays for the NHS - but as the NHS is reasonably efficient I don't mind paying for it if it means that everyone in the country has access to decent health care.</comment></comment></comment>


VoCore2 Lite – A $4, coin-sized, open-source Linux computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/move-over-raspberry-pi-here-is-a-4-coin-sized-open-source-linux-computer/ <comment><USER2> VoCore team on their site[1] said that VoCore2 Lite is "very very close" to cost. I concur, as the heart of that VoCore2 board - MediaTek MT7688AN SoC chip costs between $2.79 and $3.35 (depending on the order quantity) on the Alibaba wholesale site[2].

Congrats to VoCore team to make low cost IoT DIY projects possible and affordable for students.

PS: If you weren't familiar with MediaTek, their SoC chip was the King of Shanzhai culture[3] during early iPhone era.

[1] [http://vonger.cn/](http://vonger.cn/)

[2] [https://wholesaler.alibaba.com/product-detail/New-and- origin...](https://wholesaler.alibaba.com/product-detail/New-and-original-IC- CHip-MT7688AN_60377763139.html)

[3] [http://www.core- corner.com/Web2/GsMaterialDB/HC_HBRC_9/2014-...](http://www.core- corner.com/Web2/GsMaterialDB/HC_HBRC_9/2014-10-08/98lr9wq2_20140725.PDF)

</comment><comment><USER3> This looks kind of neat, if perhaps not super-accessible.

The pinout diagram has the best named pin in a while, "P0RN" is a classic ([http://vonger.cn/?p=2666](http://vonger.cn/?p=2666)). :) Btw that page seems to lack a legend, I guess purple is Ethernet.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it's Ethernet. P0RN is the negative half of the receive pair for ethernet port 0.

<comment><USER5> Well yeah, it'd have to be the receive on the Ethernet, it is porn after all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is cool, but the $4 version isn't comparable with the Raspberry Pi.

The version with connectors and a case costs $39. The Raspberry Pi 3 with connectors and a case is sold for $35 at the first US retailer I found.

<comment><USER7> On the other hand, you don't always want all the connectors and you have to spend $30. Being able to spend only $4 for the bare minimum is a nice option to have.

<comment><USER8> Precisely, they can both co-exist and are welcome.

This narrative with click-bait titles of someone having to loose that one has to win is dumb and should die out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> "Both versions of the VoCore2 have a power consumption of 74mA at standby, and 230mA at full speed. "

It's great to know how much current it draws, but that doesn't tell me how much power it draws.

"How powerful is your new car?"

"Oh super powerful! It's got 3 inch diameter fuel lines!" ...

<comment><USER10> Current is much more useful in engineering, because it is more constant for this type of device than power. Power varies with supply voltage while current normally does not.

Other than doing temperature calculations, power is not a very useful metric. And for such calculations you would use a max power rather than average power metric.

If you were optimizing a system for "power" use, it is much easier to work in units of energy than power anyway.

<comment><USER11> > Current ... is more constant for this type of device than power. Power > varies with supply voltage while current normally does not.

Can you explain why?

<comment><USER12> The chip is designed to run at a certain minimum voltage, and does so at a certain current. Feeding more voltage does not change its general operation. It throws the excess away as heat and keeps drawing the same current.

You can attach an external circuit to convert to the desired voltage and therefore keep power draw constant. But that takes more space and costs more money.

Throwing away excess voltage as heat is simply easier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Increasingly, I tend to judge these systems from an availability of documentation for the core SoC. It means if there's a specific problem I can go digging into fix it myself, or that the open source community can dig into the support better in general and you have fewer issues/better support in the first place.

Esp with hobby development, I'd rather save time in having the system documented then $5-10 bucks on the hardware cost.

</comment><comment><USER14> Hey, it's the VoCore again. I've got one of the first ones... somewhere. It comes exactly as it looks in the photo and was unfortunately far too small for me to solder the headers on to.

</comment><comment><USER15> I bought one of these things for £5: [https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/unbranded/a5-v11](https://wiki.openwrt.org/toh/unbranded/a5-v11)

It has slightly inferior specs, but it has ethernet, USB, and 150M WiFi built in.

</comment><comment><USER16> These loud footsteps at a distance are from the ESP32 approaching.

(yeah, does not run the Linux kernel but it is going to be quite open this time)

<comment><USER17> I think those devices are wasted running a full OS stack for a single purpose, better have a nice baremetal runtime, unikernel style.

The problem being that for most use cases, for the price many of these boards cost, the majority will just go with the Linux option and install something like Yocto.

<comment><USER18> The main selling point of Linux is portability and by that code reuse across a wide array of use cases.

Sure you could build a hardware abstraction layer for different processors and implement drivers on top of that, but you won't get the same traction/networking effect of Linux anytime soon.

Same goes for software stacks (TCP/IP, USB, WiFi, file systems, etc) which have been running on billions of devices before if you use linux.

The overhead of using Linux is in the range of 1-2MiB [1] so once your application requires external Ram because it doesn't fit the on-chip SRAM, you might as well use Linux.

[1] [http://www.emcraft.com/stm32f429discovery/what-is-minimal- fo...](http://www.emcraft.com/stm32f429discovery/what-is-minimal-footprint)

<comment><USER17> Agree, hence why I mentioned that for the price those boards cost, going Linux might be what the majority will do.

On the other hand I look at chips like the ESP32, and given that my coding skills started on Z80 computers, 512 KB is more than enough and actually more fun to use.

Given the set of high level programming languages I was using in those days, there is plenty of juice to squeeze out of those types of MCUs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> $5 buys you Raspberry Pi Zero: 512MB RAM, 1GHz CPU, MicroSD slot, 40 I/O pins, mini-HDMI, microUSB.

<comment><USER20> just out of curiosity: where would I be able to get one? they seem to be perpetually out of stock (at the $5 price point).

<comment><USER21> Says in stock on Adafruit [https://www.adafruit.com/product/2885](https://www.adafruit.com/product/2885)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> How do you use it without storage? (can you use it without the connectors?)

If there was a mini-sd I could imagine: put some image on it that knows your wifi, ssh in to it. So if i manage to solder in power and plug in my spare antenna here it might work. Probably you can even just cut some wire of the right size and program it next to your router, my directional antenna is not much more (just some tin can for the directional part).

<comment><USER23> It has 8MB of NOR storage. Sure, you aren't putting Debian on there, but it'll take your wifi creds.

<comment><USER24> I think the intention is that you run something like DD-WRT on it. 8MB of storage is a bit tight even for DD-WRT however, if I was looking at these boards I would seriously consider splurging on the $12 model to avoid the low storage headaches.

If I were building a hundred or more devices I'd do the work to make the $4 version work, but for a one-off it's not worth the headache.

The PCIe option is surprising. I'm not sure what I would use it for, but it does open up some unusual possibilities.

<comment><USER25> > 8MB of storage is a bit tight even for DD-WRT however

8MB of NOR flash is totally standard for a vast majority of consumer routers.

OpenWrt/LEDE will happily fit on 8MB with around 4MB available as /overlay (e.g. for additional packages or data).

> The PCIe option is surprising. I'm not sure what I would use it for, but it > does open up some unusual possibilities.

You can use PCI-e for 5GHz WiFi (most common use for PCIe on this SoC line). You can also buy SATA controllers or Gigabit Ethernet in mini-PCIe form factor.

Most UMTS/LTE modems in mini-PCIe form factor are actually only utilizing the USB pins in a mini-PCIe slot, so you don't actually need PCIe for those.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can anyone recommend a device whihc has Wifi and supports MONITOR mode?

I can't find any information on this device, but essentially I'm looking for something which:

\- Supports WIFI to connect the device to a network

\- Supports WIFI promiscuous mode _ALSO_ so that I can listen to PROBE requests from devices in the area

\- Linux..

Seems like a really hard search?

<comment><USER27> Have you tried searching for the use-case instead and seeing what hardware other people use.

I've seen somewhere battery powered WiFi sniffing units, possibly on CCC.de or mentioned in a blackhat conference video.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> So specifically most comparable to a Raspberry Pi Zero? At least price-wise, but not peripheral-wise?

</comment><comment><USER29> Huh, looks like this is MIPS not ARM:

[http://www.datasheet4u.com/datasheet- pdf/MEDIATEK/MT7688AN/p...](http://www.datasheet4u.com/datasheet- pdf/MEDIATEK/MT7688AN/pdf.php?id=935554)

</comment><comment><USER30> Just "bought" one from the indiegogo campaign.

Does anyone know when will they be shipping? No hurry, just want to know when to shedule in my agenda to check whether it's shipping or not.

</comment><comment><USER31> I guess you're not able to run mainline kernel on it?

<comment><USER32> My experience with mediatek is that they are awful at publishing their linux kernel source code.

<comment><USER10> Generally, don't touch anything with mediatek or allwinner if you want it to work at the end of the day. Their driver support is very bad. Funny personal story, I turned down a contract almost four years ago that would have involved getting 3D running on an Allwinner based board. Four years later and CHIP is demoing an "Alpha" of 3D on Allwinner.

Meanwhile even hardware accelerated 3D and video decoding works on the Broadcom SoCs in the Pi, and has for years.

Mediatek and Allwinner are cheap, but useless.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Is there any on board ADC/DAC? Using this for data acquisition would be great.

</comment><comment><USER34> Does the PCIe support mean you could use NVMe ssds? Storage is the biggest problem with most single board computers as it usually goes over USB or uses unreliable SD cards.

<comment><USER35> Are there cheap NVMe cards? My only experience with NVMe is in the context of ~$250+ SSDs... which seems like an odd pairing with a $4 processor.

<comment><USER36> Even more so if you consider that the SSD likely has a more powerful processor than the VoCore.

<comment><USER37> And PCIe 1.1 is going to bottleneck the SSD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Apples and oranges.</comment>


Meet a man who has slept only 4.5 hours a day for 2 years - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/Meet-A-Man-Who-Has-Slept-Only-4-5-Hours-A-Day-For-2-Years/articleshow/26167463.cms

<comment><USER2> The link doesn't work for me. This one does:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/this-guy-has-only- slept-45-ho...](http://www.businessinsider.com/this-guy-has-only- slept-45-hours-per-day-for-two-years-2013-11)</comment>