An Archaeologist Challenges Mainstream Scientific Thinking (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/jacques-cinq-mars-bluefish-caves-scientific-progress-180962410/ <comment><USER2> I work at a site that claims to have evidence that would have similar implications. The burden of proof is indeed very high, and for good reason. You need to demonstrate that (a) the remains were the product of human activity, (b) the context was secure, (c) dates samples are representative of secure contexts, (d) samples are not contaminated and were processed effectively, (e) the dating of the site as a whole is internally consistent. Some material just doesn't lend itself to meeting that kind of criteria, that's just how things are sometimes.

What this article should focus on is the work of Lauriane Bourgeon, who went back to the material and tested it under revised methods that were specifically oriented to meet these criteria. Archaeological knowledge does not just result from one-man discoveries, but accretes over time as new ideas become pervasive and we develop new ways of recognizing archaeological phenomena.

All that stuff about monteverde and other similarly controversial work is just red herring that distracts from the claims that the article is supposedly all about. It says 'archaeologists are stuck in their ways! They are such extreme orthodoxy gatekeeper morons!" But archaeology is actually one of the most interdisciplinary domains of science and is most open to alternative perspectives, based on my varied experiences at least. If the article wanted to seriously tackle knowledge production in archaeology then it would actually address how archaeologists think about and use evidence to draw narratives about the past, which involves discursive knowledge and values, which could be very well represented by Bourgeon's work as a case study. Or you can write a thrilling blockbuster about the lone outsider who tore down the temple of doom with his own two fists.

<comment><USER3> But we must still remember that archaeology in particular has been tainted by various non-scientific ideas. It is an old discipline that, at times, was used for political purposes. For instance this passage:

>>> Evidence had long suggested that humans first reached the Americas around 13,000 years ago, when Asian hunters crossed a now submerged landmass known as Beringia, which joined Siberia to Alaska and Yukon during the last ice age.

Talk to the Inuit about that one, the assumption that 'primitive' people were only ever able to walk over a land bridge rather than migrate along the ice coast in boats. Many longstanding ideas, especially those most convenient to questionable ethnographic ideas, need to be challenged. Frankly, I look very closely at any idea that appeared in 1950s/60s highschool textbooks, such as the above land bridge concept. The clovis/pre-clovis debate is so tied into US politics (ie the challenge to the "first" in "first nations") that everyone should be very careful.

<comment><USER2> Yep, it does indeed have a nefarious past, and archaeologist tend to own this criticism and have worked towards genuinely working in an anti-colonial spirit (though there are still soooo many things that need to be improved upon).

Does this negate the work that has come out of archaeological research? Not necessarily.

Also note that genetics has been harnessed extensively for political purposes, especially in tandem with archaeology (see: eugenics). Does that de-legitimize its genuine practical applications today, when conducted in an ethical, respectful and regulated manner?

edited to convey what I actually meant to say, and mistyped due to being drunk.

<comment><USER4> The issue isn't unique to archaeology.

Another notorious example was the discovery of the bacteria that causes most ulcers - the person who discovered that was vilified for at least a decade or so.

The root problem is simple: most people treat what they learned during their initial education as a kind of gospel, which they defend with the same fervour as any faith. This defense relies on things like social shaming to repel ideas that challenge their faith. This means that for an individual, stepping outside the faith has consequences, which has the effect of keeping most people in line and part of the defense against significant change.

Max Planck recognized this when he wrote, "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sometimes I get the dawning suspicion that everything we're told is the truth is really just consensus reality. And every time we think we get a realization of the truth, it's really just our mind resyncing to consensus reality. And that the point of education is to recognize consensus reality.

<comment><USER6> Well, many have sought absolute truth and "I think therefore I am" or simply "I am" is about as close as we've come.

Scientific truths are really useful for everyday life, but they're not guaranteed to be true into eternity.

There are countless examples of scientific consensus being overturned with new data, observations and experiments.

It doesn't mean we should ignore scientific consensus, but rather that scientific consensus by itself is not the most compelling argument.

<comment><USER7> _> It doesn't mean we should ignore scientific consensus, but rather that scientific consensus by itself is not the most compelling argument._

One should not ignore scientific consensus as a suggestion of what beliefs to examine.

But one _should_ ignore it as evidence in favor of a belief once you've decided to examine it. Scientific consensus is not an argument at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I did the map for [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_hum...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clovis_culture#Evidence_of_human_habitation_before_Clovis) ... visible at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-clovis-sites-of- the-a...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Pre-clovis-sites-of-the- americas.svg) ... mostly because I was amazed nobody had done one beforehand.

</comment><comment><USER9> Sadly, this seems to be par for the course.

It took 50 years for plate tectonics to go from "some crackpot theory" to accepted science. Wikipedia politely says the theory was _controversial and not widely accepted_ when initially proposed.

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

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

One of my "favorites": They essentially murdered Semmelweis for suggesting doctors should wash their hands. Never mind that he was a doctor in charge of two clinics with studies to back up his claim, they threw him in an insane asylum where he was badly beaten by the guards shortly after being locked up. The beating directly led to his death shortly thereafter.

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

It's a wonder we ever make any scientific progress given our track record in that regard.

<comment><USER10> If Wegener had had the ocean floor topography and magnetometry data to point to, I imagine the reception would have been warmer.

Lacking that, the proposal that a ball of rock has certain immense rocks that float around on the remaining rock, and far enough to create vast oceans, would sound quite crackpot today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The scientific atmosphere, recalls Dillehay, was "clearly toxic and clearly impeded science."

</comment><comment><USER12> There's plenty of stuff out there, on Earth and in the universe, that we don't know about. I bet the majority of them we don't know that we don't know.

The more we'll discover, the more we'll realize the universe is weird. It's a good thing we can't discover stuff too fast, otherwise that would probably cause a lot of discomfort for a lot of people that are attached to certain notions.

</comment><comment> red-indian There's a great deal of sites with compelling evidence of being even much older.

Topper SC tool site at 50kBP, San Diego butchered mastodon site at 130kBP, Tlapacoya at 25kBP, many others.

<comment><USER2> Yep, the Cerruti mastodon site in San Diego is not actually the result of human activity. See the following references: \+ [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.15...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.1589409?casa_token=qgj4uBoRT6UAAAAA:SZEnECmNhJJKkorQlKpCuay8_HanePLptW2bdv3KFRZFBXIvEdNQfCAflqgdxafIwzBGj2tU- rSG) \+ [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.15...](https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/20555563.2019.1589663?casa_token=m4qp8HLG80sAAAAA:CBoAZcVqiwzIQTgDCXTGLEoxRH_H00Nw9hFbKWPxzT7F6MNM0Ec2-o0trscWm4VKyoePzzdorQAP)

Can't speak about the others, as I'm not familiar with them. I'm also not gonna do all the critical thinking around here while im buzzed on a saturday night. Do your own research.

<comment><USER13> >A brief examination of the materials did not support the claim of cultural artifacts or of bone processed by hominins. The assemblage from the site can be much better explained as a natural deposit, likely disturbed by other mastodons soon after the death of their comrade. Given the brevity of our study, it is important that future studies examine the data, fossils, and lithics to test the initial hypothesis. Additional excavations are also recommended.

Doesn't sound super conclusive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I really get a kick out of these kinds of stories. They help me stay humble and openminded.</comment>


30×500 course Summer 2012 - create and sell your own products - <AUTHOR> http://unicornfree.com/30x500-s2012/

<comment><AUTHOR> Posting this as I'm an alumni of this course and really learned plenty of useful stuff (working on my SaaS now).</comment>


The Hacklab.to toilet. Now on twitter. - <AUTHOR> http://hacklab.to/archives/the-hacklab-toilet-now-on-twitter/

<comment><USER2> I had a wittier comment, but I think "argh" will suffice here.</comment>


Ask HN: Which should I pay for: Dropbox or ZumoDrive? What do you think? - <AUTHOR>

Hi all,
I am looking to buy a pro account with either Dropbox or ZumoDrive but I don't know which to pick.
I trust the HN community to help me out :)
Which one are you using and why... which do you feel is better??
Thanks,
Kent <comment><USER2> I'm using Dropbox because it supports Linux and has worked extremely well thus far.

I can't speak to ZumoDrive's performance or reliability (although I'm sure its fine), but it does look like they have more pricing options if you want a smaller or larger plan.</comment>


Science Visuals: The Genetic Map of Europe  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/science/13visual.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> This is interesting, and yet I'm not quite sure what this map is portraying. Perhaps a read of the original paper is in order, but as usual there is no link. Ironically, this time it's not the journal's fault, because the full text is online here:

[http://www.current- biology.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=...](http://www.current- biology.com/content/article/fulltext?uid=PIIS0960982208009561)

The web celebrated its seventeenth birthday one week ago. Anyone want to bet how much longer it will be before the NYT editors figure out how it works?

Unfortunately, I don't have time to thoroughly read the original article, nor do I really have the stats skills to understand it all. I will note, though, that the plot on the left really _does_ seem to represent the two most significant principal components of the genetics data. The fact that it resembles the map of Europe is _not_ a deliberately arranged feature of the plot's design -- except to the extent that the authors oriented the axes so that Italy's group was toward the bottom and Britain's was to the left. The plot resembles the map of Europe because the clusters of related genes resemble the map of Europe.

Cool.

Interesting features: English and French genetics overlap a lot less than the languages (I guess that's what happens when English citizens learn the language of their French aristocratic rulers). However, no amateur linguist would be surprised to learn that English and Dutch people have much genetic overlap. Hungary's poor overlap with Austria is interesting, as is the huge genetic distance between Finland and Hungary, whose languages are famously related to each other and famously _unrelated_ to most other languages. Makes me want to study Finnish history. And what is up with Romania?

[After I finished the article I went to change this link to a no-login link, courtesy of Aaron Swartz's NYT link converter, but I found it seemed to already be converted. I'm so confused.]

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm Irish born and I expected to have more in common with the french and the spanish (because the Celts drifted through both those countries) so I found it interesting that other than the British, the only commonality was with the Netherlands and Norway. I had underestimated how much raping and pillaging those vikings did ;-).</comment>


Any lawyer contact to sue an Incubator/Accelerator? - <AUTHOR> I worked with a Billionaire in his Incubator/Accelerator, and delivered on all milestones. He delayed the process with different excuses and then did not invest and wasted my time for more than a year. What is best way to approach this? <comment><USER2> Did you and the billionaire both sign a written agreement stipulating mandatory investment upon completion of agreed-upon milestones? Do you also have clear documentation showing that you delivered the milestones to the satisfaction of the billionaire? If yes to both, find a local contracts lawyer and give them a call. If no to either, you are unlikely to do more than waste your money/time and should treat it as a shitty learning experience not to trust people in these situations.</comment>


Mercedes-Benz will electrify its entire car lineup by 2022 - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/09/11/mercedes-benz-will-electrify-its-entire-car-lineup-by-2022/?ncid=rss&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+Techcrunch+%28TechCrunch%29 <comment><USER3> Actually there's nothing new here, many manufacturers are moving to the 48 volt system[1], which you can classify as a mild hybrid system of some sort. Many flagship cars already have it or will come out with it soon (new Audi A8).

In my opinion, calling your whole line up of cars "electrified" is a bit misleading. But I guess that's just how PR/marketing works.

[1] [https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/247889-cars- moving-48-vo...](https://www.extremetech.com/extreme/247889-cars- moving-48-volt-electrical-systems)

<comment><USER4> It should be noted that a not-insignificant amount of a vehicle's emissions come from idling. Simply reducing the time a car idles can reduce its emissions by 9%[1].

[1] [http://www.urbanemissions.info/wp- content/uploads/docs/SIM-1...](http://www.urbanemissions.info/wp- content/uploads/docs/SIM-18-2009.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Yes, but I find I disable it in my car every so often, so as to not loose air conditioning. Even on not especially warm days, the more humid air when the AC is off, feels uncomfortable.

<comment><USER6> This is one of the reasons why a more thoroughly electrified car, which uses a compressor driven by an electric motor rather than by a pulley off a serpentine belt, will be more efficient. Baby steps!

<comment><USER5> Indeed. In fact, I have not kept up very well with how cars are constructed and I was surprised to learn that there is a pulley in my car. (Volvo V60 2016.) I had assumed it would be a small electric motor powering the compressor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is the company that pioneered the automotive gasoline engine.

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

It's pretty clear (once you drive an EV) that a sea change is coming - <USER2> have reached the point where they are a superior driving experience most of the time.

As other evidence, Tesla announced today that they are planning a major expansion of their supercharging network.

[https://www.tesla.com/supercharger](https://www.tesla.com/supercharger)

I wonder if we'll be talking about Tesla in a hundred years the same way we talk about Mercedes today?

<comment><USER8> What has Telsa done that is completely novel? Telsa looks just like another car company. You mentioned Daimler pioneering the ICE but where are the Telsa inventions?

I think Telsa's greatest contribution will be moving the electric car and renewable markets. Whether or not the company itself will be successful is yet to be seen. To me they only make products that are affordable by the rich but they've certainly been successful in moving markets.

<comment><USER9> They made the first fully electric sports car (Roadster).

They made the first fully electric luxury car (Tesla S).

They created the first super-charger network. It's still the largest network of its kind.

They are the first car company to also be a large-scale battery manufacturer.

They are the first car company that pre-sold half a million cars.

They are on track to deliver fully electric mass market (as defined by volume) car. Tesla 3 is expected to reach production/sales of 0.5 - 1 million a year, easily surpassing any single competing, fully electric car.

Yes, Tesla is a car company but they already did plenty to deserve a little more than "just another".

<comment><USER8> Your statements read like a Tesla marketing pamphlet.

In 1900 28% of the cars produced in the US were electric. Albeit only a little more than 4,000 were produced. In those days all cars were luxury items, a horse was non-luxury. They also held the land speed records vs ICE prior to 1900.

Didn't Telsa partner with Panasonic to build the battery factory? Panasonic has been making batteries for years.

They've only built 200k cars total! Probably more since March.

On track to deliver...let's see if they can meet their target.

[http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car- timeline.html](http://www.pbs.org/now/shows/223/electric-car-timeline.html)

<comment><USER10> >Your statements read like a Telsa marketing pamphlet.

You asked a question and they directly answered it for you.

You probably also have a similar opinion of Apple then because they were not the first company in the world selling an MP3 player?

<comment><USER8> Apple has proved itself over the past 3 decades with everything from PCs, MP3 players, and now phones.

I could afford the later 2 devices on a sub 20k a year college restaurant jobs salary. At the time I bought both of them.

Telsa is not affordable by the majority of people with their currently available models. While a Nissan Leaf is pretty affordable especially adding in the tax break the government and my state used to offer.

<comment><USER11> > I could afford the later 2 devices on a sub 20k a year college restaurant > jobs salary.

> Tesla is not affordable by the majority of people with their currently > available models.

By that standard, the company who invented fidget spinners made a bigger contribution to society than Tesla because more people can afford their products.

<comment><USER8> I'm not the one claiming Tesla or fidget spinners are revolutionary devices.

<comment><USER12> Fidget spinners are literally revolutionary...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This would be great. I have a 2014 Volt and I love-ish it. I live close enough to the office that and can charge in both locations so I've gotten up to 5000MPG. I'd like to buy a more luxury electric car but refuse to drive that weird blue embossed BMW.

nb4 Wut about Tesla? I ain't made of money, son.

<comment><USER14> You can't afford a Tesla, but can afford a Mercedes Benz and considered a BMW? - huh.

<comment><USER15> MB B250e lease is around $400/mo. BMW i3 lease is under $300 right now. Tesla lease starts at $1,000.

<comment><USER16> Knock about $200 a month off the Tesla lease for TCO based on Delta between electricity cost in petroleum fuel cost.

Edit: i'm wrong. See below.

Edit 2: In quite a few places, you can get time of day metering, where you pay lower rates for electricity at night.

In Chicago, I pay $0.01/kwh between midnight and 5am; its essentially free to charge my Model S (it's slightly more at my place in Tampa, ~$0.06/kwh at all hours).

<comment><USER17> The national average cost for gas is $2.67/gallon, Electricity $0.12/kwh. Based entirely on fuel costs, the Model S 85 costs $0.04/mile and the 20 mpg BMW M4 costs $0.13/mile. In order to save $200/month on fuel with the tesla, you'd have to drive 2200 miles a month. In the area I live, where gas is cheaper than average and electricity is almost twice as expensive, that number is 5000 miles/month.

<comment><USER18> That gas price should be closer to $3.16 at the moment. If we're talking about the luxury car market, it's far more likely the vehicle is going to be consuming premium gasoline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> To be clear, just like the previous Volvo and Lincoln announcements, some version of each line of car will be available with a hybrid or all-electric propulsion system.

<comment><USER20> Is this announcement a total cop-out like Volvo's was?

Volvo's announcement was that all cars would be electric or hybrid, but their definition of hybrid is very broad. It includes a "mild hybrid" system which can never run on pure battery. It's pretty cool, but more like a fuel efficiency improvement than it's like a Prius.

<comment><USER21> No, unlike Volvo, Mercedes is still going to have combustion engine only versions.

<comment><USER22> Which wouldn't come as a surprise on any other community that wasn't as obsessed with Tesla as HN is.

Mercedes (or other German manufacturers) aren't doing this lip service because of Tesla (not everything revolves around them) but because of the situation in Germany. It's a broader topic, but in short the big manufacturers are working together with the government, and making some concessions in exchange for no diesel bans of any kind.

<comment><USER11> > making some concessions in exchange for no diesel bans of any kind.

It's more complicated than that. Diesel bans (when they come) will be declared by courts, not by politicians or officers in the executive branch. The purpose of said concessions is to calm German customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So this headline obviously has broad room for interpretation. It is simply not feasible to dump the ICE in 5 years across the lineup. I would guess that a sizable percentage would be mild hybrid, which is kind of the only way to hit some of the forthcoming emissions/MPG/Km/L targets while maintaining the type of "performance" that ICE have given in recent years. Im not sure how I feel about it, as it really just means that cars are going to get a lot more difficult to fix and possibly end up in the junkyard sooner. If battery tech improves enough to allow for a near "refuel" experience, that is the sea change. I am all for this, but if this never comes, the switch to electric cars will likely either be forced by legislation or end up a 30-50 year process.

<comment><USER24> It'll be a 30-50 year process. I don't even think that's a question. Look at the phase-out of leaded gasoline, it wasn't fully banned from sale for on-road vehicles in the US until 1996. The phase-out began in 1976.

And that was a lot more clear-cut "this is terrible!" to the average person.

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

Personally, I expect most countries will never fully ban or need to ban ICE- powered vehicles, just as we don't ban you from driving a Model T or horse & buggy around today.

New sales will be required to meet strict efficiency and safety standards and once electric becomes a cheaper option (perhaps with taxes/subsidies to hurry that), new ICE-powered vehicles will become a specialized niche rather than mainstream. They'll probably retain various niches for a long time, but that'll be a tiny fraction compared with current use.

Already on the road average ICE-powered vehicles will rapidly taper off in demand as they cycle into wearing out and winding up in the junkyard.

</comment><comment><USER25> By 2022 all Mercedes-Benz car lines will have electric or hybrid options available. Now that is not very catchy. The article itself does not do any better, seeming to suggest the demise of ice by 2022 while the actual announcement only promises hybrid versions or electric versions ALSO for all car lines. So.. ICE only cars will be available, hybrid will be available and electric too. I am speculating that as usual gas price is going to determine how many of each they will sell.

<comment><USER26> >> I am speculating that as usual gas price is going to determine how many of each they will sell.

That seems like a perfectly reasonable plan to me. If everyone went all- electric, the price of gas would fall through the floor making high demand for gas powered cars. Make them all available in various forms and let the market decide what it wants.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Once consumers become aware of the true differences between ICE vehicles and EVs, most auto manufacturers will need to do this, as the simple economics of owning an EV is so superior to an ICE vehicle, all else being equal. It remains to be seen however if the established manufacturers can match Tesla's lead in supply chain and battery production capacity relevant to EV manufacture.

<comment><USER28> This is mostly about hybrids though (near term), and it's not obvious that a hybrid at $50k or an Ev at $60k is more evonomical than the ICE at $40k (say).

So long as the premiums are very steep it's still a hard sale so tax breaks are absolutely necessary. There is a one time credit of $9k here now for EV's and the yearly tax is almost zero (compared to upwards of $1k/yr for ICE) but I still can't get the math to quite add up. The game changer will be more mass produced modestly priced models. Right now it's often sold as a luxury with added performance. Look at Volvos T8 drivetrain - it's pure luxury. No one will buy it for economy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Oddly enough, I read that they killed their only electric car only this July: [https://electrek.co/2017/07/31/mercedes-kills-electric-b- cla...](https://electrek.co/2017/07/31/mercedes-kills-electric-b-class/)

</comment><comment><USER30> Does this mean that they will offer electric versions of each model of their cars, or that they will not sell any gas powered cars at all?

<comment><USER31> This means that every car will have an (additional) electric motor.

<comment><USER22> This means that you can have any model with an electric or a hybrid powertrain. If it helps you to grasp it, consider the current situation: you can have most of their cars with a a petrol engine (several variants), or a diesel (several variants) – in the future that list will include either hybrid or EV versions, or both, for all models.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Why are companies not announcing auto-pilot? I think the most attractive feature of Tesla is auto-pilot (more than it being EV).

<comment><USER33> Mercedes and BMW had autopilot-like features for longer than Tesla. They just don't advertise those features as aggressively as Tesla because they are more conservative. Tesla has the start-up bonus that Mercedes does not have and if there was an accident, Mercedes' reputation would take a bigger hit than Tesla's.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> On electric vehicle you can have on-board charger. There's no need to connect the gasoline (or other fuel) unit to the traditional power train (if it exists at all). The charger can run on only one optimal power setting and that's it. Therefore there's no need or reason to run the engine on wide range of engine speed at all. Either the charger is on, or off. That's it. It's only used if the battery is low and extra power is required. And of course it's possible heat emissions can be used for extra heating power.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is just in five years. Considering that new models take about that amount of time to be designed (on known combustion platforms), that sounds like high speed to me!

Does that include their cargo line, too?

</comment><comment><USER36> Over the last few years BMW strategically chose to shift investment away from their current line-up into their electric line (and I think Germany's and Europe's charging infrastructure, which they have a standard for and are backing). They had nothing to show against MB's 2016 generation and haven't had a good year for car sales in comparison. Now that MB has got that '16 release out of the way looks like they're going 100% into competing with and catching up to BMW's electric line up. BMW already has the super-hyped up i8 and the i3 (and depending on your taste they may the most beautiful or the most ugly cars ever designed). MB just discontinued their only electric. BMW should have one more ICE refresh 2018-2020 and then it will be electric/hybrid all the way.

they are probably concerned too about tesla but at the moment bmw, mb and vw's audi are probably the three auto marques who can each crank out a couple million electric cars a year by 2020 if they wanted to. it's that volume that makes them competitive.

</comment><comment><USER37> If 100% of cars on the road (globally) were electric, how much would that impact global warming?

<comment><USER38> According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, 20% of all emissions are tailpipe from cars. Maybe 30% for all vehicles including trains etc.

That's a significant percentage. If the oil demand drops, theres probably another 5-10% that could reduce.

So we're looking at probably a 30-35% drop in emissions.

As an owner of an electric (recently bought), I'm fascinated by how amazingly agile my relatively-inexpensive Ford Focus is. If everyone drove an electric for a day, many would likely decide to go electric purely for performance reasons.

<comment><USER39> But you have to account for the fact that much/most of the electricity used by EVs is generated in ways that produce carbon emissions. And even if we specify that it all comes from "zero-emissions" sources there's still an environmental cost that comes with manufacturing, and mining/processing materials, for cars, batteries, wind turbines and solar panels, nuclear and hydropower, etc.

Which is not to say it isn't an improvement, just that it oversimplifies things only to look at one side of the balance sheet.

<comment><USER40> > much/most of the electricity used by EVs is generated in ways that produce > carbon emissions

This is _highly_ dependent on where you live. At the extreme, North Dakota [1] gets 75% of its electricity from coal burning. But in California, the mix is 35% Natural Gas, 25% Renewable, 10% hydro, 10% nuclear [2], so nearly half of the electricity is carbon-neutral. If huge places like California go electric, they will take other places along with them.

But even in the unlikely scenario of a primarily coal-based grid in the future, the efficiency increase that comes from the centralization of combustion at the coal plant (as opposed to in the vehicle) still results in lower well-to-wheels CO2 emissions [3].

[1] [http://www.ndenergyforum.com/expert- facts/](http://www.ndenergyforum.com/expert-facts/)

[2] [http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_syst...](http://www.energy.ca.gov/almanac/electricity_data/total_system_power.html)

[3] [http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/P...](http://mydocs.epri.com/docs/CorporateDocuments/SectorPages/Portfolio/PDM/PHEV- ExecSum-vol1.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Are there any electric cars that offer privacy? I don't want driving stats sent to the cloud or even stored locally. I would never buy a car that's remotely controllable either.

Front collision avoidance would be nice, but won't give up privacy for it.

<comment><USER42> You could ask the same thing about most cars with an internal combustion engine as well. Most of them do store _some_ key data inboard. Some already push quite a lot of data to the cloud.

The biggest reason most car manufacturers are laggards in this respect is because they mostly don't make the onboard systems themselves. As opposed to manufacturers like Tesla, which understand that making the onboard systems is important both from a practical and strategic point of view.

I don't think privacy will be respected unless there are strict regulations in place that are taken as seriously as, for instance, cheating on emissions tests. But in recent years there has been a keenness in government to harvest this data. So I wouldn't hold my breath.

<comment><USER41> I've got a circa 2000 manual until the privacy option arrives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> This is nice for car owners, but public transit users will continue to get the shaft for another 20 years. The only innovations in transit seem to be of the mode of fuel. It's still too expensive and politically inconvenient to build out new train service, and electrified city buses don't seem to be getting any cheaper. Unless something changes, we're going to end up with a public- subsidized automatic-pilot public transit network of Uber cars.

<comment><USER44> > we're going to end up with a public-subsidized automatic-pilot public > transit network of Uber cars.

Yes please! It seems obvious that this would be the most efficient mode of transit, effectively turning streets into point-to-point conveyor belts.

<comment><USER43> Moving individual people is insanely inefficient compared to moving large numbers of them. It would completely immobilize roads used for daily commuting, and it would take much much longer, not to mention it would take so many cars as to require massive investment in additional vehicles. I mentioned it as a sort of unlikely worst case scenario; buses will stay in some form or another for the forseeable future. They just won't get any better.

<comment><USER44> Having a robot car pick me up at my house and drop me off at work is far more efficient than me having to drive to a train station, wait for the train, switch to the subway, wait for that train, then walk to work. It could be picking up an dropping off people on the way, it doesn't have to be a solo vehicle. If you think about congestion as the number of people in transit at any point, this should reduce it.

It would also reduce concentration because you wouldn't have people clustering homes and work around transit stations, it would be more spread out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Will this be followed by large-scale lay-offs of mechanical engineers? I would gather a large portion of the workforce (those working on ICE) are ill-suited to electric.

<comment><USER46> No, why should it? First, apparently they mean they will offer an "electrified version", additionally to the combustion engine models. Second, electrified can mean a hybrid, which still has a combustion engine.

<comment><USER47> And third: "Will electrify" will most likely mean "will also offer at least one electrified version of each model", and not to get rid of the gasoline variants immediatly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Did anyone tell the Arabs yet? Qatar wants to spend $200B to host a few week long soccer championship in 2022 [http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/blockade-vexes- qatar-s-...](http://gulfnews.com/business/economy/blockade-vexes- qatar-s-200b-in-world-cup-projects-1.2040993)

</comment><comment><USER49> also probably playing a role ... toyota hybrid patents starting to expire

</comment><comment><USER50> Seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do, since MB only makes ~2 performance oriented cars at this point, and neither of those are particularly strong competitors against the other other options at those price points.

Overall, no big loss for the car community, and maybe a little more competition against Tesla directly will help.

</comment><comment><USER51> The move to electric vehicles is great. They certainly are fun, but as a car guy, I'll miss the experience of filling up the tank and feeling the rumble of the engine roaring down the road with the pedal to the floor.

Small experience to give up for the sake of the planet and future generations though. <3

<comment><USER38> Heh, I don't miss it at all. Especially when I out-accelerate a car likely double or triple my car's cost without any effort.

Smoking ICE cars off the line is one of the most enjoyable things about driving my electric.

No oil changes. No transmission replacement. No smog checks. Likely never replace brake pads (due to regenerative braking). Only real maint left is tires/wipers.

Seriously, if I was an auto mechanic I'd be worried about my business/career if EV (or even hybrids - they get 50% of the reductions) went into full swing.

<comment><USER52> Out of curiosity, which electric vehicle do you drive?

<comment><USER38> 2017 Ford Focus Electric. Listed at $31K, I got it on lease (with federal tax credits adjusting lease price down) for $16.5K (50% financed on lease). I probably could have gotten a better deal, even.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> High voltage, instant start systems have been talked about since I was 14, I am over 40. This is bullshit.

</comment><comment><USER54> Until there is a proven 450 mile range on 5 year old batteries, in the middle of the winter, I would not consider an EV. Oh, and this should be after 5 minutes of charging.

Any old gas powered car will do at least this on a 5 minute fill up.

</comment><comment><USER55> Well, "hybrid" in this case is a bigger engine starter and battery, that also can propell the vehicle for a while, I assume.

This could be done with old manual cars without fancy security checks so, we have been there, done that.

</comment><comment><USER56> Meanwhile, India is pushing to electrify all new vehicles by 2030.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220137](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220137)

</comment><comment><USER57> Volkswagen, too: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220405](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15220405)

</comment><comment><USER58> Are the hybrids like a Prius or like a plugin hybrid where you have an electric motor where you can drive a certain distance with only the battery?

</comment><comment><USER59> Its amazing to me that Mercedes-Benz still has some non-electrified cars. How do these non-electrified cars run their headlights or trigger the airbags?

/s

</comment><comment><USER60> So when can I get an electric Sprinter?

</comment><comment><USER61> How many countries will have a grid capable of serving an electronic fleet by 2022? 5 years is very optimistic.

<comment><USER62> Entire fleet is not going to switch to electric in 2022, Mercedes-Benz will start offering electric versions of their models in 2022, some other manufacturers are targeting to switch to EVs around the same time span. So in the beginning of 2020s we'll see gradual process of switching to EVs for all car manufacturers. 5 years is plenty of time for electricity providers to prepare their grids, especially considering that their investments will probably pay off with an interest, since they are gonna increase sales as more cars become electric.

Plus most of the charging probably will be scheduled at the time when electricity usage is less and providers offer better pricing. For example in some areas in US you can get free nights rate, at night there is less strain on the grid and abundance of wind power makes it possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Wow, this shows that Mercedez-Benz is terrified of what Tesla's ramp up will do to its market share.</comment>


Cpp Cast interviews SemanticMerge team - <AUTHOR> http://blog.semanticmerge.com/2018/12/cpp-cast-interviews-semanticmerge-team.html <comment><USER2> How does this tool keep up with the changes updates in the C++ standards?

<comment><USER3> Well, we try to use standard libraries for all parsers, not develop our own. We use Roslyn for C#, libclang for C... and the great Eclipse CDT for C++</comment></comment>


Does Rapleaf scare you? - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2010/10/21/rapleaf-web-startups/

<comment><USER3> > "If a customer's email address is attached to three or four social > networking sites with 300 friends, the email likely isn't fake and the > retailer can put that person in the 'good' pile."

The guy who sold sex.com had an interesting idea in his Mixergy interview about making loans to young adults by having them pledge their email or Facebook as collateral. For example, if the loan wasn't being repaid, the service would post on your wall using your credentials something like "isn't paying his loan back" Now, in some circles that might be taken as a positive status-enhancing comment but, privacy issues aside, the idea of putting up one's identity as collateral is interesting to me. Some of the more successful real world charities (Team in Training, for example) push you to raise thousands because you have pledged to do an endurance event (usually a marathon) and if you back out - you lose credibility and the more you raise for Team in Training - the more negative incentive to back out. You actually sign a legal contract when you sign up saying that you will either raise the full amount or pay the outstanding balance out of your own pocket - with a loophole that you can back out of the contract in thirty days and just lose your initial several hundred commitment fee. The power of social contracts. Rapleaf understands this well. So does Team in Training. At the extreme, there are cults. At the other end, stuff like being asked to donate money or volunteer at church. I wonder how well a public scorecard of how much money you were donating to charity, CO2 that you were generating would work to increase charitable donations and decrease personal CO2. But I digress

<comment><USER4> This is actually a pretty good idea. Remember the discussion of a payday loan startup a while back?

Mobile phone companies give people very expensive stuff (high-end phones) in exchange for regular payment. This is effectively a loan, given even to people no bank would deal with.

Mobile phone companies can do a lot of damage to your social life (by cutting off the phone); apparently, this is sufficient to keep people paying their monthly fee. Again, this includes people no bank would deal with.

The parallel to Facebook, say, would be obvious. But it's hard to make this work if the borrower can just change his/her password...

<comment><USER5> Changing the email to a loan company owned email would prevent this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the provision of powerful APIs (but with terms of use that say they can use any data that you gather with them) is a smart way of collecting a large amount of this type of information.

However, it's also not hugely clear (well, it wasn't when I was investigating using them a couple of years ago) when signing up to get access that that is what's happening. I was checking the TOU and noticed some alarming wording - basically, any users who used the Rapleaf API to upload their address book to my site, would also be giving their entire address book to Rapleaf (to do as they see fit).

In the end, I used Octazen (later acquired by Facebook) instead.

</comment><comment><USER7> Ugh... I can't seem to find it but someone built a quick and dirty web page that would use Rapleaf's API to lookup email addressess.

EDIT1: I think it's somewhere on Pete Warden's blog (same guy that crawled Facebook).

EDIT2: Here it is.

<http://web.mailana.com/labs/findbyemail/>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Very curious to hear what the HN community thinks.

Not sure if the analogy holds but it seems Rapleaf is turning one's email address into the new social security # (for those in the US)?

Also, does anyone know if banks can use this in making consumer credit decisions? I believe this wouldn't be legal, but Om alludes to banks using it in his post.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting. In my case they seem to latch on to dead accounts or accounts with fake info.

If you're worried about services like Rapleaf, mix fake info into your public profiles. Most sites have no business knowing your birthdate, city of residence let alone your mailing address. Regularly forget your passwords and whimsically start over with new accounts.

Make it hard for automated scripts to harvest your real identity. Be "damaged goods" that can't be easily sold.

</comment><comment><USER9> Rapleaf doesn't scare me -- their data is only what's publicly available on the web. If you don't want RapLeaf to have it, don't post it on the web.

I actually know their Chicago account manager and have meet one of the co- founders. They are a stand-up group and take privacy and data integrity quite seriously. My company uses their data to pull additional information on "influencers" we identify doing online research.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, sometimes your information gets published to the web in unexpected ways. Like the first time I responded via google groups, google snuck my gmail address on the post (without indicating that it would), or how Amazon Web Services published my real name as a Developer Profile because I had to give a real name and credit card to try out S3.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It sort of scares me because I keep reading their name as "Rape leaf" - <USER2> aside from that I'm not on Facebook so I'm not all that worried :)

</comment><comment><USER12> Perhaps this is a good argument to split activities between email addresses. I guess many of us already have several perhaps personal, public, work, online account and so on. When you think of an email address as a reputation then its time to have a dozen or so on the go so that those reputations do not overlap.

</comment><comment><USER13> Actually what scares me is that I log in and find out that Pandora apparently has a public profile for me. WTF? I sign up for Pandora and somehow Rapleaf gets my email from them?

<comment><USER14> Are you sure that's not because Pandora is part of Facebook's instant personalization program ([http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/04/27/a-look-at- facebooks...](http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/04/27/a-look-at-facebooks- three-instant-personalization-partners-yelp-pandora-docs-com/))?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I don't think it should scare you if you are careful about your online activity

</comment><comment><USER16> Yes, I opted out as soon as I knew I could.</comment>


EU wants to tax robots taking human jobs - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2016/06/22/technology/europe-robots-taxes-jobs/index.html <comment><USER2> I didn't read the article, but based on the title alone: It could just as easily be the other way around: taxing humans to do what ought to be a robot's job. There are so many shitty jobs in the world that robots should be doing instead, thus freeing two important human resources — emotions and creativity — for better use.</comment>


Btcd: A Full Alternative Bitcoin Implementation, Written In Go - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoinmagazine.com/btcd-a-full-bitcoin-alternative-written-in-go/ <comment><USER2> Interestingly, the main bitcoin developers generally treat other implementations of the protocol as being suspect and more-than-possibly threatening, since if you're not bug-for-bug compatible with the satoshi client that is a security risk. This remains true even if you improve upon the satoshi client with regards to, for example, hewing closer to the published spec.

This might come as something of a surprise to many HNers, who would think "But wait. The Internet would sort of suck if HTML5 were a purely advisory document and failing to match IE6's actual behavior 100% of the time was a fatal flaw in a browser." But, to quote a fairly representative post from their forums:

 _Any implementation needs to specifically test for uniformity with the network: Bitcoin is a distributed consensus algorithm and differences in what nodes accept or reject in the blockchain— things which would be minor harmless behavioral differences in most software— can often result in fatal security flaws where an attacker can move the nodes in question onto a separate fork and double-spend their funds away or partition the network. This requires a unusual level of care and system level tests.

Many of the most interesting cases are the great many things which must be rejected as no amount of exposure to the live network will trigger those cases (until an attacker exploits them to partition the network)._ (cite: <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=192880.0>)

<comment><USER3> How can a bug in the implementation be a security risk? Aren't the artefacts of bitcoin (I don't know the correct terminology) cryptographically unambiguous, completely independent of the implementation used to create them?

The "problem" with HTML incompatibilities is that there is room for plenty of ambiguity in both standard and implementation, without compromising the fundamental mission of the users of the protocol (rendering web content).

<comment><USER4> If one type of client accepts a particular block and another doesn't, the block chain splits and things go badly.

This literally happened one month ago, because of a bug being _fixed_ : <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=152030.0>

<comment><USER3> Ugh, that is very bad. I had much higher thoughts of the cryptographic purity of BTC.

<comment><USER5> Bitcoin is a distributed consensus algorithm. Software which implements a subtly different algorithm might be able to join the consensus until some case arises which triggers the difference, after that consensus between the implementations would be impossible.

Unfortunately, it's rather hard to demonstrate that two dissimilar complex programs actually implement exactly the same function.

This is doubly true because performance is very important, so some techniques that might help— e.g. define a kind of abstract turing machine, write the rules for the distributed algorithm in its language, then different implementations use the same rules and only have to prove their turing machine implementation is functionally identical— aren't readily available.

It can be hard to gain confidence through testing because some of the most important rules are for cases which are forbidden, so these cases will not show up on the production network— they only happen when an attacker produces them. There are an infinite number (subject to memory, and already the function input is gigabytes of data) of valid and invalid cases, so exhaustive testing of the whole function is not possible. They can also arise out of implicit behavior, "what happens when this value overflows?", "what is the maximum size of this structure", etc.

This is further complicated by the fact that Bitcoin implementations use third party code that wasn't written with this kind of must-have-exact-behavior in mind. The reference implementation uses things like OpenSSL's crypto and bignums, various boost data structures, BDB (previously, now leveldb)... and subtle potentially undocumented and unknown behavior from this third party code may be leaking into the definition of the consensus algorithm. The reference implementation has been slowly disentangling these dependencies, but things like the hidden BDB locking limitations (which depend on the layout of the database on disk) are easy to miss.

(Third party code isn't just a reference implementation issue, e.g. BitcoinJ's full node code has had algorithm inconsistencies arising out of undocumented behavior in a database library it uses)

Satoshi's answer for this was that there should only be one implementation of the full node software. However, "create your own Bitcoin implementation" seems to be the new millennium's "create an IRC client" so it seems that this is unrealistic... and there have been more than a half dozen attempts (including two nearly complete ones in java, two in C, three in C++, one in Haskell, one in erlang, one (two?) in javascript, as well as several non public ones (including one in ruby, I think)).

<comment><USER6> _Satoshi's answer for this was that there should only be one implementation of the full node software._

He should have talked to a release engineer. There are always at least two implementations of a piece of software: the stable version, and the prerelease version.

With Herculean effort and focus one could theoretically arrange a system where every customer on Earth runs version N until midnight on Dec 31 and runs version N+1 one microsecond later. You would have to distribute the new code in advance. But it wouldn't ever be perfect, because networks get partitioned: someone's PC would be unplugged when the patch was pushed. And what's the rollback procedure when you push the unforeseen bug?

<comment><USER7> That sounds like the opposite of an actual peer-to-peer, decentralized system that BitCoin promises. Funny that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > The implementation is not yet entirely done, but most core features such as > transaction verification, database interaction and network connectivity are > tested as working, and the company has released one component of the system > for public review...

I have a different definition of "full".

<comment><USER9> I think full here may mean in the sense that it actually verifies the entire blockchain, rather than relying on an instance of bitcoind to do that.

<comment><USER8> I am willing to re-state "I have a different definition of 'implementation'"? It actually occurred to me that that is how "full" might be being used in this context (I spent some time recently learning about bitcoin and even ran a class on it a few days ago, and had run into the distinction), but if I were to say I had "an end-to-end website rendering engine written in Erlang" would you not also feel a little disappointed when you got to my page and found only that "most of the core pieces, such as CSS3 selectors, DOM event bubbling, and network connectivity are done and we've open sourced the HTML parser"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> When this was posted on reddit there was a bit of confusion as the title lead people to believe this was about an alternate cryptocurrency (like litecoin, feathercoin, etc).

It's actually a complete reimplementation of the Bitcoin _protocol_ , which can be used as an alternative to the bitcoind/bitcoin-qt (the official Bitcoin p2p clients) JSON-RPC interface.

</comment><comment><USER11> Some variety in Bitcoin software could be a good thing. However, I'd just like to leave a reminder here that beta-level software is not something you should trust significant amounts of Bitcoins to, or build a business on, until it stops being beta-level.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, not like bitcoind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is ridiculous, it's not even a partial implementation, it's just a serialization library, at the moment. People should get their facts straight :)

</comment><comment><USER14> Speaking as a Bitcoin skeptic, the really cool thing about it is that it opens up a world of virtual collectibles.

Bitcoin isn't the future of money, it's more like Netscape -- a new way of doing things we haven't thought of before. The follow-on products should truly be amazing. Good to see this.

<comment><USER15> Not sure from your comment if you got the gist of it... but this is not an alternative to Bitcoin, the currency. It's an alternative to bitcoind, the library.

If anything, the article suggests, the rise of such alternative implementations of the same protocol could make the network as a whole more resilient and stable.

<comment><USER16> Why does that disagree with what he said? Netscape understood the same protocols all future browsers did, with only some feature misalignment, yet eventually disappeared.

I think he is saying the same thing to could happen to Bitcoin, the current use cases of the currency may be only the beginning.

<comment><USER17> As I understand it the Bitcoin is HTML and bitcoind is Netscape

It does not make a lot of sense, to disagree/disaprove of HTML, and hail a Netscape alternative.

<comment><USER18> Research litecoin. It'll have a larger user base, just give it time.

<comment><USER19> Why? I have researched litecoin and I don't get why everyone spams this everywhere.

<comment><USER16> Some have said that it fixes potential issues with Bitcoin (quicker confirmation time for instance). However no one really knows how much confidence will be needed for real transactions at this point, so most of the fixes are of questionable importance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Also see: [https://blog.conformal.com/btcd-a-bitcoind-alternative- writt...](https://blog.conformal.com/btcd-a-bitcoind-alternative-written-in- go/) Btw, this original link was posted here full week ago.

</comment><comment><USER21> Should definitely build this with the gcc go compiler (which featured a couple of days ago on HN) that produces larger binaries but faster code :)

</comment><comment><USER22> Interesting, one question though. Who thought orange text on white background was a good idea? Ow

<comment><USER23> Discuss the topic please.

<comment><USER22> ? It is related to the topic. Maybe not specifically the article but the website in question that was linked. I thought it was a pretty odd choice, and website design is definitely relevant to HN</comment></comment></comment>


Sinclair is close to buying all of Tribune's TV stations - <AUTHOR> http://nypost.com/2017/03/14/sinclair-tribune-merger-would-surpass-fcc-ownership-rules/ <comment><AUTHOR> This is an odd post and topic and source for an HN post, but it's relevant and important. Recent de-regulation in media by Trump's administration could result in massive political bias and in US TV viewership.

From the article:

> Two of the biggest TV-station owners in the US are nearing a deal for a > multibillion-dollar merger that would blow past ownership limits long set by > communications regulators, several sources told The Post.

Other relevant information:

> Sinclair Requires TV Stations to Air Segments That Tilt to the Right

[https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair-b...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/12/business/media/sinclair- broadcast-komo-conservative-media.html)

> Since November 2015, Sinclair has ordered its stations to run a daily > segment from a "Terrorism Alert Desk" with updates on terrorism-related news > around the world. During the election campaign last year, it sent out a > package that suggested in part that voters should not support Hillary > Clinton because the Democratic Party was historically pro-slavery. More > recently, Sinclair asked stations to run a short segment in which Scott > Livingston, the company's vice president for news, accused the national news > media of publishing "fake news stories."

And some commentary from reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6cneol/two_of_the...](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/6cneol/two_of_the_biggest_tvstation_owners_in_the_us_are/dhvxmhq/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=politics)</comment>


Analysis of Solitaire Cipher - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1909.06300 <comment><USER2> Comments from Solitaire's author, Bruce Schneier:

> I don't talk about it much, mostly because I made a dumb mistake that > resulted in the algorithm not being reversible. Still, for the short message > lengths you're likely to use a manual cipher for, it's still secure and will > likely remain secure.

[https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/more_cryptana...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2019/10/more_cryptanaly.html)

<comment><USER3> Another pen-and-paper cipher:

* [https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/05/lc4_another_p...](https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2018/05/lc4_another_pen.html)

* [http://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-kolumne/2018/05/14/the...](http://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-kolumne/2018/05/14/the-low-tech-cipher-lc4/)

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16586257](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16586257) (previously)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Chao cipher is nicer...

Here is my implementation of chaocipher in arc lisp [https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Chaocipher#Arc](https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Chaocipher#Arc)

<comment><USER5> Chaocipher is thoroughly broken (see the citations on Wikipedia[1]) so it's not really comparable to Schneier's algorithms.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaocipher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaocipher)</comment></comment>


Event-Triggered Customer Segmentation - <AUTHOR> https://blog.wallaroolabs.com/2018/07/event-triggered-customer-segmentation/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey, I'm the author of this post. If anyone has any comments, feel free to discuss here. Thanks!</comment>


Really back Hackers inject Windows 7 start menu code in Windows 8 - <AUTHOR> http://www.myce.com/news/its-back-hackers-inject-windows-7-start-menu-code-in-windows-8-64344/

<comment><USER2> Nice one. This may actually convince me to get Win8 as it would then become a much more useable desktop OS.</comment>


The science of Destiny 2's 'uniquely complicated' netcode - <AUTHOR> http://www.pcgamer.com/the-strange-science-of-destiny-2s-uniquely-complicated-netcode/ <comment><USER2> The game limits multiplayer interaction big time. It's no more than 3 parties allowed in an instance at any one time, and that's where a single person can count as a party. So really how tough does the netcode be when you really just have instance based coop.

PVP is basically csgo in space. Not too many people on each team. Only 2 teams. Etc.

As an aside, as a gamer - terribly displeased with destiny 2. Huge dissappointment. Mostly because of it's multiplayer and communicated drawbacks.

<comment><USER3> I bought Destiny 2 (PS4) around the same time I got Player Unknown's Battlegrounds (PC).

I have about an hour on D2 and 300+ hrs on PUBG.

PUBG is so entertaining I never even made it back to Destiny.

100 online players in each match, dropped on an island, pick up loot(guns, helmets, ammo, attachments), be the last player standing.

It would be interesting to see a write up on PUBG net code.

The dev team sounds new/semi-amateur but I think they have done a great job with the game and the single map that is available (8km x8km).

It's not the best I'm sure, there are optimization issues, lots of cheaters currently, you'll get wiped by hackers 1 out of 10 matches.

But solo is so much fun and Squad and Duo are even more fun. There are discord channels to meet up with fun to play with players.

If you have a decent gaming PC I'd recommend giving it a try.

<comment><USER4> How does PUBG compare to Fortnite (the free to play epic games pubg clone). I really enjoy competitive games (csgo, league, etc.) but I did not enjoy Fortnite at all.

<comment><USER3> y, I like PUBG better than Fortnite, a lot of people play both though.

PUBG feels more realistic, easier to get immersed in, Fortnite seemed too cartoonish.

PUBG is one of the best games I've played, even if it doesn't feel super polished sometimes.

Each match is unique and something interesting always happens, especially in Squads. Some involves vehicle physics, wiping another squad, making the top 10, last second revives of team mates, close calls, amazing shots, and of course winner winner chicken dinner. If you play with a group of guys, there will always be talk of "remember that one time . . . "

<comment><USER5> >realistic

Especially when it comes to cars and driving and you explode from hitting some grass!

<comment><USER6> Grass? What about the invisible bump-mines all over the landscape?

You go 60kph on a flat plane in one second and the next thing you know is that you're spinning out of control about 30 meters in the air with a sense of impeding doom as you hurdle towards the next solid object at lethal velocities.

<comment><USER7> Sounds like the typical problem you get when relying solely on the physics engine for your vehicles, instead of adding at least a few lines of mitigatory code. Sloppy, but apparently not a show stopper for PUBG.

<comment><USER6> PUBG contains a lot of sloppy things but overall I think it adds more to the charm of the game.

Plus, dying because of a bug may be frustrating but you don't loose anything really. There is no punishment for dying or not being the first other than not getting more points for cosmetics.

Usually when it happens, me/my squad just laugh/cry and move on.

<comment><USER3> y, the sloppy vehicle physics has added some great moments to Duo/Squad games.

We laugh, share the replay with other friends and add it to our "Remember that one time . . . " moments.

I'll actually miss it once it's improved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > How do you build a game that blurs the line between singleplayer and > multiplayer, where players can meet others simply by hitting "play Destiny," > without any traditional matchmaking and lobbies?

What? How can you blur the line? It's either online multiplayer or it isn't, there's not really an in-between. You can't "kind of" have other people connected to your game. They're either there or they're not.

> It's an enormously complicated problem, and Bungie solved it.

....how is this any different from normal multiplayer?? What's so enormously complicated about this problem compared to _every other multiplayer game?_ Yeah, there's no matchmaking. Great. This is still essentially like all MMORPGs, isn't it? Except it skips the lobby and just sticks you straight into the world?

<comment><USER9> The article doesn't convey the complexity very well.

Destiny keeps PvP and PvE separate. For PvP, it's traditional PvP. But for PvE, there are multiple worlds made up of interconnected regions, but because of processing limitations (even if it's MMO, it's still an FPS), the sub- regions are individual instances. So you need seamless transitioning between regions, while having to find you a populated instance every time you cross a region boundary. Oftentimes you will be doing a 20-30 minute activity that has to cross multiple instance boundaries, so your actual quest state has to persist separately from the physics simulation. If you take their design of the game as a given, then yeah, that's a bit more complex than most MMORPG's.

It's not really about matchmaking. PvP has explicit matchmaking, and in PvE lagging hit registration is generally inconsequential because it's not a competition. It's more about the fact that Bungie tried to work around the problem above using P2P servers.

The problem arises when PvP is still handled in a P2P-ish way and you have hit registration problems. On a quick read, I'm not sure I fully understand it though, because if the physics server is dedicated, then why are there still hit registration problems?

<comment><USER10> Handling massive amount of players is always challenging, but there nothing unique about it. PlanetSide 2 exist for years and its able to maintain hundreds of players in same area just fine and more than 1200 per "continent" which built of tons of small zones that have almost perfect sync between them.

As for tracking character state and region instancing there tons of MMOs that doing it for years too.

<comment><USER11> Planetside 2 is exactly what this sort of reminded me of. In PS2, you can have over 1k players within an entire continent, which is a seamless quilt of many zones, each of which can have up to several hundred players (north of 250 is the most ive seen). The beauty of it being that there is no delineation between areas for players, but clearly the servers are somehow breaking down the continent in some way. So you can have a single battle raging across 2 adjacent areas with 96+ vs 96+, with the perception of being on a single battlefield.

<comment><USER12> Why not divide the map into BSP tiles and thread AI processing/netcode on that granularity?

<comment><USER13> Then what do you do at the boundaries? In their example, a single battle raging across adjacent areas.

<comment><USER12> You will always have to deal with transfer across cell boundaries - but BSP gives you a sensible mechanism to scale it besides "party level" or "whole group level".

I'm open to defense of the concept, or prototypes if someone can suggest something reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Destiny 2's netcode may be an engineering marvel that saves them some money on dedicated servers, but it sure undermines the game experience. It was a problem in Destiny 1 also - people exploited the P2P nature of the netcode & design flaws to cheat at multiplayer content and in exclusive content like raids to harvest rewards. People would manually firewall off their PvP opponents' IP addresses to harvest free wins, and in the PvE content they'd do things like have the current host disconnect to break bosses' AI and make them easy to kill. The P2P netcode also results in enemies teleporting around and glitching in difficult content, which is INCREDIBLY frustrating.

In 2 I haven't seen as many cheats of this variety, but they remain possible. The real problem is that the multiplayer is a trainwreck: Loading into towns and open world areas can fail because the P2P host's connection is bad, and any time you travel more than a few hundred meters in the open world, all the other players vanish because you get booted to a new host. In practice this means that you don't get to interact with other players for more than a few minutes, AND you can only bring two other friends into the world with you due to the limited party sizes.

As an engineer I can totally understand these constraints but the game experience just sucks. I can swap over to Playerunknown's Battlegrounds and get dropped into a 100 player match after about 10 seconds in queue, but joining a 4v4 PvP match in Destiny 2 takes upwards of a minute. The game's multiplayer aspects just feel incredibly dated. Despite this, the content is all tuned for multiplayer - the strikes and heroic public events are nearly impossible to complete solo, and the main sources of powerful gear (nightfalls, trials, the raid) require 3-6 players with good connections that can stick around for an hour+ without getting disconnected from each other.

<comment><USER15> You also can't matchmake nightfall strikes or raids, they're trying something new where you as a solo player can match with a party needing an extra member (once this "feature" leaves beta) - but ultimately unless you actually know people who play the game trying to access all of the content is difficult at best.

The clan system in the game should be the cure for this, but ultimately it offers little in the way to actually communicate with your clan mates. At best you get to help level up your banner to get some perks and show a clan tag next to your name, beyond that they're useless. Every proper MMO on the planet has AT LEAST clan chat, meanwhile Destiny 2 relies on communications facilities provided by your platform and nothing more - which is a pretty big issue on the PC, since there's not exactly a way to join a group audio or chat channel on Battle.net.

<comment><USER16> There is clan chat on Bungie.net on the clan page, so you can chat there. And the Battle.net app does have group audio and chat channels now (new Social tab features).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> As an avid "Destiny" player for over two years, I was so excited to pick up "Destiny 2". After three weeks, I'd reached a point where there were no motivating factors to keep me logging in. I haven't even finished the raid...which, as a pretty heavy gamer, would be at the top of my aspirations when playing.

The single-player campaign had so many moments where they hit high notes. But ultimately it was too short, fell into cliches, or hinted at a blended universe (first mission), but then took it away.

I really wanted PvP to be the glue that held things together until D2.1 comes out in December. But with the horrid netcode inherited from "Destiny," and the changes to formats and player counts, they neutered the one aspect that offers replay-ability.

For a team with the experience they have, I'm perplexed with the apparent tone-deaf touch they've guided the game with. For their sake, I hope that it is the publishers fault :/

<comment><USER15> Don't forget the grind for gear. I never finished Destiny 1 because the campaign was such a grind, playing Destiny 2 was a much better experience so I stuck it out for the end. Then I realized the moment you hit 200 in your gear level it becomes a painful process grinding forever to get new equipment. I can go turn in reputation items and get gear that is a lower level than what I have now, with the only potential upside of at least a purple item being valuable for dismantling to get shards for infusion.

I'm just going to play Borderlands 1/2 again, even single player they're way more fun than Destiny 2 is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > To shield the game from hacks on PC, Bungie is preventing applications from > injecting code into the game.

What prevents hackers from simply forging the network messages? How does loot, gear, economy, levelling up and other hard incentives work when a player is the host? Where's the authority?

<comment><USER19> From what I understood from the article, it's not a pure P2P model, but a hybrid model, which makes it particularly interesting.

I think the conclusion of the article is very good: the experience is great in "free play" (when you're running around a world and people appear/disappear), but (very) bad for doom/overwatch/csgo style PVP (= the crucible).

<comment><USER20> Yeah there's been many complaints of people getting DOS'd in pvp play because it is relatively easy to find the player's ip address.

<comment><USER21> This happens in most PvP games though, eventually a hack is found that allows people to spam messages to win battles/races. In racing games this happens alot to slow other players or force them to disconnect. In Madden when it was on PC, it was very common for people to run something like this as they started to lose, forcing the other player to disconnect and losing reputation while they gave the victory to the player that didn't disconnect. Spam disconnections are handled better now and incentive is mostly gone from that through game design and verification (a user spamming is booted in cheat detection systems), but you have to be aware of that in PvP especially real- time battles, sports or racing type games.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> After reading the article, this netcode sounds like a complete mess. It's like Diablo 2, scaled up (contrast with Diablo 3).

Maybe they'll throw a blockchain in there to help with the obvious hacking issues that will inevitably happen.

</comment><comment><USER23> > To shield the game from hacks on PC, Bungie is preventing applications from > injecting code into the game.

Whats different to like every PC game since 19something? I mean thats a core component of most anti cheat tools and copy protections? (And - spoiler alert - they never really work)

<comment><USER24> A big difference is that they perma-banned anyone injecting code into that game. That however included anyone using any kind of overlay.

Discord, teamspeak or ventrilo 'who is talking' overlay: ban

FPS counter from fraps: ban

GPU temp monitor: ban

Webcam view for streaming: ban

Eventually they reverted those bans. People use them on a rather massive scale, and they are very normal. No-one expects them to be banned. Moreover, they gave no warning whatsoever. This means a lot of truly innocent people got caught in the ban.

<comment><USER25> this contradicts GP's comment

>Bungie is preventing applications from injecting code into the game

if the game is preventing overlays from getting injected, but you're bypassing that protection to inject your """legitimate""" overlays, it serves you right to get banned.

<comment><USER26> The thing is, why would I, as a customer, give a flying crap about how my voip/webcam/framerate capture client is working internally? I boot the game up, start discord to talk with friends and get banned, and that somehow "serves me right"? Is that a joke? It's supposed to ban cheaters - and using discord is absolutely definitely not cheating.

<comment><USER25> >... and get banned, and that somehow "serves me right"?

The "serves you right" part was preceded by "... but you're bypassing that protection ..."

<comment><USER26> Of course, but once again - why would I have to care if Destiny _thinks_ that my voip client is cheating? If their detection is off - then it's their problem. A regular customer will have no idea what "code injection" even means, much less if something like discord even does it. It's an unreasonable expectation from an actual customer that they would know this stuff. It's the same as buying a blu-ray and not being able to play it because the software thinks something in the setup is off - but as a paying customer, why should we care/accommodate/accept that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Let me get this straight.

Destiny has peer to peer server hosting at $60. Also it's expansions are paid.

Warframe (a similar game which people have compared it to) is free to play with no $60 up front charge and also has peer to peer server netcode. Nearly all of in game content is locked behind you grinding for resources and waiting for it to be built. Every expansion is also free.

Why am I paying for a game if it doesn't have dedicated servers? And I'm forming over money for the expansions ?

<comment><USER28> I sunk > 1000 hours into Warframe. It's an excellent game in my opinion and I'll return to it at some point (haven't played with the latest changes).

For people that like crazy movement in a shooter: Give Warframe a try!

<comment><USER29> I'm Diablo3 and Destiny fan - this summer I was bored and decided to give Warframe a try (we started it with my son together coop). I was appalled how bad the game is. Ugly, with like 4 levels (they have a couple tilesets and randomly generated levels - so the levels all look the same). I quit it after we unlocked archwing - that part was way too buggy, on top of general bugginess of the game.

Destiny2 gets a lot of hate, I don't understand why. It is super-polished, level design is stellar (I love Nessus with the broken down Exodus One, mission on the Almighty was also really good).

<comment><USER28> Regarding 'ugly': I guess that's just a matter of taste. It looks very good to me.

There are quite a lot of tilesets. If you only played to the AW content, you probably haven't seen most of them. Also, the latest big patch of the game adds persistent hand-crafted areas to explore - basically 'open world' (but not quite as big as that makes it sound). I haven't played that part myself yet.

AW went through lots of changes and while I personally always liked it it is quite a bit different for quite a while now (especially around input handling/degrees of freedom etc). You might not recognize it again.

Destiny2 on the other hand looks nice, but is already boring to me after about 10 hours. It feels like WoW as a shooter, "Run there, collect things, come back". Now - I see the irony: Warframe's similar. But it's free and provides so much more in my opinion. 3 classes (with each 3 subclasses) against a LOT of warframes with completely different play styles. All weapons so far feel meh, Warframe gives me things like Glaives, Bows, Nun-chucks and whatnot on top of all the guns you'd ever want. Heck, you can breed 'dogs' and 'cats' in Warframe.

Destiny2 so far is 'run there, shoot and get the same gun with slightly better stats' to me and I regret buying it.

YMMV

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There's a nice video on destiny 2's netcode that I feel goes more in-depth compared to this article. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks5lgcCFvvE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks5lgcCFvvE)

<comment><USER25> that's basically this article in video form.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This sounds a lot like Elite: Dangerous's netcode model, which is pretty bad for many of the same reasons.

<comment><USER32> That's what I thought about too.. except that Elite Dangerous is everything but a FPS and thus, does not require high tickrate / low latency. The game is definitely playable.

<comment><USER33> Wait what? ED absolutely has similar latency requirements as an FPS. The only difference is that you're in the cockpit of a spaceship dogfighting instead of controlling a person on the ground.

<comment><USER34> The simulation is highly predictable because it's dominated by inertia. FPS is very twitchy, completely different beast.

I've played ED at 300ms and have had no problems. That's barely playable for an FPS.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Destiny 2 has major issues with its "netcode" that other things like Skype and BitTorrent and Discord and generally webrtc don't have. I've played maybe 40-50 hours and will often get booted from parties and matches. At least a new leader is elected and it doesn't kill the whole instance. It also feels a little pathetic that I can hop around pve with two friends but as soon as a 3rd logs on our only options are pvp or the single raid (which we can't even help the newcommer grid towards since only 3 can do any of the leveling together). Maybe there's a bit of poor product clouding things but I suspect limitations are mostly due to poor technical planning. Not impressed with the netcodes.

</comment><comment><USER35> I already thought about P2P netcode, and I think its great. It should scale much better, game servers are much smaller and requires much less bandwidth, and you don't risk of having a bad customer experience if your servers are poorly managed or go down.

So it's better for games where you have a large amount of players and where latency is less of an issue. I would not have implemented a p2p netcode in a fps, as long as the game pace and speed is slow enough.

And it doesn't mean you can't accelerate the game by enabling game servers in places where you want the game to be smooth, like sessions with more players.

</comment><comment><USER36> Very good analysis of this here.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks5lgcCFvvE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ks5lgcCFvvE)

</comment><comment><USER37> A peer to peer online game is a game where people are going to cheat a lot. You don't have to inject code to cheat, you can inject bits into the network stream.

<comment><USER38> true, but to be fair, injecting bits into an encrypted stream is usually most easily done via code injection.</comment></comment>