Study of Thousands of Dropbox Projects Reveals How Successful Teams Collaborate - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2018/07/a-study-of-thousands-of-dropbox-projects-reveals-how-successful-teams-collaborate <comment><USER2> >> Dropbox gave us access to project-folder-related data, which we aggregated and anonymized[...]

Wait, Dropbox gave away non-anonymized data to a third party and they then anonymized it. Wow, what could go wrong? Just thinking of the endless possibilities of where all that data is now... Its deeply troubling how much unwarranted trust there is when it comes to handling of personal data.

<comment><USER3> This is not at all surprising.

Dropbox put Condoleezza Rice on their board, who supports warrentless wiretaps [1].

I deleted my account when they did that. Not so much because it would have any direct effect, but because it's clear that we have differing views on how user data should be treated.

I surprised that people are shocked by them treating user data like this, it's absolutely in character.

[1] [http://www.drop-dropbox.com](http://www.drop-dropbox.com)

<comment><USER4> just deleted mine (which I hadn't used in years anyways).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is deeply troubling. As a scientist who uses* Dropbox I gave no informed consent. I know they claim personally identifiable information was removed but still I gave no consent for this.

*not for long, perhaps

<comment><USER6> This may come across as argumentative, but it's still a valid question - What's the harm to you?

<comment><USER7> Imagine you have a folder in your Dropbox with 237 subfolders, and each of those subfolders has a certain number of files in it. The largest folder has 1,132 files, for example, the second largest has 916, the third-largest has 771, etc.

Then imagine you have a second folder with 117 subfolders with another pattern like above.

Now imagine that the first folder structure matches a torrent of embarrassing pornography and the second appears to be a superset of a project published to GitHub under your name (i.e. with some directories being gitignored)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > Dropbox gave us access to project-folder-related data, which we aggregated > and anonymized, for all the scientists using its platform over the period > from May 2015 to May 2017 — a group that represented 1,000 universities. > This included information on a user's total number of folders, folder > structure, and shared folder access

This seems like heaven for industrial espionage purposes. Just because there's some anonymisation doesn't mean that the metadata is useless. I sincerely hope they get GDPR'd over this.

<comment><USER9> It is only data from universities, not real for-profit businesses.

<comment><USER10> ha. Have you seen what some countries charge for tuition.

<comment><USER11> University administrators are not shareholders! Their greed is much better for society...

<comment><USER12> Why the heck would an administrator care if they 'hold shares' when they are pulling 200k-500k per year as base pay?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The lack of consent requested is ridiculous. There may be some sort of 'obscure paragraph in the terms and conditions that says Dropbox can do whatever they want' but this is horrible for privacy and business security. I'm glad I've been client-side encrypting my Dropbox files.

For the past two years I've using a free open-source encryption app called Cryptomator ([https://cryptomator.org/](https://cryptomator.org/)) for my Dropbox folder without problems. The only caveat is the mobile apps aren't free.

Another Dropbox encryption app is BoxCryptor, but I quit using them when they went subscription-only.

<comment><USER14> I've just looked on Boxcryptor, and they appear to have a free tier. Are you sure it's subscription only?

<comment><USER13> Boxcryptor used to be a one-time purchase to allow an unlimited number of cloud providers and devices.

However they decided they needed a consistent revenue stream so they renamed their software "Boxcryptor Classic", stopped updating it, and now users have to pay $48/year to get features previously available as a one-time fee. This was about 2 years ago, by now they've probably scrubbed all references to the "Classic" version on their website.

To be fair the subscription version does have new group/admin features for multiple users or businesses.

<comment><USER14> Ah, okay I see. Thanks man.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Dropbox sharing your data without consent? Nothing new. I've been using dropbox paper for a year now and only recently found out that by default all docs are shareable. That means, if you log into dropbox -> open a dropbox- paper doc -> Logout you're not safe. Anybody with your browsing history can re-access the document you've been working on even after you log out. So essentially if you're using dropbox paper on a shared computer or on a public/library computer and logout, people will still have accesss to your docs that you've worked on. Only way to turn this off, is to manually click the 'invite' button and uncheck the share option for each and every document seperately. I had some personal/sensitive info on a few docs and was shocked to learn of this. Completely unacceptable from dropbox!

<comment><USER16> If you are leaving browser history in public libraries, you have bigger problems than Dropbox Paper.

<comment><USER17> Care to expand? I wouldn't usually think of browser history as particularly sensitive.

<comment><USER16> There are a _LOT_ of services that treat the URL as a secret. If you're leaving these URLs in your browser history on a public computer other people can access them. For example, the images served up by Google Photos, that have the form lh3.googleusercontent.com/[kilobytes of base64-encoded spew], can be accessed by anybody having the URL. So if you use a public computer to access these, even though you need to be authenticated to browse Google Photos, and despite the fact that you conscientiously logged out, anybody with access to the history can still look at your photos. This is not be any means the only such example.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love Dropbox, but this kind of data-gathering without explicit permission is bananas. What I'd really love to see added to Dropbox is client-side encryption (i.e. I want to manage my own keys so nobody can monkey with my data). And yes, I know I can store an encrypted container inside Dropbox, but that defeats the purpose of _easily_ accessing my data from every device.

<comment><USER19> See [https://cryptomator.org/](https://cryptomator.org/)

<comment><USER20> Didn't know about this. Thank you!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What kind of junk statistics are these? HBR ought to be more discerning in what it publishes.

"How successful teams collaborate"... wait, I meant "the average number of users who update the same directories in Dropbox from institutions that tend to have influential research.

Sound insights. Make sure you're collaborating with no more than 2.3 people or else you'll have to move your research projects over to Yale.

<comment><USER22> Yes this was curious. I wonder if these insights (2.3 v 3 collaborators over 180 vs 130 days with the top person contributing x%) was really effective or just a coincidence.

<comment><USER23> > _2.3 v 3 collaborators over 180 vs 130 days_

Yeah, that caught my eye too especially the missing RMS so we could see whether the difference between 2.3 and 3 is significant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> \- The researchers claimed they could see "every Dropbox folder associated with a given researcher."

\- Dropbox denies giving researchers non-anonymized user data

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/dropbox-denies-giving- research...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/dropbox-denies-giving-researchers- non-anonymized-user-data/)

<comment><USER25> As the linked article states, all personally identifiable information is removed, but you still want to be able to say "Alice worked with Bob in folder 1, and that same Alice worked with Charlie in folder 2", so you assign unique identifiers to each user, such that you can't tie Alice to "Prof. Smith at University of Chicago", but you can tie folder 1 and folder 2 to the same Alice.

<comment><USER26> The GDPR has provisions for information like this, specifically to say that small pieces of information can together still constitute personal data. Consider that you can retrieve names if you map someone's professional interactions with this kind of detail.

Regardless of whether or not the GDPR applies to these people, it's a useful tool to illustrate why this kind of data is still wrong to share (especially without any kind of consent!).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> If using a Mac, it's pretty easy to encrypt a drive and store it in Dropbox, then mount it when you want to use it. Kind of negates the whole point of Dropbox (mobile access, small sync etc) but I started doing it for more sensitive things.

Doesn't require any 3rd party addons.

I really can't believe they shared this data. Universities do work for businesses all the time. Imagine a folder of research subjects organized by geo/age/sex then full patient name or SSN, under a folder called HIV survey or something. I mean really?

</comment><comment><USER28> I am sorry this might be a cliched post and doesn't add to the discussion but if they do things like this to academics what do they do with other peoples private data that we dont know about?

</comment><comment><USER29> This was a very poor read, and just listed correlations based on some numbers. I personally didn't learn anything that I, or anyone else, could apply. It's just a "correlation=causation" based list.

</comment><comment><USER30> How is this analysis even valuable "The average number of people on a project at a top-10% university was 2.3"

Analysis where the majority of the projects have less than 3 people tells you nothing on how to collaborate.

</comment><comment><USER31> "To invesitage the impact on peformance"

Wow, can't HBR afford a proofreader?

<comment><USER32> Or a spell-checker at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> How do you determine "whether they were senior or junior faculty" from anonymized data?

</comment><comment><USER34> > Teams at lower-performing institutions were more likely to have one person > or a small number of people doing more of the "heavy lifting."

Is there some way to address this when it does happen? Or is it just a matter of the right people being involved?

<comment><USER35> My guess is that this is a symptom of only specific people being competent/engaged. Alternatively, this is specific team members hating process.

In the latter case, I think that means you adjust process to be lighter. In tbe former, there is no procedural fix, only hiring fixes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I am surprised by the comments here. No one seems to have actually read the article nor taken the time to learn about how Dropbox partners with researchers: [https://blogs.dropbox.com/business/2018/06/nico-customer- sto...](https://blogs.dropbox.com/business/2018/06/nico-customer-story/)

</comment><comment><USER37> The five rules listed feels more like correlation and less like cause.

Also, there's more to true collaboration than sharing files.</comment>


Facebook iPhone app shares all your phone numbers - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/microchick/2010/10/facebook-iphone-app-shares-all-your-phone-numbers/index.htm <comment><USER2> There are a number of inaccuracies in this article that I'd like to correct:

> _The Facebook app also appears to share numbers for contacts that you don't > have, but your Facebook friends do._

This does not happen. After syncing, the Facebook Phonebook only displays contact information you have access to. This includes: 1.Phone numbers your friends have manually added to their profile. 2.Phone numbers already in your address book.

> _Facebook does this without your knowledge or consent._

Also inaccurate. To enable the syncing feature you must:

1\. Open iPhone app. 2.Click "Friends" 3. Click Sync 4.Turn "On" (this page could probably be more clear) 5."I Agree" to the notice explaining what information will be transferred:

"If you enable this feature, all contacts from your device (name, email, address, phone number) will be sent to Facebook and be subject to Facebook's Privacy Policy, and your friends' profile photos and other info from Facebook will be added to your iPhone address book. Please make sure your friends are comfortable with any use you make of their information. [I Don't Agree] [I Agree]"

> _the Facebook iPhone app seems to ignore Apple's rules on user consent, > specifically point 7.1 which states: "Apps cannot transmit data about a user > obtaining the user's prior permission and providing the user with access to > information about how and where the data will be used."_

Inaccurate. See above. That said, it's possible the app could be more clear. I will create an internal ticket with new suggested language.

> _To be extra secure, I recommend removing yourself from Facebook Phonebook > though this link, which appears to be down at the moment - possibly due to > high demand._

Accurate. I pinged the engineer that is working on this. Turns out they took the page down for some scheduled downtime. They're working hard to get it back online in response to this article.

Disclaimer: I'm not directly involved in this feature at Facebook (but I am somewhat familiar with it).

<comment><USER3> >This includes: 1.Phone numbers your friends have manually added to their profile. 2.Phone numbers already in your address book.

Why do I have numerous contacts on my facebook phonebook page for whom I don't have a number in my phone, and they don't have their number listed anywhere on their profiles? (I've checked and rechecked)

<comment><USER2> It's possible that you previously synced that number. Can you email me directly with your Facebook profile ID or alias? I'd like to investigate: email@example.com

EDIT (1 hour later): I haven't received your email and we haven't been able to reproduce your bug. Can you email me (even if it's just user error) with a more detailed description? I want to make sure we follow up on this.

<comment><USER3> I can provide you with my facebook name, but I don't think you'll be able to reproduce -or- see anything with that alone. (It's not really a 'bug')

I am simply seeing phone numbers of facebook friends (on my "facebook phonebook" page) who 1) do not have any phone numbers listed in their FB profiles, and 2) that I do not have phone numbers for in my own contact list on my iPhone.

<comment><USER2> What you're describing is a bug that hasn't previously been reported to us. Why are you hesitant to follow up via email so that we can investigate?

<comment><USER3> I am not hesitant to follow-up via email. I sent one to the address you supplied above and it hard-bounced. Beside, what will my facebook user name provide you? You won't be able to see my account or phonebook page. Who is the "us" you are referring to? The domain you provided is company.com? Are you a facebook employee?

EDIT: I see from your HN profile you are affiliated with FB. Perhaps I am misunderstanding where to send you my info? firstname.lastname@example.com is returning an invalid address error.

EDIT 2: Sorry, Sam. I think I got my mail to you the second time around. Apologies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Here's the consent screen you get when you click "Sync" in the app:

"If you enable this feature, all contacts from your device (name, email, address, phone number) will be sent to Facebook and be subject to Facebook's Privacy Policy, and your friends' profile photos and other info from Facebook will be added to your iPhone address book. Please make sure your friends are comfortable with any use you make of their information. [I Don't Agree] [I Agree]"

Technically fair warning, but I personally feel this is too invasive no matter what the user clicks through.

<comment><USER5> Why the "technically"? It's an absolutely fair warning, and tells you exactly what it's doing.

Although I do agree with you, this information isn't something Facebook's app should be harvesting in any event... although the functionality itself would be tempting for a lot of people. Maybe they could only send hashes of your contact data, and compare it with hashes on their servers?

<comment><USER6> I'm not even convinced of that. Use MobileMe? Your address book gets synced with Apple. Have an Android phone? It gets synced with Google. Maybe Plaxo? Same deal. This should be treated the same as those solutions, as near as I can tell.

I should note that, unless I am missing something, the claim from the article that anyone can view your Facebook phonebook seems incorrect to me. The only way I can find to get there is to go to "Edit Friends." Even when I view the profile as my fiancée, who has access to everything in my Facebook profile, I can discern no way to get to that area.

This seems like a completely fabricated story designed to scare users, which is annoying to me, because it's the boy who cried wolf: whenever a nothing story like this about Facebook surfaces, it's that much harder to people's attention when they do something legitimate.

<comment><USER4> With MobileMe, you have explicitly signed up for a service who's primary purpose is to share your data. Android is arguably the same situation, though you don't have any alternative so I would actually throw them in the same dungeon as Facebook.

Experience teaches us that the only consequences users understand are the ones they desire. Everything else is ignored. So, if they download their Facebook contacts to their phone and this also causes their phone contacts to be uploaded to Facebook, you will end up with some angry users, dialog or no dialog.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Discovered this many about a month or two ago, and have not been able to fix it since.

To see if you're affected go to "Account" (top left hand corner), "Edit Friends", and then "Phone book" ... (right hand menu)

I was shocked to find that it had taken every. single. number. off my iphone and published them to that page.

I had to disable Facebook/iphone sync then try to delete the phone numbers by clicking the link on the left that they recommend to you [http://www.facebook.com/contact_importer/remove_uploads.php?...](http://www.facebook.com/contact_importer/remove_uploads.php?r=/phonebook), but it has _never_ worked, despite me clicking on that link at least 30 times over the last few months.

So yeah ... my entire iphone phonebook is on facebook right now, and yours may be too.

<comment><USER8> Hm, in the top left-hand corner I have "Logout", not "Account". Is there another way I can check?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's something about the word "sync" that implies, y'know, a sync. I said no to contact sync when I installed Facebook for iPhone and that was that -- no problem.

<comment><USER10> It's a little more than that when this article is stating that there's a severe privacy risk for people who don't even own an iPhone or have never installed the Facebook application. Perhaps it's not a big deal for you to have your phone number out there for public consumption, but it is for many people including myself.

<comment><USER4> Unfortunately, phone numbers have no pretense of being private. When you call someone, they get your number. Etiquette alone determines what they can do with it, and etiquette is lagging behind social technology.

<comment><USER11> > they get your number

Not if it's blocked.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To disable, go here:

[http://www.facebook.com/contact_importer/remove_uploads.php?...](http://www.facebook.com/contact_importer/remove_uploads.php?r=/phonebook)

(Currently appears to be down, however.)

<comment><USER3> I've been checking all day and hearing from others that it's 'never' worked for them either. (Prior to the story breaking)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think this article is simply spreading FUD. It has a many inaccuracies that have been highlighted and as far as I'm concerned is simply looking to get an audience with sensationalist Facebook privacy bandwagon

Firstly the sync feature:

[+] offers enough notice and gets consent

[+] does not take your entire contacts including their phone numbers and put this in your Facebook phonebook accessible to all - I use it and all I can see in my Facebook phonebook is the friends who have shared their phone numbers already

Secondly the real sensitivity of this data:

[+] I mean seriously it is a name, a phone number and maybe an email address. How sensitive is this? If I have a name I can find a phone number through this magic book called the white pages. You can find an email address in so many places and if you can find somewhere where they work it is not hard to guess email@example.com or 8 characters of surname + 1 of first name @ company.com

If someone receives unsolicited emails that is simple to deal with and everyone does it every day. Phone calls similarly are not hard to report and get blocked.

I use my google contacts as my phone's contacts with exchange ActiveSync and linking to Facebook and Linked is great - it allows me to create email groups very easily and always have to hand an email address or a phone number on my phone or on a desktop endpoint. Syncing this data is just convenient and people should not be put off by sensationalist articles such as these.

</comment><comment><USER14> Where's the proof that this actually shares the phone numbers of people who haven't put it on their Facebook profile? It sounds like a way to store your numbers so they come back if you switch phones. Sharing phone numbers that people haven't chosen to share is too stupid for me to believe.

<comment><USER3> I know this is entirely anecdotal, but I have several 'net firends' listed on my "facebook phonebook" page for whom I don't have a number in my phone and they do not have any numbers posted on their profile.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Facebook responds to questions here: [http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/microchick/2010/10/facebook...](http://blogs.computerworlduk.com/microchick/2010/10/facebook- clears-up-iphone-app-contact-sync-hype/)

What else would you like to know about this app?

</comment><comment><USER16> That's a bit scary. I'd still say that if you share any of your private details with Facebook, you're an idiot. I'm pretty sure that when you Sync your iphone contacts with Facebook, it does warn you that it'll harvest them...

</comment><comment><USER17> Does anyone know if this effects Android users too?

<comment><USER18> I just confirmed that it does affect Android users as well.

I'm using the Facebook application on a Motorola Droid running Froyo, and all of my numbers have been synced to Facebook.

Note: I selected the sync all friends option, since almost all my Facebook friends are in my contacts anyway. I don't know if it would do this if you only selected sync with existing contacts. I'd guess that it most likely would, but I can't confirm it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The 2nd Great Satan strikes again.</comment>


Requiring Universities to Ban Anonymous Speech on Campus Is Unconstitutional - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/01/eff-court-requiring-universities-ban-anonymous-online-speech-platforms-campus <comment><USER2> No comments on such an important topic on an anonymous hacker news forum?

"Feminist Majority Foundation" should be careful about what they wish for. Because feminism has benefited tremendous from anonymous discussion and anonymous support. For much of the world and even in much of the US, feminism is a reviled term and ideology.</comment>


A Software Secretary That Takes Charge  - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/14/business/14stream.htm

<comment><AUTHOR> _"... A different tack has been taken by the entrepreneur Patrick W. Grady. He has put together a technology team at Rearden Commerce that has already begun to reach a business audience with an "intelligent" personal assistant oriented toward travel and entertainment. It will be available early next year for nonbusiness customers as well.

Rearden is one of Silicon Valley's most significantly financed but least known start-ups. ..."_

Reads like a sub ~ <http://www.paulgraham.com/submarine.html> you can read about it (the placement in the NYT tech section) before you can demo it.

 _"... I set out to deliver on the longstanding 'holy grail of user-centric computing,' a 'personal Internet assistant.' ... Have Mr. Grady or CALO or Siri cracked the code in the half-decade-long quest for a software personal assistant? Ordinary computer users will soon have a chance to find out ..."_

Better than say Stikkit (folded into Twitter) or RTM ~ <http://www.rememberthemilk.com/> ?</comment>


A Fully Buzzword-Compliant Development Blog Post  - <AUTHOR> http://www.agilemanagement.net/Articles/Weblog/NewChiefProcessScientistR.html <comment><AUTHOR> I counted:

Chief Process Scientist; strategic partnership; change management consulting services; vision; Software OnDemand; business model; outsourcing; play; Lean; business agility; pull based near/on-shore outsourcing model; software engineering value chain; maturity; thought leader; scale; craft based labor- arbitrage outsource businesses; Lean Thinking; Software Factories; orders of magnitude improvement

Did I miss any?

<comment><USER2> I don't get it. Software product lines are done by people who are the opposite of agile.

<comment><AUTHOR> If the buzzwords are in the same row, column, or diagonal on your card you are permitted to call bingo even if you can't make a cogent paragraph out of them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I look forward to "Software Factories" and the "pull based near/on-shore outsourcing model" to lead the next wave of failed consulting projects, continuing to leave the market open for those of us who still practice "craft- based development" and actually build full, polished applications that work.

</comment><comment><USER4> Feels like reading a lisp function (in isolation). Each of those tokens might be a function with real power behind it, or the whole function might just end up printing "Hello World".

</comment><comment><USER5> Ya, it comes across like that. David Anderson is super-smart though. He's brought a lot of original thought to _how_ to do software development for large development teams. His ideas scale down. I've used a lot of his ideas for groups in the 10-20 ppl range. His thoughts on using kanban systems have really worked well.

He is a controversial person in the Agile community.

</comment><comment><USER6> That's surprisingly light on information. The hyperlinks possibly have more information than the words.</comment>


InkWell: A Creative Writer's Creative Assistant [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.dreamsongs.com/Files/InkWell.pdf <comment><USER2> This is just an advanced madlibs generator. As a copywriter who dabbles in creative writing I see nothing here that would help me. It's just too "dumb".

<comment><USER3> Which is the whole point, really: it doesn't facilitate the actual "writing" so much as the "thinking," at which stage you're still developing ideas and seeing how they fit together.

Several generations of writers (and other artists) have found great results cutting their work up and rearranging it to find deeper insights into the work they might still produce: Burroughs, Bowie, and others!

Anxious for the day I can give this thing a spin.

<comment><USER2> Aleatoric processes are more interesting than the results, in my opinion. Too easy and too disconnected from the human to resonate (beyond the isolated snippets that get trotted out, like photos of parking meters that look like faces). And that disconnection is why software like this doesn't interest me. If you know what you want to write you don't need this. If you don't know, there are better, richer, more fulfilling ways to come up with ideas than randomly permuting text.

<comment><USER3> That's fair. Part of anyone's acceptance of the method would have to do with their acceptance of this tenet:

 _Producing a work of written art requires constant discovery and guessing—because all works of art are works of exploration and discovery._

Thus InkWell merely seems (to me) like it would be useful as a kind of servant --a tool to show you other plausible variants of your text, and thus spur the creative process.

But if you already know what you're going to write and how, then godspeed-- you're in a much better situation than most writers :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Don't let Dan Brown see this ([http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10049454/Dont-make-fun- of...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/10049454/Dont-make-fun-of-renowned- Dan-Brown.html)).

</comment><comment><USER5> I feel like I am missing something here. Is this a program that actually exists or something that they are currently working on and will be available at some later date? I don't see any way to try it out. Its a compelling idea though.

</comment><comment><USER6> It takes your original text and makes it easy to execute different drafts of that text based on stylistic templates calculated from famous authors. Kind of like Hemingwayapp.com.

 _Creativity in writing takes a couple of ingredients: being prepared to notice, wide ranging and non-judgmental production of drafts, and a selection and revision process guided by aesthetics. In a sense it's like serendipity. With InkWell we've tried to explore writerly creativity in a creative way—by letting the program emerge from a haze of half-known ideas_

</comment><comment><USER7> The most irritating aspect of creative writing is that one constantly needs to find synonyms for things that one already has a perfect word for, but which cannot be used out of fear for sounding repetitive. If this tool can solve that, it is already a huge win.

> Some of this work was supported by DARPA

I wonder how the DoD would put such a tool to use :)

<comment><USER8> In this talk (software as creative partner, European Lisp Symposium 2014), rpg mentions the DoD's interest. I enjoyed the talk:

[http://medias.ircam.fr/x03b42f](http://medias.ircam.fr/x03b42f)

I'll spoil it: the DoD wants natural language generation that would influence people on social media, like Twitter.

Say the DoD doesn't want resistance fighters (like you) to meet somewhere. They'll generate a barrage of tweets about how that's a bad idea. Those tweets don't influence you directly, but they influence people you follow on twitter, who do influence you (because by nature of twitter you follow those who influence you). You don't meet, because your friends--who have your best interests at heart (because their your friends)--told you not to.

When this works as intended, the DoD is able to influence people without being easily traced.

It's a little horrifying, which makes it _fascinating_.

One more comment about the talk: rpg shows his humor, strong opinions, and software wisdom in this talk. Again, I recommend it.

<comment><USER9> A cheaper wumao for the US! It is horrifyingly fascinating, like watching a building burn.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > With InkWell we've tried to explore writerly creativity in a creative way—by > letting the program emerge from a haze of half-known ideas

The half-known ideas (templates) presented were not the author's own, instead they were borrowed from other writers. This isn't writing, it's sampling.

<comment><USER9> RPG is an accomplished poet himself, one of the few computer scientists with an MFA. He presented some of these poems at a poetry workshop, and they were retrieved well enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is not writing. Not in the conventional sense. It's a new art form.

<comment><USER6> When you take an original piece created by another source, and suggest modifications for strength, clarity or other qualitative values, I believe we simply call that editing.

<comment><USER12> So that would make it a... text editor? :).</comment></comment></comment>


Making Rails 12X Faster - <AUTHOR> http://oldmoe.blogspot.com/2008/09/building-never-blocking-rails-making.html <comment><USER3> This is certainly good news for beginners, but for serious scaling, rails itself is almost never the problem.

The way this test was done was by making postgres sleep between requests -- in reality, postgres would become the bottleneck fairly quickly.

Not trying to rain on anyone's parade though -- it's great news for the small to medium sized rails-powered site.

<comment><USER4> Even for large sites this (combined with other rails/ruby improvements) is a huge gain.

Because each rails app server can only handle a single request at a time, you have to spawn more and more instances of rails. Each of these instances consume 50-200MB of ram. Being able to have a single app server per server means I can stop spending so much on ram (or use it for other purposes).

So at a large scale, this will be a large impact because it will reduce the number of mongrels/thins/... you have to run.

<comment><USER3> That's correct. My understanding is (having never been there myself) that if you're running a large site, you're going to have to throw hardware at a scaling problem -- that said, if just hardware solves your problem, you're in great shape.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> railsenvy podcast mentioned this, and that mysql support would be coming 'soon', but since this is ruby 1.9 only, it's not a terribly useful thing until there exists a rails version that fully supports 1.9.

<comment><USER6> Actually there's already mysql support in the mysqlplus driver. [http://www.espace.com.eg/neverblock/blog/2008/08/28/neverblo...](http://www.espace.com.eg/neverblock/blog/2008/08/28/neverblock- mysql-support/)

It's supposed to be 1.8.6 compatible but neverblock isn't, I don't think - <USER2> I'm not sure what the advantage of this alone would be. I'd like to know, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not to produce sour grapes here, but the Twisted framework has had async db adapters for quite a while now.

Still, good for Rails. I will be much less annoyed by Ruby/Rails adoption when (1) Rails performs better and (2) the Ruby interpreter doesn't suck.

<comment><USER8> You find it annoying that other people prefer a certain technology?</comment></comment>


The Wealthy Are Hoarding $10B of Bitcoin in Bunkers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-05-09/bunkers-for-the-wealthy-are-said-to-hoard-10-billion-of-bitcoin <comment><USER2> >the global currency of the future, that they need to buy some, and that he's the man to safeguard it.

Looks like in the future people hoard currency instead of spending and investing it then. That ought to be interesting.

It also demonstrates the costs associated with non-reversible transactions, these vaults aren't storing gold ingots or priceless artifacts, just private keys. Banks around the world don't need to worry too much about this (well, within reason) because if somebody manages to break into their digital vault not everything is lost and they can mitigate the damages retroactively.

With bitcoin "if you don't hold the keys, you don't own the coins" but if you do hold the keys you better be absolutely paranoid with them because there's no plan B if they get compromised or destroyed. For this reason I think that even if cryptocurrencies manage to become mainstream many people (including myself) would rather let a bank manage and insure their wallet than manage it themselves. Too stressful otherwise.

<comment><USER3> That's because - and everyone but the uninformed or idealists know this - it's an investment product. It's simply not suitable as a currency, because one, inflation / instability, and two, it can only do what, a dozen transactions a second, if that? That's not nearly enough to become a viable currency.

<comment><USER4> Speak for yourself. I use bitcoin all the time for payments.

Peer to peer using coinbase(email) for free and instant to friends.

Shift card for free and instant at merchants.

Bitcoin is beyond blockchain, companies have built products to trade BTC instantly, free, using the infrastructure already existing. The transaction time 'problem' doesnt really exist if you are into crypto, you know how to use it.

And I dont trust USD like I trust BTC. Historically Fiat currencies are awful.

<comment><USER5> > Bitcoin is beyond blockchain, companies have built products to trade BTC > instantly, free, using the infrastructure already existing

If bitcoin is "beyond blockchain", than what is it? Just a table of transactions in a Real Database™? If yes, whats the point?

You've just layered a very bank-sounding, very-centralized construct on top of your space-age "trustless" decentralized blockchain. How is it at all revolutionary since you've basically gone and re-invented a much shitter version of the credit card and traditional (evil) fiat banking.

> And I dont trust USD like I trust BTC. Historically Fiat currencies are > awful.

I feel like bitcoin people live in some kind of alternate reality that I simply don't understand. Is it the fact that they have so much invested in the concept that they lose the ability to think clearly? Is it a cult? A religion?

I'm not sure, but it sure is an interesting phenomenon.

<comment><USER4> >I feel like bitcoin people live in some kind of alternate reality that I simply don't understand.

I can tell. You seem to think Bitcoin is another inflationary currency.

The excitement is that, Donald Trump doesnt have control over Bitcoin. China doesnt have control over bitcoin. No government does. People with computers have control over it. There are 21,000,000 Bitcoin ever ever ever. No amount of awful government can change that.

>How is it at all revolutionary since you've basically gone and re-invented a much shitter version of the credit card and traditional (evil) fiat banking.

Like I said, Bitcoin is rare and digital. I think you are complaining about payment processing companies. I have had an excellent experience using these companies with no fees on instant transactions.

<comment><USER5> > There are 21,000,000 Bitcoin ever ever ever.

Provably false. Bitcoin has been forked into multiple chains numerous time, creating many more then 21 million tokens. Given that there is no trademark on the term "Bitcoin", some of these forks can rightfully claim themselves to be The True Bitcoin.

In addition, there are thousands of other non-forked blockchains that are nearly identical to bitcoin, save for a few minor configuration changes.

> Bitcoin is rare and digital.

Absolutely false. Bitcoin is digital and infinitely creditable. This has been proven over and over again.

<comment><USER6> i think you're arguing semantics. if most people dont view the forked chain as valid and prefer the original, then a new bitcoin isn't created per se.

<comment><USER7> That's why BTC's value went down when BCH forked, right? Even a moderately successful fork will hurt BTC's value.

<comment><USER8> It actually went up, somehow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9>
        "You couldn't pay me to keep it with a bank."

Because if there's one thing banks are known for, it's running off with client assets suddenly and without warning.

Oh wait, that's cryptocurrency startups...

<comment><USER10> Two things they are known for;

Not allowing very large balances to be withdrawn at once.

Complying with asset freeze orders.

<comment><USER3> And you think this bank (re: the article) falls outside of those? You won't be able to get your btc out quickly in this one either. Same with online exchanges for that matter.

They also have much lower transaction fees.

<comment><USER11> Exchanging directly for cash at or above market rates is definitely practical with LocalBitcoins. There are a large number of brokers there that do it professionally and value their reputation on the platform much higher than they value the potential for ripping you off.

Of course, if you need to liquidate $1B in Bitcoin, that's going to take time, but you can still do it much faster than you could get it out of a Cypress bank in 2014.

<comment><USER12> AFAIK those who had more than €100k in deposits just plainly lost a portion of their money:

[https://www.reuters.com/article/cyprus- bankofcyprus/cyprus-c...](https://www.reuters.com/article/cyprus- bankofcyprus/cyprus-central-bank-announces-47-5-percent-haircut-on-large-bank- of-cyprus-deposits-idUSL6N0G033120130730)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> According to its proponents, Bitcoin is digital gold. (Interestingly it's not an "electronic currency" anymore even though that was the original title of the 2008 whitepaper. I suppose Lightning Network or something is supposed to fix that with new transaction layers backed by the Bitcoin gold.)

One aspect of gold's historical value is that it's traditionally recognized even in societies in collapse. I've never understood how Bitcoin is supposed to hold its value in such an event — something on the scale of nuclear war, or Germany in 1945.

After an EMP wipes out data centers and cell phone towers, you can probably still bribe people with Krugerrands. Who's going to accept Bitcoin transfers when the infrastructure is either gone or under military control?

Or is the idea that Bitcoin will be valuable again when the wealthy finally crawl out of their New Zealand bunkers and reestablish the financial system?

<comment><USER14> > After an EMP wipes out data centers and cell phone towers

If such a thing happens on a large scale there will be hundred of millions of deaths. All major cities will simply collapse.

See recent articles how London can only survive for 4 days without electricity, after that there will be no food.

The modern society is incredibly fragile. Everything is just in time, there are no stocks or buffers. Bitcoins will be the least of your worries in such an event. Your Krugerrands will also not be of much value. Nobody will be stupid to give you food or gas for a piece of metal.

<comment><USER15> I really think this opinion is short-sighted. And it comes from a less extreme version of the same place that 9/11 deniers operate from; normal humans don't want to naturally think about loss of control and what that loss of control would look like. So its easier to just say "if this happens we're all fucked, don't even try"

There is practically no evidence in history where gold had fungible value then became worthless. Nothing else matters; everything else is conjecture, opinion, and extrapolation.

Yes, we live in a very fragile society. Yes, if complete collapse happened, there would be a period of extreme chaos when millions, hundreds of millions, die.

But the chaos would stabilize, barring any extenuating factors like a T-Virus. And in that world, maybe US Dollars would still hold some value. History says Gold probably will. Bitcoin though? Bitcoin requires a global network of miners. It would require having access to the _original blockchain_ that gives your wallet value. In the best likelihood, the currency would splinter into every small network that can still run miners. And when energy is so expensive that you need all of it to power your lights, vehicles, and medical equipment, why would anyone spend it on an expensive mining rig, even _if_ all the complex computer equipment necessary to make it run were widely available?

And then a guy walks into town with a bag full of gold. Suddenly Bitcoin isn't looking all that valuable as a currency. I'll sell my extra food to the guy with the gold, because the guy with antibiotics down the street would also sell to the guy with the gold, and the guy in the town over with car parts would also sell to the guy with the gold. That's what makes currency work; people, not software.

<comment><USER14> That guy with a bag full of gold will most likely not be the one who had that bag of gold when chaos erupted, that was my point.

Those who survive the chaos will be the ones strong enough and ruthless enough to organize themselves into powerful gangs. The nerd with a bag of gold will most likely be killed and it's gold stolen.

Being a prepper with an underground bunker will also not be of much value, you will just be seiged out.

If you are rich, what you'll need is a small private army to protect you, a small working force to feed you and the army, and the political skills to be able to enter into the right alliance after that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The word 'hoarding' demonizes 'saving,' which in most Keynesian economies is considered leakage. It's really a question of values. Inflationary currencies encourage consumption; deflationary ones encourage savings. High consumption does increase demand, and apparently a faster growth in the economy. One could argue that this almost forced consumption for the sake of faster economic growth is what causes malinvestment and the associated boom-and-bust cycles.

One could be hesitant about spending away their Bitcoin to buy a shiny new bigger TV, while they'd happily part with USD for the same expense. Former, I'd say, has a more natural alignment with our incentives to spend thoughtfully.

Also, I am not sure if everyone shares the value of eating the planet at a faster rate for employment and GDP numbers.

<comment><USER17> > Inflationary currencies encourage consumption

You mean "investment"

> deflationary ones encourage savings

I'm not sure why encouraging people to bury their wealth in the ground instead of doing something useful with it is something we want to be doing.

<comment><USER18> > I'm not sure why encouraging people to bury their wealth in the ground > instead of doing something useful with it is something we want to be doing.

Savings is not "burying their wealth in the ground", it's building a safety net for the future. At least for everyday people. Most people would be better off doing that than blowing it on big screen tv's, boats, and cigarettes. If more people did that, society would be better off too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If you want to understand just how difficult managing cryptographic material is for the technically illiterate, look no further than Xapo.

It's not "Bitcoin" that Xapo stores, but private keys. In underground bunkers. This no doubt gives some people a warm fuzzy.

But Bitcoin's history is littered with the wreckage of companies that took it on themselves to store private keys on behalf of others.

I don't know when Xapo will fail, but if history is any guide it's just a matter of time. The weakest link in their system is the people involved.

Consider this tortured statement:

 _If Xapo's deep cold storage vaults were hacked, Xapo would cover the loss from its own reserve but the hack could be bigger than the reserve which would cause a net loss to our customers._

[https://blog.xapo.com/what-would-happen-if-xapo-got- hacked/](https://blog.xapo.com/what-would-happen-if-xapo-got-hacked/)

In other words, a Xapo depositor would eat the loss in the event of a successful attack on the cold storage system.

The funny thing about all of this is that private key management isn't difficult when you know how. Given the vast sums of money being stored, you might think that certain big fish would want to take the time to do it right.

<comment><USER20> _In other words, a Xapo depositor would eat the loss in the event of a successful attack on the cold storage system._

The same is true of Coinbase. Somehow they've been fine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It makes sense that Goldman Sachs and Newyork Stock Exchange are working on Bitcoin trading allowing wealthy clients to own Bitcoin.

At this point it's definitely mainstream and if enough of the billionaires own it, they can definitely manipulate the price. Not sure how would Governments control this

</comment><comment><USER22> Bunkers? Like prepper bunkers? To survive what? If things go __that__ sideways, a hoard of crypto-currency will be the least of their worries.

Apparently, even the financially wealthy can be common sense poor.

<comment><USER23> Alternatively, if things really go that sideways bitcoin will be the only valuable currency in the world.

<comment><USER24> In such a scenario, bitcoin will have no value. Localized disasters occur more frequently than one would expect, and in such disasters, a pure barter economy exists.

During the Bosnian War, things that became highly valuable were: bullets, liquor, antibiotics, lighters, and of course food [0]. Bitcoin, or any other currency, was the last thing on anyone's mind.

[0] - [http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency- preparedness/a-survival-q-...](http://www.shtfplan.com/emergency- preparedness/a-survival-q-a-living-through-shtf-in-the-middle-of-a-war- zone_10252011)

<comment><USER24> I'd also make the comment that the parent was suggesting a _world-wide_ scenario. If such a scenario were localized, Bitcoin would make a lot of sense, assuming migration were a possibility (that is not always the case, as in the Bosnian War). An example of this would be the current situation in Venezuela.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I am sure someone is going to talk about banks and how they steal money so I will leave it here for anyone who wants to learn more:

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/21/bitco...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/francescoppola/2018/04/21/bitcoin- banks-and-a-whole-lot-of-fud/#55e2cc1c21f1)

</comment><comment><USER26> Key Management Systems will be an _extremely_ lucrative business if anyone can come along and get it right. Coinbase could be a leading candidate to operate one, but the opportunity is there for a small player with top tier security talent.

</comment><comment><USER27> I heard an interesting analysis of long term crypros, by Jeff Berwick IIRC, that BTC will become the holding coin and transactions will happen on alts. My intuition agrees, tho I hold no coins so am impartial. He is sharp generally and claims to nail predictions, have not verified, so I lean toward agreeing but would obv research before I buy into any strategy. Another video I saw examined the amount of BTC in terms of some unit of energy relative to current global usage. I don't wish I bought some in 2010/11 but I'd sure be sitting pretty if I had less regard for the polar bears!

</comment><comment><USER28> In case of what? If something so major happens that the US dollar, the Euro, the British pound and other reserve currencies collapse or the financial system breaks down completely, what exactly is going to keep the Internet running such that the blockchain consensus will even be there?

It's a bit like there's really no point (IMHO) preparing for a massive nuclear war by stockpiling food, water and guns and having a generator and a bomb shelter because if we have a nuclear war we're all kind of fucked anyway, so what's the point?

</comment><comment><USER29> I would argue that Bitcoin in this case isn't an investment or speculation. It's insurance.

These wacky boys think their Bitcoin will save them someday. Whether they foresee a societal meltdown or government breaking down their door and seizing assets, they're living in fear. This wacky company is has found the perfect message and the perfect product for the perfect market.

</comment><comment><USER30> Inflationists / consumptionists have been demonizing savers and sound money since the 1700s, if not earlier. They enjoy the artificial boom induced through inflation of the money supply and then blame gold or speculation or "animal spirits" for the bust. They think that if we could only got back to the consumption levels of the boom, then we'd be "back on track." This never works, and the calls for consumption are usually special pleading by bank- connected interests that stand to benefit from monetary inflation.

We will see the pattern continue with Bitcoin, the most sound money the world has ever known (no matter how high the price goes, you cannot increase supply beyond the scheduled issuance). This time _is_ different, however. The consumer can (and should) control her own private keys, which means not trusting a bank, which historically will inflate the money supply to its own benefit. Forced confiscation of privately-held Bitcoin will be much more expensive than previous confiscations of gold already held in vaults.

Unfortunately, those wealthy savers with their money in the vaults mentioned in the article will have their Bitcoin confiscated when things get bad enough. Too many in the space have already learned the hard way what happens when you trust your coins to a centralized institution.

<comment><USER17> > Inflationists / consumptionists have been demonizing savers and sound money > since the 1700s, if not earlier.

And as we all know, it's been one long, slow economic collapse since the 17th century.

<comment><USER30> The long-term trend is caused by gains in productivity brought about by saving and investment with private property protections.

The boom-bust cycle is brought about by inflationary banking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Its not $10B worth. If you tried to liquidate, convert into another currency or asset etc there wouldn't be enough buyers at $9500, $1 would be much more likely towards the end of selling...

<comment><USER32> I don't think it would go all the way down to $1. I made a simple analysis of BitStamp's order book ([https://www.bitstamp.net/market/order_book/](https://www.bitstamp.net/market/order_book/) ) considering all the bids and, in total, only in that market you have $22.5 millions available in bids going from $9275 to $7429 for a weighted average of $8462 in price. This for a portfolio of BTC that at the current market price ($9275) would be $24.5 millions. This means that the slippage will take ~9% of the price

It is safe to assume that CoinBase has a larger order book, so I think that the slippage could go down to 50% if you wanted to sell $10B worth of BTC, so it would be more like $5B. Sure, that is if you want to sell it in one go, but usually you make a stop order or a limit order to protect you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> There is this myth that wealthy people are more savvy investors than ordinary folk. Sometimes they are but often not. They get scammed the most because that is where the money is.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why wouldn't they just store it in a Swiss bank box or something?

Can the wealthy not just use their art/gems/gold storage choice. Do hardware wallets need power?

</comment><comment> a-dub This is just more evidence that my theory on why Bitcoin was developed, may actually hold water.

It was never about the GFC, failing banks or some crazy libertarian dream. It was all because someone was upset that the "million dollar bank transfer codes (or the two keys geographically separated that have to be turned at the same time, or the special secret crypto laptop in the zero halliburton that can transfer billions instantly and untracably)" trope from all those crime films was complete bullshit, and that in reality most money is protected by horrifyingly thick layers of mediocre bureaucracy and somebody wanted to be the mahatma gandhi of making those sorts of situations actually plausible in the real world.

</comment><comment><USER35> Why does he hold it in 5 continents? In case 4 get wiped out? Surely, all it is is an encrypted private key they are storing.

</comment><comment><USER36> ~10% of that is also Wences own money. Not sure why he got left off the crypto rich list.

</comment><comment><USER37> Probably not the best idea to give Bitcoin to someone to keep in their vault.

</comment><comment><USER38> I wouldn't expect the poor to hoard $10B

</comment><comment><USER39> So...not a lot? It's a surprisingly small number. Tiny fraction of their wealth and of aggregate crypto market cap.

</comment><comment><USER40> if everything goes to shit why wouldn't xapo just steal all the btc?

</comment><comment><USER41> $10B at what point in time?

<comment><USER42> They're storing $10b... wait, sorry, $20b... sorry, no, it's $5b now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> great, I wish they'd buy more of it

</comment><comment><USER44> Oh man, "The Wealthy" are at it again...

</comment><comment><USER45> This kind of debate by selective vocabulary is frustrating.

If a poor or middle class person sits on the cash he has, he's "saving". If a wealthy person sits on the cash he has, he's "hoarding".

Regardless of the topic at hand, let's be consistent enough in our terms to think and discuss the issues fairly and clearly without all the pejorative terms. If we have to resort to name-calling, we might not have a very good point.

<comment><USER46> A person has 250 units of food sitting in a room, earns them at 2 units per day, and can consume them at 1 unit per day. They have saved 250 units such that if they stopped earning, they'll be alright.

Another person has 2,500,000,000 units of food sitting in a room, earns them at 200,000 units per day, and can consume them at 100 units per day (not as filling but tastier let's say). They are... also only saving? C'mon.

<comment><USER45> The problem with this line of thinking is it assumes a specific purpose, then name-calls based on that premise.

Maybe consumption isn't the goal and you're unaware of it. If I have as much food as a grocery store, I'm a hoarder because consumption is my goal. The grocery store isn't hoarding (or even saving) food because consumption isn't the goal. Retail sales are the goal.

Again, I'm not here to fight about economics. That wasn't my point. My point was ridicule isn't an argument. Calling someone a hoarder may make you feel good, but it isn't an argument.

<comment><USER46> Degree matters, it often makes all the difference; as such, we have different adjectives to describe those different degrees.

In my hypothetical, while technically true that both are "saving", it is more descriptive to use "hoarding" for the latter case, both in an objective sense to describe the degree and in a subjective sense to describe how that degree of storage _should_ be evaluated.

Their goal is to save obscene amounts of wealth that will never ever be used, could never ever be used by a single person in a natural lifetime, "I've saved so much WAOW!" Who cares. Wealth is gained on the shoulders of giants, all the people and technology that came before us. Maybe it _should_ be harder, much harder for people to save levels of money that most everyone would describe as hoarding.

The wealthy saving/hoarding so much money, having so much power relative to the masses is leading to super great outcomes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Sean-P At this point, it would stick it to the man more to abandon bitcoin than to continue pursuing its naive ideals.

</comment><comment><USER47> so btc was part of this crazy fake news narrative all along or is this just being made up on the fly and this is your regular click bait churn that is the new norm in journalism?

the writing on this has all the telltales of a unresearched fakenews/paid advert, e.g.: "Hackers have also proven adept at setting traps on computers to access cold-storage devices the moment they're online. More traditional criminals have committed home invasions and kidnappings. Some Bitcoin tycoons have resorted to hiding their identities, fortifying their homes and studying self-defense." ...and that's not a crazy person being interviewed quote, this is the author saying.

<comment><USER48> Those are all true? I mean sure "some X" is a great way to say almost nothing about X, but the literal statement is true

<comment><USER49> Some say the Earth is flat.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is using Google Analytics on your personal site compliant with GDPR? - <AUTHOR> Hi everyone, I'm wondering if using GA on my site without using the now pervasive "Cookie alert" pop up could be prosecutable under GDPR.
I've search on the interwebs and the only thing I can find is legalese that I could not understand.
Can someone assist? <comment><USER2> Some say as long as you anonymize user IP (call: ga('set', 'anonymizeIp', true);), you can only mention GA usage in privacy policy.

</comment><comment><USER3> You have to take into account two different things. The ePrivacy directive and the GDPR. The ePrivacy directive is what generated the cookie popup you mentioned, while GDPR is tackling what happens with personal data once it is on someone's server.

You can check this article: [https://gdpr.eu/cookies/](https://gdpr.eu/cookies/)

But it basically states that you should give your users the possibility of opting-out from tracking cookies, like the ones used by Google, and this is not GDPR, this is ePrivacy. To comply with GDPR, you should give your users the possibility to see their data, delete the data, etc. Since this is done by Google, it is their responsibility to comply with GDPR, and not yours (more or less... Let's say, it is YOUR responsibility, but you offloaded it to Google, which is compliant with GDPR apparently).

In any case, you should ask yourself why are you giving Google your users' data. Aren't your server logs enough to see who visits you?

<comment><USER4> Have you used Google analytics / tag manager? There's a lot more than who came here from where that logs could provide. And without rebuilding the connecting different requests to the same session

<comment><USER3> I know it is powerful, the questions is whether the OP is actually using them, or just server logs are enough. For a personal website, sometimes there's no need for too much info.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> GDPR is only a problem if you take personal data off of your users - if you don't, then it's no issue

<comment><USER6> IP address for example.</comment></comment>


USB Killer - <AUTHOR> http://kukuruku.co/hub/diy/usb-killer <comment><USER2> Someone joked that this would be useful to ensure people won't randomly plug USB drives into their computers. Sounds insane, except that...

"During a stop-over in Hong Kong, he finds a spare USB key in his hotel room. Curious, he inserts it into his laptop. By the time he arrives in Australia, his computer is infected."[1]

This was the one of the infection vectors for a large flare-up between the Chinese government and a number of Australian based mining companies, all well before the Snowden leaks that have only made the world more complex.

Given the choice between frying an employee's USB / computer (small monetary loss) and allowing trade secrets to fall into the hands of competitors / customers (large monetary loss), it's not crazy to opt for the former.

Standard practice has even gone further. A colleague of mine purchases fresh laptops for when he goes overseas and then never uses them again. He doesn't even work in an industry where commercial secrets are common. I'd hope that anywhere that features security implications or commercial secrets would also act at this level.

Perhaps an innocuous version of this, which starts a high pitch whistle, would be useful in a corporate environment. Less destructive but resulting in the the same security awareness.

[1]: [http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20100419/cyber/](http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/special_eds/20100419/cyber/)

<comment><USER3> A standard procedure in somewhat-security-concerned firms is that when you travel, you go and get a freshly installed travel laptop (a loaner) from IT dept, use it on the trip, and after the trip, you return it to the department that wipes out everything on the disk and re-images it.

This wouldn't protect against things like firmware-based malware, attacks that major three-letter spy agencies could deploy when they focus on a target, but because there is no absolute security and measures need to be balanced to the threat scenario, this is a model that works pretty well.

<comment><USER4> >A colleague of mine purchases fresh laptops for when he goes overseas and then never uses them again. He doesn't even work in an industry where commercial secrets are common. I'd hope that anywhere that features security implications or commercial secrets would also act at this level.

IMO that's an overkill. Why not just use ICloak [1] or Tails [2]? They are both Linux distributions which boot from USB stick without touching hard drive, randomize MAC address and give you access to Tor and other goodies.

[1]: [https://icloak.org/](https://icloak.org/)

[2]: [https://tails.boum.org/](https://tails.boum.org/)

<comment><USER5> Customs officals are agents of another, sometimes hostile, power.

If your risk assessment says you're worried about AoHPs then you can't trust your computer after they've had it in their possession.

<comment><USER6> What are "AoHPs"?

<comment><USER3> Never heard the term, but by context I would guess "Attack on Hardware Platform" or some such.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Best comment from the page: "It needs to have en eInk display to say 128, 129"

Such yes.

...

I was walking past a tall wooden fence the other day, you know the kind you see outside a building site. As I walked along beside it I heard chanting coming from behind the fence further up... they were chanting numbers, or rather just one number. "Thirteen, thirteen, thirteen, thirteen, ..." they excitedly chanted. It sounded like a small crowd, young and old; men, women and children. All of them saying the same number over and over. As I approached I saw a small hole in the fence just big enough to look through. The hole was right where the sound appeared to be originating from. So, with the crowd continuing to chant "... thirteen, thirteen, thirteen, thirteen" and it seeming to become more intense as I leaned down to place my eye at the hole and work out WTF was happening in there. Just as I put my eye to the hole a small finger like that of a child poked me in the eye and the crowd stared cheered loudly and started chanting again.. "Fourteen, fourteen, fourteen..."

<comment><USER8> Someone was waving a bunch of newspapers and yelling "extra! extra! 50 people scammed! extra! extra!".

I went over and bought one. I looked inside, there was nothing about any scam.

Then I hear "extra! extra! 51 people scammed! extra! extra!".

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It would be cool to create a version of this that just sounded a really, really loud siren. Then you could leave it lying around the office, and listen out for the bunnies.

<comment><USER10> Especially if it used capacitors or an onboard battery to keep the siren going when someone inevitably yanks it out quickly :)

<comment><USER11> and of course label it " _boss name_ personal"

On that note, using it as a pentesting device could be interesting. Perhaps just use the "beep" so the auditor can see how many people trust putting anything into their PC, then at the end cite USB killer.

<comment><USER12> "loosing" USB sticks with a trojan that just phones home and deletes itself seems to be the usual way to do that in pentests.

<comment><USER11> interesting, didn't know that. see what happens people come up with innovative ideas all the time and have no idea they already exist!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I tried to do one better with a small flyback transformer.

[https://gfycat.com/GlaringGrimCondor](https://gfycat.com/GlaringGrimCondor)

Turns out there's not enough clearance in USB ports for tens of thousands of volts.

<comment><USER14> Nice! But I'm guessing you wouldn't be able to fit that into a size that's comparable with standard USB drive?

<comment><USER13> Possible at a pinch, the flyback I was using right there was about the size of a walnut. You could lay most of it out flat with the voltage multiplier and encase the whole thing in epoxy for (ha) safety.

I really wanted to go much higher with the voltages, but the amount of noise this thing puts out de-focuses the camera.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Reminds me of a story I heard many years ago. UK power plugs have three prongs to include earth. If you rewire earth, live and neutral AND alter the plug wall socket to match, then all is well, but if someone steals your PC then plugs it in using a standard wall socket then ouch.

<comment><USER16> When my grandparents died and we sold their house (in the uk) we had some builders in to tidy up some stuff and they discovered that in a big part of the house the earth was actually wired to live in the sockets. They'd lived with it for 40 years or something. Guess not many devices actually use the earth.

(The wiring was originally done by my grandad'a brother - use a professional people...)

<comment><USER17> If you're not going to do it professionally, at least use one of these:

[http://smile.amazon.com/GE-3-Wire-Receptacle- Tester-50542/dp...](http://smile.amazon.com/GE-3-Wire-Receptacle- Tester-50542/dp/B002LZTKIA/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1425997170&sr=8-2&keywords=outlet+checker)

(that's US wiring but surely there's a UK equivalent)

<comment><USER18> Nothing wrong with that device, but it's also nice to know about its big brother:

[http://smile.amazon.com/Amprobe-INSP-3-Wiring-Inspection- Tes...](http://smile.amazon.com/Amprobe-INSP-3-Wiring-Inspection- Tester/dp/B005E0XSR8/ref=pd_cp_hi_2)

This tester can simulate a 10A or 15A load and measure voltage drop, which should remain within 5% of its unloaded value (this is the recommendation in U.S. code). This can identify situations where connections are weak, or wires are too long or too thin.

It has also helped me to improve my wiring practices. It turns out that keeping voltage within 5%, under a 15A load on a 20A circuit, is pretty demanding, and a series of (say) 8 or 10 twisted connections may not meet it, if you are not careful with your technique.

The device can also test GFCI outlets by allowing some current to leak to ground. This provides an end-to-end test in situations where the GFCI is not present at the outlet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I once encountered a computer that was the opposite of this; plug any USB device into it, and the device would never work again, even in another computer.

<comment><USER20> At work, I encountered a HD which fried SATA ports. If you plugged that HD in a SATA port of another computer, that SATA port didn't work anymore. I don't know if the HD had been damaged by the computer it was originally from, but we didn't use both that HD and that computer anymore.

There have been other stories of "contagious" hardware damage in the past, like the infamous ZIP drive "click of death", but that HD is the first one I've seen personally.

<comment><USER21> Just had that with a SATA SSD - looks like it had a power bus short and it blew a chip (dual FETs) on the caddy backplane. Lots of smoke.

Usual story: replacement part is about £0.50 and I could replace it in the lab, but postage for one part is £4.

Might see if I can get one as a sample, or from the Far East with 'free shipping'.

Many moons ago, I worked in the education sector and some smart kid ran a paper stapler up a keyboard lead, leaving it full of metal staples. The power short blew an axial fuse on the motherboard. The next user encountered a 'dead keyboard', so they swapped it for the one on the next desk..repeat 6 times before someone realised the fault was travelling with the keyboard...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This reminds me of the Etherkiller page (sending 120 volt to various devices: NICs, HDDs...): [http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/](http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/)

<comment><USER23> The bus killer on this page is a real work of art, if I remember correctly it kills PCI/AGP/ISA using card covers! (website was down when I clicked)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Reminds me of one my favorite "Bastard Operator From Hell" stories: [http://www.chinet.com/html/bofh/tradeshow.html](http://www.chinet.com/html/bofh/tradeshow.html)

Turns out this is a very old idea. :-)

<comment><USER25> Haha very witty. Such a cynical outlook on life and people in that article.

<comment><USER24> Most definitely. There's a whole series of them: [http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/](http://bofh.ntk.net/BOFH/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you're feeling ornery,you could fly with one in your hand luggage.

If the TSA or foreign equivalent border security want to scan your devices, it's their look-out.

<comment><USER27> And then you will probably be charged with trying to hack the U.S. Government and get like 1000 years of Guantanamo time.

Jokes aside... it would be interesting to see what would happen if someone had such nerve.

<comment><USER26> Use a sharpie to draw a skull and crossbones on one side; on the other, write DANGER.

When they ask you to hand over all personal electronics, point to it and say "that's dangerous".

If, subsequently, they want to know why you were carrying it ... it was so you could fry the USB port of your own laptop if you thought someone had snuck some hardware-level malware into it.

If you tell them NOT TO DO IT and they go ahead and do it, I find it hard to see how a court could convict you of wilfully damaging their forensic equipment.

(To the extent there's any social engineering involved, it simply relies on the tendency of police to ignore or discount unsolicited information from members of the public who are under suspicion.)

Note that they won't be sticking the device in a laptop or desktop PC; specialist forensic imaging machines are used by law enforcement to duplicate data storage devices and maintain a legal chain of evidence. Oops.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The worst suggestion in the world: make one of these look like one of those USB dead-drops.

<comment><USER29> I think it's the best idea ever. I mean, seriously, with all those USB-based attack vectors do anyone thinks plugging your computer to a random USB port sticking out of a wall is a _good idea_?

<comment><USER28> It's kind of a snide thing to do, though; _every_ physical interchange medium, or object you might put in proximity to your computer, has physical attack vectors. Optical disks can be weakened so as to become shrapnel inside a disk drive. Magnetic tapes can be replaced with sandpaper and scratch the reader to death. Any cassette media (e.g. floppy disks) can simply be filled with glue—or, better yet, contain a small explosive.

So, there's nothing about USB that makes people especially deserving of punishment if they go using strange ones; there's a base level of societal trust required for the abstraction of a "side-effect-free data storage object" to exist in the first place.

To say otherwise is similar to purposefully driving the wrong way down the road and getting into a 28-car pile-up, and then saying that this is a lesson in how cars are inherently dangerous and people should avoid driving near strangers. The security mindset can only make you so safe; at some point, you have to trust that strangers aren't trying to kill you in order to be able to live your life.

(Though, in this case, you could just avoid all physical peripherals and ask the person to email you the file instead. At least all you can get from that is a virus.)

<comment><USER29> It's not like that. USB drives are a popular vector for transfering malware _both ways_. Which means a perfectly good dead drop can become infected when someone who didn't know he had malware plugs his computer in. USB dead drops are not like cars - they're like a bottle of juice chained to a wall, that anyone can drink from and refill it with whatever they want. You don't have to assume malice to expect such a bottle to be a health risk - not everyone who deposits a disease knows he is ill.

Of course I'm joking with my approval for installing boobytrapped dead drops - but the point is, connecting to a random thumbdrive sticking out of a wall sounds like a dumbest computer-related idea ever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I bet you could get a few thousand of these made for like 10 grand? I'm glad people who just want to cause mayhem aren't competent.

</comment><comment><USER31> Here are parts to design into your USB device to prevent that.

[http://www.mouser.com/applications/usb30_circuit_protection/](http://www.mouser.com/applications/usb30_circuit_protection/)

[http://www.te.com/content/dam/te/global/english/products/Cir...](http://www.te.com/content/dam/te/global/english/products/Circuit- Protection/knowledge-center/documents/an-coordinated-circuit-protection- usb.pdf)

<comment><USER32> There are straight up isolators, like ADUM4160. For USB2, they're limited to 12mbit/sec though, because USB2 has a single bidirectional (terrible) data line.

<comment><USER33> Also USB1.1 is (for the most part of the data transmission) differential and bidirectional.

[https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USB_signal_example.s...](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:USB_signal_example.svg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Evil.

I've often wondered what percentage of those dirt-cheap UBS devices sold on eBay are actually trojan horses. Provide a basic functional USB hub at a cut- rate price, but exploit the access to your customer's PC for nefarious purposes. Seems like an easy crime to perpetrate.

</comment><comment><USER35> This is just one of many reasons why you should not ever stick unknown things in your healthy ports (or your healthy things in unknown ports). Not without protection. Safety first. But I'm a firm believer that people should be able to consent to this kind of behavior if they really wish to.

<comment><USER36> So how do we make it absolutely safe?

Can a simple device be created that we can plug any USB into and simply receive an indication its safe and its capacity? How hard can this be?

<comment><USER37> I'd love something that protects against this, as well as BadUsb.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> One could give these out to activists around the world, they seem to be always at risk of getting their electronic devices confiscated by law enforcement.

<comment><USER39> Women who carry mace might also welcome one of these in their handbags. Or people who keep getting inspected at airports. I'm sure there's a market.

<comment><USER38> I can already see the marketing slogan: "Stick it to the man" :)

<comment><USER40> Stick it anyone who uses your things without permission.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> If you use a USB hub, would both it and your computer get cooked, or just the USB hub?

<comment><USER13> Depends on how lucky you are, there's no specific protection for something like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Last year, I found a usb key on the ground, almost busted, still I'm too curious to know what's in it so I bring it home. Plug it in, then I learn a little more about the USB protocol as the kernel notifies me there's an "Over- current condition on port 3", just before a tiny bit of smoke emerges from the key.

</comment><comment><USER43> I would like to see this device on kickstarter :)

</comment><comment><USER44> It's a USB blotto box: [http://cd.textfiles.com/group42/ANARCHY/COOKBOOK/BLOTBOX.HTM](http://cd.textfiles.com/group42/ANARCHY/COOKBOOK/BLOTBOX.HTM)

The old school version required a portable generator. Miniaturization at its finest!

</comment><comment><USER45> The potential damage this implies is ridiculous.

Looks like I'm stocking up on Raspberry Pi-s to deal with my curiosity from now on...

</comment><comment><USER46> This is so not cool.

<comment><USER47> Why? Sounds like a way to increase security awareness. Although, I suppose a huge blaring alarm might do just as well. Leave them around your office/parking lot and see who uses them. Then have a chat. Better they plug in a bad device you control vs one carrying a truly malicious payload. (Probably a good idea to attempt to phish employees, too.)

<comment><USER48> Yeah, and randomly hitting people in the head with a bat is a great way to increase concussion awareness, right?

<comment><USER49> Deciding to put a stranger-USB device in your computer is a thing you do, and decided to do. Getting hit in the head with a bat isn't.

<comment><USER50> "I'm not a lawyer" etc., but I'm pretty sure that, in many if not most nations with a broadly Western judicial system, the deliberate planting of this device with the intention of causing harm will be illegal. It doesn't matter if the poor fool plugs it in: you knew what would happen. Furthermore it's arguably true that you intended it to happen. Therefore, you're a dick and you're at fault.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I would like a version that has small GPS receiver and can sends SMS with location information when plugged in. It should works otherwise just like normal USB. (could be the size of USB HDD for example).

</comment><comment><USER52> Well at least the new MacBook won't have a problem with this device.

<comment><USER53> The machine will become a $2k paperweight if that port is rendered unusable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I made a list of other way usb can be evil: [http://www.jefftk.com/p/malicious-usb- sticks](http://www.jefftk.com/p/malicious-usb-sticks)

</comment><comment><USER55> Build this into a DeadDrop (seen on HN yesterday) for added fun.

</comment><comment><USER56> I believe the original is the Etherkiller:

[http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/](http://www.fiftythree.org/etherkiller/)

</comment><comment><USER57> I understand the concept of the article, a USB device that will fry your laptop by charging and applying high voltage.

But I don't understand the excerpt about the guy writing number 129 on a USB stick and stuff. Why would he plug it in his laptop if he knew it would burn it? And if it was intential, aren't there easier ways to burn it? Thanks for explaining...

<comment><USER58> He didn't know. After it burnt his laptop, he decided to pass it on and make it easy for somebody to steal the key and burn _their_ laptop.

<comment><USER57> I see. Thanks!

Highly unlikely that 129 people in a row respond like that though...

More likely is that someone destroys the USB device in anger, dismantles it, is too shocked to do anything, doesn't interpret the number as a counter, or doesn't want to ruin other people's computer. And, of course, that many people in a row stealing a USB device from a backpack is already unlikely in itself.

<comment><USER59> Yeah it would have been clearer if he didn't use a power of 2 for his counter's current state. Made me think it had to do with the device's storage capacity.

<comment><USER60> I'm assuming the original story was actually told as a joke, where the "128" number was intentionally misleading until the punchline at the end where he incremented the number and "payed it forward".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> This immediately reminded me of the slightly infamous and almost certainly apocryphal "box" of the phreaking era for supposedly overloading and destroying your adversary's phone, or even taking down the local POTS switch. It was called a urine box most commonly, or sometimes a copper box or assassin box if I recall correctly.

<comment><USER62> This [1] seems to indicate the urine box and the assassin box were actually different, even though they seemed to achieve similar results. I'd be curious to find circuit diagrams.

[1] [http://www.aboutphone.info/lib/phreak/boxes-2.html](http://www.aboutphone.info/lib/phreak/boxes-2.html)

<comment><USER61> Aha, that also reminded me of my favorite name for the thing, the Blotto Box.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> what about making it a normal usb drive as well. let me explain: when one inserts the drive, one gets asked for a password. if you type the wrong password, the usb drive shows you some fake content, and in the background "burns down" everything it can. if you are the owner and type the right password, you can use the usb drive normally

</comment><comment><USER64> This is pure evil! (not in a good way)

</comment><comment> pi-rat Pretty cool (and scary!) modern day version of the old anarchist cookbook diskette bombs.

</comment><comment><USER65> Is there any chance this could be dangerous to the human and not just his device?

<comment><USER66> If one wanted something dangerous to humans, one could just pack a USB stick full of explosives and use the current from the port as a detonator. I'm sure that's already been thought of before.

<comment><USER67> Or you could fill it with anthrax. Or dioxygen difluoride. Or chlorine trifluoride. Or Australian spiders. Or African bees.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I thought I remembered reading something about quite a high profile hack that was carried by infecting computers by people using USB sticks that were strategically left on the floor of a parking lot near their car.

<comment><USER69> [http://www.cnet.com/news/stuxnet-delivered-to-iranian- nuclea...](http://www.cnet.com/news/stuxnet-delivered-to-iranian-nuclear- plant-on-thumb-drive/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> .. worst written article ever

</comment><comment><USER71> Going to such extend to add a feature to USB which FireWire has built-in. :p

</comment><comment><USER72> If any USB mouse, USB keyboard or soon also USB charger is a potential laptop annihilator, then maybe it's something wrong with the USB standard.

<comment><USER73> Well, anything with an electrical connection to anything else is a potential "annihilator" of that latter thing. It's only USB's ubiquity, and its ability to supply significant current to a downstream device, which are capitalized upon here. (The latter, I concede, is useful in implementing a device destroyer, but a small battery could easily enough replace it.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> What if the voltage kills someone? Is it not too dangerous?

Lesson is not to use/touch the USB stuffs not belongs to you. Good moral story for 2nd grader.

</comment><comment><USER75> Ouch. Not a traditional attack one would expect on a USB port. Would be there any practical protection against this (surge protector, fuse)?

<comment><USER76> You can buy isolated USB hubs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Do you think he's tested it?</comment>


Show HN: Stock Options Info and Visualizer - <AUTHOR> http://optionista.com/ <comment><USER2> Where does it source its data from?</comment>


A Case Study in Classic Mistakes - <AUTHOR> http://www.stevemcconnell.com/rdmistak.htm

<comment><USER2> This isn't a case study in Classic Mistakes - it's fiction. If it's from a real company, it doesn't make any sense. The trouble that Our Hero gets into is too cliche - not even Dilbert's Pointy-Haired boss would let executives double the effort and halve the schedule.

Since we all agree it's fiction, then we have to look at what this parable is supposed to teach us. And even here, the fiction falls down: I see nothing obvious. If we're too take away "for want of a nail...", then the old rhyme would be more succint. If we're to take away something more general, then the story just doesn't convey it.

Sorry, Steve.</comment>


China successfully launches its largest reusable rocket - <AUTHOR> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1160951.shtml <comment><USER2> They launched _China 's_ largest reusable rocket. 8m tall, less than a meter wide from the images and it reached a height of just 300 _meters_. No orbit, no space, no payload. This is at SpaceX grasshopper levels, see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_(rocket)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasshopper_\(rocket\)) for comparison.

DC-X and New Shepard also launched and landed vertically and that at far higher heights.

The problem is not landing a rocket vertically, it is to launch a payload (recovery mechanisms mustn't eat up all the payload mass), make it back through atmosphere at supersonic speeds and still have means (or propellant left) to achieve a landing.

It's a good step for the chinese space company LinkSpace but pretty much non- news for others in my opinion.

<comment><USER3> Guess we're jaded, but if it happened 10 years ago...

I found this Reuter's story on the launch.

Exciting, if they meet their goals.

[https://www.reuters.com/article/space-exploration-china- link...](https://www.reuters.com/article/space-exploration-china- linkspace/update-1-chinese-space-startup-revs-up-for-reusable-rocket-race- idUSL4N256069)

"The Beijing-based company aims to launch its next-generation RLV-T16 next year that will be capable of reaching an altitude of up to 150 kilometers, Hu said."

"LinkSpace previously told Reuters it hoped to charge no more than 30 million yuan ($4.25 million) per reusable launch."

<comment><USER4> "Altitude" is a weird metric for rockets because going up is useless- you immediately fall back down.

Achieving orbit requires a horizontal velocity many times higher than the vertical velocity achieved.

<comment><USER5> They may well have provided more relevant figures which the reporter or editor failed to understand the value of and consequently emitted in favor of the figure that played to their _" space is up"_ worldview.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Honest question, did they steal this technology? Or have they innovated a new way to created a reusable rocket?

<comment><USER7> You're being downvoted but this seems like a very legitimate question seeing as a major part of the current US/China trade dispute is appropriation of intellectual property

<comment><USER8> Parallel reinvention happens all the time. Consider steam engines, web browsers. Once a way has been found to do the thing, it's surprisingly straightforward to redo the thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I wouldn't brag if my 'most advanced reusable rocket' could only climb 300 meters.

Slow propaganda news day in China?

<comment><USER10> That's something. SpaceX started around that scale too, remember? 5 years from now they might actually be getting payloads to space.

<comment><USER11> They are already getting payloads into orbit, just not on this test vehicle. They have an operational, but non-reusable small sat launcher, so they definitely mean business and aren't just a startup with a research project.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Would you guys use our site, should we keep doing this? - <AUTHOR> Hi guys, so, we kept trying to make this startup work, and it's been a while now without any progress, we are thinking to risk our money and invest in ads, like basically adwords and youtube, and we'd gladly do this, because we believe in this project, but we're not sure this is something people would want …
The main idea of the site is that you can share your opinions about things, like you know when you browse the internet and you see something that maybe excites you or gets you mad, you can just hop on the website  and share your thoughts on that subject.
The main idea being that the trending tab is not meant to sort posts by the number of likes, if you post something that people don't agree with, that doesn't mean the post should get buried, and even so you can find like-minded people that you can follow and have discussions about the things that interest you. So, in short a platform with an unbiased ranking and banning system where people can have civilized discussions about any topic, and follow people that like to blog their thought.
So the question is: is this something you would  would want to use ? Should we keep going ? <comment><AUTHOR> I forgot the link :) In case you want to check it out [https://www.argoledo.com/](https://www.argoledo.com/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Hacker News, Reddit, and Twitter already do this for me. I have no need for another social network.</comment>


Two-Thirds of Google's Mobile Search Traffic Comes From iOS Devices - <AUTHOR> http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/10/26/two-thirds <comment><USER2> The fact that Android phones are far outselling iPhones right now says nothing about the overall active device presence of Android devices vs iOS devices. iOS is on phones, tablets, and digital music players (all with internet capability) and have been selling for longer than any Android device. I believe the current counts are 250 million iOS vs 190 million Android devices. Earlier this year (which is probably closer to when the studies were held) the numbers were 200 million and 130 million, respectively.

So yes, until recently iOS devices outnumbered Android around 2:1. It makes sense then that 2/3rds of the mobile search market comes from iOS. Trying to read any more into this is silly, even by Gruber's quite low standards of taking anything he can to spin that Google is doing poorly.</comment>