Naomi Wolf: My Creeping Concern That The NSA Leaker Is Not Who He Purports To Be - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/notes/naomi-wolf/my-creeping-concern-that-the-nsa-leaker-is-not-who-he-purports-to-be-/10151559239607949 <comment><USER2> This article is complete and utter bullshit.

Disregarding the obviously silly idea that he is a fraud because he is organized and well spoken, her basic point seems to be that since he doesn't have a lawyer present during media interviews, then Snowden is an actor basically playing a role in a news story created by the NSA whose purpose is to scare people from becoming whistle blowers.

Give me a break.

<comment><USER3> Snowden is seems like a student of machiavelli far more than american idealism. He has an objective and is doing the best job he can to make that objective happen.

Which would contrast highly with most whistleblowers who believe that doing the right thing will result in their objective happening.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps he looked at the results of other recent whistleblowers "doing the right thing" and realized that releasing information without the right choreography would end in no attention from the media or public about the issue and a ton of trouble for himself?

In an ideal world, he could release the information and each individual would engage with it, analyze it, make determinations about it, and judge whether or not it is important.

In our world, if he had followed the path of previous whistleblowers and given the information to a newspaper and returned to his house in Hawaii, he likely would have been immediately arrested, and the newspaper would have published very limited yet broad information in a single article in a way that would be easy for the rest of the media to dismiss. Then the character attacks would have overwhelmed the story.

Like it or not, presentation is important. Snowden has claimed his objective is making sure people know about these programs so they can decide about them. That objective, and his path thus far, seems perfectly in line with American idealism.

<comment><USER5> _In an ideal world, he could release the information and each individual would engage with it, analyze it, make determinations about it, and judge whether or not it is important._

Thats this world, minus the people that keep "choreographing" things so they have the "right" impact.

<comment><USER6> Can you send me an invite?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Greenwald was talking to him since January or February. So yeah, I think he had time to prepare what he'd say in front of a camera for a few minutes in this historic moment...Wouldn't you do the same? Or would you rather sound like a blabbering idiot?

<comment><USER8> So the NSA is this organisation which can tell what you are saying to anyone else, yet it failed to realise that Snowden was talking to Greenwald for about six months?

<comment><USER9> I read about him asking Greenwald to setup PGP some time ago and him not actually communicating with him until that happened.

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden- glen...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/10/edward-snowden-glenn- greenwald_n_3416978.html)

So, reading between the lines, PGP is safe, but that's hardly headline news.

<comment><USER10> Crypto is "safe enough" based on an idea of how long the data needs to be protected. Best case it is "safe" for the time it will take to brute force the entire key space, but in reality most crypto will remain safe much shorter than that.

We've increased typical keysizes for PGP many times over the years because we expect there's a reasonable change for smaller keys to be broken too quickly.

In other words: You should not infer that PGP is "safe", but that he believed PGP with the key size he used would protect the messages until it doesn't matter if they're revealed _at least from the level of monitoring he feared_ , which could just mean safe against routine intercepts and security scans for the few months until his identity was revealed anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Open speculation about intelligence programs is a little bit like numerology. If you start looking for patterns to fit narratives to, you'll find them.

<comment><USER12> Maybe they're trying to trick us into thinking that they're trying to trick us so that they can trick us by trying to trick us into thinking we're being tricked!

<comment><USER13> Sounds like Daniel Suarez' novel Daemon.

TL,DR: Programmer dies but his program manipulates the world after his death, then the US government spreads word that the program is a hoax, so later in the novel most people disbelieve that such a program can even exist (because the government "disproved" it!), hindering any chance that society would even believe that something like this _existed_ , let alone was _possible_.

I just wanted to throw it out there to illustrate the parallels of the plot in the novel with the current things happening right now...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> a) Or he might just be a regular Nerd who cares about details.

b) Or he might just be a regular Nerd who took a long time to think about this stuff.

c) Or he might just be a regular Nerd with the typical emotional detachment from what he is doing while still being deeply intellectual invested.

d) Pure speculation without any weighting.

e) What?

f) Ah good, it's not like he addressed this point in particular.

g) Meta Speculation.

h) Well that doesn't even begin to make sense.

It's funny - she actually has a point. But the point can stand on its own, all the points she is clearly making up actually serve to cheapen that point.

<comment><USER15> Basically it's a really nice compliment. In a roundabout way.

You're smart enough to look at history, prepare, be presentable and don't even need a lawyer. BOOM.

<comment><USER16> Reminds me of the populists who tried to enact change in ancient Rome. One of them would call for reform and end up murdered. The next one would find protection before calling for reform, but ended up murdered anyway. Each successive would-be reformer learned from the mistakes of his predecessors and changed his strategy accordingly. A couple of the reformers whose names I can remember are Tiberius Gracchus [1] and his brother Gaius Gracchus [2]. One of my favorite podcasts has an excellent six-part series on the fall of the western Roman empire, which introduced me to this very topic [3].

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiberius_Gracchus)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Gracchus](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaius_Gracchus)

[3] [http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php?page=hharchive](http://www.dancarlin.com//disp.php?page=hharchive)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm suspicious too. The Hong Kong part is what irks me - I cannot imagine making that choice, given a world of asylum options. His line of reasoning is borderline incomprehensible.

Add that to the concerted effort of the powers that be to paint China as our cyber-terror-enemy ... and he is aligned with China now, vis-a-vis HK ... you know very well that j6p already refers to him as "that nerd that defected to China".

<comment><USER18> I agree. This is the weirdest part of this whole thing. Surely there are a dozen countries less inclined to want to extradite Snowden to the U.S. for the grounds stated.

Why not flee to a country that is a weak (but not too weak) ally of the U.S., thoroughly outraged by the PRISM program, and which doesn't have an extradition treaty that could possibly be construed as permitting extradition under the stated terms (as Hong Kong _arguably_ does with the U.S.).

I'm not try to defend Wolf. Just sayin' . . .

<comment> at-fates-hands I actually thought the weirdest thing - how was a guy who was a high school dropout get a gig at the NSA?

Even small businesses won't hire someone unless they have a four year degree. I know its possible for developers to get a job based on being self taught. I highly, highly, doubt a government agency like the NSA would hire someone with such sketchy credentials.

My other real concern was brought up in the article. Once you're about to feel the full brunt of the United States Government coming after you, it's usually standard procedure to lawyer up. Considering this guy hasn't done so indicates he's not scared of whatever bad guys are coming after him. Which means, either he's really stupid, or he has no reason to be afraid.

<comment><USER5> _how was a guy who was a high school dropout get a gig at the NSA?_

He enlisted in the Army and got a security clearance, which is the credential that's really crucial for CIA/NSA/contractor jobs. The Army is willing to accept a GED, which you can get in an afternoon.

<comment> at-fates-hands This is actually counter to what I've been told by several high ranking friends I know in the military. I have a family member who is a full bird Marine Colonel and he said they won't take GED candidates anymore. I also have a good friend who's a Senior Master Sergeant in the Air Force and said the same thing.

Here's an article from 2009:

[http://www.nodropouts.org/blog/bad-economy-bad-news- dropouts...](http://www.nodropouts.org/blog/bad-economy-bad-news-dropouts-who- hoped-join-army)

"Army recruiters now tell potential recruits that their chances of getting into the service are not good if they don't have a high school diploma. And even a GED won't cut it in most cases."

I did notice the "in most cases" language, so maybe he got in on a pass from someone?

<comment><USER5> _I did notice the "in most cases" language, so maybe he got in on a pass from someone?_

Yes, that's what I mean by "willing to accept". If a person's ASVAB scores are high and they're not a total mess, they can get a waiver for many things. It varies by service, of course; I'm not surprised that the Marines and Air Force don't waiver GEDs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Let's have more articles of pure speculation. I am interested in the topic of the NSA spying program, but it feels like I am reading post after post of articles that are just reinterpretations of facts that were already presented and interpreted numerous times. People have already insinuated that Snowden is working for the chinese/russians/whoever you care to name, and its an interesting theory, but we need some evidence.

</comment><comment><USER20> On one hand she speculates that Snowden isn't a genuine whistleblower beacuse he is too organized(a, b, c). Then she speculates that Snowden isn't a genuine whistleblower because he is not organized.(f, h)

Which is it? Seriously, this article does more to decredit Namoi Wolf than anything else. I had more respect for her prior to reading this piece.

I could continue to rip this article apart but I'm hungry and need to cook dinner.

</comment><comment><USER16> I think she has some interesting points, but they don't necessarily stand up to scrutiny. Occam's Razor says that we should be skeptical of conspiracy theories and require a lot more evidence than a celebrity's hunch.

On the issue of hiring a filmmaker, a little investigation suggests that Greenwald might have had a prior connection with her. The filmmaker's name is Laura Poitras [1]. There's a New York Times article covering her involvement in making the video [2]. In April 2012, Greenwald wrote an article about the U.S. detaining her at the border [3]. I think it's reasonable to believe that Greenwald may have had a prior connection with her.

Also, as I mentioned in another comment [4], history shows that reformers learn from their predecessors' successes and mistakes. The way he orchestrated the release of the documents could be a symptom of his learning from previous whistle-blowers.

It's unfortunate that the best part of her post was at the very end. Regardless of the merits of the rest of her post, I think her last statement is worth remembering: "But do consider that in Eastern Germany, for instance, it was the fear of a machine of surveillance that people believed watched them at all times — rather than the machine itself — that drove compliance and passivity. From the standpoint of the police state and its interests — why have a giant Big Brother apparatus spying on us at all times — unless we know about it?"

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Poitras](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Poitras)

[2] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/media/filmmaker-l...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/15/business/media/filmmaker- linked-to-leaks-has-her-own-stories-to-tell.html?hp&_r=1&)

[3] [http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...](http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/)

[4] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5885959](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5885959)

<comment><USER21> Some things about Snowden's story feel more like spy fiction than reality. I have a feeling there is more to Snowden than mere IT guy for intelligence agencies. But any theory of what else he could be that I can come up with, goes off the rails into wackyland pretty quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> It's probably a good idea to question everything, but this analysis is so weak it's laughable.

</comment><comment><USER23> This would be better on /r/conspiracy than Hacker News.

<comment><USER24> > This would be better on /r/conspiracy than Hacker News.

Shallow reasoning ... check

No understanding of subject matter ... check

Usage of pseudo psychological nonsense instead of any hard evidence ... check

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> More here: "5 Ways NSA leaker Edward Snowden's story isn't holding up." Nearly every statement in his video interview is vastly exaggerated.

[http://news.yahoo.com/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens- stor...](http://news.yahoo.com/5-ways-nsa-leaker-edward-snowdens-story- isnt-115500971.html)

<comment><USER26> I would advise against going to this link, or even posting the link. It is bad form to give such poor articles any traffic or credibility, and posting the link will up its ranking in search engines.

<comment><USER27> citizen censorship is so ironic

<comment><USER28> This comment brought to you by Duff Beer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> By why do all these pseudo-lefty celebs (Wolf, Maher, etc.) make it a point to smear Snowden? They seem to be doing it of their own volition.

<comment><USER30> There's two kinds of conspiracy theories, I think. There's the ones that actually exist and end up getting exposed in a few years: the Pentagon Papers, the Iran-Contra scandal, the trumping up of "Iraq has WMD," and (apparently) now PRISM.

Then there are the theories like "9/11 was an inside job" and "JFK was killed by the CIA," ones that would require an order of magnitude more people to do things an order of magnitude more reprehensible and keep perfectly quiet for many, many more years, yet make slip-ups that only amateur sleuths can find (or at least dare to report on) -- all for claimed ends which are, to say the least, dubious. There are common psychological threads to these theories (the Illuminati run the world, but _we know the truth_ and that gives us some power back), but the most fascinating thing about them is that you literally can't disprove them: they're not making falsifiable claims. Scant or contradictory evidence just shows how successful the conspirators have been; lack of mainstream reporting just shows how the media is part of it.

The thing is (to get back to your actual musing), once you get into that mindset, it's turtles all the way down. It's not really a left/right thing, it's a "fringe" thing -- I suspect the more you feel that your voice is shut out of the mainstream discussion, the more likely you are to suspect it's because the Powers That Be don't want to hear your voice. You may be right, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's because they can't face the holy light of your truth. Even if she hasn't gone full Alex Jones, Naomi Wolf has often seemed to me to be flirting with that kind of conspiracy mindset.

I can't speak to Maher (I can't find any comments he's made on Snowden), but he seems to have a different set of biases, not as much conspiracy-based as a kind of reflexive skepticism.

<comment><USER31> re:9/11, the official story is basically that building 7 collapsed because of burning office furniture. You believe that? "once you get into that mindset, it's turtles all the way down", huh? But sure, why even _bother_ to actually investigate the catastrophy such huge changes are based on, when you can just ship off the debris and constantly talk about living in a "post 9/11 world"... those conspiracy theorists would ignore and and all investigations or scientific facts anyway, for circular reasons°. _So let 's not have any of those, it will help._ Instead let's have presidents pose on coffins wrapped in flags, shuffling our feet in moments of silence as decent citizens would.

° They're on the fringe for reasons that don't interest, not really, because they're on the fringe. Where they are because that's where they are. Not that you or anyone knows this, but this topic "fascinates" you so much that you "suspect" it. That's either hardcore trolling or awkward irony, you decide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> There is way too much speculation in this article. Actually, that's all there is.

</comment><comment><USER33> Wolf thinks Snowden is fake because he talks about all the bad things that might happen to him as a result of his leaking. She thinks that he's drawing attention to those bad things on purpose, to scare other potential whistleblowers.

But _Greenwald_ was the one drawing attention to that stuff, by asking Snowden what he expected the US government to do to him. Snowden wasn't volunteering that on his own; it was Greenwald trying to play up the human-interest angle.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "In The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, Wolf takes a historical look at the rise of fascism, outlining 10 steps necessary for a fascist group (or government) to destroy the democratic character of a nation- state and subvert the social/political liberty previously exercised by its citizens:

1\. Invoke a terrifying internal and external enemy 2\. Create secret prisons where torture takes place 3\. Develop a thug caste or paramilitary force not answerable to citizens 4\. Set up an internal surveillance system 5\. Harass citizens' groups 6\. Engage in arbitrary detention and release 7\. Target key individuals 8\. Control the press 9\. Treat all political dissidents as traitors 10\. Suspend the rule of law

The book details how this pattern was implemented in Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and elsewhere, and analyzes its emergence and application of all the 10 steps in American political affairs since the September 11 attacks."

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf#The_End_of_America](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naomi_Wolf#The_End_of_America)

</comment><comment><USER34> > He is not struggling for words, or thinking hard, as even bright, articulate > whistleblowers under stress will do. Rather he appears to be transmitting > whole paragraphs smoothly, without stumbling.

When I watched this, the assumption I made was that he was carefully prepared to take on this massive endeavour – better to be prepared for the consequences and media than to foil the effort.

But, really, we have no fucking idea.

</comment><comment><USER35> I was hoping to find a well-reasoned story here, but it isn't there. I don't find her reasoning to be logical, and she keeps calling things strange or abnormal based on either a single anecdote, or none at all.

</comment><comment><USER36> crypto adj. Secret; covert. gon suff. A figure having a specified kind or number of angles.

Governments, Corporations and Media are out of control.

These prominent components of our society are increasingly driven by hypocrisy, corruption and greed. They have never been more powerful than they are today, and their ability to shape the outcome of events goes mostly unnoticed by the public at large.

The Cryptogon refers to the hidden structure underlying and interconnecting the political, economic and perception management systems currently in operation on this planet. When John Ralston Saul states that, "In reality, we are today in the midst of a theology of pure power—power born of structure, not of dynasty or arms," the "structure" he is referring to is what I am calling the Cryptogon.

[http://www.cryptogon.com/?page_id=2](http://www.cryptogon.com/?page_id=2)

</comment><comment><USER37> She has a few good and a few weak points there. Especially the last point is important and some peculiar reactions to this scandal can be better explained with it - for example, the odd way the Congress seems to show no interest in the mass-surveillance, as if they knew that it's a fabricated story to trigger the panopticon effect.

On the other hand, I wonder what the NSA is doing in all those huge buildings, if not spying on all Americans and the rest of the world. Perhaps they're empty? Not very likely, but it would make a great story.

</comment><comment><USER38> Posted on Facebook. :) Waiting for the article that says that Naomi Wolf may not be who she purports to be.

<comment><USER39> Facebook post since no respectable editor would print such silly stuff.

<comment><AUTHOR> Bad metric. I recall respectable editors pumping the "WMDs IN IRAQ!" story quite frequently once upon a time, for instance.

<comment><USER40> Ugh.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> +1 I at least give her credit for thinking outside of the box. It is OK to speculate and look at things from a different perspective, even if you might be wrong.

</comment><comment><USER42> This is an interesting take on the situation, although it's one that I would normally dismiss as tin-foil hat thinking. Given the source and clear reluctance in making these assertions, however, it's definitely a perspective worth including in the discussion.

If Wolf is right, it certainly seems like a risky move on the part of the NSA (or related organization) - one that could easily backfire, since for the most part it's just fomenting more negative sentiment toward government in general. The shock of these "revelations" will subside and the country will likely go back to business as usual (as it does after most shocking revelations"), but with even less trust in its leadership.

As for discouraging whistleblowing, they have so far missed the mark - for the most part Snowden has come across as pretty difficult to hate, even for people who disagree with his actions.

</comment><comment><USER43> I think it is more likely that he has the backing of a loose confederation of anonymous civil disobedients, young & media savvy, and they took some time to develop the story in a way they thought would achieve maximum impact.

I admit the expressive neo-feminist pole dancing gf seems a bit gratuitous.

</comment><comment><USER44> To me this is one of those weird things. Basically all of this is an act of faith on our part. We either believe he's legit or we don't. We can't know what kind of weird psy-ops the government is pulling on us. I choose to believe that this is real but I can't know for sure and for all I know I could be part of some bigger, darker plot orchestrated by who knows who.

Not to get all metaphysical but the more that's hidden from us the less we're able to know what in the world is ever going on. It's weird being a human.

</comment><comment><USER45> The only thing that can undermine his credibility is if the US government comes up with indisputable proof that NONE of what he said was true. Her arguments are a complete red herring

</comment><comment><USER46> Greenwald has been in contact with the film maker Poitras for over 1 year. Presumably it was Greenwald not Snowden who introduced her. But surely this Wolf person knows that, if she's a media type who hangs out with Assange's entourage.

[http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_det...](http://www.salon.com/2012/04/08/u_s_filmmaker_repeatedly_detained_at_border/)

</comment><comment><USER47> So what we claims is that he is a Goldstein in the making?

That would be interesting. Is there any studies on how those figures come into being? I bet there are a few real Goldstein in history. Do they start already protraited as failures or at some point they have the popular opinion on their side?

</comment><comment><USER48> People still listen to Naomi Wolf? I was really wanting to like the "Shock Doctrine" but being from South America, I found the history she portrayed of SA to be totally inaccurate.

<comment><USER49> That's Naomi Klein.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> That people are focusing on the wrong things are nicely illustrated by people claiming him to be an amateur and too professional at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER51> This is how James Jesus Angleton drove himself insane.

</comment><comment><USER52> How much does the NSA pay for this?

</comment><comment><USER53> tl;dr : if you don't like the message (or don't like the idea of believing the message to be true), then you attack the messenger

</comment><comment><USER54> My creeping concern is that Naomi Wolf is one missed dose of her medication from becoming a bag lady.

</comment><comment><USER55> (yawn)</comment>


Variational Autoencoders are not autoencoders - <AUTHOR> http://paulrubenstein.co.uk/variational-autoencoders-are-not-autoencoders/ <comment><USER2> Pretty sure all this says is to minimize KL-Divergence instead of log- likelihood (for the encoder), or your latent variables are garbage. Judging by many examples I've seen of VAEs in ML, this is not news.

This post [0] does a good job showing the difference between latent variables for log-likelihood and KL losses.

[0][https://towardsdatascience.com/intuitively-understanding- var...](https://towardsdatascience.com/intuitively-understanding-variational- autoencoders-1bfe67eb5daf)

</comment><comment><USER3> Getting a resource exhaustion error from Namecheap, here's a cache:

[http://web.archive.org/web/20190129144610/http://paulrubenst...](http://web.archive.org/web/20190129144610/http://paulrubenstein.co.uk/variational- autoencoders-are-not-autoencoders/)

</comment><comment><USER4> What about variational homoencoders tho? See [https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08919](https://arxiv.org/abs/1807.08919)</comment>


Program your Finances: Command-line Accounting - <AUTHOR> http://bugsplat.info/2010-05-23-keeping-finances-with-ledger.html <comment><USER2> Ahh, fuck! Drew Crampsie (<http://tech.coop/index>) runs a Lisp friendly VPS hosting company and he said they use Ledger for their accounting.

I took a look at Ledger and decided it was too clumsy to integrate C++ into Lisp at the FFI level, specially for a web app (you don't want bad C/C++ bringing down the house) so I have been putting off wrapping Ledger as a service for months now, and decided to write my own toy accounting utilities in Lisp, which in turn call out ledger, instead.

What I didn't know what was Ledger has a Common Lisp version (cl-ledger) written by the author himself. Facepalm!

<comment><AUTHOR> cl-ledger is sort of on indefinite hold. I don't know if it ever got the point of feature parity with cpp-ledger, but it might have gotten close. Ledger v3.0 will have comprehensive python bindings, which is one step closer especially for a webapp.

edit: on second look it seems to have feature parity with v2.6.1, which would get you pretty far.

<comment><USER2> I just contacted johnw and took over the maintenance of cl-ledger.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice! Good to hear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> A huge OMFG thanks to zrail for posting this. I had never heard of ledger, and had just started coding my own CLI-capable double-entry accounting system from scratch. Diving into Ledger now, and thrilled. Thanks again.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad I could help! The mailing list is very good if you have questions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The haskell port is HLedger:

<http://hledger.org/SCREENSHOTS.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> It's funny, I've never actually looked at haskell, let alone HLedger. I think maybe I'll take a look.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here's the ledger 2.6 manual as html (<http://joyful.com/repos/ledger/doc/ledger.html>); for ledger 3, see the command-line help for latest options.

</comment><comment><USER6> I made a similar tool for my own use, in Python.</comment>


Paylocity's Steve Sarowitz Spent $1 Million Building Flawed Software. - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/magazine/20081201/paylocitys-steve-sarowitz-spent-1-million_Printer_Friendly.html <comment><USER2> I'm going to project a lot of personal interpretation on this one - but it sounds like the CEO was an "idea man" who tried to create a clone of another software package because making software is easy, right?

My buddy who knows how to program will be the project manager and he can tell me if the developers are trying to snow me - because project management is just doing some spreadsheets and talking to the techies, right?

Then we hire a bunch of inexperienced (and easy to bully) developers to build out the idea - no need to pay top wages for a bunch of typists in t-shirts, right?

They had neither methodology nor experience in design, implementation, and QA. No one should have been shocked when the project failed, or by the price tag. Pumping money into a project is no assurance of quality.

At least the developers got to feed their families during the debacle.

</comment><comment><USER3> I find it hard to fathom how you can spend a million dollars on an application that can't scale past 100 users. Unbelievable!

<comment><USER4> It's an interesting story - but the details must be massaged: did they really install the software on one day and expect all users to be accessing it the next, surely you'd have a parallel system run with something like payroll. If you communicated with the bank I'm sure they can put an account into some state in which payments could be simulated and never actually payed out so you know that the whole bank end of things works properly.

And how the hell can the project manager not know that the software can't handle more than 100 users - indeed how was it limited? Doesn't one always design for some scaling, 100 sounds arbitrary and very low.

Take away message: know when to quit. Know when to start again.</comment></comment>


Why Dropbox left Amazon's cloud and built its own from scratch - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/602442/why-dropbox-left-amazon-cloud-built-its-own-from-scratch/ <comment><USER2> An interesting project but with no real technical details.

<comment><USER3> [http://www.wired.com/2016/03/epic-story-dropboxs-exodus- amaz...](http://www.wired.com/2016/03/epic-story-dropboxs-exodus-amazon-cloud- empire/)</comment></comment>


Microsoft Beats Amazon in 12-Month Cloud Revenue - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobevans1/2018/10/29/1-microsoft-beats-amazon-in-12-month-cloud-revenue-26-7-billion-to-23-4-billion-ibm-third/ <comment><USER2> What I learned from this article: Microsoft not only considers their Office subscriptions to be cloud revenue (I knew that already), but apparently LinkedIn, as well.

</comment><comment><USER3> We used to use the word Cloud as VM, or Hardware Infrastructure related only. Now every online Services are "Cloud Revenue." Adobe should rename their Subscription as "Cloud Revenue" as well. I am sure Wall Street like a new spin on everything.

While for Amazon, how is Online Retailing not "Cloud Revenue", or pretty much everything for Amazon should be Cloud Revenue.

<comment><USER4> well, Amazon gets to charge for hosted database, cache, queues etc. So I cans see why Microsoft will decide to claim hosted software as well. The real reason tho is more that Wall Street has no idea and it looks like they have grown really fast, caught up and passed AWS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Suggest that readers look at cloud revenue from a business model perspective, not a technology one.

Cloud revenues between Amazon and MS are comparable from an investment point- of-view:

\- sticky (unless something bad happens, if you're a paying customer in month 1, you're probably still a paying customer in month 2)

\- service delivered "in the cloud" (neither vendor needs a local brick/mortar storefront)

\- fixed cost: data centers, variable cost: "things" in data centers

\- for enterprise accounts: high-touch salesforce and dedicated contacts

\- for end-user / SMB accounts: primarily self-service via online tools

Yes, one of them gets more revenue from IaaS and the other from SaaS. Each of these, and the specific submarkets that the two of them play in, will have different growth rates and potential and affect their respective valuation.

Still, from an investment standpoint, based on the above characteristics, I'd feel reasonably good about comparing the two of them on financial and valuation metrics for the "cloud" parts of their respective businesses.

<comment><USER6> This an insightful post -- but I think there's one key characteristic missing that Wall Street cares about still more, and that's growth.

Traditional products like Office 365 may be sold as a subscription, but the market is largely saturated. Its growth is primarily dependent on productivity device growth. "True" cloud products, whether serverless or lift and shift of existing workloads, have much higher growth potential since a large percentage of the attachable market is still unreached.

That's why it's a little disingenuous for Microsoft to claim products like Office 365 and Dynamics 365 as cloud revenue. For many years before the cloud was a thing, they earned that revenue in the form of Enterprise Agreements: which are essentially three-year subscriptions for the same products.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the bigger question is: when new services are developed, which platform to people develop on?

Microsoft is going all out to sound like they are winning in this battle, but this is just PR. That said, perhaps PR will be a winning strategy...

</comment><comment><USER8> Microsoft may have better products or cloud services, but I'm not sure what's the takeaway here. $23 vs $26.7 billion... okay, interesting... now tell us what share Amazon has vs Microsoft. Is the difference enough that Microsoft is a little bit behind or at this difference rate, would it still take Microsoft 3 years or 10 years to catch up? Maybe help understand what's driving that.

Author also wrote this article, which if you look at his list of insights on why Microsoft is positioned better, has no substance. It reads more like an ad.

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobevans1/2018/07/26/why- amazon...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/bobevans1/2018/07/26/why-amazon-cant- match-microsoft-in-the-cloud-10-insights-from-satya-nadella/#7e80d8c31fb8)

Clickbait without substance.

</comment><comment><USER9> That's pretty interesting. One thing to keep in mind when thinking about aws cloud revenue, they bill internal teams for cloud revenue. I don't know how much of aws revenue comes from internal teams, but at least part of it is essentially moving money around.

<comment><USER10> By that measure, FB is one of the biggest cloud provider in the world. That would be incredibly misleading. Do you have a source?

<comment><USER9> Straight from someone on a team there. Sorry I can't be more specific.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Amazon is the only one of the three companies that breaks out its cloud > division in terms of sales. The company said on Thursday that AWS revenue > jumped 49 percent to $5.44 billionin the first quarter.

> Microsoft said Azure revenue jumped 93 percent. KeyBanc analysts estimated > Azure had $1.76 billion in revenue, while Raymond James analysts predicted > the number was $2.05 billion.

This is a cloud hosting comparison. In the article they are comparing apples to oranges...

</comment><comment><USER12> Posted 19 days ago: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18383553](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18383553)

</comment><comment><USER13> I've been surprised and impressed by Microsoft's charge into the cloud. I really wouldn't have guessed (a short while ago) they could challenge Amazon. Kudos to them.

</comment><comment><USER14> Incredible results, congratulations to Microsoft. What's the combined annual run rate for the Top 5 providers now and is there a sensible breakdown in IaaS, PaaS and SaaS or is it predominantly combined reporting?</comment>


A Heavily-Commented Linux Kernel Source Code [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.oldlinux.org/download/ECLK-5.0-WithCover.pdf <comment><USER3> Of possible (mostly historical) interest at this point, a similar commentary on a fairly early version of the original Unix kernel, by an Australian cs prof named John Lions -- which was very widely circulated among CS students in the '80s, despite this being technically in violation of AT&T's copyright on the book.

It's availble online here: [http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/Lions/index.php](http://www.lemis.com/grog/Documentation/Lions/index.php)

Note that the code is written in a very archaic dialect of C, and for hardware that didn't support paging in any form (just swapping). Nevertheless, it was an important introduction for a lot of people at the time, not just to the basics of OS implementation details, but also, how to find your way around a nontrivial sized codebase.

<comment><USER4> There's also the great "The Design of the UNIX Operating System":

[https://www.amazon.com/Design-UNIX-Operating- System/dp/01320...](https://www.amazon.com/Design-UNIX-Operating- System/dp/0132017997/)

Which is probably less relevant today in terms of directly understanding the implementation. But an interesting and enlightening read. Things were much simpler and fundamental back in the 1980s. It's easier to understand that way. Then layer on top.

<comment><USER5> Slightly more recent: _The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System_ , which includes some of the Berkeley additions to the kernel, such as TCP/IP and sockets.

And then there's xv6 [1], a small Unix running on vx32 from MIT for teaching purposes, full of comments, and available as a booklet that is directly inspired by Lions' commentary on the 6th edition of Unix.

I actually agree, though: to really appreciate the classics you should start with (Maurice) Bach. :-P

[1] [https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2018/xv6.html](https://pdos.csail.mit.edu/6.828/2018/xv6.html)

<comment><USER5> Correction: xv6 runs on QEMU, not vx32 (although Russ Cox co-authored both xv6 and vx32).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hah, this is amazing! This reminds me of how I used to (and still do, sometimes) read third-party code.

For an OS class in college, we had to modify fork (and re-build the kernel) to track how many times a particular process had been forked (and probably some other statistics I'm forgetting at the moment).

I remember going through a very similar process for the first time - <USER2> white space below chunks of code, writing out my own comments, and then using that to figure out how to modify fork. Looking at the author's fork.c comments gave me a feeling of nostalgia.

The useful part of course is going through yourself and writing your own comments, but it can be really helpful to start with something like this (and then write your own version of the comments).

</comment><comment><USER7> To briefly understand just how thorough this book is with providing all of the necessary background information and context, the chapter that actually matches the book title (Kernel Code), is chapter 8 and starts on page 319.

</comment><comment><USER8> KernelVersion 0.12

1117 pages

11.1 MB

> The main goal of this book is to use a minimal amount of space or within a > limited space to dissect the complete Linux kernel source code in order to > obtain a full understanding of the basic functions and actual implementation > of the operating system. To achieve a complete and profound understanding of > the Linux kernel, a true understanding and introduction of the basic > operating principles of the Linux operating system. This book's readership > is positioned to know the general use of Linux systems or has a certain > programming basis, but it lacks the basic knowledge to read the current new > kernel code and is eager to understand the working principle and actual code > of the UNIX operating system kernel as soon as possible. Realize the lovers.

<comment><USER9> 1117 pages for millions of lines of code doesn't seem too bad, relatively speaking

<comment><USER10> Only ~20k lines. From the book's into:

> The current Linux kernel source code amount is in the number of millions of > lines, the 2.6.0 version of the kernel code line is about 5.92 million > lines, and the 4.18.X version of the kernel code is extremely large, and it > has exceeded 25 million lines! So it is almost impossible to fully annotate > and elaborate on these kernels. The 0.12 version of the kernel does not > exceed 20,000 lines of code, so it can be explained and commented clearly in > a book

<comment><USER11> > The 0.12 version of the kernel does not exceed 20,000 lines of code

> The 4.18.X version of the kernel code is extremely large, and it has > exceeded 25 million lines

Is most of this drivers though? whats left once that's removed?

<comment><USER12> Glue code for the drivers :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Chinese reader here. When I was in college about 11 or 12 years ago, a previous version of it is considered as one of our textbooks for the Operating System course. Most assignment and homework is about to add or modify some modules into kernel 0.11.

</comment><comment><USER14> The title of the book doesn't seem to do the content justice.

<comment><USER15> Totally, this should be "a new manual to linux"

<comment><USER16> A new manual to old Linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great work. In the preface the author states

> At present, people in China are already organizing human annotations to > publish books similar to this article.

Maybe Chinese programmers will herald an increase in literate programming? Seems like a lot of effort could be saved in back-annotating by just starting the program as a literate one in the first place...

<comment><USER18> I think the prevalence of book of commented sources in China partly comes from the way that Chinese big companies interview people - asking a lot of implementation details (especially for DBs), even though in most cases that is useless in daily work (similar to Leetcode questions in US interviews). IMO, literate programming sounds more like software development in Japan, where big companies engineers write high-level specification, then the 1st outsource company models class hierarchy, followed by the 2nd outsource company writing function declarations and comments, eventually implemented by the 3rd outsource company.

<comment><USER17> Here's my favorite example of a literate program: [http://www.pbr- book.org/](http://www.pbr-book.org/) I don't see how such a thing could be constructed using that Japanese way. Though I'm not sure how any software could be constructed in that Japanese way. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a really dumb observation, but my apartment is in the cover photo! (Vancouver BC, Canada)

Sorry, I got super excited!

<comment><USER20> Just went to Vancouver a few months ago and I immediately recognized the aquabus and the background. I was just where the picture was eating the market's beefjerky! Crazy small world.

<comment><USER19> True! I got so excited when I saw the cover photo.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Many of my friend read the Chinese/original version of it more than a decade ago. It's a dictionary-style book. Unfortunately I never had the patient to read it.

</comment><comment><USER22> As other commenters pointed out, this seems like an excellent piece! Is not too often than a one thousands pages book catches my attention, and then after a while I notice I been reading intensely the first few pages wanting for more, and so far only has been some paragraphs about the people involved at the very beginning of Linux!.

It seems heavy, but rewarding.

</comment><comment><USER23> Super piece of work. A great way for people to see how Linux works up close. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER24> I just wanted to read a few pages and save the book for later, but I ended up reading for 10 hours straight, I could not stop. Amazing.

You can tell the author has put so much work into this, I'm really grateful that he has released this for everyone to read.

</comment><comment><USER25> Unrelated: I am from Vancouver, BC and it is so coool to open a totally unrelated PDF and see a picture of your neighbourhood.

</comment><comment><USER26> Can someone redirect me to the section of the book where they explain how exactly kernel manages sockets, binds the port and keep tracks of bound/allocated ports.

<comment><USER27> I don't think v.12 (the linux version covered in the book) had sockets.

<comment><USER28> Yep, it seems 0.98 was the first version to have experimental tcp/ip.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> black-tea I'd really like to contribute to the kernel one day. Is this work worth reading for someone like me, or is it more for historical interest?

</comment><comment><USER29> Appreciate the effort but I'm sorry to say the writing is so not the best I can barely understand some of the sentence

</comment><comment><USER30> I wish there was an epub version, so I can read it on an ereader. PDF's aren't nice to read on mine.

<comment><USER31> If you can, try Calibre[0]. It can do the conversion and ebook management for you.

[0] [https://calibre-ebook.com](https://calibre-ebook.com)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> This book looks amazing.</comment>


Ask HN: Improving Hacker News for Mobile Upvotes - <AUTHOR> Wondering how many other people browse HN on their mobile phones and find it challenging to upvote/downvote comments because the buttons are so small and right next to each other.
Would be an easy update to separate them out so that the upvote button was by itself on the left and the downvote button would be on the right.
Like this: [^] raiyu 1 minute ago [v]
Anyone else think this would be a worth while change? <comment><USER2> It's better to send the suggestion to the mods by email email@example.com These threads sometimes are not noticed.</comment>


Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/sep/24/brazil-president-un-speech-nsa-surveillance <comment><USER2> Just another populist in South America,

It has to be clear that anonymity in Brazil is Forbidden by the Constitution. So it is strange that the brazilian president asks for 'democracy' and privacy when its own constitution does not allow anonymity. What she is saying is: "we are going to implement and force all gov. employees and others to use or OWN email, so we can snoop and guarantee 'our' democracy.... It will be bad if you did not get that job or contract.. Bad things happen To people Who do not agree with us.. Other 'privacy' fact about this govt is the mandatory GPS in each car in Brazil. To make surveillance AND check taxes.

Brazil is one of most intrusive state ask any reasonable brazilian if it rather have his data in 'Obama' hands or Brazilian Govt hands...

For all people I know they all better be in US datacenters than Brazilian Govt.

And it is strange that the Brazilian govt. is Always attacking the freedom os speech by requests to google..[1]

[1] - [http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government...](http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/government/countries/?t=table)

(order by country)

<comment><USER3> I wander where did you get all this "serious data" and statements over Brazil ?

about Spying: NO one country has this mass surveilance state patronized by public money in the world. its proven.. its scary, and its US..

This must stop, period.

if every citizen take care of its own country actions.. so they do not interfere badly with the other countries.. we would be just fine..

Anyway.. this happening its a warning to all of us.. we should listen carefully, and take good measures about it.. cause in peace time, they might look harmles or like a joke.. but in war time, or with dictatorships, they might have severe consequences

<comment><USER4> I have serious objections the the NSAs domestic spying and foreign surveillance of civilians in other countries. Unfortunately, like any major power, US foreign surveillance is not going to go away because 1) everyone else does it and 2) there's no way to verify that other countries have stopped even if they did.

If you read the history of arms control talks between the US and the USSR, the only reason they worked was because both parties could verify that the other was honoring the agreement. The Russians could physically look at satellite photos and verify the US actually removed some of its ICBMs and vice versa.

There is no way to verify a country is not spying on you. As such, no country, no matter their rhetoric, is going to actually give up that ability for the hope that others do so as well. It's a suckers bet.

The solution to privacy in the face of foreign dragnet surveillance is cryptography.

<comment><USER3> > The solution to privacy in the face of foreign dragnet surveillance is > cryptography.

I agree with you on that.. of course defensive matters must come to aid this dragnet environment..

We cannot put the genie back in the bottle anymore,once he came out..

But,together with preventive and defensive measures, politically we must make our governments and rule makers to stand in favor of privacy, writing more severe laws against mass surveilance, that do not obey any court order for particular citizens....

Even if they lie, and they tell us they do so.. once we catch them lying, like right now, we can do something about it, in the political sphere.. their political position are defenseless

For instance, Companies in US right now need to fight politically over this, because even the economy is in danger..

So i think this is a battle that should be fight in two fronts.. If we pick just one of them, we will lost in the long term

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Jeez! I can't believe the number of HN folks - people waaay above the average Internet commenting monkeys and nutjobs - attacking the messenger while completely missing the message.

Heck if all Rousseff said was just these two sentences, I'd still applaud her:

> A sovereign nation can never establish itself to the detriment of another > sovereign nation. The right to safety of citizens of one country can never > be guaranteed by violating fundamental human rights of citizens of another > country.

<comment><USER6> Yes, it's just a common view among US's elites; one poster called her, "Just another populist in South America". There's a context behind this.

The article mentioned, _" She was imprisoned and tortured for her role in a guerilla movement opposed to Brazil's military dictatorship in the 1970s."_ The US supported the 1964 military coup, which put in place the Nazi-like security state which tortured her. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9t...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1964_Brazilian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat#American_involvement))

(And there's dissident lit from people who lived through these times, pointing out the domino effect this had for US intervention against other Latin American countries, emboldened by our success against Brazil. [http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm](http://www.chomsky.info/talks/19850319.htm))

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Just as we reviewed how we deploy our extraordinary military capabilities in a way that lives up to our ideals, we have begun to review the way that we gather intelligence, so as to properly balance the legitimate security concerns of our citizens and allies, with the privacy concerns that all people share."

Notice how Obama said nothing about neutral parties, let alone civilians who are citizens of hostile countries. The "either you're with us or you're against us" philosophy is alive and well! Who really knows the definition of "with us" in a war on an _emotion_?

The sad thing is that, were the entire UN unified in condemnation of U.S. spying, nothing could come of it. The UN is, be design, absolutely toothless when it comes to permanent security council members. It's impotent enough even when it comes to countries like Syria! The only way to make the UN effective is to grant it real power, but that can never happen as long as some of the citizens it represents are more equal than others.

<comment><USER8> Not happy about the surveillance, but also not expecting China (or other less obvious states) to fight for the cause.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The term "international law" doesn't mean very much if we don't have a functioning international police force.

<comment><USER10> It probably is a violation. I'd like her and her staff to state exactly what laws, or what principles and precedents that imply a law, were violated, and then take that charge to the appropriate court. Or introduce a resolution to the UN, to force the US the embarrassment of blocking it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The ironic thing is that incidents like this are exactly why we need to spy on our allies. Relationships change and we need to be prepared.

Good luck to Rousseff making her argument, but I am not sure how spying on embassies violates anybody's "fundamental human rights." Is Brazil willing to stop spying itself?

<comment><USER3> It was not just embassies.. it was the president, ministers, comercial companies, and thousands of civilians..

Also, privacy IS a fundamental human right

You may dont feel it now, since your government doesnt make any movement against you, or your freedom.. and maybe its not that bad, right now.. but you ever wander.. if a hitler-like figure get elected to president of US, do you think anyone would be safe?

Imagine if you tell a joke about your government, and policeman jump right at your door to put you in jail for that, without a fair trial..

We never now... so in any case.. no government should try to achieve this kind of power..

And worse yeat, if you think they do it with the money you pay them in taxes..

so you pay, to empower them to crush you whatever they want..

Democratic governments are not so strong as one might think.. there are sereval politician in anyone country just waiting to something like that to happen.. think about that

<comment><USER11> I am not sure where you are getting your information. Where did you hear that the NSA was spying on commercial companies? I am just arguing based on the linked article. It only mentions one company, Petrobas, which is the state- owned oil company (a minority share is public). The president, ministers, embassies, Petrobas---these are all parts of the government. Spying on other governments is why we have spies. Can you tell me that Brazil is willing to stop spying on foreign governments? (Do you really believe that?)

Furthermore, I am not sure that spying on commercial companies is wrong. If information learned is redistributed to American companies, then that seems wrong to me. (Because it would invite retaliation, introduce unfair competition, etc.) But if the information is kept within the US government, then what exactly is wrong about that? Are you arguing that privacy is a fundamental right for corporations, too?

Hitler, etc.: This is all a strawman. I am only talking about spying on Brazil. But I'm sure it will get you upvotes, so feel free to bring up Mussolini, too.

<comment><USER3> > "Furthermore, I am not sure that spying on commercial companies is wrong. If > information learned is redistributed to American companies, then that seems > wrong to me."

Thats was exacly my the point; Once the information was collected, we never know exactly in what hands (harmless or not) they will pass by.. not now, and not in the future.. it gets out of control.. (chinese hackers might breach security somewhere and enter the party.. and on.. and on..)

We dont know all of this.. what we know its that, its too much dangerous that all that data be flying around.. it doesnt matter if its about you, me, the president of whatever.. it has unpredictable results.. (and probably none of the good ones)

(My point by using the Hitler example, was to point out an archetipical example of any one with dictatorship intentions, that might surprisingly subvert the democratic system and do whatever he likes with the country.. its just easy to think about him first, as such an example.. sorry about that)

<comment><USER11> > "Thats was exacly my the point; Once the information was collected, we never > know exactly in what hands (harmless or not) they will pass by.. not now, > and not in the future.. it gets out of control.. (chinese hackers might > breach security somewhere and enter the party.. and on.. and on..)"

We might not know exactly where the information goes, but we have a very good idea about it. And if Chinese hackers break into the NSA data centers and discover secrets about Petrobas oil, that's the least of our problems! I'm not sure what you are worried about exactly. Are you opposed to spying on any other states, or are you just opposed to spying on state-owned oil companies, or what?

I understand your concerns about surveilling _citizens_ , but that is very different from spying on governments and companies. Good information, earned from spying, can prevent horrible misunderstandings and wars between countries, save people's lives, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Captain Obvious to the Rescue! Does the Brazilian president have a response to the American president's implied statement of: 'What are you going to do about it, Brazil'?

<comment><USER13> No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no.

As a brazilian, I see that even though the speech is based on legit concerns, the bravado will end up more useful to secure Dilma's position in leadership (her popularity dropped this year, and by taking a jab at US she'll recover popularity with a portion of the electorate, who have a hatred for america) and make Brazil look like a beacon of freedom and transparency to the international community (or at least, strengthen it's multilateral diplomacy with the anti-US crowd).

The government will probably try to push a top-down agenda for (unilaterally) legislating and regulating Internet usage in Brazil in the next months, using the opportunity to force IT companies to move inside the country and heat the economy.

All in all, the Snowden scandal has been blown out of proportion by the media, and will now be used by leaders for all kinds of power play and political agendas. Anyone who understands the fundamentals of the internet can tell espionage is a feature that comes for free, and it's not like, suddenly, all countries in the world can get outraged to know the NSA has been spying. In fact, espionage is _central_ to the diplomatic game, it only gets harder to justify on domestic affairs. US citizens have more right to be outraged than anyone else.

<comment><USER14> > No one is in a position to tell US to "stick it", so no.

Of course we are.

A good start would be if a bunch of countries got together and stopped using a USD.

Also changing trade deals with the US would send a message.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, except it's pretty much a given that all govt's who can spy do spy as much as they can on each other, overtly and covertly.

She's just using this to foment fervor in her favor.

Who cares if other countries use the RMB or Euro as trade currency. And no country with significant trade with any other is going to commit economic self-inflicted wounds to "send a message". The US doesn't retaliate economically against any significant partner itself, neither does China. It'd be silly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _Brazilian president: US surveillance a 'breach of international law'_

Ummm, even if it is, no one cares. Brazil would spy on US in a heartbeat if they could and probably try to spy on the US Embassy there. The spying I'm worried about is different, not the reading a foreign leader's email kind.</comment>


A Woman Who Needed to Be Upside-Down (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/vital-signs-the-woman-who-needed-to-be-upside-down <comment><USER2> Slightly tangential, but in Brave New World they trained future embryos to be rocket-plane engineers altering oxygen levels based on their vertical orientation.

> The first of a batch of two hundred and fifty embyronic rocket-place > engineers was just passing the eleven hundred metre mark on Rack 3. A > special mechanism kept their containers in constant rotation. "To improve > their sense of balance," Mr. Foster explained. "Doing repairs on the outside > of a rocket in mid-air is a ticklish job. We slacken off the circulation > when they're right way up, so that they're half starved, and double the flow > of surrogate when they're upside down. They learn to associate topsy- > turvydom with well-being; in fact, they're only truly happy when they're > standing on their heads."

</comment><comment><USER3> Reading this article makes one appreciate just how much expertise doctors have. As soon as the doctor was presented with a few symptoms, he was able to begin running through a checklist of problems related to this specific issue and arrived relatively quickly at the solution.

Many doctors are able to routinely do this for dozens of ailments under intense pressure, making them even more impressive.

<comment> jerome-jh And unfortunately some doctors cannot make a proper diagnostic even after visiting them several times, and having a rather uncommon, but not rare, condition. First hand experience.

Well that's life.

<comment><USER4> I'm not surprised by that. There is an exhausting amount of information that they have to digest & recall. It makes sense that they would assume that the most common conditions are likely to be the cause of your ailment. Maybe AI or automated diagnosis could help in the future, by suggesting rare conditions that fit the symptoms as well as the common ones.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If you enjoyed this article, you might also enjoy _The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat and Other Clinical Tales_ by Oliver Sacks. It's a book of essays about brain function and disorders, but each begins with an individual who exhibits particularly unusual symptoms. They don't have tidy resolutions like this article, but the book is well-written and engaging—-as are the rest of Dr. Sack's writings.

<comment><USER6> Just started reading this. It's really sucked me in, but it also fills me with a sort of biological dread. Something goes wrong with your brain-meat and suddenly you find yourself teleported 40 years into the future every time you look in the mirror, or become an unstuck, powerless spirit inside your own body.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I cringed at the part where they're yelling about epinephrine and IVs, and Jason has to barge in and put her upside down again.

<comment><USER8> I think it is illustrative of how important it is to have someone who cares about you and knows you around when dealing with doctors.

<comment><USER9> An incredibly tiny percentage of cases presenting to the ER are unique and necessitate a friend or family's help in diagnosis - let alone treatment.

<comment><USER10> I call bullshit. I have more children than average and during every single labor & delivery I've caught paperwork problems and mistakes in communication while my wife was too distracted to pay attention to such things herself. All minor, but given the option I would always want an advocate on my wide who is purely there for my own benefit and who isn't experiencing a major medical problem at the time.

<comment><USER8> Just someone being there will cause staff to pay more attention to a patient.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Or her blood pressure could be so low that blood reached the brain only when > she was upside down. Blood pressure that low could have been triggered by an > allergic reaction, anaphylactic shock, or severe dehydration.

So, if this is a generic thing about low blood-pressure, including—potentially—low blood-pressure _from shock_... then could inverting someone who's going into shock in the field (where an ambulance is not yet arrived), be neuroprotective—ensuring they keep _some_ oxygenated blood near their blood-brain barrier to feed their brain, long enough to stave off brain damage until EMTs can arrive and get a saline+steroid IV into them? Would it work for all types of shock? Toxic shock, for example?

I know that in the case of the article, the cause turned out to be a malfunction of the pacemaker itself, but is the doctor's original line of thinking still valid?

<comment><USER12> This is why they have, no joke, inflatable pants [0] more commonly known as "Military Anti Shock Trousers(MAST)".

I am not a dr (IANAD?) but the idea is that you inflate the pants around a patient's legs which helps both push and keep blood out of the lower limbs and closer to the hear and brain. In principle, you could do the same by tying a tourniquet around each leg but the MASTs probably cause less tissue damage and are more adjustable.

[0] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_anti- shock_trousers](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_anti-shock_trousers)

<comment><USER13> I've been out of EMS for a few years now, but these have (or had at least) fallen massively out of favor.

Effectively, you could artificially keep the patient alive by using MAST pants, but they inevitably crash when they were removed. My old service had a few pairs tucked back in a closest, but none on any of the rigs. I'm quite certain they aren't in allowable by protocol in most places at this point.

A pretty wild device, nonetheless!

EDIT: Quick edit to throw in that I have heard tales from the old heads of using them to stabilize pelvic fractures, too.

<comment><USER14> Even if they crash, couldn't MAST pants be useful in ambulances in order to deliver patients alive to the OR? Or did it somehow make them less likely to survive than not using them at all?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can't be the only one that called it as soon as I read the word "pacemaker". Nice to see that the hospital still went through the troubleshooting flow chart though.

<comment><USER16> Do you have a background in cardiology? It may be more likely that the pacemaker would jump out to you as the cause because you're not familiar with the other possible causes.

<comment><USER15> Purely binary performance, it's either working or it's not, is common for digital electronics and rare for body parts. Body parts tend to work less and less well and there's a threshold where it starts causing problems down the line. Body parts also don't tend to have intermittent failures where they can toggle between "working fine" and "not at all" rapidly whereas electronics do.

Once they stated that she had electronics in her that became obvious as a likely source of the problem.

<comment><USER16> Binary states aren't super rare in biological processes. All the causes the doctor outlines are plausible. My first thought was orthostatic hypotension (it's not at all uncommon for people to pass out almost instantly when they go from supine to standing), or some sort of obstructive shock (with cardiac tamponade being the most likely). Both of those conditions are massively more likely than the pacemaker being intermittently connected, so it make sense to rule out the higher probability options first.

What I'm not sure about is why they started doing diagnostic tests (especially ones where the patient was quite clear on what the outcome was going to be) without an IV in place...

<comment><USER17> The way I saw is it like doing a commit bisect. While there were other problems before, this particular problem started after the pacemaker operation, the other problems had stopped. It is like a one bug is fixed and another was created. Either the operation or the device itself was the most likely cause of the change in such a short time frame?

In software dev a bug being created as side effect solving another usually means QC missed it, perhaps here too?

I don't know if surgeons do checklists or some else normally verifies post op on the procedure( peer review?), and are there ways to verify the device before and after insertion , if it was software dev that's what I would recommend . While surgeries and medical practice has lot of regulations and it cannot be changed easily, the principles are sound, and other fields like airline pilots do similar things.

<comment><USER16> I totally get where you're coming from. I'm a full time developer, and part- time paramedic. There are definitely a lot of similarities between debugging a program and debugging a person.

The doctor in the post was also working off the base assumption that this was a bug that got shipped in the last release (surgical complication leading to interval bleeding, leading to hypotension; surgical complication leading to cardiac tamponade; etc). My original point was just that the answer that was obvious to the commenter was actually pretty low on the probability list, and it only seemed obvious because they had an incomplete mental model of the system as a whole (something that happens in software debugging as well). As it turns out, it was the correct answer, but the correct approach (on average) would still put "failure of the pacing leads" pretty low on the list of likely causes.

There are a lot of checklists used in surgery. For instance, immediately before any procedure, there is a "time out" to make sure everyone is on the same page with the right patient, right procedure, and right location. I'm not aware of any checklists specific to pacer leads, but I don't spend much time in the OR these days.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I bet they used a micro usb cable. Sometimes those things can be so janky my phone won't charge unless you kinda fold them and rest the phone on it a certain way.

<comment> kube-system Micro USB is great. My first smartphone had Mini USB which was way worse.

<comment><USER19> That happens with lightning cables too sadly.

<comment><USER20> The contacts on the lightning cable can be cleaned, which is often my problem. But because they're exposed they have to be cleaned.

Pocket lint in the socket also keeps it from seating. Digging that out is like playing Operation. The bits you can break are on the sides, so you have to push straight in to scrape out the lint.

I really should learn to put my phone in my pocket wrong way up so it doesn't catch all that crap...

<comment> kube-system Don't scrape it out, use air duster!

<comment><USER20> If I were forward thinking enough I wouldn't have to do that. But you cram the lint in like you're loading a musket every time you plug a cable into the port.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> While reading this I thought it sounded familiar, and realized this is exactly what happens in the Grey's anatomy episode "Love Turns You Upside Down". Interesting that it was based on a real life situation, it seems like a lot of episodes are.

</comment><comment><USER22> Going to the hospital must've been interesting. I wonder if she, in her mid-60s, was seated upside down in the car, or if the man carried her upside down through public transport.

</comment><comment><USER23> I really miss the Discover Magazine medical diagnosis podcasts about stuff like this. I don't work in medicine at all but I loved the mystery/problem solving aspect - reminded me of being on call for platform services, without the human life aspect of course.

</comment><comment><USER24> I cant't help feeling so happy that this poor woman has such an amazing husband. Best wishes to this couple.

</comment><comment><USER25> Now we know Diana Ross's inspiration.

Upside down

Boy, you turn me

Inside out

And round and round

</comment><comment><USER26> >"You're hurting her," a woman yelled.

What should we do with people like this?

<comment><USER27> Forgive them for misinterpreting a very unusual situation?

<comment><USER28> Perhaps. On the other hand, she played a role in escalating the situation. It took a doctor stepping in to find out why the woman was being held upside down.

Context should be an important factor when deciding to intervene and how to intervene. If I encountered such a situation in a hospital, I would have interpreted it as unusual and beyond my comprehension, but it would not have struck me as an intent to cause harm. People tend to go to a hospital for help. Those who hurt others in a hospital would likely do so through violence.

I'm not suggesting that she should not have intervened, but she (and the security guard) should have understood the situation first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This makes me think of that X-files episode about the couple that were compelled to travel west to avoid physical discomfort: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_%28The_X- Files%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drive_%28The_X-Files%29)

<comment><USER30> Ahh, the episode with Bryan Cranston. I really need to try watching X-Files again.

<comment><USER31> And written by Vince Gilligan! He also wrote my single favorite X-Files episode "Bad Blood"

<comment><USER32> Is that also the one where swear words are sort of censored in English by the narrator?

Another favorite was the Cops spoof. OH -- Also a Vince Gilligan!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This read like a call to Car Talk. "Doesn't anybody screen these calls?!"

</comment><comment><USER34> Non-American here, I can't be the only one to find the use of "coughing spell" (especially "spell") on a medical setting... Weird. Maybe it's my understanding of the English language and how I perceive that word.

<comment><USER35> See "(Entry 4 of 5)", the second noun definition of spell [1]. "an indeterminate period of time" or "a stretch of a specified type of weather" as in, "we've had a long dry spell; I hope it rains soon".

It does not sound particularly strange or unscientific to me.

[1] [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spell](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/spell)

<comment><USER36> "A fainting spell" also comes to mind. It seems a bit archaic but I think it's clear and unambiguous.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> (unrelated, obligatory ad rant)

They really make it hard to resist ad blockers. I cannot concentrate on the text with everything blinking and new ads loaded in constantly. Such a death spiral to try to compensate for low ad revenue by making sure to get extreme amounts of ad views from the few suckers that are exposed to them.

<comment><USER38> Reader mode to the rescue!

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Is there a name for these kinds of articles? Serious matters of importance wrapped into Harry-Potteresque story lines

Should we call such articles Harry-Potter journalism?

There's also related style of articles, very popular in NYTimes, that could safely be called Ulysses journalism.</comment>


Kern Microtechnik: Accurate CNC Machines [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ijl6uDa_kQU <comment><USER2> Once you get down to below 1/1000 of an inch or so, you start to notice that metal is really like playdough. it squishes out in all directions when you clamp it, it springs back when you cut it. it is never exactly the same shape after it has been handled.

Just another thing that adds to the difficulty of super high precision work.

<comment><USER3> What do you use to observe such phenomenon? Optical microscopes?

<comment><USER4> Often using a dial indicator. A rack and pinion converts the linear to rotary motion, and gears magnify the rotary motion:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_(distance_amplifying...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicator_\(distance_amplifying_instrument\))

tubalcain has a good video showing how they work:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6D3YTx7iU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rp6D3YTx7iU)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> For a slightly more accurate CNC lathe and grinding machine (1 micron) that can be made "at home": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFrVdoOhu1Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFrVdoOhu1Q)

<comment><USER6> Yeah, that seems to be for values of "at home" that only includes the homes of expert CNC machinist with access to someone to write custom software for it. Otherwise, the accuracy is impressive, though it doesn't seem to approach the level of automation seen in the Kern machines.

<comment><USER7> Yes, this is not any ordinary person in any ordinary home. His home also happens to be a world class prototyping facility.

I don't think Dan is interested in more automation though. It typically only pays off for big production runs, especially compared with how fast he is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've been pretty bummed on "tech" lately because software is such a shit show so this was impressive and inspiring, both the machines and the seeming quality and focus of the employees.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, everybody is rooting for advancements in hardware/mechanical until they see the salaries this field pays.

I'm surprised the field is advancing at all seeing app kiddies can walk home with more $.

<comment><USER10> You made me curious. According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (bls.gov):

\- Metal and Plastic Machine Workers make $17.35 per hour or $36,080 per year

\- Machinists and Tool and Die Makers make $21.61 per hour or $44,950 per year

\- Software Developers make $50.77 per hour or $105,590 per year

Employees at a top notch company like Kern Microtechnik probably make more than the machine worker average aboves, but then software developers at FAANG make more than the developer average as well.

It's sometimes astonishing that there isn't more correlation between skill and craftsmanship and how much you get paid.

<comment><USER11> As a machinist of 35 years I can say your pay scale is WAY off. Just look jobs on Indeed.Com.

Trust Me, A Tool and Die Maker makes much much more than you quoted. Problem is everybody wants to learn whizbang instead of getting a foundation of conventional machinery.

What cracks me up is I see CNC programmer jobs paying less than Tool and Die makers when programming requires computer knowledge.

The real problem with the trade is Vo-Tech is dead and kids can't even swing wrenches these days, let alone the strong mental math skill required.

<comment><USER12> Could you give hard numbers for what you would consider reasonable pay?

<comment><USER13> I know a tool-and-die maker that works on high volume plastic injection molds that makes a comfortable multiple of my salary. This is very precious knowledge and having it can save a company many millions of dollars in re- tooling and discarded product.

<comment><USER12> A number would be nice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Big fan of NYCCNC, and have been anticipating this video for awhile since he first mentioned it. Too bad it's not as in-depth as some of their other factory tours. Clearly Kern has some secrets they're not keen on letting slip.

Check out their Starrett tour: it's one of my favorite videos on all of YT.

[https://youtu.be/T7JqXbm-Nwo](https://youtu.be/T7JqXbm-Nwo)

<comment><USER15> Thanks. I just spent over an hour watching a variety of videos on YouTube about CNC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Found out about them through Nick and Josh Hacko of [https://www.instagram.com/nicholashackowatch/](https://www.instagram.com/nicholashackowatch/). They use a wire EDM made by Kern to manufacture watch parts.

If you're into this kind of precision, [https://www.instagram.com/robinrenzetti/](https://www.instagram.com/robinrenzetti/) and [https://www.instagram.com/stefan_gtwr/](https://www.instagram.com/stefan_gtwr/) are great to follow.

</comment><comment><USER17> 2 um accuracy; tools so fine that tool change air flow will break them; amazing. I could use this for machining mmWave components.

<comment><USER18> I've been acquiring tools to fix/measure/improve cheap CNC mill and 3d printer, the $100 dial gague I picked has 10 µm as its smallest increment, you can just barely see a 2µm variation. The force the measurement tool imparts on the part and its support structure is more than that.

The next steps are either carelessly blinding myself trying to build a laser interferometer or spending a ridiculous amount of money on more precise gagues.

<comment><USER19> The black matrix glass in an LCD is typically accurate to a few microns since it's made in a photolithography process. If you couple that with a microscope/camera (e.g. mounted where your tool usually goes) you can use that to calibrate your CNC mill across its work area with some machine vision software. This is probably going to be a lot cheaper and simpler than using interferometers and for any practical purpose should have better accuracy than what you can expect to ever get out of a regular CNC mill. I'm not sure if you can just buy those somewhere or you'd take a display apart or something along those lines...

<comment><USER18> My interests are more in general purpose tools for increasing accuracy, and perhaps using them to increase the accuracy of inaccurate tools through feedback systems.

That is, throw out chasing perfection of rigidity, dimension, and flatness of a mill (etc.) Instead keep adding measurement and feedback until the precision of the machine parts doesn't matter. (or, continue to amuse myself and annoy my partner by making messes and spending my disposable income trying)

<comment><USER20> Having tried this, with some fancy measurement tools and a pretty custom and high-performing control systems, I've concluded that it's a route to madness. Fancy software and feedback turn out to be a very hard way to emulate large, straight pieces of cast iron, and there's no substitute for rigidity once you actually start cutting - vibration is a huge issue, and very tricky to actively damp. Essentially every machine tool that does have crazy accurate realtime feedback (diamond turning for optics, ultra precision milling, etc) starts with a rigid and long-term stable frame and adds the $$$ controls.

Granted, my switch over to "more rigid more better" may have gone a bit too far - I now own a 10ee (3200lbs), and am looking for a good jig borer (2400lbs+).

<comment><USER19> You're right that one can't compensate for lack of rigidity with software but you can have an inaccurate but rigid structure and compensate on top of that. It's pretty common practice to use some sort of software compensation to improve accuracy (at least in certain applications where it matters).

Metal milling machine need to be super rigid because of the cutting forces... You can build super accurate machines (e.g. with granite) that can't be used for milling but can place a tool with a (sub-)micron accuracy.

Even with metal you can take lighter cuts and trade off some rigidity for accuracy, but then it's gonna take much longer to get anything done...

<comment><USER7> An inaccurate but rigid structure, unfortunately, won't hold its calibration.

Go for the jig borer, and get them while you still can. It's what Professional Instruments does, and it's what I would do if I had space for one.

<comment><USER19> It can. Basically a repeatable machine can be made accurate by calibration. It doesn't have to be accurate to start with. If it's not repeatable (i.e. won't hold its calibration) then yeah, it won't ;) But accuracy != repeatability. I've worked on precision machinery (1um accuracy) and we used calibration techniques.

<comment><USER7> This is also my field. The issue is, the machine will be repeatible on the short term but not on the long term. It will look like it's behaving well during calibration and the next few months of operation.

But if the ways and mating surfaces aren't almost-perfectly straight and flat, they'll experience accelerated wear. (If you're using hydrostatic bearings, they won't work to begin with unless the surface is accurate). Then the calibration is gone. And that's just in the static case.

If your ballscrew has uneven pitch, is eccentric, or any number of other issues, you can calibrate it out. But now to move at a constant speed, your servo controller has to drive that inertia at a wobble, and everything shakes.

<comment><USER19> The machines I worked on had air bearings. No wear. Basically we're talking about something like an error of 10um over 2 meters. It's practically impossible, or cost prohibitive, to remove that error without calibration. The granite surface the air bearings ride on is _locally_ flat but not perfectly accurate over its entire length.

I agree this setup _is_ almost perfectly straight and flat. But it's still not accurate without the calibration.

Just to be clear, there's weren't milling machines...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you want to work on software in this industry then check out [https://www.moduleworks.com/join-us/](https://www.moduleworks.com/join-us/) Moduleworks develops algorithms for many of the CAM platforms that target machines like KERN develops.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why is it that Germany makes the best industrial machines and industrial manufacturing?

<comment><USER23> I am not saying they don't but in German machine shops I have worked a lot of machines were of Japanese origin such as Okuma or Mori Seiki.

<comment><USER24> IIRC from when I did metal work, that's mostly because the Japanese vendors deliver more machines per year.

German manufacturers generally don't make that many machines, one because they're used for a _LONG_ time (I learned milling on a machine from the 60s in 2015), two because they are complicated to build. You can't easily order 100 high quality mills from a german shop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Really incredible machines. Additive manufacturing has gotten all of the hype lately because it's new and quickly developing, it's equally exciting to see cutting edge developments in traditional subtractive manufacturing.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I am burned out on software, would love to be a machinist. But I am not interested in huge pay cut. I am thinking about building a machine shop in my garage.

<comment><USER26> I took a side job in a machine shop over the winter.I was loading parts in and out of CNC machines, doing a little setup, cutting metal, made one fixture, and a lot of floor mopping. I thought the manual labor was going to make me appreciate the cushy desk job work that I normally do, but I absolutely loved working in the shop.

I wrote an email to friends and family about, hit me up via my email in my profile and I'm happy to share it with you.

I'm trying to find a similar part-time apprentice position in NYC where I live now - any suggestions?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm just disappointed that TechShop went bankrupt. At one point I wanted to open a facility in the Balt/Washington corridor. I figured there'd be a lot of people wanting to learn those skills, and an accessible location. They opened a franchise in Crystal City, VA (DC) but all closed in 2018. It was a a mega- makerspace with classes to learn all theses technologies.

</comment><comment><USER28> What do one of these machines cost? What's the "build volume"?</comment>