Torrentz Shuts Down, Largest Torrent Meta-Search Engine Says Farewell - <AUTHOR> https://torrentfreak.com/torrentz-shuts-down-largest-torrent-meta-search-engine-says-farewell-160805/ <comment><USER2> Torrents and copyright infringement is related, we can all agree on that. But I believe that pirating is related to a very fuzzy legal system regarding this topic and unfair treatment by the major movie studios & music labels. I'll try to explain as good as I can.

Being a european citizen, it is very frustrating knowing that pirating is illegal even though being a Netflix, HBO & Spotify customer. Pirating is a much bigger trend in EU & AUS than it is in the US, and I think that it mainly boils down to the US-based movie studios restricting and delaying access to content to non-US citizens. Some may think that this is acceptable, but I can't see how treating one customer differently from another is acceptable just because they have different nationalities. I'm paying exactly the same amount of money as the next US-citizen for the content, yet I am treated differently.

One other thing that troubles me is that there are higher quality content available via torrents than via the legal alternatives. Having invested in a 7.1 surround system and a 4K 3D Android TV, you would expect that the legal alternatives would have content available for such hardware, but they rarely do.

Personally I think it's absurd that the movie studios expect to be on the european market but treat those customers as second-hand customers, and I don't understand why the EU isn't doing anything about it. The EU and US relies on eachothers markets, yet music labels forces the Swedish-invented Spotify to restrict access to certain songs for non-US citizens.

I do acknowledge that some people are pirating because it's free, but I don't think that the general public does so. I'd be the happiest Netflix & HBO customer if I had the same content library as my fellow US friends.

<comment><USER3> The term "piracy" doesn't help the problems any---it's a smear term that tries to put downloading and sharing on the same level as murder and kidnapping.

[https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy- and-t...](https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-banned-from-using-piracy-and-t..).

I prefer the term "sharing".

As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying. Some people may want backups, may have lost their copy after paying for it, may be frustrated by DRM-laced copies that don't work on their PC/devices, the reasons you mentioned, etc...

<comment><USER4> >As you mention, intent is not always to avoid paying.

Yeah, not always, but very often. Everyone here is trying to downplay this, but I would say >80% of people (disclamer: pulled from my behind) torrent simply because it's free and if they can easily obtain it free rather than paying, then they will. The argument that people pirate because the paid options are shit, and if they were as convenient as torrents people would just pay for them, is rendered moot with the Steam counterexample. Content distribution is much more well advanced and convenient in games compared to movies, and people still pirate en masse.

Of course, all of us are really just talking out of our collective asses until we can cite figures from a study.

<comment><USER5> Stop talking "out of your ass". I pirate an occasional movie for a friend, but I spend more time watching shows on Netflix. Why would I even pay for Netflix when I could get anything I want for free ? Because they have a really convenient UI and easy access to their content.

I recently purchased a Google Play Music subscription, despite having 10^6 "pirated" songs on my HDD. Why ? Because they have a reasonable price, cool UI and artwork, convenience of listening anywhere, and the AI bot that helps me find _new_ music I might be interested in. All of those things dont exist in pirate land.

<comment><USER4> Good for you. There are 6,999,999,999 other people in the world. It's not reasonable to assume everyone else thinks the same as you.

<comment><USER5> why are you suddenly using facts when your initial position used total guesses ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Please have a look at this pull request I submitted some time ago to Bittorrent.org: [https://github.com/bittorrent/bittorrent.org/pull/35](https://github.com/bittorrent/bittorrent.org/pull/35)

It's about updating torrents via DHT mutable items. Meaning that torrent sites could share their public key and simply seed an .rss file containing their indexed torrents (a mapping of infohash -> descriptions). When they want to share new torrents, they simply update their torrent to a new .rss file and consumers will hop on that new swarm.

We need more support to get this into a standard BEP and also into torrent clients.

I know there are other networks (IPFS, I2P, Freenet, ZeroNet, etc..) that do this, but BitTorrent is the most widely used and I think implementing functionality in the torrent ecosystem itself would have much more effect.

<comment><USER7> The real value of sites like TPB and KAT is the community upvoting/downvoting torrents to only keep the correct torrents, and people commenting about actual quality, pointing the problems of encoding or language... This can't be provided by your proposals or anything that relies around an RSS feed, unfortunately

<comment><USER6> Trusting the entity that they're not updating the torrent with spam is the first step. Discussions about the quality of torrents is a different matter which I think neither TPB and KAT have solved - spam accounts could invade such centralized services and downvote quality content. In my opinion a "community" is better built out of a network of trusted public keys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The reason piracy is so popular is because it is free and because it's incredibly convenient, in that order.

The convenience factor is basically, if you want some content (movie, game) it's a simple search and download away (streaming torrents seem to be gaining traction). No legal alternative offers this level of convenience.

I suspect piracy will become harder for the average user due to three letter agencies making life harder for pirates, but it won't stop the determined ones.

Speaking of determined torrenters, Peter Sunde, the founder of TPB had something interesting to say about torrent aggregators being shut down [1]. The idea is that even though downloading torrents itself is p2p, finding the magnet links is still centralized and that is an area that needs to be decentralized.

[1] [https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-piracy-scene- nee...](https://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-piracy-scene-needs- innovation-160726/)

<comment><USER9> It can be free but not that convenient. Pirated content needs to be checked to make sure it's not fake nor malicious, not to mention the technical downsides of the torrent protocol (large bandwidth consumption, insecure, easy to block, slow speed on non port-forwarding routers etc)

It's much easier to buy and download games on Steam or watch movies on Netflix nowadays.

<comment><USER10> For movies you can find on Netflix that's absolutely true. The difference is that effectively anything can be found via torrent or nzb, while the catalog of any single paid provider, even netflix, is relatively limited. You might get reasonable coverage (although still not as complete) by combining a number of subscription services, but the 'ease' advantage quickly disappears.

I would happily pay a significant multiplier on what I pay for Netflix in order to legally stream any reasonably popular movie released within the past few years, plus a decent selection of older ones. IE, roughly what you would find at your average Blockbuster 10 years ago. (A similar selection of TV shows would be nice too.) Things may be improving, but they're definitely not there yet.

<comment><USER11> In this thread why are the rental options like iTunes not being discussed? Those distribution channels have the convenience of streaming, and a deep catalog. Is it because everyone wants all the movies for $10/mth or less rather than $5 a show?

<comment><USER10> I'm honestly not that familiar with iTunes' offerings. $5 for a new release movie rental sounds ok if the selection is there.

<comment><USER11> Yeh, iTunes and similar options have a pretty good selection, in both SD and HD. It doesn't suffer from the same pains that DVDs had (ie. no advertisements before the movie starts). It is more convenient than torrenting.

So, it strikes me as odd that people here only consider pre-pay streaming options and ignore other viable options as they rant about their rationalization for torrents.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> >TFW your children won't experience having access to all the software, music, and other content they could ever want just by knowing how to use a computer better than most people

Feels bad man. Having access to a cracked version of Photoshop at 13 years old changed my life.

<comment><USER13> Same here. I wonder whether this experience with the free cracked version helped make Photoshop any more popular. If it was only used in the legal sense, costing hundreds, would it be so popular?

<comment><USER14> At one point, I developed a hypothesis that for a big software vendor, turning a blind eye to piracy was like a form of "dumping" on the market. Consider a vendor like Microsoft. They could make their money selling legit copies to businesses, and through package deals on new computers.

Meanwhile, anybody who tried to sell a simpler or even better product at a lower price was forced out of the market by the "free" copies of Microsoft that were widely available.

The same "free" software gave Microsoft an advantage in the platform wars (e.g., Windows vs Mac) as well. Though most of the mainstream software was available for both platforms, people would buy a computer that could run the software that they could get for "free," often by copying the disks at work.

I remember a conversation with a friend. He was buying a new PC. I suggested getting a Mac (around 1996). He said: "The Mac doesn't run AutoCAD." I suggested that he couldn't afford AutoCAD anyway, and he just gave me a wink and laughed.

I don't know how this applies to movies and music, i.e., what a "cheaper alternative" looks like. When I was a kid, we would never see a first-run movie. Instead, we'd have to wait until it showed up at the discount theater, where we could see it for a buck. Today, there may be no reasonable business model for providing a lower priced channel for content, because content competes with pirate content.

<comment><USER15> > At one point, I developed a hypothesis that for a big software vendor, > turning a blind eye to piracy was like a form of "dumping" on the market. > Consider a vendor like Microsoft. They could make their money selling legit > copies to businesses, and through package deals on new computers.

I have anecdata to support this, actually, though I won't name names. The company in question prided itself on the fact that bootleg copies were being sold for something like $5USD in (I think) Romania, whereas their competitors software was being sold for a few dollars less. For comparison, a single commercial license could set you back over $1000-$4000.

The way I see it, it's the same as offering free or next-to-nothing licenses to students. Not only can students not afford the software, you're competing for the mindshare and the number of people who put "I know how to use this software" on their resume.

<comment><USER16> Heh, i have a lovely anecdote about those student discounts.

The only guy i knew that had heard anything about Apple before the iPod craze was a hobby musician i grew up alongside. Once he reached college the first thing he did was buy himself a Macbook using the student discount.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What would it take to build a secure & resilient torrent site?

I'm guessing fully decentralised and I've seen mentions of

* ipfs ([https://ipfs.io/](https://ipfs.io/))

* zeronet ([https://zeronet.io/](https://zeronet.io/)

* Riffle (anonymous communication)

Couldn't we leverage bits of the blockchain technology?

Since it's a fully distributed shared database where writers don't trust each other and no middleman is trusted either?

(edit:formatting)

<comment><USER18> What do you need a blockchain for? Storing millions of no more seeded torrents?

There are already magnet links and DHT which is distributed shared database. The only issue is a search function, which is much easier to implement and works much faster when it's done in a centralized form.

<comment><USER19> For distributing all those magnet links of course. Yes, it will be a huge morgue of dead magnet links but not being able to remove them is a required feature. And more importantly it needs to store ratings and not be gameable, or it will be taken over for malware and spam and die a quick death. Which is going to take some thought.

<comment><USER18> I still don't see how blockchain helps with distribution and what incentive would be to store huge loads of this type of data locally.

Ratings are important indeed, but blockchain doesn't make them not gameable. For this you need some working web of trust and oh how I wish we had one already (yes yes I know the technology is there and it 'works', but it must work like an e-mail works for an average user to really be popular, I want to be warned not to buy from given ebay seller because friend of my friend of my friend had a bad experience and because I assign high weight to this friend opinion, well that went OT a bit..). On torrent sites there's a thin web of trust of website owners moderators and then trusted uploaders, we could do so much better.

Not to make a separate post, small ask HN: any interesting active projects trying to build such user friendly distributed WoT?

<comment><USER20> In the context of something like the warez scene the ratings system can be read only to end users.

When releases are made to the decentralized torrent repository they are signed by the release group.

Whether or not a particular signer is an official member of The Scene is decided by consensus of The Scene. The web of trust is very small. Everyone involved is tech savvy, motivated, and already knows each other.

From time to time updates to the list of known groups and their keys may be posted, authenticated by a multisignature scheme.

Then clients can automatically discover who's trustworthy and filter on that. No technical skill or effort required of the general public.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The first thing that got me to pirate movies was that DVDs did not work because of their DRM after I installed Linux. I had plenty of legally bought movies that just did not work on my computer until I found the right Gentoo packages (libdvd-css or something)... I never tried Netflix because it took so many years for it to work with Linux. Being a free software user, it is easier to pirate stuff than to buy the content. If companies just gave me access to a DRM free .avi/.ogv download for a decent price, I would buy the damn movies.

<comment><USER22> > If companies just gave me access to a DRM free .avi/.ogv download for a > decent price, I would buy the damn movies.

A million times this. The music industry figured out how to sell DRM free music files years ago and ever since then I haven't pirated a single album. If the video entertainment industry would do the same, my torrenting days would be over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The thing that gets me is that everyone's fine with libraries and used book stores, as well as sales of second hand games and DVDs, _none_ of which send profits back to the creators or rights-owners.

But _digital piracy_ , that's amoral. Sigh. I like seeing the contortions of logic people pull off to try and explain how these things are different.

<comment><USER24> But it is different! Used bookstores wont let you walk out with the book for free, they charge you :P

<comment><USER25> so more like libraries?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> With the recent shut down of KAT, we're kind of in a "low phase". It always has been a game of cat and mouse, but now, we've sadly lost two big mouses. I hope someone will quickly take up the torch.

<comment><USER27> > mouses

Mice. :)

<comment><USER28> It's not really set in stone, from here[0], for instance - "Technically, since "mouse" is an acronym for "manually-operated user-select equipment," it could probably be pluralized as "mouses." But since hardly anyone is aware of the word's etymology, and because it sounds less awkward, most people pluralize it as "mice.""

[0] - [http://painintheenglish.com/case/534](http://painintheenglish.com/case/534)

<comment><USER27> You are correct when talking about _computer mice /mouses_, but for the animal referred to here (figuratively) the plural is mice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Oh wow, what's going on with torrent sites lately? I feel like we're "running out" of them somehow.

<comment><USER2> It's a tricky business running a torrent site. Unless it is fully decentralized, it can be shut down fairly easily.

Starting a torrent site using the HTTP & DNS protocols is a lost cause. HTTP can be worked around, but DNS is very problematic. I think we'll see more and more torrent sites show up that leverages IPFS[1] or ZeroNet[2], but the second the main browser vendors adds support for something like IPNS (decentralized alternative to DNS), torrent sites will have won the battle with MPAA, RIAA and other IP and DMCA enforcers. Considering the grip that the movie studios has around the vendors, it is very unlikely that it will happen.

[1] - [https://ipfs.io/](https://ipfs.io/)

[2] - [https://zeronet.io/](https://zeronet.io/)

<comment><USER30> DNS appears to have a decent amount of decentralization, otherwise what use would it have been to switch around TLDs for the pirate bay?

<comment><USER2> Yes it is decentralized, but it relies on central authorities to work, which in turn relies on a stable, cross-border legal system - which many believes is currently not in a good state (see Freak_NL's response for example: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12230903](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12230903) ).

People have different views on this of course, but I think we all can agree that it needs a major overhaul to make the majority happy (the legal system that is).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The largest torrent search engine? No way, Google is still working fine for me

<comment><USER30> The double standard is incredible. Google would be well served defending the open web by supporting sites such as torrentz (via legal resources or otherwise), its unfortunate that the PR aspect prevents such a thing.

<comment><USER32> How would assisting copyright infringement benefit the open web?

I see the mention of double standards but it seems very odd to me that someone would support copyright infringement (grabbing films etc.) and deem it acceptable yet we'd balk at someone either:

a) not paying for software we were selling, or b) not paying for a software service we were selling.

It doesn't add up.

<comment><USER33> Torrentz.eu provided links torrents but also provided a takedown feature where copyright holders could remove the torrents.

Whose to say that all the torrents were copyright infringement. Or even that copyright infringement laws applied equally in all parts of the world.

Google also provides links to torrents. That's the double standard.

<comment><USER34> The law is not stupid, if 90%+ of what you do aids illegal activity you're going to feel the heat. Google's proportion is much lower. It's not a double standard as much as a subjective demarcation. No one would take down a torrent site with 90% legal material and processes to remove offenders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Are they going to come after the private trackers after this? The numbers are relatively very small though. I would hate if that happens.

I pay for content whenever I can but those trackers provide me with stuff I mostly never get anywhere else (and in the format and size I want) even if I want to pay.

</comment><comment><USER36> I hope we get a nice implementation of Riffle[1] sometime soon.

[1] [http://people.csail.mit.edu/devadas/pubs/riffle.pdf](http://people.csail.mit.edu/devadas/pubs/riffle.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER37> so if you are running a torrent aggregation service its illegal.. but if you are running a torrent aggregation service along with a regular web search service it becomes legal? maybe there is an opportunity for pirates here...

looking at google (and any other web search engine)

</comment><comment><USER38> It's amazing that even on HN, the conversation is no longer moored to the past.

Copyright in America has been extended beyond reasonable restriction, driven by the MPAA and RIAA who began chipping away at the net as we knew it, and continue to do so today. All of this at the behest of firms which continue to use the most interesting of accounting techniques to show losses, while simultaneously doing everything in their power to make it harder for people to comfortably and easily access media (starting from the time of CDs to today).

All this on top of the fact that studies show that torrenting movies don't indicate lost sales and actually working as a signal to indicate the popularity of a product.

all this on the forum where it's reasonable to expect people to know the value of the network effect.

<comment><USER39> Here's an interview question I might pose to candidates (for a coding job):

"Which torrent site with access to popular songs and movies over the past 5 years has been the best, meaning the one you use most?"

My candidate responds and says "Pirate Bay" or "Kat".

If I have several candidates, this guy will be the last possible choice if every candidate is qualified because I'm assuming he's okay with using copyrighted works without paying.

Consider these scenarios -- stealing in your opinion?

\- go to a restaurant, eat a meal, then leave without paying (you enjoyed something you were supposed to pay for but you did not pay)

\- use public transit and not pay for the ride

\- hail a taxi then run away when you arrive at the destination and not pay

If I asked a candidate "would either of these 3 scenarios above be okay?" \-- would they expect me to hire them if they said one or more would be acceptable?

If I asked the candidate "how many times have you enjoyed a copyrighted film or recording -- and not paid?" \-- 99.99% sure that every candidate would say 'never' even if they'd done so dozens of times.

Why would they lie to me about that? "If I tell the hiring manager I watch, listen to copyrighted stuff without paying, he _might_ think that was wrong and not hire me, so I have to lie."

"It's not stealing, I just disagree with copyright laws/distribution channels/etc."

No it's stealing.

<comment><USER38> Even as a hypothetical, it is an example so laden with meaning and implication that the only true measure of your argument will come when you actually apply it during a recruitment drive. Please go ahead and discuss this with a recruiter and see what they say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Could it be it has suddently became illegal due to some novel interpretation of existing laws?

<comment><USER2> Could be, but it doesn't seem likely considering torrents themselves are not illegal, it's what they point to that _might_ be illegal.

But then again, I wonder why trackers are seen as illegal? They're nothing more than what a router is.

<comment><USER41> Technological reality doesn't matter in law. What matters is whether you facilitate crime or not.

<comment><USER2> I agree, but the case with torrents and trackers is such a gray area. Shouldn't routers be illegal since they help facilitate crime? If not, why should trackers?

I'm just playing with thoughts, interested in seeing what people think.

<comment><USER42> This question was actually addressed in the EU copyright directive:

 _Article 5

Exceptions and limitations

1\. Temporary acts of reproduction referred to in Article 2, which are transient or incidental [and] an integral and essential part of a technological process and whose sole purpose is to enable:

(a) a transmission in a network between third parties by an intermediary, or

(b) a lawful use

of a work or other subject-matter to be made, and which have no independent economic significance, shall be exempted from the reproduction right provided for in Article 2._

.. explicitly exempts the copies made by routers in the course of their operation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> any alternative aggregator ??

<comment><USER44> [http://www.idope.se/](http://www.idope.se/) looks pretty decent.

<comment><USER45> I haven't found anything on the internet regarding idope.se but it seems to be pretty nice.

I suppose you're the admin? How sure are you that "servers never go down"?

<comment><USER46> No @kinleyd is not the admin, I AM :p This project was developed the next day after we knew KAT was taken down, it's very very new, and we are a very small team, so you won't find anything about it on the Internet, especially when we never promoted it decently We only intended to make simple products that everyone can enjoy, we don't make bucks out of it, and thus we promise no annoying pop-up Ads. Regarding the server-never-go-down thing, the server provider we chose will protect our servers even from hurricanes, earthquakes, nuclear bombs…Honestly idk how they are capable of that, sounds pretty badass.

<comment><USER47> Not bad. Y u no HTTPS?

<comment><USER46> we did adopt HTTPS :p pls try [https://www.idope.se](https://www.idope.se)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Just few years back torrentz was still serving magnet links (just the hash, without trackers embedded), so you didn't even have to visit the torrent sites.

Is even that illegal? Publishing hashes of copyrighted material?

<comment><USER49> In jurisdictions friendly to the US anti-pirating effort, they've largely adopted a legal standard of "I know pirating when I see it" rather than following the strict definition outlined by the law. "Making available" has come to be interpreted as "telling someone who to ask about what a pirated (whatever) looks like so you can find it yourself".

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I still find Google to be the best search engine in terms of content in question. But they are too big to fall...

</comment><comment><USER51> Does anyone know of a good alternative? Are there good torrent sites behind TOR, that is, .onion addresses?

</comment><comment><USER52> Where are the mirrors?

<comment><USER53> It was a dynamic website, mirroring it wouldn't be a trivial task, and a snapshot of a site that adds new stuff every day will become useless with time

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> oh look a troll, using a brand new account too, what a great way to add to the conversation.

<comment><USER55> > oh look a troll, using a brand new account too, what a great way to add to > the conversation.

Calm down, we're not on reddit. Having a different opinion doesn't make one a troll.

<comment><USER56> His handle is literally "provoc".

He's outright _telling_ us that he's a troll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> dAMn

</comment><comment><USER58> Where would i find me a Russian bride now?

</comment><comment><USER59> Damn. Used this site everyday since in arrived on the scene.

</comment><comment><USER39> GOOD RIDDANCE. The example of Zuckerberg stealing the idea for Facebook and getting rich has contributed to the foolish belief that it's okay to "enjoy the benefit of something that was SUPPOSED to be paid for -- and NOT PAYING".

"I didn't steal any copyrighted material, my site just helped people who WANTED to enjoy the benefit of copyrighted material that was SUPPOSED to be paid for but didn't pay. So I'm in the clear!"

NO. Torrentz "Drove the getaway car", taking thieves to where the crime was committed.

<comment><USER60> All that's left is for us to ban roads, that way no one can drive their get away cars.</comment></comment>


An App Store for Algorithms - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/08/algorithmia/ <comment><USER2> Personal opinion, but I think this is probably good for professors / post- docs, but a horrible idea for the software community as a whole. Algorithm patenting and closed gardens are probably the worst hinderances to software development that exist right now. It feeds the big boys, who can easily pay, while imposing additional taxes on new folks. Marching Cubes is the classic example of this, but its easy to think of others. Lets say they pattent holographic image recognition / stabilization, or O(N) methods for N-body simulation, or pattern recognition that order of magnitude outstrips SVD or K-means methods. Then everything will have a choice: pay them their pound, use it without paying, or find a functionally similar version that is so different as to not terrify everyone of lawsuit hell. Marching cubes, you only managed to set graphics back by 17 years, meet marching tets.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I was just just about to throw money at them to read the algorithm implementations - then I realised there is no code to read.

<comment><AUTHOR> actually many algorithm developers choose to share their source code on our platform. They still have an opportunity of making money because when our users run their algorithms (even if they are open source) on our platform they get paid.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I can't help but have a strongly negative opinion of anybody who would use this service.

IMO implementing algorithms is what computer programming and software development are all about. It's the fun part of the job. A person buying an algorithm as a web service makes me wonder why the person even became a software engineer at all.

Not to mention that if this idea takes off, it will ruin it for the rest of us by encouraging algorithm researchers to patent new algorithms and not publish them.

I do wonder, though, if a person won't look for a freely available, openly published algorithm, why would they look at this service for an algorithm they have to pay for?

<comment><USER5> The competent software engineer would understand that spending a week implementing a buggy, ill-optimized version of the algorithm would cost more than the purchase price could ever be (unless it's a ridiculously high price like $100K). The fact that it would be "fun" is probably a hard sell towards the client.

<comment><USER4> I guess I made my point badly.

Implementing algorithms is what software developers do. If, as a software developer, I'm just a middle man between the client and the people implementing everything on algorithmia.com, it's kind of stupid for me to even be involved - the client should hire the people posting to algorithmia directly.

<comment><USER6> No, you just had a bad point that you'll come to realize if you ever have to manage a team or company.

More often than not, you outsource items that are not the highest value projects your resources could be spent on. Or, you simply cannot afford to hire a specialist for a specific need. Try to find me experts for some of the pattern recognition algorithms offered who will work at your shitty startup, your shitty big-co with minimal tech wing, or your random mid-sized in the middle of nowhere. I just described 95% of companies on the planet.

And to second relix's point, try to justify implementing something that may have taken years to optimize, even if you think you can do it better. Also, do you want to maintain it? What happens if/when the company loses you? Would they rather have some poorly documented, poorly optimized in house version with nobody around who knows how it works or have a contract with another party they can count on for maintenance and support?

Is this always the case? No. Sometimes it's a core function you want to develop in house. But, it's usually considered.

As a developer, a big step in growth is realizing how to best spend your time and resources, and realizing that contracting implementation of X to further speed up building Y is a choice you'll often have to make.

<comment><USER4> The condescending tone is completely uncalled for.

<comment><USER6> Fair enough. Otherwise, does that help shed any light on this side? Thoughts?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's how I'd like this to work. Each algo is implemented server side on well specified hardware. I can upload sample data to benchmark the algorithm. After reviewing the results I could then pay a small amount for the source code in a language of my choosing (or language + bindings).

All code would be unrestricted and the value-add would be in the search, review, and benchmarking functionality of the service.

This is the same model that makes me pay Amazon for instant video rather than nothing to TPB.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is great feedback thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The project listed in the article, [http://algorithmia.com/](http://algorithmia.com/) looks like it's a web service.

Anyone that's used/written algorithms knows they need to be run natively on your machine/server to run the fastest. Calling a web service will slow this down greatly.

If this site was turned into a marketplace of code listed for each algorithm that can automatically translate between languages, I could see it going somewhere.

<comment><USER9> Just because it's using a web service doesn't mean the algorithm itself isn't running efficiently on hardware.

I imagine you ship off the data, let them run the algorithm, and they return the results. This has no effect on the Big-O efficiency of the algorithm; the only additional cost is a simple roundtrip of the data.

I'm failing to see how that's so different from ex. running an intense algorithm in a worker thread.

<comment><USER10> This would see a significant slowdown for any algorithm that requires large amounts of data, as a lot of them do. The core philosophy of Hadoop which made it successful was "move the computation to the data and not the other way around."

Although the algorithms may run efficiently, ferrying significant amounts of data to and from a web service could quickly negate any gains.

<comment><AUTHOR> absolutely agreed which is way in almost 80% of cases we ship the computation to the data by running in the same data centers where the data lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> There are tons of algorithms from academia like DBSCAN, BFGS and so on that are fairly complex to implement by yourself. It would take days to translate papers on these subjects to get usable algorithms - if you have enough background and skills, of course. Even then you would miss out on all the improvements that subsequent papers have brought out. In nutshell, to get to the state of art for cutting edge algorithms is extremely time and skills incentive. This website can solve this huge problem.

I think, as a startup, you might want to cut down on "making money" part and especially muddy waters of patents. These are likely not the greatest incentives either for researchers or consumers given that lot of grants don't allow this and even if it did many researchers settled in academia have severe repulsion to it. Instead try to grow the site organically keeping it as frictionless as possible for both sides of users. Motivate researchers to post code and data, for example, to allow them compete against state of the art. Be the _that_ reputed site for computational problems and algorithms that people go to like they go to Stackoverflow for programming problems. Once you establish yourself like that, researchers want to get benchmark from you to cite in their papers and that's great motivation for them to give you their code. Consumers can then find them in your repository. I would suggest to keep making money as TBD. Just grow the site making it largest possible index of computational problems and known state of the art solutions.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the thoughtful insights. Feedback is greatly appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'd like to know how a startup still looking for a founding engineer...

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8120070](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8120070)

...gets written up in WIRED. Nice PR work.

<comment><USER13> Link to actual post: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8120514](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8120514)

<comment><AUTHOR> We are looking to put together a strong core team to deliver our vision. Both myself and specially my cofounder are engineers and code constantly. We are looking for like minded folks with a true passion for state of the art algorithms to join this team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Not sure this has the utility that its creators envision. You're effectively putting the "CPU" on a REST interface and shuffling data across a very long bus to have it operated upon.

What kinds of algorithms is this even good for? Cryptographic algorithms are right out. The image on the page says "Dijkstra's shortest path planning algorithm" \- I don't think that's a candidate. Results for pure functions can just be cached ...

The only possible beneficial (and profitable?) use I can imagine is to gather statistics on algorithm performance with real-world data provided by developers from around the 'tubes.

</comment><comment><USER15> Either this was created by someone who had no CS experience or it was created by someone who is a developer but is equally clueless.

Algorithms are worthless by itself.

</comment><comment><USER16> > Algorithmia will host the algorithms on multiple cloud service providers, > such as Amazon and Rackspace, which will speed things up for customers who > use those particular hosts

I've long wondered if this business model of _service components_ is how industry will evolve. It seems to make economic sense - but so did ordinary _components_ , and they lost to (free, modifiable) open source libraries.

</comment><comment><USER17> Haxe would be a perfect language to express shared algorithms in. Grab an algorithm, and transcompile it to your favorite language.

</comment><comment><USER18> I suppose an actual existing 'app store for algorithms' is CRAN.

</comment><comment><USER19> Why wouldn't someone just create their own API service?

<comment><USER20> Because it's less work to outsource? Same reason someone doesn't host their own mailserver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I am predicting this thing will die a horrible death.

<comment><USER22> Care to explain why?

<comment><USER21> Well, there are several. I am not sure where to start. But I guess the most fundamental problem (to me) is this: at the core of the app are "implemented algorithms". Right? What is exactly "implemented algorithms"? They are just "software". The app is just ill-defined at its core. If you are selling software, then call it software.

Another thing is. Implemented algorithms are useless since they solve no real- world problems. For example, take an implementation of Dijkstra's shortest path. No real-world problem can directly use this implementation. It will have to be modified and adapted to a specific situation. This means customers will have to figure out somebody else's codes and modify it. Why don't they simply write it out themselves while consulting a classic algorithm textbook, instead of buying it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> FUCK OFF NAY-SAYERS. Just because you don't like it doesn't mean idea is not good.

Idea is good and certainly has potential.</comment>


Disney+ does not work on Linux devices - <AUTHOR> https://www.ghacks.net/2019/10/21/disney-does-not-work-on-linux-devices/ <comment><USER2> Defending their monolpoly tooth and nail, not unexpected of them tbh.

</comment><comment><USER3> This really pretty stupid</comment>


What are you doing to prepare for the recession? - <AUTHOR>

I'm working on a talk about surviving (and, hopefully, prospering) in hard times. I've got a good outline, but I'd like to hear what you're doing to prepare for/survive the recession. Any good links or books would be awesome too. Thanks! <comment><AUTHOR> As for myself, I am increasing my savings, working on more side projects, writing and presenting to get my name out there. I am also going to be re- designing my web presence and updating/optimizing my resume.

At this point, this is all preemptive action, but I want to be ready.

<comment><USER2> I've got similar strategies. I work for the only organization in the US with an NDA that you can get life in prison for violating, so I'm trying to find side projects that demonstrate some skill and thinking about launching some sort of professional web presence.

<comment><AUTHOR> Some branch of the government? That seems like it would be pretty stable.

But good idea to have something to show when you go for your next job!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nothing.

My lifestyle and finances were in order during economic growth. They remain in good standing now.

Life goes on.</comment>


Chrome had no support for HW video decoding on Linux since 2012 - <AUTHOR> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=137247 <comment><USER2> Chrom _ium_ , the open-source base. Google Chrome has various extras (without source available).

<comment><AUTHOR> I saw that by applying some diffs you could get HW acceleration, but I doubt you'd be able to use other things such as Google Sync (my passwords are stored there and in a Keepass but it's more useful)</comment></comment>


The Power of Positive People - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/10/well/the-power-of-positive-people.html <comment><USER2> There's an easy litmus test to see whether or not someone is worth further engaging with and it is this. Does the person make your life better or makes you happy? If people are constantly putting you down or not wanting to listen to you or are hard to get ahold of, these are all signs that you may have misplaced atachmments to the relationship and it's time to get out. Going through this you may ask yourself what does this other person have going on in their life? What are you contributing to the relationship that may be of burden to others and cause them to act this way towards you. Upon addressing these questions you may then assess what you may need to change in how you interact with other people if anything or wether or not the other person is in a position at this stage of their life to to be able to participate in yours. Having been on both sides of this I've found approaching all relationships with humility and compassion goes a long way towards alleviating any tensions.

<comment><USER3> > are hard to get ahold of

I have a friend that is like this, he's very difficult to get a hold of through messaging/e-mail or text. When we're hanging out together, we have a great time (at least it seems like it from my point of view) but he rarely makes the effort to seek out things we could do together.

Is that an unhealthy relationship in the sense that I crave his attention/time more than he does mine? Are some people just more introverted and don't socialize as much?

<comment><USER4> I am probably that guy to a lot of people.

For me, it has nothing to do with social anxiety, disrespect, etc. It's all about how I value my time differently from others. In my world, there's no such thing as recreation or relaxation, beyond the occasional Halo game. I do everything with objectives in mind. I constantly have several thoughts and ideas floating around in my head that I have to coalesce into coherence, because one of those ideas might be worth further investigation.

When someone texts me, messages me, emails me, etc., that's a relatively small interruption but can easily throw everything off in my head when I'm in the middle of a thread of thought. It's even worse if I am trying to focus on a specific task at hand. Yeah, I'm a serious person, but I enjoy the way my mind works and have been much happier by embracing it instead of treating it as a sickness (like the public school system).

So when I get those handful of messages coming at me every day, I ignore most of them and reply later, if ever.

I know this hurts people sometimes, and I try to help them understand. Buy I've given up explaining this over and over again. My ideas and questions around writing a line encoder are more important than your cat photos or going out for lunch, or favors for things one can easily take care of on their own.

It's not that I don't love my friends and family, but I can't have their drivel constantly loop around in my head.

<comment><USER5> Dude, if you love your friends and family, why are you referring to their attempts to stay in touch as 'drivel'? That's a really negative, condescending word.

<comment><USER6> Take him at his word; he can love them and their interruptions can still be drivel. Most normal peoples' routine text messages are.

<comment><USER7> Yes and the word drivel is a patronizing word betraying a self-importance that can lead to neediness/abasement in people that admire you, and a disgust in people that don't. Putting yourself on a pedastel is a bad practice in my opinion.

His last line '...I can't have their drivel constantly loop around in my head' is repulsive.

<comment><USER8> I'm guessing based on his reference to the public school system treating his way of thinking like a disease that he's probably somewhere mild on the autism spectrum, so thinking about social nuances isn't his strong suit.

Assuming that's correct, I don't think its fair to characterize his thinking as repulsive when its really just a coping mechanism for dealing with his personal limitations. Its rude, yes, but its not meant to be malicious or cruel.

<comment><USER4> While I'm sure your intentions are good, I'd be careful to make unprofessional psychological diagnoses over the internet. People should find that more offensive than my relatively benign choice of words. I'm not offended by what you have to say, but it's not exactly correct.

To provide some background, I was referring to my being diagnosed with ADD back in school. I'm unsure whether I even have it since I was a fat loner kid back in school who was disinterested in being somewhere he was frequently being harassed. I don't think most grown adults would bother accomplishing much in an office where some dweeb was regularly sabotaging them. Grown ups found it easier to drug me than to discipline multiple bullies. I do think it's possible that I have ADD, but I don't think that's the underlying reason as to why I was being drugged rather than being put in an environment where I could thrive. The latter is much harder for an inefficient, dysfunctional system.

You're wrong in that I do actually think about social nuances a lot. My lightbulb is a little dim in that area, my second nature being more of a third nature with those things, but that doesn't mean I'm unaware of them at all. I acknowledge and understand why some people find me rude, and that's not evidence of autism.

As you say, I'm not a cruel person. I go out of my way to help friends when they are in need, to encourage others, to make amends when I know I've done wrong, etc. I think about other's feelings a lot because I have a lot of intense feelings myself. Sure, I'm rude, but not usually, and not to be cruel. I've never used words like "drivel" to someone's face, and usually do my best to honor people's communications or at least humor them when I'm not exactly thrilled with what they have to say. But I'm not ashamed to say that when someone texts me some viral video or whatnot, that it's an interruption not worthy of a timely response.

Some people ought to grow up, though. The fact that someone is disgusted because of a person's diction, or that the latter person thinks people say a lot of irrelevant things, shows a lack of empowerment. A person confident in themself shouldn't feel such distaste for the relatively minor shortcomings of others. I'm sure that most people find my interests to be _drivel_ , and I'm not bothered by that in the slightest.

I do love people, for sure, but I don't require them to love me back, as would be suggested by me putting on a face and doing things to try keep their love. I think I require very little from people, and if a person can't handle me or my choice of words on Hacker News, they're free to move on.

<comment><USER9> I understand and I agree. People, especially on internet, as you can see in the comments above, are so quick to put their conditioning of words and feelings onto others, in a way where the words you say is not really coming to them in regard of your own true meaning but rather by their own meaning, their own codification of language and thinking. They become angry and come to criticism rather than listening and understanding who you are, as you are.

They react, and think you are an asshole. That tells me they themselves are not willing to recognize their own cruelty and anger and pain. They are vulnerable. Rather than merely listening and saying that they are happy to know you know yourself they say things that make you seem so unknowable to yourself, since they themselves might, too, not aware of truly who they are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "You are the average of the five people you spend the most time with" \-- Jim Rohn.

It's not literally true, but it's a great way of thinking about who you surround yourself with and the subtle ways they influence you.

I know I tend to pick up aspects of the people I spend a lot of time with. When we used to visit our family in Queens I'd come back talking like someone from Queens. When I had a boss who would badmouth the company a lot, I found myself also having a negative opinion of the company. Cynical friends made me cynical.

My boss now is a ray of sunshine. Just a delightful and decent human being, and I am a better person for being around him. I can only hope some of my positive characteristics rub off on others.

I'm a widower, and one of the ways that loss has changed me is that I am much more cognizant of, and grateful for, the other familial and platonic relationships in my life. I wouldn't be getting out of bed every day if not for my kids, family, friends, colleagues, and neighbors. I am surrounded by love and support.

I certainly have bad days, but I would not be where I am without the relationships in my life, and I absolutely believe in the power of those positive people to have a positive impact on me.

<comment><USER11> > I certainly have bad days, but I would not be where I am without the > relationships in my life, and I absolutely believe in the power of those > positive people to have a positive impact on me.

Your first quote is something that stuck with me. And yes, looking back it's probably true!

Also, you sound like the kind of person that would spread the positivity to others around them, so keep it up, you're awesome!

<comment><USER10> > Also, you sound like the kind of person that would spread the positivity to > others around them

Well, I wasn't always, but I'm trying to be now! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > The goal of the quiz is not to dump your less healthy friends, but to > identify the people in your life who score the highest and to spend more > time with them.

I really don't like the idea of trying to rank my friends like this. Not everything in the world needs to be quantified.

<comment><USER13> Not everything needs to be quantified, but at the very least this sparks the intention to be mindful of how you interact with others, and how you allow them to interact with you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article started with about author's experience hanging out with some really positive people, and somehow made a conclusion about needing to hang out more with happy people (happy != positive). Then goes on to describe various benefits of having close friendships or social circles that you can depend on, and basically used dependable friend and happy friend interchangeably.

Although, despite being such a poorly written article, I do agree that having a group of close friends who you can depend on for good and bad times is huge for our mental health and happiness.

<comment><USER15> Yeah - maybe it's just the lingo of "positive" people, or maybe I haven't met enough "negative" people (lucky!?), but the (happy != positive) angle should have been explored a little bit.

The best friends in my life are not the same friends that have always been easy / happy / positive. But it is the people that I've known through tough times that I rely on now. It's all too easy to step away from people when one or the other is in a tough spot and this article runs the risk of encouraging that behavior. By my reading anyhow

<comment><USER16> It's way too easy these days to identify some undesirable behaviour in a relationship and instantly jump to the conclusion that they must be abusive or toxic, despite the fact that many people have their ups and downs. Throwing an abandonment issue or two their way by ditching them at the first tough moment is hardly going to uplift them, and if you care enough about them maybe what's needed is some stronger boundaries while that stuff is going on.

You'll never nourish such a deep, loving friendship if you're expecting your friends to be basically perfect: happy, easy-going, not giving you any trouble. Going through some tough shit together can really strengthen that bond and open you up to a kind of positivity and happiness you'll never get from those who simply wear it as a mask.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I gravitate toward people who like gallows humor: make fun of the organization and management. It's "positive" to us, we have a good 'ol time. Human nature is really F'd up in a Dilbert-esque way in the work world in such a way it begs to be lampooned. "Positive" is relative.

<comment><USER18> One of the most entertaining forums I read is for a perennially under- performing football club. It's real no holds barred stuff, as much about themselves as anything else, for wasting their money season after season and never learning. By contrast forums where the vibe is to 'support the team' are dull and even oppressive.

<comment><USER17> Could inspire a book: "The Joy of Sucking"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> fwiw, and this is going to sound incredibly cliché,

One thing I've found is that - people you're in relationships or freindships, of whatever kind, with - they put out a mix of positivity, negativity, whatever -

The only way to master the problem of people 'lifting you up' or 'bringing you down' is to own your own moods, and not ride the whimsy of positivity or negativity that other people are putting out towards you - then you can see other people's negativity for what it is - it might be their problems projected, their interactions with the world gone wrong, who knows - and you can help them - or choose not to.

There is negativity in the world, not negative people - you can avoid it, even successfully, but to be comfortable with it and navigate it well - that's a whole other world.

If you're not in a stable place emotionally, the advice in this article might apply, and I hope things get better for you.

All I know is I love my friends, including the one's who are hopelsss at being in any way encouraging. I see it as my problem and my job to be OK with them. And I think a lot of people share that attitude.

Pardon the rant. The topic got me worked up a bit.

<comment><USER20> Very well put, thank you!

There is an underlying utilitarian vision of life in the main article, that really twist me in the wrong way. Not everything is a market interaction and real friendship are a bit more complicated than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> There is plenty of evidence supporting the idea that social connection leads to better health outcomes, and not just for older people. Modern living, especially in countries like the US, where many people move, live far away from each other, depend on social media to satisfy social impulses, and tend towards individualism and non-communal living, makes it harder to find meaningful social connection for many people, even urban dwellers, and can't be ruled out as a contributor to sub-par physical health and mental well- being.

</comment><comment><USER22> The worst thing about so many of these "positive people" is that their comments are meaningless and their opinions carry no weight. If everyone and everything everyone's doing is "great", "great" has become synonymous with "average","typical" and "unremarkable".

<comment><USER23> Yikes! Here are some books I'd recommend for you:

[https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Advantage-Positive-Brain- Su...](https://www.amazon.com/Happiness-Advantage-Positive-Brain- Success/dp/0307591557/)

[https://www.amazon.com/Daring-Greatly-Courage-Vulnerable- Tra...](https://www.amazon.com/Daring-Greatly-Courage-Vulnerable- Transforms/dp/1592408419/)

[https://www.amazon.com/Courage-Be-Disliked-Phenomenon- Happin...](https://www.amazon.com/Courage-Be-Disliked-Phenomenon- Happiness/dp/1501197274/)

[https://www.amazon.com/One-Thing-Surprisingly- Extraordinary-...](https://www.amazon.com/One-Thing-Surprisingly- Extraordinary-Results/dp/1848549253/)

<comment><USER22> I don't view myself as a "negative person", although I've been repeatedly diagnosed as such by "positive people" for pointing out truths that they would have preferred to ignore indefinitely. At the end-of-the-day, these "positive people" make up the bulk of humanity and the universe is constantly ridding itself of them through the natural consequences of their actions.

<comment> crack-the-code I think you are going about this all the wrong way. You seem to think that most people who use positive words are just putting up a facade and using these words for the sake of using them.

Consider the co-worker who acknowledges hard work you do, and appreciates you for your effort. This acknowledgement gives this you a sense of accomplishment, which in turn makes you feel happier and better.

Consider the neighbor who offers help when he notices you have a problem with your car, or gives you advice that helps you solve your problem easier.

Consider the person who recognizes that you have a disability or health defect, and chooses to help you and provide you with positive reinforcement to help you focus on progress and feel better about your situation.

I think the article, and the notion of "positive people," is more than just throwing a word around. It's about people who add weight and meaning to their words through thoughtful consideration and genuine compassion.

<comment><USER24> There will be no progress if the crap you just made is considered "awesome"...

<comment> crack-the-code Who said that it had to be considered "awesome"? And why dont you educate us on what qualifies as a mechanism for progress?

<comment><USER24> you said it: "most people who use positive words"

I don't educate people that are not ready to be educated!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I enjoyed learning about moais, but the Blue Zone quiz at the end of the article was a complete non-sequitir for me.

I like the simple litmus test that wizardforhire mentioned ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17544755](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17544755)). Another one I like is WaitButWhy's "Traffic Test":

"The Traffic Test is passed when I'm finishing up a hangout with someone and one of us is driving the other back home or back to their car, and I find myself rooting for traffic. That's how much I'm enjoying the time with them."

(from [https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner- part-2.html](https://waitbutwhy.com/2014/02/pick-life-partner-part-2.html))

</comment><comment><USER26> Kind of unrelated directly to the article, but in reference to many comments - can't recommend these two books enough: The Charisma Myth and How to make friends and influence people (I know, maybe not the best title).

Those two books completely changed my life. They helped me become more confident, less socially anxious and be able to connect with people in a much deeper way than I was capable of before.

The first time I tried reading the How to make friends book, I couldn't really fully make sense of it or enjoy it (in fact I was offended that someone gave to me as a gift). It took reading the Charisma book and a lot of practice (yes, just reading these books won't help you, you'll need to put in a lot of work) to get to the point where the other book was helpful.

<comment><USER27> Hey as I don't have too much free time would you mind to recommend which book I should read first?

<comment><USER26> Definitely the Charisma book first. Helps with basic stuff, like dealing with anxiety and learning to be able to just be present in social situations. After you've gotten better at those things the How to make friends book becomes a lot more useful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Slightly related, it's amazing how shared space influences well being. With people out of sync, it's hard to do anything deeply. In place where everybody is focused, it gets a lot easier (a library for instance).

<comment><USER29> This works at the more macro level too. Someone was talking about moving to SF from the Midwest and being amazed by all the fit, beautiful young professionals walking around. Yes, it's true that driven, disciplined people are more likely to be somewhere like SF or NYC, but the subconscious adherence to your new home's social norms is a huge factor.

We want to fit in. In a library, that means heads down. In a fit city, that means being fit. In Texas (my home), that often means lots of beer drinking and dining out, which leads to not fit.

The power of positive people is the same. If you roll in a cynical circle, your cynicism will be applauded, and your optimism ridiculed, and you'll find yourself altogether more cynical.

Around 22 years old, I realized that location / social circle are two of my greatest levers for influencing my behavior, and I've been extremely careful about where I'm willing to position myself ever since.

<comment><USER28> About the library effect, it was more a distraction-remover and motivational reminder than a desire to fit. Everyone is concentrated, I'm going back to concentration. If some were slacking off, I'd be tempted to relax. Also it favors everything that help your goal. Like the low noise for instance.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is an opinion article basing its conclusion on a collection of anecdotes. I'm not sure it meets the usual standard of "true" or "researched at all". I wish fewer op-eds got posted to HN.

<comment><USER31> > I wish fewer op-eds got posted to HN

It's important to know what beliefs are circulating. They can have an impact regardless of truth value.

<comment><USER30> There are other communities for that, and, I can read the newspaper itself. This is Hacker News.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> There's a simple hack toward being more positive: When you make a joke, ensure that you're the victim, not someone else. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngwOuLzQiHE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngwOuLzQiHE)

It's a simple change, but very hard to do consistently.

<comment><USER33> You don't have to go that far. Consider this insight from Chris Rock, who said: Joke about what people do, not what they are.

That came up in this discussion where he, Jerry Seinfeld, Ricky Gervais and Louis CK talk about comedy and their techniques, etc. It's really interesting.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKY6BGcx37k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKY6BGcx37k)

<comment><USER34> A slightly off-topic insight I came upon recently was from the civil rights movement: don't call people racist, because it backs them into a corner they can't get out of.

It's better to debate them on their choices so they can find their own way towards a more enlightened and equitable worldview.

I've also come to realize that this may partially explain why conservatives I know have been reluctant to engage in political discussion in these times. They're being backed into having to defend fundamentally indefensible positions.

Rather than forcing them to opt out, maybe it would be more productive to provide them an avenue out by engaging them in a more positive way. I'm still trying to figure out what that is, however.

<comment><USER35> I was with you up until this:

> I've also come to realize that this may partially explain why conservatives > I know have been reluctant to engage in political discussion in these times. > They're being backed into having to defend fundamentally indefensible > positions.

Maybe conservatives aren't getting into political discussions with you because you consider their positions indefensible. Have you ever considered that maybe conservatives are right about some things or do you monolithically support everything labeled 'liberal'?

<comment><USER34> I'm going to reserve my right to answer here, at least in specifics. There are so many indefensible things happening to people and the planet (among a great many other things) right now, that I'm concerned we're slipping past conservatism into nationalism, authoritarianism and dystopia.

I have liberal leanings but am from the so-called red state of Idaho. I try to hear out my friends, family and neighbors because their context doesn't always match mine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This reminds me of the parenting advice that the best thing you can do for a child is cause them to have a positive peer group. Pretty much everyone knows this intuitively, which is why "good school districts" and private schools command such hefty premiums.

</comment><comment><USER37> True _especially_ of social media.

</comment><comment><USER38> Jordan Peterson has some good advice on this (not sure if he is liked around here). "Be Friends With Those Who Want Best For You" and "Be careful who you share good news with".

Some friends don't want you to try to succeed, because they are not trying. They would rather see you fail and say "see, that's what happens. That's why i don't try, as it just fails anyway". Its hard to tell such friends, good news. It makes them feel bad about themselves.

<comment><USER39> Some interesting talk about Peterson here. ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16188789](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16188789))

I think in general he has some fans here. And those that aren't fans have pretty rational critiques of his appeal, without just devolving into pure partisan bias.

Personally I liked his talks on Youtube from Harvard, but didn't enjoy his book. It was like he was trying to cash in with a "Chicken Soup for The Soul" knockoff. It's not terrible, but not worthy of a _philosopher_ and too geared to the mass market.</comment></comment>


For real Windows 10 privacy, you need the China Government Edition - <AUTHOR> http://www.computerworld.com/article/3200375/microsoft-windows/for-real-windows-10-privacy-you-need-the-china-government-edition.html <comment><USER2> >one government stood up for user privacy

...user privacy against US companies. Also, obtaining an English version is non-trivial.

<comment><USER3> I understand what you are saying, but all governments should stand up for user privacy (including the US Gov't)</comment></comment>


A Simple Swipe on a Phone, and You're Paid - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/technology/personaltech/30pogue.html?_r=2&ref=technology&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> Why can't everyone accept credit cards? Chargebacks.

It's huge evolution, but receiving money by credit card still has potential complications.</comment>


Docker and Canonical Partner on Commercially-Supported Docker Engine for Ubuntu - <AUTHOR> https://www.docker.com/docker-news-and-press/docker-and-canonical-partner-cs-docker-engine-millions-ubuntu-users <comment><USER2> I really want to like docker for end user applications. However, until the problem of sanely sharing users into the container is solved, it is something that merely works well right up to the point you try to do something useful.

I suppose this can be sidestepped by allowing root in all of your containers for the applications. I am curious if that actually provides security benefits, though.

<comment><USER3> What do you mean by sanely sharing users in the container?

<comment><USER2> An example is easiest. I have my machine setup to provide who I am to machines I ssh to. Now, launch a container that you want to pull data from a machine that you have ssh access to.

First, you'll find that the user used to setup the container was not you. So you can't even just map in your .ssh dir.

So you'll try modifying the image to work with specified user at start up. Only, again, it wasn't setup that way. You will start modifying the entire image to work, but will hit tons of assumptions on user name. (You may get lucky here. I didn't.)

So then you think to just run as root so that the user in the container will have permission to your .ssh files. At first you forget to specify user name on ssh commands, since the command thinks you are root now. easy enough, at least.

Only, you forgot you have proxy commands in your config and other scripts that you now have to edit because they rely on your user name. So you can fix that.

Now you can finally do what would have been trivial for an app installed on your machine.

<comment><USER4> This is well stated.

I have been making end-user apps for myself and for folks at work that require such identity, in one case, ~/.ssh, and in another, ~/.gnupg.

My solution isn't particularly novel or clever, but it works well.

The docker image of the command-line app is the same for all users, and so lacks their identity built in.

The hack is to drive invocation of the docker image with a shell script that makes a temporary directory, copies in the necessary identity files from ~, and does a docker run that maps those identify files into the docker image.

After the docker image exits, the bash invocation script cleans up.

It's a hack, but it works surprisingly well. In my tests, it adds about 100ms of invocation latency for a python program. That is, running the docker image containing a python program that copies some files in as described is about 100ms slower than just running the same python program directly.

It would be nice to have a more elegant solution to this, but it's not too bad.

<comment><USER5> disclaimer: I am not a security expert. Reader beware!

If you're using ssh-agent, maybe you could bind-mount your host's $(dirname $SSH_AUTH_SOCK) into the container, and then set the SSH_AUTH_SOCK environment variable to point at it when you run the Docker container. That way you're not even sharing the private key with the container.

I imagine you could do the same with gpg-agent, too.

<comment><USER4> I didn't think about that, thanks!

I didn't mention it, but for one of the apps, I also needed ~/.gitconfig, which I don't think has an agent. :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Don't be confused. CS Docker Engine is not the public available Docker Engine: [https://docs.docker.com/cs-engine/install/](https://docs.docker.com/cs- engine/install/)

<comment><USER7> Can anyone enumerate the differences between this and the public Docker Engine?

Does it just have a different release process/QA process to allow for more stable use in deploy environments bundled with a support contract?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Did I read that correctly? This will be delivered as a snap package?

<comment><USER8> As I read this again I'm quite confused what this announcement means. The mention of snap package makes it seems like "apt-get install docker..." would be a separate binary. A wild guess would be that 99% of Ubuntu users will never buy CS Docker Engine so will that 99% of users be running the debian/ubuntu packaged docker.io binary that exists today?

<comment><USER9> I think Docker through snap is still free, they'll just sell support.

<comment><USER10> Correct.

At a not so distant future point, Docker will be delivered as a snap package. Users installing docker via `apt-get` will ultimately be installing the snap.

We are working through the final technical details of this portion now. We'll make sure to keep everyone updated as this transition happens, but current best practices should continue to Just Work.

<comment><USER11> i had a quick question - do you see a convergence of Flatpak and snap at some point ? because it seems that RedHat and Fedora are beginning another divergence on static packaging.

<comment><USER12> Actually, there's quite a bit of cross-distro compatibility around Snaps. Beyond Ubuntu, Snaps are known to work in Arch Linux, Debian, Gentoo, Fedora, openSUSE, Yocto, and OpenWRT. Snaps simply require a modern systemd and snapd daemons. With the appropriate SELinux profiles and an updated snapd, it's entirely feasible for the same docker.snap to run on both Ubuntu and Fedora (as well as others). You can learn more about Snaps and Linux distributions at snapcraft.io.

<comment><USER11> And the same thing is true for Flatpak...but are we really looking forward to another 20 years of multiple packaging formats for Linux ?

The push towards static packaging is a great time to unify. The problem is that snap is based on deb..not sure about Flatpak. So we again have a political split.

I really think this is the opportunity to unify Linux packaging - anything, I don't care..but let us please have one package format.

[http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2016/06/here-c...](http://arstechnica.com/information- technology/2016/06/here-comes-flatpak-a-competitor-to-ubuntus-cross-platform- linux-apps/)

<comment><USER13> Snaps are descendant from deb, but they are now just squashfs images with some metadata

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm worried about Docker living up to its valuation, and I haven't seen the business model that will meet the expectation of their valuation long-term yet.

They have built a great open source product, but now that there has been a collective shift to understanding the benefits of containers, the docker runtime + container format will/should be commoditized by infrastructure companies (Google, RedHat, MS etc).

So where is the value-add of Docker the company going to come from?

edit: s/evaluation/valuation

<comment><USER14> _E_valuation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> thought Canonical is doing its own "docker", e.g. SNAP, lxd etc that are not totally identical but very similar to docker, what's going on here.

<comment><USER16> There's more than one type of container. Docker, and docker flavors (runc, rkt, etc). LXD is a machine container, it's the same technology that Docker was first built off of, but it's a hypervisor for really dense machines that are as light as process containers.

Snaps is a package format that gives you a cross (linux) platform distribution, atomic updates, security, and isolation. It's not really like docker as it's not a density story, there's no unique TCP/IP stack, etc.

<comment><USER17> like xen? I sat on a 10 minute presentation during openstack meetup, Ubuntu dude presented LXD...then I asked myself...xen does all this...then again choice is always welcomed

<comment><USER18> The VM experience ("guests") without the VM overhead. A virtual machine like Xen or KVM or ESX lets you run a guest kernel of a different OS, like WIndows. LXD avoids the overhead of hardware virtualisation and the guest OS, which means it only supports Linux guests, but they run at native speeds.

<comment><USER19> _> without the VM overhead_

or the VM security

<comment><USER20> LXD does at least (unlike docker) default to unprivileged containers

<comment><USER21> Any local kernel vulnerability will let you attack other containers on the same machine. This is a much bigger attack surface than Xen or KVM. It's nice in that it gives the same experience as "traditional" hypervisors (at least the basic features), but it's only applicable if you trust that the application inside the container will not be compromised.

<comment><USER12> On the flip side, when there is a kernel vulnerability, there's only 1 kernel to update! If you're running the Canonical Livepatch Service, for instance, critical security vulnerabilities are patch in real time, without reboot, and _all_ containers running immediately benefit from the patch. Conversely, if you're running 50 Linux Xen or KVM machines, you have _51_ kernels to update. So yeah, do think about what "attack surface" actually means, when comparing LXD and Full Virtualization.

<comment><USER21> If you manage so many hosts you had better use Ansible, or Satellite or whatever so that updating 1 or 50 or 500 hosts is the same effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does anyone know if this means anything significant in regards to LXD?

<comment><USER18> Docker and LXD don't compete. Docker is great for running clustered processes - cloud-native apps - where Docker gives you hyperelasticity. CS Docker Engine provides more coordination facilities for those cloud-native apps.

LXD is more like KVM in that gives you "guests" that feel like a full OS. You can run existing apps in there in exactly the same way you would run them in a VM.

So these are two counterparts in the container continuum, and it's useful to understand them both so you use the right thing at the right time.

<comment><USER22> I'm well aware of LXC, I do understand them both. And LCX is not more like KVM. KVM is full virtualization, it emulates hardware, and nothing like LXC.

LXC is based on cgroups and kernel namespaces - the exact same things that enable Docker-based containers. LXD and Docker engine are competing "container"-based virtualization engines.

LXC can can be run as app-based containers just like Docker. This is what lxc- execute does. You don't have to run init as pid 1 in LXC.

By the way "Cloud-native" is little more than a marketing term.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> This makes me feel good about going with CentOS for Docker. Red Hat has a custom, stable Docker version which is rock-solid (albeit somewhat old, 1.10).

<comment><USER24> Center for Internet Security Docker Benchmark, rule 1.5: Keep Docker up to date [1]

[1] [https://benchmarks.cisecurity.org/tools2/docker/CIS_Docker_1...](https://benchmarks.cisecurity.org/tools2/docker/CIS_Docker_1.12.0_Benchmark_v1.0.0.pdf)

<comment><USER25> "Keep a tab on these product updates and upgrade as frequently as when new security vulnerabilities are fixed."

[https://www.docker.com/docker-cve-database](https://www.docker.com/docker- cve-database)

<comment><USER23> Backports. I saw Docker break more than once after supposedly stable releases with security fixes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can OP or an admin de-abbreviate "CS" to "Commercially-Supported"?

<comment><USER27> Oh so it's not Counter Strike running in Docker. That makes much more sense.

<comment><USER28> My first guess was closed source :/

<comment><USER29> Or Computer Science, Creative Suite... so many things before I would think of 'Commercially-Supported".</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Liberapay: a non-profit and open-source recurrent donations platform - <AUTHOR> https://liberapay.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Some projects I support:

GIMP: [https://liberapay.com/GIMP/](https://liberapay.com/GIMP/)

Mastodon: [https://liberapay.com/Mastodon/](https://liberapay.com/Mastodon/)

Matrix: [https://liberapay.com/matrixdotorg/](https://liberapay.com/matrixdotorg/)

Syncthing: [https://liberapay.com/Syncthing/](https://liberapay.com/Syncthing/)

Wireguard: [https://liberapay.com/WireGuard/](https://liberapay.com/WireGuard/)

Liberapay doesn't charge any fees, so they ask for support on their own platform: [https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/](https://liberapay.com/Liberapay/)

</comment><comment><USER2> Just curious, why does Liberapay use a .com domain? That usually indicates a for-profit organization.</comment>


Twitter and Facebook Are Publishers, Not Platforms - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcmag.com/commentary/363100/twitter-and-facebook-are-publishers-not-platforms <comment><USER2> BTW the author got fired 2 days ago from PCMag: [https://twitter.com/THErealDVORAK/status/1043180806020116480](https://twitter.com/THErealDVORAK/status/1043180806020116480)

This makes this read even more interesting to me.</comment>


React Enlightenment - <AUTHOR> http://www.reactenlightenment.com/ <comment><USER2> The first page, [http://www.reactenlightenment.com/what-is- react.html](http://www.reactenlightenment.com/what-is-react.html) gives me all the reasons for not using react. To much work for a simple select, or am i missing something?

<comment><USER3> That's a bit like looking at the source code for Linux's TCP stack and saying "All that work just to make a TCP connection? I'm definitely not using Linux".

If all you want is a select in React, you can just do `<select><option value="A">A</option><option value="B"></option></select>`. The tutorial is showing how to roll your own select-like control using divs. I doubt that it is much easier to do that using any other JS framework.

<comment><USER4> Are you really comparing the linux TCP stack with an HTML select tag and justifying React through that comparison? Are you for real?

<comment><USER3> No, I'm saying that implementing something is usually harder than using something. The tutorial is about how to implement a select; not about how to use a select.

<comment><USER4> That's still wrong. Using a <select> is still much easier than using React's implementation of it.

<comment><USER5> > Using a <select> is still much easier than using React's implementation of > it.

Yes, of course it is. But reading a tutorial about how you could implement something so understandable as <select> using React is a pretty good guide to understanding React! At least, to me it seems pretty great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm still puzzled people choose react over W3C HTML standards like web components. It just doesn't make sense unless you want to support IE9/10.

<comment><USER7> This comparison may help: [https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/webcomponents.html](https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/webcomponents.html)

Basically, Web Components exist to solve a different problem than React.

<comment><USER6> I'm not sure I'm convinced by "different problem explanation" \- in both cases you produce a reusable component to use in your application.

> WebComponents provide strong encapsulation for reusable components, while > React provides a declarative library that keeps the DOM in sync with your > data.

You can use something like reflux with web components to do this too. The fact that react uses virtual dom is an implementation detail I think.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here.

Even react tutorial operates with components: [https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/tutorial.html](https://facebook.github.io/react/docs/tutorial.html)

<comment><USER8> Components are not the big story as they've been around since the advent of UIs and are present in plenty of JS frameworks before and after React. The big story is the idea of expressing your UI as a pure function of the form f(data) = view and being able to compose those functions together. Before React, you couldn't do this in a performant, UX-positive way.

<comment><USER9> _The big story is the idea of expressing your UI as a pure function of the form f(data) = view and being able to compose those functions together. Before React, you couldn 't do this in a performant, UX-positive way_

Well that is just entirely pretentious.

<comment><USER8> How's this pretentious? Certainly wasn't my intent.

<comment><USER9> _idea of expressing your UI as a pure function of the form f(data) = view and being able to compose those functions together._

This is a verbose re-statement of components, which are not new.

 _Before React, you couldn 't do this in a performant, UX-positive way_

Has there never been a performant component based UI framework?

<comment><USER8> Maybe I wasn't clear. The big idea is not components. The big idea is expressing your view hierarchy as a single snapshot in time, and when the data changes you conceptually throw out the old view hierarchy and re-render from scratch and React manages the native view updates to ensure that it's fast and doesn't adversely affect the UX by, say, resetting scrollbar position.

Contrast this with two previous approaches. The first is where you have a component hierarchy that renders the initial state of the view, but when the data changes you need to write imperative code to transition the native views to reflect the new state. The second is traditional data binding, which doesn't help when you want to change the view hierarchy itself (rather than properties of existing views) based on an underlying data change.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> ot: I saw the title and thought some crazy fool had ported the enlightenment window manager to reactos. I suspect quite a disjoint venn diagram of target audiences.

</comment><comment><USER11> Great resource! Can we have something similar for Redux/Flux? I'm having a hard time getting my head around those.

<comment><USER12> FYI, I keep a big list of links to high-quality tutorials and articles on React, Redux, and related topics, at [https://github.com/markerikson/react- redux-links](https://github.com/markerikson/react-redux-links) . Specifically intended to be a great starting point for anyone trying to learn the ecosystem.

One of the closest items to the "React Enlightenment" book might be "Redux Without Profanity", a free e-book posted at [https://tonyhb.gitbooks.io/redux- without-profanity/content/](https://tonyhb.gitbooks.io/redux-without- profanity/content/) . (Which, oddly enough, I'm suddenly noticing is _not_ already in my list.) The slides at [http://slides.com/jenyaterpil/redux-from- twitter-hype-to-pro...](http://slides.com/jenyaterpil/redux-from-twitter-hype- to-production#/) are also a great intro and overview of how Redux works.

<comment><USER11> Thanks for the pointers :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For some people, the best things about React are some of the libraries written on top of it, such as Om for ClojureScript, that allow them to enjoy its architectural ideas without writing javascript at all.

[https://github.com/omcljs/om](https://github.com/omcljs/om)</comment>


USA windpower now producing over 43,000 megawatts - <AUTHOR> http://www.tgdaily.com/sustainability-features/59477-us-wind-power-surges

<comment><USER2> Let us note that, from the article, this translates into only 3 percent of total electricity generated nationwide. This is in large part due to the inability for wind power to generate a constant power load. From what I recall the nuclear power plants can produce a load of about 100 x 1400 MW = 140,000 MW and this is estimated to be about 20 percent of the elctricity produced nationwide.

Roughly speaking it looks like the nuclear power plants have three times as much installed capacity than solar and produce 6 times as much power to the grid. Since the nuclear power plants are near 100 percent capacity, I wonder what is the reason why wind has roughly a 50 percent production capability: is it maintenance or wind availability ?

</comment><comment><USER3> The article says there's _total capacity_ of 43,461 MW in the USA. Hopefully the USA can manage more than the (from memory) 20%-30% utilisation rate the UK manages.</comment>


Ask HN: Am I too late to get a cofounder? - <AUTHOR>

I've been a developer for a over a decade.  From many side projects I have product lines that are starting to earn revenue, but I am a solo developer.
Now I'm concentrating on these projects fulltime and they are taking off (getting popular, gaining press, etc.).
Within my personal network there are some people that I could use (and who have offered to help).  I want to bring people in, but given that I've written hundreds of thousands of lines of code, and nobody else has done anything yet, there is an obvious inequity there.  So I have no idea what sort of arrangements are good ones.
But I do want to bring other people in (I have two in mind, and am open to other developers as well).  And I want to be fair/generous to them without being "bent over" myself.
Anybody have experience with this sort of stuff?
(posted anonymously) <comment><USER2> If you've done a lot of work already, someone you brought on now would, if they were reasonable, not expect to get the same amount of equity as you.

Beware, though, because empirically founders tend to overestimate the percentage of the value of the company represented by the work they've already done. Founders tend to overestimate past work and underestimate future work, and they also underestimate the distance between a good product and a successful company.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good, both-sides-of-the-coin answer. I do see the value both potential partners bring to the table, because they fill in gaps of mine (business and design), while they have some development knowledge themselves.

But the fact is that the existing product(s) is the reason for them wanting to join in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The early equity distribution is really a measure of future contribution. Vesting (or decreasing reverse vesting) is about the only concept that should the past into account at this stage.

Just watch for tax considerations when you award equity to new people (if you have already created non-zero fair market value for your equity).

</comment><comment><USER4> I was in a similar situation, but I received some angel funding as a solo entrepreneur. This let me hire rather then bring in equity partners.

I'd talk with a startup lawyer to research some equity arrangements, and definitely incorporate in a "good" state like Delaware where you have some flexibility wrt corporate structuring.

</comment><comment><USER5> First you should ask yourself why you need a cofounder? What will they do?

If what they will do is perform a job than you don't need a cofounder but an employee.

If you already have a stable service I don't see the point of brining in a cofounder because they wont have your vision.

One thing that could be beneficial is if you have a competitor who is at the same level as you, you could merge with them and become cofounders which would help you increase your presence, provide reasonable equity, and offer similar visions.

If you just need a cofounder to reduce your workload you could always hire programmers to do the development work and manage your business yourself.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think the general consensus is that getting significant funding requires a broader team. You have an advantage in that you're fairly far along on the development aspects. You have plenty of equity valued at whatever amount it is. Depending on your project and your terms, you really should consider having a co-founder or even two with supportive skill sets and backgrounds, good networks and contacts.

This will greatly increase your survivability in the near and long term. Unless you're a purely technical "develop and release then 'look ma' no hands'" product.

</comment><comment><USER7> Equity Equation essay can give some insights: <http://www.paulgraham.com/equity.html>

</comment><comment><USER8> Are they asking for equity? Why not just hire them? You can always offer them to become partners later on.

</comment><comment><USER9> Email me, I have what you need.

email@example.com</comment>


NASA Artemis - <AUTHOR> https://www.nasa.gov/specials/artemis/ <comment><AUTHOR> Explanatory video

[https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4](https://youtu.be/_T8cn2J13-4)

</comment><comment><USER2> Please raise my taxes as much as you need to in order to do this.</comment>


The Photoshop Effect (the female aliens in magazines) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YP31r70_QNM

<comment><USER2> I don't know how to downvote.</comment>