Show HN: HTerm, The Graphical Terminal for iOS, MacOS and Linux - <AUTHOR> http://41j.com/hterm

<comment><AUTHOR> I've been writing this in my spare time. It's a cross platform terminal client which lets you draw graphics inline using Regis. This means you can quickly plot data using gnuplot without and serverside support.

It also lets you render PNG graphics inline by streaming it as base64 encoded data. Which I find handy for displaying email attachments from mutt.

It's open source, and a iOS version is available for 99c (though you can also compile it yourself of course). I hope to make a Cydia version available if the project gets any traction.

At this stage I'd love feedback, bug reports and of course users to push me to do more development.

<comment><USER2> Ah, ReGIS graphics. Sometimes the past comes and taps you on the shoulder.

You mentioned the VK100 as the original ReGIS graphics terminal which I'm fairly sure is correct. It might be worth mentioning that terminal's more familiar name, the "GIGI". It actually came out a fair bit sooner, certainly earlier than '85. I'm pretty sure I was working in a lab stuffed full of them in '82, '83 at the latest.

They were a pretty fun terminal to work with. Among other things, they supported the ability to upload bitmap fonts. A friend of mine put together a "Rogue Font" which put those terminals in demand in our lab for playing "rogue". I did a multi-terminal chess board system for them.

ReGIS was supported in later DEC terminals, the VT-240, VT-300 etc. By that time I was working in the TBU's (Terminal Business Unit) QA group which was '85 and on. That was the same era that DEC released their first PostScript based printer (the LPS-40) not too long after the Apple LaserWriter came out. It was a fun time for early computer graphics.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've updated the site, thanks for the comments. That lab sounds awesome, I would have loved to have played with those terminals. It's unfortunate that we lost ReGIS support in modern terminals.

The ReGIS support I currently have is pretty basic, mostly just designed to support gnuplot line graphs. If you have any old code that generates ReGIS graphics I'd LOVE to see it.

<comment><USER3> I probably do, but it would be on DEC Rainbow 5.25" floppies; gave up trying to find PC software and drive that could read them long ago (they're pretty non-standard) and the real hardware has been skipped. Some DEC archive somewhere probably has the equivalent. Perhaps ftp://www.decus.org/pub/lib/v00365/vaxregis.zip ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you thought about contacting the Archive team? They might be able to help you out. I'd hate to see that stuff get lost.

Could access that path, but found: /anon/public/decus/vms/library/v00365

Looks great! All fortran 77 code by the looks of it, will certainly be something fun to play with, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you put any thought into submitting a patch for iTerm?

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a pretty good idea, I've tried to write the ReGIS rendering and inline PNG code in such a way that it wouldn't be too hideous to factor them out into their own libraries. If I get any traction with this, I'd love to see terminals generally regain ReGIS support and support some from of support for inline image rendering.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Would love to try it, but the "Linux" link points to a DEB package (I'm on RPM distro ..) that's missing (404): <http://41j.com/hterm/hterm_0.0.1-1_amd64.deb>

Can you provide a generic binary?

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoops, I've fixed the deb link now. I'll look into creating a static binary which should work on most platforms. It should also be pretty easy to build from source:

<https://github.com/new299/hackterm>

Though the source needs quite a lot of work!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Let me guess, H stands for Hollywood :)</comment>


How Michael Slaby Utilized Technology to Win the '08 Obama Campaign - <AUTHOR> http://technori.com/2013/07/4693-michael-slaby-forever-changed-political-campaigns/

<comment><USER2> The problem with all of this is that it doesn't address the real issues. It's all fun when"your man" has the technology and the money, but those are not the things that should be driving things. The "Tea Party" was terrible in many respects, but it was probably much more how politics should be - real people with their own unpolished views.

<comment><USER3> When discussing "the Tea Party," it's important to note that while a lot of the folks involved were individuals expressing their personal beliefs, the spontaneous political movement was quickly corrupted by Dick Armey and FreedomWorks.

FreedomWorks was a secretive and highly funded organization that sought to capture the populist movement and turn it towards the establishment GOP's goals. It's quite a sordid tale, but check these articles out for some context:

[http://rightweb.irc-online.org/profile/FreedomWorks](http://rightweb.irc- online.org/profile/FreedomWorks)

[http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/dick-armey- lea...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/12/dick-armey-leads-armed- coup-tea-party-group-gets-bought-8-million)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Post hoc ergo proctor hoc.

The campaign was not won by technology or lack thereof the opposition.</comment>


Not Lack of Ability but More Choice – Psychological Science - <AUTHOR> http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797612458937 <comment><USER2> The abstract doesn't mention the effect size, so...

High Math + High Verbal = 34% STEM by age 33

High Math + Moderate Verbal = 49% STEM by age 33</comment>


From sideshow to main event, drones are making their mark in entertainment - <AUTHOR> http://robohub.org/from-sideshow-to-main-event-drones-are-making-their-mark-in-entertainment/

<comment><USER2> Opposite of the Superbowl's "NO DRONE ZONE" !</comment>


Why Tim Ferriss Sold His Muse - <AUTHOR> http://www.inc.com/articles/2010/10/why-tim-ferriss-sold-brainquicken.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+inc/headlines+(Inc.com+Headlines)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

<comment><USER2> Oh, please. Ferriss again, on HN?

<comment><USER3> if you dislike it, flag the article.

i for one found it interesting that he shifted from thinking the product was the part worth selling to thinking the process was the part worth selling. this could be something many HN'ers could benefit from.

take your negativity somewhere else.

<comment><USER2> It's not negativity _per se_ , it's that Tim Ferriss' whole schtick is phony. [http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2009/01/08/5-time- management-t...](http://blog.penelopetrunk.com/2009/01/08/5-time-management- tricks-i-learned-from-years-of-hating-tim-ferriss/)

<comment><USER4> I've seen that post linked a few times. I think it misses the point of Ferriss' book. "Idleness is not the goal, doing what you want is". Ferriss optimized his business such that all the shitty things he didn't like doing, which was most, if not all things, could be finished in 4 hours a week. Getting his book sold was something else entirely.

<comment><USER2> Sorry, I thought she scored a direct hit.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Faith vs. Facts - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/19/opinion/sunday/t-m-luhrmann-faith-vs-facts.html

<comment><USER2> The Christian faith, by definition, is rooted in the historical factual events of Good Friday and Easter Sunday. These events are open to investigation. One can refer to the earliest New Testament document sources in this regard, i.e. 1 Corinthians 15, if one has a scholarly interest in the early Christian understanding of Jesus.

The author on the other hand, seems to confuse "faith" with "blind faith". "Faith" is simply the behaviour today in the light of facts which have been established in the past. For instance, the author herself has faith in how the world will continue to operate today, based on our understanding of how it operated yesterday. "Blind faith" on the other hand has nothing to do with facts as it is not concerned for them in the first place, this is not the "faith" of Christianity which is concerned for truth.

Coming back to objective faith, belief in the historical Jesus of Nazareth falls apart if he was not in fact historical, since faith in him depends upon historical facts. As Paul of Tarsus said:

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead." \- 1 Corinthians 15:14-15

It is all the more surprising that this same Paul of Tarsus, also known as Saul, had previously persecuted the church, according to Luke's account in Acts 8:

"On that day a great persecution broke out against the church in Jerusalem, and all except the apostles were scattered throughout Judea and Samaria. Godly men buried Stephen and mourned deeply for him. But Saul began to destroy the church. Going from house to house, he dragged off both men and women and put them in prison."

See Paul Barnett's "Jesus And The Logic Of History" for the historical method as applied to Jesus: [http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical- Theolog...](http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-Theolog..).

<comment><AUTHOR> Would you say that the Christian belief that Jesus was born of a virgin is one of those "fact-beliefs" or "faith-beliefs"?

<comment><USER3> This is likely heresy, but the virgin birth is not really central to Christianity. It ties the events of the NT with certain readings of the OT as prophecy. It's part of the Nicene creed, although not the original version. OTOH, short of a Pastwatch type invention, there's absolutely no way to resolve it to anyone's satisfaction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really don't like it when religion is attacked. Not all religions believe the same thing. Sure you got some forms of Christianity that believe in creationism and others in evolution. Some that don't want vaccination and others that do. You'll find it is the radical religions that you have to watch out for, not the moderate ones. Not every religion is the same.

<comment><USER5> What if every (or even most) religion also has radicals following it? Can you think of a religion without a radical flavor?

Maybe it's some people that are radical, and are attracted to local religions, and then religion gives them an outlet for belief that doesn't require the feedback with reality cycle that shapes many other actions, letting them become more unhinged over time.</comment></comment>


Laugh along with GNU - <AUTHOR> http://www.gnu.org/fun/humor.html <comment><USER2> First time I've ever seen this page and I've spent a fair amount of time scrolling through the gnu site over the years. The definitions are great though, these were my favorits:

Balderdash (n.) A rapidly receding hairline.

Abdicate (v.) To give up all hope of ever having a flat stomach.

Lymph (v.) To walk with a lisp.</comment>


Bad Government Software - <AUTHOR> http://baselinescenario.com/2013/10/18/bad-government-software/

<comment><USER2> Is the government not willing to change the way they operate on technology? Why does everything the government do get contracted out? Is there a possibility of the tech for all government systems be supplied in house and operated as such?

Who is in charge of technology contracts and why are they still around?

When does this sort of bullshit stop? MILLIONS are being wasted on something that hasn't lasted a few weeks

ARE THEY SERIOUSLY EXPECTING THESE SYSTEMS TO LAST YEARS?

<comment><USER3> Be careful what you wish for. Internally developed systems in the government tend to suck as badly and cost as much or more than solutions that are contracted out. Software development, except in relatively small isolated cases, will never be well executed inside government. The nature of bureaucracy pretty much guarantees it. The best hope is relying on open source or off the shelf software as much as possible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Grand scheme healthcare system software contracted by government is often plagued with issues, compounded by naive government officials not drawing up strong enough contracts to hold their sharkish IT "partners" to account. With the UK as an example, here's a summary from the Reg: [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/27/uk_public_sector_out...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/27/uk_public_sector_outsourcing_cost_overruns) "It says that clearly some of the problems encountered by ICT projects are a result of over-ambition, a lack of design and development before procurement, and pressures for efficiency savings overtaking the ability to deliver. The technical complexity of ICT projects is also often underestimated". There's also a report linked at the bottom with more details.</comment>


Ask HN: Is ultimate car sharing possible through just the ODB port? - <AUTHOR> I am not very exactly an expert on cars, or apps. I would say im average in both so when this thought stroke me I thought I should ask the community of smart people, the HN.<p>Since all cars (made in last 20 years as far as I know) have ODB ports and since you can almost completely control the car through the ODB port, whats preventing a startup from creating a device that would plug into your ODB port and connect to a cellular network and when paired with owners phone would enable him to seamlessly share the car. If its possible to lock/unlock car, start/stop engine through odb port, the plugged device equipped with gps chip and cellular antenna would enable the owner and the company to control the car remotely from anywhere with cellular coverage.
the company could vet members using their credit scores, insurance information and drivers licenses to make sure nobody takes advantage of the trust put into the system by car owners.
Its just a thought and I probably miscalculated something, please feel free to point where Im wrong. <comment><USER2> ODB? Do you mean the OBD (On-Board Diagnostics) port?

As far as I understand, OBD is only designed to read out information about the car's operation. You can read about the protocol here:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On- board_diagnostics](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On-board_diagnostics)

Being able to control the car through this port is a security bug[1] that you wouldn't be able to use reliably, and would probably vary from one model of car to another. And at some point, manufacturers will hopefully clean up these security bugs, since they're a high risk for disasters and lawsuits.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On- board_diagnostics#Security_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On- board_diagnostics#Security_issues)

<comment><AUTHOR> so its not a feature, its more of a overlook vulnerability. thanks for reply</comment></comment>


Fresh Air Archive: 40 years of interviews with the voices that shape our world - <AUTHOR> https://freshairarchive.org/ <comment><USER2> I look forward to checking this out. Gross is a very skilled interviewer, and this looks like a filter for the better stuff. Off the top of my head, the relatively recent interviews with Philip Glass and Tara Westover are fantastic.

There are also some interviews that did not go so well. The tension when Gene Simmons came on the show ([https://freshairarchive.org/segments/gene- simmons](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/gene-simmons)) was brutal but I've heard her say before that it's been the most listened-to online episode since it originally aired in 2002.

<comment><USER3> The Howard Stern interview is great too.

<comment><USER4> Joe Rogan, while not the best interviewer, is getting better. When he prepares, he can ask good questions and gets the guest to come out of their shell. He's one of the only places to go for good long form interviews.

<comment><USER5> Rogan's interviews are largely a thinly-veiled excuse to push right-wing BS to the impressionable young men that comprise his audience.

As someone who's had to talk people out of racist and misogynistic ideology that they were pipelined into through Rogan/his guests, I really wish he didn't have so much purchase. I know he has a very polished "chill" veneer, but his long-time friendship with Alex Jones should clue people in to what he's actually after. He even appeared on Jones' show a week after one of the Sandy Hook parents who had been targeted by Jones' listeners killed himself.

[https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/joe-rogans-podcast-is- an-e...](https://slate.com/culture/2019/03/joe-rogans-podcast-is-an-essential- platform-for-freethinkers-who-hate-the-left.html)

<comment><USER6> Rogan is not "right-wing," and people saying that have not listened to his views thoroughly. He is open-minded (sometimes to a flawed degree), and had Jones on and it was the funniest thing I've heard. Jones is a lunatic, and Rogan exposed that. The pseudo-architectural anthropologist was also pretty funny.

<comment><USER5> I've listened to many hours of his show, his interviews with far right types like Gavin McInnes and Stephen Molyneux. I had to in order to talk a friend down from some really dark thinking he was encouraged toward through Rogan's show. But I'm sure that when I heard him denigrating Muslims or talking about how trans women are actually just confused gay men, I just needed to listen more "thoroughly."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> One that may be of particular interest to HN readers: here's Gross interviewing Steve Jobs in 1996, right before his return to Apple and the long, remarkable run of successes that would come from that, on "the future of computer technology": [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/steve-jobs-future- web](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/steve-jobs-future-web)

EDIT: And a few more blast-from-the-past interviews, for good measure...

\- Bill Joy, in 1989: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/computer- scientist-bill...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/computer-scientist- bill-joy)

\- Stewart Brand on Silicon Valley, also in 1989: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/short-history- silicon-v...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/short-history-silicon- valley)

\- Richard Stallman, 1991: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/software-and- copyright](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/software-and-copyright)

\- Mitch Kapor, 1993: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/information- highway](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/information-highway)

\- Bill Gates, 1995: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/bill-gates-future- infor...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/bill-gates-future-information- highway)

\- Tim Berners-Lee, 1996: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/creator-world- wide-web](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/creator-world-wide-web)

\- Andy Grove, 1996: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/intel-president- and-ceo...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/intel-president-and-ceo- andrew-grove-building-his-success)

\- Jerry Yang, 1997: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/jerry-yang- navigating-w...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/jerry-yang-navigating- world-wide-web)

\- Linus Torvalds, 2001: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/computer- programmer-lin...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/computer-programmer- linus-torvalds)

\- Larry Page and Sergey Brin, 2003: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/google-founders- larry-p...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/google-founders-larry-page- and-sergey-brin)

\- Jimmy Wales, 2007: [https://freshairarchive.org/segments/jimmy-wales-user- genera...](https://freshairarchive.org/segments/jimmy-wales-user-generated- generation)

<comment><USER7> Great list! I actually created this as a playlist for anyone who wants all of these segments queued up in one place:

[https://freshairarchive.org/playlist/53](https://freshairarchive.org/playlist/53)

FYI anyone can create and share playlists like this:

[https://freshairarchive.org/playlist/create](https://freshairarchive.org/playlist/create)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can anyone find a good way to browse? Closest thing I could find to an index is a alphabetical list of guests - but the formatting is made for mobile or something and you have to keep clicking 'load more' every couple of names.

[https://freshairarchive.org/search/guests](https://freshairarchive.org/search/guests)

In creating avenues for discovery ('collections' and 'topics') the simplest one seems to have been ignored - just listing all the segments with relevant metadata. Hopefully I'm just missing something obvious.

<comment><USER9> I really wish podcasts, radio shows, &c would include archive- or collection- based torrents for those of us who want to mass-download episodes to local for offline on-demand.

RSS is wonderful for upkeep but having to perform a manual click-and-save across hundreds or thousands of episodes is a questionable use of time and it's not always easy to web-scrape the .mp3 files via a script.

Maybe I should just go get a smartphone with a monthly data plan just for podcasts, but I really shouldn't have to.

<comment><USER10> If all old episodes are actually kept in the RSS feed, there are scripts for this.

Here's one: [https://gist.github.com/Wowfunhappy/e042b04a34b25bfe25d04b28...](https://gist.github.com/Wowfunhappy/e042b04a34b25bfe25d04b28914196d4)

You could also run the script automatically every week to download and backup new episodes—no need for a dedicated podcast phone.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't get the Gross love. She's so very wordy. Likes to use 40 words to ask a 5 word question.

<comment><USER12> Her wordy elixir elicits excellent responses.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> A small smattering of people to search for that hackers might not think as much about:

Present:

* Richard C. Holbrooke

* Zbigniew Brzezinski

* Madeleine Albright

* Lord David Owen

* Larry Page & Sergey Brin

* Norman Schwarzkopf

Absent:

* Sandy Berger

* Tony Lake

* Henry Kissinger

* Cyrus Vance

* Anthony Zinni

Some other things to search for:

* Booker Prize

* Nobel Prize

* MacArthur Fellows

And I'll stop here for fear of wandering off and forgetting to add the comment.

</comment><comment><USER14> Somebody should write an article on how to do this Monaco, the editor framework that powers VScode, so you can build your own flavor of vscode for fun.

</comment><comment><USER15> Misread this then realized it's missing "Prince of Bel-" and it's not what I had hoped.

</comment><comment><USER16> ~50% of this archive is just Terri Gross telling people about themselves to them. I was always so perplexed at how she could secure interviews with so many interesting people, then just talk through the whole thing, literally talking over interviewees to tell interviewees what they said or what happened to them. I miss pre-Trump NPR so much, but Fresh Air has always been an immensely frustrating program.

As interesting as a lot of these interviews might seem based on subject, I think many people would get a lot more out of a Big Broadcast with Ed Walker archive.

<comment><USER17> I miss pre-Trump America, too. On topic, though, a good interview is engaging to the listeners, and not every interviewee is interesting on their own. It is her job to set the stage, to guide the conversation to find the most unique and intriguing things about a person or a story.</comment></comment>


SICP Distilled – An Idiosyncratic Tour of SICP in Clojure - <AUTHOR> http://www.sicpdistilled.com <comment><USER2> I regret having wasted my time trying to work through this about 2 years ago:

\- There's a lot of sloppy content, i.e. misspellings that a spell checker should catch.

\- Some code is syntactically incorrect. Some hasn't been ported over and is still in Scheme.

\- The author's claim that the core points are present is somewhat dubious, since only parts of chapter 1 are reasonably complete.

\- The difference in writing quality from the original text and what the author has changed is quite jarring. The original's prose is efficient, insightful, and deeply connected with other content. The new stuff is at best blog-quality.

\- The author has certainly abandoned this project. Nor does it look like he'd be up to the task, even if he did have the motivation for it.

<comment><USER3> It is too bad. It was a nice idea, started out OK, but petered out quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This was funded in 2014 on Kickstarter, but it has been a while (2015) since the author provide updates to the backers.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sweet. Clojure doesn't support call/cc, what's the plan for amb?

<comment><USER6> There is apparently a port of cl-cont to clojure, but only delimited continuations using shift/reset. Delcc is probably the future of scheme anyway, but probably more in the form of prompts and aborts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> If you are interested in SICP, I'd definitely agree with the recommendation on that page to watch the videos.

The SICP book reads like an old maths textbook (not surprisingly) and is written to accompany the course, so just reading the book without watching the lectures is unnecessarily hard work.

</comment><comment><USER8> Wow I remember this from a few years back. I think Berkeley teaches the course in Python now.

</comment><comment><USER9> It took me some time to figure out what they mean with "SICP". The author assumes that of course everybody knows "SICP" no need to tell you what it is. Now I realize it refers to the book "Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs".

I can buy that book, now what is this project about, what are its goals? Why should I support it? What will I get from it?

There is probably a simple and worthwhile answer but I think that should be given at the very beginning of the presentation. The lost art of the "Abstract"?

<comment><USER10> For computer scientists, the SICP is comparable to the Bible.

<comment><USER11> Maybe for some american computer scientist in an age range and with a very especific cultural background ... but that's all</comment></comment></comment>


Help finding a blog post about how author use Linux (minimalistic way) - <AUTHOR> Around year ago I read blog post that was on main HN page about how author is using Linux and his plans what to change in new year. He described he does minimal setup with I3 and how he switched to Nano for all development. his blog was again on main HN page couple days ago.<p>I tried Google/ddg/Bing but without success. <comment><USER2> I tried the following query

site:news.ycombinator.com minimal setup with I3

These came up

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12897921](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12897921)

\- [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21068413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21068413)</comment>


Navy.mil using an untrusted DoD CA - <AUTHOR> https://www.navy.mil/ <comment><USER2> No it's not?

      This server could not prove that it is www.navy.mil; its
      security certificate is from a248.e.akamai.net.

<comment><AUTHOR> oops but [https://www.public.navy.mil](https://www.public.navy.mil) and [https://www.blueangels.navy.mil](https://www.blueangels.navy.mil) are i think? i'm just trying to read about the blue angels

<comment><USER2> The answer seems to be "stop trying to view https versions of these pages"</comment></comment></comment>


Introducing Remembear, new password manager - <AUTHOR> https://www.remembear.com/blog/remembear-introducing-the-new-bear/ <comment><USER3> From the Cure53 report: the version tested had a terrible vulnerability (unfortunately somewhat common to password managers): it tries to match passwords to subdomains, and in doing so misparses domains, allowing it to be tricked into giving passwords to bogus almost-look-alike domains. Yikes.

Meanwhile: they've got a crypto protocol tunneled over TLS "to avoid heartbleed" and some other convoluted stuff the auditors complain about. You really want to see a password manager get the basics right.

Notice also that the end of the Cure53 report complains about the project scope and the amount of time given. This is pretty unusual for Cure53, who have a reputation for being a bit effusive about the products they're paid to review. I'm not sure I've ever seen them throw shade before.

<comment><USER4> What password manager do you recommend?

<comment><USER3> I feel OK talking about the audit report, the basics of security for password managers, and the dynamics of using an audit report to market a product, _and_ I feel OK talking about what my preferred password manager is, but it occurred to me I wasn't psyched about doing both on the same thread.

It's not hard to figure out, but it's not a conversation I want to have on this thread. Thanks in advance!

<comment><USER5> I don't understand this response. Why would it be improper to discuss alternative products?

I don't know you, so I guess you have a vested interest? Is that it?

<comment><USER3> No, I do not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It might be a good alternative to Enpass. They use Rust and libsodium, which is a good sign.

But browser integration is the trickiest part in a modern password manager, yet what makes a password manager actually usable for most people.

So, give it some time before using the browsers (currently only Chrome) extension. Virtually all other password managers had security issues here.

Making these extensions smart (able to guess where login and password fields are, when passwords are being updated, etc) is also far from trivial. It's actually way more complex than password storage.

Gonna stick with Enpass for now, but that's definitely a project to watch.

<comment><USER7> > So, give it some time before using the browsers (currently only Chrome) > extension. Virtually all other password managers had security issues here.

Do you have a source for that? We are currently using teampasswordmanager.com and I was wondering if there are any known security issues I have not heard about.

Altgough the author refused to provide the sourcee, I had a look at the Chrome Extension anyway, but any additional info would be great.

<comment><USER8> Here's one example - LastPass had remote code execution as a result of their browser extension:

[https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project- zero/issues/detail?id=12...](https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project- zero/issues/detail?id=1225&can=1&q=lastpass&desc=6)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think they are burying the lede, and being a little disingenuous with the big "Get Started, It's Free" button.

 _we will be introducing subscription-based pricing when RememBear leaves the public beta phase._

[https://help.remembear.com/customer/en/portal/articles/28907...](https://help.remembear.com/customer/en/portal/articles/2890744-how- much-does-remembear-cost-)

A non-subscription product would be one thing that would get me to move off 1password.

</comment><comment><USER10> What differentiates RememBear from other password managers? After looking through the blog and website it's not immediately clear to me. What makes (or will make) RememBear better than, say, 1password, which appears to have the same features, is also easy to use, and has a long history with which to work out issues?

<comment><USER11> I disagree that 1Password is easy to use. It's easy enough for me to use, but trying to get my parents through the setup and UI has not been an easy task. It could be far more simple and straightforward.

<comment><USER12> I would like to see a version of 1Password that 1) did only passwords - <USER2> fishing licenses and secure notes, which adds UX complexity 2) did not distinguish between passwords and logins, which causes endless confusion for my users 3) knew and managed the text requirements for the top 1000 websites so the app could generate legitimate passwords and not ask users to manage password complexity

<comment><USER11> Ohh I like the idea of knowing the password requirements for the top 1000 websites!

<comment><USER13> Would it be wrong to wish this could (or should?) be standardized? That is, for example, one upper case letter, same special characters, etc. The lack of a standard seems to hurts users more than hackers. The hackers know it and adjust. User just get confused and default to overly simplistic and common PWs.

<comment><USER14> There should be a "robot.txt" for passwords. ie: /password.txt

This file could define the accepted password format. Password managers could retrieve that file and know exactly how to generate a password.

<comment><USER15> no. if you're going to go through the trouble to do that, just fix your bullshit broken fucking password requirements.

<comment><USER13> The password - as currently implemented - is a fax machine (read: dated technology). Anyone reasonable sees it's far from ideal. Yet there seems to be little _significant_ innovation on solving this problem with something better.

I can order a pizza via Twitter, but I'm still using passwords?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I <3 pass [1]. Earlier discussion [2] on pass here.

[1] [https://www.passwordstore.org/](https://www.passwordstore.org/)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14819136](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14819136)

</comment><comment><USER17> Seems to be yet another proprietary walled garden. No thanks.

<comment><USER18> Can you recommend any reputable open source password managers?

<comment><USER19> KeePass, pass, PasswordSafe, KeePassXC, bitwarden, enpass

<comment><USER20> Sadly Enpass is not open source.

[https://discussion.enpass.io/index.php?/topic/210-open- sourc...](https://discussion.enpass.io/index.php?/topic/210-open-source/) [https://www.enpass.io/legal-end-user-license- agreement/](https://www.enpass.io/legal-end-user-license-agreement/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Great name! So much more evocative than "Remembr".

Let's hope they succeed, and inspire other companies to append a penultimate "a" after the penultimate "e", instead of just removing the penultimate "e".

<comment><USER22> I'm glad that that fad is... mostly(?) over.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I use 1Password, and the only incentive which make me switch is completely open source good quality UX solution.

<comment><USER24> I'm working on that ([https://passit.io](https://passit.io)) and I'm curious what your opinion of good UX is. Many here mention vulnerabilities from web extension autofill (domain matching issues, etc). Do you have any opinion between:

A) No autofill. Copy and paste (but good simple shortcuts). Least attack vectors, but least convenient.

B) Autofill but only when user prompts (with shortcut). This avoids having to inject js into web pages. The web extension needs less overall permissions this way. It avoids certain attack vectors. Features would be less discoverable - you have to know to hit the shortcuts or click a browser icon.

C) Prompts to Autofill in the page. This is the most common technique, lastpass does it. Vulnerable against domain matching misparsing. It's a big attack vector but there are plenty of common password manager vulnerabilities that can be studied and mitigated against.

Or something else? Also what issues do you have with current open source password managers?

<comment><USER23> Personally, I prefer no autofill. I always turn it off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If any of the Remembear developers read this, I'd love to put in a request for a Linux client!

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm currently using LastPass and their macOS app seriously annoys me (why do I have to click an OK button every time I save a new password?).

They seem to get their UI right at least. Plus, bears are cute.

Edit: No support for folders/categories it seems. That sucks a bit.

<comment><USER27> Bears are very cute. Can't go wrong with that!

Jokes aside, this would be interesting to compare to 1Password once it matures a little. So far it looks very similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Looks nice but only has a Chrome extension at the moment. Also the browser extension requires the desktop app be installed.

<comment><USER29> So it's not possible on ChromeOS?

<comment><USER22> [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/1password-x/aeblfd...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/1password-x/aeblfdkhhhdcdjpifhhbdiojplfjncoa)

1Pass X seems to be available on just Chrome? I'm actually quite interested to learn how it works - from my knowledge it's the only standalone PM extension right now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Subscription pricing"... if anyone is looking for an actual good business model, is for the upcoming "1password refugees"... and all we want is the same stuff, but not subscription based.

</comment><comment><USER31> Ooh, what a great example of a brand extension.

When I saw "new password manager" in the headline, my first thought was "those guys are fucked". What people want with a password manager is trust and stability, two things not associated with startups. But these folks have millions of users, strong app store ratings, and solid reviews. Going from "trust us with your data and privacy" to "trust us with your passwords" is not a big step.

I'd give my current password manager, LastPass, a C- on usability, so I'll be keeping an eye on this. I'd love to have something better to recommend to novices, and might even switch myself.

</comment><comment><USER32> >Where does RememBear store my passwords and how are they protected?

>RememBear encrypts your passwords using both your Master Password and a unique device key generated by the application. It stores your passwords in an encrypted file on your device and on our secure servers for sync and backup purposes. However, RememBear will only encrypt and decrypt the items on your physical device. This means that your passwords and other items are always encrypted during syncing and remain encrypted when in storage on our secure servers. You and ONLY you are ever able to access your items as long as you keep your master password private.

Proprietary sync, no thanks.

</comment><comment><USER33> It would be great if they can clearly tell how they differentiate from 1Password.

</comment><comment><USER34> Electron?

</comment><comment><USER35> It is from tunnelbear. If you are releasing it for free, why isn't the code public?</comment>


A banking centre seeks to reinvent itself – Tales from the crypto-nation - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21737255-switzerland-embraces-digital-currencies-and-crypto-entrepreneurs-banking-centre?cid1=cust/ednew/n/bl/n/20180222n/owned/n/n/nwl/n/n/e/100666/n <comment><USER2> Adware & Clutter-free version: [https://outline.com/HufDeG](https://outline.com/HufDeG)</comment>


We're rating NYC Taxi Cab Drivers - <AUTHOR> http://NYCTaxiAwards.com

<comment><USER2> This solves half (and only half) of the problem that Uber is trying to solve. A feedback/rating system is fantastic if the consumer has choice. Unfortunately, the iPhone app does not have the ability to help consumers choose a taxi driver when they're standing on Broadway at 2 am with their arm in the arm---they're going to take the first cab that shows up no matter how awful it may be.

In fact, the whole idea of the taxi bargain is that you pay a fixed price to get a minimum standard of quality --- enforcing the minimum standard seems likely to be a more productive avenue than increasing the average.

A more direct solution might be an app that submits complaints to the Taxi & Limo Comm'n, since the fear of losing a medallion is far greater motivator to most taxi drivers than the prospect of being named on an awards list. (Again, for Uber and similar systems, reviews do matter to drivers because consumers choose.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Most NYC Yellow Cab drivers do not own the medallion. They lease it weekly, or yearly, or work for a garage who owns the medallions. Over the past few years a lot of these garages have been consolidated into larger corporations.

This is about motivating and celebrating the driver. Much like in professional sports the MVP is not the owner of the team.

We do not intend to further malice and negativity within the city. We are looking to create a positive and mutually beneficial relationship between the over 45,000 drivers and 470,000+ people who take cabs on a daily basis.</comment></comment>


Why the White House situation room photo is so powerful - <AUTHOR> http://www.xydo.com/articles/19386871-why_the_white_house_situation_room_photo_is_so_powerful <comment><USER2> Powerful photo. Interesting that apart from his expression Obama does not look like the big cheese - he's wearing casual clothes and took the small chair tucked in the corner with a not-so-great viewing angle. For some people it's important to be seen as the top dog, but this guy clearly has more important things to worry about.

</comment><comment><USER3> Why the spam from XYDO?

Original link: <http://www.rexblog.com/2011/05/03/23046>

</comment><comment><USER4> You mean history takes place in ordinary rooms with ordinary people?

I do hate it how hollywood over-dramatizes everything.

</comment><comment><USER5> I was immediately draw to Clinton's expression too. I almost didn't notice Obama for a few seconds.

And for some reason; perhaps the contrast of his hair and skin tone against the light background; Obama almost looks like he was photoshopped in. (NOTE: I'm not a conspiracy nut, and I have every reason to believe Obama was in that chair when the photo was taken! It just looks weird to me somehow.)

</comment><comment><USER6> If you look at the full resolution picture, you can tell that there is a piece of paper on Secretary Clinton's laptop that has been pixelated. I wonder what that was.

<comment><USER5> Looks to me like a picture (as opposed to text) - perhaps a map or satellite view?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I enjoyed your analysis James. I was also struck by that picture, and it remained vividly in my mind for longer than I expected it to.

Thanks for sharing!

</comment><comment><USER8> Not sure why this is OMG SO DEEP!!</comment>


Show HN: Send with SES - <AUTHOR> https://www.sendwithses.com <comment><USER2> I found your site confusing, maybe you should fix these to avoid other people getting confused and walking off:

1\. You mention pricing tiers, but clicking compare says why you are better than your competitor. Maybe have a pricing link on the home page?

2\. Styling differences between docs and the landing page. The docs look better styled.

3\. There is another style for the compare page, which makes the background go semi-white. I confused this for a popup when I saw it (might just be me!) but again why have a 3rd site style?

I think a classic Bootstrap or a Material Design website which puts the menus in expected places etc. would work better. It's crucial for me as a prospect to be able to find stuff. Even on a bad design site I can look at the top for "Pricing" and go from there.

</comment><comment><USER3> Could there be legal trouble by using amazons product in your business name? I know many companies explicitly forbid this, not sure Amazon's position on this matter.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't understand what is the service I am paying you for that I can't do on my own easily with Amazon SES.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think the biggest roadblock to adoption here will be for people to setup their AWS SES account. Cool project btw.

<comment><USER2> I am too lazy I'd just use sendgrid which lets me send emails via an api, which is the simple thing I want. This is a bit confusing. And when I see cloud pricing schemes I just get scared of a big bill if I make a mistake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks good, are you planning to allow sign up via email? I do not use a Google account or Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER7> Jesus aws pricing is confusing as hell</comment>


Machine learning on graphs: A free, four part lecture course - <AUTHOR> https://www.octavian.ai/machine-learning-on-graphs-course <comment><USER2> OK, I'll bite. What does the 'on graphs' part mean?

<comment><USER3> In the preamble they mention [0]. So I assume it is about when your data set consists of graphs (ML _on_ graphs).

[0] [https://medium.com/octavian-ai/deep-learning-with- knowledge-...](https://medium.com/octavian-ai/deep-learning-with-knowledge- graphs-3df0b469a61a)

<comment><USER2> I missed that, thanks, makes sense now!</comment></comment></comment>


How do police handle violence in countries where officers don't carry guns? - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/727941/how-do-police-handle-violence-in-countries-where-officers-dont-carry-guns/ <comment><USER2> The short answer is that they stop not having guns when they face someone similarly armed.

But this is not the most interesting question to ask. In the US, a disarmed police force would probably just carry privately, while on the job.

A much more interesting question is why so many armed police forces in the world get by with a level of violence not so much different from their non- carrying peers. The U.S. traditionally condemns many nonviolent police activities (like searching, or requesting ID, which theoretically does not even exist there) as oppressive, anti-freedom, unamerican. Other countries do not have this cultural expectation, that the police should never interfere with the life of non-criminals. Thise countries therefore have a wide, nuanced range of police/citizen interaction that only involves guns as the very last level of escalation. If culture (and/or law, but I think that culture is much more important here) only acknowledges police authority stemming from a pointed gun, officers will find excuses to point guns.

But the biggest reason for US police gun violence must be the high general level of gun violence. It seems very natural that when criminals are trigger- happy, the police force adapts by lowering their thresholds accordingly. Inevitably, this will also fatally affect law abiding citizens. I haven't checked the numbers, but maybe, in relation to total gun deaths (instead of in relation to total population), American police are not even as terrible as they seem?

<comment> k-mcgrady Personally I think one of the main reasons US police don't hesitate to use deadly force is that they are not held accountable for it. In the UK it s a big deal when an officer uses his weapon, there are investigations etc. In the US, as we've seen in the last couple of years, there can be start to finish video evidence of an officer using deadly force completely unnecessarily and he/she gets away with it. If you start prosecuting officers for using deadly force without proper cause I'm sure use of it would drop pretty dramatically.

<comment><USER3> The problem is not the lack of prosecution in the US. There are in fact countless attempts to prosecute officers for deadly force. The problem is that the bar for determining justified vs unjustified is low in the US. This bar makes it extremely, if not almost impossible except in very rare cases, to prosecute an officer for deadly force. There were two Supreme Court rulings that created the bar that we see today. First is Tennessee vs. Garner and the second is Graham vs. Conner.

The US has bigger issues that are at the root of police shootings in my opinion. These issues stem from extreme poverty, lack of jobs, disenfranchisement laws for convicted criminals, a lack of responsibility or taking responsibility for actions, and a growing distrust of the police that is so large community members would rather not report any crime. As an example, there is an article this morning in the DC news[1] calling for the police department to be completely eliminated and allow citizens to enforce the laws. I don't even know where to begin with that idea and I know it will never happen, but to have so much distrust that you call for eliminating the entire department shows a bigger problem.

How do you fix it? That's a good question. I am huge proponent of community policing. Taking officers out of cars and putting them on foot in the communities. But unfortunately community policing creates another set of problems in the US. There are limited police resources and therefore those resources logically are deployed to areas that most need them. Right or wrong, these areas tend to be poor communities or inner city areas where minority populations are larger. In turn community policing is often viewed as targeting.

I am not going to sit here and deny that "profiling" does not occur and that there have not been extreme instances of "targeting". It is easy for me as a white male to be numb to the day-to-day problems that minorities face. But these terms, in my opinion, have become overused and the media has no problem turning "community policing" into acts of "targeting" solely for profit.

Instead of focusing on these isolated shootings (and they are isolated compared to the amount of policing that occurs daily) we, as a society, need to focus on solving the bigger issues. You start addressing the poverty, the education system, disenfranchisement laws, and working to build families instead of tearing them apart, only then will we see reduced incidents of officer involved shootings.

[1] [http://wjla.com/news/local/black-lives-matter-dc-speaks- out-...](http://wjla.com/news/local/black-lives-matter-dc-speaks-out-against- killing-police-officers)

<comment><USER4> _There are in fact countless attempts to prosecute officers for deadly force. The problem is that the bar for determining justified vs unjustified is low in the US_

To be fair, the GP talked about accountability of the officers. If 99% of the officers are prosecuted, acquitted, and they keep their jobs, in effect they are not held to account.

<comment><USER3> I understand what you are saying, but it doesn't make sense. If the officer is prosecuted and found not guilty then why shouldn't he be able to keep his job? This country would be a bigger mess if we said that every person who is arrested, prosecuted, and found not guilty should still be treated as if they were guilty, should lose their job, and ultimately punished.

What you are really trying to address is the difference between criminal law and department policy. It is completely possible to violate department policy and not break the law. It is also possible to break the law and not department policy. Unfortunately when it comes to use of force, many department policies follow the line of the law.

Is this right or should it be different? That's a tough answer. Where do you draw the line? Do you say that every officer who fires his gun is automatically subject to termination? Do you create public panels that investigate every officer involved use of force? I can see a benefit to that, and actually think that if implemented correctly, could go a long way to resolving some of these issues. However, that too has to be handled delicately as it stands to create a lynch mob effect. You also need to ensure that the people on the panel understand the existing laws as they stand. If someone is found not guilty, you don't blame the system, you blame the law and work to change the law, not the system.

There is also a difference between being criminally liable and civilly liable. Just like there is a difference between something being morally wrong and being criminally wrong.

<comment><USER5> I'd strip the police departments of the powers to just charge the taxpayers for money in settlements and make them purchase malpractice insurance, just like every other professional. Insurance underwriters would bring department policies nationwide up to a single uniform standard. I'd hope this skin in the game + increased investment in officer training would effect changes.

<comment><USER3> Not sure what you refer to "charge the taxpayers for money in settlements"?

Also, with the insurance, many departments themselves are insured. I think what you mean is to have the individual officer have to provide their own coverage in the form of a deduction on their paycheck. While it puts a financial stake in the officer to prevent, it also now creates a whole new problem and does not solve the underlying problem.

First, if an officer is insured, it has the potential to create one of two scenarios. Scenario one is they take no action because they are afraid their "insurance rates" will go up. Similar to the way people avoid going to the doctor. Scenario two is you get the other extreme where the officer now says I'm all in if I don't have to worry about paying for my brutality.

More importantly though, everyone keeps focusing on the police brutality issue. I'm not denying there is a problem in isolated incidents. However, the solution isn't attacking the departments or officers themselves. You want to work for change, start focusing on the bigger issues at hand. Fighting crime in the neighborhoods, working to find solutions for poverty, creating jobs, changing disenfranchisement laws, encouraging the building of families instead of the tearing them apart, and finally getting people to take responsibility for their actions.

We could wake up tomorrow with new laws that eliminate police brutality, but the unfortunate truth is that those laws wouldn't change any of the above or work to stop racism in this country.

[edit: fix typos]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here in Norway, a police officer is most likely to be shot by...

...a fellow police officer.

Police were unarmed until quite recently (however, they did have firearms available should need arise, also compulsory training and certification at fixed intervals)

When our DoJ decided to arm police due to some perceived terror threat, the number of accidental discharges (unsurprisingly) skyrocketed.

The terror never materialised, but several officers today limp after quite literally shooting themselves in the foot.

<comment><USER7> I guess they decided to arm the police after the Breivik attack?

<comment><USER8> No, it actually happened four years later, presumably due to a concrete threat of islamic extremist terrorist attacks, the details of which were never disclosed to the public. To no one's surprise, the decision, which was touted as temporary in the political debate that ensued, is still in effect.

<comment><USER9> See the whole premise that someone can call up some government official and go "booga booga" and actually get a real change in policy while citizens fight for years to be heard really makes me think there's a bit more to the narrative ...

It's almost like governments repressing their people is like a little kid looking for an excuse to eat candy.

<comment><USER10> Well it didn't help that the Progress Party, the right wing populists, was in government for the first time ever, and got their boy in the minister of justice chair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Quote: "In one of these countries, Iceland, it's legal for citizens to carry guns—and roughly a third choose to do so."

Absolute bullshit. I lived in Iceland for 4 years and still have a place there, and hundreds of Icelandic friends. Not once have I ever heard about anybody carrying a gun - unless out hunting.

<comment><USER12> It's similar in Canada lots of people have guns, we use them for hunting, not carrying around.

<comment><USER13> Same in Norway - the number of guns per capita is very high. But they're mostly hunting rifles, and they're generally (or you'll be breaking the law) locked down and inoperable except when people are actually out hunting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Rather seems to be missing the point. In Australia, police carry guns. Unfortunately, there are police shootings but they are very rare and when it does occur there is a full and thorough investigation done. I don't think I've ever heard of a case in the last 15 years of anyone in the Australian police firing a gun at someone unless they were literally in imminent danger of serious violence from the one they were shooting at.

As an Australian citizen, whilst the police here aren't perfect, I also believe they aren't as trigger happy because, quite frankly, we don't carry guns on our person in Australia. This means that when police make a routine stop because of a broken tail-light they aren't as likely to feel like their life is in danger, and this almost certainly means they hesitate to fire their weapon unless they are _really_ in danger. They are also aware that if they do discharge their weapon then there is a full investigation done. The investigations are quite thorough and actually normally very fair, but no police officer wants to be investigated really and all police officers know what a serious thing it is to fire their sidearm.

I don't expect any citizens of the U.S. to agree with me. But it occurs to me that as more people carry increasingly powerful weapons, the police have had to upgrade their own weaponry, body armour and tactics in response. From my vantage point here in Australia, it puzzles me why this isn't obvious: the more people who carry guns, the less likely law enforcement will try to negotiate and use minimal force.

From my perspective, America's gun culture is bizarre.

<comment><USER15> While deadly police incidents seem less common in Australia, don't kid yourself that our police always get it right.

They could do with better de-escalation training to deal with situations in critical environments like crowds [1] or when dealing with mentally ill people [2].

I think anyone carry a deadly weapon, civilian or government officer should bear _extra_ responsibility to safeguard the safety of _all_ people around them.

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/four-injured-as- police...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-06-09/four-injured-as-police-shoot- man-hornsby-shopping-centre/7496102)

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

<comment><USER14> I didn't, and I agree that they need to improve. They always need to improve, but I have to agree with the coroner on the Tyler Cassidy shooting - I'm not entirely sure what else they could have done. But, they do get it wrong - especially, it seems for some reason, in Victoria.

The incidence of police shooting across our entire population is by far significantly less than in the U.S. - which is not to say that even one avoidable shooting is acceptable, only that it happens far less often.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There's the old-testament revenge style of conflict resolution, and the new- testament style of conflict resolution. The new ones works better, that's why almost everyone uses it.

Even in the UK and in Norway police officers are allowed to carry gun's but they rarely do, and rarely have to. There are special forces who are called when wide-reaching bullet forces are needed, and even then deadly force is rarely needed to take out an attacker.

Third civilized countries have the principle of consequence of lawlessness. If a police officer oversteps his powers he has to face the consequences, otherwise he will continue to abuse his powers. A very simple but powerful principle, which is esp. needed for those who have state-granted special powers.

Forth, civilized countries invest a lot into marketing of police powers. TV broadcasts crime investigations and police dramas all the time, round the clock, where police is presented to serve the people, so they are presented in a positive light. This might be useful to cover up police abuse, but is in fact more useful as a positive role model to the enforcers. Officers stepping out of line are clearly overstepping their line. Whilst in the US the lone cop hero taking down the suspect with a well-aimed shot is the patriotic hero, saving the community from crime and violence. Marketing is different there, the state powers don't invest in these kind of TV dramas.

<comment><USER17> > Even in the UK and in Norway police officers are allowed to carry gun's but > they rarely do, and rarely have to.

Not sure about Norway, but in the case of UK and Ireland most police officers are not allowed anywhere near firearms.

If an incident takes place that requires armed officers a senior policeman authorises the use of armed unit. Every force has access to them, and training is as much about de-escalation and negotiation as shooting. They are drawn from regular police and undergo significant extra regular training.

Wikipedia tells me roughly 6,000 of something like 140,000 UK police are authorised to carry firearms.

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

<comment><USER18> Police Service of Northern Ireland [1] officers routinely carry guns, but I don't understand the culture where a sidearm is drawn and pointed at a driver from the start in a routine broken tail light/uninsured driver type stop. That would probably make the news in NI.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Service_of_Northern_Ire...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Police_Service_of_Northern_Ireland)

<comment><USER19> They usually do not draw a weapon on a routine stop. The stops with weapons drawn are usually when they have some reason to suspect that they are dealing with an actual criminal.

As for why they might pull their sidearm in such a case, just ponder the following statistics.

United States: 112 guns per 100 residents.

United Kingdom: 6.6 guns per 100 residents.

The United States has around 5% of the world's population, but 30-50% of the world's civilian owned guns. The gun homicide rate in the US is about 60 times that of the UK.

<comment><USER20> I've been seeing this logic quite a bit this week and I don't agree with it.

For one, the numbers I've seen for per-capita are around 88% (2014, I think), not 112%.

However, the number of _gun owners_ is estimated from anywhere between 12-33%. So no, number of guns in the country can't be used as a rationale for the probability that an officer will encounter a gun in a stop. Gun owners are a minority.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> An important cultural difference is the concept of "policing by consent"

[https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by- conse...](https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent)

"To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect."

<comment><USER22> It used to be the premise in the UK, its not anymore and hasn't been for a long time. The UK police is the army of the government deployed on UK soil, its definitely not by consent.

<comment><USER23> I'm pretty sure >95% of the UK population would support the existence of the police.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I think lots of people here have made excellent points about the UK etc., so I would like to add something else, which is the _representation_ of gun usage in the media. Let's compare a show like Flashpoint with, say, NCIS Los Angeles.

A Canadian series, Flashpoint shows you in its very first episode a SWAT situation (that's what the show is about) in which one team member acts as a sniper and kills a man who is holding somebody hostage. The first thing you see is that, as the sniper emerges from the building he was positioned on, his gun is taken away and he is led away by internal investigation to be interviewed. In the same episode, a proper investigation is launched, all team members are questioned and a judge ultimately has to decide whether the killing was warranted or not. The usual approach in all of the episodes is a gradual escalation from negotiation to non-lethal to lethal methods, highlighting specifically that the least amount of violence possible is _always_ to be preferred.

In NCIS Los Angeles, between the four main investigators, they probably shoot on average one or two people _per episode_ , and nothing ever seems to come of it. Not just do the characters not seem to mind or care, but nobody else seems to be concerned either. If an investigation ever happens, it happens as a plot device or conspiracy, not as a _routine_ investigation of law enforcement conduct or the lawfulness of a police killing.

Of course, all of these events are fictional, but they nevertheless show a very different approach to gun usage as well as general escalation/deescalation strategies employed. Furthermore, they have an impact on how people conceive of law enforcement, setting expectations but also showing examples. Is every show like NCIS Los Angeles? Certainly not, and not every Canadian show is like Flashpoint, either. However, I do think that these shows emblemise very different understandings of law enforcement and what is appropriate conduct as well as what constitutes reasonable violence.

</comment><comment><USER25> The article treats these police forces as something special when really the unusual case/outlier here is the US.

The US has a bit of a culture problem on this front - everyone is armed to the teeth & violence has been made acceptable via Hollywood etc. Plus there is the old "if you have a hammer everything starts looking like a nail" issue. People will resort to what they have available. And you can't really do much about it because the gun freedom crowd will howl if you take away their guns.

I guess people will just have to keep dying.

<comment><USER26> > violence has been made acceptable via Hollywood

Pretty sure Hollywood films are just as popular in all the countries mentioned in the article.

<comment><USER25> Probably. Me mentioning firms was meant more as a shorthand for "in popular consciousness". You don't really see that same widespread fascination with guns in other countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> My father was a cop in Norway. He told me that they once tickled a belligerent drunk to get him to surrender.

</comment><comment><USER28> It was fairly controversial when the Australian Government recently decided to have submachine gun-armed Federal Police provide security at our national Parliament House. It was rationalised by claims of terrorist threats, of course.

To an Australian, it's very weird to see submachine guns at all, let alone around our national buildings.

(Another thing to consider about different attitudes: There's a bunch of interesting politicisation about the terms "Police Force" vs. "Police Service" in some jurisdictions around the world, to the point that, in general, conservatives prefer "force", progressives prefer "service".)

<comment><USER29> Is this correct? I lived in Australia last year and frequently saw police with firearms. I'm guessing it varies from state to state, but isn't a sidearm predominantly standard issue?

<comment><USER28> Yes, state cops on the beat have pistols. The special AFP officers who guard parliament house (who replaced private security contractors) have submachine guns.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > Of course, in all but Iceland, citizens in these countries generally don't > have access to guns.

As a Kiwi I'm surprised to hear that. Perhaps the author is speaking of some parallel New Zealand, but in the one I inhabit it's not especially hard to own a shotgun or rifle: get a license, buy your firearm.

Pistols, high-capacity semi-automatic rifles, automatic weapons are very hard or impossible to own, but guns themselves are not uncommon.

<comment><USER31> In the UK, it can take >6 months for the police to issue a firearm certificate. Not because of any lengthy checks.. but because they are inefficient and have large backlogs.

But.. City of London averages 3-4 days... [https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp- content/up...](https://keyassets.timeincuk.net/inspirewp/live/wp- content/uploads/sites/6/2015/10/timetogetshotguncertificate.jpg)

<comment><USER32> interesting treatment in London, shooting 'clay pigeons' for sport is a past- time of the monied in these parts, I wonder if the fast track city licences are mostly for bankers weekend jollies?

<comment><USER33> Got it in one :) A noob investment banker who is going shooting in the country with a well-heeled client is the motivator, and you also need to understand that the "City of London" is not the London that you are thinking of. The former is a weird holdover from ancient times that is centuries older than the city of London that you visit on vacation. It has its own special laws, and for a long time it had its own police force.

<comment><USER13> Well, quite a lot of tourists do visit City because of things like St Pauls and Museum of London.

To put it differently: City is one of 33 regions of London (the other 32 are boroughs; City is not a borough), and one of the very smallest.

> and for a long time it had its own police force

It still does: [https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/](https://www.cityoflondon.police.uk/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> "Don't show up with a knife to a gunfight" is what most people would say, but in many occasions the opposite holds true too. When the officers are implicitly armed it by default escalates the situation. That said the US always had a problem with "gun violence" and even some level of "utter lawlessness", the wild west, the prohibition era, and now the more modern gang violence. You think of 1930's you think of tommy guns, you think of bonnie and clyde you think of the hails of bullets shot at them by the FBI, somehow the US has been always that extreme. I don't know if that's actually was the case or that turn of the century popular culture is too American centric especially due to hollywood, but at least to me that always seemed the case.

<comment><USER10> My history may be faulty, but i seem to recall that the designer of the Tommy Gun meant it for military use during WW1, but could not get army attention before the war was over.

To recoup costs he then started selling it to the general public.

Mix that with the prohibition, and things escalated quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The main problem I see is the "free flow" of legal and ilegal guns for citizens. In Japan, a disarmed society, the amount of deaths by gunfire are almost nil. They also have a really tight gun control, which arguably it's easy since it's a "small-ish" island.

Of course there are many more reasons, and I think that America's youth thinking of "gangster's are cool" is way off. Hech, in Japan even a knife stabbing reaches all newspapers and makes a big fuss.

But doing that in USA would make the economy slightly worse and "cut their freedom": tighter border control on imports, regulating the shit that is on TV, better education, etc.

<comment><USER36> Americans are also major gun manufacturers. If guns became illegal the supply would get a lot lower.

<comment><USER37> Sometimes I wonder "is America too big to get anything done for its citizens". It seems they are equally opposite views for any law. Plus lobbying means big companies will usually win over citizens.

Healthcare is insanely expensive, universities put you in endless debt, police killing more people than terrorists with guns.

Would the solution be for the states to have more power? I.e implement the policies state by state? Just the way LGBT marriage and cannabis laws are propagating?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Assuming tasers are effective, do US police forces carry them? If they do, why is it not the first choice? If they don't carry, what's the problem with tasers?

If tasers are not effective, I'm still wondering why non-lethal weapons do not seem to be the first choice. Would all known non-lethal restraining tools be inefficient (too slow) if we assume the civilian will make use of a firearm? I mean, let's say tasers are not good enough, maybe pepper spray or something else can be used.

Genuinely curious and probably missing important details.

<comment><USER39> > Assuming tasers are effective, do US police forces carry them?

I remember watching the Cops documentary/show [1]. You can see cops regularly using their tasers. Actually, it's amazing to see how easily they may "tase" non violent people.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cops_(TV_series)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cops_\(TV_series\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The 2nd amendment applies to police officers as well as non-police officers, so even if their job did not demand they carry, they would be allowed to carry.

Asking this question shows one significant way that people do not understand our 2nd amendment freedom. I use 'how people' rather than 'the author' because this is the 2nd time in 24 hours that I've seen this topic raised.

</comment><comment><USER41> Most gun related crimes in Holland are drugs related. Regulate drugs, problem solved.

<comment><USER4> Actually, they are related to organized crime. Sure, most of that is drug- related but that's because there's plenty of money to be made there.

Regulate drugs, organized crime might shift to a different product or scope. It's way too simple to say that it will "solve" the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> So now that there's over 300 million guns in the hands of American citizens, what are they supposed to do? We are where we are, this article doesn't help shit.

<comment><USER13> For starters train US police in gradual escalation rather than have them use a gun by default.

E.g. one big difference between US and UK police irrespective of weapons is that US police seem far quicker to rush into a situation to end it instantly, while UK police will only do that in extreme cases (e.g. someone is actually being harmed right now). Otherwise, police will secure a perimeter and get people away if necessary, ensure they have overwhelming force, and only then approach the suspect.

There was the case a while ago where some axe-wielding idiot was shot in the US after attacking a police officer. Only said police officer was only in range because they'd pointlessly rushed in to try to arrest him without trying to de-escalate from a safe distance first. When that situation had first been created, it was probably the right decision to shoot, but that situation wouldn't have existed if police weren't acting recklessly in the first case.

If UK police were in the same situation, the two initial responders would likely have gotten people away, kept their distance, and waited to have a dozen or so colleagues in place and kept trying to de-escalate the situation as long as possible before intervening.

The more police are careful about escalation, the less reason criminals will have to risk escalation as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Anybody remember the Battle of North Hollywood?

</comment><comment><USER43> I agree that 19 weeks of training for police officer in US is very low, and that leaves officers poorly qualified for their job.

On the other hand, the attached video of how British policeman handle a man with machette is nothing but pathetic, the kind of stuff that we regulary make fun of.

As the very minimum, if the policeman does not carry a gun he should carry a taser instead. This would resolve machette man situation in seconds, and only took one policeman to do so, instead of dozen.

<comment><USER4> _the attached video of how British policeman handle a man with machette is nothing but pathetic_

Incidentally, this attitude is a perfect illustration why violence is so prevalent in US society.

<comment><USER43> Why do you think that expecting reasonable level of competence and effectiveness from police officers is a bad attitude? All I'm arguing here is that policemen should have enough training and enough equipment, including weapons, so that it wouldn't take 12 men to take down one guy with melee weapon. Typical two person patrol should be enough.

<comment><USER4> My point is that "take down" is not the goal. There is more than one way to defuse a threat, and as other commenters have pointed out, the strategy was effective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Another week, another police shooting in the United States. So far this > year, 569 people have be killed by US police, according to The Guardian's > count. Police brutality is a horrific normality and, in more ways than one, > black men being shot by police has become the modern-day equivalent of > lynching.

This is greatly exaggerated. It makes it sound like black men are being gunned down by police left and right, usually without justification, and it makes it sound like the majority of people shot by police are black.

Black men _are_ being shot at a higher rate than other groups (except for Native Americans), but they are only about 1/4 of the police shootings. Here are numbers as of a few days ago:

Number shot in 2016:

      • 10 Asian/Pacific Islanders
      • 13 Native Americans
      • 40 Other/Unknown
      • 88 Hispanic/Latino
      • 136 Black
      • 279 White

Here are the rates per one million group population:

      • 0.56 Asian/Pacific Islander
      • 1.41 White
      • 1.59 Hispanic/Latino
      • 3.23 Black
      • 3.4 Native American

Source: [http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- interactive/2015/jun/0...](http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/ng- interactive/2015/jun/01/the-counted-police-killings-us-database)

To try to get a better idea of what is actually going on, I used a random number generator to pick 10 entries from the list of 2016 police killings at [http://www.killedbypolice.net/](http://www.killedbypolice.net/) and looked at each and classified it as either "Justified" or "Not Justified".

KilledByPolice.net tries to keep a running list of all police killings in the US, and for each they give race/ethnicity, gender, age, state, and links to the news report on the killing and to the KilledByPolice Facebook post on the killing (which usually duplicates that news link, but also includes followup news stories).

Here were the 10 that I looked at, my summary of the facts as gleaned from the news reports, and my verdict as to whether it was justified or not justified.

Keep in mind that this was only a sample of ten. I'd be curious to see other people's sampling results (or even better, the results of someone with the time and interest to go through them all and classify them as justified or not).

The numbering in this list matches the numbering at KilledByPolice.net.

#94, black male. He was fleeing from an arrest attempt, slipped and fell, and a gun that had been concealed fell out. The officer told him not to reach for the gun. The suspect reached for the gun, and was shot. (It later turned out the gun was just a BB gun, but the officer did not know that). My verdict: Justified.

#110, white female. She was the wife of a reserve office. He was cleaning his gun in their home and it accidentally fired, shooting her. My verdict: Not Justified (although also not criminal).

#263, white male. Former officer, fell on hard times and turned to robbery. Killed 2 people during a robbery, and then was killed by police who arrived in response to that. My verdict: Justified.

#272, white male. Suspect was driving/parking suspiciously. Officer talked to him, then headed back to patrol car. Suspect started shooting at the officer, officer shot back. My verdict: Justified.

#328, latino male. Burglar, with knife holding a hostage when police arrived and shot him. My verdict: Justified.

#398, black male. Armed robber, shot at officers several times and hit one. They shot back. My verdict: Justified.

#446, white male. Man walking down the center of the street, bare chested, complaining of chest pains. Police and paramedics arrived to help and/or take him to the hospital. Man became combative and police handcuffed him. He then went into medical distress. CPR was given, but he dies on the scene. I'm unsure how to score this one...it is not clear it should even count as a police killing. However, if I'm going to rate every item as either "justified" or "not justified", then I'll give it: Not Justified.

#475, latino male. Shot a customer in an auto detail shop, then shot at responding officers who shot him. My verdict: Justified.

#505, white male. Police responding to a 911 call about gunshots and a woman yelling for help got the wrong address. The man who answered at that address had a gun, and ignored police orders to drop it. It's unclear whether or not the police identified themselves sufficiently, and there had been a home invasion next door not too long before, so I'm going to tentatively call this one Not Justified.

#535, white male. Reports of a drunk driver causing damage. Police find the car, but the driver is gone. While the officer was working on paperwork, the driver returned and pulled a gun out of his car. The officer struggled with him for control of the gun, and another officer arrived and jumped in to help. After over a minute of struggling, and dozens of commands to drop the weapon, one of the officers finally shot the suspect. (It later turned out the gun was just a BB pistol, but it looked like a regular gun). My verdict: Justified.

So...that's 7 justified, 3 not justified.

Of the three that I classified as not justified, only one remotely fits into the trigger-happy police narrative.

This is quite different from the impression I would have if I had relied solely on what the press is telling me about US police shootings.</comment>


Italy's Bergamo finds Covid-19 leaves long-term effects for some - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2020/09/08/bergamo-italy-covid-longterm/ <comment> the-dude [http://archive.is/5V0bu](http://archive.is/5V0bu)</comment>


Self-Driving Car Engineer Nanodegree - <AUTHOR> https://www.udacity.com/course/self-driving-car-engineer-nanodegree--nd013 <comment><USER2> I was never excited this much for an online course. One of most anticipated nanodegree for me. I hope it's totally worth it. Enrolled this week, already started Slacking with an amazing community. Udacity courses are really good, they did make an impact on my career and to the world. I cannot imagine what would I have been without Udacity. Thank you !

<comment><USER3> I'm also excited about this course like never before. Although, Udacity already has courses on machine learning that cover everything from the basics to reinforcement learning and Tensor Flow, this course is much more hands-on and will probably cover a wider range of topics like fusing data from sensors and algorithms for localization and mapping the environment.

I studied computer science but remained interested in electronics, mechanics and signals and system. One of the projects I did was a GPS guided rover. I did all the electronics, programming and mechanics stuff and wrote basic obstacle avoidance, localization and navigation code myself. I enjoyed every part of it. I wanted to make the rover very sophisticated, which retrospectively was a very high goal for a semester-long course. Anyway, I went ahead and bought two books, Kalman Filtering: Theory and Practice Using MATLAB and Principles of Robot Motion, co-authored by Sebastian Thrun. I didn't get the time to read beyond a few chapters of Thrun's book then but it was very well written and included some great stuff like an introductory chapter on topology. Eight years since and it seems finally I have the motivation to read it cover to cover.

Since the course starts later this year there's time to learn Deep Learning and perhaps Gazebo simulator, which we might end up using for simulating of our own self-driving cars.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm super excited about this curriculum, which is being built by Sebastian Thrun (Stanley creator and Google Self-Driving Car project founder). Would love to answer any questions I can!

<comment><USER4> Is this different than the previous curriculum taught by Sebastian?

<comment><USER3> Self-driving Cars Nanodegree has not started yet. Which curriculum are you referring to?

<comment><USER4> The original "self-driving cars" course on Udacity - the one that Sebastian started with. =)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Your 'Big Idea' Sucks - <AUTHOR> http://techdrawl.com/your-big-idea-sucks/

<comment><USER2> I couldn't agree more with the core concept here, which is: if customers haven't told you they'd pay for it (either when asked directly or in the form of giving you money), there's a good chance they're not going to.

</comment><comment><USER3> _...you need to spend as much time talking to prospective customers as you do working on your product..._

Better yet, use your customers' day-to-day problems as seeds for your idea. Better to scratch their itch than your own if you can. This would be a huge head start.

<comment><USER2> Even if you're directly targeting a known issue, it's very possible they won't want to pay for the solution. A tight feedback loop is necessary in damn near every product's development, I believe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I must respectfully disagree. You can ask people all day, but unless you put them in front of a product and say click here, then it will be very hard for them to see its value. Otherwise your prospects will be picturing your application in their head, and noone knows how they visualize it.

If you are confident about your product, build a simple prototype in a short amount of time and ship it for feedback.

<comment><USER5> What you are saying is exactly what Customer Development says to do, so you're agreeing with the post, not disagreeing. Although perhaps I should have been more explicit :) Its all in Steve Blank's book.

Concurrent product development and customer development is the way.

<comment><USER4> I guess so. The Customer development model (customer discovery > validation > customer creation > company building ) works best when you have a niche market for enterprise applications. If you consider consumer apps, then how do you go out and talk to consumers? "ASK HN:..?". Consumer applications, read free, are doomed to follow the painful "Customer Acquisition and Adoption Model" . In other words how fast do we sign up new users and how much do they use the product.

<comment><USER5> Eric Ries talks about this at length, for consumer internet companies. Check out the archives at <http://startuplessonslearned.blogspot.com/>

In short: you can release a landing page before building, with a signup form for interested peeps, and you can release early and often.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Kind of agree, but nothing really new under the sun...

<comment><USER5> I get tired of writing this shit, but I do so because it seems like its not getting through.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Your 'Blog' Sucks

<comment><USER5> Your 'Book' Sucks</comment></comment>