Laptop security while crossing borders - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2009/07/laptop_security.html

<comment><USER2> It also seems prudent to obfuscate your GRUB screen and have it quickly default to Windows to avoid in-depth scrutiny (do the front-line thugs really know any better?). It seems that once you've become an exception by telling them that you can't/won't decrypt a volume, your laptop is probably getting stolen regardless.

<comment><USER3> agreed. email i just sent to Scheiner:

Bruce,

I like what you came up with - but it has a really large problem in that, if you are stopped and compelled to show your computer, you would become a combatant by refusing to share information. You would immediately be seen as a risk, get arrested, and then compelled to give up the name of an accomplice. However, as you know, most of this is just theater- since you have nothing to hide, the only real problem is the "in plain sight" provisions that could get you in trouble for having a couple of downloaded movies on your desktop.

So how about this?

Get a larger than required laptop disk, and partition it, with one size being a tradtional, smaller size. 250 or 120GB perhaps.

On the larger partition, stick your fave OS, work etc.

On the smaller, put a plain win xp install, with some fake data and so on. Outlook with generated emails that look reasonably fresh and so forth.

Then, have a boot loader that can be configured to autoboot to either system unless a special key combination is entered on system start.

This way, once you're done with your flight, you can encrypt your partition and reboot into your "clean" system. Then, if you get stopped, you can happily show the system. At that point, there really would not be any evidence for any further search, so you would not easily be detained. You could also go further by ensuring your clean system didn't see the other partition, and that you had a sticker showing the hard drive size being the same as the smaller partition.

Ghost Drives.

simpler and safer than having to risk your machine.

<comment><USER4> There is no point in altering the laptop hard drives sticker. If they have gone through the trouble of opening the hatch to see that they are likely going to just remove the drive and hook it up to their equipment at which point it's going to be obvious there's more than meets the eye.

<comment><USER3> doubt it. given that new macs can show the harddrive with the simple removal of a panel, i can see lots of "front line" cops try and make sure 1+1 = 2. Would have to go to a lab to prove that it'd been partitioned, and that costs money and requires warrants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think Schneier's making a very dangerous and ignorant suggestion with his latest post. He's not a lawyer, and yet he's dispensing advice that deals more with legal issues than security ones.

There are two things that can happen when they ask to search your encrypted laptop - you can decline, or you can give them the key. If you decline, no matter what cockamamie reason you give, you're going to be dealing with a legal matter, most likely seizure and possibly detainment.

Think about it, you get the same result by politely declining and asking for a lawyer.

Bruce's 'solution' doesn't solve anything. The outcome is the same, only now you have on record how you went to great lengths to prevent the border agents from reading what was on your laptop. Whereas, if you just shut the fuck up and wait for a lawyer, you can get legal advice before you say something really stupid.

As for privileged communications, does he really believe that if they could legally compel you to divulge the key, that they couldn't do the same to your wife?

The legal system is not a logical system like your computer. Clever hacks don't always work.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you were considering doing this, you might as well just DHL your encrypted laptop to your location. Business travelers already ship critical stuff instead of carrying it.

<comment> a-priori Or you could send the key by letter mail to your destination instead of using a third party.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's also suggested in the article, with one potential downside (you may not know if your letter fails to arrive on time).

<comment> a-priori Ah, thanks. I missed that paragraph.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone have a personal experience with getting their laptop searched?

I carried my laptop around between the US, Germany, and France earlier this year, and no customs officials seemed even remotely interested in my laptop. Other people I've talked to said the same thing... not saying it doesn't happen, though - anyone got some input here?

<comment><USER8> There are plenty of countries (particularly in the middle east) that will search your laptop for no reason, particularly if you don't fit their idea of what constitutes a laptop user (e.g. you carry two).

FTR I've had my laptop checked in the Americas, Europe, Middle East and AsiaPac.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Ok, (very very frequent) international traveller here, this is my advice:

Have two users on your machine :

User you with all your goodies (xmonad, etc) on /home/you , home mounted on a different partition than / user alarm with a fake very visible and easy to use gnome / emails mounted on /user/home/alarm

On the gnome init session of the user alarm , create a bash script to be called as soon as you log into that account with the following content:

dd if=/dev/random of=/dev/partition_where_you_mounted_real_home ; rm this_script (if you want)

</comment><comment><USER10> Before fingerprint scanners were as common in laptops as they are now, you could totally freak out border guards. The fingerprint scanner would give them the impression they were working with some really high-level, VIP person. Now, of course, it has less of an effect or no effect as a lot more machines have them.

</comment><comment><USER11> I really don't like getting searched. I used to travel a lot, and often am in a really big hurry leaving the airport - sometimes I overnight somewhere, landing at 6AM and a meeting in a city center at 10AM. I've gotten searched maybe a dozen times, on something like 300ish flights (including connections) in my life. It's always a royal pain in the ass.

But it's happening less! Being into testing and what not, I tried paying attention to how much scrutiny I got from security and border officials based on how I was dressed.

Gregarious clothing - white jeans, boutique stuff, baby blues and purples and pinks and such - more attention to me.

Neutral clothing - less.

Business casual - very little.

Taking it a step further, I got a new passport about 20 months ago. I had the passport photo taken in suit and tie, replacing my old casual passport photo I got in my late teens. That combined with dressing upscale business casual-ish means way less searches. I used to get searched all the damn time when I had long hair and was wearing gregarious clothing. Last year I made 20-some round- trips with however many connections, and only got searched once - when I accidentally was wearing a knee-length, blue Japanese synthetic fur-trimmed ridiculous jacket from a Shinsaibashi-Suji boutique. And I looked down at myself and sighed, because I usually change to a more casual/upscale jacket and pack the rest. I was just being careless that day.

They mostly search people on gut instinct - I've never had any real problems, except I don't like having 20-90 minutes of my life wasted.

<comment><USER7> I don't like getting searched either. A long time back, when I was thirteen and moved back to the US with my family after living in France for a year, we had to do the full-on customs interview. They let us take our Mac home, but we had to come back to the customs office a week later to prove that we'd purchased it in the US. Fortunately, computers aren't exactly considered exotic and expensive things anymore.

I had a little apprehension taking my laptop over to Europe and back, mainly because it would feel very uncomfortable to have someone open up my computer and click around. And I really don't need a lecture from a customs agent about my lack of unit tests, heh.

But ultimately, I'd guess that almost all business travelers carry a laptop these days, and since electronic communication doesn't need to travel physically on a laptop anyway, it seems like one of the lowest priorities for a customs agent. It's easy to get in a huff, but ultimately, many of them actually _want_ to do their jobs well, and wasting time on laptop searches would probably be a major distraction from what they view as their real work, anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This whole process is vulnerable to the water boarding attack.</comment>


Brendan Eich: New JavaScript Engine Module Owner - <AUTHOR> http://brendaneich.com/2011/06/new-javascript-engine-module-owner/

<comment><USER2> The end of an era, no matter how minor a procedural change this is. The impact that Eich has had on the average computer user is unimaginable to me.

Thanks, Brendan.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is that likely to have a significant impact on the way we write Javascript today?

<comment><USER4> No. JavaScript is (now) important enough that no one person has that much influence over it.

<comment><USER5> This is, somewhat surprisingly, not true, especially if you're just considering the language proper. There are about 15 people who are regular members of the committee, and some of them end up having a big influence.

Brendan is a prime example; his language design taste and leadership matter a lot. There are certainly other examples. Dave Herman, also at Mozilla, has been the lead on a whole host of things, from extending iterators and generators to the design of the new module system, which I worked on as well. Tom Van Cutsem and Mark Miller created the Proxy system.

Outside of pure JS, the designers of WebGL/Typed Arrays and WebWorkers have both had big impacts.

Ultimately, even on a committee, individual people can make a big impact.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Any reason for doing so..

<comment><USER7> See comments, stay tuned. And really, was I supposed to go on for life? :-P

<comment><USER8> It's called benevolent dictator for life for a reason ;).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> From the title, I thought there was a new engine, but it's a new owner.</comment>


Ask HN: Alternatives to Reddit? - <AUTHOR> Hi All,
The recent crackdown on certain kinds of speech on Reddit worries me.  While I certainly don't support many of the various subreddits that have been banned, I do think they have a right to speak.
While Reddit certainly has the right to do this as a private company, I am really disappointed with their decisions and I want to take my eyeballs/attention to a new platform.
Where should I look for a similar kind of community but that allows a wider range of opinions to be shared? <comment><USER3> It really depends a lot on what you want to see. There is simply nothing quite comparable to Reddit ATM with so many niches in on place and with such a community feeling. I've searched a lot, too (I'm a fellow ex-redditor).

Rather than focussing on a single replacement, your best bet is probably to go out to a specific niche. That's why I'm on HN, for example. But there's more. Like mechanical keyboards? Visit deskthority, where it all started. Are you a car modder? Try searching up the forum for your car model or brand!

These niche forums can be surprisingly active and they also tend to have more general off-topic discussions, so you'll get that too. And, at last, you might want to take the chance and reduce your social media consumption a bit - <USER2> smaller forums don't drag you in as much, take the time and follow your hobbies. It's worth it :)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a good idea that takes a bit more effort but probably ultimately more valuable. Thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I originally hit upon this issue back when digg was popular. I jumped onto reddit early on and came here years later. But before all of this I was on tons of other forums all starting with MS newsgroups. I feel like I going full circle and slowly using more and more sites.

<comment><USER5> if possible, please share your favorite sites, thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> > While I certainly don't support many of the various subreddits that have > been banned, I do think they have a right to speak.

Racism, misogyny, and xenophobia doesn't belong anywhere.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the JavaScript ecosystem missing right now? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> A good code coverage tool? well if anyone here knows one...feel free to share :) (testing frameworks as well,I know some but for the purpose of getting info from you guys would be great)

</comment><comment><USER3> Native tools that don't rely on node and electron. If javascript on the desktop is going to be an eventuality then pygtk would be a much better direction.

<comment><USER4> If browsers offered an "open in a chromeless window" mode that could be called by other apps, then Electron apps wouldn't need to bundle the own browser.

We could then have downloadable apps with sizes of a few MB instead of the >100 MB monstrosities it generates now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A smaller ecosystem.</comment>


Intel, Yahoo to Offer Software for Web Access on TV  - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aw5qyuLX7hEs <comment><USER2> This is built on an open platform. You can now target the TV instead of just the browser.

[http://www.intelconsumerelectronics.com/Consumer- Electronics...](http://www.intelconsumerelectronics.com/Consumer- Electronics-3.0/Widget-Channel-Overview.aspx)</comment>


Weekly Robotics #28 - <AUTHOR> https://weeklyrobotics.com/weekly-robotics-28 <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN!

It's been over 200 days that I've been working on this series now and from time to time I see that some of you actually read it!

If you can offer any feedback for anything related to this newsletter then I would highly appreciate it!</comment>


Ask HN: How much should I charge per hour as Developer? - <AUTHOR> Below technology stack with 3 years of working experience(In order of expertise).<p>.Net MVC, AngularJs, ASP.Net, CSS, HTML, SQL<p>I am above average developer in the teams I have worked. <comment></comment>


Extracting audio from visual information - <AUTHOR> http://newsoffice.mit.edu/2014/algorithm-recovers-speech-from-vibrations-0804

<comment><USER2> Very interesting, and while the title isn't what I expected, I'm pleased to have the chance to read through it. Will just share my notes:

1 - Initial thought process was that the experiment / development was extracting audio from a static image. This is very different. The complexity of the process and method fascinated me, and while I like to think I was following along okay, I'm not bold enough to jump out and say I grasp it.

2 - I guess there's a bit of a language difference in the title here (extracting) versus the dominant term used in the article (recovering). My understanding is a simplified one but I grasp that it's a way of, well, translating a visual disturbance (vibration) into its corresponding sonic origination (from sound to vibration back to sound).

3 - As a joke for guitarists: Maybe now we can finally get some really excellent guitar-to-MIDI translation stuff! (Disclosure: I haven't tried the Fishman $400 thingy yet)

4 - This kind of reminds me of how neat Ableton Live's WAV-to-MIDI idea is, but personally I haven't had very good luck mastering it.

5 - Potential applications from brief contemplation: A) Environmental support for the blind, B) Potential oceanic application (reading waves from space?), C) Clandestine communication system using something like morse-code in visual form.

Anyway, had a lot of fun with this article.

</comment><comment><USER3> The limiting factor with this is it requires 2-6000 fps video. I think this restriction can be lifted.

Sound travels 2.8m in 1/120th of a second, a frame rate that is available in smartphone cameras today. Therefore, if you have a surface that can be analyzed for sound which is at least 2.8m long in the direction the sound is travelling, you have a snapshot through time of the effect the sound waves have on that surface for the whole ~8ms of the frame's duration (if you ignore the problem of progressive scanning).

Does this sound reasonable? Maybe you'd need more than 2.8m. To get over the progressive scanning problem perhaps you could orient the camera so the direction of the scanning is orthogonal to the direction of sound propagation, then the image can be skewed to counteract the effect of the scanning.</comment>


3rd largest Bitcoin exchange lost its wallet.dat - <AUTHOR> https://bitomat.pl/Home/Statement <comment><USER2> Everyone keeping their bitcoins in exchanges/(think banks, or broker accounts) instead of their own wallets is completely subverting the point of the idea of bitcoin.

BTC has some great unique properties as a p2p cryptocurrency - which goes out the window when everything sits in a few exchanges rather than a bunch of wallets.

<comment><USER3> Find a way to easily trade bitcoin without centralizing wallets and you got the thousand bitcoin idea.

Next step is to turn the thousand bitcoin idea into an actual reality and get rich.

<comment><USER4> I thought one can directly send bitcoin to another address without the need for a middleman?

<comment><USER3> Yes, but dollars and euro and yens almost always require a middleman, unless you're doing cash exchange.

<comment><USER4> Ah, I did not realise that this was about a "transformation" between bitcoin and normal money. But in that case wouldn't it make sense to keep the money on the exchange just as long as needed?

<comment><USER5> The bitcoin exchanges typically require 6 confirmations of a transaction in the block chain before crediting your account with bitcoins. This takes about 1 hour.

If you are speculating on bitcoins and you hear about some news that might cause the price to drop, then you don't want to wait 1 hour before you can sell them.

<comment><USER6> Can you offer more money for the verification, to get it done faster? I think the default is 0.01 BTC, so if you offer 0.05 BTC will you get priority?

<comment><USER7> At the moment even no-fee transactions usually make it onto the block chain as quickly as possible. The ~1 hour (6 block) confirmation time is due to the recipient being cautious that the sender won't try to double-spend the money by rewriting history with lots of computation power. As more time elapses from when the transaction occurred, this becomes harder, and not as a function of your transaction fees.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I guess the bitcoin economy is ruthless on its entrepreneurs and users.

Failure to backup, improper trust in individuals, improper understanding of the technology, poor security practice, and bad decisions will wipe out early adopters' wealth continuously and relentlessly.

I doubt we will see much of the early adopters retaining their bitcoin wealth from these early days. Those who did are either incredibly lucky, or incredibly competent.

I am an early adopter of bitcoin and I hope to survive or avoid the many dangers and poor decisions that ensnared many of peers on the road to bitcoin richness.

<comment><USER8> I think that's a bit over the top. It really isn't that hard to keep your coins in your own wallet and back it up.

What this demonstrates to me is that people are too trusting. You really shouldn't trust any of these services until they become more transparent in who is backing them, what their infrastructure looks like, their disaster plans, etc.

<comment><USER9> It isn't, but since the primary thing to do with Bitcoin is to speculate it, keeping it on your PC is problematic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If this kind of thing keeps happening, isn't Bitcoin inherently deflationary? With gold, for example, only a small proportion is ever permanently "lost"; even shipwrecks can be recovered in the future. And of course more gold is always being dug up. But if bitcoins from a fixed set are slowly being lost in various ways, irreparably shrinking the money supply, it seems like it'd have trouble being a viable long-term currency.

<comment><USER11> Yes, BTC is inherently deflationary, but one of the fascinating things about it is that since it can be infinitely subdivided, this may not be as much a problem as it for meatspace currencies.

Currently BTC is divisible down to 8 decimal places, enabling a maximum possible 2.1 quadrillion atomic units. But that is only an artifact of the data structure used in the current implementation, and could potentially be modified to allow even more granularity.

So, as the value of BTC rises against goods, services, and other currencies, the market can reprice in smaller and smaller increments of BTC, and the incentive to save/hoard that is typically associated with deflationary monetary systems may be weaker with BTC.

<comment><USER12> > the incentive to save/hoard that is typically associated with deflationary > monetary systems may be weaker with BTC.

I don't see how that is possible. The coins may undergo a process similar to a stock split but any holders of the coins end up with equal purchasing power. The incentive to hoard does not go away if the currency is deflationary.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Was this a relatively young BitCoin exchange? One would hope that the wallet.dat was backed up somewhere else (another EC2 instance, EBS, offline).

This doesn't bode well for establishing credibility in BitCoin exchanges and operators. Although nobody necessarily needs to use the exchanges, for better or worse, people use them to establish market values to more easily value their transactions.

It's obviously easy to criticize after the fact, but I am genuinely curious how backing up critical data wasn't considered. Unless, this was a very young / recently launched BitCoin exchange as a weekend hobby project that took off?

<comment><USER14> They've been around for a few months and were one of the higher volume exchanges. They were doing ~800 BTC in trades/day for the month prior to this, so ~$11k/day with their commission of .006*2 (I think it was .006, and on both sides) they were pulling in ~$130/day.

<comment><USER15> Everything (transactions, withdrawals, deposits) was free of charge.

Only way of profiting legally from the exchange was interest on the capital deposited by users on exchange owners bank account.

<comment><USER16> Or "losing" the wallet.dat after a few months.

You're operating in an unregulated market. Your legal protections for when someone outright steals your money are much weaker. You might be able to sue them... if you could get to Poland. Not only is your market unregulated, you don't share a jurisdiction with the "bank" unless you live in Poland.

So it's not the only way of profiting legally as much as it's the only way of profiting ethically.

I don't think this particular case was malicious, but I think people are vastly underestimating their risk exposure to a malicious exchange. Thankfully, the bad guys seem as incompetent as the people running bitomat.

<comment><USER17> If it's a scam, lying about losing the file is useless, since all the BTC transactions are publicly logged. You can just input their address(es) on the Bitcoin Block Explorer and see if any of them are being used.

Of course, that doesn't mean you'll have any legal recourse against them.

<comment><USER18> The addresses being used don't necessarily indicate the exchange owner was lying. An enterprising AWS engineer might have been able to recover the wallet somehow. At a value of $200,000+ USD it'd be worth looking for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sometimes you don't appreciate regulation until it's gone.

<comment><USER8> I disagree. Regulation has given people a false sense of security, leading to them trusting these unknown and untested entities.

Instead of regulation what they need is more transparency. Tell your customers who you are, how you are building your service, what you will do in the case of a disaster.

In this particular case you have someone who is playing with the technology without having even a basic understanding of how to build the required infrastructure.

<comment><USER19> What's to prevent a firm from lying about who they are and what they are doing? Without regulations (and accompanying penalties for breaking the rules), it's the wild West. It sounds good on a libertarian check list, but in practice the people who can least afford it get absolutely destroyed.

<comment><USER3> Bankruptcy.

Plus, backup is just a good policy. Practice it lest you end up homeless or have to find another job.

<comment><USER19> It's hard to go bankrupt when you steal for a living.

<comment><USER20> Believe it or not, it's even harder to go bankrupt without regulation... _Bankruptcy refers to the legal status of an entity_!

This thread has just about reached the point of absurdity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> On the bright side, if the wallet has truly been lost and not stolen, everybody else's BTC got just a bit more valuable.

In other news, funneling thousands of trades through one wallet.dat... how on earth do you successfully back that up when it has new data every minute? If exchanges are going to become a "thing", I'd think you'd want something like multiple redundant networked databases storing the BTC.

<comment><USER18> The individual trades in exchanges don't hit the wallet. Only deposits and withdrawal's do. The trades themselves are handled by the exchanges database.

You can pre-generate addresses in a wallet and then do a backup. This backup is valid and can be used to recover funds as long as that pre-generated pool doesn't run out.

There's also a 'backupwallet' RPC command that the bitcoin daemon provides to safely copy/backup the wallet. So lots of options available.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Looks like the admin stored the wallet.dat and backups on an ec2 instance, and then shut it down while doing a RAM upgrade without realizing he would lose everything on the disk.

Translation of post:

DECLARATION I hereby inform all users of the service www.bitomat.pl of system failure that occurred on 26 July 2011 and its consequences. At the outset I would like to apologize for such a long delay in publication of this statement. I explained that it was dictated only by the good service investigation conducted to determine the causes of failure and the people responsible for it. Unfortunately, to date, despite intensive efforts, could not determine these issues. However, I believe that the longer pause to disclose this communication at this stage would be unreasonable. I am also aware that service users are the appropriate explanation. On 26 July 2011 at about 23:00, I noticed that absorbs all Bitcoin server machine resources, and probably not used for making. So there was need to increase the amount of RAM in the server. As a result of that procedure - suddenly the whole virtual machine has been erased, all data stored on the server has been lost!, Including records concerning bitcoinowego portfolio and its backups (backups). I have taken action have established that the disappearance of the data was the result of the introduction of virtual server settings, which he never would have introduced. Amazon Web Services Company, which is located servers, website says that the machine that has been cleared has been set up in such a way as to be irretrievably destroyed automatically with the data on disks attached to it at the time of her arrest by the shutdown. We are constantly trying to determine who made changes to these settings and whether it will be able to recover lost data. Unfortunately partnership with Amazon Web Services, which was placed servers service is difficult. Once I realized that I deleted the machine have redeemed the biggest package of technical support, I talked to the manager, asked about the security of disk space, I explained, so far unsuccessfully. Still exerts pressure on the Amazon Web Services to accelerate their activities but without concrete results. At the moment I am unable to clearly determine the causes of crashes, I suppose that it is the result of actions of third parties, which are causing the server tried to cancel to hide their illegal activities, or intentionally wanted to website disappeared. If my suppositions are confirmed, the fact will let police and prosecutors. At the same time if possible take action through which it would be possible to recreate lost data. But what I need to interact with the server's owner, and that as I mentioned above is difficult. At this point I wish to inform and assure you that your cash deposited into your bank account service and not converted into BTC and unpaid cash from the sale of BTC remain safe and intact. Any further findings will you keep. At the same time I am counting on your help in solving the problem. I realize that the situation is very difficult, and you fear for the fate of their BTC. We are constantly working on a solution to the crisis, and I'm open to your suggestions. Currently going to: cancel all active orders so far, to restore service to operate to allow the performance of any operation (in particular the payment of PLN). Please your suggestions and ideas. I wish to inform you that I had several conversations with potential investors from home and abroad. Www.bitomat.pl service is on sale for EUR 17,000 BTC. If interested, please contact us at email@example.com. Best regards Bartek Shabbat Service Administrator www.bitomat.pl

<comment><USER22> There's a reason real banks use mainframes, not cloud services...

<comment><USER23> This is not why they use mainframes instead of the cloud. This is why they employ competent sysadmins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Other thread about same subject here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2828091>

</comment><comment><USER24> The time seems right for the first bitcoin insurance company.

<comment><USER25> Only problem. Who would insure a data file of unknown value?

<comment><USER26> That's not really a problem. You'd insure individual bitcoin addresses, and the amount of bitcoins assigned a bitcoin address is public.

The real problem is figuring out whether an address has been actually stolen, or whether the user is indulging in a spot of insurance fraud.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> And nothing of value was lost.

<comment><USER28> I can sell my BitCoins immediately for about $250 (what I originally put in). How can you sit and say it has "no value"?

<comment><USER29> Some people believe that price and value are the same thing. Others, not so much. It's not inconceivable that Ted here holds the latter opinion.

<comment><USER28> I don't really understand the difference I guess. Does Ted like to do something else with his dollar bills that I don't want to or can't imagine?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > At this point I wish to inform and assure you that your cash deposited into > your bank account service and not converted into BTC and unpaid cash from > the sale of BTC remain safe and intact

The funds are likely held in aggregate in a single bank account under a single name. Without having the data showing which accounts hold which amounts, I wonder how those funds could be returned to the rightful owners.

<comment><USER21> It sounds like they lost the bitcoins, not the database.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Ha ha! A fool and his money are soon parted. Anyone stupid enough to waste real currency on bitcoins deserves what he gets. Bitcoins are the modern equivalent of speculating on "limited edition" Beanie Babies. The truth hurts so I expect all the bitcoin fanboys will downvote me now. Go ahead do your worst. :-)</comment>


The Patriarchy Is Dead - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2013/09/the_end_of_men_why_feminists_won_t_accept_that_things_are_looking_up_for.single.html

<comment> mkr-hn This article can be properly summed up as "I've got mine, suckers." Someone claiming to be a feminist honest-to-Santa gave me a "you're either with us or against" argument earlier when I said I wasn't a part of the movement.

The first thing I did after finishing this article was check this hash tag it suggested and the one I knew would be buzzing:

[https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen&sr...](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen&src=hash)

[https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RIPpatriarchy&src=hash](https://twitter.com/search?q=%23RIPpatriarchy&src=hash)

This is why I don't buy it when someone tells me "feminism cares about your concerns too!" The movement can't even find unity among the half of the population it's meant for.

</comment><comment><USER2> Feminism liberated women to become wage-slaves[1]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do5zrdTb- yI&feature=youtube_...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do5zrdTb- yI&feature=youtube_gdata_player)

</comment><comment><USER3> Having a hard time figuring out what that article has got to do with "hacker" stuff. Is this maybe another "there are too few girls in tech" thing?

I don't think so, because I haven't seen all that many "there are too few girl construction workers" articles lately.

<comment><USER4> There are physiological differences between men and women [1]. Some of these are in areas that relate directly to suitability for construction work, with the advantage going to men. The expected outcome if there is no bias other than ability to do the job is for women to be significantly underrepresented in construction.

For tech work, the physiological differences do not give men an obvious advantage, and so there is much more interest in understanding why men are disproportionately represented.

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

<comment><USER5> > For tech work, the physiological differences do not give men an obvious > advantage, and so there is much more interest in understanding why men are > disproportionately represented.

I assume the main reason is social. Of course, social explanations range from "women think men in IT are icky nerds whom they wouldn't want to work with anyway" to "men in IT are all misogynists who hate women and want to keep them out", and which one is chosen seems to be largely up to the bias of the reader.</comment></comment></comment>


There's a Better Way to Line Up Than 'First Come, First Served' - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/09/lines-efficient-first-come-served/404218/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> >For the study, they consider a purely theoretical situation in which people could line up at any time when a facility opens, like boarding an airplane.

>The problem with "first come, first served" is it incentivizes people to arrive early, which researchers say results in people waiting for the longest period of time. When this incentive is removed—under a "last come, first served" system—the queues are more efficient.

Not too hard to see what would happen if this were implemented for actual aircraft boarding. Everyone would stand around in a circle just outside whatever area is officially declared the "queue", waiting for other people to join first.

Actually, now I read the paper it seems that the aircraft is a bad example, the model system is one where the thing you want to minimise is the amount of time you spend waiting, not the order in which you get served. There's no advantage to getting on a plane _earlier_ (spending more time sitting on a plane isn't great) but there's an advantage in getting on a plane before someone else.</comment>


Show HN: Bookmarklet to view full size photos from Google Images - <AUTHOR> https://d3vr.github.io/viewimage/ <comment><USER2> This sort of thing is why I haven't completely lost hope in the web, yet. The power is still in the hands of the user. Don't like a site's style? Fix it yourself. Feature you like been removed? Write your own extension to put it back.

Sure it's work, but ultimately no entity on the web can absolutely control how you choose to consume their content, only try and make it difficult for you.

<comment><USER3> It's great but at the same time, fixes and tweaks like this are only going to really be used by savvy users.

The majority won't notice the change I reckon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google seems to taken up a mantra of "if it ain't broke, break it" lately.

<comment><USER5> If something seems just stupid, it is always a good idea to try to understand the change. This one wasn't really voluntarily [1] (Though I agree for some recent changes, it seems impossible to find a reasonable explanation :/ )

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16388833](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16388833)

<comment><USER6> As far as we know, Google isn't willing to pay content providers, while Microsoft is. So Bing still has the functionality, but Google not.

<comment><USER5> DuckDuckGo still has the functionality, but I don't think they pay content providers. From that I conclude that it's not just a function of "willing to pay vs not", but that "got sued" also plays a role.

Content providers in this case is every web page that is indexed for image search. Microsoft might have contracts in place with image services (getty, alamy, and whatnot), but I have my doubts that they pay every photographer's blog who's images they display in their image search.

<comment><USER7> They _used to be_ pass through of Bing. Don't know if still case. But when that was true, they'd be able to do what Bing did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Also useful, boorkmarklet to make all text black:

        javascript:(function(){var%20i,x;for(i=0;x=document.getElementsByTagName("*")[i];++i)x.style.color="#000000";})();

and to allow text selection (I manically select text while reading, sorry fellow office inhabitants),

        javascript:(function(){function%20allowTextSelection(){window.console&&console.log('allowTextSelection');var%20style=document.createElement('style');style.type='text/css';style.innerHTML='*,p,div{user-select:text%20!important;-moz-user-select:text%20!important;-webkit-user-select:text%20!important;}';document.head.appendChild(style);var%20elArray=document.body.getElementsByTagName('*');for(var%20i=0;i<elArray.length;i++){var%20el=elArray[i];el.onselectstart=el.ondragstart=el.ondrag=el.oncontextmenu=el.onmousedown=el.onmouseup=function(){return%20true};if(el%20instanceof%20HTMLInputElement&&['text','password','email','number','tel','url'].indexOf(el.type.toLowerCase())>-1){el.removeAttribute('disabled');el.onkeydown=el.onkeyup=function(){return%20true};}}}allowTextSelection();})();

<comment><USER9> This doesn't undo text selection disabled by following: [http://www.rgagnon.com/jsdetails/js-0120.html](http://www.rgagnon.com/jsdetails/js-0120.html).

<comment><USER8> Thanks! Updated the bookmarklet (used both IE and FF methods from the link):

        javascript:(function(){function%20allowTextSelection(){document.onselectstart = null; document.onmousedown = null; document.onmouseup = null; window.console&&console.log('allowTextSelection');var%20style=document.createElement('style');style.type='text/css';style.innerHTML='*,p,div{user-select:text%20!important;-moz-user-select:text%20!important;-webkit-user-select:text%20!important;}';document.head.appendChild(style);var%20elArray=document.body.getElementsByTagName('*');for(var%20i=0;i<elArray.length;i++){var%20el=elArray[i];el.onselectstart=el.ondragstart=el.ondrag=el.oncontextmenu=el.onmousedown=el.onmouseup=function(){return%20true};if(el%20instanceof%20HTMLInputElement&&['text','password','email','number','tel','url'].indexOf(el.type.toLowerCase())>-1){el.removeAttribute('disabled');el.onkeydown=el.onkeyup=function(){return%20true};}}}allowTextSelection();})();

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was asking myself why this was there in HN top, headed to Google Images and yes, it dosen't provide a direct link to the image anymore :/ This is going to be very harder for a normal user to download an image at full resoultion. Well done with this script :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, this was just a quick fix though, a userscript that puts the button back where it was would be better.

<comment><USER11> I created it just ago, though it's not a userscript: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16391196](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16391196)

<comment><AUTHOR> I linked to from my repo and my comment on reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/7xvdkk/googl...](https://www.reddit.com/r/assholedesign/comments/7xvdkk/google_removed_the_view_image_button_on_google/dubkwqq/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am missing the point why this bookmarklet is needed. You right click the preview image that google gives and either 'Open Image in new tab' or 'Copy image address', or even 'Save Image'. Actually Googles change makes it easier to handle images, since you get directly the original in the preview view, instead of some cached version... what am I missing?

<comment><USER13> I'd agree. It saves a click (instead of right click, left click, it's just a left click on the bookmarklet). But it's not applicable for mobile and takes up space on your bookmarks bar. I think the next step to replace the missing functionality would be a Chrome extension to add the button back.

<comment><AUTHOR> Already done by @devunt ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16391285](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16391285)) : [https://github.com/devunt/make-gis-great- again](https://github.com/devunt/make-gis-great-again)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This whole thing is silly, and I think the google image search team brought it on themselves.

For a while, on mobile Google Image Search result pages, it was impossible to find a link to the image in its actual context in the actual site. Like, you'd Google Image search something and see something interesting in an SRP, but then you couldn't find out what it was. Maybe there was a way to do it, but the UI was too opaque to figure it out.

This obviously peeved some people off, and now the Image Results page had to pivot too hard in the other direction. Whereas if they'd made both options clear and visible, likely they never would've faced whatever internal pushback they had from rightsholders and advertisers about GISRP's terrible UI.

And now we're working around this awful UI even further.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can you please not make the link an enormous button? I'm having quite a difficult time dragging it to my bookmarks since it covers 1/4 of my screen, making it really hard to see where I want to put it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Never mind, I tested it on Firefox, it sucks. Will fix, thanks for reporting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So fast to come up with a workaround! Great

</comment><comment><USER17> Thanks. What a stupid change on Google's part.

<comment><USER5> They got sued, and this was one of the consequences

see [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16388833](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16388833)

<comment><USER17> Makes sense, they did what they had to.

Ok well the bookmarklet will see a lot of use. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Works on Safari Mobile (with "Request Desktop Site").

But even better: Google is still linking to the image on the mobile page. Just long press on the search result image in Mobile Safari, then press Copy to get the direct image URL, then open the URL. Wonder how long that will work.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, I forgot to add a viewimage.min.js. I tried on Chrome mobile, but it just does a Google search, didn't know inline javascript worked on mobile browsers.

Here's the bookmarklet source for now:

javascript:void%20function(){function%20isElementVisible(el){var%20rect=el.getBoundingClientRect(),vWidth=window.innerWidth||doc.documentElement.clientWidth,vHeight=window.innerHeight||doc.documentElement.clientHeight,efp=function(x,y){return%20document.elementFromPoint(x,y)};return%20rect.right%3C0||rect.bottom%3C0||rect.left%3EvWidth||rect.top%3EvHeight%3F!1:el.contains(efp(rect.left,rect.top))||el.contains(efp(rect.right,rect.top))||el.contains(efp(rect.right,rect.bottom))||el.contains(efp(rect.left,rect.bottom))}%22undefined%22==typeof%20window.isElementVisible;{var%20imgs=document.querySelectorAll(%22.irc_mi%22);imgs.forEach(function(img){isElementVisible(img)%26%26window.open(img.src)})}}();

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Another alternative (works automatically):

[https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/straight-to- full-s...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/straight-to-full-size- for/ghhmhdkbiodiengmhbbpjkcjodingned)

<comment><USER20> How does it work? Asking since I'm a Firefox user.

<comment><USER19> you can see the functionality in the screenshots. When you click on a google image search result it open directly the image.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> For some reason, I find it getting harder to find relevant pictures using google images. It almost always messes up what I want by showing the most popular / vaguely relevant / search history based something.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's been broken on iOS (maybe all mobile?) for the longest now...

<comment><USER23> There is a "Full-sized image" link in the details of images on Firefox Android. Maybe the change applies only within the USA?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm honestly confused by this. Why are people wanting the full sized image unless they are trying to use it for their own purpose? I use image search from Google as a way to find images, without searching multiple sites. However, I'm not looking to use that image for anything other than "yes, that's what I'm looking for, take me to the site that has that image".

Maybe I'm just being dense and hangry (need to go to lunch), but what are legit reasons for this?

<comment><USER18> There are tons of use cases where you might want the actual image. Some are completely legal, some might not be.

Some usecases I'm thinking of: printed handouts for a (kid's birthday) party, a picture for an informal non-public Powerpoint presentation, setting the picture as your desktop background, printing/viewing a large diagram, etc. E.g. if I search for "pyramid", why would I need an article to go along with it? Also in some countries printing for educational/school uses is legal.

<comment><USER24> you do realize that using a picture for any purpose without the owner's permission in not legal, right?

while you may not be using it for commercial purposes for a kid's party invite, it's still not right/legal/moral, nor does it qualify for fair-use. just because an image appears on a website does not mean it is free for the world to use for whatever/however the viewer wants to use it. if it has been done correctly, the site has been granted permission (free or paid) to be able to display on that site. using it as a personal desktop wallpaper is also not legal if you do not have permission. it's great that you think it is an awesome picture worthy of being on your desktop, but that's not how it works. same thing for use in a powerpoint presentation. you might get in less trouble if you actually credit the site/photographer in the presentation, but it's still not a legitimate use. i'd be surprised if corporations don't have a policy against it. the fact that you are suggesting printing an image you've just ripped off of a google search is legit, suggests you're just poking the troll.

please, list the countries where it is free to just rip something off of the web for educational/school uses. i really would like to know.

<comment><USER18> Disclaimer: IANAL, this is not legal advice.

There are several such countries, here is a list: [http://teflpedia.com/index.php?title=Copyright_in_English_la...](http://teflpedia.com/index.php?title=Copyright_in_English_language_teaching)

You can google for more info.

Some more points:

\- not all images have copyright (public domain images, most images by NASA, etc).

\- printing out things is certainly something people do, why do you assume that's trolling?

\- whether copyright and copyright infringement are right/wrong/moral/immoral is a discussion for a different time

And in the end, people might just not care whether their desktop background is properly licensed or not. Is yours?

And what would you actually do about the kids birthday invite with a Mickey Mouse on it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> What is a bookmarklet?

<comment><AUTHOR> Some JavaScript code saved as a bookmark. When you click on the bookmark, the JavaScript code gets executed.</comment></comment>


Case of Bricked Tesla - <AUTHOR> https://mobile.twitter.com/ssdai/status/1209336445820973056?s=21 <comment><USER2> > The problem was a loose cable that needed to be tightened. My dad asked > which one it was so that he could do it in the future, but he was told > that's something only Tesla service centers could do.

We urgently need harsh right-to-repair legislation, or we'll be entirely at the mercy of corporations as to what they permit us to do.</comment>


Best Practices for Component State in React.js - <AUTHOR> http://brewhouse.io/blog/2015/03/24/best-practices-for-component-state-in-reactjs.html

<comment><USER2> Nice writeup! 2 knit-picky points:

\- I would amend point 3 to also include helper methods/modules. I like to keep my render functions pretty small so I'll usually call helper methods or have an external module if the calculations are pretty hairy.

\- cx is soon to be deprecated and now you can use the module "classnames".</comment>


You don't really want a million dollars - <AUTHOR> http://ryanwaggoner.com/2010/12/you-dont-really-want-a-million-dollars/ <comment><USER2> Interesting post. Let me rephrase the question:

What amount of money would it take to solve my biggest problems?

Here are my biggest problems:

1\. My father had a massive stroke and died. I miss him.

2\. My mother has severe dementia and now acts like a toddler. I miss her too, in a strange way.

3\. In the past 8 years, I have lost 5 close friends and family members including the cousin I grew up with who died very young of pancreatic cancer. I miss them all.

4\. I have 3 loved ones with significant health problems. I wish there was more I could do to help. Better yet, I wish the would all just get well.

5\. I love to build software and would like to build more, better, and faster.

6\. The Pittsburgh Steelers (American football) lost yesterday. I'm crushed.

I have struggled with how more money could help (or have helped) with numbers 1 through 4, but I'm not quite sure how.

If I had more money, I could hire a bunch of people to help me with #5, but I think we're all learning that the correlation between having a lot of money and building lots of great software is becoming a very loose one.

I need a billion dollars to buy the Steelers and run them the way they should be run. I need another billion to pay the referees. In the meantime, I'll just sit and suffer on Mondays like this.

<comment><USER3> Donate: <http://www.sens.org/>

Likely this won't help you or me and it won't help your mom or dad, but it might help a lot of people someday.

<comment><USER4> not before reading this [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negli...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategies_for_Engineered_Negligible_Senescence#Scientific_controversy)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I really disagree with this. Far from being more than anybody needs, a million dollars is actually _not enough_ to secure a dignified existence in the US. Sure... a "trip to Thailand" doesn't require a million dollars, but what if you want:

Not to face bankruptcy if a major health problem arises? Not to worry about the cost of college for your children? To own a small home in NYC or SF? To afford competent legal representation if the need arises?

And that doesn't even touch the reasons people want to be _rich_ \- like private jets and angel investing and art collecting and space tourism, etc. Have some imagination!

<comment><AUTHOR> _A million dollars is actually not enough to secure a dignified existence in the US._

Nonsense:

[http://ryanwaggoner.com/2010/08/how-to-retire- at-30-on-1-mil...](http://ryanwaggoner.com/2010/08/how-to-retire- at-30-on-1-million/)

 _Not to face bankruptcy if a major health problem arises?_

Health insurance isn't _that_ expensive unless you have a pre-existing condition [1]. I won't talk about the college and home ownership questions other than to say that families have figured out how to live happy, healthy lives on far, far less. Go to a good state school, get some scholarships, don't live in Manhattan.

And you're only making my point: you don't really want the money. You want the things that you think only an abnormally large amount of money can buy. Sorry, but that just seems like lazy thinking to me.

1\. And my sincere condolences to those that do. Seriously, that sucks and we need to fix the system somehow.

<comment><USER6> _I won't talk about the college and home ownership questions other than to say that families have figured out how to live happy, healthy lives on far, far less. Go to a good state school, get some scholarships, don't live in Manhattan._

This is a poor answer. Just because other people are happy with something doesn't mean everyone is. What do you mean "don't live in Mahnattan"? I want to live in Manhattan. Who are you to say which of my desires are valid and invalid?

<comment><USER7> He didn't say that, he said that you don't need to live in Manhattan to have a _dignified life_.

Nobody contests that a million dollars can buy you a lot of very nice things. The point is that too many people spend too much time fretting about going to Thailand when they get a million dollars, while completely missing the fact that a trip to Thailand is maybe $1000. It's mostly a question of priorities, and if you make your whole life about getting a million dollars, guess what happens once you get there? You're likely to start obsessing about five million, rather than retire to that beach in Thailand.

<comment><USER6> Maybe, but his thesis that most people say that want a million dollars but don't actually want the things that cost a million dollars is unsupported. I was playing devil's advocate (I probably don't want to live in Manhattan) but the idea is that none of us really know how many people actually want things that cost a million dollars and how many people just want what he terms "freedom."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I think Ryan misses the point for most people. I do want a "million" dollars for freedom, but it's not just to go to Thailand. In fact I don't really like traveling, but I'd pay a lot if you could teleport me instantly.

I want the freedom to work on what I want to work on AND to buy what I want. I'm tired of saying, "I won't get that TV now, because in 12 months that TV is coming out". Or "lets wait 8 months for the price to drop on that car". Or "do we really need a view?"

It's not that I need less stuff. I'm fairly certain I want more new stuff (and I'll happy donate my old stuff). And it's not like I want to hike barefoot through rainforests. I generally want to spend time doing things like trying to build a new tablet OS. Or playing a full season of Madden as the Vikings. Or doing Sunday Times puzzles in less than five minutes. Or spend a month completely rewiring my houses to have incredible home automation.

I frankly don't see how you do that stuff w/o money. I guess a "million" dollars or the ability to create things by thinking them up.

<comment> shock-value What? Building an OS is just the cost of a laptop and test device (~$1000 at most), playing Madden costs you $60 + $200 console, the puzzle is just the cost of the newspaper, and depending on what you mean by "rewiring" and your level of know-how, that project shouldn't be out-of-this-world expensive either. Not anything like a million dollars, or even $15k for that matter.

To be honest, I think your post illustrates the premise of the article. You can do these things without a vast sum of money just as easily as if you had a big wad of cash.

And if your point is that being able to do those projects and ALSO "buy what you want" (e.g. nicer TV and car) will give you much greater satisfaction from your life, you are clueless about human nature. You might get a thrill from these items in the short term, but eventually you'll just want more and better ones. You'll be in the same place (psychologically) as where you started.

<comment><USER8> The things I want to do aren't expensive, but they weren't supposed to be. But they're things that would prevent me from making money, which means that I need some other way to pay for the other things that I'm paying for now that I want.

And while you argue that I'm clueless about human nature, I'd argue that you are. It's human nature to want more, even if it is only temporary. In fact most things I want to do provide only short-term satisfaction. I know that and I'm fine with that. The things that give long-term satisfaction are generally free, but those aren't the things I want money for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the hardest parts of just hopping on a plane to some exotic destination is figuring out what to do with your "stuff" back home. People think that with a million dollars they'll pay off the house, car, quit their jobs and travel the world. Instead, they should consider selling the car and house (or renting it out) and living abroad instead of traveling. I have stayed in the Philippines for months at a time for far less money than a weekend in New York or Vegas. If you don't have to pay $1000 a month for a car (loan, insurance, gas, maintenance), and $2000 for housing in the US (including gas, electricity, phone, Internet, etc.) traveling becomes much cheaper. Even better if you can do some freelancing remotely or have a small business that generates a few hundred bucks a month.

I bet that 9 times out of 10, "I need more money" should really be rephrased as "I need less stuff"

<comment><USER10> I have a collapsible table, inflatable mattress, laptop, and 24" monitor. Everything I own can fit in my car. I need more money. Sleeping on the floor was not fun.

I have money, I'm just kind of uber frugal. It's a _nice_ air mattress, though.

<comment><USER11> I find your list sort of strange, because you didn't include the car in it. You have a, b, c, d and a _car_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No, _you_ don't.

I'm really tired of anti-money meme. Why is it so difficult for people to admit that many things in life come down to money?

This isn't about being Gordon Gekko. You could have the purest heart, but it _still_ takes cash to care.

Some are fine with minimalism. More power to them. But I don't want to exist. I want to _thrive._

I'm 24. I realized a few years ago that my highest value in life is _autonomy._ I want to be able to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, I've never been to Sweden," and just hop on a plane, without worrying about a small matter called rent.

What if your boss made you miserable every day, but you can't quit because of the mortgage. Is that any way to live? Me? I think I'd rather die.

Albert Camus said it best: It is spiritual arrogance to believe that one can be happy without money. And I'm a pastor's son; so I should know.

I like money. I want lots of it. A million dollars? Pftha! That isn't even what Felix Dennis called comfortably poor...

</rant>

<comment><AUTHOR> _I'm 24. I realized a few years ago that my highest value in life is autonomy. I want to be able to wake up tomorrow, and say "Hey, I've never been to Sweden," and just hop on a plane, without worrying about a small matter called rent._

I'm 28, and I could do that today if I wanted to. And surprise, surprise, I don't have a million dollars. That's my point. Figure out what you want and make it a priority. Don't spend your life working for a big payoff so you can then figure out what you want. You'll never get there.

<comment><USER13> _Figure out what you want and make it a priority._

I want more things out of life than can be easily prioritized. A million dollars would go a long way towards making it so I wouldn't _have to_ make just one thing my priority.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I do. From the extremely rich, I heard something along these lines: "When you have money, money is not an issue."

If you want to have, try, or do something NOW, money can make it happen. No waiting. Life is short. In exchange for money, I would have time. I would be liberated to pursue other things, to answer the call of other motivations. I picture it much like Maslow's Hierarchy: pierce the resource barrier, and you have ventured into the next level. The acquisition of resources and services in general is no longer an issue. Now we are in the realm of the rare, and our internal motivations/desires guide us more.

No need to worry about what kind of insurance you have. No need to pause to ask if you can afford to take an ambulance. No need to decide between this or that. No more dreaming about taking a rocket to the moon.

This is another way to say "freedom", but a general "freedom" is incorrect. There is always the next problem, the next desire. Remove money as a block, and many issues are resolved, while new issues enter the picture.

Of course, a million dollars does not buy all that, but it could sure get me out of my debts and bolster my current investments! Yes, I really want a million dollars. A million dollars buys me time, my most precious resource, time I did not have to spend making that million.

<comment><USER12> Simple as that, my friend. Well said.

One time I was watching HGTV with my sister. A couple bought a new house because they wanted a kitchen witha view of the ocean. She was incredulous, but I told her that's the very point of money-doing whatever you want to do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The "HN Users, please upvote this" banner at the bottom is disconcerting. If HN is becoming a place people are desperate to get their stories voted up on, I fear the quality is going to start decreasing dramatically in the coming months.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a Wordpress plugin called "WP Greet Box" [1] and this message is only shown to users coming from HN, not everyone. Also, you'll be happy to know that I get grief for it every time one of my posts lands on the homepage :)

I understand your concern, but it's really just a reminder to vote the article up if you enjoyed it. I frequently read good articles and then forget to vote them up because something else catches my attention. I really doubt anyone is swayed to upvote an article they didn't think worthy because of this message. Just the opposite: some hacker types get worked up because they seem to be allergic to promotion of any kind, and thus won't upvote the article, even though they would have otherwise. But I'm betting that the balance of people who upvote because they liked the article AND because they were reminded outweighs the anti-promotion crowd. Either way, I don't think it's a big deal. Sorry if it offended you.

1\. <http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/wp-greet-box/>

<comment><USER16> For what it's worth - Every time i click on an HN story I also open the comment page (in two new tabs - I use the fabulous Tree Style Tab firefox extension to stop that becoming as insane as it sounds).

That way after I read the story, even if I go away, the comment page is still open so I can upvote it when I am clearing up later. In that way I rarely if ever forget to upvote a story I liked.

I don't particularly like having my upvote solicited because it makes the thing seem too much like a popularity contest - the people who lobby end up getting more than the equally worthy ones that don't.

<comment><USER17> Funny. I also always open the comment page and the article at the same time (no tree plugin though). And yet, I very often forget to upvote the article, since I'm usually eager to dive into the comments.

Interestingly, in _this_ case, I saw the "please upvote" message, said to myself "ok let's go upvote on the comment page I have open", and _still_ forgot to do it because I started reading comments.

This thread reminded me to do it. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _"A young man without power or money is completely free. He has nothing, but he also has everything. He can travel, he can drift. He can make new acquaintances every day, and try to soak up the infinite variety of life. He can seduce and be seduced, start an enterprise and abandon it, join an army or flee a nation, fight to preserve an existing system or plot a revolution. He can reinvent himself daily, according to the discoveries he makes about the world and himself. But if he prospers through the choices he makes, if he acquires a wife, children, wealth, land, and power, his options gradually and inevitably diminish. Responsibility and commitment limit his moves. One might think that the most powerful man has the most choices, but in reality he has the fewest. Too much depends on his every move."_

\--Mark Bowden, from _Tales of the Tyrant_ : [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2002/05/tales- of-t...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2002/05/tales-of-the- tyrant/2480/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Nuts to that, I'll take the million please.

A million bucks, moderately levered and invested in rental property = cash flow for life. You won't live rich, but you'll sure cover your health insurance and some travel budget.

<comment><USER20> That sounds much more reasonable.

I appreciate what the author is saying, but his thesis isn't really well supported:

> Here's the reality: if you're not the type of person who can create freedom > without a million dollars, you probably aren't the kind of person who will > get a million dollars.

... What? I'd be willing to guess that most people with a million dollars (which isn't really all _that_ much money these days) probably have not put money second and freedom first. I know plenty of doctors and lawyers that are worth as much and work very hard. I don't know anyone who travels around free- spiritedly and is amassing large sums of money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Growing up with two parents constantly stressed and fighting about money, having financial security is about the most calming thing I could imagine.

For me, it's less about being able to do extravagant things, and more about never having to worry about it.

Do you need a million dollars to achieve financial security? Perhaps not, but it certainly wouldn't hurt.

<comment><USER22> I have to agree. Knowing that you have enough money to not worry about money would be incredibly liberating, even if I only maintained my current standard of living and changed nothing about what I actually do. Even if I never exercised the options, having that kind of money would give you options you wouldn't have otherwise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well you know what? I'm 27, I have lived in 9 countries for long periods of time (more than 3 months for 2 of them, more than 1 year for the rest), I've traveled around to a few other countries and, well now that I want to settle down I do want a million dollar.

While it's not the only reason why I'm creating my own business, money is a big part of the motivation. Of course I love most of what I do [1], wasting my life doing something that I hate to earn money is also not a smart move. But, yes money is definitely something I want...

For example, I want to be able to have my house, a place of my own that I can modify how I want it, not a place owned by some landlord who places a lot of restrictions on what I can do... I want to be able to go to the expensive 3 stars restaurants, stay at nice 5 stars hotels instead of cheap youth hostels... I want to enjoy luxuries..

[1] Unfortunately growing my business means having employees and delegating some of the fun part along with the boring parts. And managing is not my favorite part of the job.

</comment><comment><USER24> I find it rich (no pun intended) that a bunch of single folk can somehow assume it's easy to live these type of lifestyles if you have a wife and 2 kids.

Sorry, but I'd rather have a million.

<comment><USER25> I would like to have a million. Two, if I could get it... three I wouldn't turn down either.

I have defined two very specific and (not too horribly) lavish goals: have $0.00 month-to-month debt and to own a house with some acreage in the American Rockies.

But, more money can be put to use: collage scholarships, investing, hobbies, putting away for family, charities -

If one is not wedded to the urban jet-set lifestyle, one can really stretch the money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Travelling on a shoe string budget is possible for people on modest incomes but it's not exactly living comfortably is it?

People want a million dollars so they can live a comfortable life rather than trudging through life and then going to the grave.

Yes, you could blow the lot on a car, house, long holiday etc but they're short term gains that won't really change your life that much. After all buying an expensive house will land you with expensive upkeep/running costs.

A sensible person (here in the UK anyway) could pay themselves a healthy wage (£35k p/year tax free) for 20+ years and they can save the rest for retirement.

The downside to this though is, once you've done a trip to Thailand and so on, I think boredom would probably set in so you'd want to spend the time after that doing something meaningful like working for a charity

</comment><comment><USER27> I think Chris Dixon said it best in this tweet: <http://twitter.com/cdixon/status/13437285168>

"People capable of making enough money to never work again are the same people who will never quit working."

</comment><comment><USER28> My biggest problem with most of the "I just need $1m" people I have met is twofold.

One, most of them would have no idea how to use that million in a sustainable way. Take a look at all the lottery winners that end up broke. The article does touch on this ... you don't need a million dollars to do half the things that many people feel they will do when they miraculously land that million.

Secondly, most people are not prepared to put in the kind of work that leads to a million dollar payoff. No, playing the lotto does not count. Getting a big payoff takes hard work, luck, and more hard & smart work.

Far too many people are not prepared to pay the price of success.

</comment><comment><USER29> a million would let me pay off the loan on my business, and remodel to increase lab space, so i could hire more people, and create more jobs.

so yeah, me and all my filthy capitalist buddies will take the million.

</comment><comment><USER30> This discussion reminds me of a quote:

"Young people trade their time and health for money, only to later trade that money for time and health."

</comment><comment><USER31> I think tech people take for granted that other people can be as mobile as us. If you're currently working for minimum wage at a convenience store, you probably have very little in the way of skills or education, and there are so many barriers to just getting out from under your bills. Even traveling very cheap requires some savings, and most people have $0 in savings and many thousands of dollars in debt.

</comment><comment><USER32> You're right, I want about 5m.

Not to retire on, but to remove the need to work to provide a roof and food. So I can risk working on all the things that interest me and them tanking big time.

</comment><comment><USER33> I think that a lot of people are missing the main point of this article. And Ryan could have stated it a little more clearly. Here's my take on it:

Some things cost money, but others don't. Many things that people, including me, want to change about their life require an investment in time, effort and thought. However, the first things that come to mind could be fixed with more money, even if those things are really symptoms of something deeper than _cannot_ be fixed with money. Money problems are easy to think about, so we think about them more and see the solution quickly. Enough of that and we put money as a proxy for all solutions.

If you really take a good look at your life and at your hopes and dreams, many things can be accomplished without that million dollars, and other things...can't. Having made that separation, there are things you can do to improve your life _without_ the million dollars. Fixing some of _those_ things may actually make it possible for you to _make_ that million dollars rather than wasting your life by _wishing_ to win the lottery.

From kenjackson in this discussion: "I want the freedom to work on what I want to work on AND to buy what I want."

Oh? And until that happens? What if you rearrange your life so that you can work on what you want, and then figure out a way to make lots of money from that? Isn't that how it happens in startups?

</comment><comment><USER34> Good article, but I thought that the title / headline was slightly misleading. I think a better wording of it would've been, "You don't really _need_ a million dollars." The impression that I got from it, before reading it, was that it was yet another instance of someone winning a large sum of money through a lottery or other contest, and completely blowing it all away due to lack of proper financial foresight / other bad habits(or even being worse off because of lavish lifestyles; e.g. Lenny Dykstra).

That said, I agree with some parts of the post. If you can make it work, working for yourself in this field will give you the flexibility to live the kind of life you want if you make the proper adjustments. Once you do, seeing the world isn't as expensive as people may believe if you do the right research and strike a few good deals.

It's not for everyone, though. While a couple of my friends, who work in health care(married with kids; one is an RN, the other a radiologist), can certainly try to make lifestyle changes to save more money so that they can travel, I don't know how they would be able to work for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER35> I've just been skimming through all the comments here and I really think that a lot of you are missing the point of this article because you're focussing on that fact that you know just what you would do with $1,000,000 and how much of a positive effect all these things would have on your life.

You're focussing on finding edge cases of people who genuinely need exactly $1,000,000 to pay off a bunch of things that are holding them back that are to the value of $1,000,000 (but even then, there's plenty of places you can abscond to if you want to escape debt - you just may not be welcome to return :)

The essential message in this article is lateral thinking. It's about looking at the mountain in front of you and noticing that there is a way around it instead of having to climb all the way up to the top and go back down the other side.

Of course there are people and situations where this doesn't apply. The title of the article "YOU don't really want a million dollars" naturally invites these comments because he's addressing a large audience of people, many of whom may have legitimate needs for that amount of money.

If it were me writing it I would have maybe phrased it as "Do you really want a million dollars?" and focused on the fact that the question is addressed specifically to the guy at the store who wanted a million to solve "all his problems" in some abstract way.

That million dollars that will solve everything IS lazy thinking. It allows you to say "unless I have that million, I can't possibly solve my problems" without ever giving any real thought, or doing any real research, into whether or not there is an alternative way to solve your problems other than "getting a million dollars" which for most people is an impossibility.

I personally think that the author could have done a better job with this article because although I came to agree with it's premise after reading it twice then reviewing the comments, I was also initially thrown off the scent by listing all of the things I'd do with a million dollars if I had it.

</comment><comment><USER36> I'd have no problem finding productive things to do with a million dollars. I wouldn't sit around wasting away either. If a million dollars fell into my lap, my biggest problem would be maintaining a straight face when everyone rushes to me with a sad story... Don't get me wrong, I'd definitely be charitable, but the hardest part in hanging on to money is preventing yourself from giving most of it away after that point.

That being said, I don't believe in any sense of lottery providing opportunities for winning money. I don't trust the lottery system in any shape or form. And wishes of winning large sums of money only serves to set your ambition back in life, so I generally avoid it, unless powerball/megamils is above 200m, that is a thing worth gambling on.

<comment><AUTHOR> _And wishes of winning large sums of money only serves to set your ambition back in life, so I generally avoid it, unless powerball/megamils is above 200m, that is a thing worth gambling on._

The first part of this sentence is so true, and the second part so false...

<comment><USER36> Of course, its added for comedic irony.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is more or less a question of lifestyle or philosophy and not a question about whether you need a million or not.

I know i don't _need_ a million bucks, but I'd sure like more than that.

A friend of mine never cared about his money and is as happy as he can be. Right now he's travelling across the states with next to nothing. I envy the people who can enjoy what's truly necessary in our lives, but saying outright that those people who live this still have this ingenuity, discipline and proactivity to be successful is wrong.

Forcing yourself to live a minimal lifestyle is different _actually_ living it.

</comment><comment><USER38> Not to nitpick, but not everybody wants "a million dollars" to leave everything behind and travel. There's a lot of things one can do with "a million dollars"; and yeah, I want some of that too.

</comment><comment><USER39> This is the whitest thing I've ever read.

</comment><comment><USER40> I don't. A million dollars isn't cool. You know what's cool? A billion dollars.

</comment><comment><USER41> Since scaling my life back and tackling startup debt I've really managed to scale down my outgoings. Furthermore I've simultaneously lost my lust for new tech _and_ become the worst guy I know to buy presents for.

I don't really need a million dollars, but if I had it I'm fairly certain I'd get quite far with it.

</comment><comment><USER42> I kind of look at it differently. I don't feel the need to own a ton of stuff(even though myself and my fiance recently bought a small home) my main monetary goal is to eventually have enough money so that I never have to worry about having money :)

Sounds kind of weird, but I don't spend my money on much stuff, but I like to travel once or twice a year and eat out with my fiance a couple of times a month. However much money it is that I can pay for my current place to live and do those things and never have to worry about it, then thats the right amount of money.

</comment><comment><USER43> When I make a list of the things I'd like to do, but aren't, money is never the main barrier. It's things like... well... courage, faith, trust.

I've actually had enough money at one point to retire (living on passive income), and it didn't make me happy at all. In fact, I stepped back from life a little, and it made me _less_ happy. For me, in my present level of "spiritual wisdom" (for want of a better term), needing money seems to be a helpful motivation.

I also observe what so many people do who make a lot of money do: keep on doing whatever it was they were doing.

</comment><comment><USER44> You're right, I want a hundred of them ;)

<comment><USER45> What's that line from the movie DISCLOSURE? "Give a man a hundred million dollars and you make a frustrated billionaire. "

Seriously, though...so what if having money doesn't satisfy you and leaves you wanting more? Why is it taken as a given that being satisfied is a good thing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I agree with the general point but.. I actually do want a million dollars for something specific ;-)

My family wants to move to the US (from the UK) and I want to continue working solely for myself. I could come up with a clever investment using the E-2 visa but that'd realistically take a cpl hundred thousand and then involve renewing/funding a business/etc. Or I could spend $500k-$1m on an EB-5 depending on locality. Beyond that, we'd need extra money to cover how expensive the US is. So, yeah, we could do with a million <g>

</comment><comment><USER47> Very few people want, need, or are even wishing for exactly one million dollars, and zero cents. '1 million dollars' is just a placeholder for 'enough money' that originated in a time long past.

It's a bias that's not hard to detect. If I examine my own thoughts, I find that 'millionaire' is almost synonymous with 'arbitrarily wealthy' while 'billionaire' and 'trillionaire' don't really hold meaning beyond the literal definition.

</comment><comment><USER48> yes, yes I do. the average moron might not have any use for money (observe lottery winner's behavior) but any reasonably educated person should.

</comment><comment><USER49> tl;dr - I agree with the article. Get shit done to make yourself happy.

When reading a few responses here, I'm taken back with the comment "It's easy for you to preach, you don't have kids". In real life, I heard similar sentiments.

I'm having a hard time trying to understand the feeling when people said such things. Having kids is a choice, no? The same thing with living über- minimalistic life. People who don't have kids may have serious problems too.

Me and my wife, we don't have kids. But what we do have in terms of problems:

1\. Selfish, arrogant, and wasteful parents. We helped them a lot and never received a single thanks. They love to have elaborate parties even though they are broke.

2\. A 14 years old sister. Amazingly selfish little brat, complete disconnect between what she wants and what our parents could provide. Fucking android for 14 years old, what for? I cannot imagine her coding up some android app.

I don't have a million dollar and far from it. When I was 26, I swallowed the "American Dream" Kool-aid bottoms up and really needed that 1 million dollar:

We bought a big house, with .25 acre land. We owned 3 cars. I did all the stupid things that can only happen if you own a house: upgrading HVAC, kitchen, etc. etc.

Only 1 thing I did that wasn't stupid: paying for wife's school.

Now, we don't own TV, 1 car, 1 couch, < 700 sqft apartment, 2 cats, and 0-10 minutes commute.

When we went through the transformation, crazy things happen. My sisters respect me a lot more. When they want superfluous things and I said no, they listen far more than they ever did. Crazy things happen with the parents too. They listened, twice, when I told them about the elaborate parties.

Not needing money empowered me far more than money ever did. And I'm quite sure that I'm not unique in that regard. My future kids won't have lawn to run around or the latest apple gadgets to pimp around. Their life won't be govern by money. This plan may or may not work, my real life friends would be the judge of that.

To drive my points further, unrelated to my life story, several tech co- founders have told me directly. "The best time to raise money, is when you don't need money".

Extra brownie point: To buy freedom into United States (the easy way), you really need a million dollar. <http://bit.ly/9RItQM>

</comment><comment><USER50> All the people I know who travel the most and I feel have the most exciting and interesting lives make less than $60k a year.

Wealth is relative.

</comment><comment><USER51> "You don't want a million dollars, you just want to be happy and if you're resourceful you can do that without it. Unless you do want a million dollars in which case you're too stupid to get it or to rearrange your life to be happy without it. Sucks to be you I guess. Did I tell you about all that time I spent freelance travelling yet?"

</comment><comment><USER52> Of course you want a million dollars.

You just don't want the burden/responsibility that comes with it.

</comment><comment><USER53> But is it financially a good idea? Is it safe? What if you want to have a family?

</comment><comment><USER11> But of course you need affiliate links. Kind of undermines the message.

</comment><comment><USER54> I'm going to do some travelling this year. I started remote freelancing recently, so this is pretty much perfect to combine with some travelling.

</comment><comment><USER55> Nah, you don't want a million dollars. Some people do: <http://maxkle.in/do- you-really-want-to-be-rich/></comment>


The Revelations of a Nazi Art Catalogue - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/the-revelations-of-a-nazi-art-catalogue <comment><USER2> Not directly related, but a fun anecdote.

During an art history course, the prof when at great length explaining how high art was unsuccessful, and true artists cursed to be starving, because the general public could not fathom, yet even remotely know, what is true art. Half an hour later, she went to speak of the stupidity of (right-wing) politicians regarding art. "So the nazis divided art into true art and degenerate art. They did two exhibitions to showcase each, but they were well embarrassed that the 'degenerate' one was way more successful! Ha!".</comment>


Congress Has a Chance to Finally End the NSA's Mass Telephone Records Program - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/03/congress-has-chance-finally-end-nsas-mass-telephone-records-program <comment><USER2> No doubt their piggyback slurps at major exchanges have access to the pen trace, billing and geoposition streams of the telcos now. If encrypted, it's nudge nudge wink wink here's the key. No need to have the telcos 'transmit' the information anymore.

Tier 1 exchanges -> slurp/selective forward -> 'dark fiber' -> Utah

[https://www.scribd.com/document/370336388/Geographies-of- Int...](https://www.scribd.com/document/370336388/Geographies-of-Internet- Interception-Andrew-Clement)

Skip over the straw man program 'Bulk Metadata Collection' and look for 'NSA splitters'</comment>


Couch Theory - <AUTHOR> I have been trying to man my way through getting a couch through a doorway, I exhausted all mental capabilities of visually the different ways in which I could perceive it could fit due to moving several pieces of furniture in my life, I am now stumped, stumbled apon this sit and feel I may be able to be helped here. I have a couch that is width = 205cm height = 77cm depth = 105cm and I am trying to fit it through a door way that is width = 81cm height = 207cm, and am trying to figure out if its possible. More details, there is a front door at the end of a hallway, coming through the front door 28cm in perpendicular is the doorway in question then another wall of 82cm and then another doorway and then again more hallway. Parallel to this wall is another wall going for 118cm then a 120cm archway then more wall, through the archway is a large loungeroom where the couch in question currently sits in limbo in the middle, question here is if it is actually physically possible to perform this task with out dsimantling the couch (not possible). I know there is a mathematical way of solving this, it may be quite simple Im not sure, I just dont see it, if I could get some help on this that would be so so greatly appreciated, explanation too if possible :) <comment><USER2> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_sofa_problem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_sofa_problem)</comment>


Ask HN: Drupal or Wordpress for a mostly brochure site? (Details inside) - <AUTHOR>

Gearing up to build an e-commerce site with some lite social networking functions integrated. All purchasing will take place off-site (think PayPal buttons or free trial download links with actual purchasing done in-app or with vendors, in other words, there will be no cart on the site).<p>I use Wordpress a lot and have built all manner of sites using it, so I'm recommending that to the client. The client's friend (who will not be maintaining or building the site, natch) says it's junk and to go with Drupal. So now I have to have a debate. Not just looking for support; if I really should go with Drupal, I'm open to that, but this guy is not convincing me. What do you guys think? <comment><USER2> If I were to build a simple brochure site for someone I would try as much as possible to get away with just building a static site, especially if the client isn't willing to pay for someone to upgrade the site regularly and won't need to update content much. Lack of maintenance will eventually lead to the site being exploited and the host shutting the account down.

Alternatives might be a hosted CMS service such as wordpress .com or using some sort of desktop management system for updates of the static site.

I have also recently built a simple site using the Scanty blogging software (running on Sinatra) and hosted it on Heroku's free plan. Scanty is super slim on code and doesn't get targeted like Wordpress and Drupal, but you still have to keep an eye out for security updates.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want to turn it into an app, ever, go with drupal. You're more familiar with WP, so use that as the default unless the "friend" can give you a list of concrete reasons to go with drupal.

When it all comes down to brass tacks, use what you know (especially since getting it rapidly deployed is probably more important than making sure it has a billion eCommerce modules and hooks).</comment>


Vampire: The Masquerade Bloodlines 2 Delayed Until 2021 - <AUTHOR> https://www.staticcatgames.com/2020/08/vampire-masquerade-bloodlines-2-delayed.html <comment> blaser-waffle Didn't know there was one in the works. First one was pretty good, one of the better "role playing games" in literal "get-into-the-role" sense.

Breath held.</comment>


Simple trick to double deep learning speed and CNN and GPU Benchmarks - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/cgnorthcutt/cnn-gpu-benchmarks <comment><AUTHOR> Hi, friends. With NeurIPS behind us and ICML ahead, maybe you want to do some deep learning. Inspired by Justin Johnson's original work benchmarking the older GTX GPUs, I extended this work to the new RTX GPUs with benchmarks for most ResNet architectures on ImageNet and CIFAR. Along the way, I discovered a dramatic difference in performance based on how you position your GPUs. Enjoy :)

Benchmarking post: [https://l7.curtisnorthcutt.com/benchmarking-gpus-for-deep- le...](https://l7.curtisnorthcutt.com/benchmarking-gpus-for-deep-learning)

Positioning (speed-up) post: [https://l7.curtisnorthcutt.com/gpu- positioning](https://l7.curtisnorthcutt.com/gpu-positioning)

GitHub with Benchmarks: [https://github.com/cgnorthcutt/cnn-gpu- benchmarks](https://github.com/cgnorthcutt/cnn-gpu-benchmarks)</comment>


Anthony Burgess's boundless curiosity - <AUTHOR> https://www.newstatesman.com/The-Ink-Trade-Selected-Journalism-1961-1993-Anthony-Burgess-review <comment><USER2> My enduring memory of Burgess was on a highbrow literary quiz show where he failed to identify a passage from Proust. Chagrined and with as straight a face as he could muster he explained that he had only ever read Proust in French.</comment>


Join our social network - <AUTHOR> http://yoinme.com/referral-code/b29373d31b#.T-YW8j8satx.hackernews <comment><USER2> For heaven's sake, atleast put an intro to your site in your homepage.

There are zillions of social networking sites on the net. Last thing a person would want to do is, join another social networking site.

Yes, you might have put in some amount of work in this. But that is not enough reason for me to trust my data with you. You are asking too much info without giving me anything special in return. My personal details are precious to me. I am not here to give them to you for free so you can monetise it using ads. What do you offer in return?

Think!!!</comment>