Mozilla is deeply concerned about Microsoft killing EdgeHTML - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/tech/2018/12/07/mozilla-is-deeply-concerned-about-microsoft-killing-edgehtml/ <comment><USER3> I really hope Firefox takes a bigger share of the market now that google has its reputation dinged a bit. The internet needs it and the world deserves a browser that can be configured to honor user privacy. Google got the market share purely based on its good reputation and sure also with a good product but mainly because of its reputation it was given a chance. Now it's time for that share to go down.

<comment><USER4> > Google got the market share purely based on its good reputation and sure > also with a good product but mainly because of its reputation it was given a > chance.

The exact opposite is true.

Google's market share came, first and foremost, from having the best product in each space it dominates: search, browser, email.

The people primarily concerned about "reputation" are a vocal minority. That doesn't mean they're wrong -- but when we're talking about the browser choice of millions of people it's definitely wrong to suppose that reputation is the key factor.

<comment><USER5> I use Firefox as my primary browser. I've tried to get my wife and children to use it, but they always default to using Chrome. Why? Because it is Google's browser and they use Google for so many other things. They can't see anything that Firefox does better than Chrome, so why should they use it?

<comment><USER6> One can use Google products on Firefox without any issue afaik, so I'm a bit surprised that someone would switch back to Chrome for this.

<comment><USER5> Oh, I know. Firefox is about all I use. But they didn't switch back to Chrome, they just were never really willing to try Firefox.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If Microsoft can get people to stop downloading Chrome on Windows then the new Edge may soon have higher market share than Chrome. At that point Microsoft can wrest control of Chromium from Google just like Google wrested control of Webkit from Apple, by forking it.

<comment><USER8> How do you even do that without getting sued?

<comment><USER6> Make Edge good enough so that people don't bother downloading Chrome/Firefox

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> this article reports that Mozilla published a blog post. Please submit the blog post instead in such cases. Also, that blog post already has a 1000+ point, 600+ comments discussion on HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18622516](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18622516)

<comment><USER10> And has been flagged off the front page, rendering it effectively invisible.

<comment><USER9> That an article from yesterday is on page two isn't exactly surprising, and far from "effectively invisible".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Edge was doomed from the start because it didn't do enough to distinguish itself from the much maligned IE. Microsoft should have at least changed the logo.

As for the future, Firefox is at a huge disadvantage here. Performance... reputation... stability... those are important metrics, but Google has a big advantage when it comes to mindshare.

When people buy an Android phone, it ships with Chrome. When people go to google.com, they are prompted to install Chrome. When people go to work, their IT department often supports Chrome as the primary browser - especially if their company uses the Google suite.

When the average person thinks of a browser, they think of Chrome.

For better or worse, I think Microsoft is the only organization who can reasonably compete with Google on that playing field.

<comment><USER12> Apple!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Side note: it strikes me just how different these organizations are at communications.

There was a rumor about Edge, and a couple days later Microsoft posted a statement saying what they were doing, and why. Mozilla posted a statement saying why they were concerned about this. You may not like or agree with them, but it's not hard to see where they stand.

There were rumors about Google's chat systems, and a few days later they posted a 600-word statement addressing it, and still nobody seems to have a clear idea what the heck is going on there.

</comment><comment><USER14> > If it becomes less attractive for web developers to write code that works > across browsers, consumers could ultimately be persuaded to leave Firefox.

Developers already hate supporting multiple browsers. I can understand adopting new ECMAScript and CSS features at different paces, but having fundamentally different default DOM styling is just annoying. CSS rules interacting different between browsers is maddening. I would be perfectly fine with an open source core that all browsers used. Python provides a reference implementation for its spec, and still has a healthy (I think) ecosystem of alternate implementations.

</comment><comment><USER15> Literally the only two reasons I don't use Firefox on mobile is the lack of home button and no pull down to refresh.

It's not that Firefox is wrong to not include these UI features, it's that I've spent years and years browsing a certain way and now it feels _really_ weird to suddenly have to do it differently.

Maybe Firefox needs to shamelessly clone Chrome's UI. Maybe when launching for the first time it asks if you want to default to Chrome Style or Firefox Style.

What I think Mozilla cannot do is hope people kind of just tolerate how weird it feels for a few weeks.

<comment><USER16> I use Firefox but agree with you there are some features it really bothers me that it doesn't have. For example, Chrome is actually easier to develop with because you can Shift+Right-click the refresh button to bring up a context menu for "Clear Cache + Hard Reload." In Firefox if you want to clear the cache to a certain page, you have to navigate through several windows and make like 10+ clicks. It's little things like this that put me off of Firefox, but times like that I just grit my teeth and still use it anyway just because at least I'm not selling my web browsing to a big business.

<comment><USER9> Huh? You press Ctrl-Shift-E to open the dev tools to network monitor, if you don't already have it set click the checkbox for "Disable cache" (maybe there's a shortcut for that too) and press F5 to reload the page.

<comment><USER15> So the deal is that you're not wrong. It's only sliiightly less convenient. But I think there's real, meaningful cost in things just being different. Shamelessly clone everything about the chrome UI and I'd gladly switch.

I should still try to switch again... But why does it have to be so uncomfortable? Every modern car has all the same controls in the same places. Why not browsers?

<comment><USER9> And I always find Chrome dev tools annoying because they don't have that easy- to-reach cache checkbox... It's difficult if there's no clear "right answer".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, if Google does "evil" and tries to dry up Mozilla by cutting the funding, that just pretty much means Chrome all over and the rest Safari?

</comment><comment><USER17> I agree with the general concern that lack of competition could hurt innovation in this space. But I think we should all pause to soak in the irony here. Anybody with memory of the Great Browser Wars between FF and IE has to be wondering what timeline we're in where FireFox is _opposed_ to Microsoft shutting down IE...

</comment><comment><USER18> I may have missed the boat here but is there any word on the possibility of Microsoft open-sourcing EdgeHTML?

<comment><USER8> Why do you want that? What would MS get other than small amount of people feeling better just because?

<comment><USER18> I would class a number of Microsoft's releases of source under that category.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Sometimes I wish there were only one browser. At lease we don't have to write as much CSS and code to support different rendering mechanisms.

Whenever someone complains about having to support different browsers, or a page says "this feature is best viewed / only available in browser X", I don't blame them! Would it be really bad if all browsers adopted the same engine and built their features on top of it? I also believe collectively we can make that engine even better.

(off topic) This made me think of logs.. there are so many different standards/formats out there, making log collection and parsing a nightmare. I think logging is something that's truly been cursed by its diversity, and something, if we worked together to standardize, would make this world a better place.

I think we could all benefit from more things being standardized, such as a social network protocol, a standard for self-driving cars so they are able to communicate and coordinate among each other, a browser engine like Chromium etc. Wishful thinking?

</comment><comment><USER20> Microsoft should make Firefox the default browser and open source Edge - <USER2> would be awesome.

</comment><comment><USER21> What if the narrative behind Microsoft's decision is not to build a better browser but to hurt Google from a regulatory view? I mean they maneuvered Google into an obvious and significant monopoly position, similar to the one Microsoft found itself before the uprise of Google.

<comment><USER22> Chrome was already in this position; an extra 4% market share (or whatever Edge was at, it doesn't really matter) is negligible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Mozilla's Firefox should Integrate the Basic Attention Token (BAT) and/or even Ripple's Coil for user incentive and compete directly with the Brave browser.

They also should ditch Google on everything (which is not the case right now).

Firefox relies on Google (and others), that's bad on its own.

They should:

\- Disable google safebrowsing

Google safebrowsing can detect pishing and malware but it also sends informations to google together with an unique id called wrkey.

\- Disable malware scan

The malware scan sends an unique identifier for each downloaded file to Google.

\- Disable DNS over HTTPS

DNS over HTTP (DoH), aka. Trusted Recursive Resolver (TRR), uses a server run by Cloudfare to resolve hostnames, even when the system uses another (normal) DNS server.

\- Disable about:addons' Get Add-ons panel

The start page with recommended addons uses google analytics.

\- Disable check for captive portal.

By default, Firefox checks for the presence of a captive portal on every startup. This involves traffic to Akamai.

\- Disable Block Referer Always

Send referer only on the same domain Spoof referer (send the same url) Trim referer to the domain name Allow real referer when clicking a link Always allow real referer Firefox tells a website, from which site you're coming (the so called referer). You can find more detailed settings in this ghacks article or install the RefControl extension for per domain settings.

\- Disable WebGL

Disable the WebGL function, to prevent fingerprinting with WebGL. Another issue is, that websites can (ab)use the full power of the graphics card. WebGL is part of some fingerprinting scripts used in the wild. Some interactive websites will not work, which are mostly games.

\- Disable WebRTC

Disable the WebRTC function, which gives away your local ips. Some addons like uBlock origin provide settings to prevent WebRTC from exposing local ips without disabling WebRTC.

\- Disable the clipboardevents.

Disable that websites can get notifications if you copy, paste, or cut something from a web page, and it lets them know which part of the page had been selected.

\- Disable Search Suggestions

Firefox suggests search terms in the search field. This will send everything typed or pasted in the search field to the chosen search engine, even when you did not press enter.

\- Disable Search Keyword

When you mistype some url, Firefox starts a search even from urlbar. This feature is useful for quick searching, but may harm your privacy, when it's unintended.

\- Explicitly disable Greasemonkey user tracking

Greasemonkey has a (currently opt-in) function to submit user stats. This explicitely disables it, in case that it will get opt-out in the future.

\- Enable Do-not-Track

With the do not track feature, you tell websites, that you do not want to be tracked. Most websites ignore this, so you need other privacy options as well.

\- Enable Mozilla Trackingprotection

Firefox has a builtin tracking protection, which blocks a list of known tracking sites.

\- Disable Browser Pings

Firefox sends "ping" requests, when a website requests to be informed when a user clicks on a link.

\- Disable Beacons

The Beacon feature allows websites to send tracking data after you left the website.

\- Disable the Battery API

Firefox allows websites to read the charge level of the battery. This may be used for fingerprinting.

\- Disable media device queries

Prevent websites from accessing information about webcam and microphone (possible fingerprinting).

\- Disable form autofill

Automatically filled form fields are used for fingerprinting. This setting disables automatic form filling until you click on the field.

\- Disable webaudio API

Disable webaudio API to prevent browser fingerprinting. See Mozilla Bug #1288359

\- Disable video statistics

Prevent websites from measuring video performance (possible fingerprinting). See Mozilla Bug 654550.

\- Show Punycode.

This helps to protect against possible character spoofing.

\- Install CanvasBlocker extension.

Blocks the JS-API for the <canvas> element to prevent Canvas-Fingerprinting.

\- Install Google Redirects Fixer & Tracking Remover extension.

Rewrites URLs from the google result pages to from redirect urls with tracking to direct links.

\- Install the HTTPS Everywhere extension.

HTTPS Everywhere is a Firefox extension that enables HTTPS encryption automatically on sites that support it.

\- Install the Privacy Badger extension.

The Privacy Badger addon automatically detects trackers and blocks them. You can manually block and unblock urls as well.

\- Install the Cookie Autodelete extension.

The extension allows you to automatically delete the cookies of a site when you close the tab.

\- Install uMatrix extension.

A content blocker for advanced users, which blocks requests to thirdparty domains. Big privacy gain, but you will need to configure exception rules for many sites.

Source: [https://ffprofile.com/#](https://ffprofile.com/#)

</comment><comment><USER24> I just looked at the Mozilla "About" page and noticed they have a huge executive team will little to no programming experience, and instead seemed to be more suited for HR roles. Why?

Is Firefox a significantly more complex project than the Linux kernel that this sort of overhead is necessary?

<comment><USER25> Where can Firefox generate money to fund it's development?

That's a big question for Mozilla. Because they rely on click revenue for having Google as a default search engine

Enterprises put millions of dollars into Linux because it has utility for them.

Almost nobody is doing the same for Mozilla.

Also just because someone isn't a programmer doesn't mean they are useless.</comment></comment>


Epic Games acquires Cloudgine - <AUTHOR> https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/blog/epic-games-welcomes-cloudgine <comment><USER2> Sounds like it's being used in Crackdown 3 to run multiplayer destruction physics. I suppose that makes sense. Run the simulation once on a beefy machine and send the results out. Of course it's one more thing that stops working when they shut down the servers in 5 years.

<comment><USER3> What do you mean? Cloudgine is the company making Crackdown 3.

<comment><USER4> Cloudgine is responsible for the core engine tech (based on UE4). The actual game content is Reagent Games and Sumo Digital.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> shaded-enmity Assuming they integrate the technology tightly enough into the core of the engine could this potentially serve as a sort of "DRM" where you can, by setting a single flag in the UE4 editor, make the given entity or subsystem remote, and thus never exposing the actual guts of the system to the users? If so, I guess that this might enable a new way of integrating proprietary middlewares which are otherwise very hard to get your hands onto.

I think that if their technology also allows for dynamic scaling based on current/projected demand this could potentially save a lot of money since, at least from my limited experience of running various game servers for ~thousands of people, 70% of the time the demand is between 10-20% of the peak demand.

</comment><comment><USER5> 19 or so employees? Is this an acqu-hire? My concern is that the market for middleware tools like this is really small and not really enough to support 19 employees.

I worry that this makes it more expensive to run cloud servers if each cloud server needs to run the simulation for the users involved. Now instead of some simple message passing and synchronization, it needs to run CPU intensive physical simulations.

I am not completely convinced that this is to integrate this into UE4 but rather to give this team an out and add employee headcount to fast growing Epic Games.

<comment><USER6> That's generally been the case anyways, otherwise you open yourself up cheating since a local host can/will manipulate state.

You can do some checksumming but largely state moves too quickly to make it more a deterrent than a full solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> How big are these studios? With only 19 people, I'm guessing this was 'just' a few million dollar deal, does that sound about right?</comment>


Did Facebook copy IMDB for their redesign? - <AUTHOR> http://brandonk.com/?p=248

<comment><USER2> So, putting a row of pictures makes it a "copy"? That's a bit of a stretch.

<comment><AUTHOR> They moved all your personal info under the name display, the row of pictures is exactly the same as imdb in; placement, spacing and size. It visually looks the same and it was a fairly large departure from the previous design. Something served as the template.</comment></comment>


The Silicon Valley avant-garde have turned to LSD to increase their productivity - <AUTHOR> https://www.1843magazine.com/features/turn-on-tune-in-drop-by-the-office <comment><USER2> > Every three days Nathan (not his real name), a 27-year-old venture > capitalist in San Francisco, ingests 15 micrograms of lysergic acid > diethylamide (commonly known as LSD or acid).

> Nathan first started microdosing in 2014, when he was working for a startup > in Silicon Valley. He would cut up a tab of LSD into small slices and place > one of these on his tongue each time he dropped.

How does he know?

How does he know it's actually LSD, or only LSD?

How does he know how much is in a tab?

How does he know whether it's evenly distributed across the tab, and that one microdose is actually _15_ micrograms _of_ LSD?

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been giving some serious thought about what future work might look like w.r.t drugs. The narrative seems to be that people in creative professions like artists, singers etc as well as people in high stress circumstances like traders need to indulge in hard drugs to keep doing valuable work. I wonder if these drugs are required by these professions, or if its just placebos to fool their brains into being creative. Whatever the real reason might be, if taking drugs becomes normal...

<comment><USER4> For those industries you mentioned, I don't think drugs are used orimarily for their creative effects as much as for stress relief and coping.

<comment><USER5> I think a certain percentage of the population does drugs and that's just how it is. It doesn't matter if your a lawyer a welder or unemployed, people like drugs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> this is an issue ive seen raised a lot lately and something a mycologist friend of mine has been championing for years, being a curious cat i decided to experiment with it and while it offers some benefits id personally argue that its not as effective as the likes of modafinil or ADHD medication such as amphetamines or methylphenidate.

it also comes with the extra added issue that its very easy to accidentally end up having taken too much, unless you happen to be a very well equipped chemist then youre probably not the one measuring your doses not to mention the potential variability of effects between different synths of the chemical

during my experiment i think one tab must have been slightly higher dosed than the others resulting in a small "i need to get the hell out of here now!" moment in the supermarket, not enough that anyone would have noticed and it was gone pretty quickly but it highlighted the potential shortcomings of a chemical thats so potent and can much more significantly alter your perception than straight stimulants can.

</comment><comment><USER7> There have been several previous articles about micro-dosing in the Bay Area. One woman was using LSD microdosing instead of traditional anti-anxiety drugs. A fifth to a tenth of a dose seems to have an extremely mild calming effect. There have also been studies of using psychedelic drugs to treat PTSD. More research is probably a great idea. I wonder if there's some way to make it legal to study so the science can provide reliable data.

</comment><comment><USER8> Given the long history of news organizations making this sort of thing up, although usually about teenagers, I'd give this a pretty low odds of being a real trend. Particularly given the handful of personal accounts, and no attempt at looking for real world data like emergency room visits.

My personal observation from living here, is that the drug/alcohol use is pretty typical, outside of burning man, except for some people suffering from Overwatch addiction.

<comment><USER9> Hrm, it's been around in tech for a few years. There's a Cisco Fellow (ie, well decorated internal employee) who wrote a good chunk of IOS that openly uses LSD for programming, and everyone up the to the CEO knows this.</comment></comment>


If C++ Objects Are Unrelated, Are They Equal? - <AUTHOR> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/if-c-objects-are-unrelated-are-they-equa/240146950

<comment><USER2> A nifty way to implement a lexicographic ordering in C++11:

        struct Thing { int a, b; };

        bool compare(const Thing& t1, const Thing& t2)
        {
            return std::tie(t1.a, t1.b) < std::tie(t2.a, t2.b);
        }

Basically, this creates two tuples-of-references to the Thing members and compares the tuples lexicographically. Modern compilers optimize out all the tuple stuff and emit code basically indistinguishable from a hand-written variant like the following:

        bool compare(const Thing& t1, const Thing& t2)
        {
            return t1.a < t2.a || (t1.a == t2.a && t1.b < t2.b);
        }

<comment><USER3> That's really nice. I haven't written C++ for a while, and certainly not since std:tie<> became widely available. But I'll keep this in mind if I have to go down that road again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > One of these sets has only a single element, namely 0. The others have two > elements each:

Except for the other one-element set, containing INT_MIN.</comment>


Locals reportedly frustrated with Alphabet's Waymo self-driving cars - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/08/28/locals-reportedly-frustrated-with-alphabets-waymo-self-driving-cars.html <comment><USER3> My son is 16 and just got his driver's permit. We live in Mountain View, and so driving with Waymo vehicles is basically part of life here - I pass by at least 2 or 3 on a daily basis. They also cruise by the front of my house quite often, as I assume it's on some sort of route.

Trying to teach your kid how to drive, while behind an autonomous vehicle is a _great_ way to see how erratic and unpredictable they really are. They don't act like humans at all. As an experienced driver, I just sort of adjusted as if Waymo vehicles were bad drivers. But to a novice driver trying to keep a safe distance, predict what it's going to do next, and adjust accordingly - it's a challenge.

What's worse is that they almost always drive too slow (read: the speed limit), which creates chaos as impatient drivers (read: everyone else) tries to maneuver around the vehicles. Imagine you're just learning how to drive, a vehicle in front of you is driving at an abnormal pace, slowing for stoplights way before necessary, wandering around the lane (especially before turning), and doing other odd things. Meanwhile, all the other drivers around you are passing quickly, cutting that vehicle off, and generally acting like morons.

The worst situation is being at a 4-way stop with Waymo vehicles. I taught my son that it's pretty normal to make brief eye contact with other drivers - <USER2> at least turn his head to face the driver that he thinks should be the next to go - which helps ensure that there aren't any weird stop/start problems. Guess what you can't do to an autonomous vehicle? No driver means that there's no real way to gauge what they're going to do. (The person behind the "wheel" usually has a blank yet terrified expression of, 'please don't kill me', rather than any real information.)

So, yeah, Waymo vehicles are weird. It's the future, though, so my son is learning how to deal with these cars the way I learned how to deal with icy roads growing up in New Hampshire. I don't really appreciate being a living beta-tester though... Happily, Waymo's record is much better than Tesla's and Uber's as they haven't killed anyone yet. Yet.

<comment><USER4> Is this a satire? You're teaching your son to drive but you think driving the speed limit, slowing for stop lights and signalling according to the DMV Handbook is 'erratic'?

The real problem is teaching people to be reckless and impatient drivers.

<comment><USER3> Wow, your reading comprehension skills need serious work.

First, Waymo cars have trouble making turns. They also wander between lanes. This is well documented by the article you obviously didn't read.

In my comment, I was complaining about _other_ reckless and impatient drivers overreacting to Waymo cars and how that causes dangerous traffic that my kid has to navigate through. I've personally witnessed Waymo cars causing stackups behind them, and near miss accidents as drivers try to get by.

You've apparently never taught anyone how to drive. Staying with the flow of traffic (within reason, Mr. Pedantic) is the safest way to stay out of an accident.</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: "Why Using Jsdoced JavaScript?" – Test Your JavaScript with Jsdoc - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NMTU_Yvh4s

<comment><USER2> What is the performance overhead?

<comment><AUTHOR> it depends on your usage. but yeah it may be significative.

On the other hand, this is only during testing. So your user experience wont be affected.</comment></comment>


What kind of deal can be done between a start-up and a PR firm? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><AUTHOR> So we had a few marketing ideas for our start-up which I sent to one of my PR contacts who had given a speech at our uni ad club.

He replied stating he and his firm loved what we were doing and offered some valuable insights. Additionally, he said he'd be interested in working with us to execute our planned campaign and in general get more attention for us.

From the contents of his reply, if things work out we can get them to do PR for us for equity in our start-up...which opens a Pandora's Box of questions such as how much equity, how exactly the terms would be worded etc.

Would love to hear from folks who've been involved in similar kind of deals in past. We're scheduled for a call later today.

I am specifically looking for the smaller non-obvious details I should keep in mind as I discuss things with my PR contact later today.

<comment><USER3> _'... if things work out we can get them to do PR for us for equity in our start-up ...'_

can you tell me exactly how a pr firm is able to help you?

hint: the internet is your pr engine.

Concentrate on your product, release the product, get some audience and work from there. Read here [0] & listen here [1] to understand why. Build something big, then work out the money part. Maybe the question you should ask yourself realistically do these 'PR' guys make your product big? Do they know your audience? Can they improve your product, can they code?

If the product is any good, spreading the word is the easy part. Just start writing, blogging and passing around the url.

 _'... a Pandora's Box of questions such as how much equity, how exactly the terms would be worded etc ...'_

The biggest hurdle is you may sell yourself way short. Sounds like your being sweet-talked into something that requires you to deliver the goods, "they" do something with minimal risk. I'd be sceptical of offers that don't contribute to the bottom line of your startup.

Reference [0] pg, 'The Hardest Lessons for Startups to Learn'

<http://www.paulgraham.com/investors.html>

[1] pg, 'YCombinator talk, The Hardest Lessons for Startups to Learn, mp3 25Mb'

<http://wiki.ycombinator.com/presentations/apr06/Paul_Graham.mp3>

<comment><AUTHOR> My fault, I should have provided more info about my start-up:

1\. we already launched our site mid-Jan

2\. we are getting good traffic and natural growth

3\. we want to accelerate the speed of growth

We're close to launching a major release following which I would consider the core of our site done.

Back to PR - this is about a very specific(and fun) marketing idea we are planning.The ONLY goal of it is to get our name out and new user sign-ups - <USER2> anything money might be a side product. Also, this is a pretty reputable(albeit small) PR firm with clients including Google and BestBuy.

<comment><USER3> _'... We're close to launching a major release ...'_

Are you listening to your own customers and gradually improving the site? So you want to increase the numbers of users? Ok. I'm cautious here because if this is really just an investment play, it is in their interest because they think they might miss out.

 _'... this is about a very specific(and fun) marketing idea we are planning. The ONLY goal of it is to get our name out and new user sign-ups ...'_

What is plan b, c? What is the budget? and what are the objectives? Do you have a target of sign-ups? (these are questions to ask yourself)? I've seen these kinds of deals before (in my case ~ branding for customers but not equity ... Large banking corporate branding exercise on a e-commerce to increase users via rewards points). Done to increase the visibility of a site with questionable results. You have got to ask yourself ...

 _"Is this a HIGH VALUE TRANSACTION?"_ [0] Do you waste your time with these guys? Is it a distraction? Or could you really do something off your own bat?

_'... this is a pretty reputable(albeit small) PR firm with clients including ...'_

So this is an angel investor or equity investor? Is this deal a sweetener for a VC intro? Are you still looking for other investors? Don't stop looking because it may prevent you getting a better deal. Don't get too excited as any deals made can play out over time.

Sorry to be cynical. Set some realistic goals, add a dollar value. If it makes sense, play hard ball. These guys will, especially if they sniff a bit of _desperation_. Are you short of cash or ideas?

PS: Care to add the url? maybe an announcement here will give you the acceleration you require.

Reference

[0] Joshua Schacter, 'YC 2006APR06, MP3 28Mb'

<http://wiki.ycombinator.com/presentations/apr06/Joshua_Schacter.mp3>

<comment><AUTHOR> My site is iJigg.com

<comment><USER3> New music distribution, so you need to get above the noise? Now I understand.

Give them a look, but do your planning and make sure you deal with it but do not let it stop what you are doing. Make sure you consider points 11 to 14 ~ <http://www.paulgraham.com/startupmistakes.html>

One thing I had a problem with was the plugin. But the system is a linux 64 bit system & can't get certain plugins to work with firefox. But I don't think thats really your market.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure you have latest version of flash plugin? Most linx issues are because of people not having latest flash plugin.

Had a discussion with these guys today. We're meeting up next week to discuss further.

-Zaid

<comment><USER3> _'... Had a discussion with these guys today. We're meeting up next week to discuss further. ...'_

excellent.

_'... Sure you have latest version of flash plugin? ...'_

not a problem for you (linux 64 bit users) but for me the latest plugin informs me they haven't compiled for 64 bit. There are hacks around. Funny enough Wufoo has calls from linux to simplify the ui (remove flash or whatever) but Wufoo was a web tool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> trading equity for pr seems risky. and not "opportunity" risky. they're giving you something with a limited life, that may or may not make any difference, in exchange for a tangible slice of pie. of course, your startup may not work out either, but i have to imagine you have a better chance of success than a pr campaign made by pr people.

why couldn't you do this "very specific (and fun) marketing idea" yourself?

<comment><AUTHOR> The campaign revolves around a potentially viral Flash game that we(not the PR firm) are producing.The PR firm can help us increase our seed of the game.

I am not too worried about the fairness of things. Like pg says, if they can add 5% value for 4% stake they would be technically worth going for.

The key I am realizing is linking any kind of thing with performance and time not just one time help. We'll see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> [cynicism] They charge you a monthly fee, and you pay it. [/cynicism]

<comment><AUTHOR> They specifically said they are not seeking cash-for-service because we probably don't have much money.

<comment><USER5> Sorry, I couldn't resist...

But seriously, there are good PR firms in the same way there are good real estate agents or executive recruiters: they exist, but are few and far between.

I.e. it's one of those "looks easy" jobs that attracts a lot of driftwood.

So before you commit anything of value (cash, equity, or even your time), find out whether or not the firm is any good and can add any value for you.</comment></comment></comment>


Why We're Writing Machine Learning Infrastructure in Go, Not Python - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/why-were-writing-machine-learning-infrastructure-in-go-not-python-38d6a37e2d76?gi=dc4596294618 <comment><USER2> Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but Go "being a pleasure to work with" compared to Python wasn't my experience. For whatever reason, I find it excruciating to repeatedly write three pages of Go that might be three lines of Python.

Go instead of C seems plausible, but Go instead of Python when the latter would suffice seems punishing.</comment>


My Gmail account got hacked. Google won't help. I need your advice. - <AUTHOR>

Hi, someone is sending spam from my gmail address to my contacts.
I found out yesterday when a friend texted me saying he was getting spam from my address.
I logged into my account and found some failed delivery messages of emails I'd never sent myself.
There is no trace of sent emails left in the Sent Mail folder.
I also can't see any suspicious login activity in my gmail login history at the time the spam was sent or any other time.
The thing that's worrying is that they got hold of my contacts. It was an account I was not using directly any more, so I have closed that account now.
I have 2-factor auth enabled on my other accounts and have even changed all the passwords again.
I have reported twice to Google, but haven't heard back anything yet.
Edited to add:
I have looked at the original email message and the header does suggest it came from google. I reported the Message ID to google along with the full email message.
I also suspected it may be some app or service that I gave access to my contacts to, but I didn't see any in my app access list.
That's why I'm turning to you guys to ask if any of you've been in a similar situation, how do I secure my accounts, and trace down the cause of this particular incident?
Thanks <comment><USER3> See @ [http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/02/how-to-stop- your-...](http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2011/06/02/how-to-stop-your-gmail- account-being-hacked/)

Bullet list includes Account Security: Settings -> Accounts and Import -> Google Account Settings -> Change Password [pick a new secure password] Settings -> Accounts and Import -> Google Account Settings -> Change Password Recovery Options [verify secret question, SMS and recovery e-mail address]

Potential Spam: Settings -> General -> Signature [make sure nothing as been added] Settings -> General -> Vacation Responder [make sure it's disabled and empty]

E-mail Theft Settings -> Accounts and Import -> Send Mail As [make sure it is using your correct e-mail address] Settings -> Filters [no filters that forward or delete e-mail] Settings -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP -> Forwarding [disabled or correct address] Settings -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP -> POP Download [disabled] Settings -> Forwarding and POP/IMAP -> IMAP Access [disabled]

Additional Information Keeping account secure: [https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ...](https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=46526) Protecting your account: [https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answ...](https://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=29407) More account security info: <http://www.google.com/help/security/> If your account is compromised: [http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answe...](http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=50270) Someone using your address: [http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answe...](http://mail.google.com/support/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=50200) Google Employee comments: [http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=560d5...](http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=560d53dee40be5e6&hl=en&start=7010)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks lazloth. I've already read all of those threads and taken those measures to protect my account in the future, almost all of which I was already doing before my account got hacked.

I only turned to HN because none of this helped me track down the cause of the breach in the first place. But I appreciate your help.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Click the Details link next to the Last account activity line at the bottom of any Gmail page.

That will give you a list of IPs signing into your account.

I get a lot of those failed delivery messages though because I have my own domain via google apps. Someone scrapped my mail domain and fakes it in the headers, but I get the actual replies because I have it set so all addresses on the domain go to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> As I noted in my post, I have already looked at the login activity list, and there's nothing other than my own IPs and sessions.

I have a similar domain via google apps setting that you have. I just don't understand how they got hold of my contacts, and don't know what I can do to prevent them from spamming my contacts again.

<comment><USER5> Please check your pc. Is your OS, browser and browser-plugins up-to-date? Is there a browseraddon you haven't installed? Make a full virus scan.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> How do you know "they" are using your account rather than just using your email address as a "from". That used to be the most common way of trying to get SPAM past people's simpler filters.

Might be worth checking what would happen if such an email was rejected from one of those email servers that bothers to send a response back - <USER2> explain it all.

<comment><USER7> Yeah most likely someone got a hold of your address book and is just spamming your friends, unfortunately dont neet to hack your gmail todo that (there are a tons of ways of getting your address book).

I would say to check the header of your spam e-mail on your friends mail box and see where the e-mail came from, if it was from google you might have some issue (maybe you gave some app or service access to your gmail, or have pop/imap enabled), if its not from gmail then dont stress about it, sooner or later the spam filters will pick up that its not from you ^_^ .oO( yeah dont hold your breath on google helping you on this, they really dont have any support! )

<comment><AUTHOR> The header does suggest it came from google.

I also suspected it may be some app or service that I gave access to my contacts to, but I didn't see any in my app access list.

How does one get hold of the address book without hacking into the account or via a third party app that has access?

<comment><USER8> Post the headers (after scratching out the email usernames)... there may be clues lurking.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm trying not to leak any more personal info, so I'm not sure which parts of the message I can post publicly.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do YC/Techstars partners get compensated? - <AUTHOR>

I assume it is a % of the returns and different per person, but is this vested? Is it only the delta of the companies since that partner joined? <comment><USER2> For YC, this is from their application page:

We usually invest $11,000 + $3000n, where n is the number of participating founders, up to 3 (i.e. 2 founders get $17,000, 3 or more get $20,000), in return for between 2% and 10% of the company. The average is 7%. [1]

[1] <http://ycombinator.com/apply.html>

<comment><USER3> The question is asking about YC/techstar _partners_ , not founders.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yep, I am referring to the actual partners. [http://www.quora.com/Y-Combinator/How-are-YC-partners- compen...](http://www.quora.com/Y-Combinator/How-are-YC-partners-compensated) is the only data point I know of so far.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Whar are some productivity hacks you use? - <AUTHOR> I recently installed Chrome Extentions 3 Tabs (https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/3-tabs-only/pkfpaiidmiemediimekjfmlbhnbofabd)
Which only lets you open three tabs a time and hence forces you to focus only at the task at hand.
This plus I am new and learning GTD Method(Getting Things Done) with simple lists.
This two have greatly increased the work I do and also the speed of execution and also greatly reduced the stress level.
So now I am interested what HN, in general are using for great productivity (tools, techniques etc) <comment><USER2> Carve out 50 minutes blocks during the day dedicated to working towards a predefined goal. I tried 25 minutes and 5 minutes break but 50 minutes work and 10 minutes break seems to work better for me. I track them in excel just to keep myself on track. I generally shoot for ~3 of these blocks if I have other matters to attend to (lectures/TAs etc.). In a full day of studying I can easily rack up 8-10 hours of studying using these 50 minute blocks but I prefer to study ~3 hours over more days spaced out than cram 10 hours a day.

</comment><comment><USER3> Every time I think of something I have to do, I put it in my Todoist Inbox.

Every night I go through my Inbox and decide what needs to get done tomorrow. I assign a 'tomorrow' date for those tasks in my Inbox. Then, I go to Google Calendar and timeblock when I'm going to complete those tasks. After I do this I journal about my day and come up with more things that I want to get done and the process repeats every day.

</comment><comment><USER4> My favorite productivity technique is making sure that I'm actually working towards my (or my company's, or project's) intended goals: [https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/12/20/the-best- technology/](https://codewithoutrules.com/2016/12/20/the-best-technology/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I use [https://freedom.to](https://freedom.to) and [https://selfcontrolapp.com](https://selfcontrolapp.com) to block sites</comment>


A simple puzzle to tell whether you know what people are thinking - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/business/wonkblog/majority-illusion/ <comment><USER3> So, if you're trying to change public opinion, rather than changing the minds of the most people, you need to change the minds of the people who others respect and whose opinions influence those of others.

This also explains why some issues seem difficult to change public opinion on. For instance, if you want to get a majority of people to care about privacy, or more specific issues such as encryption backdoors and spying, you need those people's social circles to include many people who care. Since those people also tend to disproportionately avoid social networks...

<comment><USER4> This was basically official process for Scientology. That's why they deliberately aimed for celebrities—get them and (presumably) the rest will follow.

<comment><USER5> Wait, but did that work?

<comment><USER6> The organisation appears to have been successful after implementing that approach. But causation doesnt imply etc etc

<comment><USER5> The reason I made that comment is that I would not in any way describe Scientology as "successful". Most of the stories I know of people who associated themselves with it are people who were leaned on by the organization and essentially forced to remain active. I also don't find myself thinking there are tons of people who are part of the organization, which was supposed to be the entire point of this strategy. I am actually kind of shocked that you say "the organization appears to have been successful after implementing that approach". Like, the idea wasn't just that they'd succeed in tricking people into thinking they had a ton of members and was successful, but that they would actually be successful, and that seems to not be the case.

[http://www.villagevoice.com/news/scientologists-how-many- of-...](http://www.villagevoice.com/news/scientologists-how-many-of-them-are- there-anyway-6717701)

"That's one Scientologist for about every 12,000 Americans. In other words, the total number of active U.S. Scientologists is about the size of your run- of-the-mill local credit union."

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

"In 2008, the American Religious Identification Survey found that the number of American Scientologists had dropped to 25,000."

<comment><USER7> But the fact that many people even have heard of Scientology means that it's far more successful than it should have been in an information based society. 25k is a ton of people for such a radical idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is the Friendship paradox ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship_paradox) ) applied to polling. If the people with the most acquaintances have similar viewpoints, which differ from those with fewer acquaintances, then it will skew responses to questions concerning the viewpoints of the respondent's acquaintances.

<comment><USER9> Spiral of Silence¹ is basically the same idea, as I read it.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> So a devious entity can shift mass opinion through selective filtering and promotion of content on a social network.

I wonder what the nature of a "Pravda effect" would be where people suspect their information source has been corrupted and made unrepresentative and thus will distrust many traditional mechanisms of authority.

Is there an actual assuaging of opinion, a disengagement of the process, an increase in conspiratorial beliefs ... what happens?

Propaganda does this through smear campaigns - e.g., painting an academic as being egotistical and seeking money (thus making them corrupted by undisclosed motives). I see this with regard to climate change, evolution, and formerly tobacco smoke.

</comment><comment><USER11> What's funny is that you can guess the answer to these kinds of questions - <USER2> it was what you'd naively think it would be, then there wouldn't be an article, so you can easily guess the "counterintuitive" answer.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, you can look at it like that, but if you don't mind me saying I'd suggest that attitude is indicative of our approach to formal education, which rewards being 'right' regardless of how deeply something is understood, rather than rewarding getting something 'wrong' and learning why in the process of exploring further.

<comment><USER11> I completely agree - I was definitely taught the skill of guessing the teacher's password.

<comment><USER12> I was too. It's a useful skill, but I'd still prefer its use wasn't encouraged.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wonder to what extent this sort of thing is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If most folks don't want to feel like they're out of the norm (which I suspect is true), then if they think that most folks disagree with them, they might be willing to change their opinions in order to fit in with a perceived majority.

As a couple of folks have noted, this means that all one has to do is suborn a relatively few influencers in order to effect mass change, despite the fact that the majority would have resisted that change if they'd known the truth.

As the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy might have said, some suspect that this has already happened…

</comment><comment><USER14> "Assume each person based their vote solely on how the people they know would vote"

This is misphrased, they vote based on their friends opinions, not the way their friends would vote. Otherwise it becomes a chicken and egg situation.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm wondering how this apply to reality.

<comment><USER16> The article makes a passing mention of media being a hub of these networks. One effect of this is that people will believe that there are epidemics of sorts (violence, economic, etc.) when in fact there aren't. This will often happen with pessimistic viewpoints.

An interesting example of this is explored in this article:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas- kristof-t...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/01/opinion/nicholas-kristof-the- most-important-thing-and-its-almost-a-secret.html?_r=0)

<comment><USER15> I wonder about reddit. I guess this doesn't apply to reddit? Or less ?

<comment><USER17> Some people seem to spend all day on Reddit, and some of them end up being "Reddit famous". I guess this would make others think the opinions of these "hardcore" redditors is more prevalent than it really is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> This post reminded me of the ideas discussed by Malcolm Gladwell in "The Tipping Point". IIRC, talks about highly networked individuals starting new trends.

</comment><comment><USER19> It seems to me that opinion shaping on Twitter has been using this effect for at least the past year.

</comment><comment><USER20> If one, instead of considering the ratio among those one know, what if people consider the ratio of the ratios of the people that the people that you know, know, can the same type of thing happen?

<comment><USER6> Could you rephrase the question, please? I was a bit confused by the wording.

<comment><USER20> Ah, yes, sorry:

I meant:

If instead of each person checking if an opinion is held by the majority of the people they know,

and seeing what the typical result for that would be,

what if the operation was doubled?

So, each person would check what the majority opinion is among those they know, and then store that value.

Then each person would check what the majority of /those/ values are among the people they know.

I was wondering if this might partially undo the effects from some people being known to more people.

so, if a person x 's opinion on a topic is f(x), and the friends of a person is x.friends

then instead of majority(map(f,x.friends)) , instead use majority(map(lambda z:majority(map(f,z.friends)), x.friends))

So instead of using "what opinions do I see", instead using "what opinions do I see people saying they see". Would that be a more or less accurate measure of "what opinions do people have"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> That second graph they use as an example (Same sex marriage one) adds up to 101%...

<comment><USER22> Presumably that's from rounding errors... for example, the distribution could be 4.7, 38.7, and 56.6 ... which adds up to 100, but when those numbers are rounded up they then add up to 101.</comment></comment>


Inside Monsanto, America's Third-Most-Hated Company - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/211107-inside-monsanto-americas-third-most-hated-company

<comment><USER2> In the eighties, lots of young ideologues were worried about a Malthusian future; there would be more people in the world than we could feed. They decided that genetic engineering was going to save the world by adding micro- nutrients to rice, by making essential food crops drought resistant and higher yielding, et cetera. So they studied genetic engineering in University and joined Monsanto, which was obviously the company that was most likely to make this happen.

Thirty years later, they are vilified by very similar ideologues.

<comment><USER3> Seriously. At this point it's either we use the biotechnology that many scientists have made their life's work, or millions of people starve.

<comment><USER4> The differences in yield between fully modern farming techniques and modern organic farming is not that massive. It's substantial, I'll grant you - something like 13-25% difference. And that's with the fully bevy of certified organic practices - non-fossil-fuel soils, natural pesticides, etc. How much incremental improvement in yield do you actually think comes from the GMO side of things? The primary difference seems to be in manpower - Organic practices require _far_ more manpower... but the world isn't short of manpower.

There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. Norman Borlaug's green revolution would have happened with or without GMOs.

My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture.

<comment><USER5> _> There is more than enough food in the world. Starvation happens because of infrastructure and economics, not insufficient yields. Norman Borlaug's green revolution would have happened with or without GMOs._

Norman Borlaug's green revolution _did_ happen without GMOs - it was all about breeding (e.g for shorter stems) and intensification of nutrient inputs.

While food distribution is a major problem, it's simply not true that food supply is not also a problem. It is entirely unfeasible for all the food in the world to be efficiently distributed to everyone who needs food from the places it is currently grown in the time we have available before peak population. Food supply _is_ a limiting factor. Enabling people to grow more food close to where they live will save lives. This is why we (plant geneticists) continue trying to raise yields.

Try telling a starving family in (Indonesia|Tanzania|Bangladesh) that the problem isn't their pathetic rice crop yield, it's that Americans are throwing away cheeseburgers. We can feed a lot of those people with better agricultural technology.

 _> My main criticism of GMOs isn't the genetic alterations themselves, but the way they enable excessive pesticide use, IP law abuses, and monoculture._

GMOs don't enable any of those things. Monoculture is a route to efficient food production - it was around long before GMOs. We have it because it was the path of least resistance to massive scale food production.

Total amount of pesticides might be increased in some cases with GMOs (though in many it is reduced), but the important thing is that current GMOs enable us to use much, much less harmful pesticides. Glyphosate is probably the safest herbicide the world has ever seen. Some of the alternatives are just terrifyingly harmful.

IP law is certainly used by some seed companies, but I'd argue it's generally not abused to anywhere near the level it is by tech companies. If you read the court documents from Monsanto cases they are almost always reasonable and subsequently misrepresented by activists.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > While the debate about the impact of GM crops on the environment continues, > the question of their effect on human health looks increasingly settled. The > National Academy of Sciences, the American Medical Association, the World > Health Organization, Britain's Royal Society, the European Commission, and > the American Association for the Advancement of Science, among others, have > all surveyed the substantial research literature and found no evidence that > the GM foods on the market today are unsafe to eat. One of the few > dissenting research papers, a 2012 study in the journal Food and Chemical > Toxicology that found tumors in rats fed modified maize, was retracted by > the journal last fall after questions were raised about the researchers' > methodology.

There is still a huge sentiment against GMOs, everyone think they are harmful to health here in France. I don't know how long it will take for the mentality to change.

<comment><USER7> Where did this idea of GMO being harmful come from? Some of the environmental concerns seem to be legitimate, but I've never seen or heard a credible source claim they were harmful to human health.

As a side note, I've always been a bit of a technophile, so eating genetically modified food seems really cool, and I can't wait until they perfect lab-grown meat.

<comment><USER8> "I've never seen or heard a credible source claim they were harmful to human health."

Which says a lot about the media you read.

<comment><USER7> "Which says a lot about the media you read."

Would you care to elaborate?

<comment><USER8> I respectfully decline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There's is an old article by Michael Specter in the New Yorker about Robert Shapiro, the CEO who in the 1990s turned Monsanto from a chemical company into a biotechnology company. Shapiro is a fascinating CEO-- an anti-war activist from New York and former folk musician who was on a mission to save the world through biology. Two of his daughters founded the alt-rock band "Veruca Salt" who had a hit song "Seether" in the 1990s. Here's a PDF of the New Yorker article: [http://www.michaelspecter.com/wp- content/uploads/pharmageddo...](http://www.michaelspecter.com/wp- content/uploads/pharmageddon.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER10> One of the big complaints I hear about Monsanto is that using their seeds forces farmers to throw away their seeds each year (cannot use the seeds that their crops produce). I spoke with a farmer about this once, and he said they almost always throw away their seeds, regardless of supplier. Using those seeds would result in variable growing since you have no clue what cross pollination happened in the previous season.

Any experience farmers or biogeneticists care to comment?

<comment><USER11> Not a farmer, but this was in the article:

"Even before biotech seeds came on the market, corn farmers tended not to save seeds, since store-bought hybrids delivered higher yields, but the technology agreement farmers sign when buying Monsanto's biotech seeds forbids them from doing it."

<comment><USER10> I didn't get that far I guess.

So if I read this correctly, the only difference from pre-GMO days and now is that the common practice of buying new seeds every year is in a contract rather than just "common behaviour".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a died-in-the-wool leftish vegetarian, and honestly, I actually am annoyed by the GMO issue because I think it distracts from the far more important concern about other modern farming practices that have far more serious impact.

Excessive pesticides, monocultures, over-intensive factory farms, fossil-fuel- based fertilizers. Those things worry me far more than GMOs, and they're far lower on everyone's priority-list.

<comment><USER12> > fossil-fuel-based fertilizers

About that, would you like it better if it was nuclear power based?

<comment><USER4> If you can figure out a way to use nuclear power to make ammonia instead of natural gas, I'm all for it.

<comment><USER12> Great, that's the good kind of green people. Most don't want to solve the problem.

Ammonia production requires basically heat and electricity, there shouldn't be a problem. But producing urea should be harder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just started a new job at Climate Corporation and it has been interesting seeing the other side of the "Monsanto is the devil" story. Also, David Friedberg is so smart and impressive.

<comment><USER13> What are you doing there? As an environmental scientist/economist who loves working with data-driven projects, that company always really intrigued me.

<comment><USER11> One of our products is advice tools for farmers. The free version gives information about historical and predicted weather over a very precise area - farmers can select their exact fields from a map and get information via web, apps, or email. You can sign up and choose whatever land you want to monitor: [http://www.climate.com/products/climate- basic/](http://www.climate.com/products/climate-basic/)

The paid product takes more inputs from the farmer (crops, planting information, etc) and gives recommendations based on crop, weather, soil, and hydrology models specific to those crops, land, and planting. More details here: [http://www.climate.com/products/climate- pro/](http://www.climate.com/products/climate-pro/)

<comment><USER13> Oh yeah, I know what the company is, that's why I find it interesting. I was curious what you, personally, were working on.

<comment><USER11> Oh, I'm working on the services to move data from the science and models to the web and mobile apps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Nassim Nicholas Taleb ( 2014 July 1. ) :

 _" The latest version of our precautionary principle, with application to GMOs, refined thanks to more fallacies in arguments countering it. For discussion before we move to the final version."_

[https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIbGFzOXF5UUN3N2c/...](https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B8nhAlfIk3QIbGFzOXF5UUN3N2c/edit)

\---

 _" What people miss is that the modification of crops impacts everyone and exports the error from the local to the global.

I do not wish to pay —or have my descendants pay — for errors by executives of Monsanto.

We should exert the precautionary principle there —our non-naive version — simply because we would discover errors after considerable damage."_

[http://blog.longnow.org/02013/07/08/the-artangel- longplayer-...](http://blog.longnow.org/02013/07/08/the-artangel-longplayer- letters-nassim-taleb-writes-to-stewart-brand/)

<comment><USER15> I agree with the paper: the principle issue with GMO is the unavoidable, unpredictable systemic effects it will have.

P.S. I've already found several, almost verbatim, examples of the given fallacies right here in these comments.

<comment><USER16> I think publishing a book also may have "unpredictable systemic effects" (there have been several books that have radically altered the course of history), so it should be approached with extreme caution, don't you think? However, Taleb has published several books, so I don't think he lives like he preaches.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I understand the benefits of GMOs but my question is this: do we really need the technology?

In other words, is it impossible to grow enough food without using GMOs?

<comment><USER4> > In other words, is it impossible to grow enough food without using GMOs?

Of course not. We waste drastic amounts of food every year thanks to spoilage. We feed food to other forms of food - how much food does it take to raise a cow to maturity? We turn food into fuel for cars at utterly _dire_ efficiency.

Starvation happens because of economics, warfare, ongoing experiments with centrally-planned governments (freaking give it up, Kim Jong), things like that. Not small percentile increments in efficiency.

<comment><USER5> You've highlighted important problems (spoilage, everyone wanting to eat meat, economics, warfare). But unless you know of some solution to those things on the horizon, you've not made a useful point.

Genetic engineering is a toolkit to solve a vast array of problems we face, and it's available _right now_. With a 1% increase in yield, we can feed 1% more people. 1% of 7 billion is 70 million.

Starvation happens because we're not making enough small percentile increments in efficiency.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not personally afraid of GMOs, but I do not fault people for being skeptical of them.

Completely synthetic foods and food processing have a mediocre track record, and in many cases have caused actual harm (e.g. trans fats) for a long time before that harm was uncovered. Even in cases where there is no active harm, heavily processed foods very often have lower nutritional content than their less processed "whole" cousins. Take wheat for instance. We bleach it, denuding it of its nutritional value, and then try to add back the missing nutrients. Why?

Obviously that's apples and oranges -- GMO foods don't do the same thing that food processing, oil hydrogenation, etc. do... they're totally different technologies. But for the average person who doesn't deeply understand these issues, it's easy to look at the poor track record of "better living through chemistry" and be skeptical.

The general perception is that anything that "messes with" food is either reducing its nutritional content or adding something harmful.

Another reason for skepticism about GMOs stems from the poor track record of medical studies on the relative benefit or harm of various nutrients and foods. Take saturated fats for example, which were demonized for decades. Instead people were encouraged to eat trans fats like margarine, which turned out to be worse for you. Now apparently saturated fats are not too bad in moderation, or something. I don't know. That will probably be reversed next month, then reversed again, then reversed again, and each time the media will trumpet the news. Each big new finding about nutrition seems to contradict previous findings, leading to a general view among many people that nutritional science has no idea what it's talking about.

We can't even figure out after decades of study whether or not fat is bad for you and you're telling me we're _absolutely 100% sure_ GMOs are safe...? Get the picture?

Finally, I think there's a problem of institutional trust. I've asked some organic hippie type friends before if they'd be more open to GMOs if they were made by non-profits working toward the public interest, if they were open source, and if all results of all studies were completely public. I've mostly gotten nods to that. People don't trust closed for-profit companies not to hide negative results, engage in research study "payola," push things to market that have known problems, etc.

The trust issue is huge. Any time this comes up around here I tend to post and bring it up, and for the most part nobody gets it.

People are afraid of GMO foods and parents are not vaccinating their children because the Bush administration lied about Iraq (to give one example). For some reason that is just flatly obvious to me. Why does nobody else see this?

<comment><USER16> > _We can 't even figure out after decades of study whether or not fat is bad > for you and you're telling me we're absolutely 100% sure GMOs are safe...? > Get the picture?_

There are some cases, like Golden Rice, where it's relatively easy to be 100% sure of the safety. In Golden Rice, the rice is engineered to produce beta carotene, and because there is lots of beta carotene e.g. in carrots, we can be sure that beta carotene is safe to eat.

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

<comment><USER18> I personally agree. I was speaking to the general perception that most people have, and to its social and political roots.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Monsanto is not only active on GMOs, they also have a terrible track record promoting harmful products like their Roundup.

See "The world according to Monsanto", it's quite edifying ([http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to- monsan...](http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/the-world-according-to-monsanto/)).

<comment><USER2> Glyphosate is one of the safest pesticides on the market, and is considerably safer than some of the so-called "organic" alternatives.

<comment><USER16> > _" Glyphosate is one of the safest pesticides on the market"_

Also, its not a _pesticide_ (pesticides kill pests) but a _herbicide_ (herbicides kill weeds).</comment></comment></comment>


Dark Patterns: inside the interfaces designed to trick you - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2013/8/29/4640308/dark-patterns-inside-the-interfaces-designed-to-trick-you

<comment><USER2> There is also "negative option", where box is already ticked and you are subscribed to service if you press continue (or another button).

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Another thing that I also see are ads that are disguised as part of content or navigation.</comment>


Let's remember this when the down rounds come - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/theboydigital/status/1083362483631472642 <comment><USER2> Truly reminds me of '99. Dom Perignon, expensive cocktails, weed, private jet flights, pointless travels to warm beach retreats for meetings, yacht parties etc. I am a cynic but our CFO at the time was even more. We demanded upfront payments for projects and enjoyed the lifestyle as long as we did not pay for it as it made no sense (most of these companies had nothing; not even a mildly viable idea). The companies that remained standing after the bubble (because mainly they were bought or incubated by big banks like ING during) remained our clients for a long time. The rest all died a very quick death in 2001.</comment>


Where To Find a Co-founder - <AUTHOR> http://findthetechguy.com/where-to-find-a-co-founder/

<comment><USER2> I'd also recommend posting things on sites like Forrst. That's how I found my co-founder. I posted a rough outline of what I wanted to accomplish and asked for those interested to send me an email for more information. Ultimately, I had maybe 5-6 say they were interested with one sticking around (perfectly fine). Leverage community sites. It's definitely worth your time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Shameless self promotion.

But <http://www.weekendhacker.net> is also a place for people to meet co- founders.

Currently there are approx 6000 designers and developers, 70 projects posted and all got help so far.

<comment><AUTHOR> Looks cool, I'll add it to the list</comment></comment>


Just Get To The Point - <AUTHOR> http://excid3.com/blog/just-get-to-the-point/

<comment><USER2> Good article, more people should gather data before asking.</comment>


Is it OK to link to Print-format pages? - <AUTHOR>

Occasionally, posted URLs link directly to pages intended for printable output, excluding advertisements, links to other features of the site, and other browser-oriented niceties.
On one hand, it's true that nobody much likes ads, and multi-page articles are annoying.
On the other hand, the folks that are actually creating the content need their ad revenue to stay in business, and from an artistic point of view, it seems proper to let them display content as they wish.
Should submissions link to the "native" page, or is it OK to link directly to print-formatted pages? <comment><USER2> I usually say native page; HN links can sometimes be a decent amount of traffic so denying the publisher any potential advertising revenue is, potentially, a little "rude" (IMO).

On the other hand if you get one of these sites with a silly amount of advertising that detracts from the content I personally find it ok.

</comment><comment><USER3> Yes. Anytime, anywhere. If it has a URL, it's OK to link directly to it. If sites don't like that practice, too bad. You don't have to care about them.</comment>


Avoiding Full GCs in HBase with MemStore-Local Allocation Buffers: Part 3 - <AUTHOR> http://www.cloudera.com/blog/2011/03/avoiding-full-gcs-in-hbase-with-memstore-local-allocation-buffers-part-3/

<comment><USER2> The CMS strategy strikes me as being very similar to how Azuls concurrent GC works.

Could anyone with better understanding of GC comment?

<comment><AUTHOR> Azul's concurrent GC is much more clever. They use some tricks with memory mapping in order to perform really efficient read barriers (which traditional VMs have considered too costly). This allows compaction to happen while mutator threads proceed.

This is a nice presentation about it: <http://www.research.ibm.com/mre05/Click.pdf>

And of course the paper: <http://usenix.org/events/vee05/full_papers/p46-click.pdf>

<comment><USER3> That is an awesome GC and I wish I could have it. AFAIK they are having trouble because they mmap/munmap a lot, and virtual memory systems on modern OS don't do that efficiently enough.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, they currently depend on kernel patches to provide bulk map/unmap APIs as well as some other vm_area trickery to allow parts of physical memory to be mapped to multiple places in virtual memory with different protection flags.

(assuming I understood their talk correctly)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mystery 'poison plot' sends Czech mayors into hiding - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52500865 <comment><USER2> So the Prague 6 district council decides to move the statue of a Soviet. Then the Russians get angry and send a man carrying a poison into the Russian embassy, the embassy next to the mayor of that district, for the plan to poison that mayor. The transport of the poison was detected, but there was no way to stop that transport? My logic filter says no.

<comment><USER3> The article says the man was travelling on a diplomatic passport which means diplomatic immunity.

<comment><USER4> Is there diplomatic immunity to transport ricin ?

Can an diplomat carry nuclear weapons and just walk past security?

<comment><USER3> In theory, diplomatic immunity only covers official stuff necessary for the functioning of the embassy. But there is no easy way to check. And yes, diplomatic status has a history of abuse, including drug smuggling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Mystery" in the title seems a stretch.

"Russian" would seem like a reasonable replacement based on reading the article

</comment><comment><USER3> _" Russian former spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter were poisoned in Salisbury in 2018, by agents thought to have been sent by Russian intelligence."_

I appreciate the cautious wording ("thought to") but is there actually any doubt about Russian intelligence having killed (edit: poisoned, not killed) Skripal? I mean especially after the Bellingcat report.

<comment><USER6> That wording, as silly as it sounds, fulfills an important role in the fundamental integrity of journalism.

Try to imagine what journalism looks like if everyone just starts collapsing "mostly certain" into "certain". And how that can decay integrity over time.

The beauty of the way journalists write is that they aren't the ones making a judgement call. They just report what some other authority has concluded (or failed to).

<comment> barry-cotter Indeed, it does fulfill an important function; it makes journalists much harder to sue.

The beauty of this fiction that journalists are not making a judgment call in choosing who to quote, on what topic, when, is that it makes some trusting people think they're in some sense impartial.

The internet has broken this fiction wide open. All kinds of authorities used to unthinking deference from their subjects are now having to deal with the fact that said subjects can now talk about them, with each other, in n public. See Martin Gurri, _The Revolt of the Public_. Newspapers may have shut down their comments sections but they haven't shut down twitter, Facebook or other competing websites. So newspapers don't get to control what the conversation is about any more and memory holing inconvenient principles is becoming more difficult. Twitter is the best thing to happen to accurate perception of the media ever. Unfiltered access to how journalists actually think, unimpeded by editors who want the public to trust them.

No wonder trust in the media has been dropping for the past two decades.

<comment><USER7> _> Twitter is the best thing to happen to accurate perception of the media ever. Unfiltered access to how journalists actually think, unimpeded by editors who want the public to trust them_

You _think_ you have a more accurate perception thanks to Twitter. That's the product they've been selling since day one.

<comment><USER8> Its not just Twitter. Its the entire open Internet.

The exposure of corruption to the day of light occurs wherever free people are allowed to communicate, freely, for their own purposes.

Twitter is just a manifestation of the human template.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The worst position to be in. A minor figure whose life isn't worth a war, wanted dead by Putin. I can't see how you guard against that. That will ruin your soul and sap your energy even if you do continually fend it off.

<comment><USER9> As a matter of national policy, you've got to incur a heavier price on Russia for this stuff, although it will be hard for the Czechs alone to do it.

Why? Because if becoming mayor means that you're likely to be assassinated, then your country will be sapped of all political talent overnight. You can't let a foreign nation hold your internal affairs hostage, much less with violence.

What exactly would count as a proportionate response is beyond my level of creativity, and is left as an exercise to the reader.

<comment><USER10> Exactly, this is where the strength in numbers and economical power of the EU comes into play. EU commisions should contact the Russian foregin ministry and demand a full response immidiately.

<comment><USER11> EU needs Russian oil and gas they can't put up a serious fight

<comment><USER12> At the current hydrocarbon pricing, they can heat their homes with top grade gasoline. Western elites need to stop inventing excuses not to fight.

<comment><USER13> Anybody as eager for any war as you is insane.

<comment><USER9> There is a huge range of responses between "do nothing" and "war".

<comment><USER13> And the user I responded to called for acts of war, not the lesser responses you suggest.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Rubycasts #2 – When APIs Change – TDD, VCR, Watch the Video Screencast - <AUTHOR> https://www.rubycasts.io/episodes/when-apis-change code: https://github.com/thatrubylove/fantasyhub grade: https://codeclimate.com/github/thatrubylove/fantasyhub<p>When APIs change you have to deal with it. In this episode of rubycasts.io we will see that scenario, how to fix it, and how to test for it. We will also discuss fast tests vs slow tests and using VCR to records conversations with remote resources. <comment><USER2> Let me know if you want to chat sometime (email in profile). I run [https://sysadmincasts.com/](https://sysadmincasts.com/). Nice to talk to someone doing the same thing ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome! Will do Justin.</comment></comment>


Attackers Now Using Honeypots to Trap Researchers - <AUTHOR> http://threatpost.com/en_us/blogs/attackers-now-using-honeypots-trap-researchers-110410

<comment><USER2> [Edit: this is unrelated to botmasters trapping researchers, and is more of detecting botnets. My bad.]

This has been going on since the late 80s to early 90s; at that time, viruses scanned the disks for signs of "abnormality". For example, a sophisticated virus would check to see how many directories where in the disk, how many of them were non-system, it checked timestamps to see if everything was pristine. If it found files containing number constants, it checked to see if $number-- and $number++ existed. And as soon as it was confident the system was a research box and not a user box, the virus would exhibit extremely benign behavior, or do without stealthiness and go full on violent, trying to destroy hardware equipment (i.e. spinning floppy at max speed. Asserting and holding controller lines for expensive hard-disks.)

This probing behavior is not the default, but it's triggered if the virus had some slight suspicion about the machine (checking performance, too fast or too slow?, checking to see if a debugger was resident, scanning the heap for anti- virus tool signatures, see if a few interrupts were hooked, etc.)

IIRC, I read about this first in one of the Phalcon/Skism philes, though it could have been NuKe.

The heuristics sound complex, specially when you think about it as a HLL programmer working in a protected environment. But they were very straightforward in DOS, where one had direct access to system data structures, and entire structure-traversal strategies could be as simple as bit manipulation.

/me just got the sudden urge to find that article. brb ..

P.S. And this really bugs me: why do black-hats consistently out-class "normal" programmers when it comes to systems programming? Pound for pound, the average underground "file" has more information density, sometimes an order of magnitude (bear with me here) than the normal "app dev" articles you see elsewhere. If I am hacking on a new platform the first thing I do is get the official manuals and specs, then I look for its underground text files.

<comment><USER3> People with their head buried in low-level details are frequently - in my experience - worse at higher-level code organization and abstraction.

There's two things at work. Some people's aptitude for handling complexity lulls them into relying on it to get themselves out of tight spots, rather than learning to architect their code better; and they wind themselves up tighter and tighter. And on the other side, "app dev", people are pulling together a lot more constraints than the bit-twiddling level, combining user stories, business strategy, long-term supportability and team development, UX, and a bunch of other things which, while more nebulous and less concrete, are usually more important, economically speaking.

<comment><USER2> You can pay us app-devs all the lip service in the world, but the fact remains that _YOU_ get to hack on the Delphi compiler, while we A/B test sign up forms.

;-)

I said the exact same thing, a few days ago:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1832024>

P.S. Get in touch in the twitters, please. I am _very_ interested in what you do, and where it's going.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> New forms of an old art: [http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/12/the_history...](http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/03/12/the_history_of_the_honey_trap?page=full)

</comment><comment><USER5> This is a game of cat and mouse that frustrates and intrigues me.</comment>


Elon Musk Wants Fully Reusable Rockets–But That Won't Be So Easy - <AUTHOR> http://gizmodo.com/elon-musk-wants-fully-reusable-rockets-but-that-wont-b-1794330614 <comment><USER2> Erosion of exposed metal in the combustion chamber and throat will limit the number of cycles that such parts can go though before being replaced. In fact, every part needs to be assessed - it depends on the way they get worn/used in a launch. Test every part and replace them and gradually work out the wear pattern of every part. Some parts will not wear much at all. Since all rocket parts are designed for light weight they are already operating at their limits. The most important thing is vibration resistance. I used to work in an aerospace place that had a shake table. This was like a huge voice coil speaker magnet driven by 100,000 watts of power and it could shake a 100 pound object through 1 inch travel and up to 200 hertz. It could shake common items to bits. It even shook nuts and bolts apart, so all aerospace items are usually done with lock bolts. I am sure Spacex has these shake tables and does this. Might well be bigger than the 100KW ones I used - since they have bigger items to test than we did.</comment>


How to Say Nothing in 500 Words - <AUTHOR> http://www.apostate.com/how-say-nothing-500-words <comment><USER2> Giving concrete examples is something Feynman talked about a lot too. It is easy to talk abstractly about anything but in the end, something real and relatable must exist. When I deal with enterprise software, I prod the sales guys to tell me what the feature really means and does. Sure, it will streamline the sales order approval process but what does that entail? Outlook add ons? Browser popups? Notifications over SMS? Excel reports? Or 12 different screens that users have to click refresh on all day? My users will interact with something in the end. Show me the screenshots of all that already.

When I write business software, I dig in for details with my users in the same way. I understand you want me to fix the document printing process. Unfortunately that is too vague to write code for. Let's find out exactly what it is that needs fixing. Usually after some digging in, I change a button or two and it is now fixed!

It is hard work to be exact, precise, and specific. Being general is too easy.

</comment><comment><USER3> I used to write papers in a fractal form. A short one would go like:

 _In my opinion, A is true. A is true for at least three reasons: B, C, and D.

B is true for at least three reasons. First, E. Second, F. Third, G. Therefore, B is true.

C is true for at least three reasons...

D is true for at least three reasons...

In conclusion, A is true._

If I wanted a longer paper, there would be subparagraphs under B, C, and D, in the same form. For my thesis, each of those subparagraphs got sub- subparagraphs. You can guess what I would do if I ever wrote a book.

<comment><USER4> Your post is only 113 words long. I give you a "D".

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet...

<comment><AUTHOR> It seems to me that, in my opinion, as to all practical intents and purposes, it's arguable that what you meant to say was something along the lines of, "Your post seems to be no more than 113 words in length; I have no choice but to assign you a grade of 'D'."

<comment><USER5> Well, you know what they say: at the end of the day, it is what it is.

<comment><USER6> This tautology appears to be a tautological tautology.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Reminds me of the most wondrous, but little known, feature in word perfect for windows 3.1 - the "make my paper one page longer" button. That button saved me hours in college. I've often wondered how it came to be - talk about listening to your customers!

<comment><USER8> Out of curiosity and unfamiliarity with word perfect, what was that feature, exactly?

<comment><USER7> There was literally a button that said, "add one page" or something like that. I assume it changed line height or margins in some subtle way, but it was magic at midnight the day before your eight page paper was due, and you only had seven pages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The headings speak for themselves:

"Avoid the obvious content"

"Take the less usual side"

"Slip out of abstraction"

"Get rid of obvious padding"

"Call a fool a fool"

"Beware of pat expressions"

"Colorful words"

"Colored words"

"Colorless words"

Though [edit] the titles are a good summary of the article [/edit] (as per "slip out of abstraction") the examples given are humorous, thorough, and help in really getting the point being made.

It's interesting to consider how the author's (sometimes verbose) sentences could be shortened. If writing for pure conciseness, what would you cut out? Which parts are completely necessary? Are the rephrasings necessary to convey the different aspects of the current point? Is the example given important enough to stay?

"Pat expressions are hard, often impossible, to avoid, because they come too easily to be noticed and seem too necessary to be dispensed with."

=> "Pat expressions cannot always be avoided."

"A writer's work is a constant struggle to get the right word in the right place, to find that particular word that will convey his meaning exactly, that will persuade the reader or soothe him or startle or amuse him."

=> "Each situation calls for a certain word with a certain connotation; the writer toils to find it."

Again, there's no problem -- it's excellent writing, it just struck me that word golf could be as interesting as code golf. What is the shortest possible phrasing to express this exact idea? (I suppose we're doing it all the time, except in English classes where word count is the goal.)

</comment><comment><USER9> _Slang adjectives like cool ("That's real cool") tend to explode all over the language. They are applied to everything, lose their original force, and quickly die._

I've often marveled at cool's longevity -- unlike the adjective _sick_ (popular briefly in my social circle in 2005) which seems to have died out almost entirely.

<comment> X-Istence 2005? That was WAY past its prime. That started in around 2001 for me in North Jersey and existed until around 2003.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Perhaps only semi-related, but can anybody tell me how scientific journal writing fell into almost universal use of the passive voice? It drives me nuts every time I read that some more assumptions will be validated or that something else will be proven.

Which is to say, every single time I read an academic article.

<comment><USER11> It's to make what was done (which is important to the paper) seem important and make who did it (which is less important to the paper) seem unimportant.

<comment><USER12> The interesting thing to me is that in mathematics journals, the universal pronoun is "we." The reason (I've been told) is that "we" represents the collaboration of the author and the reader to understand the results and proofs in the paper. This makes sense to me, because reading and writing mathematics is a skill entirely apart from most other types of discourse. (Of course, when I say "mathematics," I mean to include fields like theoretical computer science and others in which discourse is of the "theorem, proof, discussion" form.)

<comment><USER13> That _is_ interesting. I instinctively use "we" when commenting code or talking myself through performing a novel task, in both cases for the same reason.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't believe how many books I've read written by so-called "accomplished writers" that use the exact same language as exampled in the article.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I bet this could be a great answer to the poster in the "Shadow Scholar" thread asking how he could possibly write 10 pages per hour.

</comment><comment><USER14> At least he assigned a word deadline and not a page deadline. I wish schools would let you get feedback on an essay from the teacher and then hand it in again. Revision is not emphasized.

<comment><USER15> Revision was always emphasized to me, but I never understood why. I always thought I was above it. After I became a programmer and had to look at old code I'd written, I finally understood why revision is so important.

Couldn't my teachers have told me that revision is so important because we're not qualified to evaluate our creations until they're no longer fresh in our heads? It's not an obvious concept, and I wish others didn't have to learn it the hard way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I suppose Percival Lowell's "nobody knows" telegram to William Randolph Hearst doesn't count. And he did it with twice as many words.

</comment><comment><USER17> "All subjects, except sex, are dull until somebody makes them interesting."

Certainly, sex can be dull. Unfortunately, going into the specific anecdotes concerning the topic would make HN less work-safe and also damage the modesty thereof.

</comment><comment><USER18> The same way seo writers do it. I can write 500 words on any keyword.

<comment><USER19> Try reading the article.</comment></comment>


The Next Century According to Ray Kurzweil - <AUTHOR> http://sandri.me/thenextcentury/ <comment><USER2> By 2016- People start realizing that overriding browser scroll functions in an attempt to be stylish or clever results in way to much breakage and causes people to leave the pages as content cannot be read.

</comment><comment><USER3> Unscrollable on my phone.</comment>


OS X Survival Guide - <AUTHOR> http://hack.org/mc/writings/mac-survival.html

<comment><USER2> Thanks for this. Some good tips here. Been looking to make a switch to OSX.</comment>


Why jwz uses Safari instead of Firefox  - <AUTHOR> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2012/04/why-i-use-safari-instead-of-firefox/

<comment><USER2> I have moral opposition to using any browser that is deeply integrated into the OS. We have seen IE, and let us hope that we do not return to that dark age. I would never claim that just because a browser runs as an _application_ rather than a _pseudo-service_ makes it secure, but I feel confident in saying that it makes it _more_ secure. Attack surface, et al.

<comment><USER3> What's your opinion of ChromeOS? (It doesn't get more deeply integrated than that.)

<comment><USER2> My opinion of ChromeOS is that it is a toy, but please read that knowing that I am not their target audience. Plus, my understanding is that the marketing message is "the browser is the OS" but under the covers it's a Linux platform. I am not extremely educated on ChromeOS, but you asked my opinion.</comment></comment></comment>