US Senate website says use HTTP instead of HTTPS - <AUTHOR> https://www.senate.gov/ <comment><USER2> Excuse the ignorance, but what's the problem if it's purely an informational read only site? There's no logins, prompts, messaging that can be exploited. What's the problem of it being unencrypted?

Don't get me wrong I'm all for https when there's user information to be protected back and forth, I just don't see the applicability for it here.

<comment><USER3> Theoretical, but:

1\. MITM to return fraudulent data ("click here to input your personal data to collect your government cheque from this new federal grant!")

2\. Recording browsing activity ("gee Mr. Smith, you sure do spend a lot of time looking up laws about X. Seems like a good thing to blackmail you about")

Working those into actual problems is an exercise for the reader, but they're mostly what https is for

There is also the benefit that HTTPS is harder to mass-surveil, and harder for your ISP to play shenanigans like injecting their adverts and tracking headers into the page ([https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x- uidh](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/11/verizon-x-uidh))

<comment><USER4> > Recording browsing activity

Yes, let's protect users visiting public available information from all the malicious eavesdroppers, while still posting all page requests to Google analytics...

<comment><USER5> While protecting visitors' information from malicious eavesdroppers doesn't change the fact that the site they are visiting may willingly be sending such data to a third party, it does prevent malicious eavesdroppers.

There are several levels of trust involved. HTTPS goes a great length to ensure that the link between the client and the server is not compromised. That the service may be malicious itself or unconcerned with privacy is a different problem that you have to solve in some other way. That doesn't make secure connections any less of a problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I also noticed it seems blocked from access outside the US...

so what would happen if a traveling american wants to access it?

edit: FYI I'm trying from Kenya. edit2: Using my phone I'm able to switch between wifi, and mobile and on mobile it is unblocked. hmmm

Also for those who don't see the Access Denied page but are curious, here is what it reads in full.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>--

Access Denied

You don't have permission to access "[http://serve-403-www.senate.gov/"](http://serve-403-www.senate.gov/") on this server. Reference #xx.xxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxxxx.xxxxxxxx

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>---

It seems it has little to do with geography. It's an IP thing.

<comment><USER7> Portugal, no probs, are you confusing 'blocked' with the stupid message redirecting to http?

Which country are you in? now i'm curious? China?!

<comment><USER6> nope, "ACCESS DENIED"

and also I accessed the site from the US (tunnel ;-) and it was unblocked, and then I saw the redirect to http.

<comment><USER7> Sorry, most likely I edited my comment after u replied. Which country are u in?

<comment><USER6> Kenya

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How strange, I changed it to http as asked. For me it then asked for my social security number to login and then I needed to confirm some of my banking information for the IRS. I'd expect that to be information you'd want to protect!! I actually double checked to make sure I wasn't on a phising site but I was safe: "senate.gov" why did they need my banking information? Oh well.

The above is fiction, but an easy scenario under HTTP. Any AP (wifi access point, like at a cafe) can do it...

<comment><USER9> Also, oh the Senate is telling me I have to install this software to view the website. Well it is the US Senate, so I guess I'll click OK.

<comment><USER10> It's probably Dianne Feinstein spyware installer. Don't worry, they'll only look at your data for important reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Attempted to write to one of my senators. To do so online requires using the web form on the senator's "contact" page. It says only messages from the senator's constituents will be accepted, so it's necessary for the author to share some identifying info.

I don't know how much checking is done to assure the writer really is a constituent, probably there's some lookup of street addresses, zip codes, etc.

Main point is that the senator's contact page does use https. This is appropriate given that personal info is shared per the contact form. I don't think any other senate pages accept input, so maybe their reasoning is that http vs. https is less critical on other parts of the site.

<comment><USER12> Understood, but the contact link could be maliciously changed through a MITM attack (which would be prevented if the whole domain was accessible through HTTPS).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Weird, they're hosted on Akamai. Even weirder, it doesn't appear that www.senate.gov supports IPv6.

<comment><USER14> What's weird about them not supporting ipv6?

<comment><USER13> Well, briefly - the General Service Administration declared "By September 30, 2014, agencies needed to update their public networks to Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6)"

There is an exception process, but Akamai already supports IPv6 (though they do charge extra for it, booo!). You'd like to think something as high visibility (PR, not web traffic) as senate.gov would comply with the GSA.

[http://gsablogs.gsa.gov/technology/2014/01/02/1128/](http://gsablogs.gsa.gov/technology/2014/01/02/1128/)

<comment><USER10> The US Senate is not an agency. They are a branch of Congress, and therefore definitely not required to do anything a executive agency tells them to do -- especially if it's reasonable like implementing HTTPS.

<comment><USER15> Yes, the IPv6 is a White House (not GSA) mandate, like [https://https.cio.gov](https://https.cio.gov). It doesn't apply to the legislative or judicial branches, and in that blog post, GSA is advertising the services it can offer other agencies to help them achieve IPv6 compliance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> See also: [https://https.cio.gov/](https://https.cio.gov/)

I suspect they haven't caught up with the mandate.

<comment><USER15> As a White House memorandum, that mandate only applies to the executive branch.

Though the GSA's HTTPS adoption dashboard does include legislative branch domains, including senate.gov:

[https://pulse.cio.gov/https/domains/#q=legislative](https://pulse.cio.gov/https/domains/#q=legislative)

<comment><USER17> Somewhat confusingly, pulse.cio.gov lists senate.gov as supporting HTTPS with an 'A' from SSL Labs. While that is of course technically correct, it doesn't tell the full story, since no actual content is served over HTTPS.

Would it be worth trying to update pulse.cio.gov to detect cases like this? That's non-trivial to do in a reliable automated fashion, but seems like it might be worth the effort?

<comment><USER15> Yeah, I'm torn on it. It's clearly not the right information. But one of the benefits of an automated approach is that everyone's being treated equally, and people can't complain about unfair treatment.

In the case of the Senate, their current configuration prevents them from using HSTS or enforcing HTTPS, so the other columns will still show as lacking.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'd forgotten how _fast_ everything loads if you use http instead of https.

It's quite refreshing to not have that initial half-second or so lag that you get when loading an https page.

Hopefully we'll make back some of the difference once http/2 is more widespread.

<comment><USER19> Well, for me that's only true for the first time I visit a website.

HN, for example, loads in less than half a second, due to using a CDN (i.e. Cloudflare).

With CDNs, the RTTs are small enough to not matter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Can someone tell me why this might have been required?

What are the situations which might prompt a developer to make their users use http instead of https?

<comment><USER9> At a guess, it was built years ago by an agency selected on the basis of anything other than technical competence. As a result it probably has thousands of hard coded HTTP links and an oddly configured out of date web server.

Given the 'encryption is only used by terrorists' climate, spending the time and money to make it work for https sounds like a hard sell.

No sources, but I have done some work in UK public sector and that kind of story would match.

<comment><USER21> Well it does the job, and if it aint broken why fix it?

<comment><USER22> It creates an easy vector for MITM attacks - could be done by nefarious parties on US citizens traveling in other countries for example.

<comment><USER21> So looking who are your senators is putting you at risk?

Isn't it a tad paranoid?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Well, if you've got nothing to hide...

;)

</comment><comment> mind-blight I can't load the senate.gov website with the HTTPS Everywhere browser plugin. The plugin redirects the senate HTTP URL back to the No HTTPS warning. It's easy to get around by going incognito, but this would seriously confuse the average user.

<comment><USER12> The average user doesn't have the HTTPS Everywhere plugin, and I assume most that do have it installed are used to dealing with this kind of bad configuration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I wondered if there were any senator contact forms etc but I couldn't find any. However, you can use the 'find your senator' drop-down top-right to find a senator's private website contact form. Those I looked at were all unencrypted too.

</comment><comment><USER24> Perhaps they don't have the resources to serve all requests over https at this time?

</comment><comment><USER25> And it's OK. This "HTTPS everywhere" concept is damaging. I think it should be revised. The amount of overhead and the lack of ability to optimize encrypted content for transferring over, say, satellite or other radio links, is bad. Lots of people still use very expensive (>$2,000 per Mbps) long-RTT connections that would benefit immensely from content optimization techniques. And most of them are cost-sensitive because they live in developing countries.

<comment><USER26> This is almost as bad as when people were arguing against long signatures on Usenet.

https is the least of your worries in terms of overhead.

<comment><USER27> > benefit immensely from content optimization techniques. And most of them are > cost-sensitive because they live in developing countries You can't optimise > the size of encrypted content until you've downloaded it. It could go > through a third party on your behalf but then they argue, what's the point > in the encryption at all.</comment></comment></comment>


Programming no longer qualifies as a "special occupation" for H1B Visas [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.uscis.gov/sites/default/files/files/nativedocuments/PM-6002-0142-H-1BComputerRelatedPositionsRecission.pdf <comment><USER2> Quote:

Based on the current version of the Handbook, the fact that a person may be employed as a computer programmer and may use information technology skills and knowledge to help an enterprise achieve its goals in the course of his or her job is not sufficient to establish the position as a specialty occupation. Thus, a petitioner may not rely solely on the Handbook to meet its burden when seeking to sponsor a beneficiary for a computer programmer position. Instead, a petitioner must provide other evidence to establish that the particular position is one in a specialty occupation as defined by 8 CFR 214.2(h)(4)(ii) that also meets one of the criteria at PM-602-0142: Rescission of the December 22, 2000 "Guidance memo on H1B computer related positions"</comment>


Smart TV from LG phones home with user's viewing habits, USB file names - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/11/smart-tv-from-lg-phones-home-with-users-viewing-habits-usb-file-names/#p3

<comment><USER2> Sony does it, why is it a huge deal when LG does?

We all know its really the MAFIAA (google it) behind it anyway. /sarc</comment>


Orbs CCG (YC S13) takes to Kickstarter to reinvent Magic: The Gathering - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/07/17/orbs-ccg-kickstarter/

<comment><USER2> I don't know a polite way to say this so I'll be blunt. The first words out of mouth were "holy crap" at how bad the art is. The big image in the link and on the kickstarter video look like mediocre high school art. It's really bad. The game interface is then pure programmer art. Please, please, please hire multiple artists.

That said, this is a great market to be in as HEX raised 2.2 million. Their project already had significant investment before hitting kickstarter though. The bar is quite high. [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cze/hex-mmo- trading-card...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/cze/hex-mmo-trading-card- game)

<comment><USER3> It appears that Orbs is copying the game UI and card design from Magic: The Gathering Online.

The only problem is that UI is literally _11 years old_.

[http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/4002/61895_full...](http://www.gamershell.com/static/screenshots/4002/61895_full.jpg)

<comment><USER4> The aesthetics of the app are going to improve.

The card art is pretty high quality, and I disagree with whoever said it was high school art. They're professional artists doing a good job.

That being said, the app's UX is actually really usable and what people expect when playing. It's evolved to the way it is currently based on user testing. It doesn't look as pretty as it could, but it's very easy and natural to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is somewhat off-topic, but HN'ers may be interested to know the business history of the Magic: The Gathering trading card game that's this YC company's inspiration.

MTG was a bootstrapped startup designed by a mathematics PhD student. A great product that resonated with fans, a then-unique market niche, good retail distribution (pretty important for physical products in the early '90s), and favorable acquisitions led to a nine-figure exit for the founder [1].

[1] [http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2004/10/01/81...](http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fsb/fsb_archive/2004/10/01/8187285/)

<comment><USER6> Magic:the Gathering is a freak of nature. It was a clever game that was brought to a niche company of RPG geeks who's day jobs were managing aerospace projects. In short a bunch of well-to-do hobby publishers with day jobs saw the product and "bet the farm" on making it work out when lightening struck.

From that point on, its been an anomaly in the gaming market, often imitated, never duplicated the exact mix that sparked it. WoTC has learned the limits of where their formula works as well, even THEY can't copy Magic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The best CCG I've seen is Dominions [1], because it eliminates the more annoying and expensive aspects of the game involving accumulating and managing large, valuable collections of cards. But I've always been more interested in the strategy aspect of games much more than the collectability aspect.

But from a business standpoint, the latter tendency is more desirable to cultivate in players because it's more profitable. When I actively played both, I spent at least an order of magnitude more annually on Magic cards than on Dominion and its expansions.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(card_game)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_\(card_game\))

<comment><USER7> Dominion isn't a CCG, it's a deck building board game. Two completely different categories that aren't directly competing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hi, this is Jeff with Orbs CCG. Here's a direct link to the Kickstarter:

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/919406593/orbs-ccg- the-a...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/919406593/orbs-ccg-the- asynchronous-digital-collectible-card)

</comment><comment><USER8> M:tG is a behemoth in the space, primarily on the back of the physical cards. Magic Online has a really poor interface, but it can qualify you for a pro tour which has a fairly large payout. The other digital magic games have much better interfaces, but don't tie into the competitive aspects of the game. They still solidify the brand.

I'm curious how these guys plan to compete with the major players in the space. Most of the real products have a huge backing and insane marketing budgets.

Is there a way they're trying to sell this beyond, "hey, why aren't you just playing the largest (and currently growing) CCG?"

<comment><USER4> The biggest point of differentiation is asynchronous play. You can't play Magic and most CCGs asynchronously, because every card you play has the option of being responded to (by counterspells, for instance).

The benefit of asynchronous play is that you get to play with your friends and family, regardless of time or location. This makes the game more social and fun, and better than playing random players from the internet.

More info: [http://orbsccg.com/comparison](http://orbsccg.com/comparison)

<comment><USER9> Are you concerned about competition? Many online CCGs have rulesets capable of supporting asynchronous play (Might and Magic: Duel of Champions, Solforge, Sword Girls, Elements the Game, etc.) and Infinity Wars' devs have publicly announced that they will do it.

Notably Hex seems to have the same issue as MtG where asynchronous play is not practical.

<comment><USER4> Well there's a lot of difference in all those games, and they're going to attract different types of players. Just compare Sword Girls with Solforge, for instance.

Just as important if not more than competing with other games is competing for awareness. I've done surveys of what other games people play, and the majority of players know about Magic but are unaware of the other games out there.

So I'm not overly concerned but I have done my research and follow what the other games are doing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've only played Magic: The Gather a few times, but it would be interesting to focus more on deck building and then let the _computer_ "play" randomized head-to-head games. Players could tweak their decks between rounds or games.

<comment><USER11> > Players could tweak their decks between rounds or games.

Or the computer could, evolving better decks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I feel like a very crucial bit of information was left out: how does one acquire cards? Is it like traditional TCGs where you pay a few dollars to get a random dozen? If so, count me out.

<comment><USER4> Yes, you can buy booster packs and starter decks. This is the business model of all virtual goods games. You can also earn cards for free too in the game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I am stunned that apparently there are no HTML5 based trading card games yet. I would have expected there to be hundreds already.

</comment><comment><USER14> Game designer here. Like the idea. I doubt it will catch on among ex-M:tG players due to uncanny valley effects. It could still be a great game and I really hope it succeeds, but I don't see the CCG model itself generating a hit.

If I were to do a CCG, I'd take serious inspiration from the German-style board game genre. #1. Use a Victory Point goal instead of "kill the other guy" so you have interesting 3+ player play. #2. Use market-type mechanics and lots of options to avoid mana screw type degeneracies.

That said, I've heard of CCGs failing for not having enough random luck... so take my advice with a huge grain of salt. If you optimize away all the luck, you take out of the fun and most players will say you've gone too far at that point.

The problem with most of these post-Magic CCGs is that they're too similar to Magic, which was groundbreaking in its time but couldn't benefit from the German-style aesthetic, largely because it hadn't developed yet.

Secondly, being online is a disadvantage. Cards are part of the experience. Also, physical cards make Magic's love/hate scarcity socially acceptable in a way that it won't be in an online game. The way to win is to make the online aspect an advantage instead by open sourcing it. However, that requires a lot in the way of community management. It'll be a lot of fun, but hard to scale.

<comment><USER4> Those are some good points. The point about mana screw is really important because it's a big turn off for players. Orbs has no mana flooding or mana screw, because there's no dedicated resource card. Instead, once per turn, any card may be discarded for one energy of its color, and this energy regenerates each turn.

Being a digital CCG is a big advantage, actually. There's huge opportunity in the digital CCG market right now, and five years from now I think we'll say 2013 was the year that DCCGs started taking off. If not 2012, even: look at how well Rage of Bahamut did (technically a card battler, but still relevant). Rage of Bahamut is falling off the charts now, but I believe that if a digital CCG were balanced and had a pro community (for e-sports), it could be evergreen, where you come out with new sets regularly. Magic, for instance, is on its 20th year.

I think one macro reason DCCGs are taking off now is that virtual goods games are more acceptable to Western audiences. It used to be people didn't want to pay real money for virtual goods, whereas now it's pretty much expected in most games.</comment></comment>


At what point it makes a financial sense to sue an IP thief? - <AUTHOR> Let's say if an employee starts an LLC and pretends to be the owner of the stolen software product (stolen proprietary source code, but few changes).
The LLC is registered in Delaware and the employee himself lives in NYC where he bought lots of real estate with sales proceeds from stolen code.
I understand you can sue anyone anytime. But it doesn't mean, you'll win or it will be worth it.
Taking completely financial aspect (no hate/hard feelings/ego stroking).
If this employee sells $100 worth of stolen software, then it's not worth suing him or is it? As the damage is not even enough to cover legal costs.
So, at what damage level does it make sense to sue this person? Can we only sue for the actual theft amount (amount invoiced out of his new LLC)  or we can sue for an amount exceeding the actual theft?
At what level of theft it makes a financial sense to sue this person, taking into consideration only the legal fees, not our personal time? <comment><USER2> Much as I hate them, this sounds like material for a civil-criminal hybrid case.

Looks like you were defrauded out of your source code and proceeds therefrom. If so, work on putting together a fraud/theft complaint and contact law enforcement. They have threshold amounts, so if it's over, say, $100k in losses, you'll interest them far more than if it's only $100 in losses. Don't lie, but don't understate, or assume you can't add up all the categories of loss into a larger number.

A successful criminal prosecution may entitle you to recovery of restitution from the thief, with the litigation paid for nearly entirely by the government. As a bonus, you (through the government) get to threaten the other party with prison time, and they can neither discharge what they owe you in bankruptcy nor hide their money from a judgment near as easily.

With this option on the table, seems rather foolish to even consider a civil lawsuit. Lawyers cost money, but criminal complaints are free.

Now if only our system kept situations like these from happening where the victim lies to the government.</comment>


Black light experiment shows how quickly a virus like Covid-19 can spread - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/13/health/japan-black-light-experiment-coronavirus-trnd-wellness/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> What is amazing about this experiment is the 2nd experiment that if diner is given a towel before and after their meal, no one got infected! Would it be the best way to reopen the economy while keeping the risk low?</comment>


Updated images of Ubuntu for the Raspberry Pi 2, 3 and 4 - <AUTHOR> https://ubuntu.com/blog/updated-images-of-ubuntu-for-the-raspberry-pi-2-3-and-4 <comment><USER2> Sounds promising. Raspbian is cool but occasionally still has some random package missing

<comment><USER3> Like what? Stuff easily installed?

<comment><USER4> Last time I checked (maybe a month ago) there was no way to install Firefox on the latest version of Raspbian, as Mozilla doesn't ship a binary and there wasn't anything in the repo. The foundation had to ship Chromium on the default image (which is really bad on a low resource device).

I imagine since Canonical and Mozilla are still really good friends, they must have it in the Ubuntu repo for Pi/arm. Alas, I'm not at my pi right now or I'd download the image.

<comment><USER5> They do. Although Firefox too runs bad on rpi.

Someone told me to use the successor of zram (can't remember its name) to get much better browser performance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is this the first time Ubuntu provided real 64bit images?

</comment><comment><USER6> Why is this news? There should be new images regularly created.

<comment><USER7> I believe this is the first release with USB working on the 4GB rpi4.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: A Record Label in a GitHub Repository? - <AUTHOR>

I'm not sure how big the intersection is between GitHub users and musicians, but I know there must be some of you out there.
Repo Man Records is a record label in a repository. You submit your album via pull request, and if accepted it'll get merged into the main branch. I'm still trying to work out a few things, such as how a submission should be structured. I'd expect it'd be mandatory to follow a certain folder convention, include 320kbps audio files and a README with artist information (and possibly extra information if you wish).
There are some cool things you could do with this. Imagine having a Repo Man folder and running "git pull" once in a while. You'd get access to great music, free, made by other hackers.
I love music (esp Indie Rock / Electronica / Shoegaze). I'm looking for other people to get involved with this (tech people, curators, tastemakers), as well as musicians interested in being involved in this.
A splash page on a GitHub Pages site will follow soon, but I wanted to get this out there while it was fresh.
Repo is here: https://github.com/lewisflude/RepoManRecords <comment><USER2> Would you accept only media or possible source files for generative music? For instance, I could author a music video with just PureData & GEM, or upload a deterministic DJ set via a Max/MSP patch... Since music could be considered so many things other then just recordings these days, being open to different methods of presenting a composition could be an excellent use case for such an idea...

Could be interesting...

<comment><AUTHOR> That's an awesome idea! I'm a big fan of generative music. I've seen it distributed in quite a few interesting ways such as here <http://ttg.myanimalhome.net/> (Animal Collective and Danny Perez's collaboration for The Guggenheim in NY).

It's definitely something I'd be open to distributing if it was done well. I'd like to try and be format agnostic when it comes to the review and curation process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> That's a neat idea, and I'm very interested to see how it plays out.

Just do it, and see what happens! All experiments are good.

If I were a musician, I'd participate :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Will hopefully have something up in the next few days. :)</comment></comment>


20 Years of Microsoft UI Crimes - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/young-coder/20-years-of-microsoft-ui-crimes-687000ccd1bc <comment><USER2> Arguably, approximately, the older a Windows version is - the more aestetically pleasing an easy to use it is.</comment>


How to Fix the Electoral College - <AUTHOR> http://www.fixthecollege.com/ <comment><USER2> So I'm looking at the 2016 map compared to the electoral college map in the post, [http://blogs- images.forbes.com/alexknapp/files/2016/11/AZ.jp...](http://blogs- images.forbes.com/alexknapp/files/2016/11/AZ.jpg?width=960) and it appears zero EC votes are flipping because of this.

Though, PA and MI would have along with enough other votes to lock Clinton in. If it were law in the yellow states as opposed to approved.</comment>


More Layoffs: Pandora Cuts 14 Percent of Its Staff  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/10/17/more-layoffs-pandora-cuts-14-percent-of-its-staff/ <comment><USER2> I'm shocked it takes 140 (now, 120) people to run Pandora.

Does anybody know how they are grouped (Engineering, Marketing, Biz Dev, etc)?</comment>


In CSS, the music is between the curly braces - <AUTHOR> http://genii.in/posts/in-css-the-music-is-between-the-curly-braces

<comment><USER2> Interesting and a very unique approach towards CSS, liked it.</comment>


Matt Cutts: New startup someone should do - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/buzz/109412257237874861202/NC8QznVNdWn/New-startup-someone-should-do-Is-This-Link-Too

<comment><USER2> You could probably start with a plugin that uses the tweetmeme API - <http://help.tweetmeme.com/2009/04/07/api-documentation/> \- it'd give you url count, comment count and date created.

\-- the other direction you could go in, is start tracking everything a person shares, bookmarks and likes on all their social networks, and aggregate that into a person's public profile. (unfortunately friendfeed doesn't give such info on a url like tweetmeme) From there, use that information for the plugin above, when assessing a url.

<comment><USER3> Just using the date alone (along with page views or traffic) would be a pretty good start.

<comment><USER2> Can also use delicious for further info: <http://www.delicious.com/help/api#posts_get> \-- could also use it to get hashtags for placement into the share snippet

edit: also has an others element, eg: others="55" to obtain number of bookmarks for a given url

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You get something similar to this with the bit.ly sidebar bookmarklet. When you shorten a URL, it tells you how many clicks there have been on all bit.ly- shortened links for that URL. I always check out this number, and if a link has over a certain amount of clicks, I usually won't tweet.</comment>


Ask HN: What is the significance in Hacker News' domain name "ycombinator.com" - <AUTHOR> I know in Lambda Calculus there is this idea of the Y-combinator. What is the reason why the ycombinator group has its name? <comment><USER2> [http://www.ycombinator.com/faq/#q41](http://www.ycombinator.com/faq/#q41)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I realized that I have been reading HN for the last year and always thought the domain name was strange, but never really dug into the meaning. Makes sense.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why did Techcrunch change "cab" to "Uber" in their Cheryl Yeoh coverage? - <AUTHOR> Not to distract from the main story here, but I found it interesting that Techcrunch decided to editorialize the pull quotes from the source blog. Anyone know why they'd decide to do that in their coverage?
I've included highlighted screenshots of the source blog and the Techcrunch coverage, one in iOS Safari and one in Chrome for iOS.
http://imgur.com/a/VpVm2 <comment><USER2> I think the only significance of the edit is in what one reads into it. To me, it's like saying "Joe drank a soda" instead of "Joe drank a Coke". In the context of the story, the brand name doesn't seem to matter. Whether they called Uber or the Yellow Cab Company, the gist seems to be that some people left and hired a ride.

</comment><comment><USER3> Link to the original story?</comment>


In the Future the Business Founder Will Not Be Ignored - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/05/in-the-future-the-business-founder-will-not-be-ignored/

<comment><USER2> The title seems like bait. I think far more often (perhaps not as true in the valley, I don't really know) that business founders are the ones who's value is overemphasized. It's so bad that I regularly see "idea" people trying to justify majority (if not total) ownership while bringing almost nothing (often not even business sense) to the table.

I completely agree with balance, but the truth is that in the majority of businesses the preferred approach is to make the "do-ers" employees. The fact that the pendulum has swung the other way a bit seems ok to me if only to highlight the fact that motivated engineers can start and manage very successful businesses without the typical "business" guys.

However, just like I feel that organizations that only value people in business and sales roles for executive positions and partnerships are crippling themselves by their own arrogance and limited vision, I also can see how a bunch of CS grads playing business in their spare time while hacking with the rest of it, may also be limiting their organizations in a similar way. The goal should simply be to find valuable talented people that can fill all of your organizations needs and then treat them like you actually value their contribution to the business. You know, by letting them own a piece of that value.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think the change the author writes about will come. He thinks the barriers to development will be eased through better and easier to use tools, and he's right about that. But even today, we have Dreamweaver, Photoshop, and Xcode, but to produce anything REALLY good, you have to go deeper than what you see, and it will always be like that. The reason is because entire bar for quality shifts up when everybody gets better tools; the game changes and evolves. For example, today it isn't impressive enough to be static, we want the power to build databases and interactivity. And when we achieve that, we'll want to link them up to APIs and libraries without having know how. And even with these magical tools, a hacker could still outproduce a non-technical by X factor, because they have access to tools AND depth of knowledge as well.

That said, I think the distinction between technical and business founder is paid too much attention. In the context of entrepreneurship, programming is a skill, a means to an end. That end is a product/business that makes money.

</comment><comment><USER4> I consider myself a business founder, yet I have an M.S. in computer science. Much of it really depends on the skills you choose to develop during your career. For me, I leveraged volunteer time with non-profits to fill in holes (including marketing, accounting, fundraising, and relationship building) which were difficult to develop in a technical role.

This is also the reason why my co-founder has the role of CTO. I let him take the lead on the technical side and support whenever I'm not working on the business side. The current system is very supportive of generalists with a strong technical background. Just my observations...

</comment><comment><USER5> There should be a place in any startup for a business founder. You need to have people who come from different backgrounds and experiences to make sure your product can appeal to and be used by everyone. Not to mention a business founder will probably know a bit more about how to actually make a business, marketing, sales, accounting, raising capital, etc.

</comment><comment><USER6> I'm curious about the "knack" vs "background" comparisons between business guys and engineers.

Assuming they one has a "knack" for both coding and business, in which direction is it easier to cross over? Is it easier for a MBA to crack the codebase (with no prior experience) or for a CS guy to run the business (with no prior experience)?

<comment><USER7> You've probably heard something similar to the adage that it take minutes to become a bad businessman and years to become a bad engineer. In other words, one can be bad at business but there is nothing physically stopping someone from making bad decisions, pitches, purchase, contracts, hires, or whatever else a "businessman" does. The CS guy might get lucky if the economics are in a forgiving phase or everybody wants what he is trying to sell.

On the engineering side, there is a hard barrier where quality simply can't be traded for time. Yes, anyone can pick up a book and put together a simple application, but a simple application isn't going to be valuable. Each new feature is likely to take weeks and there would be little improvement as each challenge would be its own technical journey. Need to use a database to do something complex? that's a month of trial and error learning. Need to integrate? another month of learning web services and networking basics. Need to think about security? another month, and on and on. If the MBA turned developer doesn't put in the time, it simply won't work. There is no duct taping together some code snippets to get something of value. Granted, anyone can put together something simple, but they will quickly hit a point where further progress is not possible without lots and lots of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh, the "advancing technology will allow non-technical people to create software and make programmers obsolete" argument.</comment>


WeWork looks like a bubble waiting to burst - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/nils-pratley-on-finance/2019/sep/10/wework-looks-like-a-bubble-waiting-to-burst <comment><USER2> Silicon Valley is a bubble waiting to burst. You have to get massive loans from "angels", a staff of leadership ready to pocket a sizable chuck of that with stock options, and finally an enthusiastic mob of people willing to work 40-80 hour weeks only to have more fodder to add to their resume.

I suppose that exploiting a massive underclass has always been sustainable, but once transparency blows wide open it's hard to say what will transpire from there.

<comment><USER3> What? I understood the first paragraph but what is your last sentence about?</comment></comment>


Google breaks through China's Great Firewall  but only for just over an hour - <AUTHOR> http://www.scmp.com/tech/china-tech/article/1931301/google-breaks-through-chinas-great-firewall-only-just-over-hour <comment><USER2> Guessing this wasn't intentional, though I'd be surprised if Google wasn't aware that Google Search was available and rolled it out without giving China a heads up.

As for China, can't believe they don't black list any TLD or sub-domain with Google in it; not that I'm for blocking Google, Google itself, etc.

Makes me wonder why someone doesn't just doesn't deploy it and give hints on "how to see beyond the Great Fire Wall"; fun fact, it's rumored that the average person has never heard of Tankman in China: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_Man)

</comment><comment><USER3> One thing I learned from this episode is that the GFW does not yet have the ability to automatically filter HTTPS traffic based on certificate signatures. Someone have suggested before and now we have some evidence that this is not the case.

P.S. Google is a prime candidate for this kind of filtering since they reuse one huge certificate containing almost every domain they use, despite maintaining an intermediate CA at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER4> I couldn't read this article because the South China Morning Post website has been blocked by the Great Firewall for the past few months. Before that, though, I could only access about 5 (I think) stories a month from scmp.com because they had a paywall. What's the difference between a Firewall and a paywall from a user's point of view?

<comment><USER2> Great Fire Wall is controled via malware, backdoors, network filtering, etc.; sort of like security firewalls, but only if compared to what a company might do to enforce their policies for what employees are able to use the Internet for. Paywalls are just a pay for access method for making money from content, and unrelated to the topic; meaning it's not like in China there a secret backdoor for the top government officials to see the real Internet; oh, wait, there likely is... :-)

<comment><USER4> > Paywalls are just a pay for access method for making money from content, and > unrelated to the topic

I asked what the difference between a Firewall and a paywall is " _from a user 's point of view_". At various times and in different ways it's possible to bypass the Firewall depending on how much you want to pay, e.g. using VPN's, using proxies though there's less of them around nowadays, visiting Hong Kong, getting friends overseas to scrape and email content, and the Firewall seems to fail periodically, not just from the Google change last weekend but often for a minute here, an hour there, for different websites.

<comment><USER2> Right, though "paying" for access wasn't an official option, where paywalls are an official option; comparable to paying for VPNs to get around official Internet blocks would be more like paying for access to a file sharing site to download pirates content. There less and less "pay" options because China is getting better and better at blocking the Internet. Happy to clarify anything or try to answer any additional questions you might have.

<comment><USER4> > "paying" for access wasn't an official option

Official and unofficial are two ends of a long sliding scale. Many paywalled newsites allow unlimited access if the article is accessed through links from search engines. This is an "unofficial" option. Accessing American TV shows from within China is more "unofficial".

Firewalls are set up by those who claim ownership over the people using the net; paywalls are set up by those who claim ownership over the information being accessed. Not only do both those concepts of ownership sound suspect to me, but also from the user's POV the experience of a Firewall and a paywall on the official-unofficial spectrum is the same.

Edit: By "paying" I meant paying with money (e.g. VPN's), with time (e.g. a day in HK), with guanxi (e.g. friends scaping and emailing sites), etc.

<comment><USER2> Feel like you asked a question that at the very least doesn't express the issue you're facing to me, what exactly is the real problem that you personally are facing that's not overly broad; for example, how do I allow everyone in China to have access to anything on the Internet forever for free from anywhere? (Sorry, but just trying to be clear.) Also, paywalls might be defined as paid Internet access and those system often limit use of the Internet; this includes limiting access to content.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A short while ago, I visited China for a week. Before my visit, I had dutifully downloaded the offline Mandarin files for Google Translate in my Nexus 5 in the hope of using it even when Google isn't available. But it was of no use because it still needed to contact Google for whatever reason and refused to do any voice/image translation.

</comment><comment><USER6> Nice to hear the enthusiasm! Interesting transient experience to experience vicariously on this end of the web.

</comment><comment><USER7> The title is very misleading by using word like "break through".

</comment><comment><USER8> Also related, looks like China's finally cutting itself off the rest of the internet in the world....switching from blacklisting to whitelisting.

"The proposed rules would prohibit the country's Internet-service providers from allowing connections to websites with domains, or Web addresses, registered outside China. Violators would face fines of up to 30,000 yuan ($4,621) and public notices exposing their failure to obey."

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-seeks-more-legal-muscle- to...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/china-seeks-more-legal-muscle-to-block- foreign-websites-1459230128)

<comment><USER9> That's so incredibly saddening. One of the greatest mediums for cultural exchange, possibly lopped off at the head before it could grow up.

<comment><USER10> I don't imagine it will happen in my lifetime, but I think there will be a time where China will want the rest of the world to understand them more than they want to block off the rest of the world. It's easy to think about government regimes in a polarised fashion - western democratic model: good, insular communist model: bad. In truth there is plenty of corruption to go around. Those in power find ways to stay in power for the long haul -- this is something all cultures share. The difference is _how_ they do it.

As you say, the internet changes the world and I believe that it will create opportunities that even the most insular governments will not be able to pass up. It will take decades, but I think that it must happen. _Our_ task in the meantime is to ensure that the internet stays functional. Things like strong encryption is vital. Probably net neutrality is a close second. Even in more open cultures, there are powerful forces trying to limit what the internet can be. As long as we can keep it unfettered in one place, I believe the benefits it brings will eventually draw everybody in. As such, my (unasked for) advice is not to worry too much about what China is doing and to concentrate on keeping the internet free where you are.

<comment><USER11> > > Our task in the meantime is to ensure that the internet stays functional > ...

I'd add end-user control to your list, as archaic as that might sound these days. Centralized systems provide a single point of political pressure and of failure.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


JavaScript variables: var and let and const - <AUTHOR> https://www.prestonlamb.com/blog/javascript-variables-var-and-let-and-const <comment><USER2> Having used Kotlin for a while now, I find it really unfortunate that `const` wasn't `val` for the sole reason that it's 5 characters instead of 3. `val` would have matched nice with `let`, and my multi-variable declaration statements could have had a nice 4-space indentation while still being all aligned.

I know it can be confused with `var`, but no one should ever use that now that `let` exists.

One of these days I'll write my own little language that compiles to TypeScript or something and fix that :)

<comment><USER3> A solution I prefer is Rust's where the immutable binding is default "let x" and you opt-in with a modifier to make it mutable "let mut x".

It just makes sense for the immutable case to be default by design instead of just by developer habit.

"var" vs "val" always were too similar for me.

<comment><USER4> Swift's var and let are also good. There is no "default" but "let" is obviously preferred

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's one non-obvious corollary from the fact that using let/const before declaring throws an error and var does not:

If you have let/const in your source code, but you use babel to transform it to ES5, you may have cases where you use let/const in that error-throwing way, but it's compiled down to var, and all is good (apart from variable being undefined when used).

When you however upgrade your babel conf to output ES6 and not compile down to var, you'll be having reference errors in those places, which may explode your app. I learned in production after enabling "differential serving" (module/nomodule).

There's an eslint plugin that can check for this stuff, but it finds false positives in 95% of cases (matter of personal preference - it disallows "valid but not blessed by the authors" behavior), so it's very likely you don't have it enabled, just like us.

<comment><USER6> So transpiling down to ES5 doesn't preserve semantics ?

<comment><USER5> For some features, having 100% spec compliant behavior in transpiled code would mean excruciatingly slow/bloated code, or be downright impossible. There's a reason why features are added to the language after all: to add things that are impossible or too complex to write in old version of language.

Transpilation is "best effort" and involves some tradeoffs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Use const always, unless you must use let. That's it.

You don't need to read other articles on this subject, it's that simple.

<comment><USER8> `var` creates global properties when used in the global scope, which is useful at times.

<comment><USER9> If you really, really need a global then you should assign it to `window/global/globalThis` instead of relying on the weird behavior of `var`

<comment><USER10> What do you find weird about var?

<comment><USER8> It's weird because it has side-effects (namely, implicitly adding/setting a named property in the current scope object, if any).

It means that a top-level script using `var` that is subsequently refactored into a scoped function somewhere will now have different semantics and might break if other code depended on `var` creating a new global property.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I use `let` mostly and I only use `const` for special cases when changing the variable would break the program and I want to constrain future developers from doing that. For example, when I import some library references in Node.js using `require`, I will use `const` or if I need to define a magic number like `const HANDSHAKE_TIMEOUT = ...`.

I don't see the point of using const everywhere though because I don't code in a pure functional style and I don't pretend to.

Often, it makes sense to re-assign a variable and I don't want to mislead future developers into thinking that it's not OK to do so if the requirements have changed.

</comment><comment><USER12> the one thing that annoys me about let/const that leads to me occasionally using var is that with var you can declare a variable in a try block and then use it afterwards, instead I have to declare a let outside the try or put way more then I want to in the try.

<comment><USER13> But, why would you want the declaration in the try when the scope of the variable is broader? It's true that var let's you do that, but it seems to me that's strictly a misleading thing.

Sure, you'll often need to split declaration from assignment with let in that case, but that's not a bad thing, IME.

<comment><USER14>
        try {
            const { attribute1, attribute2 } = getObject()
        } catch () {}
        attribute1 // undefined

How would you solve that?

<comment><USER13> With let outside the try, because that's the intended scope. Insofar as there is a problem I see with that, it's that you can't separate declaration of a single-assignment value (const) from the one allowed assignment, because the ideal solution would be const declared outside the try with the assignment inside.

OTOH var declared inside is a bad solution because it's both misleading as to scope and using a freely-assignable variable for something that's logically single-assignment. Let outside has only one of those problems.

<comment><USER14> Exactly, I'm just pointing out the limitations of `let/const`

I usually solve that case with

        let attribute1, attribute2;
        try {
             const object = getObject()
             attribute1 = object.attribute1
             attribute2 = object.attribute2
        } catch () {}

But I'm just not satisfied with it, too many statements. And it gets really messy with many attributes

<comment><USER15> How about this:

        let attribute1, attribute2;
        try  {
         ({attribute1, attribute2} = getObject())
        } catch (e) {}

<comment><USER14> wow, didn't know that!

So parenthesis are the trick, thanks!

<comment><USER15> No problem!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "let" is what I miss in Python.

<comment><USER17> Along with actual block scopes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> My inner pedant really hates this first sentence:

> There are three ways to create variables in a JavaScript application: using > var, using let, or using const.

No. There are two ways to create variables (let, var), and _one_ way to create a constant (const).

<comment><USER19> They're not really constant though, if you wanna be really pedantic. You can modify a const object for example.

<comment><USER20> It's constant because it cannot be reassigned - but it is not immutable.

<comment><USER19> Right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> [https://jamie.build/const](https://jamie.build/const)

[https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/1208369896880558080](https://twitter.com/dan_abramov/status/1208369896880558080)

<comment><USER22> Does JavaScript have value types where const might work the way the first author expects it to?

<comment><USER23> No. The only thing that makes _const_ unique from _let_ is that references declared as constants cannot be reassigned or else an error will be thrown. The exclusion only applies to the reference name itself and not to any of its properties as the article articulates.</comment></comment></comment>


Competence and prestige  - <AUTHOR> http://www.johndcook.com/blog/2012/10/18/downward-nobility/

<comment><USER2> You are not necessarily moving deeper into your area of competence. I am distinctly less competent in some volunteer work I do (unpaid, low prestige) than in my paid work (decently paid, middling prestige).</comment>


How to Program in Binary Machine Code – Raspberry Pi PDP-11 - <AUTHOR> http://jonatron.me/ <comment><USER2> Always great to see nostalgia articles that are about technology old enough to feel like it is old to me (Amiga and Atari ST are modern systems to me..).

Also some of us might have a PDP-11 in the closet somewhere.

</comment><comment><USER3> Cool, but you stole the name from Oscar's PiDP-8 project :( ([http://obsolescenceguaranteed.blogspot.ch/2015/01/new- projec...](http://obsolescenceguaranteed.blogspot.ch/2015/01/new-project- pdp-8i-replica.html)) How is he gonna call is PDP-11 panel replica now?

<comment><AUTHOR> Didn't think anyone else would be doing the same sort of thing. Changed it.

<comment><USER3> You could call it PDPi-11 :)

<comment><USER4> Pewdiepie?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Invitation to take part in an academic research study - <AUTHOR> https://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/tulips/projects/privacy_champions/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello, We are with research labs at the University of Edinburgh & University of California Berkeley, looking at ways to improve privacy practices in software development. We are looking to recruit for an interview software developers in your organization who can be described in at least one of the following ways: They formally or informally promote best practices for users' privacy, educate others, persuade, and advocate for privacy adoption throughout the software development process. They have an official or unofficial role within their team acting as the "voice" of users' privacy for the product or team, for example by giving privacy-related advice that can influence decisions and privacy practices. If you think you know someone who fits this description, please forward them the information in this email. We'd like to ask them to participate in a 40-60 minute interview about what it's like to play this role in your team or organization.

They can read more information about the study on this web page ([https://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/tulips/projects/privacy_champion...](https://groups.inf.ed.ac.uk/tulips/projects/privacy_champions/)) and respond by July 14, 2020. Any questions can be sent to us at email@example.com.

Thank you, Technology Usability Lab in Privacy and Security & Berkeley Lab for Usable and Experimental Security University of Edinburgh & University of California Berkeley</comment>


Since marijuana legalization, CO highway fatalities near historic lows (2014) - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/05/since-marijuana-legalization-highway-fatalities-in-colorado-are-at-near-historic-lows/ <comment><USER2> Article is from 2014. And when it was discussed last time, I believe the conclusion that focusing on highway fatalities was cherry-picking to show the best possible outcome given all the changes in crime / accidents in the past year in Colorado.

Having another year of data would be necessary here to really have believable claims about the impact.

<comment><USER3> I'm pretty sure that the point of the article is merely to debunk the idea that marijuana legalisation will lead to a mob of stoned drivers careening around the roads of Colorado.

From the article:

> These figures in and of themselves only indicate that the roads are getting > safer; they don't suggest that pot had anything to do with it

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This data says that fatalities slightly increased in 2014:

[https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash- data/fata...](https://www.codot.gov/library/traffic/safety-crash-data/fatal- crash-data-city-county/historical_fatals.pdf/at_download/file)

<comment><USER5> Yea, the data is cherry-picked. If I were to guess, we probably won't see statistically significant data clearly tied to legalization for a while.

<comment><USER6> Statistically significant for what question?

"Traffic fatalities are going to triple because of pot!" needs much less data than "traffic fatalities might increase slightly because of pot".

<comment><USER5> That's true. I think absurd claims are going to continue to be absurd. I don't think MOST people were expecting a drug-driven apocalypse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> [http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious- correlations](http://www.tylervigen.com/spurious-correlations) anyone ?

</comment><comment><USER8> Correlation, causation, propaganda?

<comment><USER9> I don't even understand how these could be related, or how anyone could think these are related. Marijuana is known to make people drive worse. This is classic example of post hoc fallacy [0].

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

<comment><USER10> It is actually known that musicians and athletes perform at elite levels while stoned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is common sense to anyone who has ever driven high on pot: you drive slower.

<comment><USER12> Drunk drivers say literally the same about alcohol. Until you film them driving a car while drunk (or using a simulator) and then show them all the bits of their driving made worse by alcohol.

<comment><USER11> 1) The inebriating qualities of the two drugs are apples and oranges 2) The effects of alcohol on driving are well-documented, but do you have videos of stoned drivers driving poorly?

<comment><USER5> > do you have videos of stoned drivers driving poorly?

I don't even know many stoners who would flat-out make the claim they don't drive worse when high. Everyone I know hits a point of being high enough where attention is low, reflexes are slow, and/or you have physical symptoms (e.g. drowsiness). No, you're not exactly drunk—you are probably rational, aware, etc—but you also probably shouldn't be operating tons of high speed machinery at that point. Everyone makes mistakes, and you don't want to put yourself in a situation where your mistakes might kill somebody.

My recommendation is to ease off this tact as it comes off more like being in denial about your responsibility as a driver.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely you are correct that many marijuana users regularly achieve a high under which they ought not drive. One difference between weed and alcohol, is that the marijuana users are more likely to choose not to drive in this state, IE they don't suffer from the same critically impaired judgement that we often associate with drunk driving. IE they are more likely to be respectful of their responsibility as a driver than drivers that have been drinking.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


As the SpaceX steamroller surges, European rocket industry vows to resist - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/science/2018/07/as-the-spacex-steamroller-surges-european-rocket-industry-vows-to-resist/ <comment><USER2> > Truthfully, if Europe ever did develop a reusable rocket, one that could fly > all the missions in a year, this would be unhelpful politically. What would > the engine and booster factories sprinkled across Europe do if they built > one rocket and then had 11 months off? The member states value the jobs too > much.

It feels incredibly short-term to me. How many jobs will be created by opening up spaceflight at 1/100 the cost? How many new types of satellites, technology, human transport will be created?

<comment><USER3> To me this is a major reason why the reusable launchers were not developed in Europe. The concept was being studied but never gained traction.

One of the reason might have been vanity but if you look at it with the view point of a CEO from a European firm, reusability was a risky gamble:

1) In order to keep your manufacturing quality, one needs to produce a new rocket every two or three months. Beyond that, the people manufacturing it losses knowledge and unless quality assurance is increased a lot, you will losses quality.

2) EU was doing around 12 launches a year, and that was by being very cheap. You could plan on increasing the market share but that starts being difficult as a lot of what remains cannot use a European launcher for political reasons.

3) For the sake of the argument, let say cheaper price double the market share, that leaves 24 launches a year. Based on a manufacturing of 6 launchers a year, this leaves 4 launches per rocket. And that is with very optimistic numbers (doubling of marketshare, no issue with reusability).

4) If you look at the numbers from SpaceX, 4 launches per rocket is where the reusability starts making sense. But ideally, you want more. 5) The Airbus people have shareholders to account to, not a CEO who does not care risking going banqueroute while pursuing a dream to go on Mars.

So yeah, doable but much more difficult than in a market with better access to investment and to huge cash cows named NASA and DoD

<comment><USER4> Alain Charmeau spelled this out explicitly to Der Spiegel:

> Charmeau said the Ariane rocket does not launch often enough to justify the > investment into reusability. (It would need about 30 launches a year to > justify these costs, he said). And then Charmeau said something telling > about why reusability doesn't make sense to a government-backed rocket > company—jobs.

> "Let us say we had ten guaranteed launches per year in Europe and we had a > rocket which we can use ten times—we would build exactly one rocket per > year," he said. "That makes no sense. I cannot tell my teams: 'Goodbye, see > you next year!'"

[http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau- di...](http://www.spiegel.de/wissenschaft/technik/alain-charmeau-die- amerikaner-wollen-europa-aus-dem-weltraum-kicken-a-1207322.html)

<comment><USER5> What will make even more sense is when he says to his teams: "Farewell, it was really nice working with you all, too bad the foreign competition slashed prices and bankrupted us"

<comment><USER6> The solution is therefore pretty simple: taxes will subsidize "industries of national interest". It is for the same reason as the US would never buy Swedish fighter jets, Israeli ICBMs or German submarines. This has been true since the beginning of the nation state.

<comment><USER5> Great idea - note however the lack of existance of Swedish fighter jets, the low quality of Israeli ICBM, and the rarity of German submarines.

A government can subsidize with taxes an industry as much as it wants, and force its products down its citizens throat as much as it can: it will not be able to create quality, which is essential to get a large market demand.

Unless the industry is very hard to replicate for whatever reason like large capital requirements given the available technology (ex: a computer in the 1940s, sending a human to the moon in the 1960s) this create a market opportunity.

Natural market forces such as competition ensure the end result.

EDIT: My bad, I forgot about the Swedish Gripen. It exists, which is no small feat by itself! It is just low quality and rare.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen)

"Gripen has achieved moderate success in sales to nations in Central Europe, South Africa and Southeast Asia; bribery has been suspected in some of these procurements, but authorities closed the investigation in 2009"

Thanks to bribery, this wonderful piece of technology could be sold to major world powers like South Africa and Hungary.

<comment><USER6> It is a great idea indeed, but note:

\- The Gripen fighter jets (designed and built in Sweden) listing no less than 17 (!) current and confirmed future customers here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saab_JAS_39_Gripen#Operational_history). The list of nations considering buying those jets is even longer.

\- You are either incredibly well informed or not informed at all about the quality of Israeli ICBMs, but since they are ordering submarines capable of launching ICBMs and are capable of launching satellites into orbit, the general state of Israeli ballistic capability is definitely high enough to deliver warheads anywhere on the planet.

\- Allegedly, the latest generation of German submarines is good enough to penetrate the defenses of a US navy carrier group ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine#Operations](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_212_submarine#Operations)). They are in service with both the German and Italian navies with four more ordered by the Norwegians.

Quality helps with generating demand but it is not enough, especially when selling to governments. If you don't believe this, please consider if SpaceX had still gotten the NSA launch contracts if SpaceX had been a Chinese or Russian company.

<comment><USER5> I fully agree that, when selling to friendly governments, quality is not much of a factor

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The denial is strong. Reminds me of how cell phone makers responded to the iPhone:

"The development of mobile phones will be similar in PCs. Even with the Mac, Apple has attracted much attention at first, but they have still remained a niche manufacturer. That will be in mobile phones as well," Nokia chief strategist Anssi Vanjoki told a German newspaper at the time.

Back in the day, smartphones were pretty much defined by devices like the Palm Treo, and Palm CEO Ed Colligan doubted some computer maker was going to just waltz in and eat his lunch.

"We've learned and struggled for a few years here figuring out how to make a decent phone," Colligan said. "PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in."

</comment><comment><USER8> > Even, so, Charmeau rejects comparisons to SpaceX, because he maintains that > the company is heavily subsidized by the US government.

Isn't ESA subsidized by the member governments? I'd understand if the criticism was coming from a private entity and they'd be complaining about SpaceX getting preferential treatment, but coming from a state sponsored agency it seems odd.

<comment><USER9> Ariane 5's commercial launches are directly subsidized by the EU. But it's a muddled story all around: if SpaceX rents an unused launch pad from NASA instead of spending $1 billion to build a new one, is that a subsidy? Was NASA's competition for commercial cargo to the ISS a subsidy?

<comment><USER3> Agreed, if one could take into account all the subsidies, I am sure we would be at similar levels. The commercial cargo contract was on par with the ATV program, but the prospect is much bigger, with better financial stability.

And where should we stop counting subsidies? Are the government funded studies made by research institutes counted? They benefit a lot to the companies.

<comment><USER9> You can look at the Boeing vs Airbus trade case to see how far folks are willing to go when adding up "subsidies" \-- into the weeds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm encouraged to see that their "vow to resist" seems to mainly involve trying to outperform SpaceX, as opposed to asking for legislation/regulation to give their rocket program special status.

EDIT: At least that was the gist of this article, it seems like other sources suggest they may pursue legislative avenues as well.

<comment><USER11> > _their "vow to resist" seems to mainly involve trying to outperform SpaceX_

The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9 and variable cost and mass uncompetitive with the Falcon Heavy. There are no plans for a European reusable. The "our mission is different...our culture is different" comment implies a regulatory, not technological, solution.

<comment><USER12> >The planned Ariane 6 is cost uncompetitive with the Falcon 9

This isn't really true. Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable).

Because Ariane uses a "dual-berth" conops, it (generally) flies two payloads per launch, whereas Falcon 9's excess capacity is usually left unused. The two rockets are thus of comparable cost to a satellite customer, with pros and cons for each — Ariane is more reliable, but you have to work around the other customer's schedule.

The worry is that Ariane 6 won't be competitive with _future_ rockets, like New Glenn or BFR.

<comment><USER11> > _Ariane 6 is expected to cost €75 million for 5 tonnes to GTO and €90 > million for 11.5 tonnes. Falcon 9 costs $50 million for 5.5 tonnes to GTO > (reusable) and $62 million for 8.3 tonnes (expendable)_

Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9?

Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, your numbers don't paint the Arianes favorably.

> _Falcon 9 's excess capacity is usually left unused_

Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies ( _e.g._ Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.

[1] [http://spaceflight.com](http://spaceflight.com)

<comment><USER12> >Why would someone pay €75 million to launch 5 tonnes to GTO on the Ariane 6 when they can spend $62 million and get an extra 3.3 tonnes of capacity on the Falcon 9?

Because their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper berth for €45 million while another customer pays the rest in the lower berth. Capability isn't useful if your payload doesn't use it.

>Based on your numbers, Falcon 9 is $9 million and $7.5 million per tonne. Ariane 6 is €15 million and €7.8 million, respectively. Given €1 is generally worth more than $1, and that the Ariane's prices are still just projections, I think you made your counterargument.

These prices are within 20%, which I'd call competitive given non-price factors. The claim was not that Ariane was _cheaper_.

>Source? It's been a few years since I was in the launch industry, but even then piggyback slots on Falcon 9s were in heavy demand. Sufficiently so that a number of companies (e.g. Spaceflight [1]) cropped up to broker them.

Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously hard to coordinate. Spaceflight's SHERPA mission was supposed to fly secondary to the (tiny) Formosat-5 payload, but was pulled due to delays.[0] SFI now plans to stick with "dedicated rideshare" on rockets booked by them entirely for their customers. Their first flight will be SSO-A on a dedicated Falcon 9 later this year.

Historically, Falcon has flown few secondary payloads. An OG-2 prototype flew as a secondary on CRS-1, but was lost due to the engine-out on ascent. Iridium-6 shared with NASA's Grace-FO, after both missions dropped off Dnepr due to the Ukraine crisis.[1] Hispasat-30W carried a small hosted (then released) secondary as part of an experimental deployment system.[2] I can't think of any other notable secondary payloads.

[0] [https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to- fin...](https://spacenews.com/spacex-delays-force-spaceflight-to-find- alternative-launches/)

[1] [https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch- sh...](https://spacenews.com/iridium-buys-eighth-falcon-9-launch-shares-with- earth-science-mission/)

[2] [https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent- la...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/03/12/spacexs-most-recent-launch- carried-a-secret-military-funded-experiment/)

<comment><USER11> > _their satellite is, perhaps, 3 tonnes, allowing them to fly in the upper > berth for €45 million_

€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.

> _Secondary payloads — especially multi-smallsat rideshare — are notoriously > hard to coordinate_

It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.

Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago. I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, _et cetera_ \--that niche will narrow.

<comment><USER12> >€45 million is over $52 million. The Falcon 9, in re-usable mode, is cheaper and, in non-reusable mode, requires you find a buddy who will pay at least $10 million for 2 metric tonnes of launch capacity.

F9 reusable is about the same. For Falcon 9, you'll need that secondary payload provider to also pay for a custom payload adapter and deployment mechanism, since berths aren't standardized as on Ariane.

>It's an easier problem to solve than building a new launch platform. Particularly if reusability increases launch frequency.

Certainly, but it's not one that has been solved. I suspect moving forward we'll see it mostly solved for _very_ small sats on dedicated rideshare missions, while excess payload for larger commercial sats remains unused.

>Ariane 6 was designed assuming reusability would fail. That wasn't unreasonable ten years ago.

Certainly. But it's important to note that designing for first stage reusability wouldn't necessarily be profitable _either_. SpaceX is already cheaper without it and is quickly taking market share away. As launch cadence drops, financial returns on reusability fall quickly. If you're second fiddle already, you may very well lose money by investing in reusability.

>I agree there will be niches where someone will be forced to pay up for scheduling. But as launch frequencies increase--from SpaceX as well as Blue Origin, RocketLab, India, et cetera--that niche will narrow.

I'd argue Ariane's niche remains _reliability_ , not scheduling (which it has problems with because of the dual berth conops[0]). SpaceX will soon own schedule reliability as its backlog dissipates and boosters are rapidly reused. But there's a reason JWST is going on Ariane 5.

[0] [https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/27/concerns-with- indian-p...](https://spaceflightnow.com/2018/04/27/concerns-with-indian- payload-postpone-next-ariane-5-launch/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My first instinct was amusement, seeing ESA's blatant denial and sour-grape- ization of SpaceX. But then I remembered that we all work on projects which someday will be similarly obsolete, and I can only hope we handle the situation a bit more gracefully and effectivity.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm always stunned by the degree to which "resisting" consists of haughty dismissiveness of SpaceX and whining about subsidies (which Arianespace itself receives in spades). I wonder if these people will be able to swallow their pride when SpaceX eats their lunch and they have to go work for the Americans.

</comment><comment><USER11> > _if Europe ever did develop a reusable rocket, one that could fly all the > missions in a year, this would be unhelpful politically. What would the > engine and booster factories sprinkled across Europe do if they built one > rocket and then had 11 months off?_

<comment><USER15> This problem will also bite the US launch industry. Hard.

Once SpaceX has proven they can do safe crewed flights and Blue Origin goes beyond testing flights, why is there a reason to pay the _huge_ ULA markup any more?

ULA, as well as Airbus, has a problem: they're constantly being meddled with by politicians without any idea what they're doing and decide stuff that's totally unreasonable from an economical point but helpful for their (or their party's) reelections. Airbus employs 130k people, Boeing 140k and Lockheed 100k, and in addition there are a lot of people in the supplier companies. That's a _lot_ of voters, and the companies are often enough big employers on a regional/local level.

Which means: SpaceX and Blue Origin will conquer the entire commercial sector plus an enormous amount of US government work. EU-founded projects will (politically mandated) stick to Airbus, but the political inability of Airbus to innovate will lead everything else go to SpaceX/BO. And the taxpayer will have to "save" them... or have to deal with hundreds of thousands people out of jobs.

<comment><USER16> ULA has 100% mission success. The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since 1957. The ULA markup is justified for a high value mission. BO and spaceX have big shoes to fill when it comea to building industry and insurer trust. The Amos 8 failure was an expensive lesson for spacex.

<comment><USER12> >The Atlas family has 100% mission sucess since 1957.

Huh? Atlas I had failures in 1991, 1992, and 1993. Atlas G failed in 1984 and 1987.

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

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

[http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html](http://www.spacelaunchreport.com/logsum.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> My God this makes me ashamed at being European.

Who are these guys and in which century do they think they are? Innovate and compete or resign and make room for others who can do it. I'm sure there are enough European engineers who can build reusable rockets.

<comment><USER3> Oh yes there are enough of them. But to compete you need fair rules and open access to your competitors market, and that is not the case currently. What they are asking for is only the same protections as the US companies currently enjoy.

<comment><USER18> I'm sorry, what? What protections are you talking about? Nasa has booked flights on non-USA rockets many times in the past. SpaceX has received no subsidies( i.e. free money) but only contracts from the government which Ariane is now asking to be locked by law( and let's not even talk about subsidies).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I recommend to read the book "Why Nations fail" if you're interested in how some countries become rich or stay in poverty. One of the key ideas is something called creative destruction. There is always something destroyed when something new is created (there are always losers and winners). When there is uncertainty, there is an opportunity. The fear of losing is what makes certain companies (and countries) not adopt a new technology since it challenges their current standing and this circle tends to lead to the collapse of a company's ecnonomy.

</comment><comment><USER20> This article is honest, but holds back a bit about how incredibly lost the european space industry is now.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you'd like to read some more progressive thinking by a European, here's an interview with the CNES (French space agency) Director of Launchers:

[https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director- of...](https://satelliteobservation.net/2018/06/02/cnes-director-of-launchers- talks-reusable-rockets/)

In which he talks about about a realistic path to a reusable rocket that could compete with Falcon 9. But it wouldn't launch until 2028-2030.

<comment><USER11> > _a realistic path to a reusable rocket_

Technologically realistic. Politically unfeasible. ArianeGroup's factories provide high-paying jobs across Europe. Re-tooling them will not be possible for another generation.

Source: I worked with launch start-ups. Their dismissal by EU politicos was resounding, particularly in contrast to the American and other countries' responses.

<comment><USER9> I figure that the opinion of the CNES Director of Launchers is pretty good when it comes to understanding European rocket politics, but if you want to claim you're a bigger expert, ok.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> _> >> "Are you buying a Mercedes because it is cheap?"

>>> Ranzo, sitting nearby, chimed in and referenced the India-based maker of the world's least expensive car. As he put it, "We don't sell a Tata."_

Not with that attitude ;) There's nothing wrong with cheap spaceflight, as long as they're human-rated for crewed missions. I hope they also know that Tata owns Jaguar Land Rover.

</comment><comment><USER22> I have no idea what this headline is supposed to mean.

"Vows to resist"

Resist what, exactly?

<comment><USER23> SpaceX and other low cost space companies. If I read the article correctly, they plan on doing this by not innovating.

<comment><USER24> Isn't the article mentioning that they are working on 2 new rockets and that the plan is to not compete in SpaceX niche?

I assume that we do not know that much about the innovation due to much smaller PR budgets.

<comment><USER25> AFAIK they don't have any capabilities SpaceX won't have, so SpaceX's "niche" is to just charge less for the same service.

<comment><USER11> > _they don 't have any capabilities SpaceX won't have_

Correct. Falcon 9 is cheaper than Ariane 6 and the Falcon Heavy can launch more mass than Arian 5 or 6 for less. Given the piggyback market, where unused launch mass can be sold to third parties, the only reason to pay up for this platform is for political or scheduling reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What I love about space is it is a great example of peaceful competition between nations. We need more of that.

</comment><comment><USER27> Every team has a couple people who want to do better, but they can't get budget for the work from management. When a threat comes the cost benefit analysis shifts, and now those people find a sympathetic ear.

</comment><comment><USER28> This was an interesting article on an area I'd long meant to read about but never had, and there is some great history there. However, I got a very real feeling of "skating to where the puck is not where it is going" sense the farther I read. In particular, the article spends a certain amount of time on the under-development Ariane 6 series and Vega-C. But the comparisons were all to the existing Falcon 9. I wish Mr Berger had asked them at all about the BFR and the implications of a functional high performance methalox engine, because I think that has the potential to be a much bigger leap forward then seems to be generally discussed yet. Methane doesn't give quite the thrust of kerosene or the ISP of hydrogen, but from an economic and chemical-rockets-in-space perspective its got a lot going for it, not all of it immediately obvious. It doesn't coke at rocket temperatures, yet another bonus for more reusability. My understanding is that it's much easier to store then LH2 and the conditions are a closer match for LOX which potentially simplifies a number of steps. It can potentially be harvested or synthesized elsewhere in the solar system more easily. And even the cost factor shouldn't be ignored once the context is reusability, RP-1 isn't actually cheap (it's highly refined, I saw estimates north of $16/gallon). Fuel may be the least expensive part of an expendable rocket to the point it's not generally worried about, but for a reusable rocket a couple of million dollars extra per launch is real additional margin over time.

I'm certainly no expert by any means, but organizations like ArianeGroup comparing under development rockets to existing ones feels as though really sums up some of the issues with Old Space in a nutshell. It seems like they're thinking in terms of building a rocket where that one design might then be used essentially unchanged for 30-50 years despite there being clear theoretical improvements to be had. But that's not how the fully private enterprises seem likely to operate. SpaceX put a fair amount of effort into the Falcon Heavy for example, and it was spectacular. Except now apparently they've decided that it's effectively already obsolete, that BFR is going better then expected which mean FH will serve as a limited use minor stopgap and then be scrapped as a design. Even now I don't know if that sort of aggressiveness has really gotten into the consciousness of older style organizations yet.

I guess if they're comfortable with basically becoming a jobs program and massively subsidized strategic fallback for the EU that is in fact potentially sustainable a long time. Polities can have different levels of very long term priorities that are different from the faster pace of industry, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's a position that has risks too if the gap opens up too far, because it takes a very long time to make up that ground (if ever).

</comment><comment><USER29> It's hard not to make the connection between this example of a clueless self entitled tantrum and the naked resentment towards a US rival by a euro bigwig complete with the instinct to seek government subsidizes and assistance against said US rival with the scrutiny US technology companies are receiving in the region.</comment>


Volvo's driverless cars 'confused' by kangaroos - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-40416606 <comment><USER2> They confuse helicopter pilots too!

[http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.asp](http://www.snopes.com/humor/nonsense/kangaroo.asp)</comment>


Behavior trees for AI: How they work - <AUTHOR> http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/ChrisSimpson/20140717/221339/Behavior_trees_for_AI_How_they_work.php <comment><USER2> I used this article (and some other pieces) to help with some robotics research in Python a few months ago. Behavior trees are fantastic abstractions that definitely simplify FSM code, but I found that working within the constraints of decorators could really complicate behavior architectures that can instead be implemented more linearly. Specifically, I wanted to have an overall obstacle avoidance behavior separated from individual movements, but ended up implementing an obstacle avoidance function library totally separate from the BT.

<comment><USER3> Does that mean you still used FSM inside the sequences or selectors?

Or you used FSM for less than you usually would. Like _pure_ state based use- cases instead of shoe-horning it. Which I did, heh.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice article. This looks a bit like a way to implement a scripting language that uses lightweight threads in a system that doesn't have it built in.

If you're using a language that has either lightweight threads or async/await built in, would you still use a behavior tree, or would you just write code?

<comment><USER3> You still need to be able to plug in stuff like decorators to say, invert values, have a throttle or a counter and etc.

Essentially you're going to need a wrapper to create a tree from either a DSL or e.g JSON from a GUI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting article. It seems to me like what you really want here is to do this in a lisp/scheme. Then you can use the full power of lisp (it's the exact same syntax as the behavior tree), leverage lisp's built-in control flow constructs, and just implement nodes as functions with side-effects that return either true, false, or null or something.</comment>