An Open Letter to Intel - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/intel/ <comment><USER2> All Dr. Tanenbaum is saying is that it would have been the classy thing to let him know, nothing more.

Professor Tanenbaum is one of the most respected computer scientists alive, and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of unprofessional and not very nice to say the least. That is his only (and quite fair) point.

<comment><USER3> > and for Intel to include Minix in their chip and not let him know is kind of > unprofessional and not very nice to say the least.

I guess Minix' license, which allows this kind of behaviour, is the very reason Intel chose Minix in the first place. I imagine it would be very complicated to get management approval for informing Dr. Tannenbaum about the usage in Intel's ME.

IMHO if he has a problem with the way things worked out, he should have chosen a different license. For example the MIT license requires the copyright and license to be included in distributions.

<comment><USER4> The Minix 3 license contains [0]:

        * Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright
        notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the
        documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

So it looks like Minix's license does require the copyright/license to be included in distributions.

[0]: [https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research- Foundation/minix...](https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research- Foundation/minix/blob/master/LICENSE)

<comment><USER5> The strict meaning of "Redistributions" in that clause means that Intel would have to be distributing the OS itself as a product in binary form. Deploying it in an embedded system, and selling that embedded system, particularly in a form where the user does not have access to the OS as a product, does not meet that definition. Tanenbaum himself concedes this point in this letter.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is quite debatable, not something I'd bet a court case on.

One of my libraries with BSD 3-clause license was used in a U.S. government project. It did require particular hardware and couldn't really be deployed by any random user but they honored the mention clause without any prodding on my part.

My Bosch kitchen appliances came with a whole bunch of software licenses for embedded subsystems, even GPL ones. So it seems actual lawyers in a huge international corporation decided it constitutes distribution.

<comment><USER6> >So it seems actual lawyers in a huge international corporation decided it constitutes distribution.

I mean, they could also just assume that shipping three sheets of paper with each washer is just cheaper than finding out.

<comment><AUTHOR> …which still supports my point is that it's hardly trivial and clear-cut issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the > maximum amount of freedom to potential users

I'm sorry, but I don't feel free because of that.

What I see is that I have proprietary code I never saw, never vetted and which I don't (and shouldn't) trust that's running on all my computers (not all, but you can get it) and that I don't have the freedom to remove, examine, modify or replace. There are already a lot of blobs that aren't audited by anyone outside their manufacturers running a lot of basic functionality on my computers. I don't need another blob running on god mode on my CPUs.

So, no. The use of the BSD license here is harming everyone but Intel. Hopefully, we can make it harm Intel if we make it clear (with our purchasing power) it is not cool to force us to run software we don't trust. It only serves to show that the BSD license preserves the freedom of the developers and packagers AT THE EXPENSE of the users.

<comment><USER8> You're conflating different things. Intel is free to use MINIX which is exactly the freedom the creator of MINIX intended when selecting the license. You are not a party to that transaction.

That Intel uses this software for a purpose you disagree with is immaterial to this discussion. Had MINIX not been available under a permissive license, Intel would have found some other (but presumably more expensive) way to largely achieve the same thing. They did not come up with and implement the management engine because MINIX was BSD licensed.

<comment><USER9> > You're conflating different things. Intel is free to use MINIX which is > exactly the freedom the creator of MINIX intended when selecting the > license. You are not a party to that transaction.

We are not a first party in that transaction, but feel very much the consequences. Therefore it does involves others. Most actions have an influence on others and therefore there are responsibilities for the consequences.

If you sell lower quality concrete to a building company which builds a dam that break and kills many people, then you have blood on your hands and should be treated as such, even though you were not a first party in the dam construction.

> That Intel uses this software for a purpose you disagree with is immaterial > to this discussion.

It is very much not immaterial. It _might_ be legally irrelevant, but it is not without importance.

> Had MINIX not been available under a permissive license, Intel would have > found some other (but presumably more expensive) way to largely achieve the > same thing. They did not come up with and implement the management engine > because MINIX was BSD licensed.

I hope they need to spend a lot of money and energy and effort for taking others freedom away. The cheaper it is for them, the more likely they do it.

<comment><USER8> Your beef is with Intel and the ME (specifically, the inability to disable it), not with Dr. Tanenbaum, MINIX or the BSD license. There is no causal chain from these to the Intel ME.

It may feel good to have a target to direct anger at, but it's not the right target and it's counterproductive. Free software, including that under the BSD license, has made computing vastly safer.

<comment><USER10> _[the BSD license] has made computing vastly safer._

You have to at least stop and wonder whether that's true, though.

Your point of view and their point of view are both valid.

Unfortunately, both of you can be right, and we all have to live with that ambiguity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I can't tell if this is earnest or 2nd degree. Can people more familiar with Mr Tanenbaum's style enlighten me?

Because if this is earnest I'm quite seriously baffled. I don't mind BSD at all and I won't comment on the political side of things but why on earth would you rejoice that you worked for free (I assume?) for Intel only to have your work end up in some user-hostile module forced on the users? Is Tanenbaum egotistical enough that merely having his work be "the most widely used computer operating system in the world" justifies everything? And then he uses that to argue that BSD is superior to GPL because this way big companies can use the code without giving anything back? Great success.

<comment><USER12> Of course it's earnest. If it wasn't he wouldn't have picked the BSD license, which rejects the notion that you're poorer today than yesterday just because someone started using some software you wrote.

<comment><USER13> The notion of the GPL is that end users are poorer if they don't have source available and can't fix bugs in the code they're using. Intel ME, meaning people are running systems with exploitable vulnerabilities that they can't fix, is one of the clearest arguments in favour of it.

<comment><USER14> One can also fix bugs without source code available (it is just harder). The Intel ME's problem rather is that one perhaps can fix bugs, but not upload the bug fixes back to the chip because of the required signature.

<comment><USER13> Both those things are problems (it's possible to work around the signature issue, but it makes it a lot harder, just as with not having source code). And both are addressed by the GPLv3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > when companies have told me that they hate the GPL because they are not keen > on spending a lot of time, energy, and money modifying some piece of code, > only to be required to give it to their competitors for free

Some piece of code that also cost time (and possibly someone's else money) to develop, and that they got for free?

<comment><USER16> This struck me as bizarre as well.

You're thanking someone because you relicensed your hard work so they can use it for free (BSD) and you complied?

All for the stated reason that they don't have to relicense their work to other people so they could use it for free?

 _/ facepalm_

It's like some version of the Stockholm syndrome, deserves a name.

<comment><USER17> You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated to release genuinely free software. Open source can mean complete freedom, including the freedom to take the software, modify it, gain a competitive advantage and generate economic value, according to the license choice of the original author.

<comment><USER18> > You seem to be having a problem understanding why people would be motivated > to release genuinely free software.

Yes, I do have a problem understanding why people work for free.

I don't see cops working for free, or bankers, or chip designers, or the guy who served my dinner working for free. Even Andrew doesn't work for free.

I can understand licensing software that was built or purchased using [socialist] tax dollars under the GPL for moral reasons, but I don't understand why I have to pay Andrew to help Intel maintain their competitive (size) advantage.

<comment><USER17> How are you paying Andrew? That makes no sense.

<comment><USER18> Andrew S. Tanenbaum works for a publicly funded (tax dollars) research university.

<comment><USER19> That would be tax euros, actually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley > license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

Interesting conclusion, considering one of the "features" of the Intel ME is precisely to limit what _the final user_ can do with their computer.

<comment><USER21> Yes. And it also allows others (e.g. the three-letter agencies) to spy on the user.

I wonder how Tanenbaum feels about all that.

<comment><USER22> If Minix's license wouldn't be BSD, they would use some other BSD licensed OS or develop it's own...

<comment><USER16> Does this argument have a name? _" If I didn't do [SOME HORRIBLE THING X], someone else would, so I might as well do it myself?"_

When googling, I only found this: [https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3wclk6/even_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/3wclk6/even_if_i_dont_do_it_someone_else_will_does_this/)

<comment><USER23> Bad phrasing. The argument is more like "If [this awesome thing X] wasn't available, people would have to find a maybe-less-than-desirable alternative." The name for it is practicality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I am saddened that Tannenbaum's only comment about the existence and purpose of the Management Engine is in a postscript, and a very weak one at that:

" _Many people (including me) don 't like the idea of an all-powerful management engine in there at all (since it is a possible security hole and a dangerous idea in the first place), but that is Intel's business decision and a separate issue from the code it runs._"

</comment><comment><USER25> Well, if Minix was developed on NL and EU taxpayer dime it's quite disconcerting that it's now being used to potentially bug the computers of those same taxpayers.

I'm sure nobody would agree to paying for that, so why on earth does this man feel entitled to give away the product of "our" taxes without any restriction

<comment><USER26> As far as I am concerned I am not paying for my computer to be bugged. MINIX is a research project that is useful and interesting in its own right. That's what the EU is funding. GPS, the internet and the microchip were also publicly funded technologies. I don't think that anyone should object to the funding of these inventions because there are dubious uses of them (all of them sometimes in involuntary surveillance).

Ideally, bugging computers is a legislative issue, and the contract between the vendor of the particular technology employed to do it (in this case not even particularly built for that purpose) and its user is irrelevant.

<comment><USER25> Considering we have laws prohibiting the sale of surveillance technology to states suspected of human rights violations, as well as the sale of goods intended for misuse according to our own ethical standards (think medicines used in lethal injection executions) it would be quite asinine to look the other way claiming that fulfilling that particular research purpose exhausts all further uses.

Particularly if it's potentially used against us, citizens.

<comment><USER26> Looking at MINIX as "surveillace technology" or "intended for misuse" (isn't that an oxymoron?) is stretching the definition very inclusively – it's an operating system. Yes, people that use computers for bad things sometimes use operating systems to facilitate those bad things. Whether you buy a license for Microsoft Bob or use MINIX for free is beside the point.

I specifically did not suggest "looking the other way" either, I just don't think the problem is open source operating system software that anyone can benefit from, it's _involuntary surveillance_ , and I think that should be addressed legislatively rather than inhibiting publicly available research on very broadly applicable subjects.

Conversely, you could look at other research like the microchip, GPS and the Internet, all publicly funded to fulfill some defense purpose, and all having more than occasionally been used for indiscriminate surveillance. Would we be better off without these things? I don't necessarily assume a "no" to that, but it is fair to say that there are plenty of uses of these technologies that have had positive effects on society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley > license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

The Berkeley license gives software _publishers_ (which are not users) maximum amount of freedom.

As an actual X86 _user_ who cannot remove or change this unwanted piece of code running on my machine, I politely disagree about the freedom given to me.

<comment><USER28> It sounds like there might be a (very tiny) market for an entirely audited GPL stack. Intel made a sound, responsible decision for everyone involved except the privacy crowd.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> From his CV:

 _One of the early users of MINIX was Linus Torvalds. He began modifying MINIX to add new features that he thought were needed. Over a period of time he had modified almost everything and launched it as a new operating system, Linux. It is fairly safe to say that had I not written MINIX there would have been no Linux._

<comment><USER30> The last sentence is quite pretentious and completely unprovable. And if Linux had not existed we would have had GNU Hurd way earlier in all likelihood.

<comment><USER31> Torvalds himself seems to have claimed that had Hurd been usable back then, he would never have taken Linux as far as he did. Minix seems to have been barely on his radar, if at all.

<comment><USER32> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX#Relationship_with_Linux](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MINIX#Relationship_with_Linux)

 _The design principles Tanenbaum applied to MINIX greatly influenced the design decisions Linus Torvalds applied in the creation of the Linux kernel.[citation needed] Torvalds used and appreciated MINIX,[17] [...] Early Linux kernel development was done on a MINIX host system, which led to Linux inheriting various features from MINIX, such as the MINIX file system._

<comment><USER31> >[citation needed]

Hilarious...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> CVE-2017-5689 revealed that the AMT would _accept an empty password, allowing full remote code execution_. Tanenbaum portrays his BSD-licensed OS underlying this junk as a demonstration of "the maximum amount of freedom", and his only concern is that he would have liked to have known how popular this OS is now. If there was ever an example as to programmers being completely oblivious as to the ramifications of distributing their creations, this is it.

<comment><USER34> i'm not sure what your point is, exactly. do you imagine that if only minix didn't exist, this would never have happened?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> nah, Linus Torvalds wins. I really really doubt that Minix is more deployed than Linux... just think of three examples (and there are probably many more examples):

* Linux in all variants running in billions of VMs and Containers.

* Android.

* There are not only Intel chips out there.

So Kudos to Dr. Tanenbaum but adding all numbers I don't think we have Minix nearly as much deployed as Linux ;)

<comment><USER36> When Fuchsia gets more mature you can eventually remove Android from that list.

The stable NDK APIs are not Linux specific, ANSI C and C++ libraries are OS agnostic, and as of Android 8 the syscalls are white listed.

<comment><USER27> > When Fuchsia gets more mature you can eventually remove Android from that > list.

And Android can finally throw out its biggest chunk of meaningfully open- source source-code so far (from an end-user/modder perspective).

At that point Android is not going to be meaningfully open any more, and might as well be considered a closed platform on par with iOS.

I wonder how/if that will impact the platforms popularity.

<comment><USER37> Fuchsia is open source [1] [2] though not specifically GPL. It uses a myriad of licenses.

> I wonder how/if that will impact the platforms popularity.

It won't. Vast majority of users don't care about open source, and developers won't have to care. The kernel and userland get replaced, but the underlying Android OS (excluding GApps) remains open source.

[1] [https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror](https://github.com/fuchsia-mirror)

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

<comment><USER38> With both the kernel and userland being replaced what, exactly, do you consider the Android OS to consist of?

I assume you're referring to the Java based frameworks and Dalvik/ART runtime pieces, but I would usually consider those part of userland, and your comment is a little unclear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't understand why people put stuff out under the Berkley License and then complain about a lack of credit or a lack of reimbursement (in support or money) for the use of their code. Isn't that the actual point of the license?

<comment><USER40> The point of the letter is that there is something as being polite.

Intel telling him about it at some point would have been polite.

<comment><USER41> Especially considering they reached out to him and asked for modifications, such as the #ifdefs which he happily obliged them with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > I have run across this before, when companies have told me that they hate > the GPL because they are not keen on spending a lot of time, energy, and > money modifying some piece of code, only to be required to give it to their > competitors for free.

Nonsense; the GPL does not require that one's _competitors_ receive code, but rather one's _users_. It further requires that one may not prevent them from giving the code to others, with the same rights.

Thanks to the BSD, Intel's users are unable to patch, modify or extend the hardware & software they have bought.

> If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley > license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

I think that I've demonstrated that the freedom has not accrued to _users_ but rather to Intel.

<comment><USER43> > Nonsense; the GPL does not require that one's competitors receive code, but > rather one's users.

What's stopping an Intel competitor from also being a user? Am I wrong that all it would take is for an Intel competitor to buy an x86 computer with an Intel processor and then demand the source code? If that's the case, then it hardly seems like nonsense to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> > I guess that makes MINIX the most widely used computer operating system in > the world, even more than Windows, Linux, or MacOS.

I very much doubt that there's more (modern) Intel CPUs in the wild than there's say android devices (not containing Intel CPUs).

<comment><USER45> > (...) computer operating system (...)

I guess that by "computer" he means "desktop".

<comment><USER46> He doesn't know what he means. Linux is deployed on more than 1/cpu through VMs.

<comment><USER47> > He doesn't know what he means.

I'm pretty sure he does.

<comment><USER46> I'm pretty sure if you pressed him on it, he would change goalposts to suit his fantasy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> The open letter is not about licensing or private attribution. It's the slowest come back I've ever seen. In 1992, Tanenbaum wrote "LINUX is obsolete". Linus and Tanenbaum docked it out about microkernels. Linux became very widely used. Intel secretly made Minix even more so. Linus eyes must be rolling.

</comment><comment><USER49> Another question is: Does the ME use SQLite? Some other database? If so, how many times is it bundled in there?

[https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html](https://www.sqlite.org/mostdeployed.html)

I wonder how drh would feel about it.

</comment><comment><USER50> This brings a nice context to the phrase "standing on the shoulders of giants" [1]. Who's the giant, in reality?

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_on_the_shoulders_of_giants)

</comment><comment><USER51> I was expecting to see his reaction on privacy issues and maybe to announce the next version to be GPL-ed, but no, he is just asking for "thank you" by Intel. However, it was never their strategy to release out all information hidden deep inside their chip.

</comment><comment><USER52> Can't someone please find and publish a hack that allows anyone to use the Minix for his own purposes? I'd rather have a commercial antivirus vendor control my "machine in the machine" than some arbitrary 3 letter agency from a foreign country.

<comment><USER53> [https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/#how-to- ha...](https://www.blackhat.com/eu-17/briefings/schedule/#how-to-hack-a- turned-off-computer-or-running-unsigned-code-in-intel-management-engine-8668)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Incidentally, ast also runs [http://electoral-vote.com/](http://electoral- vote.com/), since the 2004 elections. Posts marked (V) are by him.

</comment><comment><USER55> > this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley license provides the > maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

I find it incredible how ~ast can consider the intel ME to be achieving "the maximum amount of freedom" to potential users. He even criticises it in the very next paragraph.

More generally, I find it incredible how people can view the attempts (by copyleft) to restrict the freedom to restrict others, as attacks on freedom.

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm very skeptic about people saying that with GPL things would go differently. I see it more real world that Intel would either pick something else and inferior, or rewrite it from scratch producing some kind of internal corporate little monster. Result: a very widely distributed product would be worse, developers working at Intel having to deal with some only-internal project without outside applications or interest, and so forth. Now at least they: 1) Work at an open code. 2) May contribute fixes in the future. 3) Developers can use the experience to use the same code base elsewhere in the future. 4) Who joins and knows Minix can be productive faster without learning something internally produced. BSD _sounds like_ a license that allows companies to steal value, but in that case it only improves the global outcome. On the other side BSD is a bit of a real problem in the cloud because it limits two of the most important business models of OSS code: services and products, but only in case of software you sell as-a-service.

</comment><comment><USER57> I first heard the Minix thing in this talk: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iffTJ1vPCSo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iffTJ1vPCSo) which I found, I think via a HN thread. Anyway, most of the articles rehash this talk and IMO its a solid 30 minute investment.

</comment><comment><USER58> It is interesting to see that Andrew S. Tanenbaum released this letter to the public (probably to show that he was not directly involved in deploying Minix to all those chips), while saying that he is okay with the closed source nature, as long as there are _good reasons_ to do so (to prevent causing any problems for him and for the person who made the decision at Intel).

Hey Andrew, if you have no problem with Minix running as a spy OS inside everybody's computer, please make that clear and write:

"I appreciate Intel's use of my work to potentially backdoor everyone's systems and am proud to have had such a _huge_ impact on the world. If it helps to keep Minix being the most used OS in the world, I hereby grant everybody (not just Intel) to use me and my work without any restriction under the terms of the BSD license."

<comment><USER59> That's an absolute non-sequitur and I think you know that.

There is no reason that MINIX could not have been used in the ME even if it were GPLd, for example…

<comment><USER58> That whole letter is about how much better the BSD license is than the GPL. If Minux would have been GPLd Intel would have had to open source the ME and therefore didn't use e.g. Linux.

I have not particular Problem with the BSD license (I use it myself sometimes) but give the facts that since years hackers are trying to convince Intel and AMD to relase their ME/PSP source code [1] (to safe us all from deeply infectable hardawre and unrestricted surveillance), I find it disgusting how Tanenbaum uses the situation to drive the discussion towards BSD vs. GPL and how right he was that the BSD provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

In my opinion he should have said something like he knows that the BSD license also grants Intel the right to use it for whatever they want, but given the magnitude of the technological impact he supports the public interest to open source the ME and asks AMD to do the same with their PSP.

That way he could have used his role as the Minix inventor for the sake of transparency.

[1] Top question here: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_crea...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/5x4hxu/we_are_amd_creators_of_athlon_radeon_and_other/)

<comment><USER59> I don't think that Tanenbaum has any responsibility whatsoever to make that request.

The question about ME is totally, 100% orthogonal to the fact that it uses MINIX, and I'd go further and argue that this is sort of the point – releasing code as BSD is an explicit acceptance that it may be used in ways that one disagrees with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> For a while I sometimes had a thought if it were possible to put the OS completely in EFI and run an application completely in cache since both types of memory are quite big now. I mean I used to run Windows 95 with 8MB of RAM, Linux with 1MB, while a Xeon already has 16MB of cache.

That should be one hell of a fast computer

</comment><comment><USER61> the real danger (if you can call it that) now is that, this codebase will start attracting a disproportionate number of eyeballs from security researchers to blackhats etc. _everyone_ wants their hands on that always-on backdoor embedded in the vast majority of modern machines. <shudder>

</comment><comment><USER28> For anyone unfamiliar with Minix, it appears to be a tiny OS:

> MINIX 3 is a free, open-source, operating system designed to be highly > reliable, flexible, and secure. It is based on a tiny microkernel running in > kernel mode with the rest of the operating system running as a number of > isolated, protected, processes in user mode. It runs on x86 and ARM CPUs, is > compatible with NetBSD, and runs thousands of NetBSD packages.[1]

Something about this [2] made me feel bad for the author, I can't imagine building software for a few decades, getting excited about a conference and then no one submitting any papers.

[1] [http://www.minix3.org/](http://www.minix3.org/)

[2] > Unfortunately, the MINIXCon 2017 conference had to be cancelled due to the small number of talks submitted

</comment><comment><USER62> I think it's foolish of Mr Tanenbaum to expect how Intel used Minix in their super-secret project. I mean, it's super-secret. Telling him "Congratulation, Minix is now the most widely used OS in every x86 pc, but we cannot tell you why and how" would have blown pretty much everything. Any average person would have done 2+2 and would have understood what was going on.

Beside this... I think it is important that this would not have happened if Minix was licensed under the GPL. Not this way, at least. Intel would have had to find another OS (possibly paying for it) or develop one ex-novo (again, paying for it). So it would have happened anyway, but at least it would have been much more expensive for Intel.

</comment><comment><USER63> Like it or not, that enforces the beauty of GPL. I'm positively sure, if it wasn't it, linux wouldn't be in its position today. I actually prefer the LGPL, as it doesnt spread through, or "contaminate", the rest of your code base.

</comment><comment><USER64> A lot of comments seems to converge on a license flamewar, almost blaming the choice of MINIX on using a permissive license like the BSD.

It is not a license problem. Nor Mr. Tanenbaum position on "being glad" of MINIX being used on billions of x86 computers. Intel hiding code on all chips is the problem. Intel opening backdoors (maybe not intentionally, due to bugs) is the problem. Not being able to _easily_ disable or update this code is the problem.

If it wasn't the MINIX, Intel would use something else. If there wasn't, they would write their own OS for it.

</comment><comment><USER65> I expected more intellectual letter from Tanenbaum. And I don't know why they myth of intel CPUs more than ARM CPUs is getting so much traction I don't think its true.

</comment><comment><USER66> Has Intel responded to this in any way?

Ever since I first heard of the Management Engine, and of the various problems this thing raises, I found it curious that Intel remained so quiet about it.

I can think of two plausible explanations: a) They do not want to draw any more attention to this issue and are pulling a "reverse Streisand", if you will. If so, there could be several reasons for them to act this way. Or, b), they just don't care enough.

</comment><comment><USER67> Dear Tanenbaum, in case you are reading this, thank you for creating Minix. I have the first edition of your Design and Implementation of OS. That enjoyable read makes me a programmer now. Your insights is ever-lasting. Your humbleness marks you as the best computer scientist. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER68> That's a commendable level of passive-aggressiveness, but the whole affair warrants it. I think it would have been for Intel's and the general public's benefit (given the impact of potential issues) if there had been some cooperation with Tanenbaum himself.

</comment><comment><USER69> What I never understand is under open source license of any sort, do people generally expect credentials? Fame or money or both, do you think you should get at least one? Just a question, no opinion on Mr Tanenbaum's letter per se.

<comment><USER70> Some do, some don't.

The BSD licence that MINIX 3 uses actually requires giving credit:

 _Copyright (c) 1987, 1997, 2006, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands All rights reserved. Redistribution and use of the MINIX 3 operating system in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:_

[...]

 _Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and /or other materials provided with the distribution._

[...]

Source: [https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research- Foundation/minix...](https://github.com/Stichting-MINIX-Research- Foundation/minix/blob/master/LICENSE)

<comment><USER71> Exactly, a lot of people think of the BSD license as not reserving any rights, but it actually does reserve a few rights, such as the preservation of the copyright notice. A license that actually reserves no rights would be something like CC0.

<comment><USER72> Or the WTFPL ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> > These discussions were why we put MINIX 3 out under the Berkeley license in > 2000

Is he implying that he chose that license specifically because Intel asked for it ?

He claims that that license is the most user-friendly since it gives the user the most freedom, which is true in that case, but he's missing the point, when the FSF and other GPL proponents mention user freedom they talk about the end user freedom, the one at the end of the chain that will have to use the software (i.e. anyone who purchased a semi-recent Intel chip). When considering the user community as a whole, it is clear that they globally get less value from the project since changes don't have to (and don't) get contributed back and they can't make changes to the software that they are using.

Seems very short-sighted to claim a win here when the only 2 parties that benefit are Intel and Tanenbaum's ego.

</comment><comment><USER74> Does anybody remember the other x86 competitor of the 90's Cyrix? (Is that the name?)

What happened to them. Is there anyone out there with an x86 IP license that could build a super simple P3 or P4 class chip?

<comment><USER75> The Cyrix x86 IP was bought by VIA (by way of National Semiconductor), which still makes low power x86 CPU, often found in SFF, low power PC.

<comment><USER74> seems like they could produce an eight core P4 equivalent without ME.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> is it just me, or other folks here as well, also got the inkling that this was just a veiled gloat ? not so sure if being complicit in intel's ME racket is such a great honor...

</comment><comment><USER76> This "letter" smells so passive-aggressive... brr...

<comment><USER77> Exactly! The TLDR on it is - Intel followed the terms of the BSD license.

<comment><USER78> Another way to read it is that thanks to the BSD license, Intel got an entire OS for free to use for their backdoor core but that doesn't matter really - the important part is that MINIX is now the most widely used OS in the world :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER79> From the Network World report:

> If you have a modern Intel CPU (released in the last few years) with Intel's > Management Engine built in, you've got another complete operating system > running that you might not have had any clue was in there: MINIX.

That's different from Mr. Tannenbaum's claim:

> Thanks for putting a version of MINIX 3 inside the ME-11 management engine > chip used on almost all recent desktop and laptop computers in the world.

What about all of the AMD system, or the systems that were built before IME 11 (or that just don't have it)?

<comment><USER34> what about them? i'm not sure what you're question is getting at.

<comment><USER79> I dispute the claim: "ME-11 management engine chip [is] used on almost all recent desktop and laptop computers in the world". AMD chips are popular in both consumer and business applications...there's no way that whatever fraction of chipsets Intel delivers are "almost all". Furthermore, Intel's documentation seems to state that this is a chipset feature, not a processor feature:

> Currently, we support the following chipsets regardless of your system > manufacturer or the motherboard in your PC:

> Intel® Q57/H57/H55/P55 Express Chipset

> Mobile Intel® QM57/QS57/HM57/HM55/PM55 Express Chipsets

The wording is sufficiently vague that I can't be 100% sure about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> competition keeps the herd healthy. Somebody should make an ARM laptop/desktop that is not riddled with three letter government agency spyware (a ring -3 web server! Hidden from the person who bought the CPU! Did I say you could do that? Unbelievable). Also, from a basic CS standpoint, having a whole CPU being wasted is inefficent.

<comment><USER72> > Somebody should make an ARM laptop/desktop that is not riddled with three > letter government agency spyware

[https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/c201.html](https://libreboot.org/docs/hardware/c201.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER81> The modern conception of economic competition is disturbing.

</comment><comment><USER82> We need bring your own processor tech now.

</comment><comment><USER83> what a nice guy this Dr Tanenbaum is. I don't know him, I wish i did

</comment><comment><USER77> How many non-copyleft mini OSes exist? It's likely that Intel engineers were more familiar with the author's OS given the popularity of his book.

All that aside, Intel did exactly what the license allows them to do. The license doesn't require a thank you note.

If it makes HN feel any better, Intel is among the leading contributors to Linux, and MANY other open source projects. Intel doesn't expect a thank you note for it

<comment><USER84> Intel contributes to Linux because they have horses in the race, it is not out of charity.

<comment><USER85> Nothing is out of charity in this world. Not even charity itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> > If nothing else, this bit of news reaffirms my view that the Berkeley > license provides the maximum amount of freedom to potential users.

Freedom in this case should refer to "freedom what to do with the code" not freedom as in personal liberty, which is what _libre_ /GPL software is usually about. So it's more like how the smartphones OEMs and carriers are "free" to modify and lock-down the Android OS as much as they want.

</comment><comment><USER87> He's gloating over a significant security flaw baked into Intel hardware.

<comment><USER88> His code is running on the vast majority of PCs produced, thats something to gloat over regardless of whether he agrees with the usage or not.

<comment><USER87> I think i'd word my statements better if my software was involved in a big security exploit, just to totally cover my ass now that the pentesters are going to hammer my kernel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER89> Wow. So he is super happy that his work is now more "widely used" than Linux, and only butthurt about not getting enough recognition?

No word about the elephant in the room?

</comment><comment><USER90> And now I'm happy that Linux won

<comment><USER36> Won what?

\- Being the kernel of ChromeOS and Android, not accessible to majority of userspace and easily replaceable by anything else (e.g. Fuchsia).

\- Lost to macOS and Windows on the desktop

It only won on the server room, and now it runs under Minix supervision.

<comment><USER3> > and easily replaceable by anything else (e.g. Fuchsia).

If it's so easy, why hasn't it happen yet?

<comment><USER36> Most likely money and drivers.

Linux comes mostly for free, Fuchsia is still not mature enough and is 100% on Google's budget.

However and this is what I always raise up to people rejoicing about Linux on Android, using official Android images, there is very little Linux exposed to application writers.

The Java Frameworks are naturally kernel agnostic, and the NDK APIs are quite constrained, with the main goal of being used to implement Java _native_ methods or bring in C or C++ code into Android.

[https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis.html](https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/stable_apis.html)

[https://developer.android.com/ndk/reference/index.html](https://developer.android.com/ndk/reference/index.html)

Anything else just isn't allowed and might kill the app as of Android 7.

[https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/android- ch...](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2016/06/android-changes-for- ndk-developers.html)

[https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/07/seccomp- fi...](https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/07/seccomp-filter-in- android-o.html)

Hence why Termux needs to emulate many Linux behaviors.

<comment><USER27> > Linux comes mostly for free, Fuchsia is still not mature enough and is 100% > on Google's budget.

Said differently: Linux works and is useful for everyone and has wide corporate backing, while Fuchsia is only useful to Google.

I'll put my bets on which one persists in the long run based solely on that premise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER91> The guy missed one hell of a point on his resume for better part of a decade!

More than that Personal satisfaction would be unimaginable given the magnitude of deployment.

<comment><USER92> Yeah, Andrew Fucking Tanenbaum needs to expand his resume.

<comment><USER91> Ohh, now that your replied in that tone, I googled him. :)

Obviously ammuters with non CS backgrounds can't be expected to know Who-is- Who of CS history. Even if I knew him, how often people explicitly find out the author of the articl? On mobile screen?

<comment><USER93> I suppose you're right, but he's famous enough that a lot of people in the CS world recognise him by name, by initials, or by url.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Skin in the Game by Nassim Nicholas Taleb – digested read (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/feb/25/skin-in-the-game-by-nassim-nicholas-taleb-digested-read <comment><USER2> It can explain the behaviour of many politicians/activists/journalists today. A lot of them are very good at presentation in public with Oscar nominees skills but little integrity. These traits are better fit for today's (mostly) civilzied scociaty than decades ago when activists could lose their lives if they stick with their belief.

</comment><comment><USER3> Author's critique = 100% infantile sarcasm. I know infantile sarcasm. Read my comments if you doubt. Then both of us will have skin in the game.

</comment><comment><USER4> WARNING: It's a regular Guardian column, _Digested read_ \- "John Crace's incisive pastiches of the most popular writers, from Bridget Jones to Julian Barnes"

Having read a couple of NNT's books (they're good stuff) I thought it was pretty funny. Kind of. Liven up a morning train trip for a couple of minutes. But not HN-worthy.

</comment><comment><USER5> > Donald Trump also has skin in the game. People voted for him because they > thought he was genuine. He may have lost billions of dollars in stupid > investments but at least it was only his own money. That's skin in the game.

Meh. Ignoring other triggers for the Trump lovers here, but he famously stated he prefers to play with other people's money rather than his own: [https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-other- pe...](https://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/donald-trump-other-peoples- money-228434)

</comment><comment><USER6> this was a bit confusing without context.

It seems to be a (satire?) book summary. I haven't read Skin in the game.

<comment><USER7> Same, but I knew it was satire the moment he said he can bench 200 kg.

<comment><USER6> ah I was confused in a different way. I scrolled straight down to the body and missed the credit.

I briefly thought NNT was the author of a very strange critique of his own work.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How did you build an audience for a consumer-focused SaaS or app? - <AUTHOR> A few weeks ago, I posted a Show HN (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19359979) for my news aggregator site, https://journali.sm.  At the time, I got a huge amount of traffic from here -- and some other pickup from posts I shared on social media.
There are still a few people who come by regularly (if you are one of them, thank you!), but as I look to various means to boost audience, I am a little surprised about how little works.  Facebook/Twitter advertising seems to estimate just over 1 click per $1 spent, which seems completely unsustainable for a site that doesn't sell anything.
So, HNers who have built a successful consumer SaaS or app, how did you build your audience? <comment><USER2> It is a mistake in 2019 to think about building an audience first and revenue later.

The one model for free publishing that makes sense is content marketing: (e.g. "I wrote a book about X. If you have a problem with X and hire somebody else, now you have two problems.") Other than that, free publishing is a game that (at best) Google wins.

If you have a plan to make money, then you can determine a customer acquisition cost you can afford. Otherwise it's your funeral.

<comment><AUTHOR> So I guess the follow up question is, whats a low cost method for customer acquisition?

<comment><USER2> It depends on what kind of customer you are looking for.

Low cost methods won't stay low cost because competition will move in.</comment></comment></comment>


C/C++ calling conventions demystified - <AUTHOR> http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cpp/calling_conventions_demystified.aspx

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is another useful reference which discusses __cdecl and __stdcall: <http://www.unixwiz.net/techtips/win32-callconv-asm.html></comment>


A Billionaire Mathematician's Life of Ferocious Curiosity - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2014/07/08/science/a-billionaire-mathematicians-life-of-ferocious-curiosity.html?referrer= <comment><USER2> I went to college with his late son, Nick. Nick was a good guy and their family was really welcoming and friendly. I remember speaking with Jim during the .com crash as I was getting my CS degree and he mentioned a CS degree is a great thing to have if you love it - keep at it. Solid advice at the time.

But make no mistake - when he says he wasn't as fast as some of the others, it's a whole different ballgame. He's a world class genius with creativity and personality to boot. He's also a good guy who is quite generous.

<comment><USER3> Yeah - It seems strange that the early parts of the article try to paint him as one who has failed but still overcome adversity. It is challenging to argue that at any point he wasn't very, very successful.

It would seem more appropriate to point out that despite his tremendous capabilities, he still has faults and has experienced awful tragedy. The article veers that way towards the end.

Sounds like good people; glad to read about someone with substantial means helping drive education and science.

<comment><USER4> Good point. I suspect that the author is accustomed to a certain narrative - triumph over adversity - or, believes news readers are more keen to that kind of story.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Not mentioned in the article, but probably familiar to others on HN, the Simons Foundation also supports Quanta Magazine (e.g. see their recent article about pilot wave theory [1]) and arXiv.org (an archive of pre-publication papers, mostly in physics and mathematics).

[1] [http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid- tests-...](http://www.simonsfoundation.org/quanta/20140624-fluid-tests-hint- at-concrete-quantum-reality/)

<comment><USER6> Some of the highest quality science journalism I've seen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> FYI [http://www.nsi.edu.np/?option=com_content&func=details&id=36](http://www.nsi.edu.np/?option=com_content&func=details&id=36). This is the story about Nick. How he went to Nepal, worked there, grew fonder and after his death - still lives with the organization that helps train and support healthcare workers in rural Nepal. I am from Nepal, I love mathematics, computing and sustainable development and good to know about his father, today.

<comment><USER2> Thank you for that. Nick was a friend of mine and I miss him. He loved Nepal and working there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you are interested in working for his company, there seem to be some openings for programmers: [https://www.rentec.com/vm/jobs.vm](https://www.rentec.com/vm/jobs.vm)

<comment><USER9> Couldn't help but smile at this. This is kind of the quant finance equivalent of pointing out that the Navy SEALs are taking applications.

<comment><USER10> Well, the Navy SEALs are taking applications. And it's not that difficult to get in, if you're determined enough and in a healthy condition.

People on HN work in ever more prestigious and/or difficult to get in companies that this.

<comment><USER11> You clearly do not understand physical and mental capacity required to complete BUD/S and SQT nor have you ever meet a current or former Tier 1 operator. Navy SEALs are not only some of the most physically talent people on Earth, but also some of the smartest. 100-110 of the most physically fit, determined folks you'll ever meet start BUD/S every quarter, and only 10-20 graduate -- easily more difficult to land a position as an operator than almost any job you can imagine.

<comment><USER12> One could argue, that some of the smartest people can hardly be smart if they voluntarily join a military force.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't seem like that great of an argument to me.

<comment><USER14> It's not very good for one's life expectancy or mental health, and if you are that good, you could make far more money doing other things.

<comment><USER15> If you're doing it, you're probably not in it for the money. Just as most people who work for a non-profit are also not in it for the money. Do you assume that everyone who works for a non-profit because they believe in the cause can't actually be very bright? You might not agree with their motivations, but that doesn't mean they can't be every bit as smart as someone who decides to go off and make as much money as possible.

<comment><USER10> > _If you 're doing it, you're probably not in it for the money._

Sure. But any other motive for doing such a thing is probably less smart too.

<comment><USER16> "Such a thing," in this case being the military, encapsulates multiple industries including computer science and information technology. In the United States it could also mean the benefit of a full ride education along with highly technical military training. Complete health care, job security, global travel opportunities... Since you seem to be fixated on the notion that if there isn't and tangible reward than it is less smart than the choice you'd make.

Not to mention that such a choice most likely satisfies passion and honor within a person.

<comment><USER8> >Not to mention that such a choice most likely satisfies passion and honor within a person.

If you are saying that any person that satisfies his passions and honor is considered smart, or that a person that works in something that gives him satisfaction is considered smart, then you are just twisting the definition of smart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> FYI The Physics of Wall Street gives a lot of reference to what type of trading James does, and chronicles a lot of James's history! The book also goes into a lot of the history of these types of traders! It is an insanely interesting read!

[http://www.amazon.com/dp/0544112431](http://www.amazon.com/dp/0544112431)

<comment><USER18> I doubt it. No one seems to know their strategies or replicate their returns.

<comment><USER19> It's not necessary to know what quants are trading at the moment to write about the "type" of trades they make.

<comment><USER18> But the information isn't particularly interesting. What people want to know is what is the "magic".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I met the man a few years ago. He was touring one of his many academic endeavors and he wanted a full day of seminars to see how the research he was financing was advancing. I was really impressed by the scope of his questions, which were about things completely outside his previous research (computational/quantitative biology mostly).

<comment><USER21> If you mean his background was in computational biology, you must be thinking of David Shaw, not Jim Simons.

<comment><USER20> What I meant was that the talks were about computational biology.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Speculating (never actually been involved in hedge fund or super advanced math): what are some potential ideas that RenTec could be working on? Please state your speculation in terms of the mathematical / investment problem to be solved.

My super simple experience here relates to optimizing portfolios along the efficient frontier ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_frontier)) which is a relatively simple problem, but I am interested in _knowing what I don 't know_.

<comment><USER23> There's a very long multi-year thread at a website called Nuclear Phynance about this. Nobody seemed to have the faintest clue although amusingly some of the more outlandish suggestions were later (laughingly) cited by an insider in an interview.

One decent general idea was that RenTec was willing to entertain purely statistical signals with no intuition to back them up (or, alternatively, unintuitive signals which you can explain in plain language but sound stupid).

There was an intesting quote from Simons about how astronomers are the best suited hires because they are used to making measurements/hypotheses purely from observation, without the chance to do controlled experiments. It was also noted that they seemed to employ a lot of NLP specialists, although consensus was that this was down to pattern recognition rather than anything to do with language.

The best suggestion (or at least the best sounding one) was that they were doing hidden-markov models which took into accound second and third order effects. And then there's always just the 'best execution' argument (doing basic market making but engineering better systems than anyone else).

However information on them is so scarce I sometimes wonder if most of what we hear is pure myth.

<comment><USER24> It's obviously not the secret sauce, but they have also used some ... aggressive tax maneuvers: [http://dealbreaker.com/2013/07/renaissance- technologies-buy-...](http://dealbreaker.com/2013/07/renaissance-technologies- buy-and-hold-investor/)

<comment><USER25> Haha, aggressive indeed. What are people's opinions on regulating this kind of sidestepping?

Seems to me the status quo of regulation means a constant game of catch-up. No governing body has the ability to say 'You can't do that' until it's too late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> He says "if I can do it, so can you" \- he had a doctorate at age 23, which is not something most people can do, even if they have the intelligence and drive. Very interesting person for sure.

</comment><comment><USER27> Can anybody make an attempt at explaining the content of "Axiomatic Characterization of Ordinary Differential Cohomology" further than the article did?

I don't know any algebraic topology; the idea of

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28mathematics%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homology_%28mathematics%29)

looks extremely clever to me but I can see where this subject matter would start to get challenging to explain.

<comment><USER28> It builds not just on algebraic topology, but algebraic geometry, differential manifolds, and category theory (which underlies all three of these). If you don't have at least passing familiarity with the core content of these fields, you're probably not going to find an explanation worth spending any time on.

A better place to start might be de Rham cohomology: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Rham_cohomology](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Rham_cohomology)

<comment><USER27> Thanks! I think I'll go off and study some mathematics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's all fascinating all right in many respects, but doesn't the noble business of fast trades and hedge funds give anyone on HN creeps anymore? After all it's moneymaking in a form of taxing the society as a whole (if you think that this money comes out of nowhere or somehow is a newly created value, think again).

Of course he used some of this money for good purposes, but still.

<comment><USER25> So, I'm against HFTs that trade on faster connections than others in the same pool. That advantage makes other traders BE the news on which to trade.

But I think HFTs in a marketplace where execution speed is equal can serve to provide liquidity, not siphon it out.

I could be wrong, but I'll wait to be more enlightened on the subject to change my opinion.

<comment><USER29> Why do you need millisecond(or is it microsecond?)-fast liquidity? What's wrong if there's a 10s or 1min window?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Anyone wanna demonstrate how one would formalize the phrase "pass it on"?

<comment><USER31> In symbolic modal logic, it would be along the lines of... if an action is done to you, then accept the belief of the imperative of doing that action to another. So, it would be a command for you to intend to do that action to another.

Axu -> _u_: A_u_y

(those are supposed to be underlines indicating imperatives.) This is the same sort of convention that Harry Gensler uses to prove the Golden Rule using his Formal Ethics system. (I should note I am not a logician and this is probably only a rough approximation - not sure whether it's appropriate to use A instead of a, etc.)

<comment><USER27> Is it clear to everybody from the context whether he meant "pass it on" in the sense of "pay it forward" or "pass it on" in the sense of "repeat this message"?

I was thinking first of the game of Telephone. "James Simons is a mathematician, pass it on!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Strange how I never heard of him before. While being both rich and an extremely accomplished individual, he seems to defy the stereotype of the mad genius.

<comment><USER33> I only know about him because of Renaissance Technologies, which is renowned in some circles as being extraordinarily hard to get a job at. They're known for snagging repeat Putnam Fellows. Last I heard Reid Barton ended up there.

<comment><USER34> The Putnam Competition questions seem very interesting.

[http://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/](http://kskedlaya.org/putnam-archive/)

<comment><USER35> 2546 days ago....

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35079)

<comment><USER36> That's a pretty funny thread.

Near the bottom you see this guy talking about his startup ideas and Drew Houston replies and asked him if he wants to help with Dropbox.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35088](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35088)

<comment><USER35> And of course -- Colin's tarsnap is still essentially the same as it ever was (a brilliant technical solution with awful marketing) - and Dropbox is one of the jewel's in YC's crown.

(See this recent post on tarsnap: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7523953](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7523953) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article distorts the history of RenTech. I believe Simons started doing non-quant trading and he acquired RenTech, which was started by Berlekamp.

<comment><USER37> That does not appear to be the case, at least according to anything I've been able to find with a bit of searching. I think you are thinking of Axcom, which RenTec acquired. Axcom was associated with Berlekamp (he was either founder, co-founder, or purchased a majority interest after it was founded...the internet is unclear on this).

<comment><USER38> There was a Bloomberg article about this some years ago.

Axcom was run by James Ax, and jointly owned by Ax & Simons. (Axcom was a 'trading advisor'. They made recommendations to Renaissance, which managed a fund based on these recommendations.) Ax was in essence hired by Simons to explore & develop quantitative trading ideas Simons & Baum had come up with while they were making more traditional trades.

Berlekamp came along several years later, as a consultant. One can find claims that he developed a lot of RenTech's IP, but as far as I can tell these claims are sourced from Berlekamp himself. Since Berlekamp's own fund went out of business after a few years of operation, I'm inclined to dismiss these claims as marketing.

<comment><USER39> > There was a Bloomberg article about this some years ago.

[http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nw&pname=mm_0108_stor...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=nw&pname=mm_0108_story1.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> The article mentions his interest in "gene puzzles". Does anyone know what does this refer to exactly?

<comment><USER41> Generally, it just applies to understanding how certain genes underlie the genetic basis of certain genetic diseases.

I believe Simons in particular funds areas of computational biology that strive to gain insight into the cascade effect. This occurs in many diseases, which make them seem nearly incurable, like sepsis or cancer. For example, when TNF (tumor necrosis factor0 activates inappropriately on the periphery of a cell it, to dramatically simplify, leads to growth during inappropriate stages of your life (adulthood), and triggers a cascade of thousands of events. When one event is altered, the cascade goes through a different direction, to the same goal. So understanding the pathway, and how everything interacts, is something I know the Simons foundation has funded in the past. With the hope that one day medications that properly fight the cascade can be achieved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Seems like a good dude who's using his brain and his money to advance important fields.

</comment><comment><USER43> An amazing man and a testament to the power of curiosity.

</comment><comment><USER44> Inspirational !

</comment><comment><USER45> I see sentences like this one in more and more articles these days:

> Dr. Simons now runs a tidy universe of science endeavors, financing not only > math teachers but hundreds of the world's best investigators, even as > Washington has reduced its support for scientific research.

A predictable consequence of reducing government spending is that the population becomes dependent on, and concentrates power in the hands of, a few wealthy citizens. For example, I've read that if you need funding for research, you should seriously consider networking with the very wealthy. If you run a charity, probably you need to focus on the same. Will these patrons support academic freedom? An organization that challenges the social order? What if your research upsets someone; is your career/organization at risk? Will their ideas and whims serve the nation and world?

(I'm not criticizing of Simons' philanthropy; I'm against shrinking government investment in research and other social goods.)

<comment><USER23> That's the way it should be, IMO. Government research leads to things like WMDs.

<comment><USER46> Also penicillin and the smallpox vaccine, the internet - but you know, whatever...

<comment><USER47> Amazing how people simply make up facts to support their ideology. Both penicillin and smallpox vaccine were discovered with little if any government support. But you know, whatever...

<comment><USER46> Not being a historian, I actually read Wikipedia before posting that. I guess I was confused on the smallpox vaccines creation which seems to involve a lot of actors. What's certain however, is that the vaccine's dissemination and the eventual eradication of smallpox was pushed by the World Health Organization (part of the UN) and so was a government initiative. [1]

Penicillin was discovered by Alexander Fleming as part of research in a public institution (St. Mary's Hospital). [2]

I guess my larger point (which you deftly avoided addressing) is that the government is not a boogeyman creating evil technologies nor does it have a monopoly on evil shit. I also have a hard time imagining a motive for a for- profit organization to eradicate a disease world-wide. Something that government organizations have achieved almost twice (polio is nearly wiped out).

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smallpox#Eradication) [2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennicilin#Discovery)

<comment><USER23> St Mary's Hospital was not government controlled or funded when Fleming was working there. It was one of the 'voluntary hospitals' supported by philanthropy and private donors. Furthermore, if you read the history of penicillin [1] you can see a long history of tinkering (meaning the discovery was somewhat inevitable) and that Pfizer, Inc. worked out how to mass produce it.

But you know, whatever...

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I have a few friends who worked at RenTech, and the one thing that bothers me is the secrecy. It's the one company I know of (outside of security-clearance jobs) where you're not allowed to say that you worked there. I feel like that probably makes it harder for people to resume their careers if they leave. Given that the best way to get a decent startup/VC job is to come out of a hedge fund, I can imagine it hurting people if they can't say where they worked.

I've heard that there's PhD bigotry there, too, and that's it's nearly impossible to get in if you don't have a PhD; but I don't know enough to confirm or deny that. It could be completely untrue, or it could just be that most people who make the cut and know about RenTech happen to have PhDs.

He sounds like a stand-up guy, though, and compared to the ethical dirt on an average Silicon Valley CEO, this stuff (which isn't even ethical dirt so much as practical disagreement) is negligible.

<comment><AUTHOR> A friend of mine got an interview there while he was still in in school for undergrad.

<comment><USER41> Mind if I ask what his degree was in? Would imagine it was something like computer science, as I've only ever heard of those in maths/stats/physics getting in with a PhD.

<comment><AUTHOR> He studied applied math and psychology. But you're right they're biased toward cs majors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Another "if i can do it, so can you" story. Fuck that message , I am never going to be a billionaire and you won't be either. And it isn't for a lack of talent, or effort.

<comment><USER50> There are literally more billionaires on HN than people in the US who could write "Axiomatic Characterization of Ordinary Differential Cohomology."

Apparently some folks are motivated to strive towards those statuses. Not quite my cup of tea, but I wouldn't discourage them or say those goals are flatly impossible.

<comment><USER51> Do you mean originate and write the paper?

Or do you mean just maybe understand the general essence of the paper's title, and understand major contributions after spending some time reading the paper?

If the former, well... yes. That's probably true for almost all significant research, especially in mathematics.

If the latter, I think you're probably wrong. And that's not to trivialize the work presented in the paper; if anything, the contrary -- the paper's actually quite well-written.

<comment><USER50> I meant "write" in the usual sense as it is applied to academic research.

<comment><USER51> Counting up the number of people who could've written a given non-anonymous paper is pretty unheard of in academia afaik. The answer is usually politely assumed to be "exactly the number of authors". I've certainly never seen this behavior. So I'm not sure your answer is actually at all clarifying.

Probably, and this is just a guess, neither Simons or Sullivan claim they could've written the paper alone. And it's certainly impossible to write essentially the same paper without plagiarizing. So probably there are either zero or two people who meet the "could've written this paper" criteria.

So, why didn't you just say "there are more than zero/two billionaires who read HN"? Seems less round-about.

<comment><USER52> You're over thinking this. He means a handful + 3.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> the power of Stony Brook University

</comment><comment><USER54> > One morning in Katmandu, as he relaxed on a hotel porch, the structure of a > proof suddenly came to him.

<comment><USER55> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_%28psychology%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incubation_%28psychology%29) at work?

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> A bit off topic, but he made his money managing hedge funds. There are lots of "quant" type people that could do as well as he has, but almost no one has access to tens or hundreds of millions of dollars of others' money to deploy. While some attempts have been made, I haven't yet seen a decent solution to bring the best forecasting together with large amounts of capital. Somebody please work on that.</comment>


CS PhD from UC Davis, Failed Startup, Seeking Job - <AUTHOR> I have a CS PhD from UC Davis and am looking for a job as a software engineer or a speech researcher. My project was desktop software for speech editing. I live in Berkeley, CA and am willing to relocate. US Citizen. Please email: email@example.com <comment><USER2> Just apply to the gazillion jobs out there. Why even bother advertising your status on HN?

</comment><comment><USER3> 7 years of college and you have no idea how to find a job on your own? or are you just whining at how 'unfair' your situation is?

</comment><comment><USER4> I'd suggest taking a look at the Hiring thread that comes out on 1/1/2016 to see if there are any openings.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Skills:

C++ Development (with some C++ 11 experience) Windows Development (Visual C++) Javascript (some experience building reactive pages) learning Android. Speech User Interface Expertise

</comment><comment><USER5> Also try these:

angel.co hired.com

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you.</comment>


HTML5 audio formats - Firefox should support AAC and IE should support OGG - <AUTHOR> http://www.scirra.com/blog/44/on-html5-audio-formats-aac-and-ogg

<comment><USER2> It's not about "can't afford it", it's solely about "doesn't fit their business model".

This is in great, big letters on Mozilla's home page:

" We Are Building a Better Internet

And we're dedicated to keeping it free, open and accessible to all. "

<comment><USER3> Not to mention that if they did pay for the license, I'm not sure that it would propagate down to forking projects. If you can't fork Firefox, that significantly impedes the utility of its open-source development model.

<comment><USER4> Very, very good point. Not everyone uses official Firefox binaries.

What should happen instead, MPEG-LA should give a perpetual license to all non-profit or open source developers of anything whatsoever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Title is link-bait. Article makes a good case for Safari and IE supporting OGG as well. Author just wants a good, standard format without fees.

<comment><AUTHOR> Heh, guess you're right. Edited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We'll have WebCL in all modern browsers before we will have a format for compressed audio that works on all browsers.

Arguing over what format to support is pointless, we will be able to ship our own (fast, secure) decoders before there will be any consensus on what compressed video/audio formats to support.

</comment><comment><USER7> Actually, WAV files can contain compressed content in a wide variety of formats, including MP3. WAV is a container format, not an audio format per se.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, I meant PCM WAV really. You can put MP3 in a WAV container, but it doesn't change the licensing situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ogg, not OGG.</comment>


HN, let's make the 'better email' - <AUTHOR>

I'd be interested in talking to anyone else whose interested in making email better. I'm thinking something along the lines of creating a simple task management web app that integrates all tasks, to-do's, read-it-laters, and email. If interested, reply in the comments, and maybe this will devolve into a Google hangout with stupid moustaches. <comment><USER2> The problem with replacing email is the fact that, unless you're using the standard email protocols, it's not really email at all. What needs to be done is to write a wrapper around the normal email protocols, and allow integration and interoperability with vanilla email that way. Then, you could write a new protocol if you wished, as long as the old ones kept working. If you want to replace email, you actually need to replace it.

I don't know if that's what you were already thinking, but thinking that they can make the world move to another protocol all of a sudden is a problem I see a lot of "reinvent email" guys having. That and building it so it only works with specific providers (usually just gmail) are big problems. (I use Hotmail, now Outlook.com, for my email, which is @ my own domain).

So, I think this could work, and I'd be interested in helping, but only if \- It works on classic email protocols \- It supports arbitrary providers (this goes along with the first point).

My suggestions as to features: \- I really like the idea that alokhar mentioned of the unnecessariness of attaching a document. You could sort documents in different ways (types, who they're from) and list them along with email (which would be toggleable, for obvious reasons). If you need to send them, you send them with a stub email with some sort of markup in it that lets this service ignore the actual email, but is human-readable so it works with vanilla email. \- An integrated inbox would be really nice - this would work well with the calendar/todo list integration. You could have some sort of human-readable, human-writeable metadata that would allow for various functions (setting a due date, etc). \- Any email sent to an address by that address could be treated as a note - this would include todo-list entries (mentioned above), as well as just text notes. You could even sync these with external services (such as Evernote), which would be pretty cool. \- The first image in an email could be used as its thumbnail in some views (or be overridable by the attributes described below)

These ideas hinge a bit on the idea of "Markdown for metadata" - some sort of obvious, flexible way to include metadata that, when read by a human, just looks like what you might write anyway. For example,

      due: may 5
      due: tomorrow
      due: 2012-06-21

      task: development

      email type: attachment

This last one could be used for something like the stub emails I mentioned earlier, where a dumb email client would just ignore this and display the text, while a smart email client would hide the email and just add the atttachments to the inbox. You could include some explanatory text ("This is an attachment from firstname.lastname@example.com"), but if this attribute was set to attachment, then it would be ignored by the smart email client. You would probably include a way to see these hidden emails anyway, to mitigate accidental invocation.

You _could_ use a similar attribute for todo and calendar entries, but these could be inferred from other attributes in most cases.

In order to be as flexible as possible, you'd want to support many different aliases and formats (so I could, for example, write "date" or "when" instead of "due", and use any of the above formats).

These are just examples (the task would probably just be the email title, not an attribute - if it was an attribute, it would at least default to the email title).

I like the paradigm of having one line per attribute, with

      <attribute> : <value>

Attribute and value could be parsed on a case-by-case basis - see the several different date formats I used above.

You would use this parsed metadata to implement things like to-do lists, calendars, etc, and it would look like something you might type anyway.

Sorry, I've rambled a bit. What do you guys think?

<comment><USER3> YAML seems like a perfect candidate for "Markdown for metadata".

<comment><USER2> I wasn't previously aware of YAML, though it seems like it would work very well - even allowing for features like adding/exporting multiple entries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I know this is a little late, but if anyone is interested I'm building a tool with similar function (<http://bip.io> \- its in development right now, updates via <https://twitter.com/bipioapp>) - treating email as 'just another protocol' infront of an API glue service. We aim to support NLP in message payloads to dynamically assemble (social and API) delivery pipelines... reach out if you're interested in contributing, the code is quickly maturing!

</comment><comment><USER5> Some thoughts:

o A don't like using calendar apps, just don't like them,

o I frequently use email to email myself links and todos,

o I hate outlook,

o I've been thinking it would be ideal to integrate todo lists, calendar apps, and email all together, and

o Why the hell do I still have to forward emails?

EDIT: to clarify - forward emails between accounts.

<comment><USER5> Further, I like the idea of "posting" on somebodies todo list rather than "emailing" them some letter through an internet postal service.

<comment><AUTHOR> All these things. Let's talk, but wait for more people to get back.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hey everybody, we're going to do a hangout tonight:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4911943>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for your interest guys and gals. Would you be interested in talk ing tomorrow (Sunday) at 3pm PST on Google Hangout and discussing a possible project?

<comment><USER2> Hey - I didn't see the post, as I was out on Monday and Sunday. If you're still interested in doing something, shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Features are not the issue. The interface is make or break.</comment>


Anonymous rant on using Scala (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/anonymous/1406238

<comment><USER2> I've read this before a couple of months ago. Why post it now when it's now almost 4 years old?

I feel that the Scala community has learned a lot in the past 2 years and I applaud all the ongoing simplification efforts that are being done all over the Scala community. (That's not to say Scala is for everyone)

</comment><comment><USER3> he's probably coming back these days.</comment>


Ask HN: What should I ask Jason Fried?  - <AUTHOR>

I'm going to interview Jason Fried tomorrow on http://drt.fm. We will be talking about his new book, 'Remote'. What would you like me to ask him? <comment><USER2> I'm curious what he thinks of sites like Sqwiggle and if that is a good idea for Remote Work</comment>


Ask HN: Programming Project Ideas? - <AUTHOR>

Do you have any project ideas for medium (say a few kloc) programs that would be good for learning? I want to work on something for a few weeks to just focus on programming (i.e. not trying to build a product). Examples I've heard previously are a BitTorrent client or IRC client, but something not networking focused would be cool too. I'm especially looking to work on something where I can learn a lot from the design (code, not UI) phase. Thanks! <comment><USER2> "Data hosting/sharing service" or "Data Marketplace(buy/sell data)". Allow users to upload data on your website and make it available to others for use in various formats such as csv,xls,xml,sql,json or expose data to be used through REST API.

You can later extend it by allowing users to share js/php/etc code snippets that does some operation on data or that handles presentation of data. Widgetize it so that it can be embedded on web pages.

</comment><comment><USER3> [http://www.health2con.com/devchallenge/allscripts-open- app-c...](http://www.health2con.com/devchallenge/allscripts-open-app- challenge/)

I am looking to team up.

Also, have a second project that i need to access a health insurers API.

Email me at firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER4> A lightweight RVDS compiler-compatible (ARM) rest client.

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry if this is an obvious question, but do you mean rest as in http (e.g. 'REST'-ful apis)? Or is this a different use of rest?

<comment><USER4> yep, restful apis :D

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _Better than JSON_

Design your own general purpose textual data format and write an encoder and/or decoder for it.</comment>


Sculley: Apple's Big Mistake Was Hiring Me As CEO - <AUTHOR> http://www.cultofmac.com/apple%e2%80%99s-big-mistake-was-hiring-me-as-ceo-sculley-interview/63323

<comment><USER2> This headline makes for a misleading soundbite. The context is that Sculley is saying that Apple's biggest mistake was making Sculley CEO _instead of Steve_. The board "wasn't prepared to make [Jobs] CEO when he was 25, 26 years old."

Thankfully that kind of thinking has changed in today's tech world.

<comment><USER3> Has that kind of thinking really changed though? Apple was already a sizeable company with real revenue making real, physical products at that time.

Outside of online businesses, do you really see a lot of young CEOs?

<comment><USER2> That's an interesting point, and my question is why is there a distinction to be made between a hardware company and a software company in terms of management? I think that for various reasons related to barriers to entry and maturity of market, young people aren't _founding_ hardware companies today like they were in the 80s, it may be difficult to compare. However it's pretty clear that young entrepreneurs command much more respect today from investors and boards than they did even a decade ago.

<comment><USER3> In addition to worrying about software, Apple had to worry about supply chain, inventory, logistics, etc. And, unlike the Compaqs and Dells of the world, Apple was not in the business of making commodity hardware.

In any case, I think Steve was too busy in those days being a micromanager for the Macintosh team to even think about running the company. Don't forget he spent a lot of time alienating the Apple ][ team, who was responsible for most of the company's revenue at the time.

Getting fired, running a relatively unsuccessful company (NeXT) and nurturing a company into massive success (Pixar) probably gave him more valuable experience than if he had somehow managed to stay at Apple in the first place. And for all we know, the world would have never had the opportunity to see Toy Story or the Incredibles. Clearly, I see Job's firing from Apple as a win for the world. ;)

Also keep in mind that while at NeXT, they switched from a hardware and software company to a software company (and so did Be, which was the other company Apple considered buying).

<comment><USER4> This is a good summary, and I agree that NeXT contributed a lot to what Apple is today.

I don't understand your final sentence though... To whom are you referring when you say "They switched from being a H/w S/w company to a S/w company" ?

I thought that both NeXT and Apple continued to produce their own machines and software.

<comment><USER5> NeXT stopped making hardware a few years before Apple bought them, and was renamed "NeXT Software Inc".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think that this says a lot about John Sculley's character. He has the strength to admit the realities about Apple. I find it surprising that so many former-CEOs are unable to admit the obvious.

I used to own his book Odyssey which describes his view of the world in 1987.

<comment><USER7> I have read a number of interviews with Sculley over the years, and it seems he has the wisdom to understand that he will be remembered as "the guy who fired Steve Jobs", and this has brought about a certain humility not seen in most ex-CEOs from major companies.

And contrary to the usual simplified narrative, Apple was quite successful with Scully running it:

\+ they built the Mac from a toy computer into a real platform

\+ the "sales and marketing" was top-notch with brand-loyalty singlehandedly kept the company alive for years

\+ the company did some great R&D producing huge wins like QuickTime

\+ he correctly understood that Apple was locked-out of the broader PC market, but had a shot at dominating handhelds

Plus the the consensus view in ~1998 was that Sculley had failed Apple by not moving MacOS to Intel and licensing it out to PC vendors. I imagine very few people hold that opinion today - as Sculley said, the company ran according to Jobs' basic business plan.

<comment><USER8>
      And contrary to the usual simplified narrative,
      Apple was quite successful with Scully running it

From article I got an impression that these were benefits of Jobs' "methodology".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Even Steve Jobs was not trusted by his board because of lack of "experience". Those with experience tend to always overvalue it and rarely see their own limitations.

<comment><USER3> But those without experience tend to undervalue it.

Getting turfed from Apple was the best thing that happened to Steve Jobs. If you read the folklore, he was bit of an enfant terrible, and I'm of the view that the _experience_ of running NeXT and Pixar gave him the insight to turn around Apple.

I'm not nearly convinced that Apple would be the same company it is today if Steve Jobs had not been forced out.

<comment><USER9> My emphasis was on the fact that even Steve Jobs was not trusted by the board of Apple because of lack of experience. Being turfed from Apple might have been the best thing that happened to him but I don't think it was the best thing that happened to Apple. The company almost died. So, again, without diminishing the value of experience, I think those who have some, tend to overvalue it.

<comment><USER3> And again, I'll say that it is also true that those who don't have any experience, tend to undervalue it.

Your statement and my statement are not mutually exclusive.

The same goes with education. Those who have one can overvalue it. Those who don't have one can undervalue it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to have been a fly on the wall for these infamous board meetings where Jobs and Sculley began to move apart. There were probably more idiosyncratic lessons there than any of the biographies or interviews lead on.

<comment><USER11> Iirc, some of the inside stories on that topic are covered at folklore.org.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> It would be nice to see these guys mend their relationship before it's too late.

</comment><comment><USER13> I admire his humility. I believe it's Jim Collins (Good to Great book) who describes these types of CEOs as Level 5 leaders. I don't know Sculley's career, but maybe he would have been more successful being in an industry he was familiar with?

</comment><comment><USER14> The best comment is definitely:

"What about the Newton?? I actually bought one. I still can't believe that I did."</comment>


Gist Design Update - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/blog/1850-gist-design-update

<comment><USER2> I love gists, but I'd find them a whole bunch more useful if I could create private gists that were attached to an organisation. It would turn gists in to an outstanding internal company snippets library and pastebin.

I've also seen companies discourage their employees from using private gists for company code because the access control ends up tied to the individual user and not the company, which causes ownership problems when employees leave.

<comment><USER3> It's the main reason we can't use it. Org gists would be great.

<comment> X-Istence It's one of the things I love about Gitlab, you can have a per-project gists like page!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> One thing I wish I had with gists is the ability to drag & drop images into (markdown) documents like you can do when writing issues, comments or such on the site proper. There are quite a few people who like using Gist as a simple writing platform (me included), but ironically all the other places to write text on GitHub work better for that due to the ease of image uploading & embedding in them.

Now that I think of it, Markdown preview would also be quite nice to have for Gist. That's yet another thing the site proper has over Gist for writing. It seems that there's even the ability to preview .md files in your repo when editing them in the browser (though you can't upload images here either), that would be great to have for Gist too.

</comment><comment><USER5> Glad to see Gists being improved again. Thanks GitHub!</comment>


What if the Universe has no end? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200117-what-if-the-universe-has-no-end <comment><USER2> I used to think about the end of the universe, and also about whether the inside of a solid object really exists. So one way I imagined the universe could have an end is if space was a bubble inside of a solid.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> It is interesting to consider the big bang as a "Big Bounce", a turning point in an ongoing cycle of contraction and expansion.

<comment><USER3> The big bang bullshit is falsified, read the papers collected there [http://cosmology.info/](http://cosmology.info/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> IMHO the beginning and end of the universe are typical anthropocentric ideas. Our life begins and ends so does a universe? Hardly.

The other theories mentioned in the article are more likely.

<comment><AUTHOR> May be or may not be. The unpredictability makes everyone curious to understand . I believe there must be a beginning but i'm not to sure about the end.</comment></comment>


Scary Repliee R-1 Robot - <AUTHOR> http://www.techfresh.net/scary-repliee-r-1-robot/

<comment><USER2> This dour-faced child actroid is pretty old now. Newer models aren't as odd- looking (except for the one made to demonstrate the underlying technology that looks like a Meccano project with teeth and eyeballs.) Kokoro has a travelling exhibit called "Encyclopedia of the Actroid".

<http://www.kokoro-dreams.co.jp/english/index.html></comment>


*.mymachine.me points to 127.0.0.1 - <AUTHOR>

Registered domain, free to use, no hacks, anything dot mymachine.me points to 127.0.0.1.
Inspiration: after witnessing people developing complexed solutions to simple problems e.g. platform specific DNS proxys such as https://github.com/trullock/DevelopmentDnsServer
mymachine.me -> -> 127.0.0.1 site1.mymachine.me -> 127.0.0.1 blahblah.mymachine.me -> 127.0.0.1 <comment><USER2> shouldn't <http://mymachine.me> also resolve to localhost?

<comment><AUTHOR> good point, it does now, simple problems simple solutions ;)</comment></comment>


Great idea rejected by Kickstarter - Keep batteries out of landfills - <AUTHOR> http://www.aztechbeat.com/2012/06/hardware-design-project-usb-power-adapter-for-apple-products-rejected-by-kickstarter/

<comment><USER2> Genius idea. Pure genius. Kickstarter has shown that they are less about ingenuity and more about public opinion. I hope your project gets funded 10x.</comment>


Thirty things i've learned (great life advice) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/health-the-future/thirty-things-ive-learned-482765ee3503

<comment><USER2> This was (overall) a good article and good advice.

I take exception with two points:

1)"You end up being the average of the people you spend your life with."

-I don't agree. While this can happen and often does, you can be who you are, and you will, in spite of people around you.

2)"Perception is reality."

-I hear this all the time (mostly from sales types) and it is complete and utter nonsense. Perception is not reality. Reality is reality and the consequences of reality catch up with us no matter what our perception is. Want to find out and control reality? Change your perception to more closely align with it. Just believing something doesn't in any way make it so.

Otherwise... good points. Exercise, don't drink, be productive. Can't argue.</comment>