Microsoft to launch Office 365 on June 28 - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/microsoft/microsoft-to-launch-office-365-on-june-28/9603?tag=mantle_skin;content

<comment><USER2> (Disclaimer: I work on Office at Microsoft)

If you want a preview of the Word/Excel/PowerPoint/OneNote pieces of Office 365, you can use them for free at <http://office.live.com> \- if you're using OneNote locally, they'll also host your OneNote notebooks so you can access them anywhere (as well as still use them via the desktop app)

<comment><USER3> Last time I tried this, after reading something microsoft wrote that specifically mentioned tablets, I wasted an hour trying to hack office web apps to run, then finally got a message asking me to install silverlight on an ipad.

So pardon me if this seems rude, but do you have an actual web office suite, or is this more bullshit?

Thanks. MS office has a great ui, and i'm looking forward to try a web version of it if such a thing ever exists.

<comment><USER2> It doesn't work on an iPad yet. It's our first web Office release, it's still a little rough, but it's definitely something we're putting a lot of engineering work behind to improve.

However, you don't actually _need_ Silverlight to use it (I'm not sure what they're using it for), I've used it on Chrome in Ubuntu and it worked just as well. Any new'ish browser should work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Google really needs to turn up the heat with Docs. The spreadsheet, etc need to get a lot better if they want to steal market share from Microsoft. Office is hard to beat.

<comment><USER5> Not sure I agree. A small number of sophisticated users really use Excel in something close to its potential, but most people I know use spreadsheets for simple lists and maybe adding up a column of numbers. If Google start chasing Excel on features, they could find themselves on the losing side of a "fire and motion"[1] strategy.

[1] <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000339.html>

<comment><USER6> Yeah, I use the Spreadsheet app the most. It's quicker to download all the Javascript required to run it than it is to boot Excel off my hard drive, and I just use it for groceries and things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using the beta for a while now, and look forward to it being launched. I must be in the small minority of people who prefer hosted Exchange to Gmail (but oh do I), but I've been pretty impressed so far with the functionality.

</comment><comment><USER8> My biggest complaint with Google Docs is related to consistent formatting. I am anxious to see how MS handles this. I do agree that for pure collaboration, Google Docs is currently unmatched.

</comment><comment><USER9> The name sounds like we will have to pay a little bit for it for 365 days a year...

<comment><USER10> I dislike names with 365, 360, X, Live and so forth. Microsoft violates all of them :-/</comment></comment>


UN Says Climate Genocide Is Coming. It's Actually Worse Than That - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2018/10/un-says-climate-genocide-coming-but-its-worse-than-that.html <comment><USER2> Defeatism is endemic to comment threads like this. I'm not sure what the purpose of these comments is, to be honest. If anything, it's a self- fulfilling prophecy.

Let me offer an alternative point of view. Yes, the climate will be irreparably damaged. Yes, lots of humnas will suffer. These things seem to be unavoidable. The harm to both our planet and its citizens is happening as we speak. However, the scale to which this occurs is in our control.

This is an all-hands-on-deck sort of scenario. Everyone will need to pitch in, whatever they can, however they can. Travel less internationally. Reduce (or eliminate if possible) your meat and animal product consumption. Buy less. Vote for candidates that support renewable energy and environmentally friendly initiatives. There's a thousand ways an individual can help by voting with their wallet, their time, and their participation in their political system.

Everything you do, every choice you make today and for the rest of your life, potentially affects the lives of future generations. In my opinion, the most harmful thing you can do, is choosing to do nothing.

Edit: Seeing this is Hacker News, I know a lot of people are going to be commenting with technical suggestions - lab grown meats, renewable energy sources, carbon capture, geoengineering etc. I am very much in favour of these solutions. However, (as far as I know) none of these currently exist at such a scale or level of sophistication so as to make my initial point irrelevant.

<comment><USER3> > In my opinion, the most harmful thing you can do, is choosing to do nothing.

I disagree. Millions of Americans and one of two major political parties are _actively obstructing_ action to mitigate the impact of climate change.

Doing nothing is better than doing things to actively hamper positive efforts.

<comment><USER4> You can't control what others do. You can control what you (and perhaps your immediate family) do.

Be the change you want to see in the world.

<comment><USER5> Seriously? Do I have to list countless individuals who fought multinational corps and won b/c they were being screwed? Telling your family to put the hamburgers down aint going to help this situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When the ice shelves in Greenland (40 foot sea level rise) and Antarctica (200 foot seas level rise) occur then I reckon it'll not be gradual but will be a sudden collapse. All within a very short space of months.

The real issue is that nobody has proven this wasn't going to occur anyway. This is always the downfall with climate science in that there is no explicit proof that anything man does to the planet would alter what was going to occur anyway.

Climate scientists also have an agenda to keep their funding so will never say "there is no issue" but will always point to the inevitable as it matches what they want for a conclusion.

Follow the money, as they say.

<comment><USER7> > The real issue is that nobody has proven this wasn't going to occur anyway.

Are you saying that the contribution of CO₂ levels to warming isn't established, or that the human role in increasing CO₂ levels isn't established? Because both of those are very well established.

> This is always the downfall with climate science in that there is no > explicit proof that anything man does to the planet would alter what was > going to occur anyway.

This is only true in the sense where "explicit proof" is restricted to pure abstract domains like math and not applicable to any domain of material fact; to the extent that it is possible to "prove" anything about what would happen in counterfactual alternative conditions in the material universe, though, this has been proven.

<comment><USER8> CO2 follows warming if you look at the data too closely.

No one has proved that mankind's contribution is material to the underlying trend, nor proved that warming will be as bad as claimed. So what if Greenland becomes green again?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> While things look gloomy, that pretty much ignores geoengineering as a possibility. Chapter Four of the IPCC report [0] discusses things that could be done to offset or slow down this process. Besides renewable/nuclear energy and getting rid of cattle (methane emissions), it discusses geoengineering methods to actively compensate for what we have done to the environment. One of the more interesting and cost effective ideas is stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI):

 _" There is high agreement that cost of stratospheric aerosol injection (SAI) (not taking into account indirect and social costs, research and development costs and monitoring expenses) may be in the range of 1–10 billion USD yr–1 for injection of 1–5 MtS to achieve cooling of 1–2 W m–2 (Robock et al., 2009; McClellan et al., 2012; Ryaboshapko and Revokatova, 2015; Moriyama et al., 2016), suggesting that cost-effectiveness may be high if side-effects are low or neglected (McClellan et al., 2012)."_ [0]

Some of the other options are outlined in Table 4.7 of the report. Given that these are not _that_ expensive and could radically reduce temperature, I think we should be doing a lot more to research both the intended and unintended consequences. I strongly think some entity is going to try some of them, and some have already been done by folks: [https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/science/earth/iron- dumpin...](https://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/science/earth/iron-dumping- experiment-in-pacific-alarms-marine-experts.html?_r=0)

If you are interested in mitigating climate change, I encourage you to read through chapter 4 of the IPCC report which covers many of the possible methods.

[0] Chapter 4 of the IPCC report; [http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter4.pdf](http://report.ipcc.ch/sr15/pdf/sr15_chapter4.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER10> The more interesting part to me: at the +4 C warming, a lot of currently most productive and populous areas in subtropics will become too hot for humans to live. This will lead to deaths, migrations, and, of course, food insecurity.

Also, melting of enough of Antarctic ice may raise the level of oceans so much that protecting coastal cities with dams will become impractical. That is, whole countries, like the Netherlands, currently have a lot of their territory below sea level, and had for centuries. But this only works for a difference of several meters, but is unlikely to work for e.g. 50m.

</comment><comment><USER11> Gore said 2015.

</comment><comment><USER12> Clean energy is coming, but slowly.

People are not going to get off their cars and hop on a bike.

There is something you can do, today, to mitigate one of the biggest causes of climate change.

Give up meat and dairy.

[https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge- red...](https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2018/oct/10/huge-reduction-in- meat-eating-essential-to-avoid-climate-breakdown)

Ironically the thing that is easiest to do is also the last one people want to do.

I always thought that the fight against meat and dairy was a moral one. I didn't know the toll it takes on the environment, until I specifically went looking for it. It is one of the best kept capitalist secrets.

<comment><USER13> Why not just have people switch to poultry? White meat is healthier, anyway. People aren't going to go vegetarian directly but surely there are half- measures that are a good first step.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Climate change" hysteria is being pushed hard now, with articles every day here on HN.</comment>


Cable TV boxes become 2nd biggest energy users in many homes - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-power-hog-20140617-story.html <comment><USER2> In the last couple of years, I've turned into a complete energy fascist, especially after getting my own home and being eaten alive by my first few PGE bills.

Ever since then, I converted to LED lights for everything, and bought a Kill- A-Watt meter to figure out where the biggest hogs were. I even selected components for my desktop based on energy efficiency (90+% efficient power supply, low wattage CPU, graphics card, etc). I also had a dual CPU Xeon processor VMWare server that was using 200W _idle_ , so I shut that down and replaced it with a couple of Intel NUCs. I figure that the Xeon server was costing me about $50/month in electricity alone, and could have easily been replaced by a couple of cloud VMs had I realized sooner.

Also, it turned out that my 2005 LCD tv and my PS3 together drew something like 400W when on. Needless to say I haven't turned on my PS3 in a while, and I've been eyeing a Roku for whenever I do want to watch Amazon Video.

I've cut my energy usage from 700 kWh per month to just over 300 kWh, and I haven't noticed any difference whatsoever in my lifestyle. I just cut out the wasteful electricity usage, and I now have my LED lights programmed to be on almost all night long around the house, turning off late a night automatically. I'm seriously toying with the idea of getting an electric car, since I don't think it would push me into Tier 3 even if I was recharging every night.

<comment><USER3> Notice that 300kWh/month still comes out to roughly 400 watts used at any given moment. Can you account for them?

<comment><USER4> The fridge would be my guess

<comment><USER5> Heating or AC (or both) are more likely.

With modern refrigerators, hot water could also be a bigger fraction.

<comment><USER2> My heating is natural gas, and I have no AC (SF Bay Area). My electricity bill has decreased, but I'm still trying to figure out how to decrease my natural gas bill, especially during the winter months. My theory is that my furnace and hot water heater are very inefficient, so I'm going to look into replacing those next year.

<comment><USER5> 0/3 isn't that bad. Err, yes it is.

If the house is older than the furnace, the problem could also be lack of insulation.

<comment><USER2> Yes, lack of insulation is definitely a problem for me. I currently have no insulation (including the attic because of a rat problem that was there before I moved in). I do have wireless temperature sensors in various rooms to try to figure out how my house reacts to various weather, and I'm not sure how much adding insulation will actually help me, vs the cost of injecting insulation into the walls, etc. I'm probably going to get attic insulation before summer next year though, but to be honest, the temperature didn't get too crazy this year, despite several days of 90-100 degree weather, so I'm a bit skeptical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> _" Cheryl Williamsen, a Los Alamitos architect, has three of the boxes leased from her cable provider in her home, but she had no idea how much power they consumed until recently, when she saw a rating on the back for as much as 500 watts — about the same as a washing machine."_

It just makes no sense for cable box electronics to draw 500 watts. I wonder if the LA Times fact-checked this claim. Maybe the box had a switched outlet into which a TV could be plugged?

And it's contradicted by this quote in the very next sentence:

 _" A set-top cable box with a digital recorder can consume as much as 35 watts of power."_

<comment><USER7> A power supply rated for 500 watts doesn't mean the device draws 500 watts all the time. Most electronics don't draw anywhere near their rated input during normal use.

<comment><USER3> A power supply rated for 500 watts needs active cooling. I don't think set-top boxes come with fans yet.

(Not to mention that components consuming 500 watts need cooling..)

<comment><USER8> I have seen (and thus heard!) set top boxes with fans. They are usually pretty quiet, but they're there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> There are no stats in this article to justify the claim that it's the 2nd largest consumer in your home. The architect seeing the 500 watt rating on the back of one is immediately followed by "A set-top cable box with a digital recorder can consume as much as 35 watts of power".

In fact, at 35 watts, according to this chart[1] it wouldn't even come close to being the second largest consumer.

[1]: [https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/For-My-Home/ways-to- save-a...](https://www.efficiencyvermont.com/For-My-Home/ways-to-save-and- rebates/Appliances/Refrigerators/General-Info/Electric-Usage-Chart)

</comment><comment><USER7> > The devices use nearly as much power turned off as they do when they are > turned on.

Well, the whole point of a DVR is that it does things when you're not there. If you want it to record shows after you've turned it "off", then it can't really be "off" can it?

<comment><USER10> It can, just program a RTC to raise an interrupt on a specified wake time and the OS shuts down the CPU once recording is done.

<comment><USER11> well, don't forget to send the cpu to sleep before waiting for the interrupt as well

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> We're about ready to cut the cord, and I've been suspecting our two Dish boxes are huge hogs anyway. We recently got the first results of an audit we signed up for through our provider (Pepco), and we were shocked to see that our usage is well beyond the average. We were pretty shocked considering we have 100% Compact fluorescent bulbs, very new appliances, and we're generally _very_ conscious of our usage. Our dryer is natural gas, as is our furnace and oven. Our central AC unit is ancient, but it was a mild summer and we set it to not be as cool during the day. The only computer on during the day is a Mac mini.

We're convinced something isn't right. I think a kill-a-watt will be a near- future purchase.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is why I'm happy for living in the EU.

While developing a smart-TV-controller appliance, I ended up researching CE and other requirements which have to be met... and some of these actually set maximum allowed standby power consumption!

I bet that the US market doesn't have anything remotely similar (and that TTIP and friends will allow US companies to sell their shit in EU without adhering to our rules!)

<comment><USER13> actually we have the EPA's Energy Star certification system, which a lot of products do try for.

<comment><USER10> Yeah but iirc this is not mandatory, so if you're a cable provider you don't need Energy* as a marketing plus

<comment><USER5> It doesn't apply to STBs, but there are mandatory standards for many appliance categories:

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

[http://energy.gov/node/773531/index.html](http://energy.gov/node/773531/index.html)

That is going to meet some definitions of "remotely similar" (and fail others).

Energy Star usually benchmarks off of those standards. There are also adjustments, so Energy Star products from some time ago might not meet current mandatory standards (but I haven't looked to find an actual case of this, just pointing out that it could be).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How bad is Roku?

<comment><USER15> Roku's power input is rated 12V and 1A [[https://www.roku.com/products/roku-3](https://www.roku.com/products/roku-3)]. This is maximum draw of 12W at any given time.

<comment><USER9> Keep in mind that that's the maximum input while it's in use... I don't think there's any way to figure out how much it would use when off without plugging it into a kill-a-watt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> One more reason for the local community to own the last mile: more control over such devices.</comment>


Adam Andrzejewski – The Depth of the Swamp - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SQDEDR0JXdE <comment><USER2> The wastefulness of large bureaucracies has been a running joke for decades now, whether fair or not. That being said, I don't think you're going to find that Hacker News is a good forum for espousing your fiscal conservatism-- especially when its couched in some particularly divisive contemporary tropes (e.g., "swamp"). Perhaps you're looking for [https://reddit.com/politics](https://reddit.com/politics) ?

<comment><AUTHOR> You've somehow decided that I am a "fiscal conservative"?

?

Sadly (or perhaps happily, depending on viewpoint), I am not!

I am not a fiscal conservative.

No.

I am someone who believes (strongly) in transparency (absolute and total) relating to finance/money/transactions - where a public trust is concerned.

That's _not_ a "fiscal conservative".

That's a _transparency advocate_.

You see, I believe that if we are to have free and fair society in the future, then we must make all financial flows, especially those of governments (both foreign and domestic!) open, transparent, accountable, and subject to public scrutiny.

Now, I am sorry if it offended you because I reposted a video with the title "swamp" in it. Perhaps I should have sanitized and/or censored the title. If you believe that "swamp" is divisive, then perhaps you could contact the author of the video, and/or POTUS, since both seem to use that terminology quite a bit...

Myself? I wouldn't call it the "swamp"...

No.

If I'd call it anything, I'd call it what the late comedian, George Carlin, so eloquently did...

He called it... "The Free Money Club". <g>

He added (also very eloquently, in my opinion!) that to this club, "You and I aren't invited!" <g>

Of course, maybe you'd prefer that it be called the "Swamp" in lieu of "The Free Money Club" \-- if those were the only two choices...

Now, I'm not political... I'm apolitical... I'm a man of the mind.

So while I appreciate your kind offer, no, I'm not looking for [https://reddit.com/politics..](https://reddit.com/politics..).

Perhaps _you_ are looking for a forum online where posters do not have the intellectual capacity to push back as much as they do on HN?

?

(I'd also point out that I am not your enemy; I'm only the proverbial messenger (well, technically Adam Andrzejewski is the messenger, I'm only the cross-poster! <g>), and please remember there is a "no shooting of the messenger" rule in effect! <g>)

You may now rebut, if you wish...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Adam, (person posting on behalf), my family, friends and I appreciate your hard work, but it is obvious in your speech at Hillsdale that you favor Trump. That's your prerogative, but please don't water down the important job you have taken on by playing favorites. 50% of the country does not like him and we need 100% to hear you.

On one hand, you talk about politicians making promises they do not keep, yet on the other, you seem content with trusting the words and promises of politicians. When the VA in Palo Alto was called out for purchasing two sculptures worth $700k, why did another promise by a politician satisfy you? Who was fired? What happened to the statues? What was the Palo Alto VA's spending report in 2019?

I checked out your app and was disappointed that it has not been updated from 2014. It's 2020. Have you been in a court battle with California this whole time? And if so, please announce that with a banner or something on your app.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Excerpts:

4:43:

"As many of you know, I'm from Illinois, and it's the SuperBowl of corruption... In Illinois, our #1 manufactured product _is_ corruption..."

9:28:

"When candidate Donald Trump won for President, Here's what we found at the federal level: We did an oversight report called "Mapping The Swamp, A Study Of The Administrative State", and we found that the federal bureaucracy is very expensive, it's $1,000,000 a minute, it's $500,000,000 dollars a day. _We found a new minimum wage in 78 of the largest federal agencies, and the minimum wage, the average pay, is $100,000 today for a federal bureaucrat._

But it's not even about the salary, they get performance bonuses! Our auditors found that the agencies gave out one million performance bonuses to bureaucrats, costing taxpayers $1.1 billion dollars! And that shocks most people, they don't know how a million federal bureaucrats can qualify for a performance bonus - most people don't think government's running that well! So we dug deeper, and we found that 99.6 percent of the federal bureaucrats are rated "fully sucessful"! And that's actually impossible! The advertised purity of Ivory Soap is only 99.4 percent!"

Related:

[https://www.openthebooks.com/](https://www.openthebooks.com/)

[https://www.openthebooks.com/about-us/](https://www.openthebooks.com/about- us/)

[https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/6/AdamAndrzejewski_Bio...](https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/6/AdamAndrzejewski_Biography_082220191.pdf)

Article I, Section IX, Clause 7, U.S. Constitution:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Article_One_of_the_United_States_Constitution&section=36#Section_9:_Limits_on_Congress)

"No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a _regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time_."

Mission of Open The Books: _Capture & post online every dime taxed and spent at every level of government_ \- federal, state and local across America. Simply stated, " _Every Dime. Online. In Real Time._ "

Note to future self: I need a transcript of this man's talk... it's _that_ good.</comment>


Secret Court's Redefinition of 'Relevant' Empowered Vast NSA Data-Gathering - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887323873904578571893758853344-lMyQjAxMTAzMDAwODEwNDgyWj.html <comment><USER2> The article is methodologically misguided on a key point:

> The history of the word 'relevant' is key to understanding that passage. The > Supreme Court in 1991 said things are 'relevant' if there is a 'reasonable > possibility' that they will produce information related to the subject of > the investigation. In criminal cases, courts previously have found that very > large sets of information didn't meet the relevance standard because > significant portions—innocent people's information—wouldn't be pertinent.

As a general rule, words have to be interpreted in the context of the laws that use them, because the same word can have different connotations in different laws. To use a programming analogy, talking about what "relevant" means in the law is like talking about what "num_files" means in programming. You can get a very general idea from the text, but you don't really know what the term means without looking at the rest of the source.

"Relevant" means different things in the law. The article cites the narrow definition used in criminal search cases, but the Patriot Act is about foreign intelligence, not criminal prosecutions. In the law of evidence, for example, "relevant" is extremely broad: anything that could change whether some material fact is more or less likely to be true. You can't take the Supreme Court's interpretation of "relevant" in one case and apply it to the interpretation of the Patriot Act, just as you can't take a variable name in one program and assume it means the same thing in another program.

<comment><USER3> _To use a programming analogy, talking about what "relevant" means in the law is like talking about what "num_files" means in programming._

That's a highly permissive interpretation, though one that does allow for the gutting and redefinition of the word. I'm not sure I'd go so far as to say legal terms are as fundamentally meaningless as variables, mere containers for whatever the practitioner desires, though.

Can "relevant" be defined as null?

<comment><USER4> It's easy to come to the conclusion that a big part of what's happening the news media is that lay journalists are each coming to their own idiosyncratic and incompatible conclusions, often from first principles, about how the law operates. "What I've discerned," you imagine them thinking, "is that SCOTUS first issues rulings defining what words like 'relevant' mean, and then the principle of _stare decisis_ give that definition force going forward."

Of course that's _not at all_ what happens. To see why, you merely need to look at the different ways the word "relevant" are routinely used in law; relevance is germane to hiring decisions, to college admissions, to admissibility of evidence in civil cases, and to the commerce powers of the federal government. Clearly all these concepts aren't regulated by _Terry v Ohio_!

(It is, as Kerr points out, very possible that the courts are relying on _Terry_ in this case. But if they are, what's notable is the application of _Terry_ at all, not a change in the meaning of _Terry_.)

<comment><USER3> It's easy for self-styled intellectuals to focus on the most complicated forces in a topic, so it makes sense that they would miss the forest for the trees by focusing on the law in this case. It allows a tangled web of objects to be connected in order to allow pre-existing preferences to be restyled into a dry logic, like postmodern theory or a positive Michael Buble review.

The word "relevant" is used in so many different ways because it's an adjective. You don't say "look at how many different meanings there are for the word, 'green': green cars, green makeup, green grass." The word, "relevant" is the same way, except that it takes two nouns or noun phrases, necessarily, because the only meaning of the word is to describe that they are connected, that they are germane to _each other_.

"[R]elevance is germane to college admissions" is a meaningless phrase because "relevant" and "germane" are somewhat synonyms. "Relevance is relevant to evidentiary rules." OK.

The context here is an argument of what the terms of relationship are and whether and what _those_ have been changed to. The Terry test speaks to what the surveillance is relevant to. It's not a change in the meaning of Terry, it's a change in the relationship of the surveillance to a particular standard. It could be Terry, it could be something else, but at the end of the day, in the equation "X is relevant to Y," Y is the thing that's changing (or missing, if you follow emptywheel).

<comment><USER4> I think I get what you're saying; you don't care what the law says, because you believe surveillance on the NSA's scale is wrong. I'm not sure who you think you're arguing with.

You indulge the nitty-gritty detail of the topic I'm discussing anyways, in order to dismiss what I said. But your dismissal doesn't make any sense; you appear incapable of comprehending that there's a second order of relevance at play in cases determining what "relevant" means to different circumstances. Is the color of someone's hair relevant to predicting their performance on a job? Objection! Requires court to recursively evaluate concept of relevance! Overruled.

I don't know who you're referring to when you point to "self-styled intellectuals", but if it's a participant on this thread, I'd note that nobody here has taken to calling _you_ names.

<comment><USER3> You're arguing for sophistry in service of authority, in bad faith I might add. You know what my motivations are just like you do for "lay journalists," but at least I engaged the argument in detail and with respect to your terms.

And that's a pretty funny implication: "I only called _other_ people names." I guess I should apologize if my first paragraph broke your brain, it was the last part I wrote and I almost didn't include it.

<comment><USER5> The same 'sophistry' that might serve authority here may be the sophistry that goes against authority elsewhere in the legal framework, so I'd be careful about drawing additional inferences from what tptacek has written. He's describing how the law _actually is_ , whether you agree with it or not. A notable example is "treason", which has a very precise definition that is not friendly to authority.

Have you read legal code, by any chance? Often modern laws include at the beginning of each section a wordy definition of what each term _actually means_ , despite each of those terms having perfectly good and reasonable meanings in the common vernacular. It is later in accordance with those terms that the court interprets the law (assuming, of course, that the law is not deemed unconstitutional).

Given that plethora of examples of this in the law (and case law) I don't see how pointing out that legal principles are being misapplied is somehow subservient to authority. The journalists have tried to explain things in the context of legal principles and not reason, so they should be evaluated on legal principles. Otherwise we risk people trying to rely on that flawed logic in the courts in good faith, with nothing to show for it, when they should have been taking action that had a shot at success.

<comment><USER3> Huh? Sorry, while I should probably just bow out, I have no idea what the substance here is. It reads as metacommentary to me.

<comment><USER5> To rephrase, the article seems written from the idea that the journalists have found some innovative change in how the law was applied by the FISC. But it's not really innovative since the journalists didn't understand the reason why 'relevant' in this context would not be the same 'relevant' from the Supreme Court case they were discussing. They are trying to play law and messed it up, must like the first time I used Python I messed it up because I didn't realize that it's pointers, pointers everywehre.

So PRISM and all the rest may very well be bullshit, but it will be because it's actually bullshit and not because (in this case) some reporters have spotted some glaring bright-line change instituted by a panel of 12 judges.

The risk with these types of arguments is that the technically skilled opponent points out the flaw in your reasoning and derails the whole thing, even though your overall point may have actually been valid.

In this case, the government can go 'No conspiracy _here_ , the reporters didn't understand that the definition of relevance for these cases comes from <whatever case law>, so all hunky-dory now, eh. Oh look, Egypt!'

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The process of law should not be occult. It's hard to imagine how a secret court could do anything other than pretend to carry out a legal process. For law to be law it needs to be at least in principle knowable by the people to whom it applies.

<comment><USER2> I agree in principle, but I'm not sure the principle is applicable in this context. The FISC does not make any law binding on individuals. The FISC only guides the DOJ and NSA's investigatory discretion. The people charged with following its interpretations are in the DOJ and NSA, and they know what those interpretations are.

<comment><USER7> Except that, you know, this effectively removes any citizen oversight, which is core to democratic societies.

<comment><USER4> No it doesn't. The FISA court is a civilian body, the DNI is a civilian position, and the DNI serves at the pleasure of the civilian President. Not only that, but the FISA process isn't emergent from Article III of the Constitution, but is rather an instrument of Congress which can be reformed entirely by civilian legislative acts by representatives directly elected by the population. There is no truth to the idea that NSA lacks civilian oversight.

The point you want to be making is about transparency, and about _general citizen_ oversight. The distinction is extremely important; for instance, random citizens of the US have no direct oversight over military operations, never have, and never will. If you make the argument about civilian oversight, you've already lost, because the intelligence system does in fact have civilian oversight; it's just not the oversight you want.

<comment><USER8> >The FISA court is a civilian body

Mostly conservative republicans, appointed by a conservative supreme Justice. But civilians, sure.

>the DNI is a civilian position,

Every DNI there has ever been has either been a spook or a former high-ranking military officer; except Negroponte, who was, weak sauce.

>There is no truth to the idea that NSA lacks civilian oversight.

There is no truth to the _fact_ that the NSA lacks civilian oversight.

As to the _idea_ that the NSA/FISC lacks civilian oversight? There's no reason to believe that any meaningful oversight exists at all. For one example, consider these recent comments by U.S. District Judge Nancy Gertner

 _" As a former Article III judge, I can tell you that your faith in the FISA Court is dramatically misplaced."_

<comment><USER4> I have no faith in the FISA court, but I have a different diagnosis than you do about why the process isn't trustworthy, and my prescription for solving the problem doesn't have anything to do with strengthening the FISC.

<comment><USER8> >my prescription for solving the problem doesn't have anything to do with strengthening the FISC.

I'm glad we have some common ground there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The sourcing is "current and former administration and congressional officials". As with the New York Times article on the FISA Court's secret body of law, it's interesting to me that people are discussing this with the press. Are the current administration officials talking with permission?

 _In classified orders starting in the mid-2000s, the court accepted that "relevant" could be broadened to permit an entire database of records on millions of people, in contrast to a more conservative interpretation widely applied in criminal cases, in which only some of those records would likely be allowed, according to people familiar with the ruling...._

 _Two senators on the Intelligence Committee, Ron Wyden (D., Ore.) and Mark Udall (D., Colo.), have argued repeatedly that there was a "secret interpretation" of the Patriot Act. The senators' offices tell the Journal that this new interpretation of the word "relevant" is what they meant._

<comment><USER10> Some congressional representatives are working hard to put an end to mass- surveillance programs, however their options are limited to talking to the media. Their Senate votes have to follow the party line, otherwise they risk retaliation against their political careers.

<comment><USER9> You're right that Wyden and Udall (and earlier Feingold) have been working hard on this, and have repeatedly expressed frustration about what they can't discuss. So it's good to see their offices now feel they can confirm that this is what they were getting at. But what I was calling attention to is the "current and former administration officials", similar to Eric Lichtblau's NY Times description of the people who had seen the FISA court orders. If they're talking with permission, it's a decision by the administration to have a little more transparency (either as spin or because they really believe their rhetoric that the American people will approve once they have the facts). If not, then it's new people taking whistleblower-like actions. Either way, interesting.

EDIT: Orin Kerr speculated about Lichtblau's story:

 _I would guess that this leak coming from "current and former officials" is an authorized leak designed to see if revealing some information will take the pressure off to reveal more. If I'm right, we'll see if it works, or if this leak only creates more pressure to release the opinions or at least reveal more about them._

[http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/07/hints-and-questions- about-t...](http://www.volokh.com/2013/07/07/hints-and-questions-about-the- secret-fourth-amendment-rulings-of-the-fisa-court/)

<comment><USER11> "anonymous leaks" are not transparency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What's relevant is that we shouldn't have secret courts deciding on secret laws. Our legal system should be relevant to We The People and our needs.

</comment><comment><USER13> _The history of the word "relevant" is key to understanding that passage. The Supreme Court in 1991 said things are "relevant" if there is a "reasonable possibility" that they will produce information related to the subject of the investigation. In criminal cases, courts previously have found that very large sets of information didn't meet the relevance standard because significant portions—innocent people's information—wouldn't be pertinent. But the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, FISC, has developed separate precedents, centered on the idea that investigations to prevent national-security threats are different from ordinary criminal cases._

It is completely absurd to suppose that even the most serious terror attacks in history (like the 9/11 attack) pose any threat to the continued existence and authority of the US government. But that is exactly what this line of reasoning assumes. That's what "national security threat" means.

We see this deliberate and erroneous conflation of "terrorism" and "national security" again and again in government statements and policies, and the media parrots it uncritically. Even if we believe that preventing terrorism is extremely important, terror plots and acts of terror do not generally rise to the level of "national security." Even if we accept the (extremely troubling) legal principle that the constitution may be weakened or ignored in the case of national security threats, that doesn't mean we should accept such weakening in the quest to prevent terrorism.

<comment><USER5> "National security" does not at all relate to "continued existence of the U.S. government". The government will exist as long as the survivors allow it to.

On the contrary, it has to do with, literally, the security of the nation itself. Nothing more or less.

We wouldn't wait to establish martial law if necessary during invasion until the government were about to fall, after all. The Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania that was stopped at Gettysburg is about as "national security" as it got for the U.S., but that never directly threatened the U.S. government itself.

<comment><USER13> _...the security of the nation itself. Nothing more or less._

"Nothing more or less" sounds so precise, but "the security of the nation" is (like "national security") so vague as to be virtually meaningless without elaboration. "National security" is often abused to mean pretty much whatever the speaker wants it to mean. But it has always been _very_ much about the continued existence and authority of the government.

"National security" as a concept and term didn't exist in the Civil War, but the main threat to "national security" at the time was the attempted secession of several states, which, had it succeeded, would have dramatically altered the power, authority, and nature of the US government.

<comment><USER5> > which, had it succeeded, would have dramatically altered the power, > authority, and nature of the US government.

But it would not have altered the existence of that government. It would, on the other hand, have threatened the republican form of government which the Constitution requires the government to provide for its citizens in Article IV.

Of course, I was speaking of actual _invasion_ anyways, not mere secession.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There's no way the Supreme Court would arrive to the same conclusion and definition of "relevant". This is why this stuff needs to be open to the public.

<comment><USER4> I have absolutely no idea what this comment is supposed to mean. If SCOTUS ruled that any part of FISA was unconstitutional, that ruling would be enforceable. Contrary to the popular misunderstanding of FISA as a shadow court system, FISA enjoys literally zero immunity to judicial review. It's not even a real court.

<comment><USER9> Except, of course, that since it's not an adversarial proceeding there isn't anybody to appeal the rulings.

<comment><USER4> So? Most decisions the USG makes aren't adversarial, and yet SCOTUS routinely intervenes in them. Again: the best way to think about FISA is to remember that it's not a real court. It's an internal review board staffed by federal judges who can issue warrants.

This point is, I think, frequently misinterpreted. It's not a defense of FISA. FISA is a terrible system and a dereliction of the duties of Congress. But it's not an intractable legal obstacle. The reason that it's difficult to engage FISA in the Supreme Court isn't that FISA is shadowy, but rather that the Constitution doesn't have much to say about foreign intelligence, and there aren't a lot of opportunities for citizens to get their hooks into FISA/NSA in order to get standing in court.

That would, of course, change rapidly if the FISA process started being used to make criminal cases in the US.

<comment><USER15> I would like clarification on the repeated statement that FISA is not a court but instead a review board. I am not sure if you are speaking from your educated interpretation, or something that is agreed upon as understood legal 'known'.

<comment><USER4> I'm not a lawyer; I just play one on message boards. Also, while I think my invocation of "review boards" is closer to the truth than the notion that the FISC is a real court, you should know that the sentiment is disputed and though I don't believe it's hyperbolic, some people do.

Courts of law established by the federal government must comply with Article III of the US Constitution (state courts, which is where the overwhelming majority of all controversies in the US are heard, don't need to be structured along the lines of Article III, because the US Constitution defines the federal government and not the state governments).

An Article III court is staffed with a federal judge appointed by the President (as specified in Article II) with a lifetime tenure. Article III courts "extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution".

FISC court judges are appointed from the federal bench (they're judges appointed by a President for a lifetime term on a federal court). But they have a limited tenure on FISC --- seven years. And unlike Article III appointments, FISC judges are appointed by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. And, most importantly, FISC judges do not have power that extends to all cases in law and equity under the Constitution. In fact, the only thing they're empowered to do is authorizing FISA certifications.

Things that the FISC does not appear to be able to do: hear criminal cases, sentence defendants, overturn laws, or establish precedents binding on any other court.

There are other federal courts that aren't Article III courts --- bankruptcy is one of them. Bankruptcy court judges have 14 year terms. Even though they function as part of the district court system, the Judiciary is clear that they aren't Article III judges. It's worth noting that Bankruptcy's bizarro status in the court system has also created _stare decisis_ problems with the rest of the court system. There's little reason to believe that FISA courts, which are even further removed from Article III than Bankruptcy, would be more judicially potent.

One dispute about the Constitutional status of FISC judges arises from case law in the 1990s, wherein a defendant claimed that the FISC was a violation of separation of powers. The appellate decision ruled that FISC judges weren't _violating_ Article III by serving on the FISC, but I dispute that the language in the decision dictates that those judges are in fact Article III judges; I think it says merely that a federal judge doesn't violate Article III by sitting on a body that is effectively an agent of Congress. If they are Article III courts, the FISC is unconstitutional (in a technical way, not a substantive way).

I'm a layperson summarizing independent research here, so I'd very much appreciate an expert's opinion on this analysis.

<comment><USER16> >>And, most importantly, FISC judges do not have power that extends to all cases in law and equity under the Constitution. In fact, the only thing they're empowered to do is authorizing FISA certifications.

The FISA court has limited subject matter jurisdiction but I disagree that limited subject matter jurisdiction is impossible for an article III court. Article III says explicitly:"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity.." not that every article III court must be empowered to hear an case whatsoever. I contend that this refers to the maximal subject matter that any article III court may consider, not that every article III court must be constitutionally empowered to consider any case that falls under Article III sec 2 requirements.

If this was the case temporary judicial courts convened for a specific purpose would be plainly unconstitutional. I am no aware of no one who considers the Court of International Trade to be an article I court because of its limited jurisdiction. It only hears customs cases by law(28 USC 255). This is exactly analogous to the FISA Court/FISCR in their limited jurisdiction.

EDIT: See Kevork 634 F.Supp. 1002 "The defendants also contend that FISA violates Article III of the Constitution because the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court _is not a proper Article III court_ and because the Act delegates judicial power to the Executive Branch. In addition, the defendants argue that the structure of the FISA court denies its judges their judicial independence, making the Court a rubber stamp. These arguments were raised and rejected in... _I also reject these contentions_."

The court rejected the argument that the FISA court was not an article III court.

<comment><USER4> The President appoints Court of International Trade judges, and those appointments are confirmed by the Senate.

I think you and 'DannyBee have made it pretty clear that _relying_ on the idea that the FISC isn't an Article III court is a perilous position, but I continue to be unclear on how FISC possibly could be an Article III court given its structure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is the same government that allowed a president to debate the meaning of the word "is."

[http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1...](http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/chatterbox/1998/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html)

I am disgusted.

<comment><USER5> 'allowed'? Why would the government forbid him from debating it? Do we have First Amendment rights or not?</comment></comment>


Blogger broke a cardinal rule of journalism by revealing source to FBI - <AUTHOR> https://www.ctpost.com/opinion/article/Blogger-broke-a-cardinal-rule-of-journalism-by-13058228.php <comment><USER2> Anyone that thinks they are protected by a blogger's silence should think twice about it.

Bloggers are not journalists. The source that got shafted and all future sources need to know that bloggers will not necessarily follow the same rules as a journalist.

At a very primal level, bloggers don't have the financial and legal resources that most professional journalists have. Leaving them open to financial and personal ruin and still having to go to jail if they don't reveal their source. Why would a blogger take the consequences of not revealing their sources? In essence, bloggers will break very easily.</comment>


Firefox 4 Nightly - <AUTHOR> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/

<comment><USER2> This is _not_ the actual beta. These are just nightlies tagged as the beta (the version string was updated to 'beta') for testing purposes. This same story showed up on Slashdot and Mozilla's Asa Dotzler commented on it: [http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702398&cid=327...](http://news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1702398&cid=32734096)

You can find the Firefox 4 Beta when it's actually released here: <https://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-beta.html>

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting that when you launch the windows installer, it says nothing about firefox, it says _Installing Minefield_

Is this some quirky pun on the fact that it is pre-release software? Or is there a more general name change in the works?

[edit] Seems it is due to the testing process - <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/minefield/> _WARNING: THIS IS NOT A FINAL VERSION OF FIREFOX_ and then goes on to say:

This program is provided without any guarantees of stability and you should back up your profile regularly as there may be bugs that corrupt your data. If that sounds scary, please use the latest version of Firefox.

<comment><USER4> They've always used Minefield for nightly and alpha builds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This includes WebSocket support - which seems to work great :)

Well done Firefox team!

</comment><comment><USER6> I've been using the nightly's for the last 3 weeks and they've worked great without any crashes. I'd recommend upgrading if you're comfortable with beta software as I believe most of the big bugs have worked out. The only major bug I've noticed is that using right click and selecting 'back' doesn't always work.

The latest build moves the tabs to the top which is an interesting change and takes some time to get used to.

It's interesting how FF and IE now differ in layout from top down:

FF: Title Bar, Menu Bar, Tabs, URL, Bookmark Toolbar (default hidden) IE: Title Bar, URL Bar, Menu (default hidden), Tabs

</comment><comment><USER7> I'm away from my desktop for another week: my only question is if they've put any thought into speeding up startup times and/or improving the UX and design on Macs. Firefox used to be great, but it's really fallen behind in terms of speed and usability. I hope this changes that.

EDIT: Thanks for the replies! I'll be giving it a try again. It's good to have choices.

<comment><USER8> Here are the design mockups for how Firefox 4 should eventually look by default on Mac OS X: <https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4.0_Mac_Theme_Mockups>

These designs are not fully implemented in current nightly builds, and are subject to change. Also, here are the Windows and Linux mockups:

<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4.0_Windows_Theme_Mockups>

<https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/4.0_Linux_Theme_Mockups>

There are quite a few performance improvements going into Firefox 4, with a strong focus on startup time. See <http://autonome.wordpress.com/tag/startup/> for detailed tracking of Firefox startup improvements.

<comment><USER9> I wish there were a version with less chrome and more web real estate - I've thinned my current version down as much as I can really (Cool Menu 2 FTW) but the tab height is about twice the font height and the menubar (in which I have my location and search bars) is twice the icon height. Why waste all this space - I understand negative space but really this seems to be too much form not enough function, browser chrome should be as slim as possible but still usable IMO; if I use a small font it should be smaller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I see virtually nothing noteworthy on <http://modernizr.com> in these 4.0 pre- release builds — no real new HTML/CSS features, no 3D transforms, etc.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, a lot of our engineering effort is going into performance right now, rather than new features. But here are some of the HTML and CSS features in Firefox 4:

\- HTML5 parser (SVG/MathML in HTML, new semantic elements)

\- HTML5 forms (only partly implemented so far)

\- Web Sockets

\- CSS3 transitions

\- CSS3 calc()

\- IndexedDB (schemaless client-side database)

\- WebM (VP8) codec for HTML5 video

\- SVG backgrounds and images in CSS and HTML

\- ECMAScript 5 features in JavaScript

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does 3.7 == 4.0? Or hasn't the new UI been pushed to the nightly builds yet? (at least for OSX)

<comment><USER8> Yes, the 3.7 release was renamed to 4.0. See [http://beltzner.ca/mike/2010/05/10/firefox-4-fast- powerful-a...](http://beltzner.ca/mike/2010/05/10/firefox-4-fast-powerful-and- empowering/) for details. Not all of the new UI is in nightly builds yet (much of it is just finishing the design phase).

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> You need to set extensions.checkCompatibility.4.0b=false

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't care what their rationale is, the version numbering ideology of the mozilla foundation is dumb. There's not a good enough reason to stick to version 3.7 for a "version 4" beta, it's super annoying and makes them look amateurish.

<comment><USER14> They have clear roadmaps for each major version number. I'm not so sure I'd consider it dumb.

<comment><USER13> It's fine as long as you keep consistent naming. Calling 3.7 version 4 is dumb, if you're going to call it 4 then bump up the version number, if you're not going to bump up the version number until later then stop calling it 4.

<comment><USER15> They're calling it 4. This isn't the official beta. The 3.7 are just old executables lingering in the FTP folder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Seems to be working very well: <http://cl.ly/1W6b>

<comment><USER11> That's a custom theme. Disable that and it should be fine.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is anyone here actually against Net Neutrality? - <AUTHOR> Is anyone here against Net Neutrality?
Genuinely curious. It seems anyone who I've talked to is supportive of Net Neutrality or uninformed.
If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality.
The reason I ask is supposedly a vote is happening next week.
http://mashable.com/2017/11/17/net-neutrality-thanksgiving/#85OkRymkMmqG https://www.battleforthenet.com/ <comment><USER2> I'm against net neutrality. I'm also against the local, state and federal regulations that gives Comcast and similar companies any competitive advantage over new entrants.

The cable companies actively lobby to maintain things like local taxes and regulations on communication infrastructure (literally - you have to pay extra taxes to put cables up on the poles) because this creates an additional barrier to competition.

We don't currently have a telecommunications _market_. It has been sectioned off and divided up, and rolling out new ideas and services is basically illegal: you have to convince a ton of people in government of what you plan to do first. And so progress takes a lot more time than it would be if people were free in this respect.

\---

Disruption is coming, though. For example, gigabit fiber is a reality for me here in Seattle where population density is high. And satellites that sit relatively low in the sky above us promise to improve things _globally_! (This is very different from existing satellite internet services, which are very latent because the current satellites sit much higher up in the sky.)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, I certainly agree with getting rid of subsidies that give a competitive advantage. But I don't understand how that translates into being against net neutrality, wouldn't you just be against the FCC in its entirety?

<comment><USER2> Yes. But it's not practical to just call for the abrupt elimination of any agency. First we have to stop heading in the wrong direction, then slowly unwind over time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> > If they're uninformed, as soon as I explain that Comcast will essentially be > able to do the same thing as cell data providers, charge for overages, and > mention how this might affect Netflix. They are quickly for Net Neutrality.

Except its all a lot more complicated than that. Because its impossible to pass actual legislation anymore, ISPs were apparently re-classified under Title II of the telecommunications act. An archaic, byzantine, 1930s era law, the text of which can be found here: [https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf](https://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/1934new.pdf).

I have no idea what most of the stuff in that document means, and I have no idea what the ramifications of any changes to it would be.

I don't want a company like Comcast blocking my ability to visit certain sites or use certain apps.

But I'm also concerned about the Government attempting to stifle free expression. Historically we've had all kinds of rules governing the radio and television (what you can and can't say on TV, the fairness doctrine, etc) so I don't think those concerns are entirely unfounded...

But those are just ideas and I'm not sure the debate we're having on these questions has anything to do with the decisions actually being made.

The laws in this country are designed to be unintelligible because (1) it allows politicians to make absurd, empty promises, because its impossible to know what was actually passed and (2) it gives bureaucrats total discretion in how laws are enforced so that (3) they can leverage laws for political favors and to punish their enemies.

And that's what I'm against: a bazillion banana republic laws which no one can possibly follow.

<comment><USER4> Cable has been a free for all, only broadcast TV has had legal decency standards.

Advertisers prevented basic cable from swearin'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel that it's kind of hypocritical to be to be OK with companys like Google and Facebook to have more and more leverage on the internet and information in general, yet care about net neutrality.

That being said, I'm for net neutrality and also for the breaking up of Google and Facebook.

<comment><USER6> The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook. A lot of people are disagreeing with Facebook and there's a movement to gradually move off it. Google at least tries to appear neutral, letting people search for everything short of child porn, even the highly illegal or dangerous.

CDNs seem exceptionally powerful though.

<comment><USER5> > The difference is that it's a choice whether to use Google and Facebook.

This is normally used as the main argument. I disagree. That's like saying you have a choice on whether or not you use electricity, which is technically true. How much of the popular web could you really use if you didn't use anything that touched Facebook or Google?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Is Google Fiber expansion ramping back up? It seemed prior to the election they were not looking to continue the costly expansion, but because of the trump administration and deregulation they are now expanding (Louisville). The thing the Louisville expansion shows is the difficulty ATT gives new competitors in the area.

</comment><comment><USER8> Absolutely.

Net neutrality effectively prevents a philanthropist from launching satellites making Wikipedia or Khan Academy (but nothing else) available for free to everyone.

What is worse than net neutrality are artificial monopolies given to ISPs.</comment>


General Assembly was a waste - <AUTHOR> I did one of General Assembly classes at the beginning of the year. 6 months later barely any of us have a job and I'm w/o any leads and on the verge of homelessness. I feel as though me and the other students were lied to about the job prospects and the career coaches were useless. Any advice? What should I do? Is there any hope? <comment><USER2> I can tell you from personal experience that getting a job in tech is hard if you are just starting out. Even if you're veteran it can be very difficult at times.

When I started out what got me going was to take anything that came my way. My first job was part time and low paid. Once I got a job I was able to use that as a stepping stone and move up. The other thing I can tell you is that 6 months of tech is just the start. I've found that tech is a lifestyle. You always have to work to get better. Remember that you're competing against people the live and breath technology. In many cases they would rather continue on a problem than to eat or sleep without compensation. Their reward is solving the problem. And they've done this for years. Can you keep up with them?

There is hope. My advice is to get the first job you can get whatever that is - tech or no tech - and continue looking for a job in tech. Also be sure to continue to improve your tech skills. Look to specialize in something and hit it hard. Look for a project that will help you improve your skills. If you can't come up with one just look at something you find interesting and copy that. You're job is to improve your skills enough so you can get a job not to put out a product.

Also make sure you work on your networking skills, join a group that can help with your goals and make sure they know about your skills and what you have done. Yes, networking seems phony but how else will you know where the jobs are before a company needs to post it or go to a recruiter.

General Assembly was only the start. Yes they filled your brain on how easy it is to get a job after you take their classes. Well, it's not that easy. It's your job now to continue improving and move forward with hard work.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> Very sorry to hear about your experience (which unfortunately jibs with the general word-of-mouth reputation of GA). Can you go into specifics about how they misled you about the job prospects, or the things the career counselors said?

 _Any advice? What should I do? Is there any hope?_

Yes, quite definitely there is hope. Unfortunately there's something of a negative backlash against coding camps going on right now. But in the longer term, if you love what you do, life will find a way of making opportunities for you.</comment>


Write you a Haskell (2015) - <AUTHOR> http://dev.stephendiehl.com/fun/ <comment><USER2> It seems that development on the book has slowed or halted.

Is the author planning to continue? This sounds like a rich and interesting subject that I would enjoy following through to the end.

Another book I've found helpful for Haskell is:

Haskell Programming from First Principles ([http://haskellbook.com/](http://haskellbook.com/))

<comment><USER3> Simon Peyton Jones' seminal work "Implementation of Functional Programming Languages" is available free of charge now that it's out of print[0]. If you haven't read it yet I'd highly encourage it!

[0]: [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the- imp...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/research/publication/the- implementation-of-functional-programming-languages/)

<comment><USER4> Implementing Functional Languages: A Tutorial is also available and is somewhat more accessible [https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/publication/impleme...](https://www.microsoft.com/en- us/research/publication/implementing-functional-languages-a-tutorial/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If someone could write a Haskell with a simpler build system, and better internal documentation so it becomes more "hackable", that would be great. The structure of GHC seems more complicated than necessary, as the first comment of [1] states. GHC seems much too monolithic for a functional programming environment.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/3jq3cu/hacking_on_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/haskell/comments/3jq3cu/hacking_on_ghc_is_not_that_hard/)

<comment><USER6> I actually don't know how much my frustration relates to the hackability of the ghc.

I'd _LOVE_ to "write me a haskell". I've been trying for the last 3 days to wrap my work style around cabal/stack... It's so so so frustrating (especially on Arch Linux). This is something I come back to every 6 months or so.

Ideally, I'd be able to write Haskell that compiles into concise, trimmed down, readable javascript bundles, (as you can compile OCaml with bucklescript). But I don't think it's really possible right now. Once upon a time I successfully managed to get ghcjs to compile code using a library I was interested in. It spit out a 1 MB bundle, without even doing much of anything. No thanks! Organizing a project around this system sounds not very enjoyable.

Yesterday I managed to get Reason (OCaml) running, but figured out that using any existing OCaml libraries means I have to manually manage & compile them. Also, it doesn't seem like the OCaml community has nearly as many libraries as the Haskell community.

It's weird to say, but I think I am spoiled by npm-based tools! As hard as it was to get used to, I actually really appreciate their hardiness.

I still may end up going with OCaml/Reason and bucklescript, and just not worry about libraries. Maybe writing more functional programs will decrease my reliance on libraries in the first place, since stuff can be done so concisely.

If anyone has advice about this stuff, I'd gladly take it!

<comment><USER7> > _I 've been trying for the last 3 days to wrap my work style around > cabal/stack..._

You have me puzzled! You can totally ignore/skip cabal and just use

\- to create project dir with stack.yaml

        stack new myproject simple

\- to ensure all dependencies and a ghc for that stack.yaml are present

        stack setup

\- to rebuild any changes

        stack make

\- to live-code in your project

        stack repl

\- to run interpreted any one of your mains:

        stack runghc some/tool.hs

\- to grab 3rd-party dependencies for the project:

        stack install some-external-lib

Pretty similar to most other modern languages' "canonical" build/run/package- management tooling really.

> _Ideally, I 'd be able to write Haskell that compiles into concise, trimmed > down, readable javascript bundles, (as you can compile OCaml with > bucklescript). But I don't think it's really possible right now. Once upon a > time I successfully managed to get ghcjs to compile code using a library I > was interested in. It spit out a 1 MB bundle, without even doing much of > anything._

Well. For JavaScript from Haskell, other than GHCJS that "compiles the whole runtime system" to multi-MB packages, there's more lightweight options (outside of PureScript/Elm), namely: Fay and Haste. Fear not, a new from- scratch transpiler is also next on _my_ agenda however! ;) that's because Fay parses Haskell to transpile, but I definitely want to transpile from the highly optimized and richly annotated-with-compilation-hints "STG" IR. Not sure how Haste does it, but I'd rather have full control over the JS I emit over the coming half-decade anyway and it's certainly a bit dated (ES 6+ can be emitted _so_ much more "compactly" than legacy JS!)

That being said, from what you're saying I think you're better served with ReasonML or PureScript as these projects seem to already have matured somewhat yet also not-yet-stale =)

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the tips! I guess some of my frustration was that I was trying to get haste running with stack, but it needs ghc v7-something, but I'm getting ghc from pacman, so stack kept asking me to manually resolve libraries... there were other dramas and confusions too, but mostly I have little patience for making package managers play nicely, especially when I'm not very familiar with them in the first place and am new to the language! I get distracted and go off to play piano or something that's more straightforward to me :)

<comment><USER8> It's better to use

        stack --install-ghc $whatever_command

which gets you the version of GHC you need to be able to run $whatever_command into ~/.stack if you don't have it. Much less brittle than a system-wide installation, and perfect for working with multiple GHCs. Anecdotally: I setup the Arch Linux machine I'm typing this on yesterday. I installed[1] Stack/GHC before xorg :)

[1]: It was so that I could run Aura: [https://github.com/aurapm/aura](https://github.com/aurapm/aura)

<comment><USER6> oh my goodness.... this is an amazing tip!

<comment><USER8> Great, Haskell away!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This website needs some work. If you're as confused as I was, try scrolling down.</comment>


Things I didn't know about the WebKit inspector - <AUTHOR> http://blog.joocode.com/browsers/12-things-about-the-webkit-inspector-i-didnt-know/

<comment><USER2> I love tip articles! Here are some more that I use heavily (note that some of these might be Google Chrome only at the moment)

The gear in the bottom right of the Chrome inspector has a lot of useful options, such as emulating touch events and preserving the console log upon navigation.

The Watch Expressions persist across tabs and I keep "this" as the top watch expression all the time. It makes for an easy quick check when debugging to make sure that you're in the scope you thought you were, and you can always use the dropdown to inspect all the properties of the current class.

CTRL+G works in the sources tab (go to line)

You can highlight some code and right click -> Evaluate and it will run that selected line in the console for you. Alternatively you can highlight the code and press CTRL+SHIFT+E

You can remotely use the web inspector for Chrome Mobile: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4zpL4VBbuU>

There's a useful shorthand: In the console you don't have to type "document.getElementById('blah')" to get a reference to the blah ID'd element. Instead you can just type "blah" in the console, and even though autocomplete doesn't show it, pressing enter will return the element with ID blah!

<comment>~~

As an aside, developer tools like the inspector are the reason my pea brain is allowed to have a love affair with the weird little language that is JavaScript.

Thanks to the console the amount of time it takes to whip up a five-cent program with JavaScript without even leaving my browser, heck without even leaving this tab is just astounding to me even after all these years.

One thing I noticed is that more than the language itself, the tools that I use while building things in the language are what really make them a pleasure to use. If I wasn't using (Chrome's) web developer tools I'd probably consider JavaScript to be a nightmarish corpse of a language that punishes the slightest of typos with a silent malicious grin, as code execution carries on as if A.blah = 5 and A.blsh = 5 were both equally worthy of existing to the JS compiler/interpreter. Only by the grace of tools is JS tame at all.

(So if you're reading this Webkit/Inspector developers, thank you.)

<comment><USER3> > There's a useful shorthand: In the console you don't have to type > "document.getElementById('blah')" to get a reference to the blah ID'd > element. Instead you can just type "blah" in the console, and even though > autocomplete doesn't show it, pressing enter will return the element with ID > blah!

That's crappy, it's DOM0 aliasing. Use `$` if you're not using jQuery, it's an alias for document.getElementById. And there's $$ for document.querySelectorAll and $x for xpath queries.

See <http://getfirebug.com/wiki/index.php/Command_Line_API> for the rest of the command-line API.

> The Watch Expressions persist across tabs and I keep "this" as the top watch > expression all the time. It makes for an easy quick check when debugging to > make sure that you're in the scope you thought you were, and you can always > use the dropdown to inspect all the properties of the current class.

An other good introspection method when debugging: expressions entered in the console execute in the current scope.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Speaking of web inspectors, did anyone else notice what a tremendous broken piece of crap the one in the latest version of Safari is? It's downright scandalous!

I had to manually roll back Safari to 5.1.7 to get the old one back.

I will give Apple credit for keeping me hooked on Safari since they're bookmark and history sync across all their devices via the cloud is top notch.

<comment><USER5> If you log into Chrome, your bookmarks, history, plugins, settings, etc. will sync across all Chromes that you log into with the same user/pass.

<comment><USER4> Thanks, but the chrome on my iPhone/iPad leaves something to be desired

<comment><USER6> Compared to Safari? Really? I'm honestly surprised, as an iPhone user who had to put up with Safari for 3 years. The only nice feature about it is the Readability-powered Reader button.

<comment><USER4> Safari is the only browser on iOS with JIT enabled.

<comment><USER7> If Jailbroken and you have 99 cents, you can install Nitrous in Cydia to get nitro everywhere. It gave me 3.5x faster performance on Sunspider.

But even if not, how many mobile websites use heavy JS? Chrome appears to use page pre-fetching as well, or at least that's what I gather from the "preload webpages" setting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The $0 thing will save me a lot of time. I often spend a while figuring out how to select a specific element with DOM queries, or assign it a special ID and then do the whole document.getElementById malarkey.

<comment><USER9> Even better: there is a selection history. $1 get you the item you selected before the one that is currently selected, $2 the one before that, etc.

<comment><USER6> Oh man, this is the best link and comment thread all week. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Several cool tips in here I didn't know about.

Regarding the element drag and drop: it's a really awesome way to brainstorm redesigning a UI, but I've found if I mess with it too much it starts behaving weirdly and getting confused about whether the elements are in their old or new spots, and I have to refresh and start over. Still an awesome feature for productivity.

</comment><comment><USER11> >> Console, write more-than-1-line commands: shift-enter does the trick. Pressing enter at the end of the script runs it.

You need to shift-enter every line, not as usable as Firefox/Firebug. Also tab is still not working. This is the reason why I am still using Firefox for development purpose.

<http://code.google.com/p/chromium/issues/detail?id=35487>

<comment><USER12> The upcoming Snippets functionality has a great story for this. You can turn it on in devtools experiments, but it's likely gonna get revised a bit before it ships.

<comment><USER11> Hi Paul, thanks for your information and I will definitely check it out when it is ready.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Can anyone point to a guide for using the web inspector in Safari 6? It looks like it could be powerful, but it is not as user-friendly as the Safari 5 and Chrome inspectors. It feels like a step back.

<comment><USER14> Has anyone figured out how to set a breakpoint in the actual page (not a .js file)? There are no line numbers in the inspector to click on. I complained to Apple. I also can't figure out how to add script files to the sources tab in the new webkit version of the inspector. Also clicking on the line numbers in the resources tab of the new webkit inspector no longer sets a breakpoint. I've had to go back to 5.x since I can't set breakpoints where I need to... Ideas?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Command-K also clears the console, just like it does in terminal. Awesome stuff. Unfortunately the `x = _` trick to save the output of the last command to variable x does not work, but that would be really awesome if they put that in!

<comment><USER16> `$_` is coming to WebKit soon: <https://bugs.webkit.org/show_bug.cgi?id=93377>

<comment><USER12> Already in Canary!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've always felt that firebug has been a little bit better than the chrome developer tools. Now I might reconsider and start using chrome for development instead. The ability to add new css rules in the element view something I've been dreaming about for a long time. The ability to write more than one line of javascript without enabling a different mode is also absolutely fantastic.

Is there a similar list for firebug? A strong advantage of firebug is of course that it's has a bunch of nifty extensions. Which one do you prefer?

</comment><comment><USER18> "Break on DOM modification" is going to be a big time saver for when an ajax call fetches a bit of html with a <script> in it.

<comment><USER19> Don't do this.

<comment><USER18> Hey, sometimes shit happens, you know?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Write "debugger" in your source code, chrome will drop you into debugging mode when that line is read. The console will be in context of your "debugger" statement.

</comment><comment><USER21> Here's one I stumbled into the other day: You can inspect the inspector!

This is in Chrome for Windows (haven't tried Safari or Chrome for Mac).

Hit F12 to open the inspector.

If it is docked, click the undock icon so it's in a separate window.

Make sure the focus is on the separate inspector window (click its titlebar to be sure), and hit F12 again. This opens another inspector window where you can inspect the first one.

</comment><comment><USER22> In Chrome when viewing a js file the "{ }" button (pretty print) in the lower left will un-minify the file. Most useful for debugging live sites.

</comment><comment><USER23> very useful, but i really wish Chrome allowed you to replay a HTTP request from the network tab. I just want to right click on e.g a POST request, and send it off to the server again. Whenever i need to do this at the moment i have to switch to LiveHttpHeaders in firefox, which is a pain.

<comment><USER24> why not use firebug for that in firefox?

<comment><USER23> i use chrome as my default browser, it's just a pain to have to switch for this kind of thing.

<comment><USER24> if you're switching to firefox for livehttpheaders, switch for firebug. ???

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's a long shot, but worth a try:

I loved using Safari's inspector for for trying out CSS selectors. It seems that both for Chrome and Safari, only searching for xpath seems to still work. Am I missing something or did that really get removed?

<comment><USER3> How did you "try out CSS selectors"? $$ is supposed to do that (it's essentially a shortcut to document.querySelectorAll), does that not work anymore in recent versions?

<comment><USER25> You could just enter the selector in the top right search box in the elements tab.

I just noticed that Chrom seems to have updated, it works again: <https://skitch.com/marc.seeger/em6tu/hacker-news-add-comment>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Right click in Sources tab on gutter and you can add breakpoint, and conditional breakpoint. Condition is any javascript expression and is evaluated to Boolean. If true - debugger breaks.

</comment><comment><USER27> Well damn, I only knew one of those. Good article.

</comment><comment><USER28> CTRL+SHIFT+F searches through all the scripts. I use this primarily to navigate through code i.e CTRL+SHIFT+F "function showDialog("

<comment><USER6> I think I prefer Command+Shift+O that the article suggests in this case.

<comment><USER28> the difference is that CTRL+SHIFT+F works from every tab in the chrome inspector and searches globally i often just copy paste the line i want to debug from my editor in there be it a function or declaration within a function.</comment></comment></comment>


History of massive-scale sorting experiments at Google - <AUTHOR> https://cloud.google.com/blog/big-data/2016/02/history-of-massive-scale-sorting-experiments-at-google <comment><USER2> I think the alphago program is getting similar crazy scale burn-in access to the gpu computing that google will soon offer in its cloud. Recall alphago was the first program to beat a professional in a tournament setting. They published in nature. The emphasis was on their deep learning approach, but the technical details were pretty impressive. Alphago beat Fan Hui, a 2 dan professional, using a 1202 cpu/776 gpu diatributed system. They don't give hardware details, but my back-of-the-envelope estimate based on recent hardware is they were at around the petaflop calculation rate. In the nature paper they examine how the program's ELO rating varies with computation power; it looks like to reach world champion level they need at least an order of magnitude more computation. They challenged a player at that level (Lee Sedol) for a series in March and express a quiet confidence in winning. On their blog they give google cloud credit for supplying the compute power, but google cloud doesn't yet have gpu units available publicly. I am thinking alphago is getting to do burn-in on a massive gpu cloud computing center. Look for public availability shortly after the Sedol match!

</comment><comment><USER3>
      Note that this sort [in 2012] was 500 times larger than the
      GraySort large-scale requirement and twice as fast in
      throughput as the **current 2015** official GraySort winner.

(emphasis mine)

<comment><USER4> It had to feel fucking amazing to be an engineer that was part of that at the time. To know (even if it was publicly unknown) that you were able to so massively destroy a record which still stands 4 years later.

<comment><USER5> Part of the magic of working at Google is there are lots of projects that can make you feel that way.

<comment><USER6> From what I understand, those kinds of projects are only available to certain engineers, and the vast majority of engineers working at Google don't get to play those games. Six of my seven interviewers essentially said that they did not get to work on problems that challenged them when I asked "If you could change one thing without veto...." This is actually one of the two big reasons I chose not to accept an offer.

<comment><USER7> "Moving huge amounts of data from hither to yon" is not a specialized role at Google. Anybody with solid C++ skills can find a way to work on that.

<comment><USER5> Heck if that's the metric anybody familiar with SQL or even basic unix command line operations can do it if they really want. It's sometimes easy to forget how much data we regularly move around without really thinking about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm sure they're asking about this in interviews now. My experience with Google interviews was that the interviewers were very keen on proving that they knew more theoretical CS than I did vs talking about what the actual work would require or entail.

<comment><USER9> I worked at Google, and performed quite a few interviews. At least at that time, the interviewer had no idea where in the company the software engineer would go. The people who got hired would go into a pool, and the managers who needed staff would then horse-trade for them. They needed to hire people who could be plugged in to tons of different positions, including some that genuinely had tough problems where if they accidentally did something in O(N^2), their half-day compute job would suddenly literally take centuries to complete.

Also, part of the point of a Google style interview is to keep pushing you to the point where your ability fails, then push in another direction to the point your ability fails. That way, they get an idea of the dimensions of your skillset. The vast majority of the people I recommended hiring didn't answer the questions perfectly.

Or, someone could not quite put enough thought into the integer encoding for Protocol Buffers. The encoding actually used is that the first bit of every byte is a flag for if there's a next byte, for a maximum of 10 bytes. The only advantage to this over encoding the length of the integer as the number of leading ones in the first byte (like UTF-8) is if they want the option to have the option later of a forward-compatible encoding for longer integer types, without just supporting multi-precision integers as byte arrays. If you slide all of those flag bits to the first byte, you don't have any more or any fewer flag bits, so it takes as much space, but you can use a jump table and the ability to use native 8-byte and 4-byte simple loads instead of many more masking operations and conditional branches. Giving up on anything longer than int64_t means that the maximum encoding length becomes 9 bytes instead of 10.

One day, the speed of the indexing system just dropped in half. It turns out that someone wrote a job that used machine learning to generate a bunch of regexes for some signal. They were recompiling the regexes for every page in the index. Google really needs most of their engineers that will naturally spot this kind of thing in code reviews, because if every engineer on the indexing team made a mistake like that once a year, the indexing system would always run at half speed, sometimes even 1/3 or 1/4 speed.

The indexing system uses as much electricity as a small town. The tiniest of improvements can mean thousands of dollars per year in savings.

<comment><USER10> _The encoding actually used is that the first bit of every byte is a flag for if there 's a next byte, for a maximum of 10 bytes._

Fun facts: those are commonly known as "vbytes." They are the slowest kind of variable width integer encoding. The simplest (naive, and generally considered "wrong") implementations of variable-width-by-continuation-bits uses 10 bytes maximum. A proper implementation uses 9 bytes maximum.

There's actually no reason to ever use 10 bytes in this encoding. If you use 10 bytes, that means your last byte only holds _one bit_ of actual user data. That's not very cool. But, your next-to-last byte holds seven bits of user data and _one bit_ of metadata. We can easily say "if we're at the next to last byte, don't use metadata, just use all the bits we need." All you have to do is say "if we are currently at 9 bytes, don't use a 10th byte, just use this 9th byte directly." bam. Your 9th byte now has 8 bits of user data and you don't roll over a useless 10th byte with one bit of data.

The "slide all continuation bits into the first byte" sounds like a trick, but it's really using a TLV encoding where the first byte just holds a number between 1 and 8, so the entire integer+metadata is now [1 type byte][1 to 8 user data] = 2 to 9 bytes total. Using this scheme also kills any "1 byte, standalone, variable width integer" capability (unless you're storing partial values in the first T/L byte, but then that limits you to a much lower max value for one byte).

<comment><USER9> No, it's not a type-length-value encoding, just a length-value encoding. I should have been more explicit in my UTF-8 reference. I'm really talking about a UTF-8 like encoding, except that it doesn't specially mark any of the continuation bytes and generalizes to lengths of 9 bytes, so the encoding (plus using zigzag encoding to put the sign bit in the least significant bit) is:

        0xxxxxxS : 1 byte, 7 bits of data, -64 to 63
        10xxxxxx xxxxxxxS : 2 bytes, 14 bits of data, -8192 to 8191
        110xxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxS : 3 bytes, 21 bits of data, -(2^20) to 2^20 -1
        1110xxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxS : 4 bytes, 28 bits of data, -2^27 to 2^27-1
        ... and so on.

        int64_t zigzag_decode(uint64_t in) {
          /* Signed right-shift is implementation-defined behavior in C */
          COMPILE_TIME_ASSERT( (1LL << 63) >> 63 == -1, compiler_uses_signed_arith_shift );
          return (int64_t) ((((int64_t) in << 63 ) >> 63 ) ^ (in >> 1));
        }

You can actually get slightly more dense packing using an encoding that doesn't have any non-canonical encodings by adding a length-dependent constant before the zigzag decoding step, but that's a bit more complicated to explain, and allows some 9 byte encoding values that won't fit in an int64_t.

<comment><USER10> well, the "type" is presumed by a schema or somewhere by the time you hit your decoder, so it's technically there even if physically absent (and "LV encoding" doesn't seem to be a thing with any meaningful search results).

Or we can just store everything as int64_t natively anyway. It's only 8 bytes after all (and storage is big these days).

<comment><USER9> Storage is big, but disk bandwidth and network bandwidth are still limiting factors for many applications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It is interesting to compare this with Apache Spark, which won the open source Graysort competition of 2014 [1].

Apache Spark completed a 1PB sort on 190 EC2 (i2.8xlarge) instances in 234 mins. Google did their 2011 1PB sort on 8000 computers in 33 minutes.

Moore's law is at work here and the results aren't very comparable but it would be interesting to see a head-to-head test on similarly speced clusters.

[1] [https://databricks.com/blog/2014/10/10/spark-petabyte- sort.h...](https://databricks.com/blog/2014/10/10/spark-petabyte-sort.html)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> "To reduce the impact of stragglers, we used a dynamic sharding technique called reduce subsharding. This is the precursor to fully dynamic sharding used in Dataflow."

Fun ways in which internal Google tech makes its way to Google Cloud services.

<comment><USER12> I want to learn more about dynamic sharding. Will be great, if people can help me out here. I get the feeling "my googling" skills will fail me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13>
      We haven't found a single use case for the problem as stated.

Impressive nonetheless.

<comment><USER14> This is my favorite part! There's so much and learning to be had in engineering solving problems with no real practical use. I don't consider it a waste of time at all and I'm glad they went ahead with their experiment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you know the distribution of the data (which can be imputed as part of the sorting process by sampling the data), it is possible to guess if the next number is going to be larger or smaller than the current one 75% of the time _without looking at it_ by using Cover's pick the largest number trick [1, 2, 3]. I wonder if distributed sorting algorithms know and incorporate this, which should reduce the cost of hitting the network in distributed algorithms considerably? (Asking because I don't work in that field; this is just an idea that I had).

References

1\. "Playing a Trick on Uncertainty" by Thomas Bruss, page 7 of [http://www.emis.de/newsletter/newsletter50.pdf](http://www.emis.de/newsletter/newsletter50.pdf)

2\. "Tom Cover's Number Guessing Game" by Robert Snapp, [http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Tom_Cover_s_Number_Guess...](http://www.ibrarian.net/navon/paper/Tom_Cover_s_Number_Guessing_Game.pdf?paperid=15348704)

3\. "Who discovered this number-guessing paradox?", [https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/709984/who- discover...](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/709984/who-discovered- this-number-guessing-paradox)

</comment><comment><USER16> I prefer to use "split -b 10G data.txt" and "sort -nrs"

</comment><comment><USER17> >> Nobody really wants a huge globally sorted output. We haven't found a single use case for the problem as stated.

Do anyone has a real world use case of global sorting other than top-k?

<comment><USER18> If you sort records by time you can perform time range queries. You can also create an index to access random keys (like a MapFile in Hadoop).

<comment><USER19> But isn't sorting by time easy, because records come in the correct order? I would say you don't need an algorithm for that.

<comment><USER18> You may want to sort by settlement date instead of transaction date. There are plenty of examples where you need to sort before you can index: let's say you want to create a spatial index. You first need to sort/group spatially (by tile) to query an area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Only at Google

<comment><USER21> I wonder how fast this could do it:

[http://www.lanl.gov/projects/trinity/specifications.php](http://www.lanl.gov/projects/trinity/specifications.php)

They're claiming 87.0 TB/min on an 80PB filesystem, relative to Google's 36.2 TB/min.

<comment><USER22> That just their I/O bandwidth. There is computing overhead in actually doing the sort. Also google was using redundant persistence.

<comment><USER23> To add to this, Google's results were in 2012.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> "We are best but we do not wanted to participate the competition." Whatever....

</comment><comment><USER25> To each their own. While impressive I do not find it inspiring. Instead, working on strong AI is, in my mind, the ultimate challenge. Far more amazing by any measure than anything we have acomplished so far.

<comment><USER10> _working on strong AI is, in my mind, the ultimate challenge._

So is working on antigravity, free energy, and backwards time travel, but people _don 't_ do that because they are no reasonable approaches we can try.

Glorifying "AI AI AI" is silly because — there are no approaches we can try. Sure, we can identify ten million images per second, but none of that involves the least bit of "thinking."

<comment><USER25> Evolution has already proven that strong AI is possible. It is up to us to discover how. It is only a matter of time.

<comment><USER10> Just one summer of study and it'll be solved, right? It's always been "one summer away" for the past 60 years.

Get back to us when you have an algorithm for love and art and petrichor.

<comment><USER25> Emotions are not a requirement for strong AI. I frankly would not waste any time with them. I just need an AI that can learn and solve problems at the human level.

I'm not naive enough to think that it can be solved in a short time. I do think that it is worth it for a person to spend the rest of their life working on it. There is just nothing more exciting than AI in my opinion.

Just imagine the possibilities...

<comment><USER26> "Narrow" AI is already here: search, banking, insurance, internet ads, crime prediction, Siri, plane autopilot (autotakeoff/landing too), autoparking, driver assist, on and on.

(At Trimble, we had fully autonomous tractor PoC in 2001)

"Deep" AI (self-directed / human-interactive) will take more time and effort, and can have (simulated) emotions if so programmed; the determinate is how to sell such as a viable product or service that doesn't freak people out too much or do something stupid like place untrustworthy systems in charge of live nuclear missiles.

<comment><USER27> Deep AI already started with deep learning, which improves exponentially every year, if you look at the performances. It already freaks me out that you can put together cheap drones+guns+self driving+better-than-human level face detection. Imagine controlling a drone botnet...</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to start an email: an email openings analysis of 300,000+ messages - <AUTHOR> https://work.qz.com/1184551/how-to-start-an-email-an-email-openings-analysis-of-300000-messages/ <comment><USER2> This is a really weird article. Excuse my analogy, almost like something written while sitting in bathroom: short, with minimal value, hero image taking almost as much space as an article itself.

I had hoped to see deeper analysis, more data. As an example of deep, thoughtful analysis I recommend wonderful series of posts about Google Maps of Justin O'Beirne: [https://www.justinobeirne.com/google-maps- moat](https://www.justinobeirne.com/google-maps-moat) — after reading it you feel like you learned something new today.</comment>


Dell UP3017Q 4K, 120HZ OLED PC Monitor Hands On - <AUTHOR> http://www.techradar.com/reviews/pc-mac/monitors-and-projectors/monitors/dell-up3017q-oled-4k-monitor-1311504/review <comment><AUTHOR> Finally we can get real blacks, no more grey mud like we have now with TN, IPS and even VA panels. Hope the price comes down in the next few years.</comment>