Max_jiffy_offset: msleep() beyond infinity - <AUTHOR> http://thecodeartist.blogspot.com/2015/01/maxjiffyoffset-how-to-msleep-infinitely.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Over the years, apparently only 1 guy has reported an issue with this definition of MAX_JIFFIES_OFFSET [http://lists.openwall.net/linux- kernel/2012/07/11/222](http://lists.openwall.net/linux-kernel/2012/07/11/222)

As mentioned, this was originally discovered and has subsequently been fixed within the ipset module. [http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/400405/](http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/400405/)

The discrepancy however remains in msleep() or to be more precise within msecs_to_jiffies(). Waiting for a Toyota-brake-failure or Mars-rover-flash- failure kind of scenario to get the attention it truly deserves.</comment>


Security researchers hack Google's Chrome OS - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/03/security-researchers-hack-googles-chrome-os/ <comment><USER2> From the outline presented here, it sounds like generic web vulnerabilities, rather than something ChromeOS-specific. But with content like "hackers could have a field day accessing data on Chromebooks. [...] With Chromebooks, no data is stored on the device" it's hard to tell.

eweek has a slightly better write-up:

[http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Google- Chrome-O...](http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Mobile-and-Wireless/Google-Chrome-OS- Hacked-Using-ScratchPad-Extension-in-Black-Hat-Preview-343583/)

 _In his demonstration, a friend shared a folder containing a note with malicious code, which was then accessible on the CR-48 through the ScratchPad extension. Once the note was opened, the note was able to then steal all his contacts saved in Gmail because he was already logged into Google's services._

Sounds like poorly-filtered ScratchPad notes (which presumably aren't supposed to contain executable code) combined with xss or csrf.

EDIT: Does ChromeOS give apps access to all cookies for all sites?

<comment><USER3> Chrome OS allows cookie access on domains you specify in your manifest. [https://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/permission_warning...](https://code.google.com/chrome/extensions/permission_warnings.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The security flaw is that it accesses the internet.</comment>


Writing an S-Expression parser in Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://thingsaaronmade.com/blog/writing-an-s-expression-parser-in-ruby.html

<comment><AUTHOR> There's an interesting conversation going on about this article over at RubyFlow:

<http://rubyflow.com/items/4657></comment>


MongoDB has filed confidentially for IPO - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/15/database-provider-mongodb-has-filed-confidentially-for-ipo/ <comment><USER2> As a big advocate for NodeJS, the association of the stack to Mongo kills me. Mongo legitimately has no place in this world. If you truly have a case for schemaless, you have a million better options, and from most use cases I've seen, it's Postgres's JSONB.

You get schemaless JSON, same as Mongo, with a GIN index to index every field in the column. But then you also get transactions, and actual columns with actual constraints for the cases where you may undoubtedly muster the commitment. You also get SQL...

And if you're talking data sets that aren't going to work with an RDBMS, it's still the wrong tool for the job. You're going to end up in Kafka/HDFS/S3/Cassandra/etc, with some custom indexing/caching strategy in MapReduce/Redis/ElasticSearch/etc. It is literally impossible for me to grant Mongo the slightest consideration as the appropriate tool in any single part of a reasonable stack.</comment>


You are what you leak (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://caseysoftware.com/blog/you-are-what-you-leak <comment><USER2> Two thoughts on this:

1\. This seems like a bizarrely disproportionate and unpleasant response to being accidentally included on an email thread. It's one of those stories somebody tells you thinking it makes them look cool but only serves to let you know that you should avoid this person at all costs.

2\. It also sounds like a revenge fantasy written by a fourteen year old; the only thing it's missing is "and then they all stood up and applauded me".

</comment><comment><USER3> So he found out a kid whose girlfriend was very close to his family, inmediately assumed the dad was a pedophile, without any proof, and proceed to accuse the dad to the other parents so they can apply mob justice and destroy the family.

Very classy. A real hero. /s

<comment><USER4> He didn't make a accusation, he pointed out a set of data everyone else on the list had access to.

The people actually involved (and with more information to assess the reality of the situation) can make the judgement call.

See something, say something?

<comment><USER5> > I found one father who was interacting with his son's girlfriend a lot. Not > just "I hope you enjoyed the game!" but Liking many pictures, commenting on > numerous posts, etc.

Do you feel like that's a problem?

<comment><USER4> I'd say that an adult over engaged with a child on social media is a potentially concerning data point.

Side note, are you down voting my comments because you feel like they don't add any value to the conversation or because you disagree with my viewpoint?

<comment><USER5> I'm not voting.

I find what is described as typical socialization observed by someone who knows nothing of these people as something to be concerned about to be fairly absurd.

<comment><USER4> The author spent a non-trivial amount of time researching the social media profiles and interactions in this group, and noted a pattern of interaction that was atypical between an adult and a minor.

If it was typical socialization within that community, then I find it unlikely he would have only found a single instance.

*edit to fix autocorrect typos

<comment><USER5> I think it is just sexual paranoia.

I mean here we are and someone somewhere happened upon a mailing list they didn't want to be on... looked folks up on facebook. Wrote a couple sentances on a blog and we're at "see something say something" and "The author spent a non-trivial amount of time researching the social media profiles and interactions in this group".

That all seems like a huge stretch that could create a situation where all sorts of normal behavior is scrutinized / fingers pointed, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So poor choices and poor behavior by the author aside.

I'm not really sure how much of the information gathered would surprise that many people. The suggestions seem like something that some local TV "security expert" would give along with the always useless "don't download apps you don't trust" kind of advice.

</comment><comment><USER6> Can this asshole be sued? I mean the author of the blogpost, obviously.

</comment><comment><USER7> I remember a ways back there was a spate of burglaries timed to social media information stating that the owners would be out of the house/town/state/country at a particular time.

Seems like we haven't been inoculated in a while. If there's no new incident, or they don't hear about it, people become complacent.

<comment><USER8> When I was a kid we were raised to not talk too publicly about when you were going to be away from home, for this exact reason. You'd ask a trusted neighbour to collect your mail so your mailbox wasn't suspiciously full. You could even buy power point timers that would let you schedule lights / TV / whatever to turn on and off at preset times, plus some random jitter to make it not obviously scheduled, so it looked like you were home.

It seems bizarre that in the face of all our perceptions of how cynical we've become, we've forgotten so much basic common-sense security.

(Of course you can still buy the timers and they still even have the jitter feature, but they're marketed as power-saving devices, not as security devices.)

</comment></comment><comment> jerome-jh Agreeing with the general tone below. The post gives the impression people should conceal even innocuous interactions. The basis is, of course, to have several email addresses and give the impersonal one, which receives most of the spam, to forum/club mailing lists.

</comment><comment><USER4> I'm a bit surprised by the general tone of the comments on this.

Not using BCC on group threads like the one mentioned is essentially a PII breach. The fact that this was an organization responsible for the care of minors, which refused to remove someone who was erroneously given access to that data, definitely warrants concern.

If the author had found a security vulnerability in a school website, responsibly disclosed it, and deleted all information gathered, I doubt they would be getting the same level of side eye.

<comment><USER9> > responsibly disclosed it,

That's the problem here. The disclosure as represented by the author themself is decidedly not responsible.

<comment><USER4> Sharing the dataset with the full email list instead of individually sharing his results with each person on the list definitely toes the boundary, but given that the parents are going to be the drivers of change in this situation I'd say it's reasonable.

If you were in the same position as the author, how would you handle disclosure?

<comment><USER9> > given that the parents are going to be the drivers of change in this > situation I'd say it's reasonable.

(Note: I shortened your quote, and the shortened bit does not give your intent. But it's the part I want to respond to. Other readers should read OPs full text.) The drivers of change with regards to the Equifax leak was the voting populous of the United States- I image if the Equifax hacker sent the credit reports of everyone compromised by the leak to everyone compromised by the leak and claimed to be an honest security researcher, it wouldn't have gone well.

> If you were in the same position as the author, how would you handle > disclosure?

The author mentioned having the contact information of the legal council of the school. Send an email to them saying that email addresses are PII and they shouldn't be widely distributed. Escalate from there. If they ignore it, send a spreadsheet of names, email addresses, and facebook accounts to the lawyer. If they ignore that, start digging, send more - anyway, the point is, start at DEFCON 4 and work your way up, don't immediately step to DEFCON 2. In this case, where the solution is to paste into the BCC box instead of the TO or CC box, a 30 day window ought to be sufficient, but a zero day window is completely unacceptable.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


SoftBank Close to Announcing Merger Deal for Sprint, T-Mobile - <AUTHOR> https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Deals/SoftBank-close-to-announcing-merger-deal-for-Sprint-T-Mobile <comment><USER3> Mobile carrier consolidation has been one of the major failures of antitrust regulators. Looking back to the Sprint/Nextel merger, plans and pricing both declined in customer value severely in the months after the merger closed, with in-plan minutes going from the thousands down to the hundreds for the same price.

I would strongly prefer that any consolidation such as this be allowed only if one of the firms return all of its spectrum licenses to the FCC to be re- auctioned. It's fine to merge to consolidate infrastructure, but the unfair aspect of market power is derived from the natural scarcity of spectrum.

The hardware cost of launching a mobile carrier in an urban environment is falling rapidly, so only spectrum scarcity is preventing upstarts from disrupting the most lucrative urban markets.

<comment><USER4> If competition or "customer value" were actually a goal of FCC, they would open more unlicensed space, on more useful frequencies, rather than auctioning, or re-auctioning more rigidly regulated spectrum. This "natural scarcity" is a property of the deployed technology, not of the universe.

[EDIT:] To clarify, the problem isn't so much the portion of the spectrum designated for mobile phone use, as the terms under which that portion is so designated. More of that portion should be available on an unlicensed basis, or at the very least on a non-exclusive licensed basis. The tiny fractions of the spectrum that have been available on those terms in recent history have seen more innovation and less artificial scarcity than more strictly licensed frequencies have.

<comment><USER3> > would open more unlicensed space, on more useful frequencies

Which spectrum do you think should be reallocated to mobile use?

> This "natural scarcity" is a property of the deployed technology, not of the > universe.

What frequencies do you think should be used for mobile voice and data that are not already?

<comment><USER5> Required reading:

      https://spectrum.ieee.org/telecom/wireless/the-end-of-spectrum-scarcity
      https://www.salon.com/2003/03/12/spectrum/

Basically, the argument is that interference (as understood in spectrum policy) is a myth. The channel capacity of a frequency band is a limit between two distinct physical points--it's not some global (or even local) limit. If you put two pairs of broadcasters and receivers in the same room using the same band, the laws of nature don't require that the available capacity to each pair be cut in half. It's the same as it was before for each pair; any reduction in throughput is merely a limitation of their particular technology. As sensitivity improves; as algorithms improve; as processing power increases; you can asymptotically approach your original (uncontended) throughput even as more transmitters join the fray.

The above articles are fairly old, but their arguments have born out, and the fundamental science isn't contested. MIMO, beamforming, software defined radio, and other approaches are now widespread and have permitted orders of magnitude more _aggregate_ throughput for the same geographical area, even as the number of transmitters has dramatically increased. And things will only continue to improve for the foreseeable future.

It's not literally true that interference is a myth. And there are fundamental physical limitations that we'll eventually bump up against. But those fundamental limits are beyond the horizon. In the context of historic and contemporary spectrum policy, interference is indeed a myth.

The above technologies have come to fruition slower than free spectrum proponents argued. But their argument has always been that as long as government treats spectrum as scarce and grants legally protected monopoly rights, there's less market incentive to develop those technologies.

The fundamental argument isn't that we need to add more bands to mobile, but that we need to remove (or at least loosen) the regulations which artificially constrain contention. If market participants had to deal with more band contention, there'd be more incentive to improve their technology to restore the service quality. As long as you don't have malicious people intentionally trying to disrupt the system, the argument is that market incentives alone would spur technological improvements at least as fast as contended usage grew.

Of course, for the deployed technology at any particular point in time, more spectrum is better. But the argument here is about optimal long-term policy, not about the best way to ensure first responders can communicate 6 months from now.

<comment><USER3> This is an interesting argument. I'm aware of it but wasn't aware that the other person was referring to it in his post.

I certainly think it would be interesting to have the FCC allocate a band that could be used in a less regulated way such as you describe.

It's a very interesting area of SDR and game theory and I've actually put a bit of thought into how such an ecosystem might work after hearing a talk about the DARPA Spectrum Challenge.

So I don't disagree with your point at all, and think that the FCC should allocate some spectrum to this sort of deregulated scenario. Perhaps if it also required that all protocol and modulation approaches be open sourced that would help participants to coordinate usefully.

I think that we are far from the limits of physics across most of the network, but there are likely some congestion patterns in dense areas that create complex intermod scenarios that would make a system like this somewhat brittle until the ecosystem evolved to find a cooperative equilibrium of some sort.

In addition to MIMO, I'm interested in things like using TDM and awareness of harmonic and intermod characteristics to create various emergent latency "contracts" that correlated with different frequency ranges and time slices, so that participants that did not need low latency could create significantly less interference than they otherwise would, and participants could cooperate based on the data rate and latency requirements of other nearby nodes.

<comment><USER6> why would it be different than wifi's 2.4 and 5 ghz bands? those are open, but don't penetrate far because they are high freq. it works but there's tons of things making it unreliable.

<comment><USER7> WiFi works in part because it doesn't carry very far. The unclicensed band strictly limits output power, which limits range which limits the potential for interference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm going to voice an unpopular opinion.

I think this overall is good for consumers, and good for business.

Sprint is woefully under capitalized, neither T-Mo or Sprint have as much PCS Spectrum (read, they don't have enough) in the largest markets as either AT&T or T-Mobile. Because of this (and some other factors relating to economy of scale) neither T-Mo or Sprint is really truly competitive (on performance) with either AT&T or Verizon outside of a few selected markets.

Our Mobile Phone networks are expensive in the US - but thats largely a function of how much coverage you have to provide to places where (nearly) no- one lives.

Figure a cell site costs $1000+ a month to keep it on the air - and Sprint alone had 20,000 cell sites when I was inside their network last in 2015 - <USER2> 20 million a month just to keep the sites on, that doesn't cover backhaul, CO's, trunking, staffing or any of the other costs to keep a network up. Verizon and AT&T each have more coverage than sprint does, and 2-3 times the sites - they also have many more sites that on a good day might see 2-3 subs roam thru.

<comment><USER9> > Our Mobile Phone networks are expensive in the US

No they're not. Cell phone bills are one of the only two deflationary categories in the basket used to determine rate of inflation by the federal bank, iirc.

That aside, I agree with your view. No one uses Sprint if they have a choice, it's their (previously) cheaper rates that locked people in (via contract or via simple inertia).

<comment><USER10> I've just checked online and this is what I'd take [https://www.walmart.com/ip/Prepaid-GSM-SIM-Card-Unlimited- Te...](https://www.walmart.com/ip/Prepaid-GSM-SIM-Card-Unlimited- Text-500-Minutes-and-500-MB-Data-30-Day-Service/705650864) at $9/mo (t-mobile network), it's only marginally more expensive than what I'd pay in Thailand, Malaysia or Vietnam. Enough for my emails, whatsapp, occasional web browsering. Doesn't seem a bad deal. I think those that want a subsided jesus phone with the payment rolled into the monthly or insane amount of data are the ones paying $60+ month.

<comment><USER11> The picture says $9, but the actual price is below that...$12.99. Confirmed by adding to the cart.

<comment><USER10> I think that's the first month including the SIM, then $9/mo thereafter. Still a good deal and definitely not expensive in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I agree that this sounds terrible. Tmobile is revializing the mobile world. I love love love all the things that tmobile as been doing. They've not bought all that low frequency tv white spaces spectrum, there's a good chance they will continue to force the other major players to improve and lower prices.

They have been ending the horrible contract system, taking customers with their innvoation. I love being able to use my phone internationally. I don't see how much good can come of this. sprint is just going to be an anvil around their feet, with debt service to paying off the sprint owners holding tmobile back. This is what at&t and verizon want probably.

<comment><USER6> replying to my own message, too late to edit it, darn, I meant to say "revitalizing the mobile world" and "they have _now_ bought that new spectrum"

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> What effect would such a merger have on cross-carrier solutions like Project Fi, which uses both Sprint and T-mo networks? I'm worried that the new T-Sprint masters would deem Fi to be undesirable competition to whatever internal scheme they're mulling to join the networks.

<comment><USER13> I am worried about the same thing. However I think that's only one of the problems with project-FI.

I feel like once again this project has become another "walking dead" project :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'd rather the big two were broken up but this merger will give T-Mobile and sprint all the incentive to price just like the incumbents but give them the resources to maybe get to network parity so that regardless of what carrier you're on you will have the same coverage. Once that's the case then you could really put the three against one another and get decent rate in your phone bill. I'd rather competition did that as well by having many smaller players but the system isn't healthy.

</comment><comment><USER15> This is a cultural/incentive problem with big companies. They don't know how to innovate and are afraid to give up control. So they spend their time and resources on financial engineering, clinging to the old way of doing business. Restructuring and mergers are the only way they see forward, because they would rather increase profits by replacing employees and removing choice for consumers than by innovating.

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice! Now I'll be able to move in and out of reception twice as often!

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm curious what Deutsche Telekom will do if this happens. They've spent most of their time in the US market signaling that they want to leave, but maybe it would be a different story when they're not in distant 4th.

<comment><USER18> T-Mobile haven't been distant fourth for a while. They have been the clear third for a few years now. Germans wanted out badly before their recent winnings.

If a deal goes through, it'll be a merger for sure. But also it'll be T-Mobile as the bigger of the two companies. T-Mobile stock has tripled in the past 5 years. They have a healthy PE ratio. Sprint has more or less remained around the same spot. Which is now half the market cap of T-Mobile. Sprint is also having a hard time being profitable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm curious how this would work technically as the two networks use different technology. Plus there must be a ton of overlap in the networks in metro areas

</comment><comment><USER20> No one has mentioned it thus far, but this could be huge for the Essential Phone, they are now on a real network.

</comment><comment><USER21> funny how life is. in 2012 Sprint wanted to acquire T-Mobile. Deal goes bust. T-Mobile gets free funds. Funds expansion. Now T-Mobile in a position to acquire Sprint.</comment>


Zappos CEO details plans, changes under Amazon - <AUTHOR> http://www.techflash.com/seattle/2010/03/zappos_ceo_details_plans_changes_under_new_owner_amazon.html

<comment><USER2> This post is extremely light on content. I was hoping for some analysis.</comment>


Is the Future of Food in Tokyo? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2013/07/25/is-this-the-future-of-food/

<comment><USER2> More information about the food in question: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euglena)

</comment><comment><USER3> _Maybe._ Distant future (e.g. when my grandchildren are grandparents) maybe this will be a base for lots of things. Currently though, with "Soylent" on my mind, I'd suggest the answer is no. People enjoy eating meals. People enjoy cooking meals. Food, with its variety of textures and flavors, is a big part of the social fabric of the entire planet. If the suggestion is that these food replacements allow us to forego preparation, have a quick nutrient infusion, and then get back to some activity ... again, not in the near future. I hope humanity continues to take time away from the rush of life and enjoy meals.

OT: Sometimes, article headlines cause me mental anguish. Perhaps it's a deficiency that is my own, but often I find my reading the headline repeatedly while I wait for the content and I can't figure out what the author/editor meant. I get a couple sentences into the article and it hits me. In this case, I wanted an adjective after 'Tokyo,' but it turns out I needed to render it like this:

"Is the Future of Food [located] in Tokyo?"

<comment><USER4> Some people _can 't_ enjoy cooking meals because the food is simply not available, so surely you realize the value of a cheap and effective source of protein that is also highly transportable.

The logistics for moving large quantities of food is very difficult and in many impoverished countries there is no large-scale transportation infrastructure -- so while food rots, people starve, and little can be done about it.</comment></comment>


10 Useful Flash Components for Graphing Data - <AUTHOR> http://sixrevisions.com/flashactionscript/10-useful-flash-components-for-graphing-data/ <comment><USER2> Anyone looking at OFC2 should have a look at OFCGWT.

<http://code.google.com/p/ofcgwt/>

<http://ofcgwt.googlecode.com/svn/demo/Demo.html></comment>


The Mahabharata of Indian internet unicorns - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@hchawlah/the-mahabharata-of-indian-internet-unicorns-c6fb65402482#.2cl75qsnv <comment><AUTHOR> I particularly liked this point.

> The moats — those wide ditches that surround castles and filled with water > to defend against attacks — for internet companies, are filled only with > money. They've been created with the risk appetites of their investors and > not with differentiators or unique business models. Moats ought to be wide > and deep. Else an attacker can wade through easily. But our unicorns' > castles are protected by paper moats — made of money. Those castles cannot > be defended unless the moats are refuelled constantly. That explains how > Amazon just took away market share so easily from Flipkart and Snapdeal.</comment>


Frankfurt Is the Big Winner in Battle for Brexit Bankers - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2017-brexit-bankers/ <comment><USER2> Frankfurter here :) Nice to see us on the good side of news more often recently. Frankfurt, compared to the big capitals of the world, is rather small: about 700.000 reside within the city limits. Yet, the metropolitan area is much larger. Frankfurt also has the highest percentage of foreigners in Germany (ok, Offenbach, Frankfurt's neighbour even has more, but those two are at the top). Even Berlin feels less international in this regard. And in case you need to have a break from this most modern looking German city, you just take a plane at the airport (which is almost "in the city" and very easy to reach). On weekends, you can to trips to France, Czech Republic, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Belgium or Switzerland (all within 2-4 hour drive). It's internationality also makes Frankfurt easy to navigate for people who don't speak German. By the way: there are only few "real Frankfurters" like me there (born and raised here with German parents...). Even other Germans mostly moved here from other cities. Within my close colleagues, I am the exception as someone who spent almost his entire life here. What that means: we are pretty open for everyone. We don't care where you are from, we don't prefer doing business with people that speak the local dialect (which might happen in other parts of Germany). Talking business: I doubt you find a city with more libertarian-minded entrepreneurs in Germany. Business enthusiasm is quite high compared to other regions where social democratic culture is more imminent. People come to Frankfurt to make money.

If you want to live in beautiful luxury, you are also at the right spot! The Taunus mountains north-west of the city house a myriad of bankers and CEOs in beautiful and expensive villas, combine perfect schools with healthy nature and nice views on the city. You'll have to buy something more sporty than a Porsche to get some looks, as Porsche is the standard family car there (or High-End BMWs or Mercedes)... If, besides work, you want to enjoy culture, this city serves you plenty. Museums, Opera, Theaters, Rock concerts: here, you have them all.

So to those you wonder if Frankfurt is really the place to go, I say: I love the world, I like many other places, but if I could, I would take my Frankfurt anywhere I go.

<comment><USER3> Londoner here. Been to Frankfurt: it's small, but it's lovely. Only thing holding me back from moving is a mortgage and school-age children.

(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's going to ruin my country.)

<comment><USER4> > "(Rant: Seriously, people get upset when you point out that Brexit is a dumb > idea. But that doesn't stop it being a really, really, dumb idea that's > going to ruin my country.)"

How is it going to ruin our country?

Let's be realistic. Will there be an economic downturn? Signs point to yes. However, businesses do not pass up the opportunity to make money for long.

Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable.

Imports and exports will be affected whilst markets adjust, and hopefully there'll be a soft Brexit to make this adjustment period quicker, but even with hard Brexit the economy will stabilise and grow in time. Products intended for domestic markets may end up becoming more attractive for investors in the short term whilst this period of uncertainty plays out. There are always ways to make money, and those who keep their cool are much more likely to spot those opportunities than those who panic.

<comment><USER5> >Case in point, the financial sector move the article is referring to. Just because a bank is based in one country, doesn't mean it doesn't do business elsewhere. If an investment opportunity exists, deals will still be made regardless. The idea that a company like Goldman Sachs would turn down an opportunity to make money just because their headquarters is elsewhere is almost laughable.

So your argument is Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, etc will continue to do business in Britain because it'll be profitable to do so? Yes that's probably true. On the other hand they are bending to regulation that requires them to conduct EU-related business in an EU member state.

And as you have stated businesses will not turn down potential profit. Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the _majority_ of the business is __and that 's no longer Britain __.

There's no element of panic here, just the fact that brexit means certain jobs have to move in order to continue conducting business with the EU.

The EU are already positioning to move Euro clearing out of London as well. See [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit- uk-f...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/brexit-uk-finance- brussels-thinktank-city-banking-eu-bruegel)

<comment><USER4> > "Therefore they have no choice but to move the jobs to where the majority of > the business is and that's no longer Britain."

The majority of business wasn't in Britain before Brexit either, but we still had businesses based here. If some companies leave, they're just opening up new opportunities for their competitors. I don't like thinking of people as 'workers' and 'consumers', but let's use those labels for a second. Are you trying to tell me in a nation of over 60 million consumers, with a high volume of skilled and hard working workers, that there aren't business opportunities to be had, regardless of a slow down in exports?

<comment><USER5> Is there opportunity? Sure. Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally well paying jobs? I am extremely skeptical such a thing is possible for Britain and until that happens the revenue to Britain's economy and tax coffers are undeniably lost and cannot be recovered. You are once again blithely ignoring the fact that brexit directly resulted in finance companies _moving out of Britain_. There is no backfill by competitors to be had.

In short brexit with regards to employment in the finance industry is a foot shooting exercise of epic proportions.

<comment><USER4> > "Is there opportunity to replace the salaries and tax revenue of > 30,000-100,000 finance and finance-related jobs lost to brexit with equally > well paying jobs?"

Two points:

1\. I see over-reliance on any one industry as a weakness. The idea would be to find constructive uses for the talents of those in the financial industry elsewhere. There are a diverse range of industries that could benefit from numerically literate people. To give one example, energy management is going to be a growing field as we move towards renewables, both in terms of planning new installations and in balancing the demands on the grid. Is that going to soak up all of the lost jobs? No, but I wouldn't want it to, otherwise we'd have another 'too big to fail' industry, the idea is to spread the talent around.

2\. You point at lost tax revenues, but the financial services industry appears to be the worst offender when it comes to tax avoidance. I'd much rather people were employed in jobs where they paid tax, even if their nominal salaries may be lower.

To give some idea of how bad tax avoidance in the UK financial sector is, and how much other companies depend on UK-based financial institutions for their tax avoidance, take a look at the following links:

[http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/benefit-fraud-v-tax- evasion-w...](http://www.theweek.co.uk/62461/benefit-fraud-v-tax-evasion- which-costs-more)

[http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/finance-sector/enablers- and...](http://www.taxjustice.net/topics/finance-sector/enablers-and- intermediaries/)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hom07yGhg0Q](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hom07yGhg0Q)

Also, to nip the whole 'membership of the EU helps clamp down on tax avoidance' line in the bud, the EU have known about schemes like the 'Dutch Sandwich with a Double Irish' for years and haven't put a stop to it, so their record isn't exactly stellar:

[https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google- used-d...](https://www.irishtimes.com/business/technology/google-used-double- irish-dutch-sandwich-to-move-10-7bn-1.2541273)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Seems a bit too early to declare the winner: [https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/dublin- firs...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/15/dublin-first-choice- london-banks-brexit-relocation-plans)

<comment><USER7> No matter how you look at it, the UK loses. And most people don't give a fuck, they think Brexit is over.

<comment><USER8> > _No matter how you look at it, the UK loses._

Only short term, and only if we just look at first order effects.

In fact, it's too early to tell. Let's check back in 10 years.

<comment><USER9> What makes you think 10 years is not short term? Last crisis, that we're still recovering and suffering consequences (arguably Brexit is one) from, started 9 years ago.

What makes you think the UK can "win" anything in 10 years if it goes down the Brexit path? or 20 years for that matter, feel free to move the goal posts around. I'm curious.

<comment><USER4> > "Last crisis, that we're still recovering and suffering consequences"

The last crisis was extended by the actions of the government. Quantative easing to boost the wealth of the private banking sector + austerity in the public sector.

You can't save your way out of a recession, but if you are going to spend your way out of it, the money should end up with people who are willing to spend it in productive ways.

As for Brexit, what's your main economic concern? Imports? Exports? The domestic market?

<comment><USER10> every company is already leaving.

IT has the blue collars (cheap engineers, sales, support, it) in Ireland and they are staying no matter what (zero tax ftw) while all the expensive ppl who refuses Ireland relocation were in london.

but if London is not EU, now it makes everything too complicated. France already started to glob startups. Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another.

it's a matter of time until they all move. and take all the service cascade with them.

so if you're afraid of crisis getting worse by fleeing investment, there you have it.

<comment><USER4> > "IT has the blue collars (cheap engineers, sales, support, it) in Ireland"

That was the case before Brexit, was it not? Companies like Google and Facebook had their European headquarters in Ireland before the Brexit referendum was announced.

> "Germany got two big fortune 500 and Switzerland another."

Interesting that you bring up an example linked to Switzerland, which isn't in the EU (it's not even part of the EEA). Despite that, it does have access to the European single market, something that some European bureaucrats are classing as 'impossible' for the UK post-Brexit. Let's wait and see.

> "it's a matter of time until they all move."

That's what's known as hyperbole. The UK has a large skilled/educated workforce with a strong work ethic. If incentives are made to mitigate against downsides of being out of the EU then I don't see every company leaving, and the ones that do leave will leave behind employees that they helped to train, ready for a competitor to make the most of.

<comment><USER11> > Interesting that you bring up an example linked to Switzerland, which isn't > in the EU (it's not even part of the EEA). Despite that, it does have access > to the European single market, something that some European bureaucrats are > classing as 'impossible' for the UK post-Brexit. Let's wait and see.

This is how Switzerland has access to the European single market :

\- It pays into the EU budget

\- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens

\- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.

[http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/07/20/how-much-do-non- eu-...](http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2016/07/20/how-much-do-non-eu-countries- give-up-for-access-to-the-single-market-more-than-brexiteers-will-like/)

This has been hammered on and on during the campaign : the UK cannot possibly end up with a better deal than what it currently has as a full EU member (with a number of tailor-made opt-outs bordering on unfair to other members, to boot)

The issue is not with "some European bureaucrats", it is with some British people having difficulty coming to terms with reality at the moment.

<comment><USER4> Addressing your three main points:

\- It pays into the EU budget

According to the article you linked to, Switzerland pays far less than the UK for access to the common market. Time will tell what agreements are reached here.

\- It has freedom of movement for EU citizens

Which I have no problem with. Oh, did you think that people who voted for Brexit were racist? Surprise!

\- It implements many EU regulations, without having a say in them.

Again, from the article you linked to, it states that Switzerland has around 100 bilateral agreements with the EU in order to get access to the single market. Having a multitude of agreements allow a certain level of control over which EU policies to take on and which ones to avoid. Can read more about those agreements here:

[http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and- regions/count...](http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and- regions/countries/switzerland/)

I do recognise that the bi-lateral deals with Switzerland took years to get ironed out, and I'm not expecting a quicker turnaround for the UK. What I predict is that we'll go for some form of soft Brexit where the divorce from the EU can happen gradually, which would be better for both sides.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't think this is entirely true. Paris and Amsterdam are fighting for banks as well; in Paris all government-related stuff can be now done in English as well; in Frankfurt for some reason (German pride?) everyone is forced to use German and frankly learning German is highly non-trivial and a time-sink. As for Japanese banks, it makes sense; both because Frankfurt has a significant Japanese minority due to previous business choices and the mentality is similar as well.

<comment><USER13> Got me curious on the German/Japanese mentality being similar, could you elaborate please?

<comment><USER14> Japan is sort of the Germany of Asia. Both are very detail-oriented people, well known for craftsmanship, significant amount of global exports, their trains are always on time, etc.

<comment><USER15> > trains are always on time

If I would not hold the German black belt in suppressing my emotions I would have laughed uncontrollably.

(Though compared to the trains in the U.K...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Having been to Frankfurt a couple months ago, I totally get it. It's definitely a big banking city, and the logical choice to move to from London. I was also in Madrid a couple months ago, and it didn't seem like quite as good of a match as a big financial city.

<comment><USER17> I am curious what makes you think it is a banking city? Banking is pretty much electronic these days, so location shouldn't matter.

<comment><USER16> Finance as a profession has not really embraced remote work (yet?), so I'm not sure why you think the fact that parts of the system are electronic matters. The workers are still collocated in big financial cities, which used to be London, but seems like it'll be Frankfurt now. As for why it's a banking city, well, it just feels like it. There's big buildings associated with banks everywhere, and it has that new building/office park financial sector feel. Plus there's literally a huge monument to the Euro.

I work in software like most of us, software being absolutely electronic, but my company hasn't really embraced remote work either, so hence I'm in NYC.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> When you are number two and number one gets killed by stupid politics.

Frankfurt may or may not be number one, Frankfurt still profits enormously by Brexit.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm not convinced that making finance more expensive produces any winners.

<comment><USER20> Big finance is seen as a systemic risk, and you could say that the EU is just doing its job in wanting to maintain some level of control over such big and important of an industry. Many of the banks wouldn't have probably left anyway (many still might not) if it had looked like the EU and the UK would come to a sensible arrangement, but lately it seems like the UK politicians in charge of Brexit are shooting themselves in the foot constantly (the latest example being B. Johnson and his "they can go whistle" remark).

<comment><USER21> > the latest example being B. Johnson and his "they can go whistle" remark

This. No matter how you voted, strategy on the UK side has been a complete clusterfuck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wacky. If that is the case, California's GDP could surpass England's.

The exit really is cutting off your nose to spite your face.

<comment><USER23> Sorry to nitpick, but considering that England is not the United Kingdom, it already is ($ 2.44 trillion for California vs. $ 2 trillion for England in 2015). California also is 4 times as big as England and has only 14 million fewer inhabitants. California is massive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It may sounds naive, but why is the physical location of a bank still relevant today?

<comment><USER25> In this case, there are two factors:

\- The European Central Bank (may) insist on certain services only being offered by banks in their jurisdiction, to avoid becoming dependent on companies they can't regulate

\- The EU's core principle are the "Four Freedoms": those of capital, services, products, and labour. They won't allow Britain to pick-and-choose only the first three.

<comment><USER8> > _The EU 's core principle are the "Four Freedoms": those of capital, > services, products, and labour._

So basically all the kinds of freedoms for commerce and employers, and none for the people ("freedom of labour" being an euphemism for "lesser job protections").

<comment><USER26> They say, don't feed the troll. But I will answer you. Likely the EU will have much higher labor protections that the UK. "freedom of labour" actually means you are free to move and work or open a business as an EU citizen within the EU.

<comment><USER8> > _They say, don 't feed the troll._

They say it, but which part of my comment made you think I don't believe what I say (which is the necessary condition for it being a "troll")? Not to mention, that whether you disagree or not, it is a very common criticism against EUs policies, driven by big capital?

> _Likely the EU will have much higher labor protections that the UK._

Maybe, maybe not, can't speak for the UK.

What I do know for certain is that EU regulations have unmade decades old worker protections and labor rights in mine (and other) EU countries.

That said, here's what a UK person writes: [http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/eu- doe...](http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/06/eu-doesnt- protect-workers-rights-it-has-destroyed-them)

<comment><USER26> I don't know the Newstatesman but it sounds like a very biased magazine.

"This same economics is being inflicted on Britain – cuts and austerity. Living standards have fallen, wages reduced as a proportion of total economic output (GDP) and in real terms, and inequality and poverty increasing. " This actually may be true. And indeed. It could be partly be caused by the EU. Have a look at the UK's debt: [http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/19/article-0-1AE4486F...](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/19/article-0-1AE4486F000005DC-67_634x403.jpg)

The UK had serious problems. Then, under Thatcher, the UK rose again and had comparably low debt. Some say this is due to Thatcher. I would have said this at one point, now I say that it was because of oil found in the Northern Sea. The UK's debt exploded after 2007, also, because the UK had a huge, potential unhealthy financial sector.

So if you say that the EU is causing the problems in the UK this may be in fact true, since it allowed "The City" to live unreasonably from grains from the Financial Industry while some parts of the UK did very badly. I can not exclude the possibility that loosing a huge chunk of the financial industry and do a re-balancing may actually a good thing for the average Joe who does not live in "The City". London voted "stay" by the way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> on one hand the EU is criticising Trump for threatening to institute trade barriers, whilst it is simultaneously threatening to institute trade barriers against the UK (unless it pays vast sums of money, and then it's only to begin talking about a free trade agreement)

can anyone explain why the EU is viewed as some sort of kind, progressive organisation, when in reality acts like a bitter, protectionist bully?

<comment><USER26> Touchée. I give you a point here. But there is the Idea of of the four freedoms for Europe. This may be a good thing or not (I think it is). But If you are part of Europe, you either take all or none. And if some Brexiters are claiming "look, we can get the same deal that Japan is getting this year" then they are delusional. The reason why Japan can get such a deal is because Japan is not a geographic part of Europe.

There are things that I don't like about the EU. Especially:

* Bureaucracy

* They spent 40% of their budget for agriculture subsidies.

* Now we have open boarders for immigrants from very violent and tribal societies. (You can downvote me for this if you like).

But here are many positive things. Freedom of movement. You can work, retire or open a business in any EU country that you want. Open skies - very cheap airfares (which will hurt the UK a lot).

What happens just this year is mind blowing.

* Free trade agreement with Japan

* Potential free trade agreement with Mercosur countries

* No roaming charges for cell phones anymore

* PSD2 for Fintech (Banks have to grant access to bank accounts for fintechs)

* Money Wires are very cheap or free within the EU. They can still take a day or two. Starting November Banks must offer "instant EU money wires". I think the time is less than a minute. Less than a bitcoin transaction takes to process.

* Military Headquarter in the EU, beginning of an EU army

Don't write the EU off. Nobody knows the future but for me the Brexit seems like madness.

<comment><USER28> Regarding EU bureaucracy, isn't it clear that some is required?

Otherwise how do you replace, for example, 28 different national systems for classifying bananas with a single classification without a certain amount of bureaucracy? You either hive massive multilateral discussions among 28 national bureaucracies or you get rid of the individual national burocrats and delegate this function to Brussels.

I love the bananna thing btw - it's a long time favourite of EU haters as an example of EU overreach. Europhobic UK newspapers have milked it for years - out-of-control bureaucrats making up useles regulations and creating red-tape. But they never mention that it replaced was 28 individual national banana classifcations.

<comment><USER25> Note that the "banana regulation" is actually no longer in force, because "EU bureaucrats" got tired hearing it dragged out in every single debate.

The result is that the content of the regulation have become the de-facto standard in the industry that everyone is following voluntarily.

<comment><USER23> > The result is that the content of the regulation have become the de-facto > standard in the industry that everyone is following voluntarily.

It was even the other way round. Lobbyists of merchants wanted cheaper transport costs and solved it on a EU level.

<comment><USER25> It was both ways around. The wanted it, got it, then continued using it after it was no longer official.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Building Real time Data Platform to collect streaming data - <AUTHOR>

I am building Real time Data Platform to collect streaming data from different sensors. I would then calculate some metrics based on the different data (factors) I receive and show in a real-time dashboard the data.<p>I have expertise in developing the front end; so it's not an issue. I am trying to find what is the best way to build real-time data platform ? what are some good and working architectures that you recommend (eg: Storm .. etc). Which technology stack do you advise (Node, Go, Scala, .. etc ) ? <comment><USER2> What speed are you getting events with? Analytic platforms are normally better at analytic the collected data, not dynamic streaming incoming data.

</comment><comment><USER3> Plz contact me: zvi AT nivertech DOT com</comment>


Apple Raises Prices on Several Products in Many Countries Amid Strong USD - <AUTHOR> http://www.macrumors.com/2015/03/10/apple-price-increase-2015-usd/

<comment><AUTHOR> I have the feeling that this quarter is not going to be so easy for Apple.</comment>


Scientists teleported quantum data into the flawed heart of a diamond - <AUTHOR> https://thenextweb.com/science/2019/06/28/scientists-teleported-quantum-data-into-the-flawed-heart-of-a-diamond/ <comment><USER2> Direct link to press release, as I was rather put-off by TNW's editorialized- simplification of the study: [https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/ynu- rti06251...](https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2019-06/ynu- rti062519.php)</comment>


A Mesmerizing 3-D Vision of New York as Pure Data - <AUTHOR> http://www.citylab.com/design/2015/09/a-mesmerizing-3-d-vision-of-new-york-as-pure-data/406870/ <comment><USER2> Is the data meaning something or just textures? It is very nice though</comment>


Spinning Water Droplets That Seemingly Defy Physics - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/video/science/100000006415939/spinning-water-droplets-that-defy-physics.html <comment><USER2> Should have a [Video] tag. Youtube link to same video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEZX0v-JUo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHEZX0v-JUo)

Link to article which goes with the video:

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/science/water-droplets- da...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/26/science/water-droplets-dance.html)

Link to the paper:

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08919-2](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-08919-2)</comment>


Ask HN: What are you missing in existing email clients? - <AUTHOR> I'm wondering both about features and quality. Personally, I dislike most of the desktop clients not for a lack of features, but for a lack of quality. Too often, UIs are clunky, or IMAP syncing doesn't work well, or search is dissatisfactory.
I should not be priming you more, but just ask: What features and qualities are you missing? What would make you try another client? What are absolute must-haves in terms of features? <comment><USER3> Folders that display their subfolders content. This problem is very inherently noticeable in Outlook while at work. There are 5 types of problems sent to 1 team distro. I filter these 5 types of problems, based on the Subject field, to a different subfolder of the team distro folder. When I view the team distro folder - I don't see any email. I need to click into the individual subfolders. If I create a Search Folder (which will let me see all search results from these 5 folders, effectively being what I want) it needs to be a Top Level folder and cannot, itself, be a Subfolder or reorganized. It will live under the Search Folders menu effectively thwarting my attempts at organization.

I would like to only be notified of new email that enters specific folders - rather than just an on/off where I am spammed with dozens if not hundreds of desktop notifications I do not care for. This way I don't need to keep my email always-visible to see when I get important email.

I would like extremely flexible organizational rules, again similar to Outlook.

All in a UI that gets out of my way and works well in portrait mode, as the few emails I get tend to be more longform and I like to reduce scrolling. I actually like Mailbird's [0] UI because I prefer icons over text labels for a tool I'm using frequently. Terrible UX (what do all these icons mean?) is something I'm willing to overcome as a power user. Using email/webmail clients reminds me of using IE6 with several toolbars installed to the point where I see more of IE's UI than I do the webpage I'm trying to browse. When I read emails I feel like I see more email client than I do email and that's aggravating.

[0] [https://www.getmailbird.com](https://www.getmailbird.com)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the detailed reply.

I sort of understand the design decision in Outlook to make the search folders a separate (and flat?) tree. What behavior would you expect from operations like copy, search if you put a search folder inside another (physical) folder? Anyway, I'm sure there are sensible ways to do what you're asking for, but it opens up questions about what a "folder" is and should be. Very interesting.

Notification settings agreed! I always turned all of the notifications off when I had Outlook.

Portrait mode, OK. Many email clients do give some few options for various horizontal/vertical splits. Are the options in Outlook enough in that respect?

<comment><USER3> This ended up being quite wordy and I'm still not sure I explained my issue properly. I might need to do a visual mockup of my problem which boils down to "mental disconnect between the source of the data and where you view the data".

I want all Children Folder contents to be visible from a Parent Folder. Actions would still be done to the Child folder the email actually exists inside of - the Parent folder is for presentation purposes only. This is basically how a Search Folder works currently.

Currently if I open up a normal `Parent` folder I will see 0 emails. If I want to see any mail I need to visit a `Parent/Child` folder that the mail is filtered into. But what I really want, sometimes, is to see _all_ of my `Parent/Child` emails in a single, flat view. Folders are great for organizing the past but are really bad for the "now".

To build off my earlier example (re: one distro = five problems) I want to keep these five problems filtered into their own folders for easier organization/finding when other people reference them. However, since I need to solve these problems as they are emailed in I want to watch a `Parent` folder. I can't do this because the `Parent` folder says it has no emails. I can only see email if I look at a `Parent/Child` folder, but now I can't see any email going to the other four `Parent/Child` folders. While watching the `Parent` folder I can see that `Parent/Child` has new unread emails - but now I'm forced to change my folder location panel to the Child folder in order to view and read this unread email. This is different from how a Search Folder works. In a Search Folder, I can continue to see all searched emails while browsing one in the reading panel.

I can see all of them at once by creating a 'Search' folder that searches each `Parent/Child` and displays the result of its search but why can't that Search Folder just be `Parent`? Why does it need to be `/Search Folders/Distro Trasks/`? If `/Parent/` was a search folder that could exist anywhere in the folder tree and works exactly like search folders currently work that'd be _perfect_.

The TL;DR of the entire problem is that `Parent` should just act like a Search Folder of it's Children instead of being completely useless. I don't want a flat structure - due to organizational/archiving purposes - but I do want a flat structure _some_ of the time for handling email in the present time.

 _> Portrait mode, OK. Many email clients do give some few options for various horizontal/vertical splits. Are the options in Outlook enough in that respect?_

Yes. Existing options that many clients use where the navigation panel and the reading panel are horizontally split instead of vertically split suffice.

<comment><USER4> > I want all Children Folder contents to be visible from a Parent Folder. > Actions would still be done to the Child folder the email actually exists > inside of - the Parent folder is for presentation purposes only. This is > basically how a Search Folder works currently.

I seem to remember Thunderbird having saved searches that worked as folders, and they should work in this manner. Does Outlook have a way to save a search like that? It's not ideal, as you have to set it up and it isn't necessarily in the same spot as what it's searching to make it obvious what it is, but it might be better than nothing. If you can't set subfolder display order, creating a saved search of all the relevant subfolders as "0 - Combined View" as a subfolder itself that sorts to the top might get you most the way there.

<comment><USER3> Yes, a 'saved search' is a Search Folder.

 _> it isn't necessarily in the same spot as what it's searching to make it obvious what it is_

That's exactly my problem! Search folders are unable to be relocated or act as parent folders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I want webmail that is ruthlessly simple. I don't care about: flags, importance, message status, categories, conversations, etc. Just show me the sender, subject line and date and when I click it, the message. I wish there was more/better scripting / automation tools (ie. if contains "unsubscribe" then archive). Basically I want Gmail but faster load time and better "rules".

<comment><USER4> That sounds like most the old webmail clients of yesteryear, except for speed. Squirrelmail was pretty bare bones, but worked. Beating Gmail for speed is going to be hard unless you work with some non-traditional backing storage.

If you really, _really_ want speed, simplicity (beyond initial learning curve at least) and access, getting access to a host that allows shell access, has mutt and screen or tmux installed, and accepts mail delivery would hit all your points as long as a SSH session is doable. Screen/tmux keep the client open when you are disconnected to speed (no need to scan a few hundred MB or couple GB of messages in mbox or Maildir format), and mutt will be as fast and configurable as you can imagine (plus you generally get procmail).

If you're actually interested in that and don't want to run your own mail server, sonic.com (used to be sonic.net) has free shell accounts for customers, and they have non internet services you can sign up for still I think (such as hosting). In any case, you can just call or email support and tell them you are looking for a shell account to read your email and they might hook you up with a shell account for a couple bucks a month.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I've used Apple's mail.app for over a decade now and don't think anything else matches its handling of multiple accounts (all the other clients I've tried try to keep the accounts too separate). For reference, I've got 8 active accounts at the moment.

Unfortunately, it's increasingly buggy in increasingly problematic ways, and Apple appears to have zero interest in fixing it.

So I'd love to see a client that works like that for multiple accounts (with support for both POP and IMAP) and has all of Apple Mail's features but isn't broken.

The other things I want, but that wouldn't be enough on its own to get me to switch, would be:

1) a way to apply multiple tags to a single message, and filter by tag

2) add private notes to a message or thread

</comment><comment><USER7> I really hate Electron in general but I've really found an affinity for Mailspring. So much so that I'd actually go as far as saying it's the only email client I've genuinely liked (rather than tolerated). So highly recommend it in spite of the larger footprint it carries compared to fully native.

As an aside note, it supports Gmail and other proprietary cloud mailboxes - <USER2> just due to its being Electron based - so theres no more messing about with IMAP et al for Gmail</comment>


How to reach small business owners - <AUTHOR>

Hey all,
I'm developing an application on my free time targeting small business owners: plumbers, locksmiths, etc.
However, as much as I (and other people I speak to about this idea) think it's a great idea, I'm somewhat discouraged.  I KNOW that I can make it work -- the technology is there, and a technological proof of concept worked.  The only issue for me is getting to those small business owners.
I COULD try to market it by going one store at a time, in my neighborhood, and speaking to each store owner individually.  But that's not scaleable.  I could also try to put fliers on their doorsteps, hoping they're sign up for my product.  But that seems unlikely -- they'd just throw them out. Then, I was thinking maybe I could use US Postal Office, hoping they may have mailing lists one could buy and send targeted postcards. But I haven't found anything like that.
I'm only an individual (a mere programmer), not a company, and "self funded" (ie, living off of a salary), so a $3M campaign won't work either. :-)
Does anybody have any advice as to how to reach those people in a smart way? An alliance with some existing service (lead fees)? Maybe mining yellow pages on line?
Thanks in advance for your insights! <comment><USER2> I would set up a product website, do the minimal SEO work and run an Adwords campaign going after the easiest segment of your market. The easiest being the segment of small businesses that has the biggest pain and thus the biggest need. If they are small business owners they aren't 'living' on the Internet like most techies. They don't use Twitter, Facebook, etc. If they are desparate enough they will use a search engine to find something. This will help kick start your marketing and it can be running while your at work.

</comment><comment><USER3> Three ideas you may like to try:

1\. Pay (commission only) to people to sell for you, your time is money, so if you pay a "fair" commission you'll all end up winners.

2\. Put together a point of sale promotion which can be displayed at plumber, locksmith etc suppliers' counters. Of course, you may have to incentivate them as well.

3\. Do some paid internet marketing with keywords for common problems that they might be searching for. Of course, that will only capture the internet savvy ones.

</comment><comment><USER4> Well, the USPS won't sell mailing lists (AFAIK), but lots of other places do (SalesGenie is one.. but not cheap)

Sourcing/spidering phone books, or chambers of commerce for specific towns is another method if you have more time than cash.

</comment><comment><USER5> 1) AdWords

2) Call up a few and offer a free copy in advice for marketing advice.

3) Talk to plumbing supply houses in the area about carrying it and offer them a cut of sales.

</comment><comment><USER6> Maybe advertise in trade magazines? Adwords can get pretty targeted as well.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> anyone can share a personal experience in targeting this audience?</comment>


CryEngine 3 gives us a glimpse at the future of gaming [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bgr.com/2012/04/16/cryengine-3-gives-us-a-glimpse-at-the-future-of-gaming-video/ <comment><USER2> Crytek deserves all the praise they get for their hard work in rendering...

...but...

Why are we conditioned to think that "the future of gaming" is solely a function of a game's audiovisual quality? I would like to see a "future of gaming" video that shows off highly-interactive (rather than just very pretty) gameworlds and characters. NPCs that notice you are trying to put a bucket on their heads, for example.

<comment><USER3> Visual quality is an "easy" problem. We know exactly how it ought to work (ray tracing has been photorealistic for some time now), it's just a matter of tweaking it to run fast enough on the hardware we have. And we're _really close_ to pulling it off.

AI is, by contrast, a hard problem. We don't have a very good idea at all of how to exactly simulate a personality, but it's likely to be orders of magnitude more complex than the most elaborate physical simulation ever designed. The most intelligent NPC ever developed was really, _really_ stupid. The appearance of realistic characters in games at all is an elaborate stage show. You can spend artist time making the show seem convincing in more circumstances, but evolving it past that _at all_ is one of the hardest problems in computer science. We're nowhere near realism.

Now, with that said, in the demo they showed off some of their pathfinding and destructible environment improvements. There are plenty of gamers who care just as much (or more) about that stuff.

<comment><USER4> As someone who has worked intensively both in the fields of rendering and AI, I can say there are easy and hard problems in both. There is much in the way of AI that we already know, it's just that your average developer actually knows very little about AI (not trying to be insulting, it's just been true in my experience) -- and much more so your average company or publisher does not care to fund AI beyond enemies that can throw themselves into your gun barrel. Propositional logic, expert systems, backwards chaining, and neural networks are very powerful tools that we know a lot about, but most games rarely implement (perhaps trivially at most). We still tend to hand-design/script quests, when these fields of AI could provide very powerful emergent gameplay. What it mostly boils down to (for the sake of interesting gameplay) is proper knowledge-representation (i.e. abstraction) and reasoning (a prolog-like reasoning system would be a good start). And of course, path- finding/locomotion is pretty much a given. Interestingly, it is less about implementing these and more about designing a game that can use them properly - almost without doubt you need to create a game world that functions on its own, where every NPC has its own set of motivations, which is a very different task from creating a game that is limited to what the player does.

Other than that, there are still plenty of hard problems left in rendering, especially with regards to effective procedural generation (which arguably falls more under modeling). Our ray tracing is still far from "realistic" - take a more complex scene than a table with a wine glass, and we can still usually discern the difference, especially with complex materials and subsurface scattering (human skin STILL does not look quite right). As it is, we are only able to calculate light travel by _points_ (we use the term ray tracing, but typically every ray does a number of steps, unless every model is mathematically calculated). Light travel should be determined by complex _volumes_ \-- which is pretty much impossible to simulate on today's hardware ( O(n^6) magnitude at least - growing by volume, travel distance, number of objects, volume bounces (dear god), and number of pixels calculated ).

<comment><USER3> I hope I didn't seem to be implying there weren't hard problems in both fields-- but I do think there's a bigger gap in the current state of the art than you claim.

The path to realism in graphics is pretty clear because the real-world behavior of light is well-understood. There may be equations yet to be perfected, and challenges in efficiently simulating that behavior, but the direction is never in question; you can always tell if you've made it look more realistic or less.

By contrast, AI in games has reached a local maxima; the combination of pathfinding, scripted cues, an elaborate finite state machine, and a few basic heuristics is capable of simulating human behavior well enough, and with few enough glitches, that it presents a realistic universe to the player so long as they don't exceed the scripted bounds. However, if they do exceed those bounds, the whole thing appears paper-thin. You can extend the bounds with additional effort in scripting, but not infinitely, and with diminishing returns-- and doing so gets you no closer to having real AI which would be able to make those same decisions on its own.

Striking out and attempting to make an intelligent NPC-directed world from scratch... I'm not saying it's impossible, but I haven't seen anything, from AAA titles to indie games to tech demos, to imply it's coming soon.

But maybe that's just because I haven't seen the Minecraft of AI-driven gameplay yet.

<comment><USER4> Good points :)

I am actually working on such an AI system, believe it or not (As I am sure quite a few others are)! I don't doubt my algorithms, because I have already prototyped them and they work (at least well enough to create some interesting, if flawed gameplay), but I do doubt that I will ever get a game out that uses them effectively (making even a simple game is incredibly hard, and I have a bad habit of creating overly-complex stuff).

Your traditional AAA game does, as you mention, basically use finite state machines to determine enemy behavior (and incredibly simple ones, at that).

Why is a FSM bad?

Because someone MUST explicitly declare every combination of situation, and the paths between them.

How does my system work? It uses a combination of AI techniques that have been around a long time (just never used effectively in games).

1) Rules and queries (like prolog), with backwards chaining and propositional logic (basically a big, graph-based system). How might this work? Let's pose a few fake rules and a query. A) apples are red B) oranges are orange. C) apples and oranges are fruit D) red fruit is good...QUERY: are apples good? Using backwards chaining, this can easily be deduced.

2) Motivators and deterrents. Every NPC has their own set of motivations, as well as "bad" things they try to avoid. They attempt to maximize their output towards attaining their goals, prioritized with various points (i.e. get food: 1 point, stay alive: 10,000 points, etc)....the best outcome can be found with any traditional AI system (like a minmax tree, A*, or whatever is appropriate for the given case). This is not just about food or living, but can be emotional concepts like "seek happiness" or concepts that involve the physical world "find shelter"...

3) Basic AI for sensory and locomotion purposes (line of site, perception, planning, gathering knowledge, etc.)

4) Abstraction of communication -- not at the syntactical level, and not at the grammar level, but in its crudest terms ("higher level language")...I call it caveman-speak but there has to be a better phrase...i.e. "Me Hungry" or "Why You Steal" -- using sentence fragments, you can construct a variety of phrases without giving the computer a hard time interpreting it. On the surface, you can throw in the syntactical sugar to make it sound less crude to the user, but on the backend writing a full-blown english parser is not a wise idea.

5) There is more, but I won't type it out here...

In the simplest terms, think of it like an empty stage in a play. There is no director (Finite State Machine) but there are characters and props, and the characters have backstories/motivations/genetic makeup/birthrights that determine what they will do and how they will react to changes in their environment. When you have rules, motivators, and a knowledge base, you can let the AI run wild -- and producing new rules grows with linear complexity, rather than exponential (as with a FSM).

Alternatively, if you even played the Sims, imagine something like that, but with more comprehensive AI (NPCs seek to maximize their comfort levels (id) while acting within their restraints (ego/super ego)).

You can track my progress (or lack thereof) at gavanw.com...unfortunately I work a fulltime job in addition, so development is occasionally slow.

<comment><USER3> Sounds like the Minecraft of AI-driven gameplay... I would like to subscribe to your newsletter :)

<comment><USER4> That makes 2 subscribers ;)

<comment><USER5> Make that 3.

I've always wondered why game rules have to be so rigid (use a state machine) and always thought it was the technology but what you described makes sense and makes use of older technology but in new applications.

I just took one AI course while in college but got hooked ever since.

Question: Can you expand on the motivators and deterrents concept? Specifically, how do you relate something like "getting food" with the world objects? Assigning points to specific world objects(apple, cow, chicken...) seems to get us back to a state-machine like game. Humans have experience (memory and patterns) to guide them, what would the characters have?

<comment><USER4> Yes, to answer your question, there are many ways to go about implementing it, but here is how I do it:

In reality, you have one knowledge base, which is simply a set of facts/rules about the world. For example...

a) berries are fruit b) red fruit is good (+1 score) c) green fruit is bad (-1 score) d) enemies are dangerous e) eating while in danger is bad (-10 score) f) eating while full is bad (-2 points)

In a finite state machine, you would have to have several combinations of state (are berries present? are enemies present? are you full? etc). Say (for argument's sake) you have 5 possible states (binary). In a FSM, this would have 32 possible permutations of the states, which all must have corresponding actions associated with them. In a motivation based system, it simply evaluates each state individually, and adds up the points. It chooses to pursue the state that gives the most points. So, here, that would be eating red fruit while enemies are not present.

The way prolog-like systems work, the computer does not have to have ANY idea what food or hunger or anything like that is -- it can be completely oblivious to abstract concepts. All it is doing, in essence, is (searching for and) matching strings. Those strings are the identifiers used for classes (or instances) of game world objects, NPCs, etc. So if you gave an NPC a motivator (kill(enemy) = +10 points, Bob = enemy, get_caught_doing(kill) = -100 points), it will find the best way to kill Bob while avoiding negative consequences. This is (obviously) metacode, and the actual implementation would require better organization and more explicit syntax.

Make sense?

<comment><USER5> Yup, makes sense.

I have written exactly 15 lines of prolog but I'm somewhat aware of how they work. This is great stuff, but as you said the devil is in the details. Please consider writing up your experiences and sharing it on HN.

<comment><USER4> Definitely, will do :) It is also encouraging to see that people are interested in this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From PONG to this.

This is perhaps the most accessible way to appreciate just how much the increase in computation (both 'general purpose' and 'graphical') can be done on high end hardware these days.

True story, I was a big fan of Empire (ran on terminals, later became known as Bright's Empire) and when I went to Intel and worked on their 'high end' graphics chip (82786, used in exactly one video card from Number 9) we thought maybe someday you would be able to see the units battling cities rather than have your A turn a city '*' into an 'O'. Little did I know ...

<comment><USER7> Empire under VMS through DECUS. You stopped me dead in my tracks Chuck. Fond memories of a heady time when we kids were tasked with building clusters that ran and ran and ran.

Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> All that great tech, and the end result is just another game where you shoot people until they're dead, then repeat with more people. Sad, really.

<comment><USER6> Perhaps, I don't think we've seen a Crysis powered porno, that would be popular with the kids :-)

I think though that you've may have conflated cause and effect. This sort of engine isn't really useful in a poker game. Do you remember the beautifully rendered ChessMaster games on the Amiga? I remember people talking about a 'waste of the graphics' to render chess pieces like that.

I don't think anyone has done a good Myst replacement, this might be good for that too. An archeology game? possibly. Remember that the 'engine' and the 'game' are two different things. Perhaps the 'safest' thing to imagine is an FPS, known audience, known play etc etc. Licensing isn't cheap, so if you're paying for it you don't want to risk that capital on a hyper realistic 'angry birds' now do you?

Some other thoughts on uses for an engine that does good visuals:

      1 Mechanical puzzles - build machines to solve puzzles.
      2 Life/City/Population simulators - more fun to watch.
      3 Sex games - mentioned above.
      4 Sports games - haven't had a decent FP kayaking game
      5 Where's Waldo type

I'm sure there are others.

<comment><USER9> Wait, "Where's Waldo" but in 3d, from first person perspective?

       6 Paparazzi - Start with a lousy camera, have to take
         photos which are graded for score.  Get better lenses
         and access to better hiding places as level ups.
         (This is like a FPS, but with no guns, and with
         the enemy on a pre-determined route and with strict
         time limits for each level)

       7 Tree in the Field - you start in a field.
         There's a tree.  You wander around.  You can
         climb the tree.  You can run. As you do certain
         things (start running, for example) a timer
         starts with a recommendation ("Hey! How fast
         can you run round the field? / Climb the tree?
         / etc".  You find a magnifying glass.  You can
         look at bugs.  You can look at stones (and the
         fossils).  You can look at flowers.  The weather
         changes.  The day turns into night.  You find
         a box.  When you find the box another prompt
         pops up "Hey! This looks like a good place to
         keep your fossils!".  There is a rich and
         diverse eco-system, with hooks into information
         about everything ("This is a 'Cowslip' (*Primula
         veris*)" - but then more links if wanted.  Right
         down to high level biology concepts.)  You can
         race bugs against each other.  You find some
         seeds, and a trowel, and some rickety rackety
         implements.

       7a Tree in the Field DLC - A Toolshed for the
          equipment / A mini greenhouse / etc etc.

<comment><USER8> Wow, absolutely love the Paparazzi concept. Have you got more ideas like these?

<comment><USER9> I have millions of ideas. Ideas are nothing - delivery is everything. I am unable to deliver anything.

<comment><USER10> Au contraire, you delivered a reply within 2 hours. :)

Perhaps you are too hard on yourself. (Although given you live in the UK that's likely a pre-requisite for continued residence...)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm fine with more realistic graphics as long as that's not the whole point of the game (I'm looking at you, Skyrim). What I really have yet to see is AAA games put effort into making human behavior realistic (in real time, I mean, not in a cutscene). Like, would it kill ya to actually make the sound match up with the mouth once in a while?? This is 2012 and still there are only a handful of games that get even remotely close (Mass Effect, Battlefield 3 and then of course L.A. Noire and other mocapped games - I'm sure there are others, I don't play games but they're all the same to some extent). I think the thing about graphics game companies don't realize is, the better you make the graphics, the better you have to make everything around it to match -- character behavior, gameplay mechanics, etc. -- because the differences between the different parts of games are exaggerated -- you leave out some detail and the magic disappears. Games are just multi-faceted magic tricks, same for TV shows. The better you can hide the magic -- that's where the realism lies. Better graphics is just one part of the puzzle.

</comment><comment><USER12> Even current gaming engines can be used to produce some very amazing visuals, but games still have to be able to run on hardware that is 5 years old.

Its not very cost effective to create content at a quality that only a small number of users are going to be able to see.

<comment><USER13> What makes you think CryEngine can't run on older hardware? As a demo, they're naturally showing the engine at its best.

Games "last" quite a long time, too—by catering first to the high-end and then downsampling to be able to run on older hardware you make things "future- proof". When you release your game on iOS in a decade, it'll still look great :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The music made me feel like I was watching a modern Fantasia. Fascinating stuff - although, as people here say, what matters is what it's used for.

</comment><comment><USER15> The video reminds me of demoscene demos.

<comment><USER16> I probably wouldn't have even watched that video if I hadn't just finished watching Moleman 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's funny because it has "future of gaming" and "console" in the same article.

</comment><comment><USER18> The top paid game apps in the iTunes app store right now are: Draw Something, Angry Birds Space, Clear Vision, Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja, TETRIS, Bejeweled, Skylanders Cloud Patrol, and Cut the Rope.

None of those games would be improved by increasing photorealism.

<comment><USER19> What is your point? These games are for fucking i(phone|pad), so you can play them in a train while you're traveling to work. This is entirely different kind of games.

<comment><USER18> Mobile devices are the future, both in terms of total units in use, and total dollar spent on software. Therefore, the top paid games on the iTunes app store are a good indicator of where the true "future of gaming" lies.</comment></comment></comment>


Critique of YC "Hacker" Job Posting - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/sarahmei/status/865414033989525504 <comment><USER2> I think your critique is very small minded. Although I did wonder if perhaps you used your twitter rant to try to insure others didn't apply for the job you wanted. And if not, well then, suck it up buttercup! :-) Have a great weekend!

</comment><comment><USER3> Can you please be in my base teaching me how to refactor my code?</comment>


Animated Algorithms - <AUTHOR> http://www.algomation.com/ <comment><USER2> Yep, down at the moment. In the meantime, we can enjoy this classic algorithm dance. :)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZQPjUT5B4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyZQPjUT5B4)

<comment><USER3> Classic!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> (I can't get to the site right now) They have a cool implementation that uses es6 generators to interrupt the algorithms as they run, and pass the algorithm state up to the visualization system.

Other algorithm / data structure visualization sites:

\- [http://will.thimbleby.net/algorithms/doku.php](http://will.thimbleby.net/algorithms/doku.php) \- uses a javascript interpreter that allows the visualizer to show local variables and pause/rewind the algorithm execution

\- [http://rosulek.github.io/vamonos/demos/](http://rosulek.github.io/vamonos/demos/) \- marks up the algorithm code with line numbers so that it can show how the visualization corresponds to pseudocode

\- [http://jasonpark.me/AlgorithmVisualizer/](http://jasonpark.me/AlgorithmVisualizer/)

\- [http://visualgo.net/](http://visualgo.net/)

\- [http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~galles/visualization/Algorithms.htm...](http://www.cs.usfca.edu/~galles/visualization/Algorithms.html)

\- [https://illustrated-algorithms-ommzftrylh.now.sh/](https://illustrated- algorithms-ommzftrylh.now.sh/)

</comment><comment><USER5> I was so excited to see these animations but I'm getting an application error. There's something about seeing algorithms in action that makes them stick. Hope to see this up and running again soon!

<comment><USER6> Yep.. boo :(

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sorting out Sorting:

[https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpRdga54UQNmH4eig- SL9...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLpRdga54UQNmH4eig-SL9656J1Ug- eW-i)

</comment><comment><USER8> This will hold you over while we wait!: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPRA0W1kECg)

</comment><comment><USER9> Yeah, looks like the site's not keeping up with demand. I might have to try it out in a couple of days.

</comment><comment><USER10> It is loading fine now.

</comment><comment><USER11>
      "Application error
      An error occurred in the application and your page could
      not be served. If you are the application owner, check
      your logs for details."

<comment><USER12> I'm getting this as well.

I'm on Chrome version 59.0.3071.47 (Official Build) beta (64-bit)</comment></comment>