Ask HN: How is it to work at General Electric? - <AUTHOR>

I am currently looking into GE for a possible internship (I am a junior in CS from UIUC). The pay is moderate to low for the usual internship offer, and I have other offers that pay significantly more.<p>However, I am curious if anyone has experience in software engineering in GE, more specifically GE Energy Management? If so, how would the experience compare to say working at Facebook, a financial firm, or else where. GE seems to offer a significant amount of benefits, learning opportunities and is growing out its software side rapidly, but I have no insight as to the working environment. <comment><USER2> I know 2 people in GE manufacturing, and they enjoy working there. The benefits are good (vacation, healthcare, GE discounts), as well as learning and advancement (one has gotten some good raises and promotions).

As far as the software goes I'm not sure, but I've had a few friends who interned with "big" names - FB, Google, Microsoft, while I went with kind of a no-name. The experience is what you make of it, and what you want your career to be. Do you want to be in the Energy sector? Do you want to work for large software projects? Enterprise companies have one thing startups do not have -- cash to buy the latest, greatest, and coolest IT equipment, and the scale to have lines on your resume like "Saved $X million by implementing solution XYZ" while you learn the industry standard equipment. On the flip side, they're more bureaucratic, slow moving, and you won't get to work with the latest shiny. For example, my company is just getting in to "Big Data", and we don't have any internal NoSQL solutions. There's about a 5+ year time lag before new tech goes from tech companies into enterprise from my estimates.

You have to consider what you want to do after school, and if these internships are helping you get there. If you're not sure what you're intending to do, have you had another internship, or do you plan to have another before you graduate? If so, consider doing something radically different to gain exposure to different things.

You can always negotiate salary.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the response. I'm pretty much 100% sure I will work until I have enough money to start my own company. I already have it pretty much fully worked out with a friend, we are just working on building up capital and getting experience.

That being said, GE sounds like a place where I could gain some experience and pay off my student debt (which is really all I am interested in at the moment).

Thank you for your insight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I have a friend who works in another subsidiary there, on hardware not software though. He likes it and has advanced in his career there. Like most companies that size there's lots of bureaucracy. In my own experience though, there's no bureaucracy like anything you'll see in the financial world (due to all the government regulation and liability on banks thus total aversion to risk, at least in their IT departments). For an internship I would steer clear of finance and only take up such a job once you're experienced, know good engineering practices, and want job stability and good pay.

Like the Paul Graham advice, early in your career simply ignore the pay (if you can) and take the hardest jobs. I think whichever company where you can work on the most challenging projects is where you should work. Eventually that will pay off however you want.

</comment><comment><USER4> I worked for GE out of college when joining a program called IMLP. Feel free to reach out if you want to know my thoughts. Overall very positive. Got to move around 4 different places in 2 years.

</comment><comment><USER5> If you want to be a leader GE is the no.1 company you want to work for. Many CEOs come out of that company, but of course they could have 300000 people so they have a large pool as well.</comment>


Justifying a trip to Australia via Cochlear Implants and Programming - <AUTHOR> http://rocketships.ca/blog/justifying-a-trip-to-australia-via-cochlear-implants-and-programming/

<comment><USER2> As a Canadian here in sydney, I have a few LinkedIn contacts who are connected to cochlear. I suspect you won't have any problems getting a direct connection, but if by chance you don't get one, drop me an email (in my profile) and I'll try to hook you up.

Best of luck

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks very much! Whoops, it looks like your email isn't visible. Would you be so kind as to contact me through shannon at rocketships ca?</comment></comment>


"The Idiot" Savant: On Fyodor Dostoevsky's Idiot - <AUTHOR> https://www.newcriterion.com/issues/2018/5/the-idiot-savant-9753 <comment><USER2> This novel, along with 'Crime and punishement' deal with completely opposite personalities. One has a very optimistic view of the world, the other, Raskolnikov from Crime and Punishment, despises it and justifies violent crime with this mentality. Wonderful works, both of them. Unlike many, I read TBK first and decided to read Dostoevsky's other works and fell in love. Notes from the underground will always hold a special spot in my heart because of how much I can relate to the protagonist unfortunately.

Can anyone recommend other similar works of literature? I haven't read many books like this but I found Siddhartha, Narcissus and Goldmund and Steppenwolfe by Herman Hesse to be on the same lines (deal with existentialism).

<comment><USER3> As a Russian, I don't understand how Americans can "get into" Dostoevsky or Tolstoy. The cultural background required to understand them is simply not there, so you're getting maybe 50% of what's there, and that's an optimistic estimate.

Likewise, I'm not sure I fully understand Hemingway, Steinbeck, etc. I enjoy their work, to be sure, but I'm afraid not to the extent Americans enjoy it. Thus far I have not found an American novelist who would be anywhere near Dostoevsky or Tolstoy. My favorite US novel is "Grapes of Wrath". Absolutely beatiful work when read in the language it was written in.

My favorite Russian novel is "War and Peace". Russian school children are forced to read it when they're like 15, and they don't get it, of course. After re-reading it at 40 I was blown away. Such immense depth, such masterful pacing and character development.

I have recently re-read Crime and Punishment, another one of those books Russian school children are forced to read with no hope of understanding. I was likewise impressed with depth and sheer brutality of it. I wouldn't say Raskolnikov hated the world. That's not quite right, too black and white. Dostoevsky operates in the gray area. Raskolnikov was, at his core, a kind young man (see eg his empathy for Sonya), but an extreme nihilist, and he was stuck between a rock and a hard place, from which his nihilism offered him no escape. Struggling to reconcile his ideology with his humanity, he commits a stupid crime, for which his humanity makes him suffer immensely. If he really did despise everything, he would sleep well.

<comment><USER4> What sort of cultural points might be missed on a non-Russian person reading Dostoevsky? I just finished Crime and Punishment a couple months back and am curious, if you have the time.

<comment><USER5> GEB (Hofstadter's book) has a chapter about exactly this. Using Crime and Punishment as an example it is shown how different translations struggle with the lack of context.

<comment><USER6> Haha—this is the first thing I've heard about GEB in years that makes me again somewhat interested in reading it. There was a point when I was a teenager where it seemed like probably the most interesting book on the planet, and I'd read a decent bit of it then; but years later—after studying a bunch of math, CS, and philosophy stuff—when I'd consider reading it there just didn't appear to be enough _new_ meaty stuff of interest (though it still looks like an enjoyable packaging of many already familiar things). I also disagree fundamentally with the possibility of a material 'strange loop' resulting in another ontological category, so I feel like I'd be missing drive to reach the conclusion.

I'd be curious to hear any opinions on GEB by those with decently strong math, cs, and/or philosophy backgrounds—might it still be worth reading? (I mean it's damn long...)

<comment><USER5> If you are interested in the context analysis in Crime and Punishment then you can read just those few pages. He goes over just the first couple sentences of the book if I recall correctly. It's not an explanation of the context for the entire book by any means but an example of how much context could be needed to read a simple sentence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The novel is beautiful, and it's beauty is not in a traditional story arch, it's in the flawed characters. The mystery of whether Myshkin is an idiot remains through and with every scene that thought is put into question. Dostoevsky was not know for his structure, but for his characters and their meditations on life and religion.

</comment><comment><USER8> Doesn't the word 'savant' imply wisdom? Prince Myshkin is as naive as they come. I would think someone in his shoes wouldn't mind being walked all over like he is in the book.

"Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces."

<comment><USER9> The oxymoron "idiot savant" was used for the first time by John Down during his studies. The etymology is in the scientific literature.

Today we would use a less controversial term like "savant syndrome"... It seems appropriate given the title of the book (and the plot).

I always took it as an eulogy to the plasticity of the human intellect: we always have something to learn from anybody.

<comment><USER10> I think the title is playing on the phrase "idiot savant" to indicate Dostoevsky himself, as the savant who wrote "The Idiot".

<comment><USER11> I think the main character is a Savant, who others view as an idiot. The title and its characterization are ironic. He is the smartest character in the book, but viewed as an idiot, due to a consistently ignorant society.

Not unlike, for example, Sufi poets who claim to be gods and then are humiliated and executed for heresy. His label of "idiot" is his execution. A crowd crying to crucify Christ.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The thing that most impressed me about the Idiot was the extreme complexity of the interpersonal relationships of the characters. It made me think that Dostoevsky was vastly overstating the intelligence of the average Russian, or maybe they were all that smart back in the day. Some of the monologues in which the main characters explain the various interpersonal relationships and intrigues are as hard to follow as any I've ever read. The only thing that comes close is some of Pynchon's stuff.

<comment><USER6> I'm tempted to think that's an artifact of a tendency in writers to give their characters thought processes resembling their own.

I don't think it's anything especially related to writing; I think everyone does it in their normal life: you want to think about how so and so is going to react to whatever, but the best we can really do is consider them as basically like ourselves +/\- some known differences (which for many things is sufficient, but in my experience can also lead to absurdities due to how vastly differently some folks think).

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> TLDR;

Dostoevsky was considered to be a genius by many, but gave nearly every dime he ever made away, a condition that led to his unpayable debts, which he exacerbated by gambling, which led to exile.

Early in life, moments away from being executed, Tsar Nicholas spared him and the other prisoners from death but sent him to a Siberian prison for four years.

He suffered from epilepsy and had a fit while his wife went into labor. Unable to call for a midwife for "hours" their child died, and Dostoevsky blamed himself.

The Idiot breaks a lot of literary conventions, but it works, just as Dostoevsky lived a broken life, and yet is considered by many a genius.

The article is very good. I recommend reading it in full.

<comment><USER14> WRT gambling he was a fiend for the roulette wheel IIRC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The Idiot is one of my favorite books of all time. Reading it in high school was definitely a formative experience. It was my first introduction to many existential concepts; particularly the parts about the painting by Hans Holbein the Younger.

</comment><comment><USER16> Has anyone ever examined whether serialization had an impact on the quality of literature?

<comment><USER17> How would you tell?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Also: written in Florence (mostly).</comment>


Anonymous hacks Australian Government in response to Internet censorship - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/technology/technology-news/operation-titstorm-hackers-bring-down-government-websites-20100210-nqku.html

<comment><USER3> I thinks its only a matter of time before Anonymous gets labelled a terrorist organisation to increase the counter measures / invasive laws that can be used against them.

Disrupting Goverment sites and services would be considered as an attack as per the Australian Terrorism definition:

(e) seriously interferes with, seriously disrupts, or destroys, an electronic system including, but not limited to

(i) an information system; or

(ii) a telecommunications system; or

(iii) a financial system; or

(iv) a system used for the delivery of essential government services; or

(v) a system used for, or by, an essential public utility; or

(vi) a system used for, or by, a transport system.

[http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/slaa200245...](http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/slaa2002451/sch1.html)

<comment><USER4> It would be like punching mist. Hell, if someone gets in jail for being part of anonymous (or, more accurately, for participating in a DDoS advocated by people under the banner of anonymous, or even more likely for having their wifi used by someone to participate in such a DDoS), it will just make all the others more angry. Fighting them would be like fighting tor, or bittorrent; highly distributed, highly decentralized, with no real command structure, and no allegiance to any single website (if one goes down or is monitored, they can always move elsewhere). It's not even an organization, in the old sense; you might as well say that slashdot or HN are organizations[1]. On the upside? Most of them, most of the time, don't care - except when someone makes them angry, they seem fairly passive, more interested in their own amusement than anything else (yes, I occasionally lurk on 4chan) - and even then, there are probably only a few thousand who actually participate in things like this [not that I have actual numbers to support this, but still - someone who's more interested could start lurking on IRC channels mentioned in image macros (such as the one in the article) and keep track of how many unique individuals show up].

Or you could always kill them off by destroying anonymity in the internet - force everyone to use their real names everywhere, to provide concrete linkages to real personalities. That's the only way to stop people from taking advantage of anonymity.

I'm sorry that this turned into a rant; it was originally going to be a lot shorter. I just kept on thinking of things to add, you see ... and I haven't ranted for a while.

[1] Lots of like-minded people, who read content on sites, post content, and occasionally take action/respond to that content, when it means something to them, or is so easy that there's no reason not to.

<comment><USER5> I'm not wishing to argue that labeling Anonymous as a terrorist orgainsation would be a good thing (it would be monumentally retarded, which is why I also think there's a good chance it will happen at some point, I have little faith in government common sense these days) but this problem of how to handle these distributed non-orgnaisations that we see today is quite relevant to the way governments were/are trying to handle terrorism. I remember watching a documentary - I think it was called _The Power of Nightmares_ \- that stated amongst other things that after 9/11 the US Government basically began using laws originally designed to combat organised crime (Mafia et al) and applying them to these new, relatively flat, loosely organised and decentralised groups with very little success, primarily because there was no command structure similar what they had been used to dealing with.

Governments are still wrestling with what to do about this issue I think. It seems that the best solution they have so far come up with is reducing civil liberty and surveilling everyone. Not ideal from my POV.

Not to mention that as the saying goes, one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter.

<comment><USER6> Kudos for watching _The Power of Nightmares_ , but did you miss the part where they pointed out [b]that these organizations are largely fictional and used as a tool by governments to appear more necessary than they are[/b]? The government isn't working on how to deal with fictional "flat, loosely organized and decentralized groups", it's working on how to make it look like we need government protection from the ultimate boogie man.

<comment><USER5> No, I watched it all, just a long time ago and had forgotten most of it, to be honest. But I had not forgotten the overall thrust of the programme.

To try and clarify my view a bit, IMO the terrorist "groups" we hear about today are more like Anonymous than they are like the fictional villainous organisations one might see in a James Bond movie, i.e. they're not even really organisations at all, they're just individuals or tiny groups, barely associated with each other at best, who happen to have similar positions on certain issues. But I wanted to make this point without sounding like I thought Anonymous should be branded as terrorists, because I don't.

I get that after 9/11, the entire western world's governments went well overboard, amazingly allowing the military industrial complex to write their own cheques, using scare tactics to allow this to continue. I knew this full well long before I saw _The Power of Nightmares_. Before I say what else I have to say, I again don't wish my position to be misconstrued, I'm not advocating for the usual government policies, I'm aware of how insignificant the threat of terrorism is when compared to other threats of the day that face our society and I usually find myself pretty firmly on the social-libertarian side of just about any debate. As you say: "these organizations are _largely_ fictional" (emphasis added) and I totally agree. I cannot reconcile any view that we do not need _some_ degree of vigilance when it comes to (the no doubt few and far between) individuals and small groups that are out there and do wish to perpetrate terrorist acts.

So following on from this, yes, terrorism is an overinflated menace and it continues to be overinflated for numerous reasons, most of which revolve around certain areas of government and private industry partners who have vested interests in keeping the public scared in order to maintain power and profit. But some part of the overreaction to terrorism does come from a place of honestly thinking they're doing the right thing, misguided though they may be. Some _very small_ part of the usual government reaction to terrorism is - in my mind - sanctioned and required because terrorism while a largely overinflated boogie man, does none the less still exist. I don't wish to throw the baby out with the bathwater.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As an expat Aussie, the direction the government has taken has saddened, but not shocked me. This is a country famous for having what the Register used to call 'The world's biggest Luddite' Richard Alston appointed as Minister of the Digital Economy. There has been a change of government since those times, but not much seems to have changed.

While the idea of censoring certain content types like child porn may be seen as a good things, the issue is that the Net could become a tool of the government. The laws could extend to discrimination of minority groups - <USER2> Australia would become like China.

[http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb2008...](http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/feb2008/gb2008026_169365.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_global+business)

This article points out that questions remain: there is a lack of detail on what will constitute illegal content, how decisions will be made, and how the filtering technology itself will work. It also said Australia is not the only Western democratic country to look at web filtering - Scandinavia and UK have web filtering. The Oz govt just failed to stem the tide of outrage and bad press.

I'm also against getting rid of anonymity on the net, ie forcing everyone to use their full name, for the simple reason that some rogue governments in some countries are persecuting groups and the internet can be a powerful tool for them. Imagine if Mandela and the ANC had the net in the 50s.

It's a hugely sticky issue though.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is so awesome. It's like I'm living in near future cyberpunk novel. With vigilante hacker groups fighting the evil and oppressive corpora^H^H^H^H^H^Hgovernment.

<comment><USER9> William Gibson's prescience continues to frighten me. Unless the causality goes the other way, then it frightens me even more.

 _"Chaos, Mr. Who," Lupus Yonderboy said. "That is our mode and modus. That is our central kick."_

Or, in the parlance of our times, they do it for the lulz.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> <http://www.aph.gov.au/>

The Parliament of Australia site is down.

</comment><comment><USER11> "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." -- John Gilmore

</comment><comment><USER12> whilst i agree with their protesting of our governments unnecessary proposals on censoring australia, their methods are not helping.

a ddos attack on the government only gives the government more ammunition to paint the average protester as a criminal or someone who is trying to harm the government. a peaceful protest is far more effective.

<comment><USER13> Is there anyone on the net who thinks this filter is a good idea? Pretty much the only people who do are the ones who don't even use the Web, and just keep shouting that it's inherently evil. Oh, and the ones with the government contract to implement the filter.

When no one will listen to the people who will actually be affected by this, what other options are left?

<comment><USER14> [http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm?si...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/12/01/2433845.htm?site=news)

This is probably the only article I've read that is pro-filter.

"Oh, and the ones with the government contract to implement the filter."

The government body ACMA will maintain a list of blacklisted websites (which already occurs, although pointless at this stage). I understand it will be the responsibility of the individual ISPs to choose how to block those websites.</comment></comment></comment>


AmericansElect: Disrupting the American election process - <AUTHOR> http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/07/22/americans-elect-will-an-internet-presidential-race-become-2012-s-spoiler.html

<comment><USER2> If we do vote online, we should receive some sort of confirmation number and be required to submit the number or token to a polling place to verify who we are.</comment>


Ask HN: time for an extra-secure browser? - <AUTHOR>

A report on the BBC website about a new attack on internet banking (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-16812064) made me wonder if it is time for an enhanced security browser that could be used just for online banking? So for example, it would not run any Javascript, have a very strict same-origin policy, and could perhaps include some kind of built-in anti-virus. Any thoughts? <comment><USER2> Not running JS is, unfortunately, a death sentence. Too many sites legitimately depend on it.

On the other hand, you could reasonably require a user to turn JS on for each site that needed it.

On the gripping hand, users would complain, or automatically turn it on for every site, or both.

<comment><AUTHOR> Do you mean that many (most?) online banking sites use JS? Based on my bank's online system, I don't think there is anything that could not be done without scripts. And my suggestion (perhaps not well expressed) is that someone (e.g. the banks themselves) develop a cut-down extra secure browser for use exclusively with online banking websites. I am assuming that the majority of online banking is done from customers' own home computer or tablet; obviously this idea won't help people logging on via a shared public PC.</comment></comment>


HIPAA's New Rules Reach Far Beyond Healthcare Providers - <AUTHOR> http://blog.varonis.com/hipaas-new-rules-reach-far-beyond-healthcare-providers-are-you-impacted/ ...but a new class of consultants and subcontractors who perform work on behalf of the business associates also have HIPAA obligations. <comment><USER2> This rule clarification is good in that it acknowledges the participation of third parties. Yay!

But it doesn't change the fact that HIPAA is just kabuki (for show).

I worked on some of the first RHIOs (regional health information exchanges) on the market. We all had yearly HIPAA training. All platitudes and very little actionable advice. As devs, we all had full access to millions of patients.

Accidental disclosure is inevitable. So many participants, so many systems, the weakest link and all that. We all figured it was a matter of time before something bad happened.

I care about privacy. A lot. I researched what's what, legal and technical. Because I want to do a good job. And I have skin in the game (my own medical history).

The month I started on the electronic medical records project, a local hospital had just settled for allowing 100,000s of complete patient records leak. (A stolen laptop.) So I contacted the lawyers on both sides. Verdict? Try harder next time.

Pretty much nothing has changed (improved) since. Except the disclosure requirements, I guess.

This is a long topic, so I'll just skip to the conclusion:

We will not, cannot protect patient privacy until we assign a universal unique identifier for every single person. This means something something akin to RealID.

To protect patient privacy, we need to encrypt the data. But that's not feasible without globally unique identifiers. Because patient demographic data is dirty and mismatched record can be fatal. So you have matching algorithms that have to look at the original plaintext. And the heuristics are wrong enough that the process requires human oversight.

If we (the USA) had unique identifiers, then we could transition to translucent database designs. That'd be very cool.

[http://www.amazon.com/Translucent-Databases-Peter- Wayner/dp/...](http://www.amazon.com/Translucent-Databases-Peter- Wayner/dp/0967584418)

About once a year, I go to a "future of healthcare IT" event. I desperately want to hear that patient privacy is being addressed. Hope springs eternal. Mostly, no one knows what I'm talking about. Until you've worked on the systems and tried to actually implement privacy safeguards, people just don't grok the problem domain, and continue to believe it's a trivially solvable problem.

<comment><USER3> There is no dependency of having unique identifiers in order to be able to encrypt data.

A patient could have multiple identifiers that's only known to him/her.

Think a model like 1Password.

<comment><USER2> Not for encryption, for data interchange.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It would have been better to link to the actual article, which contains the actual changes: [http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=40defc09-2337-...](http://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=40defc09-2337-435e-be56-2bef662a67e7)

This blog post seems like spam.

<comment><USER5> The original article is very dense... as someone who's marginally interested in HIPAA (as in, does it affect my future app), the blog summary helped me determine the new reach.

Surely a better post can be made, with a more comprehensive summary, but the current blog post is not without value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Although not expressly in the linked content, I believe the change apropos beyond healthcare providers is the change for cloud providers (SaaS, storage, etc.) Now, companies which store Protected Health Information (PHI) in the cloud are considered business associates of the healthcare provider. In turn, the companies are now regulated entities & will be required to meet the security & privacy standards of patient data. No longer is a storage provider considered an unassociated 'conduit.' This is a significant change for healthcare providers and all their (remote) technology partners. Ideally, this will create the regulatory impetus sufficient to prevent your healthcare providers from transitioning over to relatively insecure services such as Gmail for sensitive patient data.

</comment><comment><USER7> Seems absurd that if everything is digital now, we still have to fill out paper forms every time we visit a new doctor's office, and it's difficult to get a digital copy of results. Inconsistent protection without much added convenience.

<comment><USER8> I have a similar feeling towards financial institutions. When you apply for a mortgage, you have to send your entire financial history, by mail (or perhaps worse, by _email_ ), to an underwriter. There's no indication as to what happens to all that sensitive stuff afterwards. It's a complete black box.

I think there's a huge opportunity for some sort of app that gives the customer/patient visibility of their data during its entire lifecycle and gives them controls to revoke access, delete data, etc. (Kinda like I can revoke an OAuth token.)

<comment><USER9> That's what we're doing at PatientsKnowBest.com -- patient-centered medical records where the patient can decide who can see their records, and revoke access if they want. No one can revoke the patient's access.

Putting the patient at the helm has a few wonderful effects -- among them: all of the red tape around transferring patient medical records from one doctor/institution to another pretty much disappears. They're all about making sure the patient's private data doesn't go to someone the patient wouldn't want to see it. The only reason they need all of those laws is because the patient isn't even in the loop, normally.

We have the core webapp UI; we also have a REST/JSON API for letting apps (and third parties) work with the patient's data (if given permission, of course).

It's a really interesting space to be in. (I'm sure reading the about raises lots of "but what about when" questions; we have answers ...mostly!)

Edit: I should have said: that's what we're doing w/ medical records (not with financial data)

<comment> eric-hu You guys are providing a service I'm interested in. I checked out your website and, as an interested (American) patient, I could be further convinced if a couple of questions were answered:

1\. Which doctors and insurance plans does PatientsKnowBest work with?

2\. Where is my data stored? What happens if I decide to stop using PKB?

I should add that I didn't want to spend the time to watch the 20 second videos, but perhaps I'm not the kind of customer you're trying to capture at the moment

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> IT auditor here. This article does not tell me what I need to know. :-(

</comment><comment><USER11> Blog spam - no "meat" here

<comment><USER8> If you're even peripherally related to IT security, this is a pretty big deal. HIPAA and HITECH have an enormous impact on how businesses work. With the expansion of the security rule, some SaaS startups are going to have to _at least_ pay attention, because they might be on the hook now.

<comment><USER12> You're definitely correct.

However, I think the parent was commenting about the quality of this specific article, not on the meritless basis of a discussion about HIPAA.

This post doesn't do a very good job at all at explaining what's going on. I'm still not entirely sure what the new rules actually are after reading it.

<comment><USER8> Ah, I see your point. I think the article was trying to distill the changes down to one key fact: the security rule now applies to anyone who interacts with health care organizations, even if you're a few degrees removed as a contractor.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Peter Thiel on the PC culture in 1996 - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qTPOBEdc7OI <comment><USER2> This quote stuck out: "...You don't have real diversity on a college campus when you have a campus full of people who look different but think alike." — Peter Thiel

</comment><comment><USER3> Huh. Insufferable asshole in 2018 also an insufferable asshole in 1996, news at 11!</comment>


Prehistoric flute in Germany is oldest known - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090624/ap_on_re_eu/eu_germany_prehistoric_flute

<comment><USER2> Makes me wonder how it was invented. Directly, or maybe there were some incremental steps? Would I have invented a flute?

</comment><comment><USER3> HN submission of link to New York Times article on same archeological find, with perhaps some different details:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=672935>

</comment><comment><USER4> Geez, they don't even tell us what kind of scale it's tuned to?

<comment><USER5> They played a couple of recreated samples on NPR. One sounded roughly pentatonic to me; the other sounded... of indeterminate scale and/or out of tune. It's hard to say exactly how it would have sounded, because the flute allows a lot of room for bending the pitch based on things like embouchure and whatnot (I'm a former flutist).

Check it out for yourself:

[http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1058231...](http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105823127)

<comment><USER6> msluyter, do you know what flutes (and other wind instruments) are generally tuned to these days? I noticed some of my sister's clarinet music books show different fingerings for sharps and flats so presumably an extended meantone? Ta :-)

<comment><USER5> Modern flutes are all in C. Not sure what you mean by "extended meantone." Most wind instruments can have slightly different fingerings for the same note (more prevalent in clarinet than flute, actually). These may have slightly different intonation/sound. Perhaps that's what you're seeing?

<comment><USER6> > Perhaps that's what you're seeing?

Indeed yes, I'm talking about what temperament they use not what key they are in. Check the articles I posted if you're interested.

EDIT: could be this..

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_musical_system>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Harmonie erst. (Our german mates will have to let me know if I am anywhere near grammatical correctness).

<comment><USER7> That doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Sorry.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ah, well. It was an attempt at saying "Harmony first." Verdamung babelfish.

<comment><USER8> That would be: Harmonie zuerst.

But "Harmonie" does not have the same (con-) notation in German as "harmony" has in English.

And "Verdamung babelfish." could be taken that you wish babelfish would turn into a lady ("Dame"). ;o)

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, thanks. I better quit while I'm ahead. During Oktoberfest I'll just keep my mouth shut (unless imbibing) :).

<comment><USER8> And remember to drink beer in Maßen not in Massen.

<comment><AUTHOR> Alles klar, Herr Kommissar. Danke. :).</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Healthy lifestyle may cut risk of dementia regardless of genes - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/jul/14/healthy-lifestyle-may-cut-risk-of-dementia-regardless-of-genes <comment><USER2> >A recent report suggested a third of cases could be prevented by tackling factors such as exercise, blood pressure, hearing, and diet.

Few people in my family have dementia.

\--

Interesting one

It starts at a pretty early age (around 70). Most of my family member who has dementia didn't have a healthy lifestyle at all so I'm this research actually gives me goosebumps because despite the genes I might be able to change the future I was pretty certian I gonna meet.</comment>


My First Startup Is Live on Product Hunt - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/rhittm <comment><USER2> This should fit in [https://news.ycombinator.com/show](https://news.ycombinator.com/show) but with a better title. And I don't understand what producthunt adds in value if you're looking for feedback on HN.

      title = Show HN: Rhittm – your posts are always on time.
      url = https://rhittm.netlify.com/</comment>


Show HN: Callbaxx.js – A utility library to bring callbacks to synchronous code - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/scf4/callbaxx <comment><USER2> So now to get really deep/meta, you'll want to combine with promisify:

        var isTrue = require('callbaxx').isTrue;
        var promisify = require('promisify');
        var promIsTrue = promisify(isTrue);

        promIsTrue(true)
          .then(function (res) {
            console.log(res)
          });
          .catch(function (err) {
            console.log(err)
          });

<comment><USER3> We must go deeper!

      const promisify = require('bluebird').promisify
      const from = require('rxjs').from
      const isTrue = require('callbaxx').isTrue

      const isTrueAsync = promisify(isTrue)
      const makeIsTrueSource = val => from(isTrueAsync(val))

      const source = makeIsTrueSource(true)

      source.subscribe(console.log, console.error)

<comment><USER4> A few more abstractions and it will meet enterprise compliance. Probably need to write it as a Class ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Given some of the JS code I've seen recently, I honestly thought this was a serious library until I saw this:

> Proponents of this new language (known as "sixers")

<comment><AUTHOR> Typical arrogant sixer :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> For me the best part is the examples: [https://github.com/scf4/callbaxx/tree/master/examples](https://github.com/scf4/callbaxx/tree/master/examples)

Also, someday I think we need to launch an API (REST or Graph) to do some basic operations as API calls. So you don't even need a whole language, just lots of fetchs.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a fantastic idea.

What about a babel plugin to transform _all code_ into fetches to a proprietary REST API? By doing all of the work for them, we'd ensure reliability with common operations like + and /, which obviously means we eliminate the need for tests! This would allow devs to move and break things _even faster_ , while we/I collect $10–$20 per 10,000 API calls.

E.g.,

      // Regular code
      console.log(3 + 2);

      // Transpiled code
      console.log(await fetch('http://fetchify.io/add/3/2'));

      // Regular code

      const isFive = (x === 5);

      // Transpiled code
      const isFive = await fetch(`http://fetchify.io/equality/strict/${x}/5`)
        .then(body => body.text());

Some of this is almost too easy to understand though, therefore it's pretty amateurish and we're not doing proper programming. What about something like:

      // Regular code
      const thirty = 5 * 6;

      // Transpiled code
      let $$_tmp1;
      const thirty = (
        $$_tmp1 = await fetch(`http://fetchify.io/multiply/5/6`),
        $$_tmp1 = await $$_tmp1.text(),
        $$_tmp1 = parseInt($$_tmp1, 10), $$_tmp1
      );

Even some seasoned developers aren't aware of this syntax, so it's perfect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looking at the API, this encourages CPS[0], doesn't it?

Also, great work. I had a good laugh, and I can't wait for the inevitable day when someone actually uses this in production.

\--

[0] - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation- passing_style](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuation-passing_style)

<comment><USER8> JavaScript, finally fully embracing its Lispy roots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The satire might be inspired by a very real lib 'Callbag" from the creator of Cycle.js [https://github.com/staltz/callbag- basics](https://github.com/staltz/callbag-basics)

<comment><USER10> I think they're unrelated. This seems to be a protest repo against JavaScript's churn.

<comment><USER10> Ohhhh I've been had. That'll teach me to RTFM.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hate how convincing this is. It makes me rethink my optimism on new libraries...

</comment><comment><USER12> Sixers unite!

</comment><comment><USER4> Writing callbacks is much more fun if you make use of closures and named functions.

<comment><AUTHOR> But what's the point of writing callbacks if you're not going to endlessly nest them?

E.g., I can tell the nested math example[1] is good code because of how deeply indented it becomes.

1\. [https://github.com/scf4/callbaxx/blob/master/examples/nested...](https://github.com/scf4/callbaxx/blob/master/examples/nested- math.js)

<comment><USER4> Ignoring that the code doesn't handle any errors, there's really nothing wrong with nesting, as you can clearly see the code flow and understand what it does. The example (1) would look much better using Promise's as it's a chain of events. But imagine a horizontally scaled distributed system where each math operation run's on a load balanced cluster, you would need code to handle back-pressure, retry when errors occur, etc.

Here's how FizzBuzz might look like:

      function fizzBuzzLogic(nr, multipleOfThree, multipleOfFive) {
        var print = console.log;
        if(multipleOfThree && multipleOfFive) print("nr=" + nr + " FizzBuzz");
        else if(multipleOfThree) print("nr=" + nr + " Fizz");
        else if(multipleOfFive) print("nr=" + nr + " Buzz");
        else print("nr=" + nr);
      }

      function fizzbuzz(cb) {
        var modulo = require("modulo");
        var errors = [];
        var maxErrors = 3;
        var maxConcurrency = 5;
        var inProgress  = 0;
        var fizzBuzzCounter = 1;

        next();

        function next() {
          while(cb && inProgress < maxConcurrency && fizzBuzzCounter < 100) run(++fizzBuzzCounter);
        }

        function run(nr) {
          console.log("run: nr=" + nr);
          var multipleOfThree = undefined;
          var multipleOfFive = undefined;

          moduloTest(3);
          moduloTest(5);

          function moduloTest(multipleOf) {
            inProgress++;
            modulo(nr, multipleOf, moduloResult);

            function moduloResult(err, moduloNr) {
              inProgress--;
              if(err) {
                errors.push(err);
                if(errors.length >= maxErrors) {
                  if(cb) cb(errors.join("\n"));
                  cb = null;
                }
                else if(cb) moduloTest(multipleOf);
              }
              else {

                if(multipleOf==3) multipleOfThree = (moduloNr==0);
                if(multipleOf==5) multipleOfFive = (moduloNr==0);

                if(multipleOfThree != undefined && multipleOfFive != undefined) {
                  fizzBuzzLogic(nr, multipleOfThree, multipleOfFive);
                  next();
                }
              }
            }
          }
        }
      }

I haven't polished or run the code, it for example doesn't call the cb (which is a common error in callback based code), but you get the idea. As an exercise you could rewrite it using async *function or using Promises, but I believe the benefit of Promises wouldn't be as apparent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I love how no one is getting zealotous about this :)

</comment><comment><USER14> When I think of ES6 I think of this statement:

"Appreciation of beauty is taste and the creation of beauty is art."

ES6 is lacking in all forms of taste and art is never the product of design by committee.

<comment><USER15> Your last sentence, needs commas.

<comment><USER16> And ironically, yours does not!

<comment><USER15> Indeed. Subtle humor doesn't work on hn.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


College recruitment database leaking nearly 1M student GPAs, SATs, IDs, etc. - <AUTHOR> https://cybernews.com/security/college-recruitment-database-leaking-nearly-1-million-students-gpas-sat-scores-ids-and-other-personal-data/ <comment><AUTHOR> great (or typical?) response from company:

"Through an Amazon representative, CaptainU claimed that the sensitive educational data was "meant to be openly available." But it seems that CaptainU never mentioned this fact to the students or their parents."

<comment><USER2> thanks for this! in my experience, typical</comment></comment>


French Tax Authorities Raid Google Offices in Paris - <AUTHOR> http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2459220/french-tax-authorities-raid-google-offices-in-paris <comment><USER2> Right to be forgotten is such a BS right. I'm sure corrupt officials would love that right. IGNORE ME, I'M NOT HERE.</comment>


Recession? No, It's a D-process, and It Will Be Long  - <AUTHOR> http://online.barrons.com/article/SB123396545910358867.html?mod=djemWR&page=sp

<comment><USER3> I agree with the fact that we are in a "D-process", but I'm skeptical about the "long" part. Something new is happening with the widespread availability of information through multiple channels, and I think because of this our economic cycles are "compressed".

My prediction is that the rate at which businesses change/modify/adapt (especially in the financial sector) will be readily reflected in the information that is spread through multiple channels, resulting in a compression of the time frames of the current "D-process".

<comment><USER4> You are ignoring rule #1 in the financial world: "Past performance may not be indicative of future results."

Don't worry, the entire financial world ignored this rule as well (which is precisely why I think this is likely to be a long downturn - <USER2> financial infrastructure is a long process involving lots of time and social work; you can't simply legislate it into being).

<comment><USER3> I'm actually saying that the rule you have stated above holds true even more so if we take into account the high availability of _actionable_ information. Take for example that with "TARP 1" all sorts of irritating loopholes were exposed in a very short period of time (how long did it take for the general public to be informed of the tax exemption for a specific type of arrow used by child archers??).

I want to emphasize that what I'm stating is that in the past, when critical changes took place, it would be some time before all of the information/knowledge of those changes propagated to everybody and this had an impact on the economic cycle (how long or short they were). In today's "Internet Age", the time it takes for changes to propagate is going to be reduced dramatically.

I should add that a direct consequence (and this is purely hypothetical but not unreasonable to include) is that the volatility of the economic climate will increase with the availability of information.

<comment><USER5> The accessibility and volume of business data have been accelerating for over 100 years. Downturns have not gotten shorter. I see no basis for your hypothesis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Very interesting interview but I was confused about his predictions for gold and inflation.

He makes the point that deflation is a serious concern so the Fed will devalue and gold will be a great investment. But then he says that the devaluation will barely produce a single digit rate of inflation and stocks will be a great buy.

So which is it, low inflation and cheap stocks, or gold?

Gold doesn't pay dividends so the only way you make a profit is by it going up, or you simply preserve your wealth when there's inflation.

But why would you hide in gold with low single digit inflation?

<comment><USER7> The inflation rate isn't the only (or even a particularly good) predictor of gold's value. From 1971-1979, gold shot up from $35-$900/ounce, a 30x increase, yet cumulative inflation was only 6-8x. Then over the next 5-10 years its price fell from $900 to ~$300, a 3x _decline_ even though cumulative inflation ran about 150%.

Gold is like any other commodity: its price behaves according to supply and demand. When there's massive economic uncertainty, people demand it, so its price shoots up. A bubble, in other words. Economic uncertainty includes deflation, panic, and social unrest as well as inflation.

<comment><USER6> So perhaps what he meant is that gold is a good speculative opportunity, not so much a way to escape high inflation.

I prefer not to speculate so if deflation or low inflation are on the horizon I'd rather invest in something that's cheap and pays dividends, and incidentally, is taxed at a lower rate then commodities.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a good article in the FT today on a similar theme: how this recession is/isn't like past recessions, particularly the Japanese "lost decade".

[http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/774c0920-fd1d-11dd-a103-000077b076...](http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/774c0920-fd1d-11dd-a103-000077b07658.html)

</comment><comment><USER9> finally someone is pointing to one of the real fundamental issues [http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB- DC115_BATOPC_NS_...](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB- DC115_BATOPC_NS_20090206234459.gif)

when you have huge negative savings for many many years that is unsustainable. we are now correcting.

</comment><comment><USER10> When Barrons starts releasing stuff like this, it's time to put your contrarian hats on.

</comment><comment><USER11> It seems like everyone's a prophet these days. I understand why, I think -- we all hate uncertainty. But no one knows the future; this is all too chaotic to predict. Let's hope that fact actually works to our advantage.</comment>


For What It's Worth: A Review of Wu-Tang Clan's "Once Upon a Time in Shaolin" - <AUTHOR> http://www.dancohen.org/2016/01/04/for-what-its-worth-a-review-of-the-wu-tang-clans-once-upon-a-time-in-shaolin/ <comment><USER2> > This is like someone having the scepter of an Egyptian king

The point of a scepter is that you can wave it around in front of your subjects, not leave it in a vault somewhere all the time. It's more like the actual grave goods the Egyptian kings were buried with, maybe.

> Sol LeWitt is an unusual artist in that he rarely painted, drew, or sculpted > the art you see by him. Instead, he wrote out instructions for artwork, and > then left it to "constructors"—often art students, museum curators, or > others, to do the actual work of fabrication. LeWitt liked to be a recipe > writer, not a chef.

So. Algorithmic art, except executed by humans instead of the traditional computer. "calculate z_{n+1} = z_n²+1 for each point repeatedly; color it black if it converges..."

<comment><USER3> What makes LeWitt interesting is the ambiguity in his instructions. Give the instructions to 100 different groups and you'll get 100 different works with no way of knowing which, if any, match what LeWitt had in mind. "calculate z_{n+1} = z_n²+1..." on the other hand will always give the same result no matter who implements it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In France we have a legal definition of what constitutes an original work of art. For instance you can produce up to 8 original copies of a sculpture, that's art. Wanna sell 9 copies, you're no longer an artist but an artisan. That also applies to furniture, I couldn't track down what the actual law says, there are many exemptions and edge cases but basically that's the idea.

Here, this album fits the criteria for being numbered 1/1.

<comment><USER5> So, music or film aren't considered art in France?

<comment><USER4> Well, the actual disk you buy in the store, no, that's mass production. Nonetheless music, movies, books are still covered by intellectual property laws and considered as intellectual works, but yeah that's not legally art.

The laws I was referencing in my first comment are more concerned about what is sold in an art gallery. A limited edition album would have its place there (even if it's a terrible one), not an album from Prince that sold millions of copies even if the later is socially recognised as a piece of art.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Of all the people that could have bought this album, the fact that it was Martin Shkreli continues to amaze me.

<comment><USER7> What amazes me is the number of people who dislike Martin Shkreli...most of who can't even tell me why.

<comment><USER8> If you're trying to troll on the sly you'll need to be a bit more subtle than that. I'd suggest most people who dislike Shkreli know that he massively jacked up the price of a drug that there were no legal alternatives to, even if they don't know or can't remember the exact details. For those that want to learn more, search online for daraprim.

EDIT: alex95, your comment is flagged as dead, many people reading this won't see it. I know the excuses Skreli gave, about using the revenue to fund new drugs, but I don't buy it, and the reason I don't buy it is because he jacked up the price so much he was putting the life of some people in danger. That doesn't strike me as a move someone who cared about improving healthcare would make.

<comment><USER9> AFAIK the drug was free for everyone without insurance, so the only ones who felt the actual price increase were the insurance companies. Am I wrong or there really is some merit to Shkrelis explanations?

<comment><USER10> The that only insurance companies felt the price is an audacious lie by Shkreli and his people. Documents that were subpoenaed for the congress hearing revealed that people _with insurance_ got stuck with 30%-50% co-pays. At 75.000 a bottle a 40% co-pay is still a 30.000 out of pocket expense. Regular people have to remortgage their house to come up with this kind of money.

Shkreli basically lied about everything. He lied about his business model. He lied about the availability of the drugs. He lied about his programs that supposedly made the drug available to people who could not otherwise afford it. The guy is a real piece of work.

Watch the hearing on C-SPAN if you don't believe me.

[http://www.c-span.org/video/?404183-1/hearing- prescription-d...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?404183-1/hearing-prescription- drug-market) [http://www.c-span.org/video/?406885-1/sudden-price-spikes- de...](http://www.c-span.org/video/?406885-1/sudden-price-spikes-decadesold- rx-drugs-inside-monopoly-business-model)

Found the timestamp, starts at 00:41:00 (second hearing) where victims of Martin Shkreli talks about their attempts to mortgage their house in order to pay for the drug for their sick child.

<comment><USER11> So who's the real crook?

Is it the sleazebag who legally takes advantage of the terrible system that we refer to as the US health insurance system?

Or is it the 435 representatives and 100 senators who are in the pockets of the insurance companies and pharma companies that perpetuate our current system?

At a moral level, yes the guy is as bad as they come ( _and those youtube videos of him are just plain weird_ ). But I'd argue he's not the cause of our problems, he's a product of the system that we've cornered ourselves into.

<comment><USER10> He's a real crook in a system that's awful. It's not either-or in my book.

So I agree he's not the root cause. He just pushes the existing framework to its "logical" conclusion. But only if "Logical" means being as ruthlessly exploitative as possible. Even the other sleazebag drug CEOs don't go this far, so Shkreli is uniquely contemptible.

But yes, ideally anger should be directed to the pharma industry and health insurance as a whole, not to Shkreli the individual.

<comment><USER11> > He's a real crook in a system that's awful. It's not either-or in my book.

The "either-or" is figuring out which one to go after and where to change things. If you only go after the Shkrelis, it's all for show and probably is a waste of tax payer money as he'll get off the hook for not _legally_ doing anything wrong. People need to wake up and go after the real problem and replace the healthcare system and corrupt officials that perpetuate it.

<comment><USER8> Why do you only have to go after one side? Both sides (the corruptor and the corrupted) can and should be held accountable. Holding Shkreli accountable is more than just a token gesture, and no charges would've been brought against him if no laws were broken.

<comment><USER11> I fail to see what laws he's broken. If you're going to allow a "free market" healthcare industry, this is the result. Being a dick isn't a crime. Neither is being a price gouger.

<comment><USER8> > "I fail to see what laws he's broken."

Take a look then...

[http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-charges- again...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-charges-against- martin-shkreli-2015-12-17)

<comment><USER11> > Take a look then...

> [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-charges- > again...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/these-are-the-charges-again..).

Did you actually read that article?

It has nothing to do with price gouging prescription drugs. That's for an unrelated securities fraud charge for juggling hedge fund money. I'm not saying he's not at fault in that situation (honestly not sure) but it's unrelated.

<comment><USER8> If you want something closer to daraprim:

[http://www.legalreader.com/distribution-network-for- daraprim...](http://www.legalreader.com/distribution-network-for-daraprim-may- violate-antitrust-laws/)

<comment><USER11> That's definitely closer but he hasn't been charged with anything on it. The only charges are for (unrelated) securities fraud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If I had it, I would use it to entice famous people to have tea with me.

<comment><USER13> That's basically exactly what happened with Allie Conti in his Vice interview ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2PCb9mnrU1g)). Only it was red wine and not tea.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Perhaps this album just wasn't very good, and Wu-Tang (or their managers) realized they could make more money by boosting their fame with this stunt release than they would by actually releasing a crappy album.

<comment><USER15> That actually makes a lot of sense. At most it must be mediocre. If it was amazing they'd definitely want to release it and make money.

<comment><USER16> If they'd just released the album, I don't think it would be on the front page of HN getting compared to Ai Weiwei, and covered in forbes, the guardian and the atlantic.

Perhaps they value the publicity (and resulting discussion of their work as "serious art") more than the extra money a regular release could have brought.

<comment><USER17> > Perhaps they value the publicity (and resulting discussion of their work as > "serious art") more than the extra money a regular release could have > brought.

... which is exactly what the previous posters said: The album isn't good enough to sell great and would likely hurt them in the long run and so a gimmick release will at least have positive publicity and wouldn't ruin the brand. If it was good enough, that publicity would outshine the gimmick release and would also bring in more money short-term.

<comment><USER16> No, the previous poster said at most the album must be mediocre. It's possible the album is really great, but they place an exceptionally high value on the publicity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I just looked at HN right after pulling up Wu-Tang on Spotify. I realize that it doesn't fundamentally add much to note that, it was just a fun coincidence and I thought I'd share.

It is fun to think about the meta-art of manufactured scarcity. It's fun trying to articulate a rigorous reason for the value difference of Wu-Tang making an album that only one person will get to hear versus me (a decidedly untalented non-musician) making one, when they both sound exactly the same to all of us (unless that dick Shkreli is reading).

That said I would trade all the idle but-what-is-value-really-man musing for Shaolin monks or an unscrupulous Fed to exfiltrate and share the album soonish.

<comment><USER19> Is it really fun? Or is it just a marketing gimmick to get people talking about the artist.

<comment><USER20> Honestly it doesn't seem like a marketing gimmick to me. They almost certainly could have made more money by actually releasing the album, and they've no real need of increasing their visibility.

Whether or not you agree, it seems pretty clear that they did this because they thought it was a cool and interesting thing to do.

<comment><USER3> _They almost certainly could have made more money by actually releasing the album_

The sales of their last album was pretty abysmal all things considered, and the album before that was hardly top seller. Even if this album did 3-4 times the numbers their last album did, they probably wouldn't have gotten close $2million. It basically seems that 'everybody' loves the early Wu-Tang works, but very few people actually still actively followed them and cared about their current work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> People are infinitely fascinated by scarcity.

<comment><USER22> It's not as simple as that otherwise they'd just record their own CD, write their own game etc. This is more like hoarding; either related to grief (can't let go of a loved one but can keep hold of random shit) or just good old consumerist "you'll be a great person if you buy this". It's pathetic but hey, we're in a late capitalist, consumer driven society where owning a small piece of plastic is more important than saving tens or hundreds of lives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I had the pleasure of spending a week at MassMoCA a few years ago, it's a unique institution and is a treat to visit.

</comment><comment><USER24> The OA has a partial quote from Ellsworth Kelly taken from the New York Times obituary [1]. Below is the full quote, which I found useful.

>> _"I think what we all want from art is a sense of fixity, a sense of opposing the chaos of daily living," he said. "This is an illusion, of course. What I've tried to capture is the reality of flux, to keep art an open, incomplete situation, to get at the rapture of seeing."_ <<

[Perhaps the GI Bill at the end of the second world war provides us with an idea of what could happen if we had a basic income.]

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/arts/ellsworth-kelly- artis...](http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/28/arts/ellsworth-kelly-artist-who- mixed-european-abstraction-into-everyday-life-dies-at-92.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> Which apparently has nothing to do with Xiaolin Wu's algorithm.

</comment><comment><USER26> The site is down.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you had no ego, you would just say Mandelbrot set. If Mandelbrot had no ego, he would have just called it "calculate z_{n+1} = z_n²+1 for each point repeatedly; color it black if it converges...".

Ponder this. Without ego, there is no judgement. And no judgement of those who judge. The cycle breaks.

<comment><USER28> I don't think this is about ego -- this is just about naming for convenience. We say "Mandelbrot Set" rather than "calculate (...) converges" because the former has four syllables and the latter has thirty-two.

Beyond that, I'm not sure what you're getting at w/r/t/ judgement and cycles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Then, in one of 2015's greatest moments of schadenfreude, especially for > those who care about the widespread availability of quality healthcare and > hip hop, Shkreli was arrested by the FBI for fraud. Alas, the FBI left Once > Upon a Time in Shaolin in Shkreli's New York apartment.

So why doesn't the FBI take the bloody thing, and auction it? They sold DPR's Bitcoin, no?

<comment><USER30> Why would the FBI confiscate and sell his property? Just because he was arrested doesn't mean he's guilty, and even if he his that doesn't give the FBI the right to confiscate his property.

<comment><USER29> Well, they sold DPR's Bitcoin before he was convicted. Cops do that. It's partly how they fund themselves.

I was responding to the precious "maybe we'll never know" aspect of the article. I'm not saying that civil forfeiture is legitimate. Far from it. But it's pretty common.

Edit: Also, the article basically suggests burglary as an option. So ...

<comment><USER31> To which DPR agreed.

<comment><USER29> Really? That I did not know. Why? Plea deal?

<comment><USER32> In his pre-trial, Ross denied ownership[1] of the server that the coins were found on (for obvious reasons - the server also ran the Silk Road). Since no one claimed ownership, the FBI was free to auction them.

[1] This actually turned out to be a major blunder on the part of the defense. See [http://www.wired.com/2014/10/silk-road-judge- technicality/](http://www.wired.com/2014/10/silk-road-judge-technicality/)

<comment><USER33> Eh, do we all _really_ believe the judge on that one? Sure, if he had claimed ownership, then the unreasonable search objection wouldn't have fallen on _that_ point. Except, she eventually would have found some _other_ reason why all FBI activities constituted "reasonable" search. Conviction rate in federal court is over 90%, and for many of those cases only the prosecutor assigned even gives a shit. _Everybody_ in the federal system, FBI, prosecutors, judges, etc. wanted this guy's head on their wall, so no legal argument was going to keep him out of FPMITAP. Ross was fucked from the moment the beast knew his name.

For future projects like Silk Road, a basic part of the security plan will be to set up Ross look-alikes to take the fall, because USA-Justice is not something you can just design around. Once the beast has a scent, it _will_ be fed, by someone.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Humble Voxatron Debut - <AUTHOR> http://www.humblebundle.com/#voxatron <comment><USER2> In a selfish sort of way, I hope this discussion doesn't end up being completely dominated by the question of whether the "Humble Bundle" offers are going downhill or whether their web page is well enough designed.

I'd like to see Voxatron succeed, not only because it's the most interesting indie game I've played for a long time, but also because I've admired Lexaloffle for years, since I became dangerously obsessed with his beautiful game Zen Puzzle Garden, and I like to think that quiet inventiveness and careful dedication deserve the occasional reward.

I heard on Saturday that a paper I wrote with Lexaloffle's Joseph White (and Martyn Amos) has been accepted for publication. We prove that Zen Puzzle Garden is NP-complete. It's based on a post I made years ago to the old ZPG BBS. Joseph immediately understood the proof, and suggested a significant improvement.

<http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ipl.2011.10.016> <http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.2104v1>

</comment><comment><USER3> I remember there being some discussion around the Humble Bundle brand getting "diluted" by the Frozenbyte bundle last time, and I have to wonder if that's becoming the case.

<comment><USER4> Agreed - at this point it's nothing more than a every so often flash sale with a name your own price system. Not that that's necessarily a bad thing - but I have far less interest in donating larger amounts "to support the community" when it's becoming a deal site - instead I am starting to get the mentality to get everything at the greatest deal I possibly can.

<comment><USER5> Your post made me realize something. Just like you, I'd previously been generous in my payment to "support the community". When I loaded up the page today and saw the offering, I mentally said "I don't have $20 to blow on this right now" and left the site. Until I read your post, I never even considered that I could just pay less than $20.

Even odder, once I finish writing this, I'm still not heading over there to buy the bundle, even though I could only spend $0.01.

<comment><USER6> On the other hand, I have $200 left to my name total, and I'm happily spending $1.00.

If $0.01 is all you can afford, there's no shame in it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Voxatron.

      Frantic-ish action.
      Plays like Robotron. (hold down fire key to strafe)
      Voxel effects are awesome.
      Great sound, much less harsh than Robotron.
      Lots of power-ups.
      Very fun game.

I happily paid $10, as it's supporting both charities ($1.5 each) and the developer ($5.50).

</comment><comment><USER2> The developer's blog post <http://www.lexaloffle.com/bbs/?tid=260> has some more details about the game and the planned development process.

Here are two bits I found especially interesting:

"In general, I don't think it's a good idea to keep a project in a constantly presentable/releasable state. For technical reasons, it encourages short term hacks and a reluctance to take things apart and design them cleanly. And especially from a creative position, once something is observed by other people it often seems to freeze into an unmoveable state, in the expectations of players and the mind of the designer."

"Voxatron is based on a virtual 128x128x64 display. It's a buffer of 3d video memory that is rendered out to the screen at the end of each frame, much as an old-school 2d display is. You can POKE bytes into the virtual memory, and they come out as voxels. I don't compromise on this — even the menus are drawn into the voxel display. Hopefully one day I can get hold of a real physical 128x128x64 display and play Voxatron on it with almost no modification."

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry for the hash tag in the url, it's not necessary but I figured we wanted a separate thread to discuss the new bundle. A mod can strip it off if desired.

</comment><comment><USER8> Best quote from the humble bundle video: "Facebook share it, tweet it, Do whatever the verb of google plus-ing is."

What is the verb for google plus? +1-ing?

<comment><USER9> +1 is the action of approval (past tense: +1'd), however it's not very useful, as Humble Bundle re-uses their root URL for the page, so I had already done this.

When write on Google+, the submit button is labelled "Share".

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> For those wondering what this game is all about, this is the interesting part:

 _"Voxatron is based on a virtual 128x128x64 display. It's a buffer of 3d video memory that is rendered out to the screen at the end of each frame, much as an old-school 2d display is. You can POKE bytes into the virtual memory, and they come out as voxels. I don't compromise on this -- even the menus are drawn into the voxel display. Hopefully one day I can get hold of a real physical 128x128x64 display and play Voxatron on it with almost no modification."_

The game is a top-down shooter in the vein of Robotron, but with 3D environments. It features volumetric equivalents to many basic 2D graphics operations: a scrolling background, sprites, animations, particle systems, physics, etc.

Everything is destructable too. If you shoot enough holes in an object, it will collapse in a heap of voxels.

It even includes a level editor.

The game looks fantastic and I've never heard of anything like it. If you are even remotely interested in games or realtime graphics, you need to see this.

</comment><comment><USER11> I adore indie games.

Someone should build an iTunes for indie games, or something.

<comment><USER12> Like Steam or Desura?

Or uh, iTunes Store?

<comment><USER11> > The Desura client currently only works on Windows and Linux PCs. We are > working on support for Mac. To be notified when support is added, please > provide your email:

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How is one game a 'bundle'?

<comment><USER14> You no longer have to be scratching your head about this one, they just added two games to the bundle. Misnomer no more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The game is decently fun, but it was the art that sold me. The voxel style looks like one of those themes that developers rocking a low budget can pull off beautifully.

</comment><comment><USER15> five bucks, ker-bought! I've been following the teaser videos for a while and am excited to have a chance to fool around in it.

</comment><comment><USER16> "...do whatever the verb of Google plus-ing is" The laugh from that line alone was worth my purchase price.

</comment><comment><USER17> Such an interesting social experiment. I am going to indulge my inner economist.

</comment><comment><USER11> Bought it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wish you the best, whatever it is you are, so constructive feedback follows:

Voxatron is too humble. I just went to the page. I had my browser window pretty big... taking up most of a 21" monitor.

Here's what I could tell about Voxatron:

1\. It's called voxatron

2\. It's "pay what you want".

3\. It supports charity

4\. It is DRM free

5\. The people behind voxatron thought a sorta mincraftish image would communicate something significant to me.

6\. It seems like it can run on a Mac.

I think these are all, clearly, features you wanted to communicate, and you succeeded in doing so very well.

However, I then hit my back button because, in the time it took me to grasp on that, I realized I had no clue what Voxatron was.... and I have spent too much time trying to figure things like that out in the past on other sites such that I've gotten the impression that if I don't get it right away, I likely never will. (Seriously, I can't tell you how many times I've followed links from google, gotten to a corporate site, spent 5-10 minutes there, unable to make heads or tails-- when I got there because, according to the query I crafted for google, google thinks this company is selling what I wanted to buy RIGHT THEN. The barrier is much lower for links on HN.)

Is it a game? Is it a voice transcoder? Is it an auto tuner? Is it for musicians? Is it for kids playing around with digital signal processing?

Give me a one line description of what voxatron is or does, without too much hyperbole, and put it front and center, maybe right under or replacing the word "voxatron" where it is now on the page. And if there IS Such a line, and I completely missed it, then I think your page layout is too busy and it caused me to overlook it.

You got my 11 seconds, but didn't get me very far down the funnel to conversion.

Again, with all respect, and hopes that this is helpful-

<comment><USER19> Honest question: do you really don't know what the humble bundle is, or are you just playing devil's advocate?

<comment><USER20> A valid question in return would be, "Do you know how many people don't know what the Humble Bundle is?"

Moreover, what percentage of the population is even aware that A) you can buy games to play on the computer, and B) that didn't come from a big box retailer? I'll tell you this -- it's very much in the minority, _especially_ when you look at the 30-and-up crowd. Much older than that and the percentage of the population starts to approach zero.

I grew up with an Atari VCS 2600 (that my parents had bought for themselves), as did most others I know. However if I asked my parents -- or those of anyone I know -- what Steam was, they wouldn't think of anything other than water vapor. Humble Bundle? Not a chance.

I've heard of kids on the bus and subway recently, talking about "this new Steam thing". If kids aren't aware of it, how aware is the general population of something far more obscure? Not very.

<comment><USER19> Right, but we're on HN, and Humble Bundle Inc is a YC company that gets on the front page with some regularity.

I'm sure I'm in a bit of an echo chamber, but it just seems strange to me since it's been so widly discussed here and in other places I frequent (e.g. reddit - another site I don't expect my parents to know but would be surprised if the common HN-er didn't hear about it).

<comment><USER21> Just my opinion, but I too didn't know what voxatron was until I played the video (which was great, by the way). I know what the Humble Bundle is, but I think what threw me off is that I usually hear it referred to as "the humble indie bundle", and since it contained neither the words indie nor bundle, I assumed it was somebody using intentionally similar phrasing to promote an unrelated product.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Awk for multimedia - <AUTHOR> https://arcan-fe.com/2017/10/05/awk-for-realtime-multimedia/ <comment><USER2> Awesome!

Other video tools (besides ffmpeg):

[https://www.mltframework.org/](https://www.mltframework.org/) (lightweight LGPL C99 perhaps similar to OP)

[http://www.emmgunn.com/](http://www.emmgunn.com/) (mac VIDEOtoolbox), [https://subler.org/](https://subler.org/) (mac mp4)

[https://sourceforge.net/projects/megui/](https://sourceforge.net/projects/megui/) (windows, recommended for SD sources)

[https://github.com/stax76/staxrip](https://github.com/stax76/staxrip) (windows, a better handbrake)

Further pointers to similar tools are appreciated! Grabbed several of these from this awesome discussion of a weak article on Handbrake: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13492646](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13492646) (Jan 2017, 59 comments)

PS. Also looking for pros/cons/alternatives re: print LUT [http://juanmelara.com.au/print-film-emulation-luts-for- downl...](http://juanmelara.com.au/print-film-emulation-luts-for-download/) and histogram equalization [http://docs.opencv.org/3.1.0/d5/daf/tutorial_py_histogram_eq...](http://docs.opencv.org/3.1.0/d5/daf/tutorial_py_histogram_equalization.html)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for sharing all of these tools! Do you happen to know if any of these can write metadata to mp4 or mov files that will be recognized by Mac/iOS Photos?

I've been trying to write location, camera, date, etc. to encoded videos, but Photos won't recognize anything except files straight off an iPhone. The closest thing I've found is that ffmpeg can write Quicktime tags and the structure looks identical to me when I view it in exiftool, but Photos still doesn't respect it, so I assume there's some minute difference that breaks Photos' parsing.

<comment><USER2> Unfortunately I do not have any personal experience with your problem since I purposely avoid Apple Photos (perhaps helpful though not related: I rely on Google+ Photos as my free [lossy] offsite backup).

\- Date/time? [http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,790...](http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,7900.msg40307.html#msg40307) recommends [https://github.com/HayoBaan/matchDateTime](https://github.com/HayoBaan/matchDateTime) and/or

      exiftool -a -G -s -time:all [filename]

\- Lat/long location? works for JPG, only recently for PNG [http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,844...](http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,8444.msg43394.html#msg43394)

\- camera? for Lightroom [http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,858...](http://u88.n24.queensu.ca/exiftool/forum/index.php/topic,8583.msg44089.html#msg44089)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Cool! Reminds me of GStreamer ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GStreamer](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GStreamer)). It's definitely like AWK insofar as it's pipeline-based. But to me the big thing about AWK is that the program doing the transformation is usually super easy to write down _in the CLI itself_. Either way, sounds fun!

<comment><USER5> > But to me the big thing about AWK is that the program doing the > transformation is usually super easy to write down in the CLI itself

GStreamer is also very easy to use from the CLI:

        https://gstreamer.freedesktop.org/documentation/tutorials/basic/gstreamer-tools.html

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This seems more like pipe-based processing for multimedia than AWK-based. I don't see what AWK does in relation to this that any good UNIX-y utility that is pipe-friendly is doing (grep, sed, etc).

<comment><USER7> I was completely prepared to gush about how much I love AWK. I suppose that can wait for another day

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This reminds me of AWK Music [http://kmkeen.com/awk- music/](http://kmkeen.com/awk-music/)

<comment><USER9> > Using the fifth root gives five intervals for each octave, a pentatonic > scale. Why five notes? It is really easy to make something that sounds good > in the pentatonic scale and really hard for a pair of notes to be dissonant.

Wait a minute! Is the five-note equal-division of the octave really one of those scales that "just sound good"? It's definitely not the same scale as the example he links to.

<comment><USER10> The pentatonic scale does not imply equal temperament between the five notes. The "good-sounding" pentatonic scales use very simple harmonic ratios, for example 1, 9/8, 5/4, 3/2 and 5/3 for the major pentatonic scale. In the equally tempered 12-note octave, these roughly correspond to the first, second, third, fifth and sixth. An equal division of an octave into five notes doesn't yield as harmonic results.

That said, 5-EDO sounds good in my opinion. Not very harmonic, but somewhat resembles the scales used Gamelan music.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does this compare with AviSynth/AvxSynth?

<comment><USER12> Looks like a good alternative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> May be I didn't pay it enough time, but this seems to be just pipe-based video processing. I thought that the main feature in awk was to work with meaning in the text itself - so I expected some machine-learning magic to find all dogs and replace them with cats, for example.

<comment><AUTHOR> The pipes are only used to communicate higher-level IPC primitives. The real data exchange and processing is bidirectional. This is why it is possible for the last client in the chain to provide the inputs that control the game that was being run by the first client in the chain. There is also audio.

The part that I found cool is that the possible data sources aren't just videos, it's emulators, virtual machines, terminals, and so on.

"the example here only works with a single pipe-and-filter chain, but there is nothing preventing arbitrary, even dynamic, graphs to be created."

(and AWK is a DSL for streaming text processing - it's from the late 70ies.. it's dumb as a rock - there's no high level analysis features)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Sorry, but this article has nothing to do with AWK other than mentioning its name. AWK is a pattern-action, implied-loop text processing scripting language that supports user-defined functions and interaction with the OS via pipes and system().

It may have been better titled "Arcan is to multimedia as AWK is to text", or something.

</comment><comment><USER15> this looks pretty cool, reminiscent of the "shake" compositing application for video

<comment><USER16> haa the glorious shake. Compositing tools were lovely graph and lazy dataflow gems.</comment></comment>


Gaming Stocks: Should You Invest into the Gaming Industry? - <AUTHOR> https://digitalyse.io/should-you-invest-into-the-gaming-industry/ <comment><USER2> I wouldn't touch the gaming industry with any investment.

The bubble will burst sooner or later. The esports investment never return a profit. The loot box crazy are finally being regulated. And gamers are fed up with the AAA industry treating them like gambling addicts.</comment>


U.S. Government Wants to Double Prison Sentences for Hackers - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/there_are_no_lulz_in_prison_us_gov_seeks_longer_pr.php

<comment><USER2> I can tell you what happens if you call the FBI to report your site being hacked by criminal syndicates.

Nothing. The FBI has no interest at all in investigating these crimes.

Unless apparently it is from a group criticizing the government. As we see in the article, that's the real crime. Not hacking a site, but the motivation. If it's to steal and commit financial fraud, the government couldn't care less. But if it's because you want to out lies and crimes told by government, then you are going to prison for a long time.

Make no mistake. This is not about the hacking itself at all.

<comment><USER3> There was an article a few months ago that showed the FBI spends most of its resources going after copyright infringers. Maybe you could claim some of your intellectual property was stolen next time?

<comment><USER4> Really? So there's Homeland Security going after copyright infringement, now FBI. What's next? CIA? I've seen that in Europe they are already starting to use the Interpol for such things.

When did copyright infringement become one of the biggest crimes one could do? It certainly seems to be on the Government's top priority list, not far below terrorism.

<comment><USER5> Because its easy to track and prosecute...

hacker breakins, difficult to track and prosecute hence FBI pretending to do there jobs by taking the low hanging fruit..

<comment><USER6> Not to mention, it's typically corporations with big pockets pushing for these sorts of investigations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There are some famous instances of hackers being locked up, e.g., Kevin Mitnick.

But are there any examples of hackers not being locked up long enough? Someone who gets out after 10 years but hadn't learned their lesson and really needed 20?

<comment><USER8> Unfortunately, the problem with your question is that it assumes that the purpose of prison is rehabilitation.

<comment><USER9> As an honest and simple question: what are the possible purposes of incarceration?

<comment><USER10> A few come to mind (and I'm not saying I approve/disapprove of any of these):

        1. Rehabilitation
        2. Isolation (get them off the streets)
        3. Revenge
        4. Deterrence

Edit: is there a way to format a list on HN?

<comment><USER11> \- Try

\- bullets

\+ and

* paragraphs (two newlines between each line).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I see a real danger of people using false flag attacks to get those they don't like in serious trouble.

They can for example use victim's computer to scan and DoS .mil domains and download a random sampling of copyrighted material from various torrents.

<comment><USER13> The danger is real. Also don't forget to download some child pornography [0]!

[0] [http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-04-25-wifi- warning.ht...](http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2011-04-25-wifi-warning.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This goes well with the government's position that violating your employer's acceptable use policy or a website's usage terms constitutes "hacking": [http://volokh.com/2011/06/14/petition-for-rehearing-filed- in...](http://volokh.com/2011/06/14/petition-for-rehearing-filed-in-united- states-v-nosal-ninth-circuit-case-on-criminalizing-violations-of-computer-use- policies/)

</comment><comment><USER15> Did anyone else read the headline as "US Government Wants Double Precision Sentences for Hackers"?

<comment><USER16> if (prisoner.IncarcerationPeriodF == prison().SentenceF) prisoner.Release();

Floating point rounding errors could doom someone to a life sentence!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Why not just sentence everyone to death for any crime, no matter how small?

<comment><USER7> How could you suggest such a horrible thing? Just think of all the prison guards that would put out of work!

<comment><USER18> They could just transition to be ushers for the public executions events.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> First there were witches, then there were terrorists then there were the hackers. But as every child says those who accuse are the ones who really are.

<comment><USER13> You sound like you were born in the 90s. It was believed that communists were the bogeyman for a while.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Dreno, a React framework that inherits the best from Cycle and MobX - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/fiatjaf/dreno/blob/master/docs/why.md <comment><AUTHOR> I'm working on this concept for the last two days, iterating on the API format, discovering the best way of doing this while I rewrite a personal project I was writing with Mobx in it.

Here are some working examples (code and live apps): [http://rawgit.com/fiatjaf/dreno/master/examples/](http://rawgit.com/fiatjaf/dreno/master/examples/)

Here's the home page: [https://github.com/fiatjaf/dreno](https://github.com/fiatjaf/dreno)

I desperately need some feedback.</comment>


Elon Musk Is a Modern Henry Ford. That's Bad - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-03-22/elon-musk-is-a-modern-henry-ford-that-s-bad <comment><USER2> Not sure why history made Henry Ford a hero and example of modern capitalist. To me, Henry Ford is pretty controversial person. He started his business by infringing already valid car patents. He (as underdog) had luck, that it was in time America has started battle with monopolies, so public sentiment was probably on his side. Trying to reproduce what Ford did back then today, layers would rip you apart.

He also supported german nazi party and directly supported Hitler with annual 50000$ donations. In one of his factories he ordered to suppress employee strike, resulting to many injuries and also some deaths.

So now, where is the similarity with Elon Musk? I see Elon musk as true visionary and honest guy.

Oh yes, the article is about manufacturing process, not about comparing characters. :)

<comment><USER3> A Patent is nothing more than a government-granted temporary monopoly. Thus, patents are bad, as in they intervene the free market.

<comment><USER2> Imagine you've spent millions developing revolutionary product. And then some random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones for fraction of costs as they didn't have to spent any money on R&D.

What sane person on earth would put money on R&D in that kind of environment?

Of course, you can find many examples, where patents are actually hurting invention and progress, but I don't see any other way to protect your investment (both financial and intellectual).

<comment><USER4> _And then some random company, will steel your idea and start producing clones for fraction of costs as they didn 't have to spent any money on R&D._

If it is that easy for somebody to clone your thing, it probably wasn't actually all that revolutionary. And anyway, all this dynamic will do is force an innovation "arms race". You won't be able to just invent something and then rest on your laurels, getting rich while you laugh your way to the bank. You'll have to innovate continuously to stay ahead of the would-be "idea grabbers". That's a net win for everybody, even if you don't get quite as rich in the end.

<comment><USER2> I cannot agree with you. But that is OK. ;)

I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent.

Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing.

<comment><USER4> _I give you one of many examples. Transistor. Is cheap to produce, but hard to invent._

Cheap to produce _now_ , sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on?

If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all).

Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing because _eventually_ the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets invented sooner than it might have otherwise.

 _Also "just invent something and then rest on your laurels". I don't see single reason why it's bad thing._

Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and monopolize it for _n_ years. My point is that A. you can make money off an invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.

<comment><USER5> > Cheap to produce now, sure. Was it "cheap to produce" shortly after it was > invented? And do you think the transistors we talk about today are identical > to the ones invented in 1947? Or has there been continued innovation in that > space, yielding BJT's, FET's, MOSFETS, and so on?

Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is protected by patents and licenses.

> If you're the original inventor of a "thing" it's almost always going to be > the case that you (or somebody with access to your engineers, etc. on an > "official" basis) is going to have an advantage in terms of producing the > "thing", simply because you know it and its innards better than the would be > cloners... (and if this isn't the case, I go back to my assertion that the > "thing" probably isn't actually very revolutionary at all).

Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do not manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also plenty of companies that manufacture but do not design.

> Anyway, if you invent something, and you feel the pressure to keep inventing > because eventually the cloners will figure out how to build your thing as > well as you, then that's a net win when "v2" (think, BJT, FET, etc.) gets > invented sooner than it might have otherwise.

Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R&D profitable but keep pressure for innovation.

> Of course if you care about only a strictly selfish measure of how rich you > become in the end, then you'd rather be able to just invent something, and > monopolize it for n years. My point is that A. you can make money off an > invention even without that artificial monopoly, and B. society wins when > there is an arms race effect propelling innovation.

In some cases, you will be forced to provide licenses for you patented technology to prevent monopoly (Qualcomm/DDR). Nowadays is difficult to make any money from new inventions because low hanging fruits are gone.

<comment><USER4> _Exactly, innovation happens in this space because high investment is protected by patents and licenses._

If patents were the only thing promoting innovation, then nothing would have been invented before patents became available. We already know that isn't the case, so your argument that innovation is a direct result of patents is a bit questionable. OTOH, one could argue (without or without patents) that part of the impetus to innovate (for a company/firm) is "innovate or die". Eg, if your competitors are coming out with newer, better "things" and you aren't, then you are going to die. Or perhaps be reduced to the role of creating cheap knock-offs of inventions created by others, but "fast follower" strategy aside, being the knock-off vendor is usually _not_ the desirable position in the race.

 _Not true, There is plenty of tech companies that create technology but do not manufacture. ARM Holding would be an excellent example. There is also plenty of companies that manufacture but do not design._

That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing / subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work. That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over copy- cats because they know the "thing" better.

 _Patent laws include expiring period. This period is designed to make R &D profitable but keep pressure for innovation._

Sure, and I'm saying that doing the equivalent of reducing that time to zero will do the most to create pressure for innovation.

Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote, innovation.

<comment><USER5> It literally cost billions to make any innovation in silicon, pharmaceutics, automotive etc.

> That's nothing about copy-catting though. That's talking about licensing / > subcontracting just because a company doesn't want to do it's own fab work. > That's totally reasonable, but it's a choice. In either case, original > inventors OR licensed manufacturers, are going to have an advantage over > copy-cats because they know the "thing" better.

Licensing only work because you hold patents. Patents are what prevents others from copying ARM ISA. Companies can specialize in what they do best.

> Never mind all the problems with overly broad patents, fear of submarine > patents, etc., and all the ways patents inhibit, rather than promote, > innovation.

Patents can be easily invalidated if there is prior art. Patents are not what slows down innovation. Cost of human labor is the most important factor for innovation.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there a site for web design agencies to share overflow / excess work? - <AUTHOR> <comment><AUTHOR> I remember seeing one 1-2 years ago that looked great. It allowed agencies/consultants with great reputations to share overflow work, and get a 10% commission (I think) on work that other people picked up.</comment>


Show HN: Shake – Create Legal Documents From Your Phone - <AUTHOR> http://www.shakelaw.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> \- No Lawyers. \- No fees. \- Upcoming iPad and Android app. \- Companies can use their own documents and send them to normal people to sign (pre-launch [[http://www.shakelaw.com/product/#business]](http://www.shakelaw.com/product/#business\]))

Here to answer any questions!</comment>