HIV Is Reported Cured in a Second Patient - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/04/health/aids-cure-london-patient.html <comment><USER2> As a kid who grew up in the 1990s, I consider this the biggest technological advance in my lifetime. HIV was a death sentence back then. Arthur Ashe died of it in 1992, and Magic Johnson announced he had it in 1991. It was in our minds right up there with global warming and the hole in the ozone layer as a existential threat to humanity. And now... a 20-something who begins antiretroviral therapy today can expect to live into his or her late 70s. It's a scientific miracle.

<comment><USER3> And yet some of the brightest analytical minds are regularly drawn to the big dollar signs that comes with optimizing advertising tech at FAANG companies when they could be curing cancer.

<comment><USER4> I never understood this sentiment. I'm good at JavaScript, not biochemistry. How will I be curing cancer? Trick the cancer cells into calling undefined as a function?

<comment><USER5> It's not a criticism at your individual specialization. It's _fucking hard_ to get into cancer research at this stage, though if you know the right people, you could maybe help scientists with some simulations or visualizations or whatever other tangential concern that requires JavaScript knowledge.

This is a complaint against the market at large. There is work to be done in things like curing cancer(s) and mitigating climate change, but the jobs are few, far between, and pay peanuts. Meanwhile advertising is a direct social negative (IMO a cancer on human society), but it offers plenty of positions with good wages. The choice thus becomes: take the hard road and a paycut to maybe help some unspecified amount of people you don't know, vs. take the easy road with good wages and hurt an unspecified amount of people you don't know.

This complaint is about the market, and it's essentially the same thing you may say during debugging some algorithm: "I understand the steps it make and they all look good, but the _final result is wrong_ ".

<comment><USER6> > Meanwhile advertising is a direct social negative (IMO a cancer on human > society)

Wow wow wow you can't just make a claim like that without any basis whatsoever? It might be true or not, but would you mind collaborating on why you think that? I am not even talking about proving it with some science (which is likely very hard), but you just write it off as if everyone else is sharing your view and as if it is self-explanatory or widely accepted. It is not.

Capitalism and the product culture has led to the most technological and in many case, lifestyle, lifespan, and life standard advancements known in history. This way of propelling progress forward requries efficient markets, and markets need to connect products with people who want and can benefit from those products. No advertisement is directly forcing anyone to buy or do anything, they just provide information for people and help locating people who might otherwise not have knowledge of the products they might want.

Assuming your take on the advertisement industry is different, what is that take?

<comment><USER7> I would think the feeling that marketing as a whole, and advertising as part of it was a large social negative was prevalent enough that one would not have to explain it even if not everyone agrees.

I mean it's common enough that Bill Hicks on the subject is pretty much a meme by this point [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tHEOGrkhDp0)

I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but if someone says advertising is a cancer on society or something like that I would not be like - whoa what particular belief system has led him to conclude this?!? - I would think, huh, they have that set of beliefs regarding advertising and marketing.

<comment><USER6> So, one more time, care to explain why you think that it is? Or am I to understand this correctly that you think it's "cancer" on society because you have just heard other people say that (like Bill Hicks and perhaps others you respect) and you assume it was prevalent?

It would be interesting to understand your original arguments if it was more clear what you based that assumption on (which is by no means universal).

<comment><USER7> 1\. you might notice that it was not me that made the original arguments, I just noted my surprise that you needed understanding of the viewpoint since I've seen it expressed throughout the internet at various levels of lucidity for the last decade at least.

2\. one expression might be this [https://ioptconsulting.com/online- advertising-is-the-new-dig...](https://ioptconsulting.com/online-advertising- is-the-new-digital-cancer/) if the Bill Hicks expression of it was not to your liking.

3\. again, I was not arguing for the correctness of the belief that advertising is a cancer, I just noted that nobody should be surprised at it's existence. Maybe it's like this XKCD [https://xkcd.com/1053/](https://xkcd.com/1053/) in which case congratulations, I've now given you two links to why people think advertising and marketing are awful awful things.

Again, I do not necessarily see advertising as something that is cancerous, but I am familiar with expressions of the idea so I am not shocked, shocked when I encounter it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Personally, I wish what would really get attention in the realm of HIV treatments is invention and subsequent spread of "prevention" drugs like PrEP (significantly lowering chances of getting HIV if taken daily) and PEP ("fight off" HIV if possibly exposed to it in the last 72 hours), in addition to amazingly high level of quality that HIV therapies have reached such that if HIV can't be detected - its effectively untransmittable.

Not trying to draw attention away from the potential significance of the article, would just like more of the "widespread", effective treatments get a little light.

<comment><USER9> I'm on PrEP. It was astoundingly hard to get on. So many primary care doctors have no idea what it is or why to prescribe it.

<comment><USER10> Is that covered by insurance? In the UK, some people are expecting the NHS to pay for it.

<comment><USER11> The NHS absolutely should pay for it.

<comment><USER10> I disagree. The steps to avoid requiring it are well understood.

If people want to indulge in "risky" behaviour, I have no problem with that. I just don't want to pay for it out of my taxes. It's like someone who makes a habit of jumping out of aeroplanes complaining that the government won't pay for his parachutes.

<comment><USER12> Should the government not pay for costs due to pregnancy? The steps to avoid it are well understood, and it does cost a lot of money.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, not sure you can class promiscuous shagging to bringing a child into the world.

<comment><USER13> That's just straight-up homophobia, which is not ok on HN. Most HIV transmission occurs within relationships, and most causal sex (gay or straight) happens indoors and in private.

Your edit doesn't really make sense, as a quite a lot of children are the result of "promiscuous" sex, and the NHS still pays for the relevant care.

You're still ignoring the fact that HIV transmission typically occurs in the context of regular sex with the same person. Having one-off sex with strangers actually isn't a particularly efficient way of becoming HIV positive.

<comment><USER10> Well, I'd say one was the most important thing most people will do, and evolutionarily their whole reason for existing.

Absent being a sex worker, the other is just hedonism.

<comment><USER13> Weirdly, you seem to be missing the fact that children happen as a consequence of sex (and not uncommonly as a consequence of promiscuous sex).

Accidentally becoming pregnant can be _exactly_ as "hedonistic" as accidentally becoming HIV positive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This is using a stem cell transplant again like the first person which carries a high risk of lifelong complications and death. While awesome, this is not a realistic or great option for patients without another issue needing a stem cell transplant. With modern HAART therapy one is expected to live as long as the average non-HIV infected patient in the US.

<comment><USER15> HIV is still transmissible even with HAART therapy, so I'm not sure how it's relevant to the discussion of a cure.

<comment><USER16> Undetectable also means non transmissible.

<comment><USER17> Bold claim. How recent are HPV tests?

Edit: While my comment came from caution due to historical human hubris, it appears I am wrong:

"According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a person with an undetectable viral load has "effectively no risk" of sexually transmitting HIV. In 2016, the Prevention Access Campaign launched the U=U, or Undetectable = Untransmittable, campaign."

<comment><USER18> That claim isn't a bold assessment of the medical literature at all, it's actually widely held to by the medical organizations responsible for HIV treatment and prevention.

Here [1] is for instance an article referencing this claim, describing it as "based on strong scientific evidence" that was peer reviewed published by the journal of the American Medical Association. (EDIT: it's important to add the caveat, which is that this claim is about sexual transmission only, and does not cover pregnant-mother-to-child transmission or intravenous needle sharing).

Also your comment now refers to "HPV" which is the name of a different disease.

[1] [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article- abstract/27209...](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article- abstract/2720997)

<comment><USER17> I refer to HPV as a case study in humans not having tests available for a communicable disease (no HPV test exists for men) and underestimating it's communicability (not to mention it's role in causing several types of cancer). Apologies if you thought I was confusing HPV and HIV.

Too often we think we're smarter than we are, and the consequences can be damning. Hence why I said its a bold claim that undetectable means it can't be transmitted. Are we absolutely sure? Because if we're not, someone could acquire a life long chronic disease that would otherwise have been preventable. But the CDC says undetectable says no transmission; I hope they're right in 100% of transmission scenarios.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I assume it's the same method they've successfully used to eliminate Multiple Sclerosis.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43435868](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-43435868)

How are we not pumping billions more into stem cell research?!?

<comment><USER20> I've had MS for 20 years.

The procedure for MS is HSCT. It's erroneously called "transplant," as it actually is stem-cell rescue. The basic idea is to extract your own stem cells, kill of most (not all) of your existing immune system, and then re- infuse your stem cells to "reinstall" your immune system. Hopefully before you get an infection while you don't have any defenses.

This treatment has been shown to be effective for the most mild form of MS, Relapsing Remitting (RRMS), and only in the early stages of the disease. It's relatively risky, and if we were to do the procedure for everyone diagnosed with RRMS today, hundreds (if not thousands) of people would die from the treatment. Either from complications from the procedure, or from increased instances of cancer years down the road, since the poison part of the treatment is known to be carcinogenic.

Meanwhile, there is Rituximab, which is a monoclonal antibody targeting the CD20 protein that has had its patent recently expire. This means it can be manufactured as a generic. Clinical trials recently run in England have shown that not only is it extremely effective at controlling the disease in the most mild form (RRMS), but CD20-targeting monoclonal antibodies are the only drugs known to be in any (meaningful) way effective for the more serious forms of the disease, Secondary Progressive (SPMS) and Primary Progressive (PPMS).

Given the choice between HSCT or Rituximab, in terms of effectiveness, safety and cost, Rituximab wins as a treatment for MS, hands-down.

For those stuck in the United States, the FDA will let you get Ocrelizumab (Ocrevus), which is basically Rituximab tweaked enough so that Genentech could get patent protection for it. With that patent protection, they got the financial incentive to run it through the FDA approval process so they can now sell it to you for the bargain price of about $80,000 per year. It's just about as effective as Rituximab and maybe only a little more dangerous.

<comment><USER21> And for those wondering, in the UK Rituximab costs the NHS £349.50 for a course. [https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal- forms/rituximab.html](https://bnf.nice.org.uk/medicinal-forms/rituximab.html)

<comment><USER22> That link only works if you are in the UK.

<comment><USER23> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rituximab](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rituximab)

> In the United Kingdom this amount cost the NHS approximately £182 in > 2015.[9] The average wholesale price in the United States of a typical > treatment for rheumatoid arthritis (1,000 mg IV dose, 2 weeks apart) would > have been $14,100 a month in 2014 ($705 per 100 mg)[10] but the patent > expired in 2016.[

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> While this treatment course doesn't appear to be without serious side effects or scale well let's not lose sight of the real win here. Reinforcing that a cure is possible.

"The surprise success now confirms that a cure for H.I.V. infection is possible, if difficult, researchers said."

<comment><USER24> ^ So much this. For everyone of us who know and care about someone who has HIV, and for everyone who has it, it's basically a sunbeam of hope -- regardless of how effective or not it turns out to be in practice.

<comment><USER25> Especially people who both parents died of age like my siblings. It gives you hope for a future where that won't be the outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The existing research of the berlin patient ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ray_Brown](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Ray_Brown)) indicates the likely elimination of HIV was graft vs. host disease ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft-versus- host_disease#HIV_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graft-versus- host_disease#HIV_elimination)).

The NY Times doesn't mention graft vs. host, but the doctor treating the berlin patient says no one else was cured undergoing the treatment the berlin patient underwent. According to records, 6 additional people were thought to be cured. I couldn't find any follow-up on them. ([https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431244-400-immune-w...](https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23431244-400-immune- war-with-donor-cells-after-transplant-may-wipe-out-hiv/))

<comment><USER27> [1] suggests this was also true here, but AFAICT the other patients they've tried this on to see if it was just graft versus host all wound up relapsing (I swear there was another study of this negative outcome with n>2, but I'm not turning it up, so maybe I'm full of it). [2]

Though [3] claims another set of experiments with this resulted in 5 cured/undetectable patients and one remission who was allegedly an odd duck out in terms of treatment (cord blood versus bone marrow),

[1] - [https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/05/london- patie...](https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/mar/05/london-patient- becomes-second-man-to-be-cleared-of-aids-virus)

[2] - [https://www.nature.com/news/hopes-of-hiv-cure-in-boston- pati...](https://www.nature.com/news/hopes-of-hiv-cure-in-boston-patients- dashed-1.14324)

[3] - [https://annals.org/aim/article- abstract/2707334/mechanisms-c...](https://annals.org/aim/article- abstract/2707334/mechanisms-contribute-profound-reduction-hiv-1-reservoir- after-allogeneic-stem)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Bone marrow transplants are a very high risk procedure. Something like 50 percent work, while the rest die shortly after. I knew a guy with cancer that did it as a last resort treatment. They killed all the marrow (whatever kind of cells, I'm not a doctor) and reintroduced some to take over. It took. And then they found the sample they reintroduced (they used his own) was tainted with cancer. He died shortly after. Had it not been tainted he would have been cured. Taking the cells from someone else means getting it cancer-free but also means higher risk it won't work. It also provides the opportunity to give the person an AIDS-proof immune system (which some people have). This is not a generally usable cure, but it is cool AF when it works.

<comment><USER29> Is that why people freeze and save their stem cells? Would it help in this case?

<comment><USER28> I think that's the type of scenario they think might be possible some day. I'm not sure if there are any actual treatments that rely on frozen stem cells. Turns out you can convert some cells to stem cells, and there are some other sources.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This was only the second cure of several dozen similar marrow transplant procedures ech costing on the order of six figures. And with 50 million around the world infected and 40 years of searching for a reliable cure.

Its far more likely that a million were saved by having a rare mutation (1% population) that prevents HIV infection. The recently disgraced Chinese scientist used CRSPER/CAS9 genetic engineering on human embryros to induce this immunity into people who lacked it. The experiment was conducted in a totally unethical way with the scientist under criminal investigation. But the goal was noble.

</comment><comment><USER31> _CCR5 is the protein that He Jiankui Mengele, a scientist in China, claimed to have modified with gene editing in at least two children_

</comment><comment><USER32> Related: whatever happened to The Immunity Project, the AIDS vaccine funded by Y Combinator in 2014? [http://www.immunityproject.org](http://www.immunityproject.org)

<comment><USER33> Check out the linkedin profiles for people on this page

[http://www.immunityproject.org/team](http://www.immunityproject.org/team)

Seems like some of them have left, otherwise still active?

The website has not had any new updates since 2016 though which is worrying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Caveat: one kind of HIV.

>> _" This is only going to work if someone has a virus that really only uses CCR5 for entry — and that's actually probably about 50 percent of the people who are living with H.I.V., if not less"_

<comment><USER35> Yes, but an actual cure for up to half of people with HIV would still be a huge positive.

<comment><USER36> Standby for insulin pricing!

<comment><USER37> Which is completely irrelevant to this because insulin isn't a cure and has been around for nearly a century.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> > But rearming the body with immune cells similarly modified to resist H.I.V. > might well succeed as a practical treatment, experts said.

Do people know what is the existing literature on injecting or transplanting different or modified immune cells into someone as a general class of cures? Seems like this could generalize into something of an alternative to vaccine (or a different class of cures).

<comment><USER39> There's a massive arm of cancer research devoted to exactly this, called immunotherapy. It's where many of the best new treatments are being discovered lately. People are calling it the new chemo.

It's particular promising in leukemia, for example.

Typically involves injecting a growth factor and then harvesting stem cells from peripheral blood (as supposed to having to go into the marrow directly), then processing the cells in some way to make them more antagonistic to the cancerous mutations.

In some cases the cancerous cells will be tagged with some marker that can then be used as a target site the extracted cells can be trained on.

Then the patient's own stem-cells are transplanted back into their body to do their work.

Sometimes the patient gets ablated before reintoducing the new cells. That's called an autologous ("auto") stem-cell transplant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The infection with the _HIV_ virus leads to the _AIDS_ decease.

It is sad to see that even the NYT can't get things straight when it comes to science.

I am very curious about the paper/data. For now, the typical newspaper headline does not mean a thing to me.

<comment><USER41> Assuming you meant "disease" instead of "decease", that's literally what the very first line in the article says. I'm in HIV research, and I have only the most minor nitpicks with the article's science.

<comment><USER40> Indeed, I meant disease.

I meant the title, not the article itself.

So much for making quick and precise comments on HN.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> My first thought is to short condom manufacturers but when I think about it most of them are one of many many brands of a conglomerate.

</comment><comment><USER43> Perhaps the bone marrow was from one of the rare occurences of people who are immune to HIV

</comment><comment><USER44> entirely implausible, if the virus rewrites the host dna via rna...a rootkit in biology

</comment><comment><USER45> Didn't Asimov died of HIV from wrongly transplant

<comment><USER45> [https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/akylvy/til_i...](https://old.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/akylvy/til_issac_asimov_contracted_hiv_from_a/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The scary thing is that humanity is highly susceptible to another plague whether it is STD like AIDS or some other transmission. We live in contact with strangers. Air travel can carry a diseaes around the world in a couple of days. This was depicted in many scifi movies like Contagion.

And gays have not really changed their habits. If you read the profiles on Grindr, the gay hookup app, many people claim to be on the prophalyptic PReP drug regime which allows the more pleasurable and dangerous version of unprotected sex. It wont be HIV but something new.

Humankind has lived with plagues for 10,000 years since agriculture and urbanization has created the population density that allow plagues to flourish. There are plenty of stories where some plague kills off half to 90% of a village goinf all the way back to Classical Greece.

<comment><USER41> HIV is a disease of gay men in the western world, but that's not true elsewhere. Most infections in Russia are from intravenous drug use. Most infections in sub-Saharan Africa are from heterosexual sex. Your science is bad.

<comment><USER13> HIV disproportionally affects gay men in the west, but only about 50% of HIV+ people in the US are gay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> > _One important caveat to any such approach is that the patient would still > be vulnerable to a form of H.I.V. called X4, which employs a different > protein, CXCR4, to enter cells._

> _"This is only going to work if someone has a virus that really only uses > CCR5 for entry — and that's actually probably about 50 percent of the people > who are living with H.I.V., if not less," said Dr. Timothy J. Henrich, an > AIDS specialist at the University of California, San Francisco._

> _Even if a person harbors only a small number of X4 viruses, they may > multiply in the absence of competition from their viral cousins. There is at > least one reported case of an individual who got a transplant from a delta > 32 donor but later rebounded with the X4 virus. (As a precaution against X4, > Mr. Brown is taking a daily pill to prevent H.I.V. infection.)_

This...leaves a lot to be desired...

</comment><comment><USER47> I call bullshit.

As a kid who grew up in the 1980s and suffered through endless funerals and stuff, I also observed that any time a research lab was nearly out of funds, they'd send out a press release claiming something that sounded important, but wasn't. The local congress person would find funds to keep the research group going and "save the day".

The research that was "saved" was usually an impressive-sounding tidbit that wasn't really impressive. "Kills HIV in the test-tube" became a red flag for me... that was always an indicator something fishy was going on. HIV is easy to kill. oxygen kills it. Sadly, you can't pump pure oxygen into the blood or the patient dies. Killing HIV in a testtube was the experiment you did to get PR and more funding.

One person "cured" is an anecdote, not a breakthrough. Occasionally people's bodies cure themselves. After 12 years of trying someone was "cured"? I'll believe it when I see it done in a repeatable way.

Sorry for being such a downer. I've had my heart broken too many times.

<comment><USER48> it wasn't all bullshit though, you were just to young to understand the concept of how science works. you thought breakthroughs were cure-all's, when really they were incremental improvements. By the 90's, they had meds which has allowed patience to live long and relatively normal lives - those meds came from the scientific breakthroughs of the 80's which you despise so much.

Likewise, no one is saying this a practical cure - but scientifically speaking these are two individuals whom have been relieved of the disease, thoroughly confirmed, and now with two patients, a replicated process (however impractical it is).

Sorry for your losses, just saying, you shouldn't 'shit' on peoples hard scientific work because it didn't fulfill your hopes and dreams.</comment></comment>


At CES: Color-changing E Ink film for display experience - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2015-01-ces-color-changing-ink.html <comment><USER2> I've seen this press release all over the place, but nobody has shown an image other than this single-color (red and shades of red) display panel. Is this _really_ multi-color ala Mirasol?

And showing a wall from the tunnel in ORD Terminal 1 (circa 1985) doesn't count. That's lazy.

<comment><USER3> There was a video at the end of this article: [http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/06/e-ink- prism/](http://www.engadget.com/2015/01/06/e-ink-prism/)

<comment><USER2> Yes, and to be slightly pedantic here, that's not a color display. That's a monochromatic display with the e-ink particles colored red instead of black. Of course they could mix this up with other colored segments, but in the end you don't get anything close to an RGB display made out of electrophoretic particles.

But I'm sure "Color E-Ink!" makes a much more clickable headline.</comment></comment></comment>


Everything You Wanted To Know About Caching - <AUTHOR> http://www.mnot.net/cache_docs/

<comment><USER2> You should add the word "web" to the title. There are many other kinds of caching.

</comment><comment><USER3> It's still a nice resource, but it's been posted many times before.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3598773>

</comment><comment><USER4> this is good, but somewhat outdated. I haven't used iplanet since 1999. Also SSL/HTTPS is a whole different world.

</comment><comment><USER5> in the scripts section he says "Generate Content-Length response headers. It's easy to do, and it will allow the response of your script to be used in a persistent connection. This allows clients to request multiple representations on one TCP/IP connection, instead of setting up a connection for every request. It makes your site seem much faster."

does he mean, for example, when serving up a dynamic php page, where the content might change for each request, you should still generate a content- length header before outputing the content?

</comment><comment><USER6> Great primer on web caching.</comment>


A better way to donate - <AUTHOR> https://changefol.io

<comment><USER2> Promising. Nice update for a modern user who wants to integrate giving more into their daily life.

</comment><comment><USER3> i just went to the site. good idea, but it seems like too many steps involved</comment>


Apple Debuts New 15-Inch MacBook Pro and $1,999 27-Inch Retina iMac - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/05/19/apple-debuts-new-15-inch-macbook-pro-with-force-touch-and-1999-27-inch-retina-imac/

<comment><USER2> Kind of disappointment, they are still replacing NVidia chips by AMD. M370X, M290, M290X, M295X...

AMD R9 series are known for overheating. M295X (The high end option for iMac) goes up to 105C under recent games and starts throttling. (The clock reduces to avoid melting introducing shutters and frame drops.)

<comment><USER3> Why the hell does Apple keep going with the _SHITTIEST_ mobile GPU maker on the planet? I just cannot understand. But then again, I am only supposed to consume, not question, I guess...

And I say this as a 2011 MBP user (yes, it has AMD graphics ... with pathetically awful OPENCL support from AMD or Apple).

Apple, please just use nVidia (or heck, even Intel) and let AMD die the quiet and inglorious death it deserves.

<comment><USER4> Probably has to do with GPU licensing. Nvidia wants all GPU makers to pay up, and Apple is a customer of Imagination. Apple probably wants to punish Nv. Yet another example of apple putting its wallet before user experience.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I've been waiting to upgrade my Mid 2012 15" MPB Retina for a while. I bought the high end model at the time, and the difference between mine and the new version is basically:

* 2.7Ghz -> 2.8Ghz

* Nvidia GT 650M -> AMD R9 M370X

* PICe SSD 2x -> 4x

* Battery 95Wh -> 99.5Wh

* force touch trackpad

I'm not sure it's worth the price.

<comment><USER6> Not really trying to defend the specs here(AMD, yuck) but the CPU should be much faster than the one you have. It's not a straight 100MHz difference with all the processor changes between 2012 and 2015.

<comment><USER7> Thing is, there has been little "processor change". The new model still uses Haswell, which I think is barely 1-gen over the 2012 model.

<comment><USER6> Ah, I thought Ivy Bridge was newer than 2012 but I guess it's been kicking around for quite awhile now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Is this switch from Nvidia to AMD new in this generation? I'm so glad I got in on an nvidia based rmbp in 2013. I've had nothing but trouble with amd graphics across 3-4 older laptops running windows and linux. Never again.

<comment><USER9> iMacs have been shipping with ATI/AMD cards since 2009:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_(Intel- based)#Unibody_iMac](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMac_\(Intel- based\)#Unibody_iMac)

<comment><USER10> They did ship just prior to the Retina models with Nvidia graphics which many found to be more stable and better performing; the one on my desk has a 4g 780m chipset having moved off the 6870ATI set I had earlier.

I guess its one of those back and forth battles between the two little guys and Intel. Intel never has offered an integrated system with any gaming performance but it does not seem many care.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish there was an option for matte screen iMac...

<comment><USER12> This is a valid point -- Matte used to be standard for design work and is still useful today. Gloss is nice but reflectivity and color accuracy can be problematic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Frustrating that Apple is basically down to 2 SKUs. When I picked up my MBP in late 2013, I could change the memory, ssd, and gpu. Now, if you want the updated GPU, you _must_ get the 512GB SSD (something I don't need). There's really only a $2K and $2.5K price point now.

<comment><USER14> The cost of the hardware options doesn't reflect the marginal cost of the hardware at all. It's just a price discrimination mechanism, which is why there is so much bundling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> looking at anandtechs side by side comparison with the 2014 model, this isn't much a of a change.

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/9268/apple- announces-2015-15-r...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/9268/apple- announces-2015-15-retina-macbook-pro-cheaper-27-retina-imac)

<comment><USER16> Recap:

* discrete NVidia 750M replaced by AMD R9 M370X

* PCIe SSD 2x -> 4x

* battery 95Wh -> 99.5 Wh

* added force touch trackpad.

<comment><USER17> The performance of those new SSDs is legit, though. Those drives even wallop the "trashcan" Mac Pros. [http://barefeats.com/hard199.html](http://barefeats.com/hard199.html)

But that said, with Skylake all but certain this fall, most folks would be well-advised to hold out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Interesting that these were announced before WWDC. Apple clearly don't need any filler.

</comment><comment><USER19> I need a new magic track pad, was hoping they will release a new one with force touch soon. Anybody have information about that? Possibly a new keyboard as well with the wider spacing like the new macbook?

</comment><comment><USER20> Finally!

"[Thunderbolt] Support for up to 5120 by 2160 resolution at 60Hz on a single external display (model with AMD Radeon R9 M370X only)"

<comment><USER21> Maybe, just maybe, that means Thunderbolt 5K Displays are coming.

Maybe.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Still no Broadwell

<comment><USER23> Still no adequate amount of RAM.

<comment><USER24> Really? 16GB combined with the PCIe swap really does seem like it would meet the definition of "adequate" for 95% of users.

<comment><USER25> It seems that you can upgrade to 32GB as well (update: replies are correct, I seem to have imagined this, both models are still limited to 16GB).

My fear is that this means Apple believes Skylake is delayed, since they'll presumably want to do another release early during that cycle.

<comment><USER26> _It seems that you can upgrade to 32GB as well._

For the iMac, yes, but apparently not for the Macbook Pros. See:

[http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook- pro?product=MJLT2L...](http://store.apple.com/us/buy-mac/macbook- pro?product=MJLT2LL/A&step=config#)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Where is my 27" retina display, damn it.

</comment><comment><USER28> The only thing this new MacBook Pro has over the Chromebook Pixel (LS) is OSX (iffy as a positive with the availability of Chrubuntu), a better graphics chip, and more hard drive space.

Not sure that's worth $700...

<comment><USER29> [http://thenextweb.com/google/2015/05/17/i-switched-from-a- ma...](http://thenextweb.com/google/2015/05/17/i-switched-from-a-macbook-pro- to-a-chromebook-pixel-2-heres-what-happened/) doesn't inspire confidence in ChromeOS...

<comment><USER28> Which is why I qualified with Chrubuntu.

<comment><USER29> At least with [https://www.reddit.com/r/chrubuntu/](https://www.reddit.com/r/chrubuntu/) as a reference point, it looks like the $700 is in not having to deal with system configuration and debugging before you can use it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Duke Killed the Durham-Orange Light Rail Project - <AUTHOR> https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2019/03/durham-light-rail-duke-gotriangle-transit-research-triangle/584839/ <comment><USER2> They were going to hit up the Federal government for almost _half_ the cost but not even _apply_ for that in the first 20 years of planning?</comment>


Why No Outrage? - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121642367125066615.html <comment><USER2> "John McCain, the angrier of the two presumptive presidential contenders"

Statements like these detract from the credibility of the article.

<comment><AUTHOR> They don't detract at all because they're true. McCain has some serious anger/temper problems and that's not really a secret. He's had numerous outbursts on TV and on Senate floor.

[http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_...](http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/01/27/famed_mccain_temper_is_tamed/)

So I don't really why stating that simple fact would take away anything from its credibility.

<comment><USER2> The word angrier implies there is an objective way to measure anger. There isn't. Ask Howard Dean.

<comment><USER3> >is an objective way to measure anger

Number of incidents where John McCain has been on camera/near reporters and been angry: many.

Number of incidents where Barack Obama has been on camera/near reporters and been angry: none.

It's objective enough for these purposes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some people are outraged. Much of the 'populace' of this forum: <http://www.tickerforum.org> and the originator of this one: <http://financialpetition.org>

</comment><comment><USER5> Its more of a social survey of the current economic situation and the (lack of) outrage among the masses at this point in history. It's off topic but a worthwhile read.

</comment><comment><USER6> Somebody needs to point the mob in the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER7> People need to be told when to be outraged. Most people, including the majority of people reading these words, don't understand how the banking system works, even on a simple level, or how stock exchanges work, on a basic level, or how the mortgage system works, except via media oversimplifications. This isn't some symptom of our 'declining modern times' or some such, it is the way it always have been. Hell, most farmers don't even know how to be good farmers, feel free to replace 'farmer' there with any occupation. Most people just aren't very smart, and getting even a 'regurgitate the basic facts' understanding of any of the topics I mentioned above would take them weeks of fulltime study. So how the hell can they be mad? Mad at what? The complex system they will never understand and doesn't seem to have any effect on their lives, or the media which tells them it's nothing to be mad about, confirming their day to day impressions?

<comment><USER8> Lets use the laymen's sniff test to figure out the level of WTF present in our system, using IndyMAC as an example.

You have all your money in an IndyMac account. They hold your mortgage. IndyMAC collapses prompting the FDIC to take them over and bail them out. What happens:

You lose at least half (probably more) of all the money you have in the bank over $100k. They get a fat bailout, so long and thanks for all the cash. You are still expected to repay your mortgage in full.

I know there's probably some logical explanation in financialese showing that this is the right outcome... But, come on, they lose your money and still demand to be repaid... WTF?!

There is the outrage.

<comment><USER7> Ok, you're confused here. Something can be an outrage, and something can cause outrage. The question "where's the outrage?" isn't "Where's waldo, see if you can spot an outrage", rather "why aren't people outraged!?".

Also, when the FDIC takes control of a bank, the shareholders of the bank are basically fucked. They lose their money, it isn't a bailout. The FDIC insures YOU against the fatcats, preventing them from blowing your money and leaving you destitute.

Finally, everyone knows that 100k is how much is ensured, and you should also know that that limit is per institution, so you can put money in 80 different banks and have 8M effectively insured.

There are all sorts of issues with the banking system, but it is fairly decent. It is certainly not some dystopia dreamed up by left wing conspiracy theorists (nor right wing, like ron paul).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Wall Street Journal disses Wall Street!? ZOMFG</comment>


Two-year-old Nexus 4 issue status changed to obsolete - <AUTHOR> https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=41626 <comment><USER2> It's sad no fix was released, but I find it equally sad it was marked obsolete after just 2 years. Obsolete basically means: we don't care about this device anymore, buy a new one instead.

In a world where striving for lower environmental impact should become core business of every company and individual because sustaining the current lifestyle of many is going to severely damage the planet in one way or another, this is not the kind of sign major companies (and they pretty much _all_ do it in the mobile business) should send into the world.

For a lot of people these companies are half gods, and what they do shall be believed in, it becomes part of their education. Making people believe buying devices and throwing them away after a just year or two is standard isn't exactly noble. Yeah yeah I know money is the driving factor behind companies, but that doesn't mean it cannot be combined with sending a 'greener' message into the world.

<comment><USER3> Let's not overreact. This is a bug report on an outdated phone and outdated operating system in a use case that will likely only be experienced by a very small subset of users. Should Google fix this? Probably. But that does't mean that not fixing it is a sign of fundamental problems with Google, the mobile industry, or consumer culture in general.

<comment><USER2> Yes maybe I am overreacting, but doesn't the simple fact a phone is considered outdated prove something _is_ fundamentally wrong with mobile consumer 'I must have the latest' culture? There are enough electronics and other branches in which 2 years is merely a fraction of the lifespan of the device or product, and it would be unseen if the company would end support for it that soon.

<comment><USER3> Sure, I expect my stereo, dishwasher, iron, dryer, electric shaver, alarm clock, and blender to work for more than two years. But how many of those devices would receive an update (or recall) to fix a bug that prevents the use of a single minor feature?

Your Nexus 4 doesn't stop working when it stops receiving updates. The closing of this bug doesn't mean your phone is less functional than it was yesterday. You are free to continue using the Nexus 4 tomorrow exactly as you have been for the last two years. This decision only means that Google is moving on to more pressing issues that either affect more users or have a bigger impact on their bottom line.

<comment><USER4> _Sure, I expect my stereo, dishwasher, iron, dryer, electric shaver, alarm clock, and blender to work for more than two years. But how many of those devices would receive an update (or recall) to fix a bug that prevents the use of a single minor feature?_

But we are not talking about such devices. We are talking about something that is nearly a general purpose computer and could have its software updated on millions of devices any time Google wants.

The problem is that there is an incentive for vendors to start ignoring devices when they are not sold anymore. First of all, it reduces maintenance costs. Secondly, it encourages people to buy a new device. However, one could question if this ethical in a time where there is scarcity and where we have to care for the environment. Especially for a device that is still perfectly capable (as I said in another comment, this is a device that is better spec'ed than the currently massively popular Moto G).

It's a bit unfair to pick on Google here, since they are at least providing Lollipop. There are many other two year-old phones that are still stuck on Jellybean. But I think that in general it is an issue that should concern us. I am hoping that at some point the EU will require vendors to provide at least security updates for some period (e.g. three years).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I just don't get how Google keeps getting positive press for its Nexus line. The issues with the early devices were written off as teething trouble, but Google has been developing Nexus devices for 5 years now and still they frequently have fundamental technical flaws and go unsupported after just a couple of years, if that in some cases. I honestly don't know what the benefit of getting a Nexus device is anymore.

To those people claiming all Apple does is assemble components and throw out overpriced crap and the iPhone is essentially just a marketing exercise, this is what it looks like when that's actually true.

<comment><USER6> HTC Samsung LG and Motorola were the manufacturers of the Nexus line not Google.

I bought one of the first Nexus 4's on the market and it still works, I've had very few issues with it. My mother has one, she's had very few issues with it. She also has a Nexus 10 which I'm somewhat jealous of because it's an absolutely phenomenal device she uses it non stop. If you want an Apple device get an Apple device personally I don't like them because I think the OS has been behind for quite a while. I buy Nexus devices because they are being sold as hardware without carrier lock or bloatware, as all phones should be.

<comment><USER7> I've had n4/n5 and all the iPhones since 3GS. Disagree that iOS is behind overall. It's behind in features yes, but usability I still like iOS more.

Droid: -more os features -more customizability -like the notification centre much better -most apps that aren't in the top echelon of apps, are gross to use and look at. -hate multitasking multi-processes running in background

iOS: -buttery smooth like no other -touch input is much more accurate, somehow it knows -top echelon of apps, are better on iOS than droid

Gave droid a fair shot. To me, important things to get right on mobile is lag- free daily usage, and accurate touch input. Apple nailed both of these. And apps are usually better done on iOS than droid from my experience. For writing apps I prefer Xcode/Cocoa ecosystem over Java/Eclipse.

Generally I think Apple hardware+software is best in industry. And Google makes the best software services (Gmail, drive, play music, youtube, Maps, etc.).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Over the last 3 years, I bought three 'google edition' devices (nexus 10, galaxy nexus, htc one m7) and I am less than impressed. I haven't experienced faster updates, and while I appreciate to run the vanilla android. Regressions and overall poor software quality have been my experience with their devices. They must be outsourcing large parts of the software they ship on their devices because I'm absolutely stunned things like this go through QA.

Here's the best-of: \- The responsiveness of the nexus 10 tablet has been enjoying enormous spikes since day 1.

\- Running into all sorts of problems with 'Mail app' and now 'Gmail app' using a third-party imap server. Lots of message with an HTML body or attachements are displayed blank.

\- Skype, hangout, SIP, have been a disaster with all those devices. Sometimes due to horrible software (Skype), sometimes due to the hardware/OS (hangout with htc).

\- Finally, lollipop is the freebsd 5.0 of android

<comment><USER9> "Finally, lollipop is the freebsd 5.0 of android"

What do you mean by this, exactly?

<comment><USER8> What I mean by this - out of frustration because I _want_ to love this new release - is that the 5.x release of android, on the couple of devices I upgraded is, buggier, laggier, and less stable than version 4.x. In terms of usability, I also noticed that they removed the ability to only display contacts that have a phone number: I can live with that but I can tell you my dad was furious about this. Another minor annoyance is that switching to a different WIFI network seemingly requires more taps than before. I've owned a few IOS devices in the past - an OS I am not a big fan of - but I am disappointed that Google routinely overlooks those kind of details that Apple certainly wouldn't.

<comment><USER10> In 5, its two swipes from the top, then tap the name of the WiFi network or the word WiFi (under the signal icon)

Seems pretty good to me.

In 4.4 I swipe down once then press and hold the icon.

<comment><USER11> Ah, yes, the-gestures-no-one-knows-about-unless-specifically-told.

1\. Swiping down with 2 fingers brings you straight to the settings drop-down (vs. the notification drop-down). 2\. The WiFi icon and the text beneath it do different things when pressed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've starred a load of Android bugs in that tracker; and over the last few weeks, _loads_ of them (many tens) have been flagged Obsolete.

Many of them are absolutely not obsolete; they're as relevant in 5.0 as they were when they were raised.

It's great that they're cleaning up the issue tracker as if they might actually use it (or maybe it's preperation to move to GitHub, as many other Google projects have been), but it sucks that they're just blanked fobbing off a load of relevant cases :(

<comment><USER13> No, they don't clean anything. For me, this is just enterprise in action. They send a clear message that any free work that you did for them will be used as they see fit. That includes sending it to the trash.

So much for 'community'. When it's a company involved, the sense of participation is dissipated by the monetary interests of the shareholders (which you are not one of).

On their defence, who do you think will check any pending fixes for those bugs? Do you take ownership on that? They sure don't. And they are busy with the next release anyway. Why bother with your two year old phone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> As a pretty happy galaxy nexus owner (that I just passed to my teenaged son), I've been pretty disappointed with the price point and apparent lack of commitment to the google phone line. As a consequence I've just bought OnePlus Ones for myself and my family based on their apparent commitment to cyanogen as native-from-the-factory load and a much better price point than the Google 6. It's a bit sad to see Google move away from the Nexus phones as a touchstone for value and 'pure' android, but good to see others (e.g., OnePlus) filling the ecological niche.

It will be interesting to see if OnePlus continues to fill this niche or evolves away from it.

<comment><USER15> Sadly it looks like OnePlus is moving away from Cyanogenmod (search Google News for `oneplus cyanogen`). Also the OnePlus One never had the fully open source version of Cyanogenmod 11. It uses a version called 11s ([https://cyngn.com/products/oneplusone/](https://cyngn.com/products/oneplusone/)) with many proprietary features.

However, they will surely continue making phones at that price on which the pure version of Cyanogenmod can be installed.

Xiaomi seems very promising since they also make phones at that price point with similar specs, and Cyanogenmod ROMs are in development. I know it might be hard to get them in the US, but in Europe they can even be ordered from Amazon.

<comment><USER16> > Sadly it looks like OnePlus is moving away from Cyanogenmod (search Google > News for `oneplus cyanogen`).

Having done the search you recommended, it sounds like the story is best told in the other direction: CyangenMod signed an exclusive deal with one of OnePlus's competitors for the Indian market, totally screwing them over in India, making them forced to release their device there without CyanogenMod. If they are also now dropping support for Cyanogen everywhere due to this (which isn't clear), I honestly could not blame them: a better telling of the story is "sadly it looks like CyanogenMod is moving away from OnePlus".

<comment><USER15> I didn't mean to imply that OnePlus was the one to blame. Cyanogen, inc. did not act in a fair way while selling something that was mainly a success due to an open source community.

OnePlus (or Micromax) actually very recently announced a replacement for Cyanogenmod 11S: [https://forums.oneplus.net/threads/rom- official-5-0-android-...](https://forums.oneplus.net/threads/rom- official-5-0-android-lollipop-alpha.223252/)

I somehow still don't understand how they will be able to include Google Apps without being a member of the Open Handset Alliance when shipping an almost exact fork of Android.([http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron- grip-on-...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2013/10/googles-iron-grip-on- android-controlling-open-source-by-any-means-necessary/3/))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> The bug tracker at [https://code.google.com/p/android/](https://code.google.com/p/android/) is for AOSP issues. Anything to do with a device specific issue should be reported to the OEM and not logged in that bug tracker.

The reason that this hadn't been closed before is probably the lack of resources to cope with the number of non-AOSP bugs reported in that tracker. The more critical issues will ripple up from OEMs to Google if necessary, and that is unlikely to happen via the community focused AOSP bug tracker you've linked to.

<comment><USER18> The N4 was explicitly Google branded hardware with Google providing the hardware support (Google handled RMAs, component replacement, etc). It is Google's responsibility to support phones they sell as Google supported devices.

It is no different than when you buy a car. You go to a Ford dealership, they sell you a car, its their responsibility to repair and maintain your car during the agreed upon warranty period. You wouldn't tell someone to "file a ticket" with Ford instead of calling their dealer, would you?

<comment><USER17> Exactly; You shouldn't file a ticket in this system for specific consumer devices. It's not the right place for those kind of issues, you should find the appropriate consumer support route.

<comment><USER18> You've misinterpreted me. The AOSP bug tracker is _exactly_ the right place to file bug reports for __Google sold devices __. Google takes on the responsibility of supporting those devices, hardware and all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I don't want to make excuses on behalf of Google and LG, but I wouldn't expect this kind of bug to be fixed in any phone, even a Nexus phone that's supposed to have up to date OS releases. Acoustic echo cancellation is subject to hardware limitations and firmware licensing decisions taken at the production planning stage. That puts it a step or three beyond simpler prioritization decisions.

So why didn't Google close this earlier? The media frameworks in Android have changed enough that, maybe, workarounds or fixes could have emerged as new media capabilities were added.

Google has lately gone on a tear of bug list clean-up. When you expose your bug list to end users you'll get a lot of questioning regarding why this or that bug can't be fixed. This one is particularly easy to defend.

</comment><comment><USER20> My Nexus 4 started to have an issue where using the camera may crash the phone... but only in third-party apps, never in the native camera app. I can't find the link to the bug report right now, but the last I checked Google didn't acknowledge the bug despite dozens or hundreds of reports.

Most irritating that this apparently started with a certain update (4.2.2?), and that the problem seems to be in the closed-source blobs, so you can't fix it yourself (I haven't checked, but that's what I read).

The Nexus 4 has another stupid defect, it has no USB OTG support, that is the ability to use it as a USB host and plug in USB devices. If you look at the kernel source, Google actually removed support just before shipping. The stated reason was that since the USB port doubles as HDMI (Slimport), you can't get 5V out of it. I managed to patch the kernel, and if you use a Y cable (taking 5V from somewhere else), it indeed works. But the interesting thing is, the way it is wired you can actually get 5V out of the slimport itself, IIRC. You just have to set a bit in the kernel. I managed to get it halfway running, but I stopped working on it because I didn't have enough experience and time to give it a polished interface. I was also afraid that I was violating the USB spec and might fry my phone or a USB device :-). In the end I decided that it was just not worth it and I wanted to spend my spare time on other things in my life.

But it makes you wonder, were there really technical reasons, or was it either 1) "stop trying to make that work, we got to get the Nexus 5 out next year!" or 2) "stop trying to make that work, we'd like to sell phones with larger memory (that people won't buy if they can just plug in a pen drive) / our partners would like to sell phones with larger memory / a evil cabal decided that it should be hard to put pirated .mp3 and .mkv on a phone, so we must make it as cumbersome as possible to get files onto there (MTP anybody?)"

Not saying that's what happened, but Googles behavior (intransparency and quickly obsoleting even there flagship devices) erodes trust, and Google was one of the last companies you could have trusted a bit.

<comment><USER21> Your experience and puzzlement regarding the Nexus 4 is basically identical to mine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> tldr; this was fixed. It just didn't get marked as fixed by Google.

I was following this issue on the Nexus 4 (comment #20 of OP[1]), way back when and even filed a more detailed follow up issue [2].

In short, the APIs needed for echo cancellation, noise suppression and automatic gain adjustment weren't making use of the Nexus 4 hardware (lack of driver, missing code, I don't know why). However, the issue was fixed in the Android 4.3 OTA update.

I can verify this because at the time I was working on a VoIP app and my Nexus 4 was my primary phone and it was driving me mad. But in all fairness, it was fixed by Google.

[1] [https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=41626#c20](https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=41626#c20)

[2] [https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=42978](https://code.google.com/p/android/issues/detail?id=42978)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is an issue that has affected my Nexus 4 since I purchased it two years ago. It makes nearly all third-party voice apps unusable. I have not been able use SIP dialers or Skype without the other side hearing echoes. I even considered buying the Nexus 5 just to resolve this issue, but I'm not sure if there are any fatal flaws affecting that phone which won't be resolved either.

<comment><USER23> my nexus 4 voice craps out for random reasons. I have to factory reset my phone every 2-3 days.

I've even tried building my own rom, examining logcat to no avail, using Cyanogenmod, using Paranoid Android doesn't matter voice cuts out at seemingly random intervals.

Damn you LG

<comment><USER24> There's a bug in the system somewhere breaking voice calls altogether on the Nexus 4 which is apparently triggered by a recent change to Google Play Services. Mostly the people affected are using third party ROMs (CyanogenMod et al), but I believe it's also affecting some stock devices. Might be the same problem?

Right now it's a choice between having a working phone with only partially functioning Google Apps or working Google Apps with the phone not being, well, a phone. Hopefully the CM crowd will be able to come up with a bugfix / workaround of some sort that doesn't involve stopping half the Google Apps from working properly.

(CM bug: [https://jira.cyanogenmod.org/browse/CYAN-5728](https://jira.cyanogenmod.org/browse/CYAN-5728) )

<comment><USER23> Android 5.0.1 seems to have fixed the problem, using factory image will build my own image later to test again

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> My Nexus 4 was pretty unstable when it got updated to Lollipop. I have one specific memory of trying to use navigate from Point A to Point B on my first day of work at a new job, only to have Google Maps crash about every 3 minutes. It seems to have gotten better with recent updates. At least Google Maps isn't crashing anymore.

</comment><comment><USER26> For me, buying a Nexus 4 when it was first released meant there were multiple tradeoffs in comparison to other smart phones on the market. The largest was lack of support if anything went wrong with it in return for pure android experience with frequent updates. There were certainly plenty of hardware and software issues as the new device was naturally buggy and acted up upon app or software updates. At the end of the day, tradeoffs are part of the android experience I bought into and I wouldn't go back in time and buy any other phone. Live with the nexus consequences or don't buy it, with technology progressing so quickly in the mobile space every two years you should probably be buying a new device if you are android advocate.

</comment><comment><USER27> Ever since updating to Lollipop, my Nexus 4 has had sudden restarts a few times a week. It's a very disappointing reduction in quality which makes me question whether to go Android for my next device. If Google can't support its own hardware reliably then I don't see why anyone else should put their trust in it.

</comment><comment><USER28> It would be interesting to know if these bugs are in core Android or in the Nexus 4 device-tree.

To me it sounds like they could potentially be fixed in third-party forks like Cyanogenmod where Google isn't the only party deciding if a bug gets fixed or not. Or maybe some already are fixed?

Any Nexus 4 owners here willing shed some light on this?</comment>


Meet HireMyFriend, a new product from Makeshift - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/look-what-i-made/372c64f3d833

<comment><USER2> I think this is a great idea. I really don't want to advertise that I'm looking for work by putting the little suitcase next to my name on linkedin, my employer would know immediately if they ever looked.

Interesting take on a real problem.

</comment><comment><USER3> All that will happen is the recruitment agents will monitor the HireMyFriend tweets, contact the potential candidate and it will be business as usual.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it's aiming to fix that problem. It's aiming to fix the problem where someone can't look for work publicly while still employed for fear of being fired.

<comment><USER3> Ah ok then I misunderstood.</comment></comment></comment>


Heroku-alarm: a simple to keep your free Heroku apps awake all the time - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/adnissen/heroku-alarm

<comment><USER2> I use pingdom for this, it's very simple and they have a free plan you've just got to look for it on the pricing page which is perfect for the task especially if it's just a free heroku app that you aren't spending money on anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice, my googling didn't find anything for this so I decided the irony of using a Heroku App to overcome Heroku pricing was too good to pass up.</comment></comment>


What? Is merecedes-benz cheaper than hazelnut? - <AUTHOR>

A simple research showed me that a kilo of mercedes-benz is cheaper than a kilo of hazelnut.
For example, price of a mercedes-benz CLA is $33000 and 1395kg (http://www.autoguide.com/new-cars/2015/mercedes-benz/cla-class/cla250/4dr-sdn-4matic/specs.html).
So, 1 kg of mercedes-benz CLA is ~$23.
A kilo of hazelnut costs around ~$24 (http://www.walmart.com/ip/Diamond-Chopped-Hazelnuts-8-Oz/10813763).
Isn't this interesting ? <comment><USER2> What about a kilo of wholesale hazelnuts? (Or 1395kg of hazelnuts? (You'll need a lot of squirrels :).))

It's unexpected, but not very rare. There are a lot of products that you usually buy and use in small quantities and are very expensive by weight. IIRC saffron [1] is more expensive than gold by weight.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saffron) , it's used to make yellow rice in Spanish cuisine, very tasty.

This can be a nice subject for a what-if question, in spite there is no conditionals and no destructions. [https://what-if.xkcd.com/](https://what- if.xkcd.com/)

</comment><comment><USER3> It is especially paradoxical since hazelnuts are a lot easier to chop...</comment>


How Much Has Scala Influenced Erlang? - <AUTHOR> http://functional-orbitz.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-much-has-scala-affected-erlang.html

<comment><USER2> Another little-known fact: that JVM that Erlang was originally written on? It was coded by Scott McNealy! It was a side project of his to prove to Bill Joy that he wasn't just a suit.

<comment><USER3> Don't you mean just VM (Virtual Machine).

Many people seem to forget that the J in JVM stands for Java, the term seems to be increasingly misused lately.

<comment><USER4> This article is some sort of parody or alternate history where Erlang was originally implemented on the JVM.

(In case anyone isn't sure: Erlang was originally written in Prolog in the 1980s before the JVM even existed.)

<comment><USER5> I don't really get the joke. I don't suppose someone would mind explaining it.

<comment><USER2> Someone twittered "Did Scala influence Erlang?". Since Erlang development started 17 years before Scala appeared, this seems unlikely. The blog post was a deadpan attempt at a humorous response. My comment was hoping to generate more humorous responses on HN, but alas …

<comment><USER6> Don't feel bad weichi, I got it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


WOW. Microsoft Offers $44.6 Billion To Acquire Yahoo - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/02/01/wow-microsoft-offers-446-billion-to-acquire-yahoo/ <comment><USER2> these kinds of mega deals very rarely work out ...

<comment><AUTHOR> Mostly true but in this case, Microsoft gets a huge boost in search reach and market share and thus a potential online advertising windfall.

Of course, they have a better chance to compete with Google.</comment></comment>


Radix DLT – Decentralized Ledger Technology - <AUTHOR> https://www.radixdlt.com <comment><USER2> Here's a whitepaper on the underlying technology:

[https://docs.radixdlt.com/alpha/learn/whitepapers/tempo](https://docs.radixdlt.com/alpha/learn/whitepapers/tempo)

The conclusion in the paper:

"This paper has proposed a method for determining total order of events within a distributed system, without relying on trust, that is scalable, efficient and agnostic to its operating environment. To reduce overhead and increase performance, our solution defines a structured, shardable architecture that limits state transfer information to only members of the network that need it. A peer-to peer network provides the means for communication and information routing via a reliable and robust gossip protocol. Nodes maintain a logical clock when witnessing events and periodically produce a tamper-proof commitment representing those events. When witnessing events, nodes collaborate to create Temporal Proofs which contain verifiable space-time coordinates which are used to construct vector clocks and determine when an event was first seen by the network. Nodes can join and leave the network at will and rely on detectable consistency anomalies to synchronize and bring them up to date."

The periodically produced commitment log is done with a Merkle tree.

<comment><USER3> You don't need verifiable time-space coordinates. You just need the topology of connections. We came up with largely the same thing two years ago:

[https://intercoin.org/technology.pdf](https://intercoin.org/technology.pdf)

We call it the Permissionless Timestamping Network and it is one optional component of a cryptocurrency system - but can be used for tons of purposes and is very easy for anyone to join. And since all connections are voluntary, there is no question of overwhelming any nodes either. Pure win :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I quote the founder of ethereum(one of the very few people I trust to actually not be scammer and be level-headed about blockchain stuff):

>Right. The claim that a mere DAG structure can solve the scalability trilemma is very false. You need to find a way to ensure that not every node needs to verify each transaction.I don't understand why they can't just group transactions into blocks and then have the DAG structure be over blocks, letting clients verify individual blocks with fraud proofs and data availability proofs. That would give them quadratic sharding right there.IMO the desire some people have to make "blockless" consensus algorithms is a huge mistake and step backwards; the way to get scalability is to have more layers of packaging.

>In a sharded chain, scalability of data[storing all the tx data] is going up a lot, scalability of computation[validating all income transactions] is going up but less than scalability of data (and additionally, sharding inherently makes latency of computation go up[nodes must communicate more]), and scalability of state[part of validating transactions - every node must know if a cross-shard tx is valid] is, in the current designs, not going up at all.

Looks like radix is addressing the data salability issue here, and maybe computation. Salability of state - not sure how this is addressed, if at all(will state be sharded as well?). There is nothing magical about DAGs vs blockchains.

Their webpages and whitepaper are so full of buzz terms that its hard to understand what they are actually doing. Some things are too high level, others are too dumbed down. All sorts of crap about atoms and constraints. 0 relevant explanation as to how it solves scaling better than ethereum's plan.

Also what is up with all the hyperbolic claims? 17 sextillion shards? Why would that ever be a good idea? How would you even start to maintain state across that? My BS detector is beeping.

<comment><USER2> Scalability of state seems to be addressed by minimizing the need for nodes to retain the full state, and the main mechanism is shards. From whitepaper: "A further benefit is that any Atom that performs an inter-shard transfer is present in both the previous owner's and new owner's shards. This, in part, eliminates the need for a global state and mitigates any expensive inter-shard state verification operations needed to prevent "double spends"."

I've only skimmed the whitepaper and the consensus check against conflicts seems to be a series of methods with escalating computational cost. I think they assume Atoms (e.g., Transfer Atoms) won't grow so big that they span massive numbers of shards.

I agree about the proliferation of buzzwords. Why not use Ledger instead of "Universe"?

Not sure how the eventual consistency model works in an economic context, although that's how ATMs work.

<comment><USER5> Sharding in this context is different from the sharding Vitalik is talking about.

In their whitepaper, they're talking about splitting up the state storage so that nodes don't need to retain the full state.

However, Vitalik is talking about splitting up the computation so that all nodes don't need to verify every single transaction.

ETH 2.0 (or Phore Synapse which I work on), splits the chain into many different "shards" which are basically lower-level blockchains. Then, validators get assigned various tasks to validate these subchains. (Verify these 50 blocks are valid). There are also mechanisms for ensuring that somebody stores blockchain history/state for a certain amount of time (proof- of-custody).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> A Radix tree is definitely the right way to go, something we've been doing for years (gun.eco/docs/RAD).

They seem to be claiming global consistency tho, which is a much harder claim to achieve especially if you're heavily sharding. Worse if you are in a trustless system. Any fast answers as to what the solution is here?

<comment><USER7> I don't think there will be any useful answers, fast or otherwise, until a definition of the term decentralized is settled on which incorporates a fundamental requirement that the system so labeled be always tending toward greater decentralization by default, rather than (as most systems do, all blockchain projects included) tending to converge toward centralized leverage over time.

the key seems to be that there has to exist, on the part of all members of the group seeking to collectively optimize their behaviors to foster some shared set of values, an established and non-negotiable priority of decentralization over (even at the expense of) every other value (cost, speed, personal gain). Inevitably this priority becomes compromised as decentralization is 1. a poorly defined value to start with and 2. accrues benefits that are local to the group but non-local to its individual participants. As the group grows this dilution of its value, manifest as an increasing remoteness to the interests of each individual it depends on for support, becomes a hindrance to its support vs., say, transaction speed or cost or personal gain.

one of the very rare nontrivial examples of such a system would be the pre- capetian custom of equal division of estate inheritance in Merovingian France, vs. the primogeniture commonly practiced nearly everywhere else. And this too eventually succumbed to its own success, as the frankish state was "decentralized" due to this custom, its identity dematerialized and its integrity made vulnerable to regional rivals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Also, a bit on the test proving scalability (over 1MTPS using the BTC blockchain) [https://www.radixdlt.com/post/test-method- part1/](https://www.radixdlt.com/post/test-method-part1/) and [https://www.radixdlt.com/post/test-method- part2/](https://www.radixdlt.com/post/test-method-part2/)

</comment><comment><USER9> This is a nice high-level overview of Tech behind Radix and why blochchain and directed acyclic graph cant scale.

[https://www.radixdlt.com/developers/technology/](https://www.radixdlt.com/developers/technology/)

</comment><comment><USER8> Just dropping in to comment on the 'light on details' whitepaper - the team is currently working on an updated Tempo whitepaper, covering the consensus in much more detail.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is it going to be open source or not?

<comment><USER11> They say in the future, and only partially: [https://docs.radixdlt.com/alpha/learn/faq#is-radix-open- sour...](https://docs.radixdlt.com/alpha/learn/faq#is-radix-open-source) For me is a STOP signal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> We should wait the peer reviews.

</comment><comment><USER13> If it is a DLT without blockchain is it DAG based or something else like maidsafe? Please a quick tldr on what the tech is on the homepage would be great

<comment><USER8> It's something else - a new consensus algorithm, called Tempo. In one sentence - it's reactive, rather than proactive, therefore easily scalable. Based on the passage of logical time, but there's of course much more detail to it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Pretty light on details, code.</comment>


Haskell Communities and Activities Report, May 2015 - <AUTHOR> https://www.haskell.org/communities/05-2015/html/report.html <comment><USER2> I have big hopes for the future of Haskell.

Haskell is backed by a truly amazing community. A lot of effort has been put into making Haskell more "beginner" friendly or production-ready. There is obviously still a long way to go and things to improve (cabal?) but what has already been achieved is something that Haskellers can be immensely proud of.

I am certain that this will pay off on the long term. Haskell will continue to inspire people to build better, safer software and contribute to make the line between software engineering and mathematics blurrier.

From a sociological aspect I hope that the values of tolerance, respect and benevolence that most of the Haskell community is supporting will also contribute to make tech a more friendly and equal place for everyone.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm currently learning and loving haskell. I, however, find it unlikely that this language will ever become mainstream.

Throwing a beginner head first into recursion and restricting all their programs to be a singular composite of expressions is the, unfortunately, best way to turn away a beginner.

But damn, it'd be an awesome future if I'm wrong.

<comment><USER4> >Throwing a beginner head first into recursion and restricting all their programs to be a singular composite of expressions is the, unfortunately, best way to turn away a beginner.

The alien-ness is what makes it difficult, not the actual design. Less design surface area makes it considerably easier to learn in that respect. That doesn't mean Haskell is easy to learn in general, for now. There's a huge difference in jumping from Ruby->Python->JS vs. learning how to program in terms of a foundation built on lambda calculus.

"singular composite of expressions" \- this doesn't mean a lot, and doesn't really fit, I think. You can hand-wave do syntax and pretend you're writing imperative code in IO. A lot of people do that when first starting out so they can get the hang of things. SPJ (OG Haskell honcho & compiler hacker) likes to say that Haskell is the nicest imperative programming language to use. I'd tend to agree :)

Takes practice. You need exercises.

If you haven't already seen it, I'd recommend taking a look at the guide I've maintained on how to learn Haskell: [https://github.com/bitemyapp/learnhaskell](https://github.com/bitemyapp/learnhaskell)

<comment><USER3> I'm not bad with haskell and I like it a lot.

I meant like beginner as in a beginner in programming in general. I feel the only reason why I was able to pick it up really quickly and like it was because I wasn't a beginner.

<comment><USER5> Recursion and loops will be equally alien to a beginner.

Here[0] is an interesting blogpost by somebody who learnt Haskell as their first programming language. Mutation and regular imperative programming are as alien to her as immutability and functional programming would be to somebody who has exclusively programmed in an imperative language.

[0]- [https://superginbaby.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/learning- haske...](https://superginbaby.wordpress.com/2014/11/18/learning-haskell-as-a- nonprogrammer/)

<comment><USER3> I doubt that. Loops are way more intuitive than recursion.

In other words, it is easier to think of something as a series of repeating steps then it is to think of something as a self referential entity.

<comment><USER6> In recursion you don't necessarily have to think about self reference. Instead simply think of the return value of the function.

I think the only time I use recursion in Haskell is when I need to mutate some parameters over a set of items (which is often) but I don't have to think about the fact that the function is recursive - I only have to ask myself "how do the parameters change while traversing the set?"

Lastly, if you don't like the idea of recursion you can often do the same with a fold by keeping your parameters in the accumulator as a tuple or other such sum type.

My main point being that none of these things (programming patterns and strategies) are intuitive until you have some background.

<comment><USER3> >My main point being that none of these things (programming patterns and strategies) are intuitive until you have some background.

That's _my_ point. I'm saying in addition to this, loops are by far one of the easier patterns and strategies to become familiar with.

think about it. By knowing what a function is... recursion can be taught as a logical next step without introducing any additional language primitives. Yet most computer science classes will still teach looping syntax before even touching upon recursion. Why? Because looping is way easier to grasp then recursion, theoretical elegance be damned.

<comment><USER6> I'm saying that most people are biased towards loops and mutation because they learned them first. It's like riding a skateboard vs riding a bike. They're equally challenging if you know neither.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Which hacks do you ship today? - <AUTHOR> https://www.upbeat.it/2017/04/27/which-hacks-do-you-ship-today/ <comment><USER2> Not all hacks are low quality/throw away code, some even survive their products. I recently implemented email processing as separate Python processes that are remote-controlled via stdin/out; definitely a hack, but at the same time it works pretty well and allows me to keep moving while Golang's email libraries sort themselves out. Striving for perferction is fine; pretending to be perfect, not so much.

[https://github.com/andreas-gone- wild/blog/blob/master/portab...](https://github.com/andreas-gone- wild/blog/blob/master/portable_ssl_imap_smtp.md)</comment>


We'll do it live–a new chapter in YouTube's live stream - <AUTHOR> http://youtubecreator.blogspot.com/2016/06/well-do-it-livea-new-chapter-in.html <comment><USER2> Basically they'll soon add the equivalent of Periscope into YouTube, as a feature. Get out your smartphones!</comment>


Android devices can be fatally hacked by malicious Wi-Fi networks - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/security/2017/04/wide-range-of-android-phones-vulnerable-to-device-hijacks-over-wi-fi/ <comment><USER2> FTA: _The Broadcom chipset contains an MPU, but the researcher found that it 's implemented in a way that effectively makes all memory readable, writeable, and executable. "This saves us some hassle," he wrote. "We can conveniently execute our code directly from the heap."_

How in this decade, with all we know and have learned about security and exploits, can this kind of thing still happen?

<comment><USER3> How much money will this cost Broadcom? Exactly zero.

So, why should Broadcom care?

<comment><USER4> In fact, they may make money off it, if the only mitigation is to buy a new phone.

<comment><USER5> This has already been patched via software update.

<comment><USER6> And the patch has been distributed to 0.5% of people affected.

<comment><USER7> For android- that is a very good upgrade coverage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What's the possibility of using this exploit to patch the vulnerable Android systems?.. or to root the phone? It'd be an interesting solution against the time we'll have to wait for carrier services/manufactures to straighten themselves up.

(Say, if, oh I don't know... Knox and My Verizon got disabled or removed, Verizon would have no proof to void my warranty. It was Starbucks' wifi, promise!)

<comment><USER9> That thought occurred to me too --- root the phone, patch the exploit, tell the user they now have full control, and don't do anything else malicious.

It's somewhat amusing to consider that giving the user full control of the device he/she owns may be regarded by some as malicious...

<comment><USER10> The risk is if your payload is not perfect in all cases. Taken to the extreme, you brick a mission critical device and cost a life. This is why malware researchers don't write clean up code once they do C2 takeovers. If their cleanup command wrecks a medical device or some other ancient box still running XP, that's a lot of liability.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We really need a release of Android that allows driver updates via manufacturer packages and the app store. This is terrible.

<comment><USER12> It's not going to happen. Google makes a ton of money off the fact that people dispose cell phones ever two years, so they're never going to patch their insane OS model. I write about it a bit here:

[http://penguindreams.org/blog/android- fragmentation/](http://penguindreams.org/blog/android-fragmentation/)

..but the gist is that ARM isn't a PC. There's no platform. You've got random pins connected to random shit and only a subset of devices that use Device Tree. Even the ones that do still tend to have a ton of binary blobs and weird kernel patches that can't be up-streamed.

In a way, Windows/x86 makes a lot more sense. You have a base operating system. Any time you buy a new machine, you can wipe it, install the drivers and you've got a nice bloat free OS (until Win10 Advert edition anyway).

You can't just run AOSP. There have been cases where AOSP releases on master have failed to compile or require binary blobs. Maybe this weird Fuchsia crap Google is working on will provide a standard/stabilized kernel an ABI, but I wouldn't count on it.

At least Microsoft phones required UEFI, but they have locked bootloaders. If we wanted decent 3rd party fully open operating systems, I'd say the old Nokia devices would be the way to go if the bootloaders could be cracked.

<comment><USER13> > Google makes a ton of money off the fact that people dispose cell phones > ever two years

I've never seen any indication the google makes a PENNY off of someone disposing of their cell phones.

<comment><USER14> Of course Google profits in many ways from more people having the most powerful smartphones possible.

Throwing away an old phone and buying a new phone doesn't have to _directly_ fund Google for it to be undeniably profitable to Google.

That's not to say at all that Google is trying to arguably brick people's phones to force them to upgrade more. That makes no sense at all. They just don't have enough control over the ecosystem to fix the upgrade problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What's murky to me is how to tell whether I'm affected. I have a BLU R1 HD from Amazon which GSM Arena reports [0] has a Mediatek MT6735 SoC. Does that mean I'm in the clear? I don't see any mention of Broadcom components, but I guess there could be one packaged into something on the list.

[0] [http://m.gsmarena.com/blu_r1_hd-8171.php](http://m.gsmarena.com/blu_r1_hd-8171.php)

<comment><USER16> This is why you either buy an iPhone, Pixel/Nexus, or learn how to port the patches from Pixel/Nexus to your own device.

You could also trust someone on XDA, but that involves trusting a random person.

Android security is abysmal.

<comment><USER17> Please, software is not perfect, you find bugs you fix them.

And for the record, macbooks had a _very_ similar issue with intel wifi drivers not that many years ago.

<comment><USER18> The big difference is that all affected MacBooks will get a patch if something like this happens.

<comment><USER17> IIRC Apple tried to discredit Maynor instead of fixing the problem.

Also, remember that this new vulnerability was found by Google not Apple...

<comment><USER19> So? Most iPhones are patched already, or soon will be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Discussed here previously: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14034092](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14034092)

</comment><comment><USER21> Remember Stagefright? What ever happened to that? The bloggers promised us all an impending Android security armageddon (and you didn't even have to be on the same WiFi network as this one requires). According to Google's SafetyNet, that gathers telemetry from over 1.5 billion devices, not 1 occurrence of Stagefright has ever been seen in the wild. Think about that for a second.

It turns out developing an exploit, chaining it with other exploits to get around the Android security mitigations and then trying to make it work on devices running different OEM builds of Android was more difficult then people originally thought.

Moral of the story? Next time you hear horror stories about how susceptible your device is to an exploit just remember Stagefright and what a dud that turned out to be.

<comment><USER22> Stagefright could be filtered out at operator/app level, unlike this.

<comment><USER21> Not really. Unless the carrier prevented the sending of MMS messages there wasn't anything they could do. About the only change made to most apps was to set the MMS auto play setting to off. Stagefright never amounted to anything due in most part to the Android security mitigations and the differences in each version of Android built by the OEM.

<comment><USER22> Wait, are you saying MMS messages are direct peer-to-peer? My understanding is, they go through the operators' MMS servers, where all sorts of antiviral activities can take place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm unclear -- does the victim have to actively connect to a malicious network, or does work even if the victim is unconnected/connected to another network?

<comment><USER24> > By using the frames to target timers responsible for carrying out regularly > occurring events such as performing scans for adjacent networks, Beniamini > managed to overwrite specific regions of device memory with arbitrary > shellcode.

This implies that the exploit can happen when the phone is just scanning for list of available networks.

<comment><USER25> >Two of the vulnerabilities can be triggered when connecting to networks supporting wireless roaming features; 802.11r Fast BSS Transition (FT), or Cisco's CCKM roaming.

From reading the actual Project Zero post yesterday, the exploit was figured out using the fast BSS transition which I think is for high frequency p2p transmission, i.e. sending a video to your Chromecast. So you still have to be connected to the same network.

[https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/over- air-e...](https://googleprojectzero.blogspot.com.au/2017/04/over-air- exploiting-broadcoms-wi-fi_4.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "Smarter Wifi-Manager" might be a way to mitigate this, I hope. And probably is a good idea in general.

<comment><USER27> Or just, you know, Tasker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> iOS devices too. Apple uses broadcom wifi chips too.

<comment><USER29> They patched it in the last release. [https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT207688](https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT207688)

How many years is it going to take for all the android phones to get patched....

<comment><USER30> Nexus/Pixel phones have already been fixed:

[https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2017-04-01.html](https://source.android.com/security/bulletin/2017-04-01.html)

<comment><USER31> No, they may have a build, but it's not available yet.

My Nexus (5X) says the most-recent update (security or otherwise) is dated March 5th.

<comment><USER16> Yup. [https://i.imgur.com/cjgS5GZh.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/cjgS5GZh.jpg)

<comment><USER32> Nope, I just got 7.1.2 an hour ago on my 6P and am installing it now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Well that's one of the more terrifying exploits to come out recently.

</comment><comment><USER34> Total phwnage!

Setup a malicious wifi hotspot in a busy place and phwn away. You don't need to target anyone in particular, just wait and see what you got...

</comment><comment><USER35> This is an exploit within the wifi driver? So on iOs this would be a kext, and Apple controls all of that, so they can update and resign the kext and issue it in an update.

Whereas Google can't do that; it'd be up to the handset manufacturer.

Is this an example of the problem Google faces using the Linux kernel in Android? It cedes the kernel to the manufacturer, and wifi (and bluetooth etc) drivers are all kernel space, not user space. So Google can't really do anything here can they?

<comment><USER36> They can and they did - they pushed the update to Nexus and Pixel devices.

<comment><USER37> I know this is a well-rehearsed complaint at this point but having OEMs customizing Android to the point where it can't be updated was a real mistake.

<comment><USER32> I don't think customization is the whole problem. Sounds like different hardware is (most of) the problem, as it needs drivers.

<comment><USER37> I mean, Windows has way more drivers than Android and yet somehow I don't have to wait two years for hardware vendors to come up with special versions of Windows updates. Is that really an insurmountable problem?

<comment><USER38> Windows Phone doesn't run on a fraction of SoCs that Android does. You are basically limited to a Snapdragon and that's it. There is no such rich ecosystem like in Android, ranging from MediaTek to Nvidia.

<comment><USER39> Parent was referring to Windows on desktops and laptops

<comment><USER38> If he meant PC-compatibles, that's even worse. Desktops and laptops have something common: BIOS or UEFI, which standardize both boot process and plaform services, and enumerable buses like PCI. Nothing of this sort is available for ARM/Sparc/whatever boards.

It's like criticizing Windows, that it doesn't run on Chromebooks or PPC Macs.

<comment><USER37> I'm not a systems programmer, much less a hardware designer, but it seems to me like if it has been done once it can be done again.

<comment><USER38> The issue is not whether it is possible or not. Of course, it is possible.

The issue is whether it will result in better product, where better is defined as "will it sell more?". Your average cellphone buyer does not care about that. But he cares about thinness and battery life, which would be affected by a more universal platform.

Imagine a 3D chart, where one axis is battery life and small-sized hardware, second is versatility, third showing the sales, with a curve going through, showing a compromise between two trade-offs and total sales for that compromise. We are currently in one point, with few people arguing to change the position to another point, completely ignoring these two other axes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Honest question: Why is RADIUS not more widely used? Is it because of limited AP hardware resources?

<comment><USER41> It's not uncommon in enterprise networks but it's a PITA to setup and use at home (for most people).

<comment><USER42> It's the standard for (big enough) enterprises.

The low cost access points don't support it. It's standard on (more expensive) enterprise hardware.

<comment><USER41> I would call those SMB networks, not enterprise. But even so I'm kind of surprised by that since even some crappy home gear I've purchased has RADIUS support buried in advanced settings.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> no headline bias there. ios devices were vulnerable until patched, very recently. the patches are built for android and it's up to the device manufacturers to get them into the wild.

</comment><comment><USER44> Overall I like our title (currently "Android devices can be fatally hacked by malicious Wi-Fi networks") but "fatal" has a specific meaning (causing death) so isn't there some other word in place of that one that could be used here? It is certainly evocative of how dire this is but I feel like a different word might be more specific without losing gravity.</comment>


Password Reset and Web-Cache Poisoning (and a Little Surprise in RFC-2616) - <AUTHOR> https://www.skeletonscribe.net/2013/05/practical-http-host-header-attacks.html <comment><AUTHOR> "How does a deployable web-application know where it is? Creating a trustworthy absolute URI is trickier than it sounds. Developers often resort to the exceedingly untrustworthy HTTP Host header (_SERVER["HTTP_HOST"] in PHP)"...</comment>


NetBeans IDE 7.1 Released - <AUTHOR> http://netbeans.org/community/releases/71/ <comment><USER2> I'm currently using 3 IDE's. IntelliJ for Java, Flash Builder (Eclipse) for Flex, and NetBeans for PHP. I made an effort to switch to Eclipse for everything a while back, but find NetBeans my favorite tool for PHP, especially with the Zend Framework. I love the simple interface and it just seems to figure things out for autocomplete, refactoring, etc. better than anything I've tried for PHP. It's really nice to see Oracle continuing development on it.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've tried this version for Grails project. Integration for Groovy is less efficient than STS (based upon Eclipse). Currently, the best stays IntelliJ.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've tried 7.0 recently for a project requiring Jython 2.2 and it was a huge fail (I ended up with eclipse+PyDev, which shine on that particular task). I might give it another try, but I'm quite partial to IntelliJ for other stuff.

</comment><comment><USER5> I just use vim.

<comment><USER6> Hi g2orge. This is something I've always wanted to ask folk who just use vim for writing Java code (assuming it is Java):

\- How do you refactor code?

\- How do you navigate code (e.g. Eclipse will let you click on a class and it'll find the appropriate source file if available)?

\- Do you have a sense of whether using vim vs. an IDE affects your efficiency or correctness?

\- Do you have an equivalent for things like autocomplete, intellisense, organise imports etc.?

\- What are IDE users missing out by not using vim?

\- What kind of code do you write e.g. is it a small number of heavily optimised classes or a large number of, say, feature driven classes?

<comment><USER7> Navigation? Use ctags to create a cross reference file for the editor. Press ctrl-] to jump to definition, press ctrl-T go go _back_.

Having said that, I sometimes use vim for really quick edits to known code, or use the vim plugin for NB, so I get familiar quick keystrokes AND all the outline (navigator), javadoc, debugger and other windows available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> NetBeans is still around? If you don't want to use Eclipse, try IntelliJ.

<comment><USER9> Depending on what you are building, NetBeans is a great option. Its support for J2ME is excellent, for instance. I also prefer it for JSP stuff. I have used it to quickly cobble together Swing apps too and the new interface builder seems interesting. Never really tried it with PHP or C, but it doesn't look too bad. For Python an Django work, I like Emacs.

Like Tim said, Eclipse is overly and needlessly complicated.

As for IntelliJ, never bothered to try. It seems to have a very passionate user base, but, from what I saw, I don't know why.

<comment><USER10> I use for it PHP and I really like it, especially with the Mercurial stuff built-in. I've heard Jetbrains PHP IDE is better but of all the others I've tried over the years, Netbeans is by far my favourite.

<comment><USER11> I really like PHP Storm (from Jetbrains). It's fast, feature-rich and under constant development. Couldn't recommend it more.

<comment><USER10> Heh, I haven't paid for an IDE since Turbo C but I've yet to hear a bad word said against this one. If it doesn't suffer from the occasional memory gobbling antics of Netbeans then I might treat myself to an early birthday present.

<comment><USER12> You should! :) A couple of years ago I was skeptical, "Why would I pay that if I can get something good for free (Eclipse)?" Once I tried it for 2 months (now the trial only 30days), I couldnt help but buying the personal license. just happen that they had discount on easter.

<comment><USER7> License? Did that change in v7? I've been running various 6.x versions of NetBeans, and they were free.

<comment><USER13> They're talking about PHP Storm from Jetbrains, Netbeans is still free.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>