"An on-page advert was mining bitcoin in my browser" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/adamjogrady/status/902351152460701697 <comment><USER2> I met a guy once who made a browser add on that had legitimate functionality that people wanted, but behind the scenes he secretly read all incoming html and searched for Google Adsense links and replaced the number that identifies the source site with the number for his own site that had Adsense on it. So, whenever anyone with his add-on clicked any ad on any website with Adsense he would get credit for it and earn the money from it. They were all legitimate clicks so it was essentially impossible for Google to detect. He was getting several thousand a month in income from this. Haven't spoken to him in a while so I'm not sure if it still works of if people even still use his add-on. My guess is that either his add-on became unpopular over time or some changes Google made killed his nefarious plan.

I keep telling my other friend it would be really great if we could get a botnet going to mine Ethereum via GPU since ASIC mining isn't a thing in Ethereum because of it's resistance to it. Although, if they ever roll out the proof of stake concept then all mining seems to just evaporate then. Of course I don't plan on risking felony charges to mine Ethereum, but it is fun to think about.

<comment><USER3> If I was Google I would just remember I served add for website for account x but the number on the click was for account y. Real easy to detect.

<comment><USER2> I don't know enough to say with certainty, but I don't think it's that simple. The way I understand it, the script that loads Adsense does/did so at the end- user level when their PC loads the HTML and executes the script in their browser.

For what you are saying, I think it would be necessary for the original request to come from the site owner to pass through to the end-user, which I don't believe is the case. If that were the case, ad-blockers would have a much harder time determining the source of the content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I highly doubt this. He cites 40MB of downloads plus high CPU usage. Mining bitcoin won't need 40MB of download. Plus it has an ROI of 0. Even with free adspace this would not be worthwhile. More likely is someone just fucked up their ad.

<comment><USER5> The ROI is likely nonzero for some coins out there. Bitcoin's difficulty would be too high to make much money even if the ad were served to a very large number of computers. But other non-SHA coins (CryptoNight-based PoW, e.g.) or low-difficulty coins might be worthwhile.

> Mining bitcoin won't need 40MB of download.

Are you sure? I would think something like cgminer compiled to wasm/asm.js could be a 40MB payload.

For more context, OP states:

> "checked sources and discovered it was a Bitcoin add in iframe, looked at JS > it used"

> "It was also an ad for a btc exchange/wallet thing, so maybe the mining was > just to recoup some cost?"

The nebulous "sources" referred to _might_ be something credible. I imagine bitcointalk.org may have a thread on malicious ads like this.

<comment><USER6> > The ROI is likely nonzero for some coins out there.

If it's more profitable to mine $ARBITRARY_ALT_COIN than Bitcoin, then people would mine $ARBITRARY_ALT_COIN until the profitability equalized.

> Are you sure? I would think something like cgminer compiled to wasm/asm.js > could be a 40MB payload.

There's no need for that: [https://github.com/jwhitehorn/jsMiner](https://github.com/jwhitehorn/jsMiner)

<comment><USER7> > If it's more profitable to mine $ARBITRARY_ALT_COIN than Bitcoin, then > people would mine $ARBITRARY_ALT_COIN until the profitability equalized.

Thats.... what people do.

Market inefficiencies come up predictably because coins have different block reward and emission schedules. They have different algorithms which give advantages to different processors. The market efficiency time sometimes requires a completely new fabrication line created in china, this gives significant times till mining arbitrage goes away.

Similarly, multipool miners have software which automatically switches to different blockchain networks when the yield is favorable.

It is a mistake to think there is no opportunity just because someone told you there are always smarter more observant people profiting off the opportunity.

<comment><USER6> > It is a mistake to think there is no opportunity just because someone told > you there are always smarter more observant people profiting off the > opportunity.

I agree - I'm not denying that there are _ever_ opportunities for arbitrage, I'm merely asserting that there isn't going to be an alt out that there is "significantly" more profitable to mine than Bitcoin itself.

<comment><USER7> Okay

I would still disagree, my first thought was defining significantly. When 300% more profitable are the typical differences in yield, how is that insignificant? So then I decided the logical rebuttal would be "over time", where the assertion would be that it isn't significantly more profitable over time.

The rebuttal to that is that baskets of alt coins outperform bitcoin significantly, again by at least 300% barring the worst luck.

And even in a bad year for alts, it is possible to find a difficulty algorithm that you can game giving you an advantage that nobody else notices.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's not much to discuss here. It's an unsubstantiated claim that seemed to be backed up by the claim of "I looked at the code." Forget these guys claim for a moment; the more interesting discussion is the concept of trading mining resources for service. If it's an ad, it's malware, but if it was opted into by the user, it could be a new type of payment model.

<comment><USER9> Trading compute resources for a service is a much better proposition than trading my personal data or behavior for a service. This is interesting.

<comment><USER6> If average CPM is $3, that's $0.003 per individual impression. A quick back- of-a-napkin calculation shows that at current Bitcoin price (~$4,600), you would have to mine for about 100 hours at 1 GH/s to match that.

In reality, jsMiner is the only JavaScript Bitcoin mining utility of which I'm aware, and it only uses CPU. A modern machine's CPU is only going to yield a hashrate of 5 MH/s or so, which means you'd have to mine for them for 20,000 hours to equal the revenue generated by your eyes being exposed to a traditional ad.

In short, your PC is too slow by several orders of magnitude to make this a viable replacement for traditional ads.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> At some point people are going to have to admit that granting execute access to remote agents in order to read content is insanely insecure.

<comment><USER11> Surely you mean "granting native execute access"? JavaScript executes in a browser. Sure, it's sandboxed, but it's still executed.

<comment><USER12> Nope. I don't want some random code from the Internet tying up resources on my computer. Even if it doesn't have access to much of my data. That's the whole problem with the bitcoin mining - sure it's sandboxed but it's still bad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm surprised this sort of thing hasn't happened more commonly. I suggested it, as I'm sure did others, some year ago.

While I doubt mining bitcoin is going to be worth the hassle currently, other currencies might be, other tasks might be (generating rainbow tables for hash attacks?), and if it is bitcoin maybe that algorithm was just picked as a test for the delivery mechanism.

As JS JiT compilers get better and other tech that might help number-crunching becomes commonly available (webassembly? does webGL allow useful access to GPU processing power?) this sort of thing might become common too.

For people doubting the idea for ROI reasons: if the time to code the mechanism isn't time you would have otherwise paid for, and the delivery network isn't one you run but one you've managed to secret your code into by surreptitious means, then the investment is practically zero and _any_ return is a profit. Heck, for some he intellectual challenge and/or willy-waving potential might be profit enough!

Of course, without seeing the code in question I would say it is far more likely that this is just a _really_ badly coded animated advert or advert cycling code, chewing CPU with unneeded DOM changes & redraws and eating 40Mb of bandwidth constantly reloading content for animation frames that could be cached in a better design. The link to crypto-currencies just because the user had a bitcoin related advert on-screen at the time is, while possible, quite a distant conclusion to jump to IMO.

<comment><USER7> It does happen commonly.

There was an entire mining botnet operating for weeks using the same CIA exploit that the Wannacry attackers used. It made a lot more than Wannacry did.

Wannacry's ameteurish and public ways led to patches that both exposed the existence of and killed the botnet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This actually might be a brilliant (and by "brilliant" I mean "absolutely abominable") way to monetize a website without "ads" per se. Just use visitors' broswers to mine some altcoin while they're reading your article or what have you. The more visitors you get, the more money you get.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I suspect "Bitcoin" here is a synecdoche for "cryptocurrency" in general. (in the manner of intrusion detection software flagging a Monero miner as a "Bitcoin miner".) Plenty you can still mine on a CPU/GPU ... particularly if it's not your electricity.

<comment><USER7> > I suspect "Bitcoin" here is a synecdoche for "cryptocurrency" in general.

An advantage for all of us that actually get this market. Perpetuated market inefficiencies due to ignorance

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> "An experiment with in-browser distributed bitcoin mining"

[https://github.com/howardchung/jsminer/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/howardchung/jsminer/blob/master/README.md)

</comment><comment><USER15> And yet, we don't get upset when burns our CPU cycles with JS just to compose that gotta-have one-page-app on our devices.

The major difference is that the bitcoin ad _might_ actually be profitable at some point.

</comment><comment><USER16> only the code tells the truth.

</comment><comment><USER17> No source posted so until that happens, this didn't happen.</comment>


SproutCore debuts new HTML5 web development tools - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/04/19/sproutcore_debuts_new_html5_web_development_tools.html

<comment><USER2> "SproutCore" sounds like a musical sub-genre of veggie metal.

<comment><USER3>
      ooEEuuuuuuu killer tofuuuuuu

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Greenhouse looks interesting. I'd be intersted in seeing how it stacks up against Atlas. Can anyone offer insight?

<comment><USER5> Greenhouse isn't ready to be compared to Atlas just yet, the development has only been ongoing for a matter of weeks. That being said, Atlas costs money, and Greenhouse is completely open source:

<http://github.com/sproutit/sproutcore/tree/mg/master>

If you're more comfortable with Obj-C/J, then Cappuccino is the way you should go. Personally I use SproutCore because I'm far more comfortable in JS/HTML/CSS.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the MOOCs you have taken in 2018? Which do you recommend? - <AUTHOR> I would recommend Financial Markets
https://www.coursera.org/learn/financial-markets-global <comment><USER2> The best MOOC course I have taken this year is the one I'm currently doing. It is called nand2tetris [1] where you actually build a 16 bit computer all the way from nand gate. Along the journey you will be building the memory, operating system and also writing a compiler. You can follow my journey in tweets [2].

Another great course I'd recommend is Big History[3]. Like nand2tetris,it gives you a great overview of the entire history of our being. From Big Bang to 2018.

Also, I am looking for some great online courses on Distributed systems. It would be good if assignments are challenging and where you have to write a lot of code.

[1] Nand2tetris: [https://www.coursera.org/learn/build-a- computer](https://www.coursera.org/learn/build-a-computer)

[2] My Nand2tetris journey in tweets: [https://twitter.com/abiduzz420/status/1076192382398357505](https://twitter.com/abiduzz420/status/1076192382398357505)

[3] Big History Project: [https://polymathgoodies.xyz/big-history- project/](https://polymathgoodies.xyz/big-history-project/)

Edit: added extra spaces

</comment><comment><USER3> Scalable Microservices with Kubernetes - [https://in.udacity.com/course/scalable-microservices-with- ku...](https://in.udacity.com/course/scalable-microservices-with-kubernetes-- ud615)

</comment><comment><USER4> fast.ai - practical deep learning for coders</comment>


Why You Shouldn't Use Twitter Bootstrap - <AUTHOR> http://vibhunorby.com/2012/01/31/why-you-shouldnt-use-twitter-bootstrap/ <comment><USER2> This blog post would look nicer if he used Twitter Bootstrap. The spacing is poor, and I'd much prefer it's style to this one.

Anyway, let's tackle the points

1\. "If you can't design it, you shouldn't build it."

The argument is essentially, if you can't do every part of the task, you shouldn't start on it.

Where does that stop? If you can't build the operating system you shouldn't make a website? If you can't build your own HTML spec, or Javascript spec, or etc etc etc.

It's an arbitrary point in the sand.

2\. "Your homepage will suck and you will have no brand"

Why all the rudeness? Of course you'll have a brand. You'll still be using your logo, your design decisions within the bootstrap template...

3\. "You will have no new ideas"

Because I use twitter bootstrap, all my other ideas aren't new?

This doesn't even make sense. I'll stop now. This is rude blogspam that is nothing but irrational insults.

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think the author understand bootstrap. If his first argument against using it is that any site needs to spend valuable time with a custom design then he is missing the point. Bootstrap allows you to quickly get something public that doesn't look like a stowaway from the 90's. This is especially true for those of us who aren't great graphics designers. I can get a nice UI on my project that would normally be un-styled HTML. Honestly I don't care if you don't remember the design of my prototype site I want you to remember the content of it. However I guarantee that you will remember the poor design of my site and forget my content if it looks too ugly.

</comment><comment><USER4> Upfront: I'm using Bootstrap currently for the admin interface of a project.

I think the author of the post is getting bashed a bit unfairly right now. In the comments, the author links to a blog built on top of a bootstrap and to be honest... it looks terrible. I can almost deal with bad design better than something that looks prefab.

I can completely understand wanting to have some kind of baseline start point for building a site. If you are in a hurry, Bootstrap is great but if you have the time, don't use an unmodified version of Bootstrap. Dare I say, it might be better to start with something like HTML5Boilerplate that leaves the design far more open (again, if you have the time).

Edit: More...

I guess more than anything I think Bootstrap has a time and a place. If you are doing a public facing site I don't think using a base Bootstrap site is really appealing.

One of the author's arguments is that you should understand how it works and I agree completely. You can certainly modify the Bootstrap framework but you've got to understand the moving pieces just like in any framework. Bootstrap is fairly modular but you've got understand how everything is tied together in order to take it apart.

I understand not being able to afford the time or cost of a custom design but I see Bootstrap like scaffolding, as something to use for a quick fix but never in the long term (at least without modifications).

<comment><USER2> The author is being bashed for his tone, and his points.

The actual argument, that prefab styling can hurt you is a valid one. It's a reasonable argument that requires logical points.

The author didn't do that, he insulted it broadly without real content.

<comment><USER4> That's fair but I have an almost visceral reaction myself to seeing the black menu and white body with zero modification on public facing sites.

The base WordPress theme bothers me less than seeing something like this: <http://daveriver.scripting.com/>

Quick Edit: Looking through the sites on <http://builtwithbootstrap.com> is a mixed bag. There are sites that quite honestly look atrocious and others that look quite nice. I guess my baseline opinion is that Bootstrap in the wrong hands is just as bad as a blank canvas in the wrong hands from an aesthetic standpoint. That says nothing about ease of maintenance or anything else...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author must be a very negative person to take the time out of his/her day to slag on a useful CSS/JS library.

It's a community-maintained library that is designed for bootstrapping web apps – hence the name "Bootstrap".

How someone could take that, and turn it into this content-free, nonsensical, holier-than-thou tripe is beyond me.

<comment><USER6> I disagree; you do not have to be a negative person to point these things out. IMHO the author was simply trying to help anyone developing a web app avoid what he sees as a bad tool

<comment><USER5> Let's look at the four sub-headlines of the article:

>> 1\. If you can't design it, you shouldn't build it.

My version of this (idiotic) axiom: Don't reinvent the wheel every time you need to pick up groceries.

>> 2\. Your homepage will suck and you will have no brand.

Homepage? (What is this 1999?) Bootstrap is clearly intended for web apps. If you want to create an interesting "homepage", maybe you could try the ever- popular CopyPasta library from 37Signals...

>> You will have no new ideas.

Again, I counter this (also idiotic) axiom with another, less idiotic truism: You will stand on the shoulders of giants (or at least upon a giant pyramid of smart people). BTW, maybe someone should teach the OP how to override/alter stylesheets.

>> You will forget about information architecture.

Actually, you will leverage proven IA, and get the benefit of lots of people's opinions about what works and what doesn't. Like it or not, users' expectations drive most of what you call "UX". Bootstrap is a better-than- average collection of web app conventions. The last thing the world needs is another "innovative" navigation metaphor.

By the way, you could take every one of the OP's ridiculous arguments and apply them to, say, HTML. Should we be using Flash so that we aren't painted into the corner of HTML tags? It's such a stupid position, that it hurts my brain. I am promising myself not to spend another second on this thread...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If I could downvote I would. Author clearly hasn't ever used twitter bootstrap in some of its most amazing use-cases: Hackathons & Startup Weekends. We used twitter bootstrap for <http://hipay.me> to be designed in less than 12 hours - Never would've had the time to get the code done if we spent all our time on design elements!

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm planning on using bootstrap for some personal projects, not because I'm lazy, but because I'm a backend developer by trade (and practise) so I don't have much experience in front end design.

At least bootstrap appears to give you a framework to build something legible and good looking rather than the hacky CSS that I usually put together and weep about

<comment><USER9> I understand this perspective, believe me I do (I'm the post author). I'm also a back-end developer with very little design know-how. However, my point is just to bring awareness to the idea that design should be part of the product creation process. There are just way too many Bootstrap sites appearing. In fact, many solutions to problems that startups are working on can be solved with better design, but I think Bootstrap encourages us to come up with solutions that fit in a particular design model.

<comment><USER10> How many projects have you used bootstrap for? I just completed two very different projects using it and never felt bootstrap was "owning" our design decisions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Come on, what wrong with you guys? Author even removed his post. Who interested can find it in google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache%3Avibhunorby.com%2F2012%2F01%2F31%2Fwhy- you-shouldnt-use-twitter-bootstrap%2F) Are you all like these amature websites which looks like clones? Personally I will go away from site based on unchanged Bootstrap CSS. Bootstrap as product is good but people using it wrong, the big problem 95% not change default Bootstrap theme.

</comment><comment><USER12> I disagree. I think tools like Bootstrap move the state of the web forward. My only gripe is that there aren't more projects like Bootstrap to choose from. (I suspect that will change with time, as developers/designers see how much demand there is for these tool sets.)

Personally, I'd love to see an alternative to Bootstrap built on top of Compass and incorporating the design patterns of Kickstarter ;)

Additionally, designing with (and against) a set of patterns like Bootstrap gives you valuable constraints. I prefer that to sitting down to a blank screen, and apparently loads of other people do too, to judge by Bootstrap's massive success.

</comment><comment><USER13> I believe this tweet by the author sums up his true feelings on the matter: <https://twitter.com/#!/vibhu/status/164282933153239040>

"Seeing Twitter Bootstrap is starting to annoy me, it is not that different from geocities templates and such, except made for programmers..."

</comment><comment><USER14> Whoa! Talk about overreaching.

1) If you can't design it... {sneer}

"If you're using Bootstrap, you clearly don't care enough about your idea to spend time on the best user experience."

Or! Mabye you'll benefit from having more time to spend on your idea, rather than the basic framework of the web page you're composing.

2) Your homepage will suck and you will have no brand

"Homepages for Bootstrap sites are forced to be completely unimaginative."

I view Bootstrap like the binding of a book. A book with interesting binding is cool, but ultimately, it's the content of the book that makes or breaks it. There's nothing about Bootstrap that would cause your brand to be uninteresting. Bootstrap is easily extensible. It's a great starting point.

3) You will have no new ideas

This is almost a fair point. The incentive to create a new modality is diminished when existing tools are at hand, but this assumes that new ideas must be within the realm of web page design. That's like saying that no new paintings can be created with oils. That's just silly.

</comment><comment><USER15> The post has a very condescending tone IMO, but there is a grain of truth to some of it though. I would say that you should incorporate bootstrap into your design, rather than let bootstrap be your design.

Disclaimer: I'm incorporating bootstrap into the design of my personal project.

</comment><comment><USER16> <http://builtwithbootstrap.com/> has tons of examples of unique sites that you wouldn't think "Oh this obviously uses Bootstrap" just by looking at it.

<comment><USER17> Out of the 7 sites on the first page, only 2 have made any attempt to fight the DIVitis that's inherent in Bootstrap. As I've said before, this is promoting poorly structured non-semantic HTML.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> There's a pervading sense of "to succeed you have to graft hard and long" in this piece.

In contrast, I'm reminded of Seth Godin's note about Richard Branson: Loads of people can do almost everything he does everyday, except for those five minutes where he is exceptional.

So you use a default template for throwing up a web site. That's good, that means spending more quality time on the idea -- where it should be spent. A good enough design is good enough.</comment>


Apply HN: A program for elite business students before college - <AUTHOR> Basically the idea is for a curriculum that will be delivered through various means (summer camp program, weekend retreats, high school visits) that is designed for college students interested in BUSINESS in the summer before their freshman year. The curriculum will be designed to greatly increase the likelihood of student success in school, social life, professional career, and personal life. It will cover topics such as study habits, personal training/fitness, how to dress well, productivity habits, networking/presentation skills, career/goal planning, entrepreneurship skills, etc. Much of the value comes from the network created (similar to YC). There are many technology camps like this (that are really expensive) for really smart kids that are hosted by universities. I believe if you offered a strong programming for students interested in business, a lot of value can be brought to them for spending a few weeks.
While not a billion dollar business, I believe if it were grown beyond just an in person camp for 50 students, substantial profits could be made delivering the product online or through mini camps spread out in different regions.
There is more than this, but I wanted to keep it short. I can expand if necessary. <comment><USER2> I can see how this might be helpful to new students. How will you convince students that your course is better than your competitors?

</comment><comment><USER3> I thought the critical success factors for getting into a management programme in a university would be one's grades and one's SAT scores? Also what constitutes an "elite business student" especially since the student has not provided themselves in a business school setting yet? The proposal sounds more like some form of life coaching for someone who is not "elite."

<comment><AUTHOR> I would consider "elite" in this context to be taking in the students most likely to actually succeed. Accepted into Ivy League schools, high ACT/SAT/GPA, volunteer experience. The business part is just that they are wanting to study business.

It is basically life coaching, getting the best students possible and giving them a leg up on their competition (peers in program). I believe a few weeks would give them a considerable leg up which could lead to greater success manifesting itself as higher GPA, better internships, early leadership experience etc. Plus, joining a network of other elite students could lead to substantial value.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Who will teach these classes? Who will design the curriculum? How will you get the word out to interested students?

<comment><AUTHOR> Great questions!

Who will teach the classes? Well in theory the curriculum would be well made enough to not require an expert to teach. But, I envision having a few different instructors on staff for the different areas. For example, bringing in a personal trainer would help with fitness/nutrition.

The curriculum I have kinda dabbled with working on, but it would have to be adjusted for the actual "class" that is being taught. I bet with some time I could put together a really solid foundation of a curriculum just from my own experience and a good amount of research. For example, I spent a week with a freshman at the beginning of the year last year and was able to provide substantial value with just my general knowledge and experiences. With success, considerable time could go into putting it together, consulting with experts in each area would make the material much stronger.

Getting the word out to interested students is also a good one. Depends on which vehicle is being done. Could sell weekend camps to a high school directly or for the summer camp, advertising at elite high schools and the elite colleges students are getting into would work. I think filling a first group would be difficult, but a decent reputation and only... 50 available slots for a summer would be filled easily.

Thanks for reading!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: I have built an email-based service but how to enable it for users? - <AUTHOR> I am moving away from Gmail. However, I miss some features: auto creation of calendar events e.g. for flights.
So in my own time I built that functionality from scratch, initially tested with Fastmail. It's a service that can e.g. run on EC2. It uses IMAP to fetch emails, parses html/text content to get the information, connects to flights tracker APIs to get airport and flight information, then creates the calendar events using CalDAV.
An event looks like this: https://i.imgur.com/DyE78Bs.png
I have made it work with these types of emails: - Easyjet - British Airways - Kiwi - Lastminute - Gotogate - Airbnb - Eventbrite
I'm planning it to extend to more airlines, other time-based events like Meetup, cinemas, restaurants, and so on; anything you can "book a time for". Also I will test it to ensure that it works with more email and calendar providers.
I'm really happy with how it works for my purposes. I have spoken with a few people and they have shown interest in using it, and I have thought of various ways of getting them to use the service...
Which way accessing emails would be better? What would you prefer or be comfortable with? Your answers will help me decide what to work on first. Each has ups and downs, trading security with convenience. If I have enough time I will implement all:
- provide IMAP login details for your email service (this is how it works for me now but I expect not many people will be happy with that)
- create an email filter for your client to forward relevant emails to the service e.g. "from": firstname.lastname@example.com" "subject": "easyJet booking reference", then get an invite for the event (I quite like this one)
- browser extension for your email client
- get the source and run the code yourself on your machine / server after plugging in your own config
- something else?
I'm looking forward to hearing your opinions and thoughts about this.
Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> I will never be okay with enabling a third party service to skim my emails wholesale, so IMAP creds is absolutely out. I don't need an Unroll.me going on here.

Suggesting users use rules to forward to your service is a good choice, it allows the user to control what you can see, and it's exactly what the user wants you to see. I personally would be nervous about letting a third party see my flight itineraries, as general opsec, but if someone wanted to do this, I think this is the best way to do so.

Browser extensions are a rough choice because if you want to support many email services, you probably will end up asking to see and modify all browsing data, which is a scary permission to give third parties, and arguably one browsers should stop handing out.

I wouldn't mind running my own apps that read my email somewhere I could monitor what they do and ensure they don't talk to any service but my email service. But you won't see widespread usage with selfhosting, and good luck monetizing it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I agree about all the points, I think similarly.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Faster caffeine metabolism/flushing - <AUTHOR>

Hi guys,
I am a coffee fanatic who can't handle the caffeine any more because it takes too long for the caffeine to be flushed out of my system. If I take a cappuccino in the morning, I sometimes can't fall asleep at midnight. Or I fall asleep and wake up in the night.
I distinctly remember drinking up to three cups of coffee in bed and falling asleep shortly after. I think I started being hypersensitive to caffeine 3 years ago when I went crazy on coffee, taking multiple highly concentrated cups daily.
I'm starting to look into how I can metabolise the caffeine faster because coffee offers huge advantages to me. Makes me sharper mentally, and I'm able to focus more. I've read about sulforaphane (derived from broccoli, abundant in broccoli sprouts) and I'm currently experimenting with that.
Any ideas on how I could flush caffeine out of my system faster? <comment><USER2> Just lay off it for awhile, a month would be a good minimum time. Your body will forget what it feels like. Try ginseng, herbal tea's, milk(!), and a cup of chai tea (yes some caffeine but no-where near a cup of joe) in the meantime.</comment>


Free Open-Source OCR Software for Windows and the Web - <AUTHOR> http://blog.a9t9.com/p/free-ocr-software.html

<comment><USER2> It seems it's just a frontend to Microsoft OCR.

From the article:

The (a9t9) Free OCR Software for Windows Store tool is a graphical user interface front-end (GUI) for the new Microsoft OCR library. It is written in C#/WPF and the full source code is available as ready-to-compile Microsoft Visual Studio 2013 project on GitHub under the GPL V2 open source license.

<comment><USER3> Pretty sure it's illegal too, since he didn't even care to include the license for the Microsoft.Windows.Ocr[1] package used in this project.

The author seems to care about people redistributing their work as they added a GPL license to the project, but they didn't care enough to include the licenses of the libraries doing the actual work.

An interesting part of the license that the author is likely violating is the benchmarking restriction. The author links to another post on their blog that is entirely comprised of benchmarks.[2] Personally I don't like the restriction either, but it's Microsoft's choice and the author must respect their choice.

"4\. BENCHMARK TESTING. You must obtain Microsoft's prior written approval to disclose to a third party the results of any benchmark test of the software."

1: [https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Windows.Ocr/](https://www.nuget.org/packages/Microsoft.Windows.Ocr/) 2: [http://blog.a9t9.com/2015/04/new-free-online-ocr- service.htm...](http://blog.a9t9.com/2015/04/new-free-online-ocr-service.html)</comment></comment>


Reusable Abstractions in CoffeeScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/raganwald/homoiconic/blob/master/2012/01/reuseable-abstractions.md#readme <comment><USER2> As I mentioned in a tweet to raganwald the problem with this approach is that the object becomes opaque and can no longer be manipulated. ClojureScript allows you to preserve the dual use.

<comment><USER3> Since JavaScript functions can have properties, you can construct such a function in pure CoffeeScript:

      ofunc =(obj = {})->
        fn =(k)->@[k]
        bound =(args...)=>
          fn.apply(bound, args)
        bound extends obj

      o = ofunc [1,2,3]
      > o(0)
      1
      > o[0] = 10
      10

Not that I recommend this, for the obvious reasons.

<comment><AUTHOR> interesting, although I think this code creates a copy of the original object's properties rather than proxying them. Mind you, that could be what you want some times...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great article. Just want to point out Katy (<https://github.com/raganwald/Katy>) is a fantastic addition to CoffeeScript.</comment>


A plot to kill Kim Il Sung ended in mutiny and murder (2018) - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/02/18/asia/south-korea-failed-assassination-squad-unit-684-intl/index.html <comment><USER2> I don't understand why they would go about this in such a weird way. The methodology of forging "super elite" units is pretty well documented, any number of former SEAL Team 6, Delta Force, SAS etc members have written their memoirs, and an allied government that already had such a force would be happy to assist in the training, giving access to the facilities and details not covered in the books. In fact Delta Force was created with the assistance of the SAS. Even in "normal elite" forces, e.g. the Rangers were created with the assistance of the Royal Marines. Allies help each other out all the time in this field.

<comment> village-idiot Also, why cut off the pay to like, 20 guys? That's absolutely peanuts compared to the cost of the entire South Korean army.

It's also completely counter productive to making an elite unit. Maybe giant masses of underfed peasants might make a decent conscript army by sheer weight of numbers, but a hungry specops force is a useless specops force.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The article is not about "plot" to kill North Korean leader. It is about a squad which would be used to do it in certain circumstances.

<comment><USER4> Pedantically, isn't the "it" part of "do it" the plot?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting that they would allow press on such a clandestine outfit. However, I suppose perhaps in part — at least — its goal would be deterrence.</comment>


Serverless Databases: The Future of Event-Driven Architecture - <AUTHOR> https://www.simform.com/serverless-databases/ <comment><USER2> > I, personally, have seen many projects burning thousands a month in database > costs because they prefer replicating the environment for testing branches.

If this is the premise for serverless database it's a weak start. If you really need lightweight DBMS for testing just run MySQL or PostgreSQL in Docker. If you really need access to production-like data (e.g., a lot of it so you get realistic distributions) run the same DBMS on cheap hardware or cheap instances. In both cases you can use persistent volumes and shut down when things are not in use. Few people really care if it takes a few minutes to spin up the test environment.

As for the main point of Aurora offering a "Serverless" architecture it looks as if what they've really done is enabled the DBMS compute layer to scale up and down quickly. I wonder if this optimization fell out of pushing redo log management down into the storage layer. (See Section 3.1 [https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/files/p1041-verbitski.p...](https://www.allthingsdistributed.com/files/p1041-verbitski.pdf) for details.)

<comment><USER3> Exactly! It is also ridiculous that this "serverless" phrase is being used to push this agenda.

"Serverless" DBs are also very pricey if you consider everything. Instead, it isn't actually that hard to do some work loads at huge scale for cheap, two good articles on this (one discord, one ours)

\- [https://blog.discordapp.com/how-discord-stores-billions- of-m...](https://blog.discordapp.com/how-discord-stores-billions-of- messages-7fa6ec7ee4c7)

\- [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_WqBuEA7s8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_WqBuEA7s8) (100M records/day for $10 total cost, server, disk, S3 backup!)

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the references! Just read the blog article. It was kind of obvious from first paragraph it would be a Cassandra deployment story. ;)

Gun is new to me. You have a good way of handling distributed consistency. It's intriguing that the system still can reach consistency even if every node loses network connectivity temporarily. Is there any academic work behind this?

<comment><USER3> Thank you! Yes, there is currently just a whitepaper we're publishing with Stanford and that was also reviewed by colleagues at MIT. However it isn't up to snuff yet to be posted publicly, so shoot me an email firstname.lastname@example.com and I'll send you the link.

For non-academics though, I did a comic strip explainer for the layperson (as distributed systems are often hyped up with elitist jargon) here: [http://gun.js.org/distributed/matters.html](http://gun.js.org/distributed/matters.html) !

The prototype shown in the video was specific to append-only data and was done last year, we recently rewrote the system to be more generalizable using a radix trie structure and have released an alpha of it with the Radix Storage Engine (RSE) in the main repo: [https://github.com/amark/gun](https://github.com/amark/gun)

Let me know if you need help with any/all of that, or more links/resources (docs are somewhat scarce on it currently, sadly), and I'll do what I can!

Although, I can't resist but to leave this one last animated explainer gif that shows what a radix looks like: [http://gun.js.org/see/radix.gif](http://gun.js.org/see/radix.gif)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> A comparison that only mentions pros and no cons is not a useful comparison. It's a cheerleading piece.

</comment><comment><USER5> We're deploying thousands of tenants to their own postgres RDS instances which are completely overkill for most scenarios. On average we use about 3% CPU... We still do this because of three reasons: security isolation, performance isolation and monitoring. I think Aurora serverless will be a game changer for us, but we would still need per-tenant monitoring.

<comment><USER6> I do this with a side project, except it's SQLite databases on s3 buckets -- that's about as easy as it gets and doesn't require nearly as much of the configuration overhead that Aurora does.

<comment><USER7> How does that work? Download DB file, read/write, upload DB file (if written)? What about concurrency?

<comment><USER6> I wouldn't trust it for write concurrency but it's been great for my use case (reads are multiple orders of magnitude more frequent than writes; and the writes can be queued), I'm using s3sqlite for this from the Zappa project: [https://github.com/Miserlou/zappa-django- utils/blob/master/z...](https://github.com/Miserlou/zappa-django- utils/blob/master/zappa_django_utils/db/backends/s3sqlite/base.py).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was hoping the future of event-driven architecture is that we would call it "event-driven" and not serverless; alas.

<comment><USER9> Event-driven and serverless are related, but distinct ideas. Event-driven architectures can be built in a datacenter, on virts, in containers, or on serverless. On the other hand, serverless architectures don't necessarily need to be event driven. These patterns do have natural affinity, so they are often referred to together.

Serverless is a set of financial, scaling and operational properties of an architecture. One of those common properties is phrased as "scaled per request", which is particularly interesting in event-driven architectures.

<comment><USER8> I understand your point; my issue is that "serverless" as a term is a misnomer. You cannot have a serverless architecture without some servers to support it.

The "serverless" distinction is a useful one to make, because it implies something about the architecture as you mention—my only point is that we could have done much better with the name we use to reference said architecture.

<comment><USER10> It seems like a pretty good name to me. The point of the term "serverless" is that you aren't presented with any abstraction of a server; operations like "spin up more servers to handle the load" or "SSH to the server to figure out what's going on" or "reboot the server because it's acting weird" don't exist for you.

The term does get abused to refer to any server cluster with a bit of autoscaling logic, and in that sense it is a misnomer. But I don't think that's what it originally meant.

<comment><USER11> But didn't we already have this concept with Platform-as-a-Service (PaaS)?

What you described sounds like Heroku, Azure Apps, etc.

<comment><USER10> In many simple cases, Heroku is effectively serverless. But there are situations (in particular monitoring and billing) where you're forced to think about the individual dynos your app is running on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> databaseless serverless productless architecture

<comment><USER13> [https://github.com/kelseyhightower/nocode](https://github.com/kelseyhightower/nocode)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> This split of compute and storage into distinct layers is starting to become more common, and it has some pretty neat advantages like much better scalability and efficiency.

Google's BigQuery and Snowflake Data are examples of data warehouses, similar to DIY presto/drill/spark on S3. Apache Pulsar brings that to messaging and distributed logs. It'll be interesting to see how it applies to more OLTP database engines, although there are examples like TiDB which seem to work well enough.

<comment><USER15> BigQuery specifically pioneered many of these concepts since it's release in 2012 - "serverless manageability", pay-per-query consumption-based pricing, pure separation of compute and storage (no intermediate ssh mesh), and more recently separation of compute and intermediate state (wonders for scalability and complex query performance).

(work at G and used to work on BQ)

<comment><USER16> Separation of compute and storage has been around since before Google was even relevant as a company (see NFS).

If you think bigquery pioneered all of these concepts then your team did a very poor job of researching prior art. Maybe that was intentional for a good green-field design, but it's certainly not pioneering at that point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> "This isn't the end, management teams are expecting lower resource costs and higher return on investment for the technology projects."

Wow, really? Bit radical assertion there don't you think? I thought they might want higher resource costs and lower returns on investment.

Maybe there is some good content in there, but I found it difficult to sift through the banalities to find out.

</comment><comment><USER18> It makes me nervous when cloud companies release new features to select pilot groups.

The Aurora Serverless signup form asks no questions related to DB scale or capacity, so we're left to assume they're accepting pilot customers based on region or company size?

</comment><comment><USER19> There are other databases in this category.

Snowflake DB (data warehouse, so competes with Redshift rather than Aurora). Google's other database offerings (Cloud Data Store and Big Query)

</comment><comment><USER20> DynamoDB has same properties but you will have more flexibility in Aurora Serverless.

</comment><comment><USER21> I still haven't been able to find someone who can explain what make these elaborate layers of indirection running on servers in datacentres exactly 'serverless'.

<comment><USER14> Because you (the customer) dont have to think about them. It's similar to PaaS, or rather between PaaS and SaaS as a finer granularity model.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> isn't this like Ethereum programming on a private blockchain?</comment>


Startup Launch: Buzzable Creates Twitter Groups Around RSS Feeds (500 Invites) - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/27/startup-launch-buzzable-creates-twitter-groups-around-rss-feeds-500-invites/ <comment><USER2> If I could, I would just Tipjoy Twitter so they finally create the grouping. I understand the big "message bus" idea they are selling and that they are focusing on the core, the scaling, the uptime, etc. But seriously, when will they release the groups themselves? Isn't this a core functionality?

I have friends, colleagues, family, local community, egos, randoms, etc. there. And it is quite a mess.

<comment><USER3> It depends on what you mean by grouping - it's not exactly as easy as it sounds at first blush, as outlined by Twitter's Jason Goldman at Getsatisfaction:

[http://getsatisfaction.com/twitter/topics/when_is_twitter_go...](http://getsatisfaction.com/twitter/topics/when_is_twitter_going_to_get_groups)</comment></comment>


Instagram is down - <AUTHOR> https://www.instagram.com/ <comment><USER2> Fb messenger, instagram messenger, facebook.com, m.facebook.com all down for me

Somebody really screwed up! I wonder how much money per minute Facebook loses in this situation.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting, it's Facebook that doesn't load for me, Instagram works.</comment>


jHipChat - HipChat API for Java/Android - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/campnic/jHipChat

<comment><AUTHOR> Put this together over a weekend. Wanted to put it out there to see if other people had suggestions or might be looking for this sort of integration with HipChat.

I love HipChat and strongly recommend it if you need a simple standalone chat service for use by geeks and non-geeks alike.</comment>


Are you tired? - <AUTHOR> http://tired.com/

<comment><USER2> It's 2:30. A bit. Why would I send an email?</comment>


Bill in UK may disallow public wi-fi - <AUTHOR> http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/02/27/bill-in-uk-may-disallow-public-wi-fi/ <comment><USER2> What happens if someone parks near my house, cracks my secured WiFi spot (easy with the right tools in the hands of a determined cracker), breaks the law, and drives off? Who's at fault here? I'm not offering a public service, and I am the internet subscriber receiving the nastygram.

Not good.

</comment><comment><USER3> Only risk takers or the poorly informed would run public, untracked/unmonitored WiFi spots anyway. When the police come a-knocking because someone downloaded child porn over your connection, they're going to be taking all your computer equipment away as evidence whether they charge you or not - and that's not a reasonable risk most businesses should be taking.

<comment><USER4> Aside from the technological and legal issues, the availability of free wireless seems to reflect (perhaps even change) urban culture noticeably. I've stayed in major cities on three continents and the places with free wireless invariably had a more creative and lively vibe about them.

<comment><USER5> "I've stayed in major cities on three continents and the places with free wireless invariably had a more creative and lively vibe about them."

That might be the other way round, that creative, lively cities are more likely to have free, open wireless.

<comment><USER6> You're responding to someone who pointed out a correlation by suggesting it be replaced with a causation? _"I've stayed in major cities on three continents and the places with free wireless invariably had a more creative and lively vibe about them"_ makes no assertions about which leads to the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Stupid. The people seeding DVDs and child porn all use IPreadator (or similar) now. The people in coffee shops just want to do work or read their email.</comment>


Dividends and Buybacks Now Larger Than Total Earnings for the Entire S&P 500 - <AUTHOR> https://thesoundingline.com/dividends-and-buybacks-now-larger-than-total-reported-earnings-for-the-entire-sp-500/ <comment><USER2> How much of the buybacks+dividends were companies returning extra cash they have accumulated to the shareholders?

I mean, some companies like Apple are doing the right thing by doing buybacks. Top 20 largest buybacks in Q4 2018 made 44.42% of the SP400 buybacks and they seem to have good net financial position.

Only indebted companies taking loans for buybacks+dividends is troubling.</comment>


Ask HN: Why can't I follow or favorite a HN user? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I would argue that follow/fav will turn HN into a other kinds of social media?

You want to hear/read interesting topics, comments and voice your opinion. While reading the favorite person's comment is really good, I don't limiy myself to that.

I normally go to NEW tab rather than just home page and to ASK tab occasionnaly.

Follow/Fav might just ruin my homefeed making me bias.

</comment><comment><USER3> You can... the old fashioned way. Just bookmark a user's page and remind yourself to check it from time to time.

<comment><USER4> I realize this probably isn't what Joewee was asking for but maybe RSS feeds are a compromise? Lower amount of work on the programming side while still being able to accomplish this feature.

<comment><USER5> I post to Twitter for any of my hn posts using zapier and this:

[https://edavis.github.io/hnrss/#user- feeds](https://edavis.github.io/hnrss/#user-feeds)</comment></comment></comment>


Installing Linux on Surface Pro 4 Will Void 'Microsoft Complete' Warranty - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/SurfaceLinux/comments/3uf3sy/psa_installing_linux_on_your_surface_pro_4_will/ <comment><USER2> The claim that it inherently voids the warranty is probably not true (yes, even 2nd level tech support is manned by people with no specific knowledge about warranties,) but if it is a policy then it most probably violates federal law and should be reported to the FTC if this response was received by any US customers.

[https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/bus...](https://www.ftc.gov/tips-advice/business- center/guidance/businesspersons-guide-federal-warranty-law#Magnuson-Moss)</comment>


Our position on whatever Microsoft wants to throw into a blog post - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.vmware.com/virtualreality/2009/08/our-position-on-hypervisor-footprints-patching-vulnerabilities-and-whatever-else-microsoft-wants-to-throw-into-a-blog-post.html

<comment><USER2> There is more to this turf war. Microsoft and Citrix have pulled sponsorship of VMware's premier event - VMworld - and accused VMware of instituting new policies which restrict competition. [http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=58C409AD-1A64-67EA-E4FE2386...](http://news.idg.no/cw/art.cfm?id=58C409AD-1A64-67EA-E4FE2386964524A2)

</comment><comment><USER3> Pretty much everything in the "Vulnerability" section of this blog post is sketchy or downright wrong.</comment>


Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg Addresses the Ethiopian Airlines Flight 302 Report - <AUTHOR> https://boeing.mediaroom.com/2019-04-04-Boeing-CEO-Dennis-Muilenburg-Addresses-the-Ethiopian-Airlines-Flight-302-Preliminary-Report <comment><USER3> I know better than to read between the lines on a press release like this, but can't help but notice that it falls far short of accepting responsibility for the problem.

He admits that MCAS "activated in response to erroneous angle of attack information" but doesn't admit that this alone directly resulted in the crashes. Rather, he implies that this sets off a chain of events which the pilots are unable to deal with ("pilots have told us, erroneous activation of the MCAS function can add to what is already a high workload environment") which puts undue blame on the pilots rather than the system.

If you'll excuse the analogy, it's as if they installed a new griddle in a restaurant kitchen which randomly gets ten times more hot than it ought to be, with no warning. The cook doesn't know it's too hot until the eggs start burning. Now the manager is saying that since the kitchen is so busy, the cook can't flip the eggs fast enough in response to these randomly fluctuating high temperature events. We're being told it's the cooks' fault.

I don't like being bullshitted and find this sort of dodgy language completely inappropriate when 300 people died.

<comment><USER4> With the way litigation works, corporations will never admit blame for anything, since it greatly increases their legal risk. It's unfortunate, but their responsibilities lie with their shareholders, not the people who lost their lives on their planes.

<comment><USER5> > their responsibilities lie with their shareholders

This is the "shareholder value" theory, modern economists successfully brainwashed the population with. It became popular during the 1980s, "greed is good" times. It's just an ideology disguised as a science. The purpose and structure of modern corporation hasn't changed in the last hundred years or so. In 1950s and 1960s the public good, among others, role of corporations was wildly accepted. What changed is the ideologues who became more vicious and took complete control of the narrative.

<comment><USER6> Somewhat hilariously it's also often claimed that CEO's are not allowed to lie due to then being liable for misinforming shareholders.

<comment><USER7> Are you saying it's okay to commit fraud?

<comment><USER4> They avoid making actionable statements. In this case, the CEO did not explicitly assign blame, so it would be difficult to call them a liar. Omitting is different from lying. Using vague terminology isn't lying. So you get stuck with all this corporate talk, where they act as if they're apologizing, but won't even really say what they are specifically apologizing for.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> ,,We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX.''

Am I irrational for not wanting to be on the first 1-2 years of flights on 737 MAX after it gets its software update?

<comment><USER9> Well, then I'm irrational too, because I won't set foot in a 737 MAX after this shitfest. The FAA also lost a lot of trust, for rubber-stamping this.

The first accident was maybe understandable. We all know that shit happens. But Boeing has zero excuses for not immediately grounding the whole fleet after, and for putting out that useless recovery procedure which didn't work in this case. They let a deadly plane fly for 5 months after they were aware of it, and after the second crash they were phoning Trump to keep it in the air.

<comment><USER10> The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives. Realistically and pragmatically speaking, you only ever get to have just one single shot at establishing and maintaining that kind of life/death level of trust. Fuck it up, and you're gone- quite literally, mind you.

This is some Challenger O-ring type of shitshow. Accidents are one thing; incompetency or, worse yet, callous indifference is absolutely unacceptable.

<comment><USER11> >The integrity of engineering excellence should never be sacrificed for profit and/or conveniency in places where it involves human lives.

That's just unrealistic. Unless you want plane and car rides to cost as much as a trip to space, after all, since everything would need to be engineered to that level of quality.

<comment><USER12> I continue to be fascinated with consumers who assume the role of shareholder in times of crisis, even against their own interests.

<comment><USER13> Affordable air travel is in most people's interests.

<comment><USER14> Safe travel surprasses affordable for ALL customers not most.

<comment><USER15> Then why do people still drive (i.e. use cars)?

<comment><USER14> Because they think it is safe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> "We regret the impact the grounding has had on our airline customers and their passengers." \- I really hated this. As if they did the grounding for safety reason and regrets the cost. As if the passengers and clamoring for flying in 737-MAX.

There's obviously a lot of concern and outrage. But I wonder if Boeing's share price would have been higher than last year if the two crashes were in first world countries specially US.

<comment><USER17> Indeed. Less a case of "sorry 300 people died" and more a case of "sorry it caused an inconvenience for everyone else".

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't doubt that Boeing will fix the MCAS problem, but the bigger issue for me is what _other_ systems were hacked into place in order to rush this plane to market to compete with Airbus? The whole philosophy behind the design of the 737 MAX is what has me unsettled, not necessarily this one particular issue.

<comment><USER19> This. We have seen that there was another problem only noticed because of the extra scrutiny. We have a saying in the software business: two is an impossible number.

<comment><USER19> That said, the Air France Airbus dive into the ocean was caused by an equally stupid design decision that should never have shipped. Pilot and copilot were applying opposite force on the joystick, and instead of a siren going off, it just averaged them. Have they even fixed that yet? It was in ever Airbus.

<comment><USER20> > it just averaged them

As opposed to Boeing's "lets pick one and hope to dear God that it's the correct one"?

How would you handle opposing input where any of the two pilots might give the incorrect input?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It sounds like right after the first crash they knew what was going on but didn't bother to ground the fleet.

This stands out to me, and I have severely lost trust in Boeing and the FAA.

This plane should have not allowed to fly after the first crash, and Boeing knows this!

What a disaster - I will refuse to fly in any if these MAX planes going forward. I will not step my foot onboard.

</comment><comment><USER22> This has been a 50 year problem in the making, and whether it's for better or worse should be more carefully studied. Because here's my understanding of the history:

Through WW2 and the proliferating age of defense contractors, the government (mostly defense department, but also civilian agencies) stood almost on equal footing with contractors in their ability to design, scope, and evaluate big projects.

You would see scientists and in-house advisers at these departments able to expertly evaluate proposals/designs by contractors with sufficient background knowledge and tools to do so. They even worked closely with contractors to lay out the requirements and designs for systems, or products.

But, through the decades, a couple factors eroded this equal footing of the government / regulatory experts:

\-- Shrinking of government budgets for (or unwillingness of the public to stomach) the ranks of Washington "bureaucrats" who represented this expert class of people (what harm is there in cutting "fat" from public servants who don't seem to produce anything tangible?)

\-- More attractive pay, career potential, prestige, etc. of working in the private sector

\-- Political distaste for being seen as working too closely with contractors

So what happened is that gradually but surely, government lost the tools to do these things themselves, and by sheer need to still have things approved, shifted the work onto industry.

What can you do when industry comes to you with new complicated designs for things, and you have no one who can assess (and no budget to pay for assessments of) whether those designs are safe? You ask the person proposing to critique themselves, and in many cases, they seem to know more than you anyway.

Of course, what in part probably led to our current situation.

As I said in the beginning, the pros and cons of operating a system in this way should be looked at.

As a society, my question is, how do we make it possible to choose to do these things in the way that produces the right outcome? For a start, I think we need to stop asking everyone to make uninformed votes about certain detailed things we don't understand, yet rely on every day. That definitely produces bad consequences for many issues.

<comment><USER23> Can you provide evidence the FAA lacks sufficient expertise?

<comment><USER24> It is unclear if they are lacking technical expertise, but they are certainly being significantly more lax than one would want a regulatory body to be.

[https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/709431845/faa-is-not-alone- in...](https://www.npr.org/2019/04/04/709431845/faa-is-not-alone-in-allowing- industry-to-self-regulate)

<comment><USER22> You must be joking if you think the FAA technical staff have the software tools and expertise to the level of Boeing's engineering organization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's now fairly obvious MCAS was at the root of those two crashes. But, did it save lives in other circumstances?

Meaning, was there ever a case where the nose went up so much, because of the bigger motors and their different location on the wings, that the activation of MCAS prevented a stall? I'm surprised no one seems to talk about this.

It's also surprising the MCAS was implemented at all, instead of an alarm. Yes, the point of MCAS is to make appear the MAX is the same plane as earlier models (when in fact it's not), but if pilots need to learn how to deal with MCAS malfunction, isn't it the same as learning to deal with unexpected stalling during take-off? The whole reasoning sounds kind of circular.

<comment><USER26> You're missing the point of why MCAS was implemented in the first place - <USER2> type certification & to avoid retraining.

Essentially it was an emulation layer to make what is effectively a new plane behave like an old plane. And now 300+ people are dead.

<comment><USER27> That is what it looks like. In some sense, you are not "contrlling" a 737MAX, you are flying a virtual machine emulating the 737 previous gen, whose host is a new generation.

Quite the feat, Boeing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Now read again what Boeing issued to the airlines and the pilots after the first crash:

[https://www.avm-mag.com/faa-issues-emergency-ad-for- boeing-7...](https://www.avm-mag.com/faa-issues-emergency-ad-for- boeing-737-8-and-9/)

"An erroneous AOA input can cause some or all of the following indications and effects:"

"IAS DISAGREE alert."

The whole "what to do" is then:

"Initially, higher control forces may be needed to overcome any stabilizer nose down trim already applied. Electric stabilizer trim can be used to neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT. Manual stabilizer trim can be used before and after the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches are moved to CUTOUT."

We know now that the pilots performed what was there laconically written, and that even these actions couldn't save the plane.

Which means either:

\- Boeing never actually tested how to really handle the situation described then or

\- Boeing indeed tested that and knew that IAS DISAGREE procedures would also be followed and which would guarantee to make the plane uncontrollable (for details see here: [https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et302-used-the-cut-out- swi...](https://leehamnews.com/2019/04/03/et302-used-the-cut-out-switches-to- stop-mcas/) how one pilot recently reconstructed that and made a video about it, which was later withdrawn on the demand of the pilot's company -- note a single pilot here did what Boeing, which is supposed to sell hundreds of billions USD worth of these planes didn't want to do), but bet on "it won't happen soon enough, we can get away with it."

I can't find that anybody can excuse either of these.

<comment><USER29> The pilots didn't actually do that. They did not use electric stabilizer trim to "neutralize control column pitch forces before moving the STAB TRIM CUTOUT switches to CUTOUT" in fact the trim had been run markedly down by MCAS by the time they switched off the electric trim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> "We're taking a comprehensive, disciplined approach, and taking the time, to get the software update right."

So what approach did they use the first time around?

<comment><USER31> I'm pretty sure this will end with retraining or the restoration of "pull up" method of the pilot overriding the feature (the later may require retraining anyway)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > We remain confident in the fundamental safety of the 737 MAX

He just finished several paragraphs about how the plane and it's software was not safe ("erroneous activation of the MCAS function"), and then arrives at this conclusion?

If my car erroneously responds to the pressure on the gas pedal it's not safe.

<comment><USER33> Would you throw out your computer because of a bad hardware driver? This is effectively a software issue, that will eventually be solved

<comment><USER34> This is a hardware issue. Lack of redundancy in sensors. Lack of knobs to turn MCAS off without turning off the electric motors that are apparently necessary to control the plane in challenging circumstances (which a hardware failure can put you in).

It's also a training issue, especially with the first flight pilots not being informed about this system.

Maybe it can be worked around via software changes and human training. But the software appears to have done what it was supposed to.

<comment><USER35> Every MAX already had two AoA vanes, MCAS just wasn't hooked up to both in software.

<comment><USER34> Yes, two. The standard for critical systems is 3.

Two isn't good for much, if they give different readings you don't know which to believe. Either that kills you like in real life, or it kills you because of the stall problem it was invented to fix.

Edit: And yes, you could do something more sensible than what they did, but that doesn't "fix" the issue, it merely mitigates it to some extent.

<comment><USER35> This seems a little overstated. As I understand it the plane isn't actually aerodynamically unstable and isn't going to stall itself without the pilot pulling into it. The main issue seems to have been software to me.

I'm not saying they should avoid using a third sensor. It sounds like a good idea. But I'm not sure it's required for airworthiness, after you move from one to two.

<comment><USER34> Maybe a little overstated to avoid getting into subtleties, but I stand behind the point.

Yes, it seems the plane is probably mostly flyable if you kill the MCAS system (which is the only reasonable step to take in a two sensor system when they disagree). But

\- The plane no longer handles the same, you definitely need to be alerting the pilots, and put this change into manuals and training. This isn't just a thing you should silently do in software and expect not to kill people.

\- The plane no longer meets the FAA rules for the class under these conditions. Maybe that's acceptable because it is an error state, but I think that meets the definition of a "workaround" and not a "fix".

\- At least one of these planes took off when one of the sensors was known to be bad from the previous flight (as I understand it). I can only assume that they don't do that when something critical to the handling of the plane is broken. This is another process bug that needs to be fixed before a software workaround might be acceptable.

I don't see any way to interpret this other than "the hardware didn't work as we thought it did", which leads me to say "hardware bug", even if you can maybe work around it with process, training, and software changes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> >> We're taking a comprehensive, disciplined approach, and taking the time, to get the software update right.

If only you had done that the first time.

>> This update, along with the associated training and additional educational materials that pilots want in the wake of these accidents, will eliminate the possibility of unintended MCAS activation and prevent an MCAS-related accident from ever happening again.

From what we've read, your company thought that cost too much the first time around. Maybe it's time to reconsider the costs of NOT doing the work up front. Boeing used to be better at this.

</comment><comment><USER37> Any PR pro worth their rate would have him and senior management very publicly flying only on 737 Max flights when they comeback online.

Assurances alone are going to mean a very rocky road back for this plane.

<comment><USER9> They did that. Doesn't prove a thing.

[https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-ceo-muilenburg- ab...](https://www.airlineratings.com/news/boeing-ceo-muilenburg- aboard-737-max-test-flight/)

<comment><USER38> You think they did that with pilots specifically trained in MCAS functionality, or with pilots from some small country halfway around the world where they were specifically told it was the same as any ol' 737?

<comment><USER39> Which small country? Ethiopia has 104 million people and Indonesia has 264 million.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is Boeing's first volley as MCAS is now definitely and undeniably fatally flawed.

I am fairly confident that by the time we are done with this, a system called MCAS never flies again. Even if it means the entire MAX is shelved.

<comment><USER41> That would be an astronomical loss, I just don't see that happening.

<comment><USER40> I think $3B in R&D, half of that is the engines, but more importantly, time to market trying to compete with Airbus.

They can reuse the engines. If the airframe can't fly safely without MCAS (it's getting a new type rating anyway at this point, right?) then I think perhaps it shouldn't fly.

<comment><USER41> Yea somehow I don't think that's how they are crunching the numbers. Stock price is probably sitting on the assumption that those 5000 orders at cool 128M are going to go through. That would be considered 600B loss.

<comment><USER42> That's two billion roughly per life lost. Seems like a small price to pay. The CEO should be going to jail too. I highly doubt any of this will happen. Human lives are probably worth a million or two at most to a corporation like Boeing and the political apparatus that lets it operate these planes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> tuna-piano Would the Boeing executives put their families on a 737MAX running the same version of the software that Ethiopian was running? Would they be willing to do this with a purposeful placed hypothetical AoA sensor that was known to manfunction quite often? Can that really be considered a safe plane?

</comment><comment><USER43> Safety is one thing but the problem is that MCAS was brought in to keep the common type rating. It's hard to see that common type rating holding now with what we know.

</comment><comment><USER44> Don't put the blame squarely on Boeing.

It's clear FAA lacks the expertise to regulate this kind safety issues. It's not easy for them to have it either since the innovators are always a step ahead but it's clear they need to shape up.

I don't have any knowledge of the process for verification of new airplane models, but one thought as software developer would perhaps be for FAA to become more digital in their efforts. Require from manufacturers (At least for bigger models) a digital virtual model of the entire airplane that will be used for simulated tests. You could for instance test faulty signaling sensors but also the whole subseqqunt chain of events taking into account pilot actions (or lack of).

It should be a routine to replay a simulation with data from previous crashes. In this particular instance perhaps FAA would have understood the reasons of the first crash and been able to stopped the second crash from ever happening.

You could even develop methods that can generate data to be able to predict hidden issues with an existing design without a real crash ever happening.

<comment><USER19> There is more than enough blame to go around.

Boeing fucked up. FAA fucked up. Boeing management fucked up after Lion. Boeing mgmt fucked up after EA. They should resign in disgrace, not issue self-serving press releases.

Shame!

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> "From the days immediately following the Lion Air accident, we've had teams of our top engineers and technical experts working tirelessly..."

If they've been working tirelessly, then they should have understood the risks and grounded the fleet.

Either they understood the risks, but neglected to ground the fleet, or they didn't understand the risks and hence we can't trust the fix.

I also find it sort of nauseating that the CEO implicitly gets the message through that the fix already has been worked on for a long time, has thus matured, can now be fully trusted, and we are just weeks away from flying with a safe plane.

I don't buy any of it. Let's analyse this critically.

The MCAS still needs to augment the flight characteristics. There is nothing that can be fundamentally changed regarding this fact. We can only change the conditions under which MCAS activates and the conditions under which it is deactivated.

It still has to have the same authority for a nose-down and recovering from an erroneous high-magnitude nose-down will still be mechanically hard or require additional pilot knowledge and actions. The latter should be impossible without recertification.

The operational characteristics of the airplane are not matched with the operational controls offered to the pilots, by design constraint. The plane is thus unsafe and will forever be unsafe, without redesign and recertification, because with the constraints in place, they can only add additional information on displays, add more reliability by having the MCAS utilise input from more sensors, add more conditions under which the the MCAS deactivates, etc, but none of this attacks the fundamental impedance mismatch between characteristics and controls, as well as the lack of education for it. Deactivation also simply exchanges the risk of stalls for nose downs.

All-in-all, the MAX is simply an airplane with a worse flight envelope as far as safety is concerned, and nothing can be done about it.

</comment><comment><USER46> Ugh. I just read the report and maintain that the pilots acted incompetently. Though they regained control of the plane and turned off the stab trim system, their reaction took considerable time. The fatal blow, however, is this: distracted by the problem, neither pilot paid attention to the aircraft's speed as they flew along in level flight. They had tunnel vision. You can see in the report that the overspeed clacker began alerting them midway through the incident. With the nose-down trim, this high airspeed exacerbated the difficulty of holding the nose up. Had they slowed down, the aircraft would have been controllable. The moment they reactivated the system at high speed, adding even more nose down trim, they killed themselves and everyone on board.

I also question the lack of clear communication between the two pilots. Examples such as the captain asking the first officer if the aircraft could be manually trimmed and the first officer replying in the negative, with no verification on the part of the captain and no checklist use make me wonder. Maybe they were doing those things. I'd be interested in seeing a transcript. It's understandable why Muilenburg doesn't seem particularly remorseful.

</comment><comment><USER47> As a few posters mentioned, an interesting question is why the plane needs MCAS in the first place. I read somewhere that the max 8 got new engines which were bigger than engines on previous 737 series, and that makes the plane nose up. Any kid who ever made a model plane understands the idea of CG - if it pitches up you change something, maybe move the wings back. Is it possible that an industry leader shipped a plane that's not even freakin balanced, tried to fix it in software(!) to avoid an expensive redesign, screwed up the software and maybe the safety analysis, and then didn't even manage to mention to the pilots that this software hack even existed? This is hard for me to fathom. If the Ethiopian report is right, it might even be that the procedure to turn off MCAS didn't even work. I hope I am misunderstanding something here.

<comment><USER17> You're partway there. The design isn't inherently unstable under normal conditions, it just becomes unstable under slightly _different_ extreme conditions than the previous 737. Rather than training pilots on this difference, Boeing tried to emulate the old behaviour in software.

<comment><USER47> OK, so maybe it's unfair to say that MCAS (as a concept) is a hack, since it could be seen as a good-faith effort to provide a predictable aircraft?

<comment><USER48> Not quite, without MCAS the flight behavior is quite predictable, it just doesn't match the existing type certification and it falls outside of the allowed parameters for this class of planes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Wonder how much of this is also related to the Mcdonnell Douglas merger. [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/04/requiem- for-a-...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/02/04/requiem-for-a- dreamliner)

</comment><comment><USER50> The root problem seems to be FAA not having qualified engineers to thoroughly test the planes Boeing makes. Boeing pays better, so it hires the best engineers. FAA pays less so it gets second-grade engineers. And we all pay by flying in unsafe planes.

<comment><USER51> Following your line of reasoning, wouldn't the supposedly better engineers build more safe planes, relegating the poor dunces to only validating the designs from their intellectual superiors? In your hypothetical, they aren't paying more for safety dodgers.

<comment><USER52> Even smart engineers ultimately have a product manager who makes the call. Many times before I've been on projects where the team said we should not do something in a particular way only for a product manager or their superior to say no, we'll do this as it aligns with company goals or "we'll come back and fix it later".

Then you either have to put up and do it or you'll be strategically moved elsewhere or be managed out of the job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Just saying "it's safe" without any linked proof is kind of useless to me.

</comment><comment><USER54> This address does nothing to make me feel better about flying on any future Boeing plane. They promise to fix the MCAS system in the current crop, but say nothing about the organizational choices and structures that allowed this to happen in the first place.

Allowing the company to produce a plane, equipped with a non-redundant system with control over the vertical attitude of the plane, and doing so in a way that intentionally minimizes the perceived impact and required training to operate a plane with this system is the true mistake here.

This is a failure of the both the FAA, Boeing, and pretty much every player along the chain.

</comment><comment><USER16> Corporate irresponsibility and getting away with it is something I have mostly gotten used to at this point. But this particular incident is still really getting to me specially after the press release.

I was just trying to read up a little about sings of sociopath. It seems to me that a big chunk of major corporate big brash could be considered extreme versions of sociopath.

<comment><USER55> What exactly does "getting away with it" mean in this context? Boeing will get sued from many different directions, their share price will suffer, and likely they'll have lost orders for their aircraft.

Let's say we wanted to get really punitive... who do we blame? The engineers that worked on it? The Boeing CEO for not personally verifying every piece of software on all of their aircraft?

Do we throw someone in jail? How does that help improve safety culture exactly?

Boeing & Airbus are largely responsible for the massive improvements in flight safety over the last 40 years. It's incredible that flying is as safe as it. Yes the deaths are a tragedy, but every time I get in a plane I accept the fact that the physics of flying could ultimately kill me, and I trade that off against the convenience of getting somewhere quickly.

<comment><USER16> Assuming what's revealed so far is reasonably accurate and the decisions were not taken for some yet to be revealed completely unexpected reason (unlikely) here's who to blame.

This was a business decision to remove re-certification/re-training for some 60B sales. So yes the CEO is responsible. If you can float on money for the success you can spend the lifetime in jail for the deaths too.

But that might be a little extreme. So here's a better one for after Lion Air crash there is no reason to believe that Boeing including the CEO didn't go over this, didn't realize they made a risky plan and even then they didn't go through with their temporary mitigation with a fine tooth comb. So yes it seems the CEO and some big shots and maybe some down the line should go to jail.

No one is sent to jail for complicated to reason or never before seen problem that they didn't know about or didn't think about and it happened. This wasn't an accident, they implemented absolutely critical safety feature by design without triple redundancy as well understood to be required then they lied about it (if I understood the max change from earlier to later version), tried to downplay it and when a crash happened due to this didn't own up to it. So for sure this helps safely culture. If you hide safety problem knowingly for greed/money, because your boss asked and you didn't care you shouldn't be working in safety critical system.

> Boeing & Airbus are largely responsible for the massive improvements in > flight safety over the last 40 years. It's incredible that flying is as safe > as it. Yes the deaths are a tragedy, but every time I get in a plane I > accept the fact that the physics of flying could ultimately kill me, and I > trade that off against the convenience of getting somewhere quickly.

I don't even know what to say to this. So I drove safely for 40 years and today I decided to see if I can safely drunk drive if I play the music really loud and killed a family of four.

This was not physics, this was not a complicated software bug (at the core) but it was cutting corners for profit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> > This update, along with the associated training and additional educational > materials that pilots want in the wake of these accidents, will eliminate > the possibility of unintended MCAS activation and prevent an MCAS-related > accident from ever happening again.

How can he claim this? They'd have to remove MCAS for this to be true.

</comment><comment><USER57> So after hundred of lives lost the only thing that they will do is a software fix. Thanks, but when the max won't be grounded again I'll check all my flights to avoid going on that death machine.

</comment><comment><USER58> My guess is the 737-MAX will get enough of an update to keep it going for a few years, followed by an overhaul and new model name.

Boeing wants to get as far away from this as possible.

</comment><comment><USER59> this is just a total saving face scenario. he even mentions that after the lion air flight they knew about this (i would claim they knew about it long before that anyway) and have been working on a fix. then why the cold response still after the ethiopian airlines crash?

furthermore, this is summed up by just "we'll fix it in software". hurray, everything we touch including cars and airplanes are now subscribing to the "we'll fix it in software" approach. failed a safety brake test? fix it with software. kill a few hundred people by an automatic system crashing a plane? fix it with software.

i really hope society wakes up and SLOWS DOWN. we're trying to move so fast, with hardly any reason at all, and in doing so, we are throwing away all ability to properly design, build, and god forbid, _think_ about things. i don't know what it's going to take, but it feels out of control. everywhere you look is people hurrying and hurrying to release, to productize, to ship it, etc. whenever i ask "why?" to schedules, there has NEVER been a clear answer. it always boils down to basically "just because".

in addition, we simply have too much laziness and greed taking place, which is what added to boeing's misstep here. they tried pulling a fast one on buyers (and basically accomplished it) to make a few bucks towards that everlasting capitalist dream.

</comment><comment><USER60> > Dennis Muilenburg

> Chairman, President & CEO

Aren't these suppose to be different people to keep the board independent?

</comment><comment><USER61> The amount of oh gotchas and keyboard guesses from lots of google searching is quite comical. Think any real in-depth analysis has been done yet? Silly.

</comment><comment><USER62> Airbus had similar issues a while back. The software was forcing the nose of the plane down and the pilots had to fight with it to bring the plane out of a dive.

Is it absolutely necessary for the computer to be adjusting the angle of attack?

[https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-untold-story-of- qf72-wh...](https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/the-untold-story-of-qf72-what- happens-when-psycho-automation-leaves-pilots-powerless-20170511-gw26ae.html)

[https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2...](https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/aair/ao-2008-070/)

*edited to cite sources

<comment><USER63> Issues?

"The occurrence was the only known example where this design limitation led to a pitch-down command in over 28 million flight hours on A330/A340 aircraft"

The common-platform A330/40 had been in service for 15 years before this event. It really was a freak failure of one computer unit which went haywire and which led to a design change to mitigate it. That was 11 years ago.

It is deceptive to claim it's anything like the 737 Max issue.</comment></comment>


Is Computer Code a Foreign Language? - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/17/opinion/code-foreign-language.html <comment><USER2> My gf showed me an post on 9gag that had a lot of truth; "knowing how to code nowadays is the equivalent of knowing how to read in mediaeval times"

<comment><USER3> No it's not, if you don't know how to code you'll not really fail to execute any receipt you found on web or you'll not fail to create Shopify store and sell your products

Coding is not equivalent of reading

<comment><USER4> In medieval times, learning how to read wasn't really necessary to perform day-to-day tasks for the vast majority of people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To take it a step further, locksmithing should be considered. Mechanical locks are devices which open when given a particular numerical sequence. This doesn't just apply to combination locks but also to keyed locks as keys just represent a predefined numerical sequence through the cuts made into the metal.

</comment><comment><USER6> I very much agree. Look at it this way: the more we practice and keep our languages truly complex, the longer it will take for machines to take our jobs. I even take it one step further and actively try to confuse the machines by training my Swiftkey keyboard and Google searches in poor grammar. Take that Skynet!

(No but seriously, I would never equate human and programming languages. They are created for different purposes. PLs are a formalisation of languages, yes. But that is like saying notes are by themselves music. They are, but there is a whole lot more in between there)

</comment><comment><USER7> Human language is a computer code</comment>


Behavioral economics and public policy - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/business/behavioral-science-can-help-guide-policy-economic-view.html?pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> Use data to run the largest organizations on the planet instead of blind faith in dogma...crazy brits...</comment>


Days Since a Cryptocurrency Exchange Has Lost More Than $100M - <AUTHOR> http://dayssinceacryptocurrencyexchangehaslostmorethan100million.com/ <comment><USER2> I would not call the Bitfinex issues "losing more than 100m". AFAIK this wasn't an issue of money being lost.

So kinda seems like they are cooking the books here.

</comment><comment><USER3> that is quite the url!!

</comment><comment><USER4> Keeping digital assets in exchanges, long term, seems unwise. There's cold storage options.

<comment><USER5> I researched the state of the art of self-custody cold storage and it seems both complex and fraught with places where workflow accidents could lose a wallet.

The safest most reasonable thing I could find was Smart Custody but phew there are a lot of moving parts: [https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/SmartCustodyWhitePapers...](https://github.com/BlockchainCommons/SmartCustodyWhitePapers/blob/master/%23SmartCustody- _Simple_Self-Custody_Cold_Storage_Scenario.md)

What is your recommended cold storage option?

<comment><USER6> A Ledger/Trezor.

<comment><USER5> What happens if the device breaks or the place it is stored is destroyed?

<comment><USER7> You can create multiple backup paper copies, and also 2-of-3 or 2-of-4 multisig helps you in the second case. You can also have multisig between different devices.

<comment><USER5> Is there any automation or tooling to help you do inventory management on devices and integrity checking on wallets?

<comment><USER7> Can you be more specific?

You can check the recovery seed that you are creating (what you write on the paper).

Trezor's software and hardware is open source, so you can check any part of it.

There are different things you can do to prepare for different failure scenarios, though not everything is automated, it's better to test some things by hand.

<comment><USER5> Essentially, I am looking for a guide I could hand to someone who is moderately technical that would describe:

1\. Failure scenarios a scheme can/can't protect against

2\. How to setup the system for that scenario

3\. Recommendation on how often to confirm system and backups

3a. How to recover from failed hardware

4\. Recommendations on lifetime of system until replacement

4a. Recommendation on recovery if system is compromised (physical theft)

Essentially where is the best practices guide?

<comment><USER7> [https://wiki.trezor.io/User_manual- Security_best_practices](https://wiki.trezor.io/User_manual- Security_best_practices)

This is the best Trezor has, it's quite limited though, but good for koderately technical user.

For storing large amount of money you can hire experts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> $100 Million what?

Yen? AUD? BTC? USD? (probably... but the irony is thick here)

<comment><USER9> The $ implies it

<comment> kube-system $ is used as a symbol for dozens of currencies.

<comment> forgot-my-pw Obviously 2008 Zimbabwean dollar.</comment></comment></comment></comment>