Corporation-level coding - venting steam (rant) - <AUTHOR> http://users.softlab.ntua.gr/~ttsiod/rant.html

<comment><USER2> Seen it, believe it.

A long time ago, I thought about this type of issue. It occurred to me that it was a more valuable job skill to be able to manage and augment other people's junk rather than their craft perfect software. Internal developers will always complain that the code sucks and need to be rewritten. Enter the super- consultant who says "sure, I can upgrade you software since I can work with crappy code because I'm super awesome". Consultant gets out the duct tape and make it work leaving a disaster for the internal developers.

Unfortunately, it is not a self actualizing skill as one should focus their energies on making good software to power good products. If you believe this, then I recommend doing a start-up. When you do. You will see two things.

First, the code you create will be awesome.

Second, you will watch as your code degrades over time. You will hire people. They will complain. They will hack.

It is the great cycle of life.

<comment><AUTHOR> > If you believe this, then I recommend doing a start-up

I did (<http://www.tapeditor.com>)</comment></comment>


Increasing System Robustness With A 'Let It Crash' Philosophy - <AUTHOR> http://contino.co.uk/blog/increasing-system-robustness-with-a-let-it-crash-philosophy/

<comment><USER2> The thing crashes itself :)</comment>


Ask HN: Finding jobs that issue new H1B visas? - <AUTHOR> My partner will soon be moving to the states to start her PhD. Of course, I would like to move there as well, but I am having extreme difficulties with even finding a company that is willing to sponsor me for an H1B.
I have spoken to dozens recruiters and companies, and none of them seem to be willing to sponsor H1Bs. For smaller companies it is too much of a hassle, while large companies often redirect me to their offices in Europe and tell me to start working there first (which I would be willing to do if they can ensure I can move to the states in a certain time period, which they will not). I have of course tried looking online as well, including on HN, but all jobs that advertise to 'sponsor H1Bs' only seem to actually sponsor a transfer/extension, rather than issue a new one (in my experience so far).
What makes this so frustrating is that I am not being rejected during the interview, but that I am denied before even taking it even due to the visa.
I'd love to hear any advice on how to approach this: am I looking at the wrong places? Do I just extremely bad luck? Or am I not qualified enough? I do have a CS MSc degree from a top tier university, but am still quite young and have not specialized in a field such as Machine Learning.
Thanks in advance
PS: I am aware of a previous similar thread, but as that is 5 years old it might be a bit out of date since the H1B visa applications went through the roof since then  (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5150810) <comment><USER2> So where to start... You missed the 2017 H1B application window. It's over this year since the quota has been reached already. Companies who want to hire someone on an H1B will have to submit the application in April 2018, then, wait until October 2018, which is the next fiscal year when your visa will be "activated". You can't join the company earlier. So we're talking about you starting in October 2018 if you're trying to join a company via an H1B visa today. That is the exact reason why companies refuse to hire people via H1B. They need people right now, not it 18 months. Though, they can easily transfer an existing H1 visa without any deadline nor quota. That's why they do accept H1 transfers.

Which country are you from in Europe? The government is responsible for immigration related stuff, I doubt they can guaranty any transfer from Europe. It's out of their reach.

Look at J1 visa's, maybe you can join a company on an J1 (no quota, no deadline), then in April next year they can apply for an H1B. You'll be under J1 for about 18 months until October 2018, which will allow you to stay and start working in the US right now. Usually J1 visa's are for internships, etc.

</comment><comment><USER3> The chance of getting an H1B visa is somewhere around 20-25% lately. This is if you and the company is doing everything correctly, and there is absolutely no way to increase the odd. This is why company is starting to refuse sponsoring new visa: it is really hard for them to waste months waiting to know if you can work for them.

</comment><comment><USER4> Recent news item: some entrepreneurs are "hacking the system" through a workaround that started as an experiment in Massachusetts and has expanded to five other states. > [http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/03/526...](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/05/03/526549402/without- a-special-visa-foreign-startup-founders-turn-to-a-workaround)

</comment><comment><USER5> Option 1: Work for non-profit: They don't fall under the regular H1B Cap.

Option 2: Take Remote Position: Most the companies don't want to interview you because they are interviewing a candidate who is going to start a year later and the chances of you working for them are 25%. So, doing a remote position is a way to convince an employer.

Option 3: Apply to a school.

</comment><comment><USER6> What about O* visas?</comment>


Introducing Windows 10 Editions - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.windows.com/bloggingwindows/2015/05/13/introducing-windows-10-editions/ <comment><USER2> Dear Microsoft,

Windows 10.

Just release Windows 10.

No one knows the difference between Windows 10 Pro and Windows 10 Enterprise and Windows 10 Extreme and Windows 10 Cool Ranch Doritos Locos Supreme. Your customers actually don't care.

And as long as you keep selling a baffling array of variations on the same product, no one will believe you've turned over a new leaf.

Windows 10.

With love,

Guy on the Internet

PS: There should be no "it's even more secure" version. They should all be "even more secure."

<comment><USER3> This is information for IT people, and you're treating it like it's for consumers. Consumers will only ever know about Windows 10 Home. The other options are important because:

Windows 10 Enterprise costs roughly ten times as much.

Windows 10 Education is the discounted version that they sell to schools (Apple has a similar program, they just don't tell you about it.)

Windows 10 Mobile because, well...

Windows 10 Mobile Enterprise because, again, they want to make money.

Windows is one of the top 5 most profitable software products in the world. Trust that they know how to make money.

<comment><USER4> You might be right, but does Windows 10 Pro include any features that have previously been exclusive to Windows 8/8.1 Pro, such as Bitlocker and Remote Desktop? The wording of the blog post is intentionally obfuscated to not name the technologies that are added to Windows 10 Pro, but I think it's clear they are keeping Bitlocker and Remote Desktop exclusive to the Pro edition from the following:

> _Windows 10 Pro helps to effectively and efficiently manage their devices > and apps, protect their sensitive business data, support remote and mobile > productivity scenarios..._

I use Bitlocker and frequently remote from any of my Windows PCs to any of the others. So I have Windows 8.1 Pro installed on (nearly) all of them, at non- trivial cost to me.

I agree with the grandparent that for any home user, there should be one edition, and that one edition should include Bitlocker and Remote Desktop. And any other feature that home _enthusiasts_ and _evangelists_ are likely to want. Microsoft desperately needs to stop punishing its evangelists. Evangelists should be courted and treated well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I realize Microsoft has to price segment, which requires they call out an "Enterprise" category for Mobile and Laptop/Desktop, but sometimes I wonder if they really need all of these categories.

For example, do they really get significant financial value from having a Windows 10 Home, Windows 10 Education, Windows 10 Pro? _particularly_ as they are offering it as a free upgrade to Windows 7/8 users.

Notice they don't have a Windows 10 Mobile Home, Windows 10 Mobile Education, and Windows 10 Mobile Pro - just plain, "Windows 10 Mobile".

My suspicion is they would have managed to avoid customer confusion, and captured pretty much all the same economic value, with a simple list of:

      Windows 10
      Windows 10 Mobile
      Windows 10 Enterprise
      Windows 10 Mobile Enteprise

<comment><USER6> "Pro" is for people that don't have volume licenses but want the business- specific features like domain joining. Remember, Windows 10 may be a free upgrade, but it's not free and I imagine they still make quite a bit of extra money from businesses buying Pro.

"Education" looks like it's a discounted volume license available to schools. Not sure what extra features it's going to have but it's not something that anyone other than a school administrator will ever care about.

<comment><USER7> Education exists because Microsoft provides cheaper licensing to schools as a marketing exercise. They also let you buy the license entitlement through volume licensing, so smart schools will buy PCs with FreeDOS or Linux and BYO Windows.

This creates a problem, because the Federal government requires that it receives the lowest possible price for a particular product. So they carve out the education market as a separate SKU.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Please Microsoft, just one Windows 10, the technical side sounds great(one OS runs everywhere) but your marketing guy is messing things up, the list of various window10 flavors made me dizzy and I had to quit reading quickly.

<comment><USER9> There's really only two versions here for people buying it for themselves. One for mobile, and one for non-mobile.

Everything else is variations for the hows and wheres.

The list is really for the IT pro getting ready to figure out what SKU he/she needs come next fiscal.

They don't call it all the same thing because you're not being priced the same way; there's other considerations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> OK they messed it up, again? Anyone with a laptop preloaded with the crippled Home edition (meaning most laptops) will not be able to take it to the work place and connect it to the domain. Then there's Pro and Enterprise, and most people don't know why they need Enterprise.

<comment><USER11> why would you take your home computer and connect it to the workplace?

<comment><USER10> You should Google up and see how common this problem really is. My example, I am a consultant. But I do have domain accounts in companies I consult. The OS that came with the machine (windows 7 home) had to be written over since it won't let me log in.

The point being, it's such an artificial restriction. Most PCs are laptops, and this really restricts mobility.

<comment><USER12> For clarity, are you talking about _joining your laptop to the domain_ , or merely logging into domain accounts using a non-domain-joined laptop?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> And suddenly I feel a lot less excited about possibly switching back to Windows. With 10, I was hoping for a single version for everything going forward. But if Microsoft is going to continue splitting their product lines and making it a headache for me to know which versions have the features I need (ex: RDP), I'm just going to not give them a second chance no matter how much they open source. It's just extra grief that I don't need as a normal end user.

</comment><comment><USER14> One thing I haven't discovered yet is whether the installation of 10 is going to be a brand new install rather than an upgrade. In other words, will it be necessary to reinstall all my applications after moving to 10?

<comment><USER15> An upgrade; the underlying technology in Windows hasn't changed significantly since Vista.

<comment><USER16> It reminds me of the Model Year - We're still on Windows Model Year 2008.

<comment><USER15> Windows 10 was version 6.4 internally but it sounds like they're going to go make it 10.0 on release.

(Windows 8.1 is 6.3 and Windows 7 is 6.1 and Vista is 6.0)

<comment><USER16> I haven't used Win10 yet. I'm curious if they've rewritten some of the core components like they did for the 2003-2008 jump. Things like IIS, Task Scheduler engine, & Security (UAC elevation).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Hah, Microsoft's DNA returns with a vengeance.

They tried to change, but couldn't /not/ segment their market, even if it impairs the customer experience. That's the MS we all know and love!

<comment><USER18> Why can't it be as simple as Linux?

If I want Redhat commercial support I simply have to decide between Standard or Premium Subscription with, or without Smart Management, normal or Entry level. Or the version for virtual Datacenters (if you want to run VMs with RHEL inside them the pricing is of course different). That's for x86 32/64 bit -- of course, if you want IBM POWER processor support, that is a different product with different pricing -- can't expect to use the same licensing model for a different CPU!

And if you want to run Red Hat on a Desktop, that too is a different product.

So in a total, 18 different versions of Linux: [https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html](https://www.redhat.com/wapps/store/catalog.html)

<comment><USER19> While for _support_ packages you might be looking at multiple options, Linux distributions generally come in the Awesome edition only.

<comment><USER20> Correct, it only impacts support, not functionality, while for Windows functionality is impaired.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There's (quite rightly) been a bit of a fuss of late regarding the modular, paired down kernel. Why not offer the features above Home via the app / business store? CAL can still work. Then you have Windows, Windows Mobile and IoT?

one presumes inertia and marketing are the biggest drivers behind these editions.

</comment><comment><USER22> No mention of Windows 10 IoT? Is it still going to live in some weird licensing limbo zone where it's only for preview and not for normal people to buy and use?

edit: Oh geeze I missed it, it's appparently part of 'Windows 10 Mobile Enterprise'... seriously?

<comment><USER23> No, I think you misinterpreted it.

> There will also be versions of Windows 10 Enterprise and Windows 10 Mobile > Enterprise for industry devices like ATMs, retail point of sale, handheld > terminals and industrial robotics

 _conversational pause_

> and Windows 10 IoT Core for small footprint, low cost devices like gateways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There was an earlier impression (desire?) that Windows 10 was going to do away with this marketing mess of a bazillion different versions. Yet in reality, nothing has changed. All this blog post is doing differently is finally explaining what each version is.

</comment><comment><USER25> So if Windows 10 home and pro are both free upgrades, why are they separate? I get the rest is so they can call their mobile OS the same as they call their desktop OS and segmenting enterprise, but why the home/pro distinction?

</comment><comment><USER26> This is not granular enough. I wonder if the following features are still missing from Windows 10 pro

1\. Multi monitor support in RDP

2\. Support for mounting NFS mounts

Of course as in the past the compare windows editions will omit important actual differences like these.

</comment><comment><USER19> I don't get it - can you upgrade a Windows 8.1 standard to Win10 Pro?

</comment><comment><USER27> Unfortunately this kind of complexity isn't just questionable marketing, it propagates to everything else. It makes seamless user experiences needlessly difficult.

For example, imagine trying to create a supporting product, or simply writing _instructions_ on how to do something. You're trying to make sure that the user will see what they're supposed to see but with all these versions you can't _assume_ anything so you have to consider _everything_. A simple list of bullets suddenly becomes a series of "if you have X, do Y" statements. Everywhere.

When products and companies become this big, a simple and arbitrary choice is all it takes to create unnecessary costs for thousands of organizations around the world.

</comment><comment><USER28> Blech, this is not sexy marketing. How do you do a press announcement with no pictures of said greatness? Its pretty pointless to describe your software product with paragraphs.

</comment><comment><USER29> > We are also bringing the Xbox gaming experience to Windows 10, giving games > and gamers access to the Xbox Live gaming community, enabling the capture > and share of gameplay and giving Xbox One owners the ability to play their > Xbox One games from any Windows 10 PC in their home.

I do not like the sound of this. It looks like another attempt at the loathed GWFL (Games For Windows Live)

</comment><comment><USER30> Hey so what does everyone think of them releasing multiple versions of Windows 10?

</comment><comment><USER31> They are too focused on the one OS for everything meme. Apple does it better with iOS and MacOS. Yes you will (presumably) be able to run Office across all devices but they're not really the same programs on each platform. The UI will still be different because it has to be.

<comment><USER32> The UI will adapt on the Universal App Plattform as well, because it has to. So not really sure where the argument for Apple is here. A good analogy is responsive design for websites. It can have a few advantages to have a mobile and a desktop version seperate, but i don't think its always better, and i don't think its the future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I was expecting to see a gold version for $10,000...

<comment><USER16> Why were you expecting this?

<comment><USER34> Title reminds OP of Apple Watch Editions, which are gold and cost $10,000: [http://store.apple.com/us/buy-watch/apple-watch- edition](http://store.apple.com/us/buy-watch/apple-watch-edition)

<comment><USER35> Good lord, those are ugly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> > everything from elevators to ATMs to heart rate monitors to wearables

I've never been more frightened in my life. Forget the zombie apocalypse, this is the W10 apocalypse.

<comment><USER37> I can't believe people are downvoting this!

Everyone is OK with Windows running elevators? What's next, pacemakers?

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Good lord... With all the stride MS has made and they STILL insist on releasing 1 million different versions of Windows... How stupid do you have to be to continue to do this?

<comment><USER39> Has it ever occurred to you they know better what to do then you?

<comment><USER40> You're crazy man. Where do you get these ideas?

Next you'll tell me that my opinions formed after 10 minutes of perusing a forum are subject to cognitive bias.

<comment><USER38> No, but I will tell you that over 10 years of watching this unfold and using Windows for about half of that time I think I've got some ground to stand on. Microsoft is shooting themselves in the foot with this move and playing right into Apple and friend's hands. They are over complicating something that shouldn't be complicated (Desktop, Mobile, and Server are the only valid "flavors" to be releasing at this point).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The inside story of Facebook's biggest setback - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/may/12/facebook-free-basics-india-zuckerberg <comment><USER2> Something wicked this way comes... Mark Zuckerberg and his Facebook, hiding under the guise of altruism, gives Mr. Dark and his circus a run for its money.</comment>


The new dynamic arrays in Excel with Python and xlwings - <AUTHOR> https://www.xlwings.org/blog/dynamic-arrays-in-excel <comment><USER2> That's fun. CSE formulas have always felt like forbidden magic due to the unintuitive implementation and ease with which an unfamiliarity user can break them.

These look like a way more intuitive way to interact with arrays in excel.

Took me a while to realize xlwings was a separate thing which was disappointing

<comment><AUTHOR> Microsoft has been looking into adding Python natively, see: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15927132](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15927132) but we're still waiting for an official decision...

<comment><USER3> At my work, we've recently finished rewriting a macroeconomic model from Excel/VBA into Python. Would've been nice--and easier for the economists--if Python had simply been available in Excel. But I think the long-term advantages of teaching the econ modeling team Python plus gitand an agile-ish workflow (versus no defined structure that led to a tangled mess of VBA in the first place) will be worth it.

<comment><USER4> Why cant everybody just learn Linux ? Why cant microsoft just invest the same amount of money it does for Excel for Linux ?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The new Excel dynamic arrays work with the good old C SDK too. Just return an array and the entire range is displayed.</comment>


Is wealth inequality just…math? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bennjordan.com/blog/?p=712 <comment><USER2> >10 "individuals", and 2000 spheres. The individuals start with an equal sphere attraction value of 10. Every time a sphere collides with an individual, it gains an attraction value of 0.1, but the sphere can never go beyond 0.1, and loses its attraction value if it travels more than 49% of the distance between individuals.

Okay... what has any of that got to do with money? I take it this is meant to be a model of some kind... what do the parts of the model represent?

<comment><USER3> The idea being that equal opportunity leads to the same thing: inequality

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think lot is the process to raise money:

How many minimum wage people are you trying to raise money for your company? the amounts to small, it would be harder to sell them on it because $10 is more valuable to them than $5000 is to a millionaire, and its harder to reach them(transaction costs are much, much higher)

also, even if they had a 10x return they only made $100.

So, if the best opportunities to make money off your own money are only available to the rich than you do the math...

<comment><USER4> that's even without the regulations around unaccredited investors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a pretty neat thought experiment- good job on the simulation. The central thesis though that money attracts money, and without any feedbacks or corrections power and money tend to concentrate in fewer and fewer hands, is pretty well understood, and intuitively obvious.

<comment><USER6> A "preferential attachment" process can model this effect more simply.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interesting idea and nice implementation, but it seems like the premise presupposes the conclusion - money makes money.

</comment><comment><USER8> You are definitely not an economist.</comment>


Get an advantage over your competition by sleeping only 2 hours a day - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polyphasic_sleep

<comment><USER2> For contrast:

<http://www.supermemo.com/articles/polyphasic.htm>

<http://www.supermemo.com/articles/sleep.htm>

My uninformed take on this:

 _If_ you will be depriving yourself of sleep anyway, polyphasic sleep may be worth a try. In this case watch your diet: eat more vegetables and avoid hard to digest foods. It's bad enough that you're abusing your body in one way, and there is a correlation between your diet and your need for sleep. [Edit: I HAVEN'T EVER DONE POLYPHASIC SLEEP SO DON'T TAKE THIS AS ENDORSEMENT.]

What I do when I want to squeeze myself is

\- Avoid caffeine.

\- Crank until I'm pretty sure I'll fall asleep as soon as I go horizontal.

\- Sleep without an alarm clock. If I haven't gone wildly out of sync, chances are I'll wake up refreshed without oversleeping.

\- Take a 20m-ish afternoon nap iff I feel drowsy at that time.

And two things I don't do but I'm sure I should:

\- Do at least 15m exercise early in the morning.

\- Eat light, varied foods with plenty of vegetables.

YMMV!</comment>


WikiRebels- The Wikileaks Documentary - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NhTfOL9_HBE

<comment><USER2> A couple of comments from the last two times this was submitted:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2010805>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1997239></comment>


How to Become a Project Ara Module Developer - <AUTHOR> http://www.araprototype.com/knowledge/kickstarter-github-module-developer-resources/

<comment><AUTHOR> These are all resources and tips I could dig up for aspiring module developers. Most people consider it as very high tech, but there are so many low tech applications which could be created by anyone.</comment>


Is Chrome Going to Be ONLY Browser? (Microsoft Ditching Edge) - <AUTHOR> https://bloggeek.me/chrome-only-browser/ <comment><USER2> Mozilla does not have any shareholders, so it can not be acquired! ;)

<comment><USER3> AFAIK Mozilla corp is owned by the Mozilla foundation and can be sold.</comment></comment>


Len Deighton's Bomber, the first book ever written on a word processor (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/culture/2013/03/len-deightons-bomber-the-first-book-ever-written-on-a-word-processor.html <comment><USER2> It's a good book (I've read it several times) but there are some gaping holes - for example, the Lancaster bomber Creaking Door that forms the core of the novel is equipped with H2S air-to-ground radar, used to identify targets, but the navigator and bomb-aimer never use it. If they (and other crews in the attack) had done so, then maybe Altgarten would have been spared.

<comment><USER3> Well, thanks for the spoilers mate.

This was my next book in the pipeline.

<comment><USER2> I don't see how this is a spoiler - the plot of the novel is very complex, and told from multiple POVs. I was just pointing out a technical inconsistency; it's still very worth reading.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is the bandwidth on the big 3 cloud providers insanely expensive? - <AUTHOR> 0.08 per gb is... insane? Are they out of their mind? Maybe I don't get this but whenever I chose a provider, I always look at the bandwidth pricing in addition the the compute costs.
Bandwidth on DO, Vultr, Linode etc is priced reasonably at 0.01 per gb, though that can be decreased further now.
Such is the case with mongodb atlas (their cloud DBaaS) because they only provide their offering at those providers I can't use them.
Or am I missing something here? <comment><USER2> Bandwidth pricing at GCP/AWS/Azure is not reflective of the price to provide the bandwidth.

Cloud pricing is strange because it's not based on reality or cost of providing the service at all. It's also clearly an anti-competitive market once you understand that.

Short answer is that the big clouds are trying to make a profit - a large profit - and competing with each other cuts into that profit & devalues the market. If the market isn't lucrative enough, the big clouds will have less priority to push their clouds and everyone loses.

There is no other property here.

Reliability/redundancy is not a factor. (Routers & switches don't cost much anymore)

Performance is not a factor. (Do people really think they don't get their bandwidth almost free through peering?)

It's all profit.

<comment><USER3> So you think if Azure or someone offered the best prices compared to the competition they would be swamped in losses due to the increased demand?

Or that they've all decided to keep prices up to have similar demand and profit?

Neither of those make very much sense to me unless there is active collusion.

<comment><USER4> Azure and AWS both have their respective moats. Their locked-in customers would be up in arms if they decide to offer substantially lower rates to new customers.

However, I am not sure what's holding Google back. They have all the right incentives to launch a price war but I guess they are focusing more on "value- addition" with ML cores, AI APIs etc.

<comment><USER5> Google cloud has significantly cheaper prices and a more generous free tier than AWS, so they kind of already are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> They don't necessarily care about the little guys. They make plenty from the big fishes so they don't need to care. That is why services like DO exist who can server little guys like us. Just my 2 cents.

If price is too high, you are not the intended audience. That is how the market generally works regardless of what we think about the value of the price.

<comment><USER7> I think these represent long term issues for the big guys though. I work at a small startup in SE asia, and we do about ~250GB/weekday in mostly PDF traffic which would cost us about $0.12/GB if we just used amazon, but only costs us closer to ~$0.0331/GB because I put another cdn in front of cloudfront (will get closer to ~$0.01/GB if we approached 1TB/weekday in bandwidth).

Hopefully we'll ditch cloudfront and s3 as something like backblaze b2 becomes available in our region.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would not compare something like DO with Google/AWS/Azure.

Google has a globally spanning Network under its own control. They have peering with all bigger ISPs / Networkowner.

DO doesn't has that. They have barely a few locations and not all locations support all services.

When Google tell you they have 1-3ms latenc between Zones, thats what they have. On DO you probably don't even check that.

If you need to operate globally, you will probably not go to DO. You wanna provide a good service with low latency globally, you go to GAA.

What Google also does, it terminates your TLS connection as close as possible, for low latency for that expensive roundtrip and encrypts it internally.

When i'm looking for my private stuff, i'm not going to GAA, i go to DO or Hetzner. They are cheap, relativly reliable and thats it.

When i'm doing something at work, i will not go to DO or Hetzner if it costs me overhead. That stuff needs to run, 24/7, without me or my colleges interacting with it. That would cost much more. It is also an operational risk.

The scale also changes: If a Service costs me 500$ more per month on AWS but it allows me to have a few new bigger customers (b2b) onboarded, no one will look at those 500$. An external developer costs between 600-1000$ per day.

I still can't tell you how reasonable those Bandwithprices are, but i do know, that when i would need low latency or high bandwith also at peak time, i would go to GAA and i assume that that is part of the cost you pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER9> I don't want to startle you or anything, but have you seen at the price of iops compared to what you get from a laptop? Ouch.

</comment><comment><USER10> Whats even more insane is how bad their documentation is.

Especially with AWS I feel like I get ripped off everytime I use any of their services, because there's always some magic, undocumented buttons I need to press in their godforsaken gui to make it work.

</comment><comment><USER11> The pricing is insane, yes and no. They are most definitely not out of their minds.

Networking at scale is complicated and expensive. Of course, at the economies of scale providers like AWS and GCP it does become much cheaper. No one in datacenters pays per gigabyte, but you do in the cloud because you're paying for so much more than just data-go-out.

There is a lot of hardware and glass that goes into you being able to reliably transfer a gigabyte of data in or out of AWS. They peer with hundreds of providers and need to constantly monitor and balance traffic in hundreds of locations. When you buy your own transit, you pay for say 1 gigabit per second with Level 3. What if Level 3 has an issue? Or that fiber is cut? Well now you need to pay for 1gbps with GTT. What if the path to your customers isn't optimal via GTT? Well now you need to pay for 1gbps with Verizon.

Huge transit speeds, combined with huge IP spaces and huge routing tables means hugely expensive routers anywhere they are doing significant amounts of peering (which is hundreds of locations). You as the customer don't care, you just expect your gigabyte to go where you want it, no matter what.

Does all this really cost AWS $0.02/GB? Hell no. They want you in their ecosystem. If it's cheap and easy for you to send your data out (as it is practically free to get your data in), then you'd just leave anytime you wanted.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think part of it is that the big players don't want you to move data or some of your processes out of their cloud.

Moving data to clouds or within clouds typically is cheaper than moving data out of it. For example, moving data _into_ EC2 is free (or used to be, or [https://www.cloudmanagementinsider.com/data-transfer- costs-e...](https://www.cloudmanagementinsider.com/data-transfer-costs- everything-you-need-to-know/) is incorrect. I tried checking that on AWS.amazon.com, but got lost. I also tried finding within-AWS transfer costs, but again, got lost)

It basically is a trap: once you have a lot of stuff in a cloud, all processes working with the data better be in the same cloud.

</comment><comment><USER13> Well, you are getting more than just raw bandwidth, there are other considerations with topology, performance, and security.

Google has two network tiers now, so there is a lower priced option. Note(1) most go down with volume, but do not get that close to $0.01/Gb. Note(2) intra data center / cloud networking has different prices.

Is the issue your application is running in a different cloud than the database? If so, you will want to move your application to the same cloud simply for latency reasons.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah but my application is consumer focused and bandwidth is a real cost.

<comment><USER13> Ok, but are you intending to run the app & DB in the same cloud provider and region?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> As another commenter has pointed out, if your application server is in the same region as your MongoDB Atlas deployment, you're not paying for transfer to your application tier.

You'd only have to worry about outbound data transfer from your app servers to the internet.

</comment><comment><USER15> Wholesale Internet bandwidth can be had for $0.05 per Mbps per month.

You can transfer about 320 GB in a month.

In other words, what you pay for a GB from the cloud costs about what you'd pay for a Mbps in a well connected datacenter.

</comment><comment><USER16> 0.08 per gb is... insane? It is!

As long there is a buyer, there is also seller. They are some serious money pumped into marketing last few years to establish this model as 'cloud' standard.

</comment><comment><USER17> Network is now generally not oversubscribed in aws and gcp. This adds much higher costs since you're talking about 40g+ network adapter and CLOS fabrics (google juipter style). That doesn't even account for the development of the sdn layer.

So yes it's expensive, but you're unlikely to exhaust its capacity or either are any of your neighbors. That's what you're paying for.</comment>


The random walk of cars and their collision probabilities with planets - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.04718 <comment><USER2> Hanno Rein and Daniel Tamayo are pretty legit dynamicists. For anyone interested in doing calculations like these themselves, they've been working on this amazing N-body library called Rebound:

[https://github.com/hannorein/rebound](https://github.com/hannorein/rebound)

One of my all-time favorite figures is Fig. 1 of this paper of theirs describing one of the integrators used in Rebound:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.07715](https://arxiv.org/abs/1704.07715)

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the link, that paper was a great read: clever idea, and very well written.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _By running a large ensemble of simulations with slightly perturbed initial conditions, we estimate the probability of a collision with Earth and Venus over the next one million years to be 6% and 2.5%, respectively_

More fortunately, even if it were to "collide", it would likely burn up in the atmosphere like the majority of other, even very large[1], objects that reenter.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Final_days_and_deorbit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mir#Final_days_and_deorbit)

<comment><USER5> "Free Tacos for Everyone in the Solar System if Mir hits our Target on Venus!"

<comment><USER6> Reference for reference: [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1231447.stm](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1231447.stm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 2 questions:

> The repeated encounters lead to a random walk that eventually causes close > encounters with other terrestrial planets and the Sun.

What are terrestrial planets? I thought there was only one terrestrial planet; earth. Or is meant 'earth like' planets, specifically Venus, Mars and Earth?

> dynamical lifetime of the Tesla to be a few tens of millions of years

What is the dynamical lifetime? I'd think that with all the rocks out there the Tesla will get some dents from collisions. So many dents that I think in a million years it'll be toast. How does this square with a dynamical lifetime of tens of millions of years?

<comment><USER8> What collisions? The whole point of this article is that the most likely rock to hit Tesla is the Earth. Space is very, very, very empty; all the (many) rocks out there are scattered in extremely huge amounts of empty space.

Even in a dense asteroid belt, almost every path encounters zero rocks; and the orbit of that Tesla is not in asteroid belts but in interplanetary space that's quite "clean".

Tesla _would_ be expected to get some abrasion / "wear&tear" from hitting individual atoms and tiny particles of space dust; over a million of years that would likely accumulate to a major change. But it's not likely to hit a rock of "dent-making" size before it gets sucked in by some major planet.

<comment><USER9> It's also worth noting that Earth is more massive than Mercury, Venus, Mars, the Moon, and the asteroid belt _combined_.

Since the Tesla doesn't go anywhere near Jupiter's orbit, if it gets sucked in by anything at all, it's likely to be Earth.

<comment><USER10> I thought there was no way this could be true - I was at the Griffith Observatory yesterday and saw that Venus was nearly 80% the mass of Earth.

But indeed, Mars has only about 1/10 the mass of Earth! And Mercury is about half of that.

[https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/](https://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/planetary/factsheet/)

<comment><USER9> Yeah, Earth is huge!

It also has the highest density of all the planets, thanks to the iron and nickel in the core. Earth is so dense that its surface gravity is higher than that of Saturn and Uranus (for a suitable definition of "surface" for the gas giants) despite the fact that the latter are much more massive as a whole.

We should make note of these facts and use them to burn the aliens if we ever come to an interplanetary rap battle :)

<comment><USER11> It's as though Earth were a gas giant, but with the outer layers of hydrogen and helium blown away. The magnetosphere is closer in magnitude to Uranus's or Neptune's than Venus's or Mars's. We think it's why we still have water.

<comment><USER12> That makes me wonder - given that Jupiter and Saturn are so massive as to have solid cores, how do their core sizes compare to Earth's size? never compared those numbers, not sure where to find core size estimates for our four giants.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > In our numerical model, we do not integrate the orbit of the Moon and > instead use a single particle with the combined mass of the Earth and the > Moon.

Is that a standard assumption for this kind of model? For such a chaotic simulation, would it not be very important to approximate the effects of the Earth and moon very precisely? Especially since these bodies would have such dominating effects early on?

<comment><USER14> Only the initial launch has the car near the earth and moon, but the calculations are already factoring in a range of starting points - I'd assume the moon's effects are contained in that range.

After it moves away from the earth the distance ought to be negligible, although even if they do reduce the earth moon to a single point I don't know if they model a wobble.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Very cool, looks like this partially answers my curiosity [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16324894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16324894).

It'll be fun to read papers about other projected fates of the various aspects of the Tesla.

<comment><USER16> I'm wondering about the fate of the paint, plastic, rubber and leather.

[https://www.autoblog.com/2018/02/07/tesla-roadster- starman-s...](https://www.autoblog.com/2018/02/07/tesla-roadster-starman- space-radiation-elon-musk/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's pretty incredible to imagine that after most of the monuments man has built for man have vanished, Elon's Tesla might still be orbiting the Sun.

Feels implausible.

<comment><USER18> Within a couple of hundred years (maybe even much less) someone's going to go and collect it for bragging rights and/or as a trophy. See if they don't.

<comment><USER19> It will be designated a solar system historical site and be strictly off limits. You can't exactly sneak up on something in space...

<comment><USER20> Aw, that reminds me of a story about the future Mars rover:

[https://www.wired.com/2016/12/jon-rogers-a-martian-goes- hunt...](https://www.wired.com/2016/12/jon-rogers-a-martian-goes-hunting-for- the-past/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> As high as 6%? In the total vastness of space, 6 in 100 seems like an incredibly high chance that the rocket payload will hit either Earth or Venus... It's a bit like me pulling out a rifle and firing into the air, hoping to hit a specific dinner plate in a back yard two suburbs away on a windy day, isn't it?

<comment><USER22> Plates a few suburbs away don't exert massive gravitational pulls on their surrounding.

<comment><USER21> But doesn't gravitational pull mainly deflect objects travelling at high velocity? Hence their use to accelerate spacecraft into different trajectories? If we looked at the 'indentations on a rubber mat' model of gravitational influence, the object would still have to be aimed almost directly at the planet in order to hit it rather than bend around it?

But I guess that comes down to the velocity of the object in question, and after repeated trajectory adjustments due to gravitational pull, it could quite conceivably end up aiming directly at a massive body in space that exerted the pull in the first place...

<comment><USER9> Currently, the Tesla is aimed almost directly _away from_ Earth. After all, it was launched from Earth!

On the other side of the orbit, that becomes almost directly _at_ Earth.

Go round and round a few million times, and Earth might actually be at a point in the orbit where it can exert a significant gravitational pull on the passing Tesla.

<comment><USER21> I hope that other members more in the know can clarify, but I thought that the launch into deeper space was done as a 2 stage thing - first, they got the car up into earth orbit, THEN they did a second burn to break orbit. i.e. the second burn was done while the vehicle was moving tangential to the Earth, and not radially away from it?

<comment><USER9> That just means that when the Tesla returns to the same point in its orbit, it will pass a few hundred miles above Earth's orbit (where the final burn was performed) instead of directly intersecting Earth's orbit.

The difference is virtually meaningless compared to orbital perturbations from other sources. Either way, it's close enough for Earth to affect the Tesla's orbit if it were at the right place at the right time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Hah. This is cool.

I've become so used to reading papers with a footnote that states something about an NSF grant being used to support the research that I was initially surprised when I didn't see it here. Then I realized what I was reading and chuckled :)

<comment><USER24> There is one in ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS section:

> _This research has been supported by the NSERC Discovery Grant > RGPIN-2014-04553._

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> As if there was not enough junk in space already.

<comment><USER26> There's junk in low earth orbit. But this object is in solar orbit. There's very little junk there. There's very little anything there.

<comment><USER27> Very little junk, but _loads of stuff_ in solar orbit in the form of the asteroid belt, the jupiter greeks/trojans and the hildas, the kuyper belt, and the oort cloud.

There is so much there.

<comment><USER28> For extremely low values of "so much".

<comment><USER29> Maybe, but on the other hand, I expect you've hardly ever used 'so much' to refer to more - since a small fraction of that 'so much' includes Earth and everything on it.

As with everything, it depends on what your comparisons are to.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to tell if it's the right time to quit a job and work on an app? - <AUTHOR> Background: I just graduated university. I have an idea for an app and I've done some surveying to people that seemed to validate my hypothesis. I have also shown a prototype to my friends and family and have gotten some great positive feedback. However, my first full time job is going to start soon.<p>How can I tell if it's the right time to continue with my app, or should I just work at my full time job for some time? <comment><USER2> 1\. Friends and family will always tell you your app is good. You need to do customer validation. [http://momtestbook.com/](http://momtestbook.com/) is a good book on the subject.

2\. Do some quick math: how many copies will you need to sell to cover your living expenses? If this is a mobile app you sell for $5, it's going to be a huge number.

3\. How are you at marketing? If you have no experience at marketing you're basically relying on luck. And this is small business marketing, not "I'm a giant company doing branding" marketing, which is all you're likely to learn in school.

If you're just graduating you probably have few responsibilities. So find a job that isn't all-consuming, learn marketing and work on your app in your spare time.

</comment><comment><USER3> A real validation happens when people start using your app. Better yet, paying you for it.

You can discard 100% of what your friends and family say - they are not in the business of crushing your dreams.

Release your app, install basic analytics so that you know how many people are using it. Put a price on it to see if people are willing to pay for it.

Full time job is not an impediment to working on your app. Yes, it's going to be harder, but I wrote lots of code and shipped a couple of apps while working full time.

As to when to quit - it mostly depends on your level of optimism and willingness to take risks.

Personally, I would wait until I have a steadily growing number of users for the app.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you're not sure, try out the job and see if you like it. It's easy to quit later if you realize you'd rather spend your life working on your app.

Before leaving my last job, I was pulling all nighters working on a side project. I'd show up to work super sleepy and take naps in the meeting room. I put in notice after about week, realizing this wasn't fair to my employer, since I had no intention of slowing down with my app.

</comment><comment><USER5> Start listening to StartUpsForTheRestOfUs.com.

Get some work experience and save some money. Build it on the side (if you can/allowed per company policies/contract).

Does your new job allow you to work on side projects? If you work on a project on your own time and own hardware do you own it and the IP. Check your contract/signed documents.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER6> ask yourself this: do you have any money?</comment>


Oracle pledges continued support for Java and NetBeans - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/article/oracle-pledges-continued-support-for-java-and-netbeans/ <comment><USER2> Lets see what they do. I'm hoping they show some work and are not acting like a petulant child when someone shows an interest in their toy and says "mine!"

I'm going to guess that Java isn't giving the double digit profit margin that Larry gets with his other product lines, so they appear to be just let the money flow in for as long as it can.</comment>


The day I became a millionaire - <AUTHOR> https://m.signalvnoise.com/the-day-i-became-a-millionaire-55d7dc4d8293 <comment><USER2> Post: (2015)

The actual day it happened: 2006</comment>


Show HN: Voronator.com, voronoi them all - <AUTHOR> http://www.voronator.com/ <comment><USER2> Nice! Works: [http://i.imgur.com/ADLFzit.png](http://i.imgur.com/ADLFzit.png) 18mb file failed though. STL download would also be appreciated :-)</comment>


Bitcoin Charges Improper Under Florida Law, Lawyer Says - T-A http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-27/bitcoin-charges-improper-under-florida-law-lawyer-says.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Defense attorney says charges against client are improper? Well, there's a dog-bites-biscuit story...</comment>


How We Built a Tech Company Without Tech - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/the-compass-blog/how-we-built-a-tech-startup-without-tech-f7997588132#.id4f12tg5 <comment><USER2> Amazing article, Mike. Definitely one of my most inspirational and favorite articles

</comment><comment><USER3> This is dangerous. Mostly because it leaves the technical co-founder in a position of power. If he/she leaves, you are in trouble.

If you start a tech company, you really should know tech.</comment>


Block.one's sale of its digital tokens dwarfs other coin sales - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors-bet-4-billion-on-a-cryptocurrency-startup-1527591600 <comment><USER3> Read the history of the South Sea Bubble.[1]

 _" For example; one company floated was to buy the Irish Bogs, another to manufacture a gun to fire square cannon balls and the most ludicrous of all "For carrying-on an undertaking of great advantage but no-one to know what it is!!" Unbelievably £2000 was invested in this one!"_

 _" Then the 'bubble' in London burst. The stocks crashed and people all over the country lost all of their money. Porters and ladies maids who had bought their own carriages became destitute almost overnight. The Clergy, Bishops and the Gentry lost their life savings; the whole country suffered a catastrophic loss of money and property."_

 _" Suicides became a daily occurrence. The gullible mob whose innate greed had lain behind this mass hysteria for wealth, demanded vengeance. The Postmaster General took poison and his son, who was the Secretary of State, avoided disaster by fortuitously contracting smallpox and died!"_

 _" The South Sea Company Directors were arrested and their estates forfeited. There were 462 members of the House of Commons and 112 Peers in the South Sea Company who were involved in the crash. Frantic bankers thronged the lobbies at Parliament and the Riot Act was read to restore order."_

We're getting close to that point.

[1] [https://www.historic- uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/South...](https://www.historic- uk.com/HistoryUK/HistoryofEngland/South-Sea-Bubble/)

<comment><USER4> "Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds" is well worth reading on this and other bubbles and pre-20th-Century memes.

More recently (90s) the Albanian pyramid schemes collapsed the economy and prompted a UN intervention to restore order in the country.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There are so many things to note about this ICO:

a. This is one of the longest running ICO. It started last year somewhere during summer.

b. EOS's terms are rather ominous:

 _block.one is building the EOS.IO Software but it will not configure and /or launch any public blockchain platform adopting the open source EOS.IO Software (the "EOS Platform"). Any launch of an EOS Platform will occur by members of the community unrelated to block.one. Third parties launching the EOS Platform may delete, modify or supplement the EOS.IO Software prior to, during or after launching the EOS Platform.

The EOS Tokens do not have any rights, uses, purpose, attributes, functionalities or features, express or implied, including, without limitation, any uses, purpose, attributes, functionalities or features on the EOS Platform._

Some argue this keeps EOS from being sued by SEC. But given the way Bitshares launch was handled by the same guy I think this might be a problem.

c. The CTO or the head tech honcho for this is a guy called Daniel Larimer, who has been pumping out one coin after another - Bitshares, Steemit and now EOS.

Every coin has some new fangled Proof forumla:

Bitshares had DPoS

Steemit has "Proof-of-Brain" (I kid you not)

And everyone of them is touted as the next big thing. AFAIK this is unique in cryptocurrency world where people tend to evangelize one particular coin.

</comment><comment><USER6> They should use the 4 billion to buy a crypto portfilio of coins with actual value. Litecoin and Ethereum would be a good start.

<comment><USER7> Litecoin and Ethereum don't have value either.

<comment><USER8> Nor does any currency with your "argument".

<comment><USER9> Try not paying your taxes with Dollars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Am I an idiot for not understanding blockchain and ICO sales at all? Like, I get them somewhat in theory, but not understanding how they would actually be used?

<comment><USER11> There are a few (e.g. Kik, Brave) that claim the coins will be used in some sort of platform, that presumably will sustain the value of the currency.

<comment><USER12> However one should always be hesitant to believe these claims because there are no regulatory agencies currently protecting investors in the case of ICO fraud.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Is there any reason to believe 99.9% of the "purchases" are not just fake self-dealing?

Is there actually $4B USD equivalent tied up in Ethereum escrow somewhere, proof of stake style, or can the issuer not just "buy" their own tokens, tumble the "proceeds" for a bit, and "buy" some more?

</comment><comment><USER14> >EOSIO is an Operating System on which scalable Decentralized Autonomous Communities "DACs" can easily be built, launched, and governed. Made possible through asynchronous smart contract communication, EOSIO is designed to empower communities to create the next era of disruptive organizations.

Oh no. I really hope they fork an existing OS.

(Source: [https://block.one](https://block.one))

<comment><USER4> It's not an OS in the conventional sense, it's more of a platform - <USER2> not like any existing non-crypto software, closest only to things like the etherum DAO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is there a way around the wsj paywall?

<comment><USER16> Facebook redirect works, [http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/inv...](http://facebook.com/l.php?u=https://www.wsj.com/articles/investors- bet-4-billion-on-a-cryptocurrency-startup-1527591600)

Here's a bookmarklet

      javascript:location.href='http://facebook.com/l.php?u='+location.href

<comment><USER17> or replace the wsj.com with fullwsj.com</comment></comment></comment>


Scientists find remains of huge ancient herbivore - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-11-scientists-huge-ancient-herbivore.html <comment><USER2> It's barely been a week since the existence of a whole new kingdom of life was confirmed ([https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0708-8](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0708-8)), certainly an exciting time for biologists. Must be tough even keeping up with the latest developments.

<comment><USER3> If we're talking about single-celled organisms, it's quite possible that there are hundreds of "kingdoms" living among us. The trend to abandon the Linnaean classificaton is quite prominent among those analyzing macroscopic organisms. But among those working with microscopic organisms, I've come across some of them abandoning the tree of life itself. My mind was blown when I watched the discussion between Dawkins and Venter.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_(biology)#Summary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_\(biology\)#Summary)

[https://evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_t...](https://evolutionnews.org/2011/03/venter_vs_dawkins_on_the_tree_/)

<comment><USER4> The last article is extremely misleading. It is true that there are variations of the genetic code. (Wikipedia says 32, including the usual genetic code that we have. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_genetic_codes) )

But the variations are minor, each has only a few changes from the most used code. For example mitochondria (that are also "we") have only 4 changes out of 64 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate_mitochondrial_code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebrate_mitochondrial_code) .

So the easiest explanation is that the genetic code evolved from a genetic code ancestor. Moreover, our genetic code is probably not the original code. IIRC the guess is that initially it has only 16 slots. These slots are visible as some big squares in the curren table, but some of these slots are divided now.

Most of the time a change in the genetic code is catastrophic, so it's not easy to change it. But it may be possible if it changes one aminoacidic by a similar one, or if you are extremely lucky. In the table all the changes are in mitochondria/bacteria/archaea, not in animals or plants. Since they are small, they have bigger numbers and faster generations, so they have a bigger chance of a lucky random mutation.

In particular, 12 of the 32 genetic codes in the list are variations in mitochondrial code. All the mitocondria are very similar. The incorporation of mitocondrial was a very strange lucky event. Nobody think that the 12 variants of mitochondria appear independently, each one in its own tree of life, and were absorbed later independently.

<comment><USER3> I don't like the "gotcha, Dawkins" stance of the article, but apart from that, it looks like they were doing their best to fill in the gaps that Venter left. If memory serves me right, this discussion panel met shortly after Venter's group announced the creation of a life form with a completely synthetic genome. Venter had adequately proven his credentials by that point, and so the panel deferred to his expertise.

Given that the likes of Dawkins could not follow along, Venter certainly did a poor job of communicating the ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was hoping this was from the pleistocene... for some reason I'm fascinated that animals like the Giant Sloth existed only 15k years ago.

<comment><USER6> One species of Mammoth existed until about 2.4k years ago[0].

0\. [https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/arti...](https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/2015)

<comment><USER7> Is it known what killed off mammoths? Was it human hunters killing them of or some natural cause? Something like climate change that caused them to not have enough food?

<comment><USER8> Consider that mammoth populations survived past the ice age in places that humans did not live, mostly islands north of Siberia. Now consider that those mammoths were quickly extinguished as soon as humans touched foot on those islands.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This was a giant _mammal_ that coexisted with dinosaurs. I had always thought that mammals appeared during the age of dinosaurs, but they were all tiny mouse-sized mammals.

<comment><USER10> The ones that survived the Giant Frying were mouse-sized, but bigger ones existed before then, even though they might look mouse-sized to a passing brontosaurus.

(On the Giant Frying: [http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/rob...](http://uahost.uantwerpen.be/funmorph/raoul/macroevolutie/robertson2004.pdf) )

<comment><USER11> There's nothing quite like a well-written scientific paper. This isn't my field at all but I enjoyed reading this immensely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Looks like a giant guinea pig.

Nature never ceases to amaze me.</comment>


Ask HN: How to handle PII data in AWS datalake - <AUTHOR> We are building a s3 datalake in AWS and the data may contain Personally Identifiable Information (PII) information. What are the best practices for anonysing the data(PII data need to be retrieved back - like by marketing team for campaigns). If I take encryption route, what's the best way to do it on AWS? <comment><USER2> AWsS can do server-side encryption of assets like S3 buckets, and you can also set policies that require uploaded content to be encrypted client side.

But just having PII is a huge risk, even if it is encrypted or anonymized. Best not to have PII at all, unless you know how to properly build a digital Fort Knox that you are confident can properly protect that data.

Hell, best just not to have PII at all — it's a huge liability.</comment>


London Startup Launching Visa Card for Spending Bitcoin and Ethereum - <AUTHOR> https://www.standard.co.uk/business/a-london-startup-is-launching-a-debit-card-that-lets-you-spend-bitcoin-and-ethereum-a3691471.html <comment><USER2> There are multiple companies doing this. Check out TenX and Monaco for example.

</comment><comment><USER3> Is anyone actually spending Bitcoin? Given the ludicrous growth, it seems prudent to just leave it in the bank.

<comment><USER4> Prudent and Bitcoin are two words that don't belong in the same sentence. You never know when and if you're in a bubble until its too late, but the ludicrous growth isn't a good sign of stability.

<comment><USER5> Either way, the "correct" way to spend BTC/ETH doesn't seem to be via a series of transactions made via a VISA, does it? Why would go not go directly via an exchange?

<comment><USER6> How does selling at an exchange, eating a 1.5% fee, waiting 4-5 business days for your ACH transfer to clear, then using that money in the bank to send a payment to pay a normal credit card bill get you want you want faster, easier and cheaper?

With this, you can escape large parts of the banking system and control more of your own money in a more granular way if you choose to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm wondering how long it will be until Revolut fully commit to supporting BTC on their cards.

</comment><comment><USER8> _" The Visa card, which will be issued by Gibraltar-based pre-paid card provider Wavecrest, will be linked to an app that allows users to buy and hold cryptocurrencies through the LBX exchange. Customers will also be able to withdraw money using the card. Cryptocurrencies will be converted to sterling at the time of withdrawal."_

Great, so I can put in £200 at the start of the day before work, then when it gets to lunch and the bitcoin market is currently crashing, I can withdraw my full savings now valued at £2 and buy half a sandwich, bargain!

<comment><USER9> Bitcoin has never, even in the biggest crashes, gone down 100x in value.

It has gone up 100x in a few years, though.

<comment><USER10> Heck, I would simply be worried about a 1x drop.

<comment><USER11> Only until you have 5x or so gains

<comment><USER12> 1x is 100%, I believe they were telling a very witty joke.

<comment><USER11> I get it, and it's a good one..

But really, if you are at all worried about losing all your money in crypto, then you should only invest a little, and.. sell 50% once you 2x.. or sell 20% once you 5x... depending on how worried/patient you are.

or any combination you're comfortable with so that losing "1x" will not put you worse than you started.

Can't afford a whole bitcoin? Buy a half, or a quarter, or an eigth and apply the same strategy..

Yeah, of course it could go to zero before you gain, but really, it's not looking like it. There has not been a better investment opportunity in our lifetime as what we're seeing now.

I think it's crazy that so many people who know about it are still hesitant to put even a modest amount in for fun.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Motorists fork out £1,000 more to insure their cars if their name is Mohammed - <AUTHOR> https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/5393978/insurance-race-row-john-mohammed/ <comment><AUTHOR> Charitably: a possible example of a black box AI gone wrong.

From a tabloid, but this is the original source of the investigation.

Twitter user appears to confirm: [https://twitter.com/annajholt/status/955470572229746688](https://twitter.com/annajholt/status/955470572229746688)

Admiral's response: [https://twitter.com/iammuhammad/status/955732231452090368](https://twitter.com/iammuhammad/status/955732231452090368)

The core of Admiral's response is: _You may have seen a story in the news which claims we use customers ' names to price our insurance based on race._

But this is carefully worded, to neither confirm nor deny that name itself is factored into insurance quotes. That is, they are saying that they don't use name to infer race, and then discriminate on race.

But in other words: the possibility is implicitly left open that they look only at name. Which could be be arguably discriminatory due to a correlation between name and race, even though they don't _explicitly_ attempt to derive race.

Separately, a follow-up report also asserts price being affected by email address domain name (e.g., higher for users of Hotmail than Gmail): [https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/5401901/admiral-hikes- insura...](https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/5401901/admiral-hikes-insurance- costs-for-drivers-using-hotmail-email-addresses/)</comment>


Plato Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug - <AUTHOR> https://eidolon.pub/plato-would-have-wanted-you-to-unplug-712a908a16e0 <comment><USER2> In the book "Reality is Broken" by Jane McGonigal, she argues that instead of video games being something that are a corrupting influence, real life is not nearly as engaging as it could be compared to video games.

Consider how some people get much more satisfaction out of being in a World of Warcraft guild compared to going to their public school. There is nothing that would make it impossible for a job or a school system to be as engaging as a video game, and there are actually people I once met at the Game Developers Conference (GDC) who are trying to do that.

On the other hand, from the perspective of evolution, the human brain did not evolve in the presence of things like high fructose corn syrup and infinite Facebook feeds, and so it can require unnatural efforts to use moderation, especially if someone is predisposed to be particularly addicted to something.

So, maybe like most things, the issue is more nuanced than just "video games are horrible" and "video games are completely good."

<comment><USER3> The delay between the sacrifice and the gratification (and the corresponding neurochemical responses) in real life is often on the order of years or even decades.

In video games the delay is often on the order of minutes or hours.

The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.

<comment><USER4> > The real world cannot compete with video games in the same way that > milkshakes cannot compete with broccoli.

It's ironic that you bring this up because I actually quite like boiled broccoli.

<comment><USER5> More than a milk shake?

<comment><USER6> I average maybe a milk shake a month, but broccoli multiple times a week. And I'm on the "eat whatever the hell I want at all times" diet. Broccoli out- competes milkshakes for me. If I had to give up one or the other, I'd give up milkshakes.

Don't get me wrong, the sugar in a milkshake is delicious, but it's just not hearty and fulfilling like a good meal can be. Of course, this _is_ well after I started cutting back on sugary drinks during meal times. Not for health reasons mind you - I realized it was messing with my appetite, which in turn was limiting my ability to fully enjoy the rest of my meal. That it's healthier for me is a nice bonus.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Studies have shown that psychological issues, often caused by pain or unmet > needs in childhood, are far more likely to lead to an addiction to something > than that something (whatever it is—heroin, sugar, sex) is likely to cause > an addiction in a psychologically healthy, happy person who has the skills > to cope with the stuff life constantly throws at us.

Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive (I wonder why/if Dr. Andrew Doan would disagree).

With that said, I think the correct headline would have been " _Socrates_ Would Have Wanted Us to Unplug." And, because it's Socrates we're talking about here, we can't _really_ take him seriously. I'm not sure about him being the Ur-millennial, but he was certainly the Ur-troll. The author herself admits she's being a bit facetious (w.r.t. books), but I think the distinction is important.

> Plato probably would have approved of Waldorf- or oppressive-Religious- > homeschooling-style extremism—hell, he kind of invented it—and if we want to > follow in his great tradition we should not only ban all screens but also > all forms of writing and most literature.

This is _really_ pushing it. Quoting from his "Republic" is kind of iffy because it's hard to tell whether or not the book is meant to be serious, sarcastic, taken literally, or taken in semi-jest. Interpretations vary wildly.

Either way, the article was a great read and I wholeheartedly agree with the conclusion that instead of demonizing substances (or video games), we need to fix the underlying psychological issues.

<comment><USER8> > Obviously having studies is nice, but I feel that this is pretty intuitive

It's more than nice. Studies have shown that many intuitive notions are wrong. So it's really important to test the intuition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> A verbose way of saying _don 't blame the drug, blame the shortcomings or trauma in one's life that created the impulse to abuse a drug_. The article also touches on how something pleasurable doesn't become a _drug_ until it becomes an unhealthy addiction - as long as it's used or enjoyed in moderation/with restraint, it's a medicine or tool.

If I could write that well I'd probably flaunt it, so no disrespect to the author.

</comment><comment><USER10> Except that the guy in the picture of the article is Socrates.

</comment><comment><USER11> _So far I've connected this blue-screens-of-death fear-mongering to technophobia_

Writing style today in English speaking countries feels a bit baroque and over-decorated.

</comment><comment><USER3> The author of this piece is clearly incredibly well read and yet it seems she read all of these classical works with disdain for their authors or at least with the deeply held belief that they can't truly be taken seriously. That belief is probably so deeply held that she's not even aware that she holds it.

I know that in my own experience I grew up thinking that way. When you truly accept that we today are not smarter nor necessarily more 'enlightened' than the people that came before us it opens your mind to the lessons of history in a very real way.

>After all, if we cling to this primitive idea that an addictive substance must be eradicated, and if we live in a world in which sex and food are considered addictive, where does that leave us as a species?

Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again among great thinkers and writers throughout human history _because_ there's something to it? Do you think people today live happier, more fulfilling lives because food is superabundant to the point of excess and sexual proclivities are uninhibited?

Why are you so sure?

<comment><USER12> I think this view is more problematic than the one you're critiquing...

I don't think it's too unreasonable to assume more modern people (significantly more modern, even), are a bit more enlightened on some subjects. At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK, yet ancient people did, which indicates some significant gaps in their philosophies and high influence from outside.

> Have you considered that this "primitive" idea comes up over and over again > among great thinkers and writers throughout human history because there's > something to it?

Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of things, or the Zeitgeist of that time. Generally, a great thinker does not transcend time and is somewhat locked into their time, in that only certain strains of thought seem to exist during a time period and others do not, which indicates that overall variety of thinking is just not very high, regardless of how much of a "great thinker" you are.

This, of course, it true for our time as well. Very likely many things we believe today are heavily influenced by whatever is, in a sense, "fashionable". Some ideas are best left unstated.

The age, or lack of thereof, won't really tell you how accurate or useful something is, you'll have to evaluate it on its own terms. I don't like terms like "primitive" because they don't mean anything on their own, but that's a different question.

<comment><USER3> > At least, we no longer consider things like slavery and sexism OK

No one has ever thought sexism is OK just like no one has ever thought murder is OK. The term contains within it the implicit value judgement.

So long as there is sexual dimorphism among humans there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and gender roles. If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that nature, that is your prerogative.

<comment><USER12> > No one has ever thought sexism is OK...

They have. Aristotle:

> "[T]he relation of male to female is by nature a relation of superior to > inferior and ruler to ruled".

This is exactly what sexism is. It's perceiving women as inferior to men. _Why_ one does so is beside the point. If one finds justifications for being OK with sexism, such as sexism reflecting nature, that doesn't change the fact that they're OK with sexism.

> just like no one has ever thought murder is OK.

Murder is definitely very OK in the natural world, so if that's your sticking philosophy, it's pretty much a necessary requirement.

> there will be a fundamental nature to the relations between the sexes and > gender roles

I already addressed that this is one of the limiting factors on "great thinkers" and why often their thought patterns are so similar:

> Well, there is something to it... it's often reflecting the natural order of > things...

> If you would like to keep your mind closed and not think about the > possibility that what we have now is not necessarily in keeping with that > nature, that is your prerogative.

Oh, I'm fully aware we're not fully keeping up with nature, and I consider that a very good thing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oSFbMZkJJDk)

</comment><comment><USER14> So we should allow children addictive substances and blame them when unable to control themselves?

</comment><comment><USER15> Plato was a fascist.</comment>


Securing your users' authentication - <AUTHOR> https://www.stavros.io/posts/securing-user-authentication/ <comment><USER2> Overall some good ideas - but I'm curious, why would SMS-based 2FA be LESS secure than no 2FA at all for unsophisticated users?

Yes, SIM-jacking is a real threat, but it still requires directed effort on the part of the attacker. It can't be done en-masse.

I think the author also fails to mention techniques for detecting account hijacking - Facebook and google for example both look at IP addresses and user agent strings, probably along with other factors, to detect unusual account activity.

<comment><USER3> > why would SMS-based 2FA be LESS secure than no 2FA at all for > unsophisticated users

It's not about the user, it's about the attacker. If your account has something worth bothering with, SMS 2FA is a way for an attacker to tell support "yes, I own the phone number, I just forgot the password", which gets the account transferred to the attacker more easily. It's a tradeoff between that and a keylogger meaning game over, but, really, how hard is it to implement TOTP?

> I think the author also fails to mention techniques for detecting account > hijacking - Facebook and google for example both look at IP addresses and > user agent strings, probably along with other factors, to detect unusual > account activity.

That's a very good point, but those are more high-effort functions and only allow detection after the fact, rather than prevention. They're definitely great to have, but I wanted to show two simple features that can help your users' security greatly while being easy to implement.

<comment><USER2> What you're saying about support indicates poor process rather than an issue with SMS per se. All password resets should require email verification... so an attacker would have to either compromise both the email account and the phone number, or the password and the phone number.

It's still not great - U2F is the way to go in my opinion - but good luck getting my dad to use any of that stuff.

<comment><USER3> > good luck getting my dad to use any of that stuff

That's exactly the reason for the "poor process", most users have trouble with these things and it's not uncommon for people to say "the email address I signed up with is old and I don't have it any more, but I do have my phone number". So common that support can't just ignore those, unfortunately, which is how attackers get in.

That, and support staff are people and sometimes just want to help users, even though you've said "absolutely no password resets without email verification".

<comment><USER2> I understand the point of view, but it still smacks of weak process. Support should not be able to do anything other than trigger an email reset link. If they lost the email password, they need to take it up with their email provider. Otherwise a manual process involving ID verification of some type should be required to reset the email or phone number on the account.

I'm not saying doing this properly is easy, but I think "don't use SMS ever" is a bit extreme.

<comment><USER4> Ideally the manual process should require ID verification live and in-person, not over the phone. This raises the bar for an attacker from "has to have access to the Equifax hacked database" to "has to get a decent fake ID made before their appointment with the ID verification people."

<comment><USER2> That's actually a really good point. I'm not sure what options are available in the US, but Canada Post has a service for exactly this purpose: [https://www.canadapost.ca/cpc/en/business/postal- services/di...](https://www.canadapost.ca/cpc/en/business/postal- services/digital-proof-identity.page)

<comment><USER5> One way of implementing it in the US is what Paypal does, which is assume that your bank has authenticated you, then deposit a couple small random amounts that you have to report back.

Another way is to charge a fee for last-resort password resets. Charge $10.00 to the user's credit card, if the account info matches, and refund $5.00 in two random small amounts for them to retrieve off their online account statement and report those numbers back to you.

<comment><USER4> What if the user's bank account is compromised using the Equifax dump?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> One thing not mentioned that I like is having 2FA be non-enforced for a set period of time after enabling it. So you still have to enter it the next N days, but if you set it up wrong or did something stupid you can disable the 2FA without authenticating with it within that period. The only place I can think of where I've seen this is facebook.

That also prevents scenarios like the one given about the user never writing down their 2FA details. (Though the recovery codes should not work for enabling 2FA in the first place.)

Thinking about it, it might make sense to have it non-enforced for the next N logins rather than basing it on time. Or perhaps make it non-enforced for the first login that happens 24 hours after 2FA setup. I haven't seen it implemented this way anywhere yet.

<comment><USER7> This doesn't make sense to me. Either you confirmed that it's working (by tapping your key or entering your token) or you didn't. Why prevent the user from actually securing themselves in this fashion?

<comment><USER8> Users don't actually realize the implications of "you will never login without this key" until they forget the key. That doesn't happen at the moment of enrollment, but only the day after.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm beginning to think the only user friendly secure way of user authentication is to go passwordless (except for the email account which becomes the key for everything).

Setup an email account and lock it down - strong unique password, enforced 2 factor, etc.

Then on every site just email a magic login link.

The user only has to remember 1 password, they don't have to figure out how to use (and trust) a password manager, they don't have to worry about a breach on one site leading to all their accounts being compromised, and they don't have to worry about whether some site has correctly implemented 2 factor, or has side channel attack vectors to gain control of their account.

I actually attempt to do this where I can (set a randomly generated string as your password and use the reset password route to get a magic login link). The main problem I run into is where I want to be logged in to the site and their mobile app and they log out all devices when the password is reset.

The biggest problem (and it is a big problem) is that if they lose control of their email account or their email provider is breached, then they lose access to everything. But right now that's already true (due to the reset password route on many sites).

<comment><USER10> That was exactly what Persona was for. It was marvelous to use. It's a shame that project hasn't gained sufficient traction and closed.

[https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Archive/Mozilla/Per...](https://developer.mozilla.org/en- US/docs/Archive/Mozilla/Persona)

<comment><USER11> This is in response to this comment, as well as the parent: Minimize your trust in all-in-one authentication services. A password manager is reasonable (still makes me nervous), because it makes it simple to have a different complex password for every account. But taking Persona for instance, it claims "free yourself from password management". Don't do that. When you free yourself from managing your security, you are not secure. It really is as simple as that. Security takes diligence. One could even say that security _is_ diligence. The harder you make it for yourself, the more secure you are.

Regarding the possibility of locking yourself out of your accounts, one suggestion that I have is to have one or more primary accounts that you use to recover all of you less critical accounts, and keep the device used for authenticating to those at home, preferable in a safe. Do not use this device for your normal 2FA - only use it as 2fa and recovery for the primary recovery accounts.

For the remaining accounts, use a separate device that you carry around with you. This way when you eventually lose access to something, you'll have a better chance of getting it back. In other words, a lost phone wont necessarily turn into a catastrophe because you've lost your only means of 2fa.

<comment><USER3> This is wrong. Your email provider is already a SPOF for your security, since anyone who owns your email de facto owns all your accounts. All you're doing is removing another link from the security chain, i.e. the service authentication method.

Essentially, you're replacing two (or a thousand) things someone can break into with one thing someone can break into. That's much easier to secure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would immediately switch to a mobile phone provider and a financial institution--even if they cost more and have fewer features--if these features were implemented in one or both of those markets. Same for a domain registrar (Gandi comes close but will still reset the password via support while leaving 2FA enabled, which I suppose is OK), but they have to be willing to deal with someone with under 100 domains and under $5k/year in spend, which most registrars who have this level of security (reasonably) don't.

Basically, I love that "do not let a password reset happen ever, ever" button. I want to take full responsibility for the security of my access credentials and NOT have to rely on a single-party app (I'm up to Microsoft, Entrust, Symantec, Authy, and Steam standalone authentication apps on my phone; it's annoying, just use OATH for them all, please).

<comment><USER2> This. Most people don't appreciate that banks are responsible for most of the attack vectors that cause their customers to lose money.

No 2FA options. Passwords are used directly to connect your bank account to third party apps rather than OAUTH.

For merchants, it's worse. It's 2018 and banks still allow Catch Me If You Can-style NSF fraud, even for ACH/EFT payments. Poor KYC practices that allow people to open accounts with fake identities. The list goes on.

<comment><USER13> A few banks in the UK send you a device which they use to challenge you with a code, you put you card in and type the pin and then their code, and it gives you back another code which you put into the website.

<comment><USER2> Probably an RSA token. They're common for business banking but not for retail banking, or at least not in North America.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > Do not use/implement/touch SMS-based auth, it is less secure than no two- > factor auth.

Finally! I'm glad this is being said out loud. I am so tired of companies implementing only SMS-based authentication. It's totally insecure and inadequate!</comment>