The Property Jungle: I'm a security researcher, get me out of here - <AUTHOR> https://paul.reviews/the-property-jungle-im-a-security-researcher-get-me-out-of-here/ <comment><USER2> I feel as though both parties could have handled that better. Contacting a company about a security vulnerability via a tweet, there must be a better way about that. And the company's response seemed pretty disproportionate to me.

Maybe someone will learn something from this, or maybe not.

<comment><USER3> He clearly stated that they only had a sales email available on their site, and he politely asked for a DM for an appropriate way to contact them. If a company has an active Twitter account it is appropriate to contact them through it. I've done this several times with quite happy results on both ends.

<comment><USER2> Well, good to know. I guess I'm not familiar with how things can be done. Thanks for the heads up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hmm... Pretty much the first line of the Property Jungle's website is "Call us on 0808 1800 178." I'm not sure why his first action was to tweet "critical security issue" publicly. It can see why the Property Jungle guy would have thought it was a revenue extraction thing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Its a shame to see the company react like this, but the author is taking a bit of a risk here.

Finding sql injection requires active testing of the site which, without authority to test, may fall into a gray area of uk law about whether its in breach of the computer misuse act.

Now you'd hope the company will take this as intended, but some organisations will take being embarassed like this poorly.

</comment><comment><USER6> Bloody hell, way to drop the ball. Im quote grateful i dont work in this guys field, id flip out at someone within a week.

<comment><USER7> No matter how egregious the security risk is, I have a hard time taking anyone who uses twitter to contact someone they want to do business with seriously. Or any social media, tbh. It comes off as unprofessional to me, and it is especially unbecoming if you are a security researcher and this is the _first resort_. It immediately removes any chance of them handling the issue discreetly, and puts them in a defensive position. Why the hell would you do that?

<comment><USER8> the author of the blog post didn't publish his email to the guy who's site was vulnerable. Only the site's reply. I could only imagine how the original email to the company was worded.

There's something here about treating someone, even an ignorant idiot (whose only fault is being ignorantly and aggressively presumptuous), with a basic level of professional courtesy. You either foster that basic level of respect or you act like a child in need of attention. I would never hire this security researcher if I read this blog post. Communication is one of our most important skills.

<comment><USER9> Who cares about hiring Paul? TPJ is ignoring the vulns that Paul is trying to inform them of discretely.

As a consequence of TPJ's attitude - Paul is doing the next best thing of letting TPJ customers know that they are at risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Bad communication all around. At least the MD states his thinking. Security world is full of puerile one-upmanship. It's far harder to build something than to break it.

</comment><comment><USER11> People who manage social media for companies are trained to filter out the shit before it reaches the managing director. This tubby bitch decided to try and boost his self importance because he THOUGHT he found a vulnerability by slagging them off to their customers and then has the gall to whinge about someone being unprofessional. The mind boggles!

</comment><comment><USER12> DM = ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Direct message (Twitter's feature)</comment></comment>


WASM: Universal Application Runtime - <AUTHOR> https://cybernetist.com/2019/04/25/wasm-universal-application-runtime/ <comment><AUTHOR> It's becoming more and more obvious, even more so with Intel's new runtime announcement [1] that WASM will end up being everywhere. Chip manufacturer support is quite a strong signal -- not that it needed to be made.

[1] [https://github.com/intel/wasm-micro- runtime](https://github.com/intel/wasm-micro-runtime)</comment>


OpenZFS Device Removal - <AUTHOR> http://blog.delphix.com/alex/2015/01/15/openzfs-device-removal/ <comment><USER2> Nice, this is a feature that'll really improve ZFS's usability for me, as a home user. I'd like to be able to redo my Zpool with a different architecture (6xDisks in RaidZ2 rather than 4x in RaidZ1). Doing it online rather than as a copy would be awesome. The next best thing would be online ZVol restructuring, though.

<comment><USER3> I don't think this will do what you want. One limitation is:

       Currently, device removal only works if all top
       level vdevs are plain disks / files. At the very
       least, we want to make device removal interact
       intelligently with mirrored disks.

I _think_ that statement means that this feature will not work with mirrored or RaidZ* configurations.

<comment> X-Istence It's a start, from here on out this can only mature and other use cases can start being considered.

<comment><USER4> yup, hopefully removal of any top-level vdev and rebalancing data in a pool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Good to see that progress is being made toward catching up with btrfs in this really useful area. For those of us who don't buy hard drives by the dozen, it's really nice to have absolute flexibility about adding and removing drives and changing RAID modes non-destructively with btrfs, but ZFS still has some pretty enticing features, too.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is good; perfect for that time you fat-finger it and end up adding drives as top-level vdevs instead of adding them as a mirror pair.</comment>


The Bike Wars Are Over, and the Bikes Won - <AUTHOR> http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/bike-wars-are-over-and-the-bikes-won.html <comment><USER2> Not too long ago, a cyclist in my town who was standing parked on the sidewalk was killed by a truck that tipped over. I was suprised by how many people said he had it coming -- that was the first comment on the local news website, and I heard elsewhere as well.

Well, I can take a hint.

I've largely stoped bike commuting because other people hate it. I have never been yelled at, harrassed, scolded, or bullied so much while using any other form of transport.

I follow the rules and try to act humble; you just can't win when your doing something so unpopular and are at such a physical disadvantage to other road users.

If I ride in the road drivers get mad and I'm risking my life, if I ride on the sidewalk pedestrians get mad and I'm breaking the law, and if I ride on the shoulder they both get mad and I can't turn or change lanes.

Walking is a little better because you're mostly segregated from other road users so it's harder for them to retaliate. Drivers often don't yield to crosswalk signals or to pedestrians on sidewalks in my neighborhood, but they can't generally drive onto the sidewalk just to harrass me. On a bike people can sneak up behind you and honk, encroach on your lane, and get in front of you and brake aggresively, or just curse at you and run away. Things like this happen fairly often when I bike and there's not much I can do to avoid it except not bike.

I see a few drivers, cyclists, and pedestrians breaking the law all the time, but for some reason, I don't see anyone claiming that this means all drivers deserve to die, only the other two things.

I kind of wish that different users of different modes of transport could just call truce and stop picking fights with each other, but I'm not holding my breath, and I'm not interested in getting killed over it.

I'm glad this is getting better in NYC but where I am it still sucks.

<comment><USER3> Where are you?

<comment><USER2> Ithaca, ATM

<comment><USER4> Good god, Ithaca, NY?!

When I was there it was actually one of the more friendly and cool communities I'd lived in. It's a bummer to think that it could have gone so downhill as to be hostile to cyclists, given the demographic.

<comment><USER2> Yes. Impressions probably depend on who you know and where you are. I think Cornel people are much friendlier to cyclists than the average resident, but I don't live very close to campus.

I should add that in general I think it's a great place, this is one sore point for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This statement infuriated me:

> "...And bike lanes are a dangerous lure, giving would-be riders a false > sense of security that it's safe to ride on streets"

Proponents of vehicular cycling would state that the safest place to be _is in the street_. Bike lanes are dangerous because they give cyclists the impression that it's safe to ride _in bike lanes_.

([http://bicyclesafe.com/](http://bicyclesafe.com/) outlines some of the dangers)

<comment><USER6> And a lot of the UK "cycle lanes" I've ridden next to are preposterously narrow. I know of one that is narrower than my handlebars. As a result, motorists think (subconsciously or otherwise) that they can drive aside the cyclist, up to the line, instead of the advisory two meters when passing.

I give these such a wide berth that most motorists realise that I'm blatantly avoiding such a lane and rarely give me grief. I assume they can see why!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I like pieces like this. City governments all over have a lot more visibility into the decision-making process than previous generations have had, and sometimes that means that good policy can get drowned in bad NIMBYism, but having a tough public administrative class means they're able to tough out criticism to let time judge them on their merits.

</comment><comment><USER8> As a Dutchman, the first two paragraphs were quite infuriating to read; a list of arguments similar to the now-classic "Schödinger's immigrant"-joke ("simultaneously too lazy to work and stealing your job").

> _Well, no wonder: Roads are built for buses, cars, and trucks, not for > people on bikes._

Well good to see that the 1920s auto-industry propaganda[0] still has it's firm grip on American society! Roads were not _made_ for cars, the cars _claimed_ the roads once they got on the scene. You can choose to design them in a way that accomodates all[1].

The only reason I'd hate leaving the Netherlands is because no other country comes close in bike-friendliness at the moment (simply put: good bike infrastructure is so common it's barely noticed by the locals, because it's the norm[2]). I do hope that changes soon.

[0] [http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797](http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-26073797)

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlApbxLz6pA)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei/videos?flow=grid&view...](https://www.youtube.com/user/markenlei/videos?flow=grid&view=0&sort=p)

<comment><USER9> >Well good to see that the 1920s auto-industry propaganda[0] still has it's firm grip on American society

I am curious do you guys typically have showers at work ?

One of the reason I don't bike to work is that we don't have showers at work. Most of days in this part of US are hot and humid and I don't feel like sitting at work drenched in sweat.

<comment><USER10> > One of the reason I don't bike to work is that we don't have showers at > work. Most of days in this part of US are hot and humid and I don't feel > like sitting at work drenched in sweat.

Microfiber towel and a change of clothes?

I typically wait the 30-45 minutes needed for me to physically cool down in my air conditioned office. Then I towel off and change and I'm good to go.

Probably wouldn't work for everyone, but it works for me.

<comment><USER11> Hey Alpha, it's probably not working for your colleagues.

<comment><USER10> Pro-tip: body odor is a result of bacteria on the skin that breaks sweat down into various compounds. Sweat itself doesn't actually stink.

So what's a great way to remove that bacteria? Showering (with plenty of soap).

So showering _before_ you exercise, toweling off quickly after exercise, and following with deodorant, is a very effective way of eliminating body odor as a result of exercise, as that combination a) removes bacteria on the skin, b) removes the food they feed off of before odor compounds can form, and c) staves off further odor production as a result of additional sweating and bacterial growth.

Try it. You might be surprised.

Additional tips: adjustments to diet can make a huge change in body odor. Thinning or removing body hair is also helpful, as bacteria tend to thrive in those areas.

You could also try using disinfecting wet wipes as part of a post-exercise clean-up routine, in addition to simply toweling off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Copenhagen is one of the most wonderful cities to get around I've seen. Many of the bike lanes are separated and raised from vehicle street level by a small curb, which does not stop a determined vehicle (or out of control vehicle) from invading the lane, but does wonders for the psyche of the bicyclist. The feeling of gliding through the city via your own network of paths is incredible. There's often plenty of bike parking too.

In my opinion, all densely populated cities with reasonable climates should be built that way. If San Francisco had similar dedicated lanes throughout the city, and more bike parking, I'd absolutely wager that car ownership (and all of those cars laying fallow on the street) would drop significantly.

</comment><comment><USER12> Interesting perspective. Driving through Cambridge, Mass. recently, I noticed some nice bike lanes[1] that seem pretty nicely separated from both cars and pedestrians.

I'm hoping that this approach will gain in popularity. What we lose in slightly narrower roads and more restrictive sidewalks, we gain in a safer separation of fast moving cyclers from both peds and cars.

This is the future of urban transportation -- mixed use thruways that eventually must accommodate Segue-type vehicles, as more people (especially 20-somethings) appear to be moving away from motor cars.

1\. [https://goo.gl/maps/CkaLVGpeCbk](https://goo.gl/maps/CkaLVGpeCbk)

</comment><comment><USER13> This piece is screaming for more pictures. Here are some from the places mentioned in the article in the order of their appearance.

Ninth Street: [http://imgur.com/kc3IqM8](http://imgur.com/kc3IqM8)

Grand Street: [http://imgur.com/8nzlYys](http://imgur.com/8nzlYys)

Kent Ave, Williamsburg: [http://imgur.com/bscl26i](http://imgur.com/bscl26i)

Prospect Park West: [http://imgur.com/WiLvOyE](http://imgur.com/WiLvOyE)

</comment><comment><USER14> I dunno about that, southern California remains a desolate hellscape full of people who joke about murdering me and my fellow cyclists like it's nothing at all.

</comment><comment><USER15> I wish there were more bike lanes in Brooklyn. They are still pretty rare.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have yet to hear a logical explanation for why we don't tax and licence bikes in major cities. Paying your "fair share" of road use taxes gives you an equal voice when asking for specific use lanes, and licence plates allow us to better track and punish the few that cause the problems (if I had a dollar for every time I wish I could write down a bikes plate number...).

<comment><USER17> I ride a bike, and I pay taxes. I'm not sure what you mean by that. What is a fair share for bike riders? We don't have bike lanes on every street, and many of the bike lanes we do have aren't respected.

Drivers double-park their cars on them. They also open their car doors without checking to see if bike riders are coming first. They also swerve in and out of them while texting. They also drive onto them to get around vehicles like garbage trucks, often without looking. Drivers make turns without looking both ways, often putting us at risk.

I ride my bike to work every single day in New York. Every week, I have multiple close calls because of careless drivers, and sometimes because of careless pedestrians. I don't run red lights, and I don't even ride that fast. I ride my bike on the correct side of the street. You want me to pay extra taxes for what, exactly? My bike and myself combined are a little over 200lbs. Do I create potholes in the roads? Does my bike cause pollution?

I don't think you ride a bike.

<comment><USER9> >My bike and myself combined are a little over 200lbs. Do I create potholes in the roads? Does my bike cause pollution?

What about the cost of building and maintenance of bike lanes and other associated costs that would be involved in increased complexity of cleaning/maintenance of roads due to bike lanes (more so if they are secluded from main traffic).

Do you think this cost is justified for a minuscule percentage of population who choose to bike on the roads.

<comment><USER17> Have you ever been to New York? Outside of some parts of Manhattan, bike lanes aren't "built." There is some paint splashed onto the side of a street, and based on what I see, not much "maintenance" happens after that. There is no extra complexity because of that paint. Street cleaners disregard the bike lane as if it wasn't there (which I'm fine with).

Regardless, I still pay taxes just like everyone else. I used to own a car, and I didn't pay any extra taxes. Why should I now that I have a bike?

<comment><USER9> >There is some paint splashed onto the side of a street, and based on what I see, not much "maintenance" happens after that.

But that not acceptable( dangerous for both cars and bikers) like you suggested in you parent comment. Bike lanes need to be protected from main traffic which would mean more costs.

Protected bike lanes are paramount to safety. Which means regular maintenance equipment like snow plowers/slating won't work. Bike lanes here are totally useless here in winters because we don't the right equipment/training to clean/salt bike lanes.

<comment><USER18> It's possible to separate bike lanes from traffic lanes without building more infrastructure. In fact the entire article was dedicated to that concept. I suggest you read it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Reasons for Python async/await - <AUTHOR> https://lwn.net/Articles/644128/

<comment><USER2> For context on this, check out PEP 492: [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492/](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492/)

It's a really exciting proposal. AFAIK, it'd make Python 3 the first mainstream imperative scripting language to have these async/await concepts built-in (there is a similar proposal for JavaScript/ES7 built on top of generators and promises[1]). While I've commented before about how asyncio is still a bit more nascent than I'd like, I'm really excited to see where the community takes it.

[1]: [https://github.com/lukehoban/ecmascript- asyncawait](https://github.com/lukehoban/ecmascript-asyncawait)

<comment><USER3> > the first mainstream imperative scripting language to have these async/await > concepts built-in

Hi. [https://www.dartlang.org/articles/beyond- async/](https://www.dartlang.org/articles/beyond-async/)

<comment><USER4> I don't know that the definitional argument is worth having, but Python is more mainstream than Dart by a good deal.

<comment><USER3> I didn't realize factual corrections need to be cleared by a committee that decides which languages matter.

("More mainstream" is a moving goalpost fallacy.)

<comment><USER5> Would you care to propose an objective criterion by which Dart is within an order of magnitude of the popularity or prevalence of Python?

<comment><USER6> That depends on if you define "mainstream" to mean "lots of users" or "similar to the kinds of things with lots of users".

If I write songs that sound like Taylor Swift but no one knows who I am, do I make "mainstream" music? Personally, I would say yes.

<comment><USER7> > If I write songs that sound like Taylor Swift but no one knows who I am, do > I make "mainstream" music? Personally, I would say yes.

You might make mainstream music but you yourself are not mainstream.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Related: [http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?ref=rss&id=2747873](http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?ref=rss&id=2747873)

This is the ACM Queue paper about async/await in Dart (iirc according to Erik Meijer the cleanest implementation of the concept so far).

</comment><comment><USER9> The problem I have with async with is that you've already got issues with the syntax for "with" context managers and generators.

        def my_generator():
            with something() as bar:
                for x in baz():
                    yield bar(x)  # context manager will call bar.__exit__() before the second time through this loop.

It'd make a LOT more sense to just make "with" understand when it is in a continuation and only invoke __exit__() when the continuation is being destroyed.

<comment><USER10> Are you sure? I only see __exit__() being called after the loop:

        Python 3.4.2 (default, Dec 23 2014, 17:01:26)
        [GCC 4.2.1 Compatible Apple LLVM 6.0 (clang-600.0.56)] on darwin
        Type "help", "copyright", "credits" or "license" for more information.
        >>> from contextlib import contextmanager
        >>> @contextmanager
        ... def printme():
        ...     print('enter')
        ...     yield
        ...     print('exit')
        ...
        >>> def my_generator():
        ...     with printme():
        ...         for x in range(3):
        ...             yield x
        ...
        >>> for x in my_generator():
        ...     print(x)
        ...
        enter
        0
        1
        2
        exit

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It seems to me like this is a feature that will only be used by 1% of Python programmers. I'm lacking a lot of context but personally I'd much prefer it if Guido spent his time fixing the Python 2/3 conundrum. And even though these proposed changes are Python 3 only, the fact that only so few people will use them doesn't do much in that regard.

<comment><USER12> I feel that concurrency is something used by far more than 1% of programmers. That it will be built-in the language itself, rather than through libraries, is pretty important in terms of delivering simpler code.

The Python 2/3 divide isn't that big of a deal anymore. This is not 2010. Almost all of the important libraries support Python 3; thinking especially to scientific computing. More and more distros are offering Python 3 by default. Big projects, like Red Hat's package manager, have switched to Python 3 (in Yum's case, by its replacement DNF).

It's only a matter of time before Python 2 isn't something that will be encountered in mainstream projects, only legacy systems. Which is nothing new (there's still lots of Fortran projects out there.) For them, the old version still exists. It will always exist. Should they want to make the jump to Python 3, the resources required are much less as compared to making the jump to another language.

Python 3 fixes fundamental flaws collected over the first twenty years of its inception. For those that cannot use a newer version of the language at this time, the old version is available.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The nice thing about Python generator functions was that they didn't need a lot of syntax - if a function contains the "yield" keyword, it's a generator, otherwise it's not.

Given how closely tied generators are with async/await, why do we need "async def"? Isn't the presence of "await" or "async for" or "async with" enough to mark a function as asynchronous?

<comment><USER14> A major motivation for the new syntax is to support refactoring (currently moving "yield" into a sub-function makes the calling function no longer a generator).

See the PEP's "rationale and goals"[1] and this article[2] summarising the PEP.

[1] [https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492/#rationale-and- goal...](https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-0492/#rationale-and-goals) [2] [https://lwn.net/Articles/643786/](https://lwn.net/Articles/643786/)</comment></comment>


Startups should think big and start small - <AUTHOR> http://www.jamesyu.org/2012/11/18/startups-should-think-big-and-start-small/ <comment><USER2> I have only recently discovered Gall's law, and was surprised to realize that what I've been doing with my project for about a year actually has a name.

Edit: Forgot the link: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gall%27s_law>

</comment><comment><USER3> Well said james.</comment>


Ask HN: Trademarking your Startup - <AUTHOR>

I am in the final throws of launching my startup. A name has been chosen (which I have grown quite attached to), and now its time to address trademarking. Its a bootstrapped startup, using what time and money I can save from my day job, and $18k+ with single-class global registration is so far out of my league I was wondering:
1) Is a trademark important in this day and age? I already hold the domain - isn't that enough?
2) If i DONT have the trademark, could someone else register it and stop me trading under that name?
3) As a generic web application, what classes and communities should I be targeting to get good coverage for the least expense?
4) What sort of protection do other HN startups tend to go for when launching their products? <comment><USER2> I only know German law and I am not a lawyer - but a friend of mine is one and we often discuss those topics.

1) Important: Depends. If you have unfriendly competitors they may have a look at the trademark registration database, see that you have not registered a trademark and do so themselves. A domain is not enough.

2) Yes. Usually every company with +5 people working for the company has (easily) the resources to do that.

3) -

4) We have not registered any trademarks but we are in an early stage. I am pretty sure that we will register something shortly after a successful public launch.

</comment><comment><USER3> Trademark is an expense. You are startup and you need to make an expense only if it brings something to you.

You are launching so right now your mark is worth nothing, so $18K or any other amount is just not worth it.

Launch, if you are successful and I mean successful in terms of revenue and profits (not user base) then you can start thinking of the trademark.</comment>


Let's Talk About Capacitor Failure - <AUTHOR> https://bytecellar.com/2019/04/07/lets-talk-about-capacitor-failure/ <comment><USER2> I think the most interesting thing from the discussion on this yesterday [1] was the implication of industrial espionage in the problem from an article on wikipedia [2].

> Industrial espionage was implicated in the capacitor plague, in connection > with the theft of an electrolyte formula. A materials scientist working for > Rubycon in Japan left the company, taking the secret water-based electrolyte > formula for Rubycon's ZA and ZL series capacitors, and began working for a > Chinese company. The scientist then developed a copy of this electrolyte. > Then, some staff members who defected from the Chinese company copied an > incomplete version of the formula and began to market it to many of the > aluminium electrolytic manufacturers in Taiwan, undercutting the prices of > the Japanese manufacturers. This incomplete electrolyte lacked important > proprietary ingredients which were essential to the long-term stability of > the capacitors and was unstable when packaged in a finished aluminum > capacitor. This faulty electrolyte allowed the unimpeded formation of > hydroxide and produced hydrogen gas. [2]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19606691](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19606691)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague#Implications_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague#Implications_of_industrial_espionage)

</comment><comment><USER3> They are the only thing not solid in your solid state devices. I've successfully repaired 5 out of 6 dead monitors and TVs by replacing all the big capacitors. No diagnostics skills required. Just replace the big caps.

<comment><USER4> I'm confident this is an intentional act; using substandard or slightly the wrong capacitors to ensure they'll die just outside of the warranty period. I had the same thing with a monitor of mine, it started dying after a good three years. My dad soldered in some new capacitors, good ones that can take more voltage or something (as opposed to not enough voltage like the older ones) and it's still good, almost ten years later? I don't even remember.

However, this is not true for all monitors; this was a relative budget monitor, Fujitsu I believe. Not long before it started acting up, I invested in a (twice as expensive) Dell monitor, and it's not given me any problems in the nearly 8 years I've had it (just looked up the receipt, bought 23 September 2011)

<comment><USER5> Buying the cheapest part that will last longer than the warranty period is the standard practice at most companies. It's not malicious, it's just what happens when life of a product isn't something that consumers want or are able to judge.

<comment><USER6> Wait, are you blaming consumers for the short life of the products they buy?

Sort of a chicken and egg problem I guess. What came first, the short lived product, or the consumer's desire to buy something newer and shinier.

People definitely want to buy new shiny things, but I fully disagree that product cycles and lifespans are the result of that desire. Companies have positioned themselves to scale uncontrollably at that cost of product lifespans. They make more money if people buy a new thing every 18 months, so they make the thing fail every 18 months instead of making something that has a longer term life. This practice can only be characterized as wasteful and greedy.

Spending less on components that are guaranteed to fail _is_ a malicious act. Apparently we're so far down the rabbit hole now that there are actually people who think that planned obsolescence is a feature. You're blowing my mind here in the worst possible way.

<comment><USER5> Everything is guaranteed to fail eventually. At no point in the process of designing something does an engineer or manager decide whether to make something that's going to fail or something that's going to last. You make something that you know will fail after n years. n depends on how much you are willing to spend on the most failure-prone parts. What's a reasonable value of n? Well, it depends on a lot of things, doesn't it?

You say that spending less on parts you know will fail is malicious, but everything fails eventually. If you know that your resistors are likely to last 100 years, and your capacitors (even the best ones) are like to last 20 years, is it malicious to not spring for the resistors that will last 200 years? You have to make practical decisions about the level of quality that you're aiming for at some point.

I know that planned obsolescence is a thing, and it should be illegal (in certain forms). How common is it? I don't know. Do you? Maybe I should have said "it's not necessarily malicious", because it's not. You can make a cheap product just because you think there's a market for a cheaper version of a good product. Does that mean you want the thing you're making to fail? Not necessarily. Maybe you just want to serve a market that wants a cheaper version of something. I sometimes find myself wanting to buy the cheapest version of something because I only need it for a brief period of time. Is this wasteful? Sometimes. Should it be illegal for a company to sell me a cheap version of a thing? Maybe for environmental reasons, but not for consumer protection reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> About 15 years ago I had a motherboard with several "bulged" capacitors. I think at that time I wanted to upgrade anyway and just bought something new, but I read lots of people had similar issues around that time. Rumor was that some manufacturers used stolen plans to build these capacitors, and those stolen plans actually contained some errors. The related wikipedia page: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capacitor_plague)

</comment><comment><USER8> Discussion from yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19600852](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19600852)

</comment><comment><USER9> Pretty interesting stuff. Out of interest, is there an overview resource specifically focused on longevity expectations that is relatively comprehensive for common modern components?

<comment><USER6> Something to consider regarding longevity expectations for things like capacitors would be the input tolerances they're designed for. In many cases the capacitors that fail don't fail because they have reached the end of their physical life. Instead the manufacturer chose a component that could only handle the lowest nominal load not accounting for things spikes in electrical input due to normal power system anomalies.

A number of years ago I pulled an otherwise perfectly good Samsung 46" TV out of the dumpster. While researching how to fix it I found that if they had simply installed higher rated capacitors to begin with, the TV would not have stopped working.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> (Note that there's lots of information in comments section)

<comment><USER11> Thanks -- yes, I hope people read the comments on my post (OP) and leave their own experiences in the comments. The purpose of my call for advice was to turn that post into a go-to for people searching the web with capacitor concerns. (The entire blog is a retro computing blog, up since 2004.)

Some GREAT comments came with yesterday's exposure. Great to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> After a recent problem with failures of electrolytics, after a overhaul that included changing all electrolytics, the problem was tracked to stock storage. The manufactures specify a 2 year shelf life, but advised this could be extended by regularly charging the capacitors.</comment>


"great scientists" Spock search returned 1 result - <AUTHOR> http://www.spock.com/q/great-scientists It's not even Einstein! <comment><USER2> "great scientist" : <http://www.spock.com/q/great-scientist>

You probably wanted these results....

</comment><comment><USER3> I don't think it works like that. Try "scientist physics" and you get some meaningful results.

<http://www.spock.com/q/scientist-physics>

</comment><comment><USER4> I've been very disappointed with Spock so far in my testing. People that are very easily found on other search engines hardly if at all show up on Spock. I hope they seriously improve the index.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'm a little confused why he 'likes my boyfriend.'

<comment><USER6> There are a lot of YouTube clips with Spock and Kirk that would answer your question...

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> awesome</comment>


Show HN: My third tool for web developers: Form Mailer - <AUTHOR> http://learn.db-dev.info/tools/formmailer

<comment><USER2> Oh dear science, somebody just reinvented FormMail.pl from Matt's Script Archive.

<comment><AUTHOR> I figure there were services out there like it, but I thought I'd put a fresh, free face on it :)</comment></comment>


KAccTime – Virtual Time System in Linux Kernel - <AUTHOR> https://gitlab.com/flav.justflav/kacctime <comment><AUTHOR> kAccTime is a Linux Module Kernel (LKM ) that allows users to accelerate and shift the date/time on the host. This module was developed as a dependency to internal scheduler migration projects. The main goal is to reduce the cost and the delay of the correction step and the validation process.</comment>


Researchers find treatment that kills every kind of cancer tumor - <AUTHOR> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/international/every_cancer_kills_tumor_them_kind_L9lppJmy9gCoS848cSzqbP

<comment><USER2> Interesting: the original article (at sciencemag.org) mentioned as source in the nypost article is from 2012</comment>


What the death of iTunes says about digital habits - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/01/how-death-itunes-explains-2010s/604291/ <comment><USER3> ... iTunes became a bucket of too many features, so apple split it up into multiple applications. Apple music is pretty much exactly the same as iTunes was without a bunch of non-music related features. It's silly to say ~"iTunes died" it just changed names.

<comment><USER4> > Apple music is pretty much exactly the same as iTunes was without a bunch of > non-music related features.

Hmm, not really. I took a brief look at the UI during the Catalina beta and concluded that I wanted nothing to do with it. I have spent years learning how to use iTunes well. I'm not about to throw away that investment of time and energy on a new, untested app with a different UI. I'll stick with iTunes to manage my music library. Catalina will have to wait, probably forever.

<comment><USER5> > I'm not about to throw away that investment of time and energy on a new, > untested app with a different UI.

Come on, now. Think of the poor product managers, the struggling UX researchers and designers. How are they going to make their careers off of minor upgrades tied down to past investments of users?

<comment><USER6> Jean-Baptiste Emannuel Zorg, channeled here... I'll be ready to pound your back when you choke on that cherry :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "(A note for older readers: More time separates us today from the debut of the first iPod than separated the first iPod from the debut of the first Macintosh computer.)"

Wow.

<comment><USER8> Similarly, OS X is now older than Classic Mac OS (1984) was when OS X was released (2001).

<comment> em-bee it's much older than that if you count NeXTStep history. OS X didn't start from scratch

<comment><USER8> Fair point, though I'm satisfied at looking at Apple's marketed offerings.

You could take NeXT back to Thompson & Ritchie. NeXTStep as ur-Aqua is also a fair argument, but again, not occurring on mainline Mac generally. By that argument Classic Mac might be traced to the Alto and MOAD.

<comment> em-bee i am not familiar with the history of the Alto or MOAD and how they connect to the classic mac. i'd love to learn more though.

according to wikipedia classic MacOS was partially based on Lisa OS, whereas OS X is nothing more or less than a full port of NeXTStep with a slight visual update. i have used both. they are the same UI. the difference is cosmetic. it's the same code too. i believe the kernel has changed more than the UI layer.

the question is not the spiritual ancestors but how old the code is that is still in use today. and i belive that if we look we'll find some Objective-C code in OS X today that goes all the way back to the first versions of NeXTStep.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> While the iTunes client has been something I've directed much dislike to over the years, the iTunes store feels like the last place I can get mainstream music DRM free to just play on any of my devices and keep regardless of what licensing deals change. While Spotify is great for access to music, the client is very poor for library/playlist management, and some music I'd just like to have my own copy of. If the store ever shuts down in favour of Apple Music subscriptions only, it feels like I'd have to go back to buying CDs.

<comment><USER10> You can get DRM free digital music from Amazon.

<comment><USER9> I'll have to check if it's available in my country, most of their options to buy digital content are not.

<comment><USER9> As an update: It is not. It looks available, but attempting to pay for something prompts me to enter a US/UK/DE payment method depending on which site I use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> On a side note, that quote by Fitche is the perfect summary of refactoring spaghetti code:

> _you could not remove a single grain of sand from its place, without > thereby, although perhaps imperceptibly to you, altering something > throughout all parts of the immeasurable whole_

<comment><USER12> The Abelian sandpile model of software design.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_sandpile_model](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_sandpile_model)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Most iPhone users, instead of tapping on a favorite app, now just search for > it from the top bar.

Funny how "intuitive" interfaces must regress to ideas that must be over half a century old by now just to work properly.

<comment><USER14> Didn't expect the article to mention this, but this is absolutely true for me. I only know the locations of some apps, and I search for the rest.

<comment><USER15> I rigorously organize my mobile apps, so this is quite rare for me. However, pretty much everything I do through my desktop (GUI at least) is done with search. Actually, I do the same in my terminal too with `fzf`, but to a lesser extent.

<comment><USER16> With time I discovered that the muscle memory I build to do tasks on my phone and tablet is strictly bound to the exact locations of the app icon and all the action buttons in it.

So I am like you. I religiously arrange my home screens (iPhone and iPad) but just use `fzf` and other similar software pieces (like `helm` for Emacs) for pretty much anything on my Macs.

I am also pondering paying for Alfred for macOS. I hear it's a fantastic piece with a similar search-centric idea in its heart.

<comment><USER14> P.S. thanks for introducing me to fzf, you just saved me tons of time!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wouldn't say that iTunes died of natural causes, but rather that Apple killed it. Bit by bit over the course of years starting with the iPod Photo when they added picture syncing, then video, etc etc. Even podcasts never really fit in that well with the static library model that worked so well for your music library.

It's too bad because when it was just an app to manage your music library it was clean, easy to use and logical. When it had to manage the kitchen sink of crap that Apple piled into it and morphed into a syncing app first and music player/library management became a secondary (or lower) priority, it never had a chance.

<comment><USER18> > when it was just an app to manage your music library it was clean, easy to > use and logical.

Strong disagreement here: I always found iTunes to be the poster child of incompetent design. It's design was a good fit for stuffing a lot of functionality into because it was never coherent or usable to begin with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> My iTunes Library is 15 years old, contains 11,496 songs, 871 music videos, 2,418 television episodes, and 67 movies.

Only now it's split up to two different apps, once of which is laughably unfinished but otherwise continues to do the job.

Meanwhile, after 5 1/2 years and $578, I cancelled my Netflix subscription and have no intention to ever start it up again.

Dead, indeed.

</comment><comment><USER20> The repeated use of the word "Americans" in this piece, where what they mean is "people" is particularly jarring...

</comment><comment><USER21> I am confused... I still sync my phone to my iTunes on my computer. There is no other way to add music that I get from outside of Apple.

Also, I use it to have a full backup of my phone. I have hundreds of gigs of photos and videos I don't want to lose, and you can only backup everything if you use your computer.

<comment><USER22> iCloud seems to do a fine job backing up photos and videos. When I get a new iPhone, I don't even take a manual backup -- I just login to iCloud and wait for everything to sync. iCloud restore populates all my apps, settings, photos, videos, etc. Apart from having to setup FaceID and re-enter passwords, it's like nothing changed.

<comment><USER21> But I can backup to my computer for free... I would have to pay $9.99 a month for 2TBs of iCloud storage....

<comment><USER23> You have 8 256gb iOS devices?

<comment><USER24> If you want more than 200GB, you have to get the 2TB plan. There's nothing in between.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Streaming services, iCloud backup, podcasting apps on iPhone rendered iTunes obsolete.

</comment><comment><USER26> iTunes is dead? Have I missed something?

</comment><comment><USER27> This article is just dumb... iTunes, while a bit bloated, worked just fine. Music replaces it well for music stuff. Mostly seem to complain about the removal of Apps function from iTunes, which was actually harder to manage your home screen with then just doing it on the device.

</comment><comment><USER28> iTunes was one entire antipattern.

</comment><comment><USER29> iTunes was a stop-gap when Apple didn't want to have an app store at any cost for the iPhone when it first came out.

<comment><USER30> iTunes existed well before the iPhone (since the first iPods, 6 years before).

<comment><USER29> Yup. Remember installing it when it came out. The use of iTunes for iPhone was because it already existed, and nothing did for iPhone

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> My take on the author's take is that by point 10, he's realized what a muddled and silly thing this is.

> _So what really failed, maybe, wasn't iTunes at all…_

At which point whatever substance he's abused to get that far _really_ kicks in for his final point.

> _In 1940, the German critic Walter Benjamin wrote about an angel in a Paul > Klee painting. […] It is now clear, 80 years later, that the angel is > looking at his phone._

Sheesh.

<comment><USER32> Walter Benjamin is the original inspiration for the postmodernists. His writing is nonsensically opaque. If his name appears in an article, it's a good sign that the article is about to go off the rails.

<comment><USER33> Your comment is wonderfully muddled, since Benjamin was not an original inspiration for so-called postmodernist thinkers at all. Benjamin (and his intellectual companions, Adorno, Marcuse and others) were very much modernists, right before the heyday of the French "postmodernists". One has to wonder how 'opaque' Benjamin is, given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy and literature. He must be at least translucent if there are knowledgable people making sense and use of his ideas. Apparently his ideas are sufficiently clear and interesting for an interest on HN[0].

In fact... someone on HN in 2014 claimed that Benjamin was a "postmodernist" too, and they were quickly shut down on that claim[1].

[0] [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=walter+benjamin](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=walter+benjamin)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8295413)

<comment><USER34> > given that he is one of the most studied critical theorists in philosophy > and literature

Found your problem.

<comment><USER33> I'll bite: what problem is that?

<comment><USER34> Critical theorists aren't worth studying. They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter.

So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists says very little about the value of their positions to non-literary fields. There may have been a fact of the matter as to whether Walter Benjamin really was an inspiration for post-modernism or if he's merely confined to modernism, but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.

<comment><USER33> >They have no consistent norms of evaluating the quality of their work and their primary purpose is to advance literary explorations over calibration to any particular truth of the matter.

This is patently false if you read any critical theory, in which reaching the truth on a matter is taken much more seriously than any literary aim. You can claim that mainstream critical theory didn't or isn't reaching the truth, but it's a wild claim to say it makes no attempt to do so. Read the Wikipedia article if you don't believe me.

>So saying a critical theorist is well-studied by other critical theorists

Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and sociologists - it's not only critical theorists in some kind of secret club where they all congratulate each other. They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions.

>but I think a true critical theorist would leave that up to debate.

They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).

<comment><USER34> > They are studied in literary fields not because of the literary value of > their writing, but because of their criticism and aesthetic positions.

That's pretty hard to distinguish from "just" literature; of course not all literature is fictional or journalistic. But neither criticism nor aesthetics are particularly bounded in their ability to make negative or positive claims due to the flexibility of interpretation of background assumptions that both pancritical + justificationist disciplines rely on. It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such.

This is why I doubt the claim that there is a central truth that critical theorists are attempting to discover when their methods are designed to be as disputative or ambiguating as possible. Even if we're in a position where no assumption can be taken for granted in the end, productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and rationalize action, and perform interventions which can maximally orient the institution towards further action. Subversiveness stalls except in how it wants to prevent such institutions from prolonging themselves.

> Critical theorists are studied and used by philosophers, legal scholars, and > sociologists

Are they all trained out of the Frankfurt school by any chance? Yes they're sometimes worth responding to, no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end.

> They wouldn't, because critical theorists can recognize the truth and > falsity of claims. Your criticism would be better aimed at the so-called > postmodernists (and it'd still be wrong).

I am earnestly interested in learning more about non-postmodern critical theorists. The pragmatists of the freshwater school (Sellars and Brandom mainly) are the only people on the top of my head that sing that note due to the way they deal seriously with the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind. But that's analytic philosophy assimilating continental philosophy rather than the other way around, which I'm more sympathetic to precisely because analytics tend to want to bound critique rather than produce more critique for its own sake (i.e. subversion as an ends).

<comment><USER33> >It's inherently subversive of any central and stabilizing intellectual tendency and I think most critical theorists admit their goals as being such.

It's very hard for me to read that as anything but a good thing. It's one thing to say that critical theory has no value, but it's another thing to say its only value is subversion. Nevertheless, if what you're saying is true, then there is no better critic of critical theory than critical theory itself. There are central principles of critical theory (and Horkheimer wrote a whole book about it), and there are results produced by critical theory that the authors present as true (sociologists have taken up the concept of the culture industry and Marcuse's idea of one-dimensionality, for instance). I'm skeptical of the idea that CT is subversive of any tendency - no critical theorist repudiated empirical investigation, for instance. When they do criticize, they don't want to completely do away (Adorno had praise for the enlightenment project). Habermas has been one of the loudest voices against "postmodernism".

> productive operational work (in science in policy or otherwise) always has > to maintain some initial set of working goals and assumptions to guide and > rationalize action

That's true, but if critical theorists do not question these working goals and assumptions, and the very nature of instrumental reason, who will? It seems to make much more sense, for human emancipation and rationality, to examine what we take for granted and against what background we're working. "Maximally orienting towards further action" is precisely the uncritical approach CTs stand against, where in the same breath we guide the Ministry of War "maximally" towards "further action".

>no they're not worth taking seriously except as a means to an end.

Not only do professional philosophers of all stripes disagree, but career activists agree - a famous critical theorist (lowercase) once said that philosophers had hitherto only interpreted the world; the point is to change it.

>the problem of interpretation in foundations and the way they want to internalize Hegel, while still having the aims of scientific inquiry in mind

Scientific inquiry has many prerequisites, Hegel himself a harsh critic of pure empiricism. The difference in prerequisites is what gives rise to the Anglophone science and the German Wissenschaft.

<comment><USER34> > I'm skeptical of the idea that CT is subversive of any tendency - <USER2> > critical theorist repudiated empirical investigation, for instance. When > they do criticize, they don't want to completely do away (Adorno had praise > for the enlightenment project). Habermas has been one of the loudest voices > against "postmodernism".

If the point of critical theory, which since you pointed me to Wikipedia I'll quote "[is] to liberate human beings from the circumstances that enslave them", and some class of those circumstances are the beliefs and institutions we take for granted, why shouldn't I claim that the goal of critical theory (at least per Horkeimer) is to be subersive of these beliefs and institutions? Or are there self-claimed critical theorists who propose a criterion inconsistent with this goal?

Likewise if it's critical theory best addressing critical theory then surely we should leave the critical theorists to discuss among themselves. No need for anyone else to get involved if the activists are right.

> "Maximally orienting towards further action" is precisely the uncritical > approach CTs stand against, where in the same breath we guide the Ministry > of War "maximally" towards "further action".

It isn't uncritical! What I'm pointing at is that achieving something within the scope of both (a) clear, explicit commitments with (b) shared interests and backgrounds establishes _together_ good-faith interlocution _and_ a line of distinction of what possible worlds two disagreeing interlocutors _within the same frame_ are committing to (since the frame doesn't have to be completely specified). If there is an intervention that distinguishes which of these sets of worlds are the actual world, then you've gained information.

Issues come when you _don 't_ decide to create commonalities between yourselves in a debate. It gives room for at least one of these interlocutors to not accept or gain any information due to it being possible to shift their commitments by loosening up the interpretation of the evidence. Good- faith/intellectual honesty is the only hedge I know against this and it means understanding what you _won 't_ simply leave up to interpretation because it allows _something_ to go wrong.

You're still allowed to have dialectic here but it's dialectic that advances through the solution of problems rather than the production of non- evidentialised counter-interpretation, which are almost always possible to produce at the verbal level.

> Scientific inquiry has many prerequisites, Hegel himself a harsh critic of > pure empiricism. The difference in prerequisites is what gives rise to the > Anglophone science and the German Wissenschaft.

After the Duhem-Quine thesis it's been pretty clear to Anglo-American schools that observations are theory-laden which is why Pragmatism caught on, and is still being worked on to this day by the likes of Sellars, Brandom, McDowell, Wimsatt, Laudan, Van Fraasen... I don't believe any of them are going to be overtly spiteful of Hegel as all of them are dealing with science as a social activity to some extent or another and the structuralist/constructivist/intersubjective theses that get pulled into there. But they all feature prescriptive programmes which are meant to enable the solution of problems, which once again in my mind points to a standard of inquiry that can be truth-finding versus continual deconstructions.

I'm not sure what "difference in prerequisites" is pointing to but would hope you would elaborate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Did iTunes ever had a life?

</comment><comment><USER36> A someone who lives outside the Apple bubble...how Apple users listen to music now? Spotify? What if you have a local library?

<comment><USER37> The Music app handles local libraries just fine.

<comment><USER36> Is that the logical successor to itunes? If so did it really die or just morph into something else?

<comment><USER38> iTunes did not die, no. It morphed as you described.

The iTunes Store app is used to buy music on iOS.

The Music app has an iTunes Store section as well.

You can disable even being shown Apple Music (the subscription service) to both of those apps.

You can sync locally just like your iPod, but on Catalina that functionality has been moved to Finder. But I believe you can initialize a music or photo sync in the respective apps as well.

Audiobooks have moved out of iTunes (music) and into the Booms app.

Not really that much has changed besides organization. And the changes have been a good idea, IMO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Or maybe, it's just that iTunes sucks, hard.

...and has for 10 years.

...so Apple - let us manage our own digital media.

<comment><USER40> I'm not sure you understand what iTunes is.</comment></comment>


Facebook is People: Why I Quit Mark Zuckerberg's Online Collective Data Farm - <AUTHOR> http://observer.com/2012/05/23/facebook-is-people-why-i-quit-mark-zuckerbergs-online-collective-data-farm/?show=all <comment><USER2> I'm wondering: Who else doesn't use facebook?

I have an account, sure, back from '05 when I started college. I log in so infrequently that I often get emails from facebook along the lines of "you haven't logged in in 3 months. We think you should come back because...".

I never got into that whole thing about walls and public conversations and public comments. I'm far too self-conscious (and I judge far too harshly). The whole thing just drives me nuts. Some of my best friends and I are not even facebook friends.

<comment><USER3> I have never had an account. Never will.

<comment><USER4> Same happens with me. I never liked facebook and still don't like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> That makes me wonder: is the nature of Facebook _inherently_ distrusted, since they have so much data, and those who use it spend so much of their lives on it, or is the distrust based more on their privacy record?

What if Facebook had a clean privacy record but still collected all of that data from us, in the name of providing the service (of messages, friends, social—your life on the internet, essentially)? Would they still be suspicious?

<comment><USER6> The answer is a definitive _yes_.

Facebook, on all accounts, is a business. A business is exists in order to make money, full stop. In today's world, user privacy, and ethical values do not exist in the economic formulas. Sure, it makes for great PR. But at the end of the quarter, those "values" would be crushed in an instance to maximize profit.

Make no mistake, your interests and Facebook's are completely orthogonal.

Facebook is not about "making the world more connected". I pity whoever believes that is true.

<comment><USER7> NB: there _are_ for-profit companies who have a corporate charter to create a net social benefit. They're called benefit corporations: <http://www.bcorporation.net/> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benefit_corporation>

Non-profits also frequently serve this role.

There's a bit of confounding of this given the rise in popularity of what's called "Cause Marketing". Socially beneficial activities undertaken by (generally) traditional for-profits. Often seen as a marketing benefit. Not bad of itself, but it's helpful to remind companies that token measures don't absolve other actions.

It's fair to say that many traditional for-profits don't. Inclusive of social networking for-profits.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What I get from this article is that the author doesn't like his friends. Facebook isn't forcing anyone to show too much cleavage during Spring Break. The solution is to get friends who share the same ideals as you.

(Another problem is that you want to grant access to your profile to someone, but you don't necessarily want to see their spam posts. If only there was some way to put people in "circles" or something...)

<comment><USER9> 1\. I have felt that there is an implicit social pressure on you to accept friend request from some people. Example:- A colleague who are not really friends with you and don't share the same ideals as you sends you a Friend request. What would one do?

2\. I think they introduced the 'Subscribe' feature to address the need for asymmetric sharing.

<comment><USER10> _A colleague who are not really friends with you and don't share the same ideals as you sends you a Friend request. What would one do?_

Accept the friend request, hide all their updates from showing on your news feed, and put them on limited profile view is one possible option.

<comment><USER11> Yes, and after you become this much of an expert on where to find all these settings, remember to keep checking your settings because Facebook has a history of opting you into things you already refused behind your back.

<comment><USER10> I trust the internet hive mind to announce changes in Facebook privacy settings with all the subtlety of a fire engine. ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Today not having a Facebook account is kind of like not having TV was (and in some cases, still is) in the past. We state it proudly and often because there are few enough of us that we feel the need to justify ourselves. (I'm firmly in both camps.) The fact is this article doesn't really seem to add anything new, and trots out the same arguments as dozens of other articles I've seen in the last few months.

That's not to say it's wrong, just kind of redundant.

<comment><USER13> While you are right that the arguments are pre-existing, I think emotionally there is a discrete change with the IPO. It is one thing to feel like you are surrendering your privacy in order to stay in touch with your friends; it is not entirely another thing to surrender your privacy for the geeks providing the platform to make money to support and extend the platform.

Surrendering your privacy so that an institutional shareholder can make money is, emotionally, a different proposition and this is what the OP demonstrates. It's not that people didn't willingly surrender privacy before the Internet; but then, like now, it was done in a two-way transaction. The classic example is building intimacy with, say, your spouse, by telling them something that nobody else knows.

It is entirely possible that with Facebook a public company, some people (who were previously content) will re-evaluate whether they like the other side of the transaction.

<comment><USER12> This is a good point, and a new nuance on familiar arguments. It's still the same argument, but now with fiduciary responsibility to the shareholders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> >> _And even though Mr. Zuckerberg has a controlling interest in Facebook, it now has to be accountable to stockholders. The tension between user privacy and monetizing data in service of stock price is a real one—and seems unlikely to fall on the side of users._

That's the thing that botters me the most in this whole thing. If things were already very bleak on the privacy side, that concern has just been blown to smitherings with FB going public. The data mining aggressiveness will only gain momentum as the company is pressured into delivering results to stockholders.

</comment><comment><USER15> I quit for two reasons,

1) I didn't want Facebook mining my data, and

2) It was dull and a waste of time. It doesn't help my procrastination, and the only things I used it for were the occasional IM, and... _investigating_ people I was interested in getting to know

<comment><USER16> I quit for these very same reasons a few months ago and I truly don't miss the platform. In keeping you 'connected', it devalues the weight of your relationships and dumbs you down.

No matter how many smart people they hire, the UX of the site is continually worsened with each update, the ads they serve are neither smart or relevant and watching brands ruin their reputations through deleting comments they don't agree with instead of confronting the issues just makes it a terrible place to do anything other than stalk people.

<comment><USER8> _it devalues the weight of your relationships and dumbs you down_

In what way?

<comment><USER16> You attach yourself to acquaintances, close and distant friends, and family members. You end up lumping together people who you do truly value with the noise of people who don't truly matter to you. Does that mean the latter aren't important enough to warrant the friend request or their status updates? Of course not, but now you have this mush of information where no one stands out. You can go through the tedious process of creating groups, but you have to continue to maintain it throughout the life of your account. G+'s circles are truly no better, despite their efforts to try to sell it as such.

The dumbing-down part is in relation to the rampant spread of misinformation/fear-mongering at the click of a button (KONY, et al) and the he-said she-said drama that goes on and is exaggerated by outside commenters who wouldn't have otherwise been a part of the dirty laundry.

<comment><USER8> I think the problem is: you used to think writing was only for the educated and articulate, but now everyone can write and the results ain't pretty.

(Reducing the effort involved in writing and publishing means that more trivial things are written about and widely distributed. You used to think that your friends weren't morons because they never said anything. But now that they can discuss any issue at any time, they don't come out looking so good.)

<comment><USER16> That may be the case for some people, but for others of us (and like a commenter above said), it brings out the worst of us. I found myself getting involved in petty arguments with people or just make an off-the-cuff statement because only that person knows the relationship we maintain between us, and suddenly another one of their friends/family chime in, completely missing the gist of the response.

You forget that there's this huge network of people, people that could be your next employer or co-worker, future partner, that are attached to these otherwise meaningless comments you wrote just to be clever. I said to Jimbob was going to resurface down the road or that I'd end up in a screenshot posted on some site by anyone else that could have seen that conversation, even if it wasn't insulting to me personally.

Ultimately, I wasn't comfortable with my every day conversations being available to hundreds if not thousands of people that don't know me or my tone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This article offers very little insight. It's just a collection of facts that most everyone knows, rounded out with a liberal dose of narcissistic filler. I really wish these articles didn't make it to the front page.

</comment><comment><USER18> "It's then either a post-modern joke or a Marxist irony (or both at once) that we are able to buy shares of us. But either way, I don't want you buying shares of me."

I've seen arguments like this made a few times, and I find them fascinating in the way they treat "data about me" and "me" as synonymous. It's like that old story about people who believed taking a photograph would steal your soul.

</comment><comment><USER19> Facebook will be completely unnecessary in a span. There will be a decentralized solution that accomplishes the "people more connected" goal.

</comment><comment><USER20> Of my approximately 150 friends on Facebook, it seems like it's only the same 10-15 wankers actually posting things and liking stuff. I suspect that the majority of Facebook users are like me---logging in once and awhile to see if they got a message, not posting anything, then going on with their lives.

</comment><comment><USER21> She makes an interesting point of an almost Nozickian demoktesis precursor going on here in the Marxist irony...

<comment><USER22> Nozickian demoktesis: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Dem...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia#Demoktesis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm not sure that the author's reflection of the difference between Google and Facebook holds up. Google Search will get you other places while slurping up all your data, but every other Google property is more akin to Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER24> Here's a great simple rule -- Don't post anything particularly personal, keep your interests and likes to a bare minimum, delete any "friend" that you would intentionally avoid if you saw in a grocery store.

</comment><comment><USER25> some beautifully pointed satire from "The IT Crowd"

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rNgCnY1lPg>

pretty much sums up my feelings...

</comment><comment><USER26> Not using Facebook is the new not having a television. It doesn't gain you anything, nor does it cost you anything, and somehow everyone who does it thinks that someone else out there cares.

</comment><comment><USER27> Jeez, dancing grateful dead bears and prop 19---I must have fit in the _exact_ same marketing box as the author

</comment><comment><USER28> Right on, Elise.

What users demand is what programmers will deliver.

This is why it is so important for users to become educated about computers and networking. You cannot ask for what you do not know exists.

There are other ways to achieve "social networking" besides using only Zuckerberg's website and submitting to his warped ideas about human civilisation.

Collect the email addresses and contact info of all your Facebook friends now. You will need them in time when you will have your own "social network". A return to decentralisation is coming. It is inevitable. Everything goes in cycles. What's going to get us ethere is that centralisation has been abused to an unacceptable extent, by a sociopathic kid who is still maturing. Unfortunately he's maturing a little too slowly. I'm not sure users will have the patience to wait. They want an alternative.

FB's only value is your personal data.

They will likely end up having to give it back to you.

The web is going to get better. This is exciting.</comment>


12-billion-nhs-disaster. Cloud opportunity? - <AUTHOR> http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/52111,news,the-nhs-database-is-in-critical-condition-tony-blairs-grand-projet-has-become-a-12-billion-catastrophe-health-lsp

<comment><USER2> Back home in India, some state governments include fines in the contracts (not sure about the software contracts, I am talking about rail/road related work here) - for every day the project is late, the companies pay very heavy fines. This scares them so much, sometimes they work all 24 hours (3 shifts, which is very uncommon in India) to complete the project.

Why didn't the UK govt include clauses like these? Especially with Accenture, they aren't exactly known for their quality deliveries.</comment>


Free Distraction-Free Text Editor for Windows PC - <AUTHOR>

Write! - Distraction-Free Text Editor With Markdown, Wiki and Textile Syntax Support - http://wri.tt <comment><USER2> I am not sure it works on something other than Linux, but you can have that with Emacs too (M-x toggle-frame-fullscreen).

</comment><comment><USER3> A rather good one, I like the ability to export text with its formatting options to my Wordpress and publish to my blog.</comment>


An AirBnB for travel - <AUTHOR> http://blog.rafaelcorrales.com/2010/03/airbnb-for-travel.html

<comment><USER2> There are social problems here. It's awkward sitting next to a stranger for any amount of time. Even if the stranger has headphones on and is tuned out. It might just not be worth the 20 bucks in gas compared with the awkwardness.

<comment><USER3> There's also the scheduling problem: One of the reasons going by car is attractive, is the flexibility of leaving exactly when you're ready, not a second sooner or later. If you're picking someone up, you have a certain pressure to do it somewhat close to the agreed time. Also, there's the risk of your passenger running late. Very few people will be ruthless enough to just take off without waiting for a while.

Finally, there's insurance and taxi boards. The first can be handled (e.g. as a part of the booking process you buy a second policy covering the passenger or something like that), the second can't, and will kill this idea dead.

<comment><USER4> _Finally, there's insurance and taxi boards. The first can be handled (e.g. as a part of the booking process you buy a second policy covering the passenger or something like that), the second can't, and will kill this idea dead._

Why not just run the site outside of the US? Who are the insurance companies and taxi boards going to come after? (A disclaimer like, "you may not use this site if you live in the US" could also be helpful for handling any lawsuits. Very much like Youtube is not liable if someone uploads child porn; their policy said not to do that, and it's your fault for doing it, not Google's.)

<comment><USER3> Insurance, no, because that's going to happen to the users, not the operator. When someone crashed and the driver is sued for everything by his insurance company because they found out it was a for-profit-ride, it doesn't matter where the service is run from.

Taxi boards, sure, formally. Although, I've heard that the primary deterrent for running a pirate-taxi-service in Copenhagen Saturday night (that's ridiculously under-served by taxis, thanks to the taxi-board) is getting beaten up. The problem would be less for such a pre-arranged service, you'll look like you're picking up a friend, not soliciting, but it's still a bit of a risk to take, IMHO.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea very much, I'm just a bit pessimistic on the systemic challenges.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> First off, I think AirBnB already falls under "travel". This is just a rideshare idea. Craigslist has this already–if their rideshare section was as big as, say, their dating section then I'd say "great idea. make a site for it." ... but it isn't.

For most people, I'm guessing the free gas does not outweigh the inconvenience of coordinating the pickup and/or going even slightly out of one's way.

Great business ideas save people time and/or money. This is saving people a little money at the expense of their time.

</comment><comment><USER6> I wonder what the insurance implications of this would be... I'm pretty sure my auto insurance policy forbids me from using my car for business purposes, and this sounds uncomfortably close to that.

On the other hand, I know that there's nothing wrong (insurance-wise) with accepting gas money from a friend... and, to push it further, if a friend of a friend needed a lift somewhere that I was already going, my insurance would probably be fine with that, and I'd definitely accept gas money in that situation...

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh, that's a great point about the insurance implications. There are also coordination issues, if you read the first comment on the blog post...

And what if the person you're riding with is too chatty and you just wanted to nap the whole ride? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Supply and Demand has to meet up especially in the early days. You'd also have to focus on a specific geography. Girls are going to be harder to attract to. I think it would be a useful service. Possibly tie it to events (like AirBnB did for the inauguration). My honest thought? Start it out as an email list like HARO. Emails queries of those looking for rides to people everyday.

</comment><comment><USER8> My friend Catharine has a concept that is basically this idea at <http://zerobaggage.com>

<comment><USER9> Is it really? Perhaps I'm missing something, but this service appears to have nothing to do with the blog author's post.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Somehow this seems to be an idea that comes up from time to time, I wonder if anyone has pulled off a successful service based on this yet. Just a few months ago I was talking to someone entering a business plan contest with this very idea.

<comment><USER11> Yea I feel like I've seen at least a dozen sites that attempt to do this. Problem is none of them ever really took off

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Is this what you are looking for? <http://goloco.org/></comment>


Ask HN: Who do you use for cheap, single-server Colo? - <AUTHOR>

I have a 2U Dell Server that I picked up on ebay, that is more than capable of handling all my sites that I currently use a VPS for.  I am hoping to keep my monthly charges well under $100, since I already have the hardware, and I'm paying under $50 for my VPS now.  Dare I say, I would like my Colo charge to compete with my under $50 VPS charge, in an ideal world.
I've found some places for $40 to $60 per month that will host a single 2U box for you, but I was a bit unhappy with their bandwidth/speed specs.
I was curious if there were any recommendations for this type of provider. <comment><USER2> Honestly when it comes to colocation the price of your hardware is largely irrelevant, as you'll be billed on a combination of power-draw and bandwidth.

A cheap VPS will almost always be cheaper, unless you're at a big scale. Partly due to access issues, and handling replacement drives/PSUs/etc, actually using a colo unless it is a gentleman's agreement will be more of an annoyance anyway.

</comment><comment><USER3> I usually go with smaller privately owned data centers. Not always, but typically. In the Denver area, I use Handy Networks: [http://www.handynetworks.com/services/colocation/](http://www.handynetworks.com/services/colocation/)

I see solid providers for 1u/2u allocations for ~$100 per month, below that point I'd be wary (does depend on region though). I'll make a list of requirements, investigate the regional players, make phone calls, cross some off the list, and then finally do on-site visits.

Finally, you can find some decent recommendations here: [http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44](http://www.webhostingtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=44)

</comment><comment><USER4> I got me a C6100 a while ago (Is this what you got?). The price on the C6100s has doubled since a lot of people realized these were good, cheap machines. What did you get (and curious for how much?)

Didn't find an affordable place to host it so running it at home. Got a small soundproof rack and static IP address. Some issues but learned a lot doing the exercise.

<comment><AUTHOR> PowerEdge 2950 3GHz, 8core, 32GB, = $150

I added 2 2TB HD's that I already had.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's like picking up a car engine on ebay and now looking for a body for the price of your current bicycle that you're trying to replace.

Put your 2U back on eBay and get this:

[http://c.gg/ovh](http://c.gg/ovh)

<comment><AUTHOR> I like the price/specs on the link you provided. That's pretty impressive. I agree that it would be a good alternative to owning. I disagree that a VPS is a bicycle. Your own link shows a pretty nice car to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What are the specs on your dell server? If it's a p4 era xeon then gesman is right and you ought to put it back on ebay since it'll get smoked by even a mid end VPS.

<comment><AUTHOR> PowerEdge 2950 3GHz, 8core, 32GB, 2TB x 2

Damn, that [http://www.soyoustart.com/ca/en/offers.xml](http://www.soyoustart.com/ca/en/offers.xml) does look pretty comparable, for only $49 a month.

<comment><USER3> If legit, the soyoustart is a no brainer. This from a 100% colo guy. Building the hardware and owning the DC, you could do decent margins with their figures. I'm a bit skeptical myself, because of just how much you can charge as a premium on things like this. However, I will be checking it out further myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Macminicolo. Best deal. Been a customer since 05</comment>


YouTube Programming Channels - <AUTHOR> https://www.lvguowei.me/post/ultimate-list-of-youtube-programming-channels/ <comment><USER3> Some more:

Data School: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnVzApLJE2ljPZSeQylSEyg](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCnVzApLJE2ljPZSeQylSEyg)

Two Minute Papers: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbfYPyITQ-7l4upoX8nvctg](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCbfYPyITQ-7l4upoX8nvctg)

Gopher Academy: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx9QVEApa5BKLw9r8cnOFEA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCx9QVEApa5BKLw9r8cnOFEA)

JustForFunc: Programming in Go: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_BzFbxG2za3bp5NRRRXJSw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_BzFbxG2za3bp5NRRRXJSw)

Siraj Raval - Machine Learning: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCWN3xxRkmTPmbKwht9FuE5A)

PyData: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOjD18EJYcsBog4IozkF_7w](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCOjD18EJYcsBog4IozkF_7w)

Orange Data Mining: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClKKWBe2SCAEyv7ZNGhIe4g](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UClKKWBe2SCAEyv7ZNGhIe4g)

<comment><USER4> JustForFunc looks really good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Shameless plug: [https://www.youtube.com/LiveOverflowCTF](https://www.youtube.com/LiveOverflowCTF) not directly programming, but hopefully still interesting

<comment><USER6> i love your channel! It contains just enough technical details to be interesting, but isn't made too overly dense so as to be boring or snooze inducing.

I m glad that you made such good videos for me to enjoy!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'll shamelessly plug my own channel as well: [https://www.youtube.com/iamdavidwparker](https://www.youtube.com/iamdavidwparker)

Currently up to ~200 videos, mostly around WebGL and 3d Math.

</comment><comment><USER8> Derek Banas for lots of fundamentals videos. [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwRXb5dUK4cvsHbx- rGzSgw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwRXb5dUK4cvsHbx-rGzSgw)

<comment><USER9> He has tutorials on Python 2.7, MySQL, PHP, Assembly language, C++, C#, Objective C, Java, Android dev, OOP, Design Patterns, UML, JavaScript, AJAX, JQuery, Angular, Git, HTML, CSS, WordPress, XML, Investing, Marketing... I watched some of the Android development videos. It helped for me to slow them down, but then I hardly listen to English lately. I did like that he used large fonts in his IDE and zoomed in on the text.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> fun fun function is a great one too :

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO1cgjhGzsSYb1rsB4bFe4Q/vid...](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCO1cgjhGzsSYb1rsB4bFe4Q/videos)

<comment><USER11> Love his content!

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The channel I like to watch once in a while is:

[https://www.youtube.com/user/BoQianTheProgrammer](https://www.youtube.com/user/BoQianTheProgrammer)

</comment><comment><USER9> Bucky Roberts of [https://www.youtube.com/user/thenewboston/playlists](https://www.youtube.com/user/thenewboston/playlists) has tutorials on Javascript, ES6, Bootstrap, Angular 2, jQuery, React JS, Sass & SCSS, Less CSS, Grunt JS, Node.js, AJAX, MySQL, PHP, XHTML and CSS, HTML5, Java, Android dev, Objective C, iOS dev, Ruby, Python 3, Flask, GTK3 with Python3, C Programming, C++, C++ with Qt, C#, Git, and Django. I watched some of the C programming videos. The videos had tiny text in the upper left corner of the screen, with the rest of the screen a blank white background. Also he does have some buggy programs in the videos, but he has corrected source code for the C programs linked at [https://thenewboston.com/forum/topic.php?id=1440](https://thenewboston.com/forum/topic.php?id=1440) Despite these problems, worth watching for the very nice explanations.

</comment><comment><USER13> Some other YouTube channels I subscribed to and find interesting are

CrashCourse : [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX6b17PVsYBQ0ip5gyeme-Q](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCX6b17PVsYBQ0ip5gyeme-Q)

Stanford Graduate School of Business : [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGwuxdEeCf0TIA2RbPOj-8g](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGwuxdEeCf0TIA2RbPOj-8g)

Kurzgesagt – In a Nutshell : [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsXVk37bltHxD1rDPwtNM8Q](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCsXVk37bltHxD1rDPwtNM8Q)

Y Combinator : [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcefcZRL2oaA_uBNeo5UOWg](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcefcZRL2oaA_uBNeo5UOWg)

<comment><USER14> Oh hi another Kurzgesagt fan! :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd Like to add ThinMatrix; he has a weekly devlog writing OpenGl games in java with lwgl going back over a year; great format. I don't like java myself but his planning and consistency is admirable. He gets a lot done and is just very pleasant to watch/listen to.

<comment><USER6> link for those who need it: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkRj4qoT1bsWpE_C8lZYoQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCUkRj4qoT1bsWpE_C8lZYoQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> shameless plug: i made [https://github.com/epoyraz/Awesome-Youtube- Channels](https://github.com/epoyraz/Awesome-Youtube-Channels) a while ago. feel free to make pull requests :)

<comment><USER17> Would you be interested in listing some non-programming tech channels? EG TheSignalPath for (mostly RF) electrical engineering, Stefan Gotteswinter for machining, etc?

<comment><USER18> I'm looking for something similar. So thanks for at least letting us know about TheSignalPath.

Also the amp hour, I feel, is mostly about embedded but they have some interesting interviews in their archives.

For example the was an interview with Ronald quan. he wrote a cool book called make your own transistor radios. Also a couple with Michael Ossmann, the hackrf creator.

Otherwise I usually rely on the IEEE communications surveys and tutorials magazine to keep abreast of what's happening.

<comment><USER17> So I may as well list the channels I'd recommend here, despite them not being programming related.

Misc. Science / Engineering / Educational:

Applied Science ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCivA7_KLKWo43tFcCkFvydw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCivA7_KLKWo43tFcCkFvydw))

AvE ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChWv6Pn_zP0rI6lgGt3MyfA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChWv6Pn_zP0rI6lgGt3MyfA)) - Uncle Bumblefuck screws around in the home shop / reviews tools. Mixture of amature machining and interesting slang. Skookum as frig.

Cody's Lab ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu6mSoMNzHQiBIOCkHUa2Aw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCu6mSoMNzHQiBIOCkHUa2Aw))

Nick Moore ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT7EuC-o1dMvz- hatkytk9w](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCT7EuC-o1dMvz-hatkytk9w))

Primitive Technology ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA)) - Starts with a stick and a rock, builds up from there.

Smarter Every Day ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6107grRI4m0o2-emgoDnAA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC6107grRI4m0o2-emgoDnAA)) - Science education with good presentation

The Geek Group ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8Y_V0jqqYS6dLwMoRO9FQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCM8Y_V0jqqYS6dLwMoRO9FQ))

Veritasium ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHnyfMqiRRG1u-2MsSQLbXA))

..

Electronics: EEVBlog ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2DjFE7Xf11URZqWBigcVOQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2DjFE7Xf11URZqWBigcVOQ)) - Probably the biggest electronics youtuber

The Signal Path ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKxRARSpahF1Mt-2vbPug-g](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCKxRARSpahF1Mt-2vbPug-g)) - Mostly RF engineering, very good explanations and teardowns

W2AEW ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiqd3GLTluk2s_IBt7p_LjA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCiqd3GLTluk2s_IBt7p_LjA)) - A Tektronix engineer's videos about hobby electronics. Lots of ham radio and RF stuff

BigClive ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtM5z2gkrGRuWd0JQMx76qA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCtM5z2gkrGRuWd0JQMx76qA))

ElectroBOOM ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ0-OtVpF0wOKEqT2Z1HEtA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJ0-OtVpF0wOKEqT2Z1HEtA)) - Slapstick electronics

Henryk Gasperowicz ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNAAxVKWPAbaZiB90_kjDJw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNAAxVKWPAbaZiB90_kjDJw)) - Incredible puzzles

Louis Rossmann ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl2mFZoRqjw_ELax4Yisf6w)) - Repair of apple products at the component level

Mike's Electric Stuff ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcs0ZkP_as4PpHDhFcmCHyA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCcs0ZkP_as4PpHDhFcmCHyA))

Photonicinduction ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl9OJE9OpXui- gRsnWjSrlA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCl9OJE9OpXui-gRsnWjSrlA)) - <USER2> guy likes high voltages/currents way too much.

..

Machining:

Clickspring ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCworsKCR- Sx6R6-BnIjS2MA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCworsKCR-Sx6R6-BnIjS2MA)) - Incredibly high quality home machinist

Keith Fenner ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmxnPem- pPfJQATIkfgY2Q](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCDmxnPem-pPfJQATIkfgY2Q)) - Professional machinist

ABOM79 ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw3UZn1tcVe7pH3R6C3Gcng](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCw3UZn1tcVe7pH3R6C3Gcng)) - Professional Machinist

OxToolCo ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZC9LGZLfyjrKT4OZne- JNw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCZC9LGZLfyjrKT4OZne-JNw)) - Tom Lipton, professional machinist

Rob Renz ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn4U3aEr6L2nLe1m_3as6JQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCn4U3aEr6L2nLe1m_3as6JQ)) - Could also be under electronics. Very high precision for both.

Stefan Gotteswinter ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY8gSLTqvs38bR9X061jFWw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCY8gSLTqvs38bR9X061jFWw)) - High-quality machining

This Old Tony ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5NO8MgTQKHAWXp6z8Xl7yQ](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC5NO8MgTQKHAWXp6z8Xl7yQ)) - Excellently produced videos, with humor

..

Math:

3Blue1Brown ([https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYO_jab_esuFRV4b17AJtAw))

<comment><USER18> Thanks. I really like 3Blue1Brown.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm a huge fan of Francesc Compoy's Just for Func: [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_BzFbxG2za3bp5NRRRXJSw](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_BzFbxG2za3bp5NRRRXJSw)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'll throw out my channel. I do videos on Vue.js, Ember.js, Phoenix, Aurelia and basic tips for beginning web developers.

[http://erik.video](http://erik.video)

<comment><USER21> Added! I'm interested in great introductory JavaScript tutorials. I'm sure you're aware that there's a big demand for that since JS is eating the world...

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> There's also The Coding Train[0]. He does live coding challenges in Processing and JS. Not necessarily the most complex, but fun to watch someone else's thought processes.

<comment><USER23> [https://www.youtube.com/user/shiffman](https://www.youtube.com/user/shiffman)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Let's Build that App is good too for specific IOS Swift and Kotlin mobile development:

[https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuP2vJ6kRutQBfRmdcI92mA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCuP2vJ6kRutQBfRmdcI92mA)

Also freecodecamp, mozilla and Google Developers all have good youtube channels for coding concepts and new stuff.

</comment><comment><USER25> Traversy Media has been uploading great contents too. [https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC29ju8bIPH5as8OGnQzwJyA](https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC29ju8bIPH5as8OGnQzwJyA)

</comment><comment><USER26> Check my website [https://www.channelshunt.com/subcategory/Programming/](https://www.channelshunt.com/subcategory/Programming/)

<comment> shady-lady Checked it out. Nothing of great interest. No curation or comments at all. Just seems to be a repackaging of youtube search results channels?

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Handmade Hero must be on this list!

[https://www.youtube.com/user/handmadeheroarchive](https://www.youtube.com/user/handmadeheroarchive)

<comment><USER27> Oops... It is on the list. But I highly recommend it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm looking for similar stuff on signal processing, rf and communications in general. Any recommendations?

</comment><comment><USER28> Learnwebcode is good</comment>


Novel reaction could spark alternate approach to ammonia production - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2018-05-reaction-alternate-approach-ammonia-production.html <comment><USER2> This sort of research is really interesting, couple of other chemicals I've seen reports of are methanol and I think acetic acid made with electrically activated catalysts.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Source article: [http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700336](http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.1700336)</comment>