Automated Testing for League of Legends - <AUTHOR> https://engineering.riotgames.com/news/automated-testing-league-legends <comment><USER2> A great anecdote in the 'we can't test this code' discussion -- for an aggressive two-week release cycle of this massively popular game, this level of testing has probably paid for itself many times over.

<comment><USER3> In this case? Probably. But the idea that catching a bug in production is a huge problem is a myth, pushed by research that was later completely withdrawn.

<comment><USER4> Depends on the bug. Sticking to League of Legends as an example, is it really the worst thing if they have to disable a champion for a day or two to fix a bug? Not really. It still happens fairly often, and the impact is inconvenient but it's not the end of the world. Now how about a bug that prevents logins or crashes the backend? This completely take the game offline.

These sort of downtimes hurt customer satisfaction and the bottom line. If serious issues arise often enough, customers lose confidence and patience and may leave your product for a competitor. And while you're offline trying desperately to rush a fix, you're losing revenue.

If the service/product you're offering has competitors, quality matters. Sometimes it's not even the measurable quality, but the perception your customers have. Find me a business owner who thinks major bugs in production are not "a huge problem".

<comment><USER3> > Find me a business owner who thinks major bugs in production are not "a huge > problem".

"Move fast and break things" \- Mark Zuckerberg.

<comment><USER5> They moved away from that, didn't they?

<comment><USER4> Indeed. Quote from Mark:

>> We used to have this famous mantra... and the idea here is that as developers, moving quickly is so important that we were even willing to tolerate a few bugs in order to do it. What we realized over time is that it wasn't helping us to move faster because we had to slow down to fix these bugs and it wasn't improving our speed.

<comment><USER3> They grew as a company to a place where they could slow down.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, this is pretty sophisticated and commendable. I'd love to have the resources to do something similar. In contrast to 'standard' application development, automated testing is really rare in the non-AAA games industry. At least in terms of logic-/active gameplay testing. It's pure luxury, you can only do it if you can afford it. In a project-based work for hire game shop this is an almost unthinkable thing to do, because you don't get it sold to your contractors/customers. They just won't pay for the effort you don't our directly into the game. The only thing you can do is to develop your own automated testing framework over time and over projects, which is a tedious thing to do because you cannot really focus on it (because it's not a first class citizen in your project schedule).

<comment><USER7> And yet they can't rewrite their ridiculously inefficient launcher properly :^)

<comment><USER8> Actually, the launcher was replaced under 2 years ago. The matchmaking client has entered alpha, and is accompanied with rewrites to a lot of Riot systems to help it all work together.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Nice writeup! Sounds pretty similar to the way serious web apps are being tested (using Selenium & co.). I find it interesting that they built their own testing system though - couldn't they have used some existing framework?

<comment><USER10> A third party solution would be as hard, or harder, than developing an in- house solution. The challenge is setting up the interactions between all gameplay elements- it's going to very unique to each game.

The amount you'd need to abstract to make it reusable for other developers would make it nearly useless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wow this is the first time I've seen automation testing applied to a video game. 2 things struck me as really great from this:

\- Staging area for their tests, so many times I've lost confidence in our test suite because of a flaky test. We then delete that test forever. Adding tests to a staging area to very that they are stable is a great compromise

\- each test is a class, with 'setup', 'execute' 'verify' \- makes the test a lot easier to read and refactor

</comment><comment><USER12> A release cycle of two weeks looks _miracle_ to an outsider like me. Good to see what's going on internally. I loved the video showing automated champion moves, show me more! Also,

> In Wood 5 we don't use wards anyway, so I see no problem with this critical > failure

100% agreed. There's no point in changing to lens because nobody buys a ward!

</comment><comment><USER13> Are these all the automated test they run? The article doesn't seem to mention unit tests for example. Do they write and run unit tests? The test class example seems to assert a bunch of stuff that might be easier (and cleaner) to test in a set of unit tests.

Update: In particular this is weird:

> "Tests make use of remote procedure call (RPC) endpoints exposed on the > client and the server in order to issue commands and monitor game state. For > the most part, tests consist of a fairly linear set of instructions and > queries—existing tests cover everything from champion abilities to vision > rules to the expected rewards for a minion kill. "

They test "rules for expected rewards" with an out-of-process python test program that connects to the client and server via RPC. Seems unnecessary complex way to test specific game rules.

Is this a symptom of a separate QA team and no developer-written unit-tests?

<comment><USER10> It's useful as a framework for testing all game interactions. When you think about the amount of unique abilities for the hundred(?) unique characters and how they interact against eachother, the test matrix that results is massive.

Additionally, you want to use production server/client code as much has possible, while getting through the tests as quickly as possible (skip front end flow, matchmaking, etc.).

Using client/server endpoint calls are great because it allows these integration tests to be a list of instructions (the same instructions used by production code) to create a very deep test suite.

Integration testing is critical for games, where you have so many independent units interacting and changing each other's states.

<comment><USER4> >> When you think about the amount of unique abilities for the hundred(?) unique characters and how they interact against eachother, the test matrix that results is massive.

Definitely. They're at 130 champions right now. Each with four spell cast abilities, as well as a passive ability, and unique auto attack mechanics on some of them. There are indeed many interactions with specific abilities between champions. Add in interaction with the map and terrain itself, like unit collision and NPC minions and monsters. Then deal with the 154 items (the current count on the main map) players can add to their champion, many of which also interact with abilities, and some of which introduce additional abilities.

It must be both a nightmare and yet very interesting to handle creating a new champion for the game. Once they get past the step of even deciding _how_ the new champion's abilities should interact with other champions, they then need to code it all and manage to verify that everything works according to expectations. Every once in awhile, there are still bugs with how one ability interacts with another. You can plan it all out, but it has got to be easy to miss something. Too many interactions! :)

<comment><USER10> That's why the BVS they've built becomes so important. The amount of test- cases you have to satisfy go beyond the human mind's ability to hold.

But if you have a farm that tests v1 of your new champs abilities against all others, you know exactly where the 20% of problems will lie. This is where designers earn their paycheck- two abilities that won't resolve by design, and where the programmer puts 80% of their work.

80/20 rule scales with the product, I suppose :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> With LoL being the most popular video game in the world right now, it's also the most relevant game of all time. How they build and test it is fascinating.

I've played this game for 7+ years now and as a programmer love to hear about all this. A Rioter said a couple years ago that they used Erlang[0] and as a longtime Erlang (and now Elixir) admirer and tinkerer that was great to know my favorite game uses it.

[0][https://erlangcentral.org/scaling-league-of-legends-chat- to-...](https://erlangcentral.org/scaling-league-of-legends-chat- to-70-million-players-by-michal-ptaszek/)

</comment><comment><USER15> I'd love to hear more about automated stress testing and LoL's release schedule. Do they have beta releases or code freeze before the two week release dates?

<comment><USER16> They have a public beta environment that is set up for feature testing, rather than stress testing. The PBE does see code rollbacks (if features are incomplete) before releases, so I believe the game logic on the PBE represents basically what will be moved to the live server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Oh man with that kind of control of the game they could /certainly/ create some kind of sandbox mode.

The APIs that they have for testing alone are pretty incredible; I'd love to be able to play in a mode where you could change level on-demand, create dummy enemies, etc.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is beautiful.

</comment><comment><USER19> too bad dota 2 is a better game

<comment><USER20> Funnily enough, the latest patch was rushed out by Valve, and it contained a lot of bugs and strange behavior.

Lots of bugs in Dota 2 seems to be happening because of manual testing.

<comment><USER21> Not to say that DotA wouldn't benefit from more rigorous testing, but in Valve's defense I'd say that the complexity of interactions in DotA is far beyond LoL. Some of the bugs you're seeing might only arise in extremely rare situations.

DotA is balanced with creativity in mind. When an exploitative strategy is found the game is not changed to remove it but instead through some combination of tweaks and modifications, often to seemingly unrelated aspects it's made into something that's only situationally viable.

The reason the game is so deep/interesting is because this philosophy has been in place for many (10+) years now resulting in a game that's much more complex than pretty much anything else out there. DotA 2 retains edge case behavior that was present in the original Warcraft 3 mod. Things that were once engine limitations are now part essential parts of gameplay. Preserving these weird interactions instead of attempting to make the game more regular/comprehensible is one of the things that allows such a high level of creativity in competitive play. There's always a way you can outplay your opponent that's clever. In go parlance: there's always new tesuji to be found.

All that being said I think Riot's efforts here are quite laudable and DotA could certainly find benefit from more rigorous testing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> We see the test checks three things:

      Verifies:
        - KogMaw deals less damage to non-lane minions
        - KogMaw deals percentile magic damage
        - KogMaw deals normal damage to lane minions

and the _verify_ method has three assertions. In my opinion, this should be three tests, each with only one assertion.

<comment><USER23> They'd soon be drowning in individual tests. And it wouldn't necessarily fit to separate them, considering all those 3 have to be tested on each skill usage. One shot has to obey those 3 rules.

Making each an individual test would triple the test time, pollute the test codebase and not bring any advantage.

<comment><USER24> The advantage in splitting up the assertions is that you get more visibility. If one test fails and not the other two that's extra information you can use to debug you wouldn't have if you have all 3 in one test.

<comment><USER25> If that test fails, the dev will just run it locally with a debugger attached. The cost of extra time in the test for the normal passing case isn't worth it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mark Cuban on OWS - <AUTHOR> http://blogmaverick.com/2008/04/15/my-2-cents-on-ceo-pay/#print

<comment><USER2> The title is misleading. This is an article from 2008 on CEO pay and the issues in the banking system that's made its rounds several times.

It has a lot to do with the core issues of the unrest right now but it is by no means Mark Cuban's response to the movement itself.

<comment><USER3> Looks like the wrong URL was submitted, probably meant to submit: [http://blogmaverick.com/2011/10/14/my-soapbox-advice-to- the-...](http://blogmaverick.com/2011/10/14/my-soapbox-advice-to-the-ows- movement-and-then-some/)

<comment><USER4> FWIW, one has been submitted here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3115105>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the focus should be on #2 "Push to Make All Financial Institutions Partnerships". If you read Michael Lewis and trace the history of these risky bets, it really comes down to skin in the game. When Goldman Sachs and other investment companies had partners that took hits with bad outcomes, they were in a lot more control and didn't try risky leveraged investments that were great short-term but potentially catastrophic. When these companies went public and a lot of their compensation was based on share price (with some golden parachutes), they started making a lot more in bubble environments and seemed to back short-term risky ventures that added to the bottom line.

So while CEO pay is a useful discussion, the real question in my mind is whether we should ever have a CEO of a publicly-held company that is "too big to fail" and can involve itself in risky highly-leveraged deals. It decouples the risk from the primary decision maker and that's reflected in the entire management chain down to the little guy that's risking the entire net worth of the company.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> He has a good point on: "Limit the Size of Student Loans to $2,000 per year" in order to lower tuition prices.

</comment><comment><USER6> I believe OP meant to link this blog article:

[http://blogmaverick.com/2011/10/14/my-soapbox-advice-to- the-...](http://blogmaverick.com/2011/10/14/my-soapbox-advice-to-the-ows- movement-and-then-some/)</comment>


Flipping Bits in Memory Without Accessing Them [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://users.ece.cmu.edu/~yoonguk/papers/kim-isca14.pdf <comment><USER2> The tl;dr of this is: DDR3 DRAM modules are not as reliable as once thought, and all the ones from 2012 and 2013 that they tested showed errors when exercised with the right access patterns.

What isn't mentioned is whether these would be the types of errors that the usual memory testers like MemTest86 could detect --- but based on the lack of any significant news stories in the past 2 years, I'd guess not. Perhaps this could explain why a lot of people who encountered weird hardware-ish problems could run MemTest with no errors but still crash with the right workload.

Their dismissal of one of the "potential solutions" is a bit of a WTF:

 _Manufacturers could fix the problem at the chip-level by improving circuit design. However, the problem could resurface when the process technology is upgraded. In addition, this may get worse in the future as cells become smaller and more vulnerable._

As their tests show, modules from 2008 and '09 are basically perfect, and most of the ones from '10 too. Why could this change in process even be called an "upgrade" if it results in memory that doesn't behave anymore like memory should? To me, it's clearly a serious flaw. Their "workaround" proposal of adding more complexity to the memory controller, and which doesn't actually guarantee a solution, just feels... _wrong_.

I think this is all really quite scary - programmers are used to, and all software depends on, memory as something whose contents should not ever change without being written to! While the majority of access patterns won't trigger this flaw, the one that does could have significant cascading effects. This paper really should get more exposure to the public.

<comment><USER3> Nice review. This is a good paper, and I found it worth reading just for the clear explanation of how DDR3 memory actually works. Maybe one of these times I'll finally learn it well enough to remember which is a rank and which is a bank.

 _Why could this change in process even be called an "upgrade" if it results in memory that doesn't behave anymore like memory should?_

I wasn't sure from the paper, but I think they were testing memory of different scale (nm). At least, the majority of the chips with no errors were 1 GB, and the majority of the chips with errors were 2 GB. It's an improvement because the smaller scale allows higher densities and more storage per chip.

More explanation about the "row hammer" issue is here:

[http://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Xcell-Daily-Blog/Unexplained- mem...](http://forums.xilinx.com/t5/Xcell-Daily-Blog/Unexplained-memory- errors-in-your-DDR3-design-Maybe-it-s-Row/ba-p/497600)

 _the usual memory testers like MemTest86 could detect_

Historically no, but the MemTest86 6.0 from a couple months ago added the "Hammer Test" a couple months ago, citing this paper.

 _I think this is all really quite scary - programmers are used to, and all software depends on, memory as something whose contents should not ever change without being written to!_

I agree. From the paper, the strong implication is that a user running unprivileged code on any modern computer can corrupt memory outside of their process. Perhaps even with asm.js? Comments in the release announcement thread suggest, thouth, that although the problem is real, the paper is a bit alarmist about the prevalence: [http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?4836-MemTest86-...](http://www.passmark.com/forum/showthread.php?4836-MemTest86-v6-0-Beta)

<comment><USER2> _It 's an improvement because the smaller scale allows higher densities and more storage per chip._

Yes, that's the usual explanation but I don't think it makes much sense here since the ostensibly "better" memory can produce visible errors that the older generation didn't. I see the word "tradeoff" being used often in situations like this but I don't agree that this is, since at some point on the reliability scale it just stops being memory completely and devolves into some weird approximation of it.

 _From the paper, the strong implication is that a user running unprivileged code on any modern computer can corrupt memory outside of their process_

Indeed, that's the big message I get: a tiny and innocuous-looking piece of code can easily corrupt memory. I'm not someone who believes in conspiracy theories much, but this looks like an amazingly good backdoor or constituent of one to me. If memory controllers implement workarounds such as the one described in the paper to reduce these types of errors, they also naturally will have options to turn them off for testing/debugging purposes, etc. For the great majority of the time if they are turned off nothing unusual will be noticeable, but then the system becomes vulnerable to the specific access patterns that trigger the fault. Since the documentation on the latest memory controllers is largely kept secret, a firmware update that silently changes this setting wouldn't raise much concern - memory initialisation code usually uses lots of undocumented registers and values anyway. Then all it takes is a tiny piece of user-level code (possibly obfuscated/concealed in some other mundane application), maybe with some cooperation/knowledge of how the OS's VM mapping works, to enable relatively precise corruption of certain addresses in memory. Although largely (publicly) undocumented, it wouldn't be so difficult to reverse-engineer the row<>address mappings either. The results could range from DoS to bypassing access controls, depending on what gets targeted.

The subtle nature of this approach is what makes it all the more scarier; the access patterns that trigger it aren't so unusual, and it's just reading from memory. I doubt it can be easily triggered (never say never...) from compiled languages like JS but virtualised environments appear vulnerable (unless the hypervisor constantly moves the pages around, incurring a significant performance penalty).

 _although the problem is real, the paper is a bit alarmist about the prevalence_

The paper assumes exactly knowledge of the row<>address mappings and hammered the DRAM with that, whereas MemTest's implementation might not know the exact mapping used by a particular controller+configuration. Their estimate is 5-20% (a huge range), under "less optimal" hammering, which is still cause for concern.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What can I do to be a viable developer? - <AUTHOR>

I returned from a year-long trip around the world a few months back. I worked as a lead developer for just over 4 years before leaving. I've spent the past 3 months applying for jobs primarily posted here but also from recruiters.
All that said, after many phone interviews and a few final interviews, nothing has panned out. I can recognize at this point that I'm not at the entry or mid-career level of working for the Googles and Dropboxes of the industry.
My question is what can I do to improve myself and get to that level? When given an assignment, I can accomplish it, but during an interview technical questions are my folly. I'm willing to put in the work, and if I must aim for companies that aren't as technically strong I will do so. I just need to know where to set my sights. <comment><USER2> I always used to tell people I'm an artist impersonating an engineer. I've never really felt like an engineer - let alone a good engineer. But I will never call myself a developer -- more on that in a minute.

Over the years, I must have had some daemon process running in my head that somehow managed to piece together the seemingly unrelated bits of engineering knowledge together without me really paying attention, because lowe and behold, one day I started to "get it". I am an engineer, first from what I know, and second from what I've learned and burned.

So let's talk about how to "get it" and get a job getting it.

Usually the first gate of high salaried engineering positions is good old fashion algorithm analysis. Get the basic data structures/types and complexities memorized to impress the desk jockies. Next pick a language, laser focus on the APIs, and try to implement the algorithm structures without using libraries.

I've interviewed dozens and dozens of engineers, and we always like to see that you know CS.

Next up -- we expect you to have some battle scars that only being in the trenches of engineering can give you. Learning the lessons on why and how you do things a certain way --- the common problems engineers face -- and the conclusions and solutions that have arisen out of them.

Also, have a narrative -- a story about your engineering background.

And stop calling yourself a developer! -- in some ways this simple word exposes your mentality -- let me explain why:

Developer in engineering land is another word for "hacker" \-- e.g. someone who doesnt understand the nuances of programming, the finesse of refactoring, and the triumph of code that scales.

Dont be a hacker -- someone who brunt forces their way through a problem without the knowledge, wisdom and experience of doing things "more better".

The flipside is that most engineers start their careers as hackers... that is until we are not.

Once you begin to understand how chemistry, physics, math, number theory, language, and algorithms all tie in together to make this fantastical yet painful world of computing, you will know that you have gone down the right path.

Next??

Do you know what happens in memory when you execute a compiled program vs a high-level script? Do you know how code compiles, do you know what compilation is, do you know what an assembler is? Do you know what language theory is, regular expressions, turing machine, Alan Turing, finite state machine? Do you know what computation is, or how to manipulate bits and bytes to encode anything under the sun? Do you know the tenets of a solid API contract? What REST is? What HTTP is, TCP? DO YOU KNOW WHAT A POINTER IS?? Do you know what garbage collection is, do you know, do you know, the difference between ISAM and InnoDB?

There is a huge chasm between developer and engineer and you have to show that you've bridged the gap. It's like the difference between a jock and an athlete. One is faking it, the other one is making it.

All of this fundamental knowledge says nothing about the soft skills you'll need for success -- collaborative development, sharing code, translating business objects into engineering tasks, communicating effectively, etc. etc.

There is so much to KNOW and EXPERIENCE, but it's not impossible.

Learn all the things. Get your hands grubby, have some battles, tell a story. Above all else show that you can code, that you play nicely with others, and you make good engineering decisions.

This is all from the hearth of my engineering home. Others may have a different perspective, but this is mine, and if you sit in front of me and I interview you, this is all in my head and I'm 10 steps ahead of you when you need to be one step ahead of me. What does Potassium have to do with any of this? You tell me.

Finally, don't be a hacker (longer than you have to)

All else fails, fake it til you break it.

Bye, and Good Luck.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! This is incredibly helpful and I wasn't aware of the distinction between developer and engineer in engineering land. I can see the first major steps you've listed is algorithms, algorithms, algorithms. I think you described me to a T in that I'm closer to a hacker than an engineer. I know a handful of what you've listed (e.g., REST, HTTP, pointers), but I've got my work cut out for me.

It's time to get out of the developer world. Thanks again!

<comment><USER2> I wrote this almost subconsciously with my mind vomitting words. I'm glad it makes sense to you, but take another look I added stuffs.

Algorithms is a big part of it because it alone forms the major basis of why you write code a certain way. Is this code more performant, optimized, simple?

Get up to speed on engineering principles (Abstraction, Modularity, Simplicity, Scalability, etc) and object oriented programming (or if youre a JS lover like me the prototype chain) too!

<comment><AUTHOR> I've re-read it, and I would say I have the soft skills down for sure. I like to think I did well at translating business to engineering, collaboration intra- and interdepartmentally, sharing and explaining code. I do at least the engineering principles you've listed. It still stands I have a lot of things to check off your list. Thanks!

<comment><USER2> It sounds like you're on track to be a very excellent project manager. Instead of engineering, you might consider being a technical project leader.

Looking back I'm shocked at how much I've learned, and if I had to do it all over again I might cry.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> In my experience, it's kinda like dating. Nobody seems to want me unless I already have a girlfriend (so to speak). In that respect I think it's a framing issue, I would recommend just taking any old job (lower your standards), this lets other companies know that you're at least worth taking seriously.

Additionally, this would get you back into the rhythm of coding everyday. By my math you haven't been coding regularly in 15 months. _Anybody_ would be rusty after that time off. Anybody would struggle over the technical questions in an interview. Once you start coding everyday you'll get that part of your brain back in shape, and things should go better.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, I more than willing to take any old job. You're right on the timeline and rust. I've dusted off a fair bit by the _end_ of these round of interviews, but I have a lot more to go. I think going this route makes a lot of sense. I just need to comb the market. Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What do you think is making you not attractive to these companies? What do you think are your strengths and some of your weak spots?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think 'qodeninja nailed it on the head as for what I'm lacking. At this point I'm more of a hacker, someone who can put pieces together, rather than elegantly construct solutions. This comes quite quickly during the algorithm portion.

My strengths would be my quickness to adapt, and my ability to put together a myriad of technologies together. At my previous job I was able to switch between different development teams and get up to speed in short order. I created APIs, designed interfaces along with usability testing.

My weaknesses lie in the finesse. More algorithmic complex situations are tricky for me. Once I understand it, I can piece it together with existing solutions, but I would say my algorithm toolbox is pretty small.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Are you going to meetups? Do you have any projects you can demo and talk through?

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't joined any meetups. I have work projects I can talk through, but nothing public-facing.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: SSH browser traffic? - <AUTHOR>

Why not ssh web browser traffic?<p>Instead of using SSL Certificate Authorities, which can't be fully trusted in the first place. <comment><USER2> You could just remove all the CA's from your browser and it would be nearly the same as using SSH. The only thing the CA is doing is answering this question for you:

      The authenticity of host 'x.x.x.x (x.x.x.x)' can't be established.
      RSA key fingerprint is 2f:db:11:aa:b0:13:48:64:50:cc:94:73:7b:aa:57:78.
      Are you sure you want to continue connecting (yes/no)?

Removing CA's without an alternative in place such as Web of Trust means that users have no assurance that the other end of the connection is who it claims to be.

<comment><AUTHOR> yes, you are correct good sir. I posted this question too early.</comment></comment>


Using Sanity.io with React Dashboard Auth Functions - <AUTHOR> https://creatorsneverdie.com/post/how-to-use-sanity-io-with-react-dashboard-auth-functions <comment><USER2> This is actually brilliant. I've been playing with contentful, but sanity seems like the way to go with React projects</comment>


Android dominates smartphone market AND ShopSavvy - <AUTHOR> http://shopsavvy.mobi/2011/04/02/android-dominates-smartphone-market-and-shopsavvy/ <comment><USER2> I wonder what kind of permissions Shop Savvy has. If users don't download/install apps at all, then obviously they can't buy them and some people have blamed the scary permissions pop-up for this. But if this (and other) free apps are being installed then it must be something about the actual purchase that is the blocker.</comment>


San Francisco Denies Scooter Permits for Bird, Lime, Uber and Lyft - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/san-francisco-denies-scooter-permits-for-bird-lime-uber-and-lyft-1535669924 <comment><USER2> Business permits should be shall-issue: if an applicant adheres to a set of rules known in advance, the city ought to have no power to deny its permit application.

Want to limit the number of something? Fine. Auction off medallions or something in a transparent, open way. Don't pick and choose businesses the way SF busybodies do.

San Francisco has severe and worsening problems primarily due to rampant interference in the operation of the free market. The city keeps doubling down on this interference every time someone, somewhere, tries to find a way around the city's thicket of rules.

<comment><USER3> The companies in question already had a history of operating illegally in San Francisco. I don't think it's fair to dismiss that as "picking and choosing". Dumping those scooters over the city is effectively littering.

Business should be able to operate freely, but they should not be able to break the law until someone catches them.

<comment><USER4> If I'd started a scooter company before scooter companies were a thing, went to any city and asked for permission, they would have said "wtf? no." (assuming they answered my petition at all) and that would have been the end of it.

The only reason we're here arguing about this is companies like Bird chose to ask for forgiveness rather than permission in the past.

<comment><USER5> That is disingenuous FUD. Cities are totally willing to work with companies if they provide a net benefit. Do you think a politician is going to deny access to a company if it costs them nothing and makes their constituents happy?

What they say "wtf, no?" to is companies treating public good and spaces like sidewalks as something they can just offload all of their costs onto, without ever asking permission.

Look at the Boston area with Bird right now. Bird just started dumping their scooters on sidewalks, got asked to stop by the towns, got told to stop by the towns, and then finally stopped only because the towns were confiscating all of the litter Bird left around and the number of locals who started destroying the scooters because they were abandoned property and none of them took lightly to companies dumping their shit on public grounds.

There is an argument to be made about how their is corruption in governments and they will push back on startups even though they are better for society, or how regulations strangle change and smaller firms. That argument doesn't apply to companies worth billions like Uber or Bird. They are just trying to break the law and offload costs to society, and then trying to claim it's disruption so they can tap into that feeling of doing good and changing the world that SV used to have 15 years ago

<comment><USER6> You honestly believe that had Bird, initially an unheard of company, gone to say, the city of Los Angeles and said "We'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?" They'd have said "sure"? I think that's incredibly naive.

The absolute best outcome for Bird would have been the city saying "you can put them in designated scooter areas, and they have to be docked in designated scooter areas". And that would have turned them into just another e-bike: utterly useless and used by no-one.

Now, there's absolutely a reasonable conversation to be had about corporate over-reach, responsibility, and externalities here. However, let's not pretend that this could realistically have been accomplished any other way.

<comment><USER7> _"We 'd like to put scooters everywhere, is that cool?"_

That would have gotten a no, but _"we would like to do an experiment decreasing road congestion"_ could have gotten them a yes _and_ a subsidy for running the experiment.

And yes, that "yes" would have had strings attached, even if it weren't subsidized, but that's normal for anthingmyhea affects shared space. If a company goes to the city and says "we would like to park our cars on the street instead of on our expensive parking lot" or "we would like to semi- permanently occupy the space in front of or shops", would you expect the city to say "yes", too?

<comment><USER8> Yeah but an experiment wouldn't have gotten them those fat VC dollars.

Fat VC dollars come when they think you'll dominate the world of scooters and put them everywhere. If you spend some of those millions fighting city governments so be it. Bribe them, make them fail elections, find loopholes, extend court trials forever. This companies have almost an unlimited supply of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recently went south to LA and SD, and the scooters are awesome there. I saw them mostly near the beach, and 0 thrown in the middle of the pavement, none blocking exits or riding them obnoxiously. They even have scooter police that will give you a ticket if you go too fast (I am not saying that as necessarily a good thing, just that they seem to have their stuff together as cities). For the first time I actually made an account and hopped on one of them.

However, in SF they overdid it. I don't know if SF residents got replaced by a bunch of self-entitled nerdy manchildren, but holy hell they were obnoxious. You would see 5-6 of them blocking the entrance to a restaurant (at anchorsteam brewery tap room especially). Thrown down in the middle of the pavement. People riding them on the sidewalk yelling "GOTTA GO FAST", going somewhat fast (at least have some dignity and dress like Sonic the hedgehog if you 're gonna do that). Think of an 80s action movie where the punks or hell's angels type of gangs run amok in the city, but it's dudes wearing startup t-shirts on electric scooters instead. Anyway, I 'm not a nimby but their presence in SF really left a sour taste.

But after seeing them in LA and San Diego I am convinced they can work super nicely if a little bit of common sense is applied. Maybe the SF populous is early adopters and jumped on the latest trend with too much passion, or maybe those companies put on the streets too many units. I don't know, but it can be done right and I 'd really like to see them back.

<comment><USER10> They aren't going anywhere. People are just mad their favorite service didn't get chosen.

<comment><USER9> Who cares though, they are all the same. (I forgot which company's I used, until I checked my phone now to see the app). They really didn't work much on brand recognition, I 'm surprised people have favorites

<comment><USER11> I'm mostly upset by the # limits. It's not enough for the entire market.

Also I feel like some of the bad behavior was vandalism by haters. Who the hell would put black sharpie on the QR codes or shit on scooters themselves? Probably not someone who uses them.

<comment><USER12> The sharpie thing might actually be someone trying to "reserve" a scooter for themselves. (Take a picture of the code before making it unreadable, then the scooter always stays wherever they left it.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> SFMTA has published the detailed feedback[1] and summary ratings[2] for each petition. Although the actual applications are not published, it really looks like Bird did a poor job on paper. For example, most of the companies relied on swipe-through screens in apps to remind people to use helmets, which the SFMTA deems insufficient. I have to agree, as I have rarely seen someone on a scooter with a helmet.

[1] [https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- docume...](https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- documents/2018/08/sfmta_scooter_applicant_response_letters_08.30.2018.pdf)

[2] [https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- docume...](https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- documents/2018/08/application_rating_summary_table_08.320.2018.pdf)

Also, note that Scoot already has an arrangement with the city for the red electric mopeds they rent out.

<comment><USER14> I ride them daily, and I don't want to use a helmet. I feel that I and I alone am responsible for my own safety. It's not like other people are going to get hurt because I'm not wearing a helmet.

<comment><USER15> You're not going to wear a helmet because the government asks you to wear one? Wow, that is an incredibly stupid attitude to have.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I generally away from regulation, but let me articulate the pro-regulation argument.

Markets that are important (like transportation) and have network effects need to be regulated. A monopoly with Uber and/or Lyft dominating local transportation is not good for consumers or cities in the long-term.

Cities should take control of their transportation and ensure competition by managing allocation of capacity. I think the best parallel is managing of spectrum in telecom to ensure competition.

<comment><USER17> San Francisco just granted two companies a monopoly when previously there were multiple companies fighting for the same business. That's the exact opposite of what you're advocating.

<comment><USER16> VCs would not be giving billion $ valuations if they thought this will be a highly competitive market with many players. Everyone is betting on a winner takes most market.

<comment><USER18> I've noticed that a lot of "natural" monopolies are regulated under the assumption they will become monopolies but before they actually do.

I suspect a lot of that regulation has been wrong, monopolies would not have emerged, and we would be better off regulating only the monopolies that actually exist.

I'd rather see the scooter companies fight it out than have the city government pick winners and losers when the industry is only a few months old and multiple viable competitors already exist.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interviewed with Scoot last month on Howard St.

The entire experience felt like a Monty Python interview- engineers driven on a death march to get their stuff done and interview an endless stream of qualified candidates, all the while management isn't ready to hire, but still bringing on a torrent of candidates.

The interviewing process was one of the most disorganized and chaotic I've ever gone through. Pair programming exercises scheduled without working computers, that kind of thing.

I never wish any company to fail, but...

</comment><comment><USER20> Considering San Fran is already famous for hilariously spiteful and terrible zoning/real estate development practices, it isn't exactly surprising. Are the companies who got permits local? That may have factored into it.

Also, considering the sheer hatred these companies and their business model inspire in me, I can't say it doesn't fill me with glee.

<comment><USER21> Uber, Lyft, Lime (rejected), Skip and Scoot (accepted) are all SF companies.

Bird is based in Santa Monica.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is a license for 2500 scooters worth much, startup wise? Pulling numbers from this:

[https://medium.com/13-notes/unit-economics-of-the-bird- scoot...](https://medium.com/13-notes/unit-economics-of-the-bird- scooters-f1c971a31574)

To maintain a presence of 2500 scooters for a year, you'd need 2500 * (365 days / 50 days (scooter lifespan)) = 18.2k scooters. That's 18.2k * $600 (lifetime cost) = $10.9 million in capital.

Each of these scooters generating $14 in revenue a day is $12.7 million in revenue a year, for a profit of $1.8 million and a 16% return on capital. If we assume a San Francisco quota was rolled out to the entire country, that'd be (325 million / 880k) * 1.8 million = $664 million in profit, at best.

<comment><USER23> The 50 day lifespan seems too low. Even if the batteries can only survive ~50 charges, the rest of the scooter will outlive the battery. Revising that number upwards skyrockets the ROI figure...

<comment><USER24> The scooters that were in SF were certainly not surviving 50 days. They were 90% broken and not because of the battery.

<comment><USER25> This is a teething issue that will be fixed by iterative design processes as they learn which parts get stressed by this type of usage.

<comment><USER24> If the scooter wars are driven by scooter design the winners are going to be very different than Bird and Lime which are logistics companies.

<comment><USER25> I agree. It will take a combination of logistics and design. Ofo are winning that race in the bike space but mobike aren't far behind. Here in Singapore obike got it woefully wrong. It was obvious that whoever purchased their bikes is not a cyclist because the bikes were terrible. Obike went out of business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Can we just ban cars in SF while we are at it?

People drive them with a vengeance, clutter up the streets while they are in parking mode, and are a general eyesore.

<comment><USER27> So ban Uber and Lyft?

<comment><USER28> I'd prefer banning personal cars (within city limits), as those take up a massive amount of space, with regards to parking.

Taxis on the other hand, have usage rates of ~50 percent. Whereas personal cars, parked on the side of the road, are only being used ~5 % of the time, and the other 95% is wasted.

<comment><USER27> How about public transit? Don't understand the argument for banning personal cars but not Uber, Lyft, and Taxi.

<comment><USER26> Personal cars spend most of their time parked on the side of the road using up valuable real-estate.

Transportation services like Uber or taxis use the road to move people around and don't take up as much space as personal cars. Public transit and bikes are much more space and energy efficient, though don't get the investment they need to work for most people.

US cities are optimized for sprawl and personal car centric transportation, which makes it annoying that new ideas like these scooter startups (which are actually pretty great when you try them) are blocked by officials in favor of a system that is expensive and sub-optimal for the health of society.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This really comes off as spiteful and childish. Bird and Lime didn't come kiss the ring before daring to provide services to the residents of San Francisco, so they get kicked to the curb in favor of a couple of companies who's timing hadn't yet angered the City.

<comment><USER30> I just don't understand this attitude that these companies are owed their ability to do business, particularly when it involves just dumping these things on the public sidewalks.

<comment><USER29> Their customers dumped them on the sidewalks, and it seems to be a San Francisco thing - if you go to other cities with active scooter sharing, you don't see this behavior. Of course you also don't see peopel dfecating on the street in most other cities either, so San Francisco is a special kind of special.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> [http://archive.is/DbXBe](http://archive.is/DbXBe)

<comment><USER3> I wish HN disallowed posts to paywalled articles.

<comment><USER32> If there's a workaround, it's ok. Users usually post workarounds in the thread.

This is in the FAQ at [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html) and there's more explanation here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10178989)

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20paywall&sort=byDate&...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=by:dang%20paywall&sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comment&storyText=false&prefix&page=0)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Scoot and Skip will receive buy out offers from all 4 companies very soon then.

</comment><comment> oh-kumudo Seems like the Scooter is not popular and only useful for a niche segment of the population.

The bike sharing business has caused a hazard in places like China, because of the unrestricted dumping. So there is definitely a point that government needs to chime in and do some stuff.

<comment><USER34> If they are not popular why is there a need to regulate them, they will simply go out of business. Also, I see people riding them all the time in the East Bay.

<comment><USER10> They are popular amongst those who ride, not all people who use the sidewalk and street, which is a larger segment of the population. Might as well ask why we need smoking areas in buildings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'm confused. My sense is that the approach here should have been to put forward a set of regulations and enforcement, and then open up the market. If one of the companies violates the rules, then obviously ban them.

</comment><comment><USER36> Interesting. Both Bird and Lime were recently approved to come back in Indianapolis after being asked to leave. The council wanted to re-evaluate the whole concept and set up some rules, fees, etc.

Then they allowed these two companies to return. [1]

1\. [https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/08/28/dockless- elec...](https://www.indystar.com/story/news/2018/08/28/dockless-electric- scooters-return-indianapolis-september-4/1040280002/)

</comment><comment><USER37> Can anybody name two companies which are about to get acquired? Anybody at all?

</comment><comment><USER38> Thank you SF. Too many scooters littered on too many corners of streets - makes walking near places like hospitals quite the hazard. The litters don't seem to care since they're not in the area.

</comment><comment><USER39> Not to worry, these companies that were left out will be let in next year once they pony up the correct bribe amount to the relevant decision maker.

</comment><comment><USER40> So they want only x number of scooters in the streets. Fine, but the bureaucrats are picking winners, when they should let the consumers choose.

<comment><USER41> And how do you propose they do that?

<comment><USER42> How about setting base rules and auctioning off permits that require annual renewal rather than playing king-maker. Or even better, set base rules for which the companies must comply then allow all companies to compete and fine those companies that don't comply.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Uber and Lime will but Skip and Scoot this month.

</comment><comment><USER43> Is that good because of less monopolization?

</comment><comment><USER44> One reason it might make sense to have a service like this provided by just a two or three companies in a given city instead of a large number is verification and enforcement of safety regulations such as requirements that the companies keep the scooters well maintained.

Two ways come to mind for a city to verify that a company is handling such things properly.

First, the city can have auditors regularly examine the internal operations of the company, talk to employees, and review consumer feedback.

Second, the city can pull a random sample of the company's scooters off the street and have city mechanics inspect them.

The number of scooters you have to examine from a company to determine if it is meeting maintenance requirements depends on the margin of error that you are willing to accept, not on the number of scooters in that company's fleet. Let's say you need to examine 50 scooters to get the desired margin of error.

Suppose are going to allow 5000 scooters in your city. If you do that with two companies, 2500 each, and you audit annually, you'll be doing each year two audits of the facilities and employees, and checking 100 scooters (50 from each company).

If instead you have that same 5000 scooters, but now provided by 10 companies, you'll be doing 10 facility and employee audits, and checking 500 scooters.

So same number of scooters on the street in both cases, but about 5 times the administrative costs to the city in the 10 company case is in the 2 company case.

Also, if consumers need a different app for each scooter company, a smaller number of companies will probably serve consumers better. Again, take a city with 5000 total scooters. If those were supplied be two companies, evenly split, then a consumer would only need two apps to have complete coverage. A consumer with only one of the apps would still have a decent change of being able to find a scooter in a reasonable time frame.

If that 5000 were split among 10 companies, a consumer with only one app would only have a pool of 500 scooters available. If those ended up spread out around the city it would be hard for a one app consumer to find a nearby scooter. If that company concentrated in one smaller area that could solve that problem...but then the consumer would probably end up needing the apps of several others, too, to find scooters when they are in other parts of the city.

There is going to be some optimum number of scooter companies for a given city and total fleet size which balances things. Lower numbers are more convenient and usable by consumers, and cost less to regulate and verify, but higher numbers have more competition which might lower prices.

My guess...and it is just a guess...is that three would be about right for most reasonably large cities.

</comment><comment><USER45> Electric scooters are a public menace. Good riddance!

</comment><comment><USER46> What's the paywall strategy here

</comment><comment><USER47> off topic, but does anyone else find the name for Lime weird considering there's already something in the tech space with the same name?

<comment><USER48> I keep getting Lime confused with Limeade - the latter work to increase efficacy of corporate health plans, to make sure your employees get what you're paying the health insurance company for.

It's like "Pandora Nexus" all over again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> The mafia was taken down in Chicago because it was providing something that was desired by the people, people who should be in control of their own lives and will ultimately be responsible for the decisions that they make, freedom. Unfortunately, the powers that be did not see it that way, you can argue that Al Capone was taken down for tax evasion, I don't care, this is how he was convicted,one has nothing to do with the other.

Al Capone was taken down because he had more power than that of the government. These companies are being shut down because they are not willing to pay the shakedown money by the city mafia.

We need to take this country back and until you people do not understand this, you will remain slaves. I almost believe that this is what you want..

I do not. This is NOT what this country was built upon and changing this, being OK with this will eventually lead to the destruction of our country, which, before that happens, will be a civil war.

<comment><USER32> If you continue to post ideological rants to HN, we are going to ban you. It's not what this site is for, and we've asked you already.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I'd love to be proven wrong, only future will tell, but this seems to be yet another fad being funded by free money from VCs. In fact the only winner in all of this are the manufacturers who are making these scooters.

According to [https://qz.com/1257198/xiaomi-makes-the-bird-and-spin- scoote...](https://qz.com/1257198/xiaomi-makes-the-bird-and-spin-scooters- taking-over-san-francisco/) at least Bird and Spin are using Xiomi scooters. Lime is also made overseas, read China. So, this is nothing but Silicon Valley VC money, actually their LP's money, moving to China.

<comment><USER51> Very little moving to China according to that aticle

> Bird could buy a fleet of 500 scooters for $137,500, or 0.1% of its total > funding

<comment><USER50> According to the same article, Lime _has deployed over 35,000 bikes and scooters across the US since last June._

They are available at $250 - $299 a piece ([https://www.alibaba.com/product- detail/hot-sale-best-origina...](https://www.alibaba.com/product-detail/hot- sale-best-original-xiaomi-m365_60744403238.html)) Plus there is shipping, which I don't know the cost.

So, that itself, before shipping and customs is is $8.75M - $10.465M. Not exactly chump change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Where is the startup that creates mods for these scooters so they operate for free?

Or the startup that opens a chop shop for disassembling all these abandoned scooters and sells the parts?

Seriously though these scooter permits sound corrupt, or have the potential for massive corruption.

<comment><USER48> I'm honestly surprised more people aren't taking the battery packs off bicycles. I've heard there's effectively a cell phone inside (microphone, speaker, accelerometers, GPS, cell connection, etc), and announces that it's calling the police, when moved unexpectedly.

But cracking that case and pulling the batteries has to have some value. I'm honestly surprised we don't hear more news about that sort of criminal activity. Maybe if lithium were involved in the production of meth...

<comment><USER53> In Oakland (where Bird and Lime dumped all their junk after SF told them off) I have seen lots of stripped scooters. Also it's trivial to hotwire a Bird, and everyone in Oakland seemingly knows how to do it.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook to acquire Giphy in a deal reportedly worth $400M - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/15/facebook-to-acquire-giphy-in-a-deal-reportedly-worth-400-million/ <comment><USER2> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23192546](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23192546)</comment>


Show HN: DebView, a platform for sane and constructive debates - <AUTHOR> http://debview.eu <comment><AUTHOR> Debates on social networks and on the net in general are often getting unconstructive and overwhelmed by trolls.

That's too bad because the internet could be a great tool to bring people together to discuss important matters in our democracy.

Moreover, the way algorithms work on the internet often brings people with similar opinions together, making it harder for them to understand how someone could have a different opinion (filter bubbles).

DebView aims at bringing people from all possible horizons to talk together about various subjects. It's interface encourages users to summarize their arguments, enabling anyone to get a quick grasp of any debate. People votes show anyone what are the arguments mattering the most.

The website is at the moment pretty basic, but the intention is to get as quickly as possible the feedback of users for further improvements.</comment>


Ask HN: Is $1.86 billion in revenue enough to keep Facebook viable? - <AUTHOR>

This seems like a really low number considering they have 500M "customers". I assume they're making a bit more than $2/person on the site (profit)...how can they possibly be worth $50 Billion?! <comment><USER2> Speculation on the future. They have more data on you than anyone has had, ever. And, they are attracting the smartest people on earth. With those two things combined, they are going to be able to do a lot more than display Ads based on your listed interests and relationship status.

Think: modeling a marketing scheme against FB's data because they understand the idiosyncratic specifics of the demographic you are trying to hit, thus telling you with p<.01 whether or not it will be profitable.

That, and government contracts are profitable.

<comment><USER3> What you're describing reminds me of a company I stumbled on a while ago - Recorded Future.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Without knowing the actual details of their financials, it is always going to be blind speculation.

Also, 'viable' would mean different things in different contexts. I think it is certainly viable for the current investors to exit with a good return on their investment if the company goes public.

For the company itself, it can be a different story and we need more information to comment on that.

</comment><comment><USER5> Their users are not their customers, their advertisers are. Considering the low conversion rates of Facebook traffic, that seems just right.

</comment><comment><USER6> Non-Paying Users = Product

Advertisers = Customers

Their valuation is based on potential, not just the current revenues.</comment>


Writing about autism science? 10 things - <AUTHOR> http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2012/08/writing-about-autism-science-10-things.html

<comment><USER2> For some reason, the author of the linked article didn't include a link to the op-ed piece under discussion:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/immune- diso...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/26/opinion/sunday/immune-disorders- and-autism.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all)

I emphasize I'm not drawing or suggesting a conclusion about the merits of the argument presented there. For readers who don't read much science journalism, the op-ed piece needs to be taken with a grain of salt, and I agree with the author of the linked article that the present state of our understanding of autism is a great deal less certain than the statement "An Immune Disorder at the Root of Autism", as though a consensus has been reached. No such consensus exists or is imminent.

An example of the kind of argument in the article is this: "One large Danish study, which included nearly 700,000 births over a decade, found that a mother's rheumatoid arthritis, a degenerative disease of the joints, _elevated_ a child's risk of autism by 80 percent." (Emphasis added.)

The word "elevated" sugggests a cause-effect relationship that hasn't been established. It is more accurate to say that there is a correlation between the mother's rheumatoid arthritis and the child's autism. There's no reliable basis for saying that one caused the other.

It will be a supreme irony if the present true autism rate is traced to our clean modern world, the world so often praised as self-evidently better than the dirty environment our ancestors lived in. It seems there's a circumstantial association between modern cleanliness and asthma (the so- called "hygiene hypothesis").

I emphasize that these are conjectures with no solid scientific backing, just like the op-ed piece.

<comment><AUTHOR> A couple days earlier, the biologist-parent author of the submitted blog piece on how to write about autism wrote a specific reply to the New York Times opinion piece (which I submitted to HN for discussion

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4435190>

the day it was published). Her reply post

[http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2012/08/autism-immunity- in...](http://www.emilywillinghamphd.com/2012/08/autism-immunity-inflammation- and-new.html)

was drawn to my attention in an email from a local behavior genetics researcher this evening, and that prompted me to read several of her posts. Seeing that the first reply here is by a fellow participant on HN who reads good sources on these issues, I look forward to some good discussion here.

<comment><USER2> > Seeing that the first reply here is by a fellow participant on HN who reads > good sources on these issues, I look forward to some good discussion here.

That would be nice, but given the topic and its emotional undertones, if this comes to pass it will be quite a balancing act.

This topic suffers from the burden common to all scientific topics that bear on the lives of parents and children, and in that connection it reminds me to some extent of the vaccine controversy (indeed, linked in the minds of some), in which a single individual with a vested interest in a specific outcome created something that appeared at first glance to be a legitimate connection, but by the time he was unmasked as a fraud, the damage had been done. My point is that, had the topic been anything other than autism, the episode could not have unfolded as it did.

In Ms. Willingham's reply, I particularly liked "I'm sure the party has just begun. Accurate science, however, likely won't be one of the attendees."

In most circumstances the science journalist's tendency to use words like "linked" as a synonym for a cause-effect relationship that hasn't been demonstrated to exist, and for those associations to ride unchecked into the the public's mind, is deplorable but not tragic. In this case, the outcome may be tragic.

The author of the NYT op-ed piece segues through conjectures and "links" at length and ends up discussing drug (and parasitic worm) remedies with respect to a condition that no scientist is in a position to either identify or associate with autism.

The fact of the piece's existence, and its wide readership, testifies to the desperation felt by the public, given the _diagnosis_ rate of 1/88 among American kids (1/54 among boys). I emphasize that this is a diagnosis rate, not an occurrence rate, and it's now widely recognized that diagnosis greatly outstrips occurrence, to the degree that the diagnostic criteria are being reworked to produce a more realistic connection between diagnosis and incidence:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/research/new- autism...](http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/20/health/research/new-autism- definition-would-exclude-many-study-suggests.html?_r=2)

And Asperger's is being abandoned as a diagnostic category:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pag...](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/03/health/03asperger.html?pagewanted=all)

My point is that people are proposing cures for a disease that not only has no known cause, but isn't even accurately diagnosed. As much as people would like to see the rabbit come out of the hat, it's far too soon for sleight of hand, and just about time for serious, dispassionate science.</comment></comment></comment>


Chrome Incognito has a Gmail account saved in it (try it yourself) - <AUTHOR> Step1: Open Chrome Incognito
Step2: Google "gmail login" without the quotes
Step3: Click on "Sign in...". See screenshot here: https://imgur.com/gvLCCGa
Step4: Whose email is this auto-populated and why? https://imgur.com/EiMRV5s <comment><USER2> Not seeing this. The only option I have is to autofill with my browser sync credentials. -edit- it shows all my saved gmail credentials, which for this browser is just one.

</comment><comment><USER3> confirmed. happens to me.

Google Chrome 77.0.3865.90 (Official Build) (64-bit) Revision 58c425ba843df2918d9d4b409331972646c393dd-refs/branch-heads/3865@{#830}

</comment><comment><USER4> Doesn't happen for me.

</comment><comment><USER5> Happened for me.

</comment><comment><USER6> Happens to me</comment>


RISC-V from scratch 4: Creating a function prologue for our UART driver (2 / 3) - <AUTHOR> https://twilco.github.io/riscv-from-scratch/2019/07/28/riscv-from-scratch-4.html <comment><AUTHOR> I just completed part four in my blog post series, RISC-V from scratch, throughout which I explore various low-level concepts (compilation and linking, primitive runtimes, assembly, and more), typically through the lens of RISC-V and its ecosystem.

In this post, we continue implementation of our virt QEMU UART driver by implementing a function prologue for our two functions, uart_get_char and uart_put_char. Changes to the stack and registers are diagrammed and explained instruction-by-instruction.

You don't need to have read any of the previous posts to understand or follow along with this one. You can expect to learn about what a function prologue is, why it's sometimes necessary, and how to both recognize and implement one.

I enjoyed making this post. I hope you might be able to take something from it, too! Feel free to leave any questions, comments, or corrections here or as a comment on the post itself.</comment>


When the rules prevented Kenneth Cole from launching, he broke the rules - <AUTHOR> http://dlewis.net/nik-archives/the-birth-of-a-shoe-company/

<comment><USER2> What is so impressive about the story is that he didn't break the rules, he found a clever way to work within them. He was confronted with a brick wall most people would have seen as non-negotiable, and he found a way around it. This required subtlety and cleverness.

Outright breaking the rules is a shortcut that will often be morally wrong and will also carry practical ramifications that you probably don't want to deal with. I.e. you'll be a jerk and get nailed for it.

It takes nothing but shallow bravado and sociopathy to "break the rules." It takes a lot of smarts to work with / around them, and will work out a lot better for you.

<comment><USER3> It's shallow bravado and sociopathy if you think the rules don't apply to you.

The fine line is right at the point where if everybody did what you just did, would it work or would we all fail?

The rules are there for a reason, your ability to cheat your way to the top notwithstanding and there is nothing impressive at all about a lack of respect for a common resource.

<comment><USER4> _It's shallow bravado and sociopathy if you think the rules don't apply to you._

That's total bullshit. Sociopathy? Really? Think maybe there's some hyperbole here?

Lots of rules were created simply to make life easier for some at the expense of others. Other rules are place long after they make any sense.

 _The fine line is right at the point where if everybody did what you just did, would it work or would we all fail?_

That's only true in a broad view. Also "everybody did what you just did" may point out just why a rule is foolish. Or not, but blind obedience is no virtue.

* ... and there is nothing impressive at all about a lack of respect for a common resource.*

So it's OK for one business (film) to tie up traffic and inconvenience the locals, but not another (apparel)? And this is based on some objective assessment of the common good and not back-room deals, tax breaks, and cronyism?

I'm skeptical.

<comment><USER3> Typically movie making permits are given under the assumption that there will be no abuse of such permits (after all, only a limited number of movies will be made) and because cities like the exposure.

Selling apparel is so common that if everybody that sold apparel would get a movie permit that no traffic could use the road anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is nothing more than a bricks-and-mortar version of spam. Misleading subject? Check. Message scrambled so it can pass through the spam filter? Check. Exacerbating traffic congestion at pipe owner's expense? Check. Millions of people's time wasted? Check.

Ok, spam is not genocide, and ok, it moves product. But to make it into an inspiring Young-Entrepreneur-Breaking-The-Rules story? Give me a break.

<comment><USER6> What is it spam for? The newsletter link at the bottom?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, he's saying that Kenneth Cole was a spammer. Just a brick-and-mortar one.

<comment><USER6> That seems like a heavily stretched metaphor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Yeah, great for him. This law is in place prevent the tragedy of the commons from killing NYC traffic because "well, its ok for _ME_ to block traffic selling my shit".

</comment><comment><USER8> If he never closed shop he was selling over 11 pairs of shoes a minute for 2.5 days straight. I assume he was actually doing bulk sales to distributors.

The article doesn't make it clear. Was Market Week a retail event or a business to business event?

<comment><USER9> I'm pretty sure this is the kind of event where purchasers make deals with manufacturers. You're right, it would be logistically impossible for that many shoes to be sold one at a time...

[http://nycfashioninfo.com/wholesale/market- weeks/Calendar.as...](http://nycfashioninfo.com/wholesale/market- weeks/Calendar.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> ... and he embraces it. I learned this from one of his trucks (see <http://i.imgur.com/UClZP.jpg>) which told the story.

</comment><comment><USER10> Millions of people work around stifling bureaucracies daily.

Anyone working for a large corporation probably has a dozen or more arrows in their quiver when it comes to working around stupid rules, inefficient procedures, or stupid/inefficient coworkers.

</comment><comment><USER11> It's easy to break the rules if you just see them as rules, like kids do: they interpret rules literally.

If, instead, you have learned to see some sort of an authority or greater justification issued behind the rules, rules become bearly impossible to bend because you'd be not only mucking with the rules but challenging something much greater.

For an example, if you bump into a locked door of an abandoned old house, most people shy away because they _assume_ the whole premises are off limits. While that is a safe assumption, a hacker mind would just consider the locked door as one particular blocked entry to the house and hop in through the basement window that was left slightly open. It might not be too relevant for him whether the premises themselves are, or are not, off limits: the hacker mind would realize that him looking around the house doesn't cause any tangential damage to anything, but at least he would satisfy his endless curiosity about what's inside.

Similarly this shoe guy realized it does no harm to anyone and nobody would actually care if he posed as a film crew even if they weren't filming anything. Well, it seems nobody did care!

<comment><USER12> I find the whole "rules are made to be broken" thing a little creepy.

But you seem to have a more interesting take - unjust rules are meant to be sidestepped.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> True hustlers make it happen - great story.

</comment><comment><USER14> He did break the rules, but these rules were irrational and he didn't hurt anyone in the process. Thats the ethical and moral dilemma that hustlers have to deal with every day.

This is an inspiring story, but when I hear about founders cheating, backstabbing and hurting others in the process, that is not inspiring... and there is a fine line between the two.

<comment><USER7> >but these rules were irrational

Yeah, lets just let anyone who wants to set up shop in the middle of NYC roads. Won't impact traffic in the city at all.

<comment><USER14> I am not propagating that anyone should be allowed to have a truck on the NYC road, but why is it restricted only for movie studios and utility companies? Why not look at other industries that might value from such a permit. Even the author seems to agree with that evaluation.

<comment><USER15> Utility companies need to block traffic in order to service the public infrastructure. Film studios need to block traffic because traditionally it's been the only way to get street shots, especially when large film crews and big name actors are involved. Both are special cases that require special consideration.

What is the special needs use case for a shoe manufacturer?

<comment><USER16> I think the movie studios get permits more for the fact that it ends up becoming free advertising and good publicity for the city.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> He would have a great answer for The YC application question of "how did you hack the system?"

</comment><comment><USER18> The lesson to be learned here is to make things happen - to find a way from A to B - to not take no for an answer.

It is not that breaking the rules is a good thing, only that sometimes it is acceptable.

</comment><comment><USER19> Fun fact... Their legal name to date is still Kenneth Cole Productions, Inc. as a reminder to resourcefulness and innovative problem solving.

Source: [http://www.kennethcole.com/content/index.jsp?page=our_story&...](http://www.kennethcole.com/content/index.jsp?page=our_story&h=1150&w=898)

<comment><AUTHOR> This is also noted in the submitted link

<comment><USER19> My mistake. I must have missed that.

The version of the story that is told on Kenneth Cole's website is still worth checking out.

<comment><USER20> Except its flash only...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Medical errors now third leading cause of death in United States - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2016/05/03/researchers-medical-errors-now-third-leading-cause-of-death-in-united-states/ <comment><USER2> Original article: [http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139](http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i2139)

The authors suggest to introduce an extra field in death certificates indicating if it was a medical error, but the responsible parties may not acknowledge mistakes for fear of malpractice suits.

<comment><USER3> > the responsible parties may not acknowledge mistakes for fear of malpractice > suits

Accountability is part of life for everyone; even somene merely licensed to drive goes to jail for hit and run. Accountability is especially to be expected if you are a professional, and especially if you are given the status and pay that goes with holding others' lives in your hands.

Not taking responsibility in these situations should be acrime, IMHO.</comment></comment>


Apple was warned about the FaceTime eavesdropping bug last week - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/29/18202398/apple-facetime-bug-warned-eavesdropping <comment><USER5> It's somehow never the tech companies' fault for willfully designing inept feedback channels or even null-routed feedback channels in Google's case to impede customers communicating with them. I think many companies, especially given $200b in savings, could have handled this report better. Many companies without $200b can receive information from a customer without it passing through journalists first.

What's especially pathetic is it doesn't matter what you're reporting - <USER2> grave security bug, a widespread hardware flaw, a longing for better functionality - Apple doesn't _want_ to know. In fact they warned iOS developers against _trying to get their attention_.

         If you run to the press and trash us, it never helps.

[https://medium.com/@krave/apple-s-app-store-review- process-i...](https://medium.com/@krave/apple-s-app-store-review-process-is- hurting-users-but-we-re-not-allowed-to-talk-about-it-55d791451b)

<comment><USER6> That Medium article presents the quotation as though it's literally something that Apple wrote. It doesn't actually appear to on the page it supposedly came from, nor anything like it, as far as I can see.

[https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/](https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/)

[EDIT: Apple indeed literally write that in a previous version of the page. Wow.]

<comment><USER7> It's visible verbatim in an archived version of the page. See:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer...](https://web.archive.org/web/20141226094343/https://developer.apple.com/app- store/review/guidelines/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can only imagine the amount of bug reports, real and false, that a company of Apple's size must receive on a daily basis. Is there any company at that scale that can reliably filter through all of them to find actual, critical bugs quickly?

It simply isn't as easy as saying 'flag all reports with 'security vulnerability' in the submission for priority.' That could still be thousands of reports in the 'priority' queue, most of which some person would need to manually investigate one by one.

<comment><USER9> If you are able to perform the following steps for any of Amazon, Google, Facebook, Netflix, Microsoft or Twitter, I will literally eat a hat (you may choose what kind):

1\. Discover an easily exploitable vulnerability that allows access to a chosen user's private data

2\. Email their security address about it

3\. Tweet at them about it

4\. _Fax them_ about it

5\. A week later the vulnerability is still exploitable

You do not have to play fair. You're allowed to impersonate a suburban mom or a grandpa who's not good with technology. You're allowed to ramble or use vague and non-technical terms as long as a reasonably qualified person could determine what the vulnerability is. Specifically, it is _not_ required that you include relevant product versions, steps to reproduce, a full reproduction video, or a one-sentence impact summary like "a caller can eavesdrop on the recipient of a Group Facetime call without their knowledge or consent".

There's no apologising this away. The vulnerability was already a monumental fuckup, but this detail propels it into the realm of cultural dysfunction. It should not be possible to fail this badly. If you put listening devices in people's pockets, you need to hold yourself to a higher standard than "I dunno, bug reporting is hard".

<comment><USER10> There have been numerous examples in the past where companies like Microsoft have taken _way_ longer than one week to fix serious vulnerabilities. What makes you so confident you won't be eating a lot of hats?

<comment><USER11> Are any of these examples in recent history, in software terms? Software culture, especially with regards to security, has come a long, long way since the bad old days. I agree with the parent comment. This is not acceptable in 2019.

Can you point to any of these numerous examples?

<comment><USER12> > _Are any of these examples in recent history, in software terms?_

Yes.

<comment><USER13> Is there a reason why the rest of the parent comment was left unaddressed? The implication was to provide such examples. I'm also curious to hear.

<comment><USER12> Several such cases are made public every year.

Here's one:

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-jet-vulnerability- st...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/microsoft-jet-vulnerability-still-open- to-attacks-despite-recent-patch/)

"The vulnerability came to light in mid-September after the Trend Micro Zero- Day Initiative (ZDI) posted details about it on its site. ZDI said Microsoft had failed to patch the flaw in due time and they decided to make the issue public, so users and companies could take actions to protect themselves against any exploitation attempts."

Or how about this?

"Google Admin, one of Android's system-level apps, may accept URLs from other apps and, as it turned to be, any URLs would be fine, even those starting with 'file://'. As a result, a simple networking stuff like downloading web pages starts to evolve into a whole file manager kind of thing. Aren't all Android apps isolated from each other? Heck no, Google Admin enjoys higher privileges, and by luring it into reading some rogue URL, an app can escape sandbox and access private data. How was that patched? First, allow me to brief you on the way independent researched disclosed the vulnerability. It was discovered as far back as March, with a corresponding report submitted to Goggle. Five months later, the researchers once again checked out what was going on only to find the bug remained unpatched. On the 13th of August the information on the bug was publicly disclosed, prompting Google to finally issue the patch."

[https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/security- week-34/9637/](https://www.kaspersky.com/blog/security-week-34/9637/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Years ago my team and I discovered a pretty significant bug in Safari's/CFNetworking's TLS implementation. Once the browser had deemed a certificate valid once, it would subsequently accept it for all hostnames. We got absolutely nowhere with Apple's official security contacts. The issue only got resolved months later, after I was able to find an employee from their security team at WWDC and explain the issue face to face.

<comment><USER15> Care to tell how it went? Did he have an expanation why the process was so crappy? Did hebmaybe even knew about your bug report but was unable tonfonsomething sbout it because of some beaurocracy?

<comment><USER14> We did not have any visibility into the process. Overall I think they just didn't see it as that big of a deal, definitely not big enough to change release schedules for. This got assigned a CVSS score of 6.8, so not Critical or even High severity. Still feels pretty severe to me, but I guess that's how everyone who discovers an issue like this would feel…

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> When I saw the headline, I assumed it was a situation where someone had emailed the wrong address or only tried to contact them via Twitter. But upon reading the article I see this is a high-quality report. She was sounding alarms and emailing all the right people. It's is insane that Apple missed this.

I think at this point, we need Tim Cook to write an apology piece about how they screwed up, how this won't happen again, and who got fired.

<comment><USER17> We also need some kind of hardware indicator like a light that indicates when the mic or camera are turned on. After a blunder like this, a privacy-focused needs to rebuild trust that they take privacy seriously.

<comment><USER18> there already is one when an app is still listening to your microphone in the background, a giant red bar at the top of the screen. The difference with this bug is that the facetime call pre-initializes microphone and video to reduce the initial connection delay.

<comment><USER17> Right, I don't want something in the software which is what happens today. I want a hardware indicator, that should in theory be harder to break or hack (and should make this kind of bug more obvious to a QA team and the general public).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Not turning out to be a great week for Apple. Even if they do receive a large number of bug reports, I would like to think they have the resources (let's face it, they're not cash-strapped) to resolve something as critical and privacy-focused as this. Their failure to do so makes a mockery of their users who pay a significant premium for their products, often in the name of privacy.

</comment><comment><USER20> What is happening with Apple - people used to justify the high cost of Apple devices claiming they paid for the "high quality". But now ... First the "bug" that allowed root access on macOS and now this "bug" that literally allowed anyone to spy on you through your iPhone? Not to speak of iPads / iPhones that bend, ios throttling due to weak batteries etc. etc.

Something is quite wrong ...

<comment><USER21> I'm no Steve Jobs fan or Apple apologist but it seems obvious enough - <USER3> was the force driving the company forward and now the momentum he created is finally starting to wear off. I really hope they can get their shit together sooner or later as they still seem the best of a bad bunch wrt privacy - <USER4> least for now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19029594](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19029594) is another article on this. Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19029548](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19029548).

<comment><AUTHOR> I submitted it before those 2 articles, but it got lost on new. It got resubmitted by the admin, who sent me this email:

We thought you might like to know that we put [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19029573](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19029573) in the second-chance pool, so it will get a random placement on the front page sometime in the next 24 hours.

This is part of an experiment in giving good HN submissions multiple chances at the front page. If you're curious, you can read about it at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11662380) and other links there.

<comment><USER22> Yup, that was me. When we merge threads, we try to favor the earliest submission. Eventually we're hoping to have some kind of karma sharing so it isn't such a lottery.

<comment><USER23> I submitted the WSJ story only 2 minutes before Josu's original The Verge submission. Josu' submission was just above mine on the "new" page, so when I clicked on it and read the Verge article I realised it was a better article than the one I submitted. (and not paywalled)

My first comment on my own submission was for people to look at the other article as well/instead.

Karma sharing sounds nice, but in the end, I just want people to read the better article.

<comment><USER22> You're right! Yours was earlier. Either I didn't notice that or I saw your comment or I decided the other article was better... can't remember.

Thanks for caring about the quality of HN. That's what matters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> People who thinks that what happened is unacceptable needs to understand that Apple must receive a lot of these types of call every week. What would you do if someone send you multiple messages saying that they found a major issue _without even detailling anything_ while this person actually wants you to give them money for what they found (that they still haven't disclosed any information about it)? I'm sure the majority would ignore these calls unless some details were shared about the issue.

I am not surprised about what happened at all. There is an argument that can be made about the fact that it took Apple so many years to finally implement group video call that they could take a little bit of time to do it right but other than that, I don't see how Apple could have prevented a bug that a person wasn't willing to disclose without having money first.

<comment><USER25> The actual tip: [https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyGIwiHVYAAJaxH.jpg](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DyGIwiHVYAAJaxH.jpg)

You don't see this kind of stuff every week, and surely Apple has the resources to at least confirm it.

<comment><USER26> You're telling me some random customer wrote _THAT_ writeup? That's impressive.

<comment><USER27> Random _lawyer_ \- turns out the ability to describe things in clear, unambiguous language and in detail results in pretty high quality bug reports.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Another product stream and company (and hype) I was never a fan of. Best thing they did was to rip off FreeBSD and the worst was break *nix compliant userspace + influence design UX and UI patterns for a new generation.

</comment><comment><USER29> There has been recently some activity here in HN regarding formal model checking and protocol verification (TLA+, SPIN, Promela...) I guess they are relevant to this case.

This stuff is hard.

</comment><comment><USER30> That letter from the lawyer to Apple is quite inflammatory.

<comment><USER31> How so?

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Maybe I'm just too old and contankerious and just don't "get it" but warning Apple via Twitter[0] isn't really following a Coordinated Vulnerability Disclosure process, yeah?

[0] - [https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/SpecialReport/2017...](https://resources.sei.cmu.edu/asset_files/SpecialReport/2017_003_001_503340.pdf)

EDIT: Changed the link to the CERT guide for CVD.

<comment><USER33> Reading that website you provided, the mother was correct to hit up twitter as they suggest that "Customers" contact Apple Support. Their twitter is an official channel to that end.

The only area in that document she would have followed to reach out Apple's security contact is under the heading of "Security and privacy researchers", of which I am doubting she thought herself or her 14 year old son as.

<comment><USER32> >...of which I am doubting she thought herself or her 14 year old son as.

Yet, that[0] is precisely what she did...? Your argument falls on it's face by her own action[s].

EDIT: Note in the screenshot that there's an appended "Follow-Up" with what looks to be an ID, which has been added to the Subject field of the email.

[0] - [https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/thumbor/zrezAXK0-NdK3ugN3G2Uwd_vzuo=...](https://cdn.vox- cdn.com/thumbor/zrezAXK0-NdK3ugN3G2Uwd_vzuo=/0x0:1672x806/920x0/filters:focal\(0x0:1672x806\):no_upscale\(\)/cdn.vox- cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/13723266/Screen_Shot_2019_01_29_at_2.07.07_PM.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment> a-dub from petaluma to kankakee! finding bugs in the internet of shitty things! the latest craze to sweep the nation!

</comment><comment><USER34> How many other hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars companies could produce a production code fix faster?

<comment><USER35> It should only take a few minutes if you're the average HN commentator.

<comment><USER36> A HN commentator would never have made such a big in the first place. Duh. :D

<comment><USER36> Follow up, would it be "an HN" or "a HN"? eg hatche-en or atche-n or hacker?

As before I'm sure the worlds greatest linguist will also be here :)

<comment><USER37> Probably "an HN", as saying the letter "H" sounds like "ayy-ch" (in American pronunciation, at least), which has an initial vowel sound.

<comment><USER36> Right, but when I tried saying it in my head it seemed weird because my brains turn it into "an hacker news" :)</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Scientists 3-D Print Skin That Develops Working Blood Vessels - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/innovation/scientists-3d-print-skin-develops-working-blood-vessels-180973572/ <comment><USER2> This is really great progress. 3d printing of tissues specific to a patient that has no rejection risk in vivo would be a major breakthrough for medicine and surgery. Let's hope they can eventually do the same with arteries, muscle, bone, and nerves, though it's all likely decades away from routine use.

Of course cost will be a major factor, especially since it must be catered to each patient.

<comment><USER3> How can the cost be driven down?

<comment><USER2> That's the billion dollar question, particularly because of the individualization necessary.</comment></comment></comment>


Formula 1 launches Virtual Grand Prix Series to replace postponed races - <AUTHOR> https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.formula-1-launches-virtual-grand-prix-series-to-replace-postponed-races.1znLAbPzBbCQPj1IDMeiOi.html <comment><USER2> This will be entertaining due to the well known driver names BUT not high level by any means:

"Due to the wide variety of gaming skill levels amongst the drivers, game settings will be configured in such a way to encourage competitive and entertaining racing. This includes running equal car performance with fixed setups, reduced vehicle damage, and optional anti-lock brakes and traction control for those less familiar with the game."

More like a "So You Think You Can Dance" celebrity edition than anything else.

A much higher level event which also includes some IRL drivers from multiple series is: The Race All-Star Esports Battle ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_RV5UY8mk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_a_RV5UY8mk)) Higher level mostly because they race in rFactor2 which is a better simulator than F1 2019 and there are no driver aids. Also because everyone on the grid are long-ish time sim racers, even if some of them also happen to be IRL drivers (Max Verstappen, Felix Rosenqvist, Antonio Felix da Costa, a few others)

Here's a good list of motorsports eSports events for the next few days: [https://the-race.com/esports/the-complete-motorsport-esports...](https://the- race.com/esports/the-complete-motorsport-esports-schedule/)

</comment><comment><USER3> There's always Marbula 1: [https://youtu.be/55iTYdRDG4s](https://youtu.be/55iTYdRDG4s)

I don't even watch F1 but this has me addicted.

<comment><USER4> Man, that's boring. This is what you should watch instead: [https://youtu.be/agNt0jFdgr0](https://youtu.be/agNt0jFdgr0)

<comment><USER5> Looks like a bootleg re-upload of [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cBHmu_cNww](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cBHmu_cNww) ; please don't promote stolen content.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Nascar is doing something similar. [https://www.enascar.com/news- media/2020/03/19/fox-sports-to-...](https://www.enascar.com/news- media/2020/03/19/fox-sports-to-deliver-sundays-enascar-iracing-pro- invitational-series-on-fs1/?linkId=100000011277236)

</comment><comment><USER7> Is the game a good enough simulator? Should real drivers be the best F1 streamers with a good wheel setup?

This is really pushing the notion of work from home.

<comment> w-m In the Netflix series, Drive to Survive, you could see one of the younger drivers (I don't recall who it was) play the Codemasters game at home. It didn't look like exposition or product placement, but rather like something that they regularly did to train.

<comment><USER8> I think they showed Max or Alex but I don't remember for sure - but that was certainly product placement/he was just playing it for fun. Lando and Max play alot of iRacing which is the most comprehensive and realistic simulator which can actually help you train for motorsports (I use it to learn tracks before I race in a miata) and I think they recently got Carlos and Alex into playing.

Besides, all the teams have their own non commercial simulators miles ahead of what you can play at home

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is a great official move, but there was already a Australia race last weekend with Lando, Max, and some Youtubers like Jimmy Broadbent. Interesting to see who comes out on top in the official versus grassroots virtual racing scene. The unofficial stream used iRacing and F1 2019 which is interesting but that was kind of last minute.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=872hSgx4HUc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=872hSgx4HUc)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0oSqJsh0DA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0oSqJsh0DA)

</comment><comment><USER10> How about streaming some previous races? I could always watch last years German race again.

<comment><USER11> Best I can offer you is the extended highlights of that race [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNUSQurmRjw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNUSQurmRjw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I watched the virtual races and without damage or real marshalling they just seemed too forgiving of mistakes, and I got bored. Also shorter races = less strategy choices. Also, Codemasters is not the best simulation, would be a lot cooler if the teams modeled this years cars in a better engine.

<comment><USER13> The strategy on a 50% setting works the same as in a full race. If tyres normally last 20 laps, at 50% they will last 10 laps.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is fun! Obviously not a patch on the real thing, but could still be entertaining, as long as they keep non-real-racers out. The minute you add an esport driver I lose all interest.

<comment><USER7> This global situation seems like the ultimate time to fire up every major esport tournament.

<comment><USER14> Meanwhile, League of Legends suspended all professional leagues, because they don't play remotely. I'm pretty sure they even have isolated, local servers for tournament play. And I still see games paused with "lag" as the reported reason.

<comment><USER15> The EU League is actually resuming this evening, playing 100% remotely: [https://watch.lolesports.com/article/lec-returns-this- friday...](https://watch.lolesports.com/article/lec-returns-this- friday!/bltbb70b693c95587ef)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> w-m Next up in remote work: the Olympics.

There's a great tradition of video games in Japan, surely if Formula 1 can do it, they can do it for the Olympics, too?

<comment><USER16> I was a master of Atari Video Olympics on the 2600 system. Time to come out of retirement?

<comment><USER17> Pah!! I was master of Daley Thompsons Decathlon!!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Lol. Let's see how they implant the rules. Or crashtappen wins?</comment>


Show HN: Mealmatch - end hunger. Check out our mobile web app - <AUTHOR> http://mealmatch.org

<comment><USER2> One of the founders is a friend - very interesting social enterprise idea</comment>