Ask HN: What are some of the best technical talks you've heard? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER5> Fork Yeah! The Rise and Development if illumos by Brian Cantrill [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc)

Quote copied from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5170246](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5170246)

"As you know people, as you learn about things, you realize that these generalizations we have are, virtually to a generalization, false. Well, except for this one, as it turns out. What you think of Oracle, is even truer than you think it is. There has been no entity in human history with less complexity or nuance to it than Oracle. And I gotta say, as someone who has seen that complexity for my entire life, it's very hard to get used to that idea. It's like, 'surely this is more complicated!' but it's like: Wow, this is really simple! This company is very straightforward, in its defense. This company is about one man, his alter-ego, and what he wants to inflict upon humanity -- that's it! ...Ship mediocrity, inflict misery, lie our asses off, screw our customers, and make a whole shitload of money. Yeah... you talk to Oracle, it's like, 'no, we don't fucking make dreams happen -- we make money!' ...You need to think of Larry Ellison the way you think of a lawnmower. You don't anthropomorphize your lawnmower, the lawnmower just mows the lawn, you stick your hand in there and it'll chop it off, the end. You don't think 'oh, the lawnmower hates me' \-- lawnmower doesn't give a shit about you, lawnmower can't hate you. Don't anthropomorphize the lawnmower. Don't fall into that trap about Oracle."

<comment><USER6> If that's the best technical talk you've ever seen, I have to feel sorry for you. Cantrill may rant all he wants about Oracle but he's not exactly doing better, with all the peddling of node.js to the masses. It is rare for me to see someone come up with so much bullshit in one talk: [https://vimeo.com/230142234](https://vimeo.com/230142234)

Since I don't want to end with a negative note, here is a personal favorite as far as best technical talks go:

[https://tinyurl.com/hzpccxj](https://tinyurl.com/hzpccxj)

<comment><USER7> Could you maybe add a comment about what your favorite tech talk is? Right now I'm staring at a tiny url hoping I'm not going to be rick rolled.

<comment><USER8> It's _We Really Don 't Know How To Compute!_ by Gerald Jay Sussman

<comment><USER9> Previous HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3163473](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3163473)

Direct download link for slides: [https://github.com/strangeloop/2011-slides/raw/master/Sussma...](https://github.com/strangeloop/2011-slides/raw/master/Sussman- WeDontKnowHowToCompute.pdf)

Youtube: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3tVctB_VSU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3tVctB_VSU)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Control engineering

Gunter Stein's inaugural Bode prize lecture from 1989 titled "Respect the Unstable" [0]. In this talk, he uses a minimum of mathematics to clearly demonstrate the fundamental (and inevitable!) trade-offs in control systems design. He effortlessly makes the link between his (in)ability to balance inverted rods of various lengths on his palm (with shorter rods being harder to balance) to why the X-29 aircraft was almost impossible to control and why Chernobyl blew up.

The fundamental message is extremely important and the derivation is so crystal clear that it is simply marvelous to watch him present it. I like it so much that I re-watch it about once a year.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lhu31X94V4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lhu31X94V4)

[1] Pdf transcription (use it to skim or go over the details. However, the lecture is easier to follow and has a lot more than the transcript): [https://jagger.berkeley.edu/~pack/me234/GSBode.pdf](https://jagger.berkeley.edu/~pack/me234/GSBode.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER11> 1\. Why Do Keynote Speakers Keep Suggesting That Improving Security Is Possible? - James Mickens [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ajGX7odA87k)

2\. James Mickens on JavaScript - James Mickens [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5xh0ZIEUOE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5xh0ZIEUOE)

3\. Creating containers From Scratch - Liz Rice [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fi7uSYlOdc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fi7uSYlOdc)

4\. 2013 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: The Existence of Nothing - Panelists: J. Richard Gott, Jim Holt, Lawrence Krauss, Charles Seife, Eve Silverstein. Moderator: Neil deGrasse Tyson [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1OLz6uUuMp8)

5\. 2016 Isaac Asimov Memorial Debate: Is the Universe a Simulation? - Panelists: David Chalmers, Zohreh Davoudi, James Gates, Lisa Randall, Max Tegmark Moderator: Neil deGrasse Tyson [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs)

6\. Zig: A programming language designed for robustness, optimality, and clarity – Andrew Kelley [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4oYSByyRak](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4oYSByyRak)

7\. Concurrency Is Not Parallelism - Rob Pike [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_DpYBzKso](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_DpYBzKso)

<comment><USER12> [https://medium.com/@soobrosa/my-humble-james-mickens- shrine-...](https://medium.com/@soobrosa/my-humble-james-mickens-shrine-a-k-a- the-only-real-combined-cs-degree-and-mba-you-will-ever-need-1f437f496d1c)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Bret Victor talks are inspirational:

\- Inventing on Principal [https://vimeo.com/36579366](https://vimeo.com/36579366)

\- Stop Drawing Dead Fish [https://vimeo.com/64895205](https://vimeo.com/64895205)

<comment><USER14> Yep, I thought _Inventing on Principle_ was the best computer-related talk I've ever watched. Not easy to describe what it's about! Design, tools, art, UI, visualization, invention, life.

<comment><USER15> It's like he has caught on to a kind of a zen thing. It is almost as if he isn't even there, while presenting about a technological topic at all. That is just the media for him to get an expanded wisdom across. What that message is is hard to identify. But there is a glance of it at the end of inventing on principle. It's a lot more profound than what the talk seems to be at the surface.

I really wish he would publish more frequently He has inspired me greatly.

<comment><USER14> Yeah, I was marvelling half the time at the _wisdom_ , it makes other speakers seem merely knowedgeable, clever, brilliant etc. I missed most of it in my summary before. I love the

 _this is a cool way to live your life, according to some principle - this is mine; these are some other amazing people who had their own_

aspect of it. His _creators should be able to see and control what they 're doing as they do it_ principle is awesome, and he's maybe uniquely well- equipped to do something about that. I wanna get the synth he designed!

<comment><USER16> What's the synth?

<comment><USER17> Alesis Ion, Micron and Fusion

[http://worrydream.com/Home2007/electronics.html](http://worrydream.com/Home2007/electronics.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The most humorous would have to be the "Wat" talk by Gary Bernhardt: [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat](https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat)

<comment><USER19> Also [https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and- death...](https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of- javascript)

<comment><USER20> The screenshot of GIMP running in Chrome running in Firefox is one of my favorites!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Two of my favorites:

code::dive conference 2014 - Scott Meyers: Cpu Caches and Why You Care: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDIkqP4JbkE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDIkqP4JbkE)

CppCon 2014: Mike Acton "Data-Oriented Design and C++": [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rX0ItVEVjHc)

They're mostly about C++ and cache aware/data oriented programming.

<comment><USER22> The Mike Acton talk is really valuable to anyone interested in efficient software, and doesn't have so much C++ as to be a barrier: I found out about it from a Go developer.

<comment><USER21> Yes, I agree. It is more about a mindset rather than C++ specifically. I watch again now and then just to remind myself of the lessons that can be learned from it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The top 5 most referenced tech talks on HN are:

\- Douglas Engelbart - The Mother of All Demos

\- Bryan Cantrill - Fork Yeah! The Rise and Development of illumos

\- Guy Steele - Growing a Language

\- David Heinemeier Hansson - Startup School 08

\- Rich Hickey - Hammock Driven Development

The top 50 are listed at [https://techyaks.com](https://techyaks.com) which I recently updated with a ranking "techyaks score" that ranks talks (first) by HN reference count.

<comment><USER24> This is great, thanks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> John Carmack's talks, especially the ones from his id days at QuakeCon.

Watching somebody get on stage and just talk for hours in detail without notes about a whole range of technical topics that they mastered and enjoy is pretty inspiring.

<comment><USER26> I'm by no means a gamer but have always admired Carmack for his sheer brilliance. I stumbled over one of his talks while doing something else and jumped to various points in the talk. _Every. Single. Time._ he was talking about something profound and the talk is friggin several hours long.

<comment><USER27> To make him more impressive, he had a pretty significant speech impediment when he was younger. So he was never some natural orator, he had to work extremely hard to sound like one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Guy L. Steele, "Growing a Language" (1998) ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ahvzDzKdB0))

As far as technical presentations can be, this is a work of art, and in spite of its age still completely relevant.

<comment><USER29> And YouTube doesn't even really capture his use of beautiful crayoned transparencies in the live version of the talk!

Also, any talk where Richard Gabriel and Guy Steele get together will be a treat. I really miss those old quirky OOPSLA days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm not a Closure coder but I loved this talk on how as your tooling becomes more complex and automated, you start to lose sight of simpler solutions to problems. It's all about woodworking!

Tim Ewald - Clojure: Programming with Hand Tools [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShEez0JkOFw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ShEez0JkOFw)

<comment><USER31> Clojure people seem to give really good talks; it's starting to make me think I should look into learning the language.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Hammock Driven Development by Rich Hickey: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc)

<comment><USER33> Adding to that Simppe Made Easy, also by Rich Hickey

<comment><USER34> Agreed. Here's a link: [https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made- Easy](https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The Feynman Lectures (on Physics) are incredible - Feynman had such an amazing mind, one of the greatest the world has known, yet could explain complex things like he was talking to a friend in the living room over drinks. Never patronizing, always amusing & informative: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk&list=PLLzGzdSNup...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j3mhkYbznBk&list=PLLzGzdSNup63lMYeOpU9Hax6MBsTjdDas)

<comment><USER36> This. And also "why magnets repell each other" [https://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA](https://youtu.be/36GT2zI8lVA)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> "Design, Composition and Performance" by Rich Hickey. His view of what improvising means is brilliant.

[https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition- Perfo...](https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Design-Composition-Performance)

</comment><comment><USER38> Free Electron Lasers

...or why we need 17 billion Volts to make a picture.

[https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-8832-free_electron_lasers](https://media.ccc.de/v/34c3-8832-free_electron_lasers)

HN discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16028723](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16028723)

 _Wouldn't it be awesome to have a microscope which allows scientists to map atomic details of viruses, film chemical reactions, or study the processes in the interior of planets? Well, we've just built one in Hamburg. It's not table-top, though: 1 billion Euro and a 3km long tunnel is needed for such a 'free electron laser', also called 4th generation synchrotron light source. I will talk about the basic physics and astonishing facts and figures of the operation and application of these types of particle accelerators.

Most people have heard about particle accelerators, most prominently LHC, at which high energy particles are brought to collision in order to study fundamental physics. However, in fact most major particle accelerators in the world are big x-ray microscopes.

The latest and biggest of these synchrotron radiation sources which was built is the European XFEL. A one billion Euro 'free electron laser', based on a superconducting accelerator technology and spread out 3km beneath the city of Hamburg. The produced x-ray pulses allow pictures, for example from proteins, with sub-atomic resolution and an exposure time short enough to enable in-situ studies of chemical reactions.

This talk aims to explain how particle accelerators and in particular light sources work, for what reason we need these big facilities to enable new types of science and why most of modern technology would be inconceivable without them._

</comment><comment><USER39> Indistinguishable From Magic: Manufacturing Modern Computer Chips [0]. This talk is delivered really well and always leaves me with a sense of awe in how CRAZY it is that humans figured out integrated circuits. Its a bit out of date, but it gives enough of a peek under the hood to understand why Intel has had such difficulties going to 10 and 7mn processes[1].

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGFhc8R_uO4) [1]: [https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-10nm-earnings- am...](https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-cpu-10nm-earnings- amd,36967.html)

</comment><comment><USER40> The talk that had the most influence on how I write software is Robert 'Uncle Bob' Martin's "Architecture: The Lost Years" [1]. Being a Ruby conference keynote, it helps if you know how Ruby on Rails works, but the lessons apply to all software.

Another one would be "Let It Crash! The Erlang Approach to Building Reliable Services" by Brian Troutwine. [2]

I don't know if you would call it "technical" but Brett Slatkin's talk on Cohort Analysis is something anyone interested in tools to analyze how our users behave should watch. [3]

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpkDN78P884](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WpkDN78P884)

[2] [https://www.infoq.com/presentations/erlang-reliable- services](https://www.infoq.com/presentations/erlang-reliable-services)

[3] [https://www.onebigfluke.com/2013/05/video-cohort-analysis- ta...](https://www.onebigfluke.com/2013/05/video-cohort-analysis-talk-at- google.html)

</comment><comment><USER15> Elevator Hacking: From The Pit To The Penthouse by Deviant Ollam and Howard Payne [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOzrJjdZDRQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOzrJjdZDRQ)

They've done several iterations of this, including a censored/shorter version for DEFCON 22. This version is the best, with all details, no secrets withheld. I find the content rather stunning, and I've even watched it several times.

<comment><USER41> I love this video it actually got me into fooling around with elevators. I have a full box elevator keys just because of this talk, with no idea what to do with them.

</comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen Simple Made Easy by Rich Hickey [https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple- Made-Easy](https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Simple-Made-Easy)

</comment><comment><USER42> Define "technical". But when it comes to programming I always enjoy Sandi Metz's talks. I can highly recomend this talk she made at the RailsConf in 2014, about taking an ugly beast of code and turning it to something more digestable and beautiful [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bZh5LMaSmE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bZh5LMaSmE)

<comment><USER43> Totally agree, Sandi is awesome, all of her talks are worth watching. I quite like the the one where she tells the future [https://youtu.be/JOM5_V5jLAs](https://youtu.be/JOM5_V5jLAs) . I feel that kind of step change will shortly be with us (if we're not already in the middle of it)

<comment><USER44> In the middle of a step change?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> "Is it really Complex? Or did we just make it Complicated?" (Alan Kay): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubaX1Smg6pY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubaX1Smg6pY)

<comment><USER46> This reminds me of a comment on a book titled 'Discrete mathematics and its application' by Kenneth Rosen which was along the lines of how smart the author was at the same time not being able to explain the concepts to someone else in an easy manner and to be honest I had the same feeling. I understood those concepts from other texts which definitely means that it isn't me who was was inadequate or not upto the task. I was willing to learn but the smartest of the texts in the field left me feeling stupid. Can somebody else chip in on this argument?

<comment><USER47> I TA'd a fist year University course using, I believe, that textbook during my final two years of undergrad.

The material itself is difficult to learn and harder to teach well. At my University, it seemed that the Prof had to teach the subject for 3 or 4 years before they could reasonably get half the class to pass the final exam.

At the same time, I've often felt like I would have no harder of a time teaching the subject to 11 year olds. It's just a weird topic.

<comment><USER48> Yeah, there's unity to it and no system other than "break the problem apart, look for these properties, think hard, and match them to the identity that also has these properties".

A lot of interpretation and intellectual confidence involved, difficult things to communicate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Douglas Engelbert, "Augmenting Human Intelligence" from 1968. Introduced the world to the mouse (and therefore the GUI), video conferencing, revision control and basically the modern personal computing environment.

Also known as the "Mother of All Demos". I don't think I've watched the entire thing in one sitting (I tend to jump over some of the drier parts), but I do return to it every year or so because it helps me remember the lab innovations of 1968 didn't reach consumers until the mid/80s to late 90s, which helps me keep innovation in perspective.

<comment><USER50> This was so unbelievable even by 2010s standard. Gotta thank Jay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Although not strictly a talk, I would highly recommend the first of the SICP lectures[0], if only to expand your thinking about what computer science:

 _" I'd like to welcome you to this course on Computer Science. Actually that's a terrible way to start. Computer science is a terrible name for this business. First of all, it's not a science. It might be engineering or it might be art. We'll actually see that computer so-called science actually has a lot in common with magic. We will see that in this course. So it's not a science. It's also not really very much about computers. And it's not about computers in the same sense that physics is not really about particle accelerators. And biology is not really about microscopes and petri dishes. And it's not about computers in the same sense that geometry is not really about using a surveying instruments."_

[0]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Op3QLzMgSY)

<comment><USER52> can someone please convince me that the use of the word "magic" is justified? yes I know sicp is universally exalted in the cs/programming community and even though I haven't read it yet I support the principle of a principled approach to computation (it's math after all in the purest sense) but I can't support the infantilism of words like magic and the wizard on the cover of the book because the two themes are directly in opposition. there is no magic and clear rigorous analysis of programs is very fruitful.

<comment><USER53> Maybe it's just me (I haven't actually read the book), but I don't see the guy on the cover as a wizard. He's holding a pair of dividers which I associate much more with a craftsman or study of geometry. I just assumed the clothing was a style I didn't understand.

<comment><USER54> He's an alchemist. The original version of the illustration says salve/coagulate rather than eval/apply.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Alan Kay [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVw42wWZWrg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yVw42wWZWrg) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdSD07U5uBs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdSD07U5uBs)

Ted Nelson [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcqIlDhkSdo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcqIlDhkSdo) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RVU62CQTXFI)

Doug Engelbart [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2zJLiYMoXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2zJLiYMoXk)

Steve Jobs [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmuP8gsgWb8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmuP8gsgWb8)

Jacob Appelbaum [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntTnLO-4p1o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntTnLO-4p1o)

</comment><comment><USER56> Just about everything Kate Gregory has presented at cppcon is worth watching. The nitty gritty tends to be C++-centric (as befits the venue), but the overarching themes are more or less universal.

Where Rich Hickey's Simple Made Easy talks about simplicity at the macro level, and mostly as an aspirational goal, Kate's talks focus on the practicalities of actually achieving simplicity at the micro level.

</comment><comment><USER57> Raymond Hettinger - Beyond PEP 8 -- Best practices for beautiful intelligible code - PyCon 2015 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf- BqAjZb8M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wf-BqAjZb8M)

</comment><comment><USER58> David Beazley: Python concurrency from the ground up [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCs5OvhV9S4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCs5OvhV9S4)

<comment><USER59> Oh, Dabeaz has so many great talks. He has one of those teaching styles that can contagiously convince even the most Python dismissive person to start learning it.

<comment><USER50> Casually live coding any idiom even if the language didn't really support it. Definitely worth your time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> Rich Hickey has a lot of excellent stuff to say. Not only are his ideas philosophically sound, but also real, practical and ready to use in the form of Clojure.

This recent review "10 years of Clojure", encapsulates a lot of of the wisdom:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V1FtfBDsLU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V1FtfBDsLU)

<comment><USER61> Agreed! "Hammock driven development" definitely has stuck with me over the years: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f84n5oFoZBc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> Not the best I've seen but definitively one I would like to recover the link to : a Googler presentation where she explain how they took about 2 years developing a memory optimisation (circa 2007~2009 IIRC) and manage to finish a few months before it became indispensable because they were about to have an hardware shortage. They were consuming hardware faster than the industry could produce. I just can't remember who she was nor the link. Does it rings a bell to anyone ?

<comment><USER63> I'm guessing it could be Anna Patterson ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Patterson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anna_Patterson))

<comment><USER64> This is the only video where she mentions working on the problem - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7rzFqP3daI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7rzFqP3daI)

<comment><USER62> Hum, no it was not her. I think it was a Google I/O on googlevideo at the time but I could be wrong. My memory is a bit fuzzy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> SVG can do that?! (Sarah Drasner) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADXX4fmWHbo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADXX4fmWHbo)

</comment><comment><USER66> The use and abuse of CT scanners

[https://media.ccc.de/v/emf2018-65-the-use-and-abuse-of-ct- sc...](https://media.ccc.de/v/emf2018-65-the-use-and-abuse-of-ct-scanners)

Truly fascinating talk about the capability of CT scanners, not in a medical environment. I don't want to say much more as I don't want to give any spoilers.

</comment><comment><USER67> I don't know if it is part of the bests, but very interesting anyway: Modern Dictionaries by Raymond Hettinger [1] It's about Python 3.6 dictionaries improvements.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p33CVV29OG8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p33CVV29OG8)

</comment><comment><USER68> Jake Archibald's "In the Loop", Visual explanation of how the javascript event loop works! Awesome video for every javascript developer.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOL7MC4Pl0&t=153s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOL7MC4Pl0&t=153s)

</comment><comment><USER69> Jake Archibald talking about the javascript event loop and actually making it both entertaining and easily grokable! [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOL7MC4Pl0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCOL7MC4Pl0)

<comment><USER70> Another event loop talk from Philip Roberts. The tool he created to display the event loop in real time is fantastic. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aGhZQkoFbQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aGhZQkoFbQ)

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I'll call out one channel that I haven't seen on this thread -- the Computer History Museum in Mountain View publishes some astonishing oral history videos, presentations and other footage. So many of the challenges that pioneers faced in the past have historical resonance; and unlike almost any other major human revolution, the pioneers of our space are captured in video that is readily available to all.

So you can hear the likes of Fred Brooks talking about IBM's approach to unifying operating system interfaces with System/360[1], Bjarne Stroustrup describing the origins of C++ [2], or watching Charles Simonyi and Tom Malloy demonstrating Bravo, the Xerox PARC document writer [3].

Some quite astonishing material hidden in their archive that hasn't in my view had nearly the audience it deserves.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0_Lzb1CJw&t=5422s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8c0_Lzb1CJw&t=5422s))

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69edOm889V4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=69edOm889V4)

[3] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Na1SJXSBg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_Na1SJXSBg)

</comment><comment><USER72> "Papers I Have Loved" by Casey Muratori is a talk about CS algorithms useful in the game industry. [https://youtu.be/SDS5gLSiLg0](https://youtu.be/SDS5gLSiLg0)

</comment><comment><USER73> The Haskell Journey from Simon Peter-Jones: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re96UgMk6GQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=re96UgMk6GQ)

</comment><comment><USER74> Here is a good one that come to mind:

1\. This one is alive demo where the speaker derives the Y Combinator from first principles. A really interesting exposition of functional programming at its finest. Link: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FITJMJjASUs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FITJMJjASUs)

</comment><comment><USER75> What has my compiler done for me lately? - Matt Godbolt

[https://youtu.be/bSkpMdDe4g4](https://youtu.be/bSkpMdDe4g4)

Entertaining talk, not extremely in depth, though.

</comment><comment><USER76> Java Puzzlers by Joshua Bloch and Jeremy Manson are pretty entertaining. For a pretty bog standard language, Java has some more exotic corners: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbp-3BJWsU8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wbp-3BJWsU8)

</comment><comment><USER77> I really enjoyed "The Birth And Death Of Javascript".

[https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and- death...](https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/the-birth-and-death-of- javascript)

</comment><comment><USER78> [https://techyaks.com/](https://techyaks.com/)

From a Show HN: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17988464](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17988464)

<comment><USER79> I've been using this for finding videos to watch while eating and its been great.

A lot of talks here do show up in the feed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Richard Hamming (as in Hamming codes, Bell labs etc): "You and Your Research". This had a profound effect on me at 18 when I heard him present it (it was by then a "set piece" talk) and it still holds valuable advice for me now.

In general his published talks have all been good.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1zDuOPkMSw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1zDuOPkMSw) or just read it at [https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dahlin/bookshelf/hamming.html](https://www.cs.utexas.edu/~dahlin/bookshelf/hamming.html)

</comment><comment><USER81> Breaking the x86 Instruction Set by Christopher Domas. [https://youtu.be/KrksBdWcZgQ](https://youtu.be/KrksBdWcZgQ)

I found it easy to follow and pretty entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER82> Probably one of the best introduction/starter to network programming with Golang. I love this talk. The speaker doesn't just throw a bunch of terms and theory at you, or slides, he just gets into the code and solves the problems as they arise. Pretty good talk even if you are not interested in the network programming. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afSiVelXDTQ&t=1208s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afSiVelXDTQ&t=1208s)

<comment> another-cuppa Did you mean to start the video half way through?

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> Here are some of my favorites:

How To Design A Good API and Why it Matters [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAb7hSCtvGw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aAb7hSCtvGw)

Agile Methods The Good, the Hype and the Ugly [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffkIQrq-m34&t=420s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ffkIQrq-m34&t=420s)

</comment><comment><USER84> Implementing a Strong Code-Review Culture: Derek Prior (2015) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJjmw9TRB7s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PJjmw9TRB7s)

I guess this is more of a 'soft talk' but I still reference this all the time and watch it at least once a year. One of the more relevant and practical talks for any software company.

</comment><comment><USER85> I recommend Sean Parent's talks: [http://sean-parent.stlab.cc/papers-and- presentations/](http://sean-parent.stlab.cc/papers-and-presentations/). Pretty much everything is very good. It's usually C++-centric, but his subjects are deep enough to be useful to software engineering in any language.

<comment><USER50> Is he still on réversible computations ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> You Spent All That Money And You Still Got Pwned by Joseph Mccray [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJsNu0VRKYY&t=14s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJsNu0VRKYY&t=14s)

Very terse and content rich security walkthrough of corporate IT security fails by Joseph. I find delivery also highly entertaining.

</comment><comment><USER86> Propositions as Types by Philip Wadler

A really in depth look into why functional languages stand out as a programming paradigm. The short of it being that they parallel perfectly (almost proof for proof!) with mathematical logic.

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

</comment><comment><USER87> Hacking the mind, how to get your brain into the right mode

Marty Lobdell - Study Less Study Smart [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlU- zDU6aQ0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlU-zDU6aQ0)

AJ Jacobs: The Importance of Self-Delusion in the Creative Process" [https://vimeo.com/68572000](https://vimeo.com/68572000)

\--

On Machine Learning biases

Aylin Caliskan - A Story of Discrimination and Unfairness [https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8026-a_story_of_discrimination_a...](https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8026-a_story_of_discrimination_and_unfairness)

\--

On scaling test automation, why scaling does not deliver the value you want

GTAC2016: Scale vs Value - Test Automation at the BBC [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkPHntWZAPc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkPHntWZAPc)

\--

On Future of Machine Learning

Joscha Bach - Machine Dreams (33c3) [https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8369-machine_dreams](https://media.ccc.de/v/33c3-8369-machine_dreams)

Joscha Bach - Computational Meta-Psychology (32c3) [https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7483-computational_meta- psycholo...](https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7483-computational_meta-psychology)

Joscha Bach - From Computation to Consciousness (31c3) [https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6573_-_en_- _saal_2_-_201412281...](https://media.ccc.de/v/31c3_-_6573_-_en_- _saal_2_-_201412281130_-_from_computation_to_consciousness_-_joscha)

[Edit] Layout

</comment><comment><USER88> The Scandalous Story of Dreadful Code Written by the Best of Us - by Katrina Owen [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp_ST9nbf5M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lp_ST9nbf5M)

This talk made a strong impression on me when I was figuring out how to write more beautiful, and more readable code.

</comment><comment><USER89> I like the talk by Ryan Dahl, node.js inventor

Original Node JS Presentation, 2009, [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztspvPYybIY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztspvPYybIY)

In 2018 he gave a follow-up presentation "10 things I regret about node", but that presentation is more for experts.

</comment><comment><USER90> Steve Yegge talking about the system he built at Google, called Grok: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJs-0EInW8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTJs-0EInW8).

If we have anything half that good in the wider programming community in twenty years time, I will be very surprised.

</comment><comment><USER91> Recent Previous: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12637239](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12637239)

Slightly old: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838460](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16838460)

</comment><comment><USER92> Many years ago, I had the privilege of having Prof Peter Saunders as my MSc adviser while at King's College London. Peter Saunders was (apart from being a great educationalist), the person who did the maths behind James Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis. He was far and away the best maths teacher I ever had.

Anyway, he also taught a dynamical systems (chaos theory) class to a mixture of MSc students and final year undergrads. On this occasion, he was explaining some principle, and was busy talking while writing on the board.

He turns round, and there is a sea of blank looking faces in front of him. No one has understood.

"Well it's obvious" he says, and turns back to the board.

2 minutes later, he turns back. Now there is a sea of bored looking faces in front of him. Why?

Well it's obvious...

Everyone understood completely. Genius at work

</comment><comment><USER93> CCC (Lange, Domke) - The exhaust emissions scandal ("Dieselgate")

[https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scand...](https://media.ccc.de/v/32c3-7331-the_exhaust_emissions_scandal_dieselgate)

</comment><comment><USER94> Demo of Ivan Sutherland's 1963 Sketchpad:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6orsmFndx_o](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6orsmFndx_o)

It was a drawing app with the following features:

Snap to object ("This allows me to be sloppy while I'm drawing and get a precision drawing at the same time"), connected vectors, arcs, alignment with other objects, copying, multiple "files," scaling ("It scales approximately 2 miles in size"), 3D, etc etc

It blows me away that this kind of UI was even conceived in the 1960s. It feels like there was a dark ages middle period after then until quite recently.

</comment><comment><USER95> I hope this isn't too much of a stretch. Heard it recently and thought it was really interesting.

[https://youtu.be/4YYvBLAF4T8](https://youtu.be/4YYvBLAF4T8)

<comment><USER14> It's a stretch to expect me to click on it without you saying what it is!

<comment><USER96> It's funny that you do go to the trouble of commenting this, which probably takes longer and more effort than clicking the link. I do get your point though.

<comment><USER14> I was doing it for everyone, not just for me. Your comment adds nothing to HN except ill-feeling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER97> Jim Weirich's talks about "connascence".

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22vYwcfQnk8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22vYwcfQnk8)

</comment><comment><USER98> "The Power of Composition" by Scott Wlaschin

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

</comment><comment><USER99> "Elixir should take over the world" by Jessica Kerr [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X25xOhntr6s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X25xOhntr6s)

Despite the title is about Elixir, Jessica exposes a lot of topics like how ideas arise at the same time from different people, what different programming paradigms offer and how can they work together, error handling in a myriad of paths, and mainly people.

</comment><comment> jor-el Thomas Dullien (halvarflake) on security, moore's law and anomaly of cheap complexity. In the talk Thomas discusses the idea why simplicity is important and how increasing complexity increases attack surface.

[https://www.err.ee/836236/video-google-0-projekti- tarkvarain...](https://www.err.ee/836236/video-google-0-projekti- tarkvarainseneri-ettekanne-cyconil)

</comment><comment><USER100> After seeing the top-voted one, perhaps I should hesitate here. But I do remember Kevin Loney's "Controlled Flight into Terrain", on what you can do wrong with databases, as very good. I saw it at a regional Oracle users group years ago.

More recently I have looked at Raymond Hettinger's "Beyond PEP 8--Best Practices for Beautiful Intelligible Code", and I hope improved my Python as a result.

</comment><comment><USER101> "Where in the World Is Carmen Sandiego?" by Karsten Nohl and Nemanja Nikodijevic from CCC 2016. It exposes how insanely ancient and insecure the global flight booking system is, allowing for stealing of personal information and even other people's flight tickets.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8WVo- YLyAg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n8WVo-YLyAg)

</comment><comment><USER102> Silver bullet: Hadi Hariri (2015) - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wyd6J3yjcs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wyd6J3yjcs)

Every time people think a technology will solve all their problems (remember guys from NOSQL back in the days?), they need to see this talk. The speaker also did this talk as a keynote a couple of times during other conferences.

</comment><comment><USER103> It's not directly technical although it does speak about technical things, but Steve Blank's talks about the "secret history" of Silicon Valley are amazing. He's got some on YouTube, and links to some on his blog. He talks about how different tech was made to fight the Nazis, Soviets and co and how they made their own tech, and how it just became an arms race, whilst also spawning a good chunk of Silicon Valley startups and how it affected VC money down road. You get tech and Silicon Valley (/ and) history and business all in one.

[https://steveblank.com/secret-history/](https://steveblank.com/secret- history/)

</comment><comment><USER104> Miško Hevery's talks on writing testable code. Watching those videos immediately made me a better developer, lots of well explained, practical advice: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcT4yYu_TTs&index=6&list=PLD...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XcT4yYu_TTs&index=6&list=PLD0011D00849E1B79)

</comment><comment><USER105> 21st Century Application Architectures by Werner Vogels, 2013 [https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/4023-21st-century- appli...](https://skillsmatter.com/skillscasts/4023-21st-century-application- architectures)

I can't even say how many times I recommended someone to watch it - <USER2> today, 5 years after.

</comment><comment><USER106> GOTO 2016 • Secure Coding Patterns • Andreas Hallberg

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqd9bxy5Hvc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqd9bxy5Hvc)

Simple advice to create more secure and imho bug-free code.

Some of his advice:

Let functions return what they promise. Don't return null or false, but throw exceptions.

Use immutable objects.

Use domain objects.

Don't black-list: white-list.

</comment><comment><USER94> Not so much technical, but my favourite talk _about_ technology and more:

"Back to the Future (of 1994)." Danny Hillis (1994). 19 mins

[https://www.ted.com/talks/danny_hillis_back_to_the_future_of...](https://www.ted.com/talks/danny_hillis_back_to_the_future_of_1994)

</comment><comment><USER107> Messaging at Scale at Instagram - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E708csv4XgY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E708csv4XgY)

Covers many things but I specifically got to understand how they use Redis to manage stuff like photo updates to follower / following lists.

</comment><comment><USER108> Play CTF! A Great Way to Learn Hacking by LiveOverflow [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfjV8XukxO8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfjV8XukxO8)

This talk is less technical than his other videos, but really catches the spirit of discovery, failure and learning.

</comment><comment><USER109> Making impossible states impossible" by Richard Feldman: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcgmSRJHu_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcgmSRJHu_8) has really changed the way I approach dealing with data in my code and was very insightful.

</comment><comment><USER110> Technically not a tech talk but since it was at Talks at Google, this one: Frank Abagnale: "Catch Me If You Can" | Talks at Google - <USER3>

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMydMDi3rI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsMydMDi3rI)

</comment><comment><USER111> Ian Cooper's "TDD, Where Did It All Go Wrong" (which Uncle Bob Martin has recommended on his Twitter): [https://dev.tube/video/EZ05e7EMOLM](https://dev.tube/video/EZ05e7EMOLM)

</comment><comment><USER112> Zebras All the Way Down - Bryan Cantrill, Uptime 2017 [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE2KDzZaxvE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE2KDzZaxvE)

Lots of great tangents that add to the subjects. I love talks like this.

</comment><comment><USER113> Douglas Crockford on the good parts of Javascript [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEzQf147-uEpvTa1bHDNl...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEzQf147-uEpvTa1bHDNlxUL2klHUMHJu)

<comment><USER114> I excitedly clicked this link, thinking I'd love some insight from the JavaScript an himself. I can't digest 104 videos, I was hoping for a really good 1~2 hour presentation. I'm going to cherry pick a video or two, if anybody has a favorite they can recommend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER115> A Better Default Colormap for Matplotlib ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAoljeRJ3lU))

This talk is made better by the fact that it's rather brief (~20min).

</comment><comment><USER116> The CMU Database Lecture series is great. Requires a fair amount of background knowledge on how DBs work to follow though.

[https://db.cs.cmu.edu/seminar2018/](https://db.cs.cmu.edu/seminar2018/)

</comment><comment><USER117> Here's a list that I've curated over the past several years: [https://github.com/JanVanRyswyck/awesome- talks](https://github.com/JanVanRyswyck/awesome-talks)

<comment><USER118> Thanks for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER119> Brendan Gregg's talks on Linux performance. Scroll down to "Talks": [http://www.brendangregg.com/linuxperf.html](http://www.brendangregg.com/linuxperf.html)

</comment><comment><USER120> Statistics for Hackers by Jake Vanderplas [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq9DzN6mvYA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iq9DzN6mvYA)

A really nice intuitive intro to resampling methods.

</comment><comment><USER121> Uncle Bob and his talks about architecture are a must. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEeEic-c0D4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JEeEic-c0D4)

</comment><comment><USER122> You may like [https://techyaks.com](https://techyaks.com) — it's a site with over 80K software development tech talks ranked algorithmically.

</comment><comment><USER123> Programming with nothing by Tom Stuart [https://codon.com/programming-with- nothing](https://codon.com/programming-with-nothing)

</comment><comment><USER124> Rob Pike - 'Concurrency Is Not Parallelism'

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

<comment><USER125> And Concurrency Is Not Not Parallelism

</comment></comment><comment><USER126> MIT Pathway to Fusion Energy:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0KuAx1COEk)

</comment><comment><USER127> Greg Young - The art of destroying software

He has a few talks that he barely uses any presentation material and it's very good.

</comment><comment><USER128> Any episode of The Ben Heck Show on YouTube.

</comment><comment><USER129> Kent Beck - <USER4>

</comment><comment><USER130> _10+ deployments per day from Velocity 2009._ It was really a pivotal talk in the early days of the DevOps movement

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdOe18KhtT4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdOe18KhtT4)

 _Fixing Twitter: Improving the Performance and Scalability of the World 's Most Popular Micro-blogging Site_ by John Adams (then from Twitter)at Velocity 2009 (Velocity 2009 was really an incredibly pivotal and influential conference in the DevOps movement).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X_ed6GPofQ&t=26s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9X_ed6GPofQ&t=26s)

 _Bootstrapping an Infrastructure_ by Steve Traugott at Lisa 1998. I don't know of any videos of the talk, but the related paper eventually lead to Puppet and the beginning of the modern configuration management software

[https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Bootstrapping-an- Infra...](https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Bootstrapping-an- Infrastructure-Traugott-Huddleston/aa92492a7c2d240dee0f006a0fe6a0bf401e628a)

 _There is no talent shortage_ by Andrew Schaefer, co-founder of Puppet from Velocity NYC 2013.

[https://vimeo.com/75670082](https://vimeo.com/75670082)

(edited for consistant formatting)

</comment><comment><USER128> YouTube is absolutely packed with technical channels on any software / computing topic that interests you.

<comment><USER131> ...and youtube doesn't have everything.

e.g. What we actually know about Software Development and why we know it's true.

[https://vimeo.com/9270320](https://vimeo.com/9270320)

Seriously, what was the point of your comment?</comment></comment>


Microsoft sends GitHub DMCA shutdown for Skype open source project - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/db9b442f0ac68512d0ca83fe7b25a7f9bf766e63

<comment><USER2> Please note: this is not an attempt to clean-room reverse engineer Skype, or even to reverse engineer and create an open-source replacement. As shown with things like WINE, Microsoft does not (and probably cannot) take them down.

No, that's not what "Skype Open Source" project is. This is a confusingly misnamed attempt to attach code to patched copies of copyrighted official Skype clients.

Microsoft is not overreaching here; this is what anyone would expect with a lame project like this. I'd love if someone really created an open-source Skype client, but this is not a project to do that.

<comment><USER3> How exactly is one supposed to make a clean-room reverse engineering in the absence of any documentation and sophisticated obfuscation on Skype's part ?

<comment><USER4> Maybe then you're not "supposed" to do it?

For example, there is no reverse engineered libraries for Facetime and iOS API. If you use Apple's libraries, they can come after you for copyright infringement.

<comment><USER5> Cappuccino is exactly such a reverse engineered library, as is gnu step. For that matter Linux is a reverse engineered drop in replacement for the unix kernel.

<comment><USER6> I'm not familiar enough with Cappuccino to comment, but GNU Step was an independent implementation of the published OpenStep interfaces. That isn't reverse engineering.

Linux is an independent implementation of the Posix interfaces.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> How about "Skype: The Missing Technical Manual"?

MS will contribute nothing to the state of the art of free voice and video calls over the internet. As is so often the case, what they purchased with the Skype deal was a user base. One that they could never obtain with the own products.

There is a way to do this without violating copyright.

Do not waste time duplicating the P2P element of Skype (the P2P protocol). P2P protocols have been done, several ways, some of them are easily good enough, maybe even smarter than Skype's (e.g., avoiding the exposure of your IP to the entire internet) and enough of the code is GPL'd or BSD licensed to keep things open. We have ample solutions for P2P. View that as the "open platform".

Now you need "apps" to run on it. First one is a softphone, but with Skype's codecs.

Focus on creating a standalone softphone using Skype's codecs.

Does MS have exclusive rights (patent rights) on Skype's codecs? Not even close. They did not develop them. The patent license could fit on a single page; it's as simple as they come: build stuff, pay nothing.

<http://developer.skype.com/silk>

<comment><USER8> If you don't want to be compatible with Skype, you don't need their codecs. There are plenty of good voice codecs around, freely licensable.

The issue is how to tap into the existing Skype userbase -- receive and make calls to Skype clients -- from an open-source client.

<comment><USER7> I agree tapping into the existing userbase is enticing. And that's no doubt what some people are trying to do (e.g. the Russians).

But all VOIP codecs are not created equal. Skype's success is not due to NAT piercing. Even though Skype easy to use, maybe easier than previous SIP alternatives, if calls sounded terrible, people would not use it. Skype's success is due to being usable and having decent sound quality. They did not use the decades old codecs other softphones used. They wrote new ones. And anyone can use them.

Using the same codec as Skype uses should not in any way bind you to their network. It has nothing to do with compatibility. It has to due with getting Skype-level sound quality. Quality that the older codecs have failed to deliver.

It's easy to get people to sign up for free voice and video calls. The key word is "free". You do not have to find inroads into the "Skype user base". Skype spread by word of mouth. If people learn about another client that works as well or better (same sound quality), and it's easy to use, they will almost certainly try it.

Forgive me if I have misunderstood what you were trying to say in your comment. But I do not understand your reasoning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Better link: [https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/db9b442f0ac68512d0ca83fe...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/db9b442f0ac68512d0ca83fe7b25a7f9bf766e63/2012-05-01-microsoft.markdown)

<comment><USER10> even better link:

[https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/db9b442f0ac68512d0ca83fe...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/db9b442f0ac68512d0ca83fe7b25a7f9bf766e63/2012-05-01-microsoft.markdown)

(rendered into human readable)

<comment><USER9> That is the _exact_ link I posted?

<comment><USER10> funny, because i got to a page showing the diff, and i thought i linked to the rendered page.

anyway, my apologies, no disrespect, have a nice day.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This seems legitimate and they are well within their right to do this as the copyright holder.

</comment><comment><USER12> The authors website is <http://skype-open-source.blogspot.com/>

Apparently he had already been served with DCMA takedown requests. And talks about deofuscation. Doesn't sound like a cleanroom implementación.

<comment><USER13> Now, we are working on stage1, make working code and do specification. Takedown was because of patched binary which reversers used as black box for make specifications.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This project was recently discussed on HN at <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3899829>

<comment><USER14> You linked to a discussion of a tool that lets you lookup the IP addresses of Skype users (which seems like it might have been developed with this tool), but I think you meant to link to <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3753155>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Was the code mirrored anywhere offshore before the takedown? Could someone re- host it?

<comment><USER13> Rehosted to <https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Can someone explain why Microsoft would go to such length obfuscating the Skype code and taking down derivative work?

Is their IP worth the trouble? Do they see interoperability as a threat? Are they afraid of misbehaving clients?

Surely it's not just a case of a lawyer having too much time on his hands.

</comment><comment><USER13> We are appreciate you help on working on Epycs - reverse engineer skype project.

Feel free to study current implementation stage here - <https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs>

<comment><USER13> This is first stage of 'clean room' reversing process - writing specification.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> If I am not mistaken it's not the first time Skype send a DMCA to this project. But given where the autor lives, the DMCA does not apply so it doesn't go anywhere.

<comment><USER18> AFAIK the DMCA takedown applies to Github, who are in the US, regardless of where the author of the project lives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This probably has something to do with this exploit: <http://pastebin.com/yhcrRSVh>

</comment><comment><USER20> So I guess they should rename it Skipe open source.

<comment><USER21> "Skype: patched and recompiled to do other stuff" is a better title. Decompiling a proprietary product, changing a few lines of code, and then releasing that code doesn't make it "open source", it makes it stolen code (semantics of "piracy is not theft" aside, it's still not his code to be releasing in it's entirety.).

<comment><USER13> You are wrong. Decompiling is just allowing research deeper in skype-black- box. Project itself is here <https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs>

<comment><USER22> If you want to stay within the law my understanding is that you need to distribute patches against decompiled Skype rather than decompiled Skype with patches applied, otherwise you're distributing a derivative work. This may still be a legal grey area though. IANAL, you ANAL, we all ANAL and that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So much for Microsoft loving the open-source movement.

<comment><USER24> heh, did you look at the project? It's not open source, it's a decompiled Skype binary.

<comment><USER13> No, its not. Decompiled binary just need for reversing. Open source clone of skype is Epycs(reverse enginered skype). <https://github.com/skypeopensource/epycs>

<comment><USER25> I think you'll have some trouble fighting MS to prove that your open source version isn't directly based on code you got from the decompiled binary.

As other have said, it's better to follow the clean-room process and define the specification. Then someone else can implement it in a legally safe manner.

The specification by itself would be an enormous contribution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> MS can't catch a break... They defend their copyrights and get slammed on Hacker News for not being "cool" with the OSS community infringing on their properties. Weak sauce, Hacker News.

<comment><USER27> Where do you see people slamming Microsoft in this thread?

<comment><USER26> The post of this just implied, to me, that Microsoft is evil for putting in a take-down request. Why else post this? There are literally hundreds of take- down notices on GitHub. Why post this one?

<comment><USER28> Flag the post and move on. I don't see any Microsoft hating here, most of the posts are about Microsoft being in their right to take down a project that uses their copyrighted binaries and is distributing them wholesale after adding some extra code...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The States With The Highest Percentage Of Native-Born Residents - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/states-with-the-most-natives-2013-9

<comment><AUTHOR> Alternately look at the light colored states and those are apparently the places the most people move to...

Florida I get with all the retirees, but what is up with Northern Idaho?

(guessing that is just lack of data)

<comment><USER2> My theory on northern Idaho is that it is a thin strip of state between two other states. If people are likely to live and die within 1-hour of where they are born (let's say the hump of the bell curve is one hour), then that strip is going to get a fair number of people from the two states on each side.

I wonder if you can correct this map to discount people who moved across state lines, but did not move more than 1-2 hours from their place of birth.</comment></comment>


Tips for a young dreamer and developer [Help] - <AUTHOR> Hello, I've just turned 18 years old and since my 08 years I program (Visual Basic, Python, C, C + +, Ruby, D, Javascript and others) and in these 10 years I have learned a lot!
Currently I am dedicated to making startups and projects, and I have great interest in furthering me in math (currently reading "Discrete Mathematics with Applications") and artificial intelligence.
My big problem is:
- What language study the background to artificial intelligence? (Clojure, Lisp, Haskell, Scala, Python?)
- Which books to be read based on artificial intelligence and then continue in other subdivisions?
Thanks to everyone, and unfortunately I did not know whom to seek to take these doubts. Today I live in Brazil, and is very difficult to find people who can help me with this, most young people are in parties or playing games ): <comment><USER2> AI is a very broad field. Much of the academic "classical" AI requires some advanced math to understand in depth.

A fun place to start is video game AI because it is visual. For example, path- finding algorithms, the ghost AI in pacman, chess/checkers, bots which play video games.

Another fun visual subfield is computer vision. If you have a webcam, you could get OpenCV and play around with recognizing faces and motion detection.

If you are really into math, I always think that attempting an automated theorem prover would be fun. It is an up and coming science (in fact there was a HN post today about it), and I bet there are a lot of ad hoc approaches you could take if you choose a specific area of math.

If you want something very practical, nowadays search/recommendations/etc. are important on the web. There are some high-rated books on Collective Intelligence that are more practical-minded than the academic AI classics. And mining the web for a dataset could be a fun project.

As for the best language, it depends on which subfield you want to pursue. Scheme/Lisp are probably the most strongly associated with AI. However, in practice they are rarely used. I would say it does not matter, as long as you are motivated :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thank you! I will look for Recommendations Algorithms and I will try implement the A* Algorithm.

You have some recommendations in math books?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Hello,

I think it's great that you are motivated to study such topics. First, I think it would be useful for you to define what you actually want to learn. There is a difference in what has traditionally been called "AI" and what is called "Machine Learning" today. While these two fields are related and some people say that ML is a subfield of AI, both tend to focus on very different problems. Today, "Machine Learning" has taken a lot of the attention away from traditional AI (mainly due to the lack of results in making truly intelligent machines)

Here are some topics I think of when hearing AI vs. Machine Learning:

AI

\- Robotics

\- Intelligent Machines, e.g. for question answering

\- Natural Language understanding (Not NLP, I mean _understanding_ )

\- Game playing/planning

Machine Learning

\- Making predictions (Often synonymous with "big data analytics" these days)

\- Recommendation Systems

\- Finding Patterns (Data Mining)

\- "Data Science" techniques

In Machine Learning, Python is the de-facto standard language both in Academia and Industry, mainly because because of its excellent libraries. In terms of resources, I can also highly recommend the Coursera ML class, as well as statistics classes to get started. From there you can dive deeper into any of the topics you are interested in.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have a little skype group where we discuss AI. If you are interested you can add me on skype: Switch336

As for learning AI it is best to learn it in the language that you are strongest in or a language that is easy to understand the semantics from it. For that matter Lua, Ruby, and Python are fairly commonplace for people trying to learn how to use AI. But AI algorithms can be written in any language really.

I'd suggest books with common examples of AI; like [https://github.com/jbrownlee/CleverAlgorithms](https://github.com/jbrownlee/CleverAlgorithms). He uses ruby for most of their examples but they are fairly understandable.

If you cannot get the books you want. You may be better off checking out the source codes at least. There are tons of free online books if you do some more searching. And you can even read some online ipython notebooks or blog posts about AI that may be more helpful.

Anyways, the more the merrier for discussions. So feel free to join our group. Just give me a message and I'll add you :D.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hello, thanks! I've invited you in Skype.

But isn't better use a Functional Language, for example, math functions act like a function in a functional language?

<comment><USER5> If you're good with math and interested in machine learning, I'd recommend checking out Theano's Deep Learning Tutorials: [http://deeplearning.net/tutorial/](http://deeplearning.net/tutorial/)

Theano is a python library that basically compiles graphs of mathematical functions into highly-optimized C code. For computationally-intensive AI applications (ie, all the fun stuff), there's nothing that I've found better than Theano.

If you work through the tutorials (I re-wrote each example from scratch using them as a guide), you'll get a pretty good feel for how to use it.

I would strongly recommend Andrew Ng's coursera course on ML as a starting point, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think Python has become a de-facto standard language for machine learning (not necessarily academic AI research). The book Collective Intelligence by O'Reilly is a great overview of ML techniques, and it uses Python. You might also want to take the Coursera ML class. If you sign up today, you might not even miss the deadline for Week 1 coursework. (And if you do it's not that bad.) That uses Octave, not Python, but you'd still learn a lot. You might also meet like-minded people in the course forums.</comment>


I'm in the 1 Percent. Please, Raise My Taxes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/25/opinion/taxes-debates-eli-broad.html <comment><USER2> Sounds just like Warren Buffett: [http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett- wants-to-tax-rich-mor...](http://money.com/money/5636661/buffett-wants-to-tax- rich-more/)

Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85% (!): [https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Feder...](https://web.stanford.edu/class/polisci120a/immigration/Federal%20Tax%20Brackets.pdf)

Now, this doesn't directly translate to higher taxes on the wealthy (there are a lot of factors that go into effective tax rate) but it puts the handwringing around AOC's 70% top tax bracket in perspective.

<comment><USER3> > Reminder that during the time generally pointed to as 'the good old days' > (the 1950s) the top tax bracket was 85%

...but pretty much nobody in those brackets actually paid those rates:

[https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollyw...](https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-29/hollywood- stars-didn-t-pay-90-percent-tax-they-created-loopholes)

(edit)

To the people who don't get the point:

Taxes never were that high in reality, so we can't draw any conclusions on what such a high tax would actually do.

People may have this fantasy about rich people that they're just hoarding money like a dragon hoards gold. In reality, rich people invest their money, which the government _wants them to do_ , so they don't tax investments (capital gains) that highly.

<comment><USER2> Is your argument that because people can evade taxes that we shouldn't collect taxes?

<comment><USER4> The argument is that the 85% tax bracket was never really 85%, so it doesn't set a valid precedent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's always been fascinating to me that "things that poor people spend most of their money on" is subject to a sales tax but "things rich people spend most of their money on" isn't.

Services from beauty shops, car repair, home maintenance and repair? Taxed. Services from lawyers and accountants? Not taxed.

Buying a TV, food, gasoline? Taxed. Buying a piece of land or stocks? Not taxed.

<comment><USER6> Land is taxed yearly. Stocks are taxed in cases where you profit from their sale. Dividends are also taxed in most cases as ordinary income.

I can see merit in taxing both transactions for land in stocks, but it's inaccurate to say that they aren't taxed.

You can also argue that buying land is way more necessary than a TV. Everyone needs to live on a piece of land, not everyone needs (or wants) a TV.

<comment><USER5> Other "poor people" expenses are subject to both sales tax and ownership tax, like vehicles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> IMO, their taxable "income" is typically very less.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is a great idea, but Eli doesn't need to wait for the law to be changed. He can donate as much as he wants directly to the US government right now. [https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to- government.html](https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html)

<comment><USER9> Except raising tax rates on everyone above a certain income is much more effective than one person voluntarily donating.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but why does he need to wait for everyone else to support it? He should set a positive example by dumping his own money into the treasury first. After all, he really does believe in this and it's not just virtue-signaling.

<comment><USER10> Errr you can't just hand the government money randomly. You have to owe it to them. It all has to add up in some way and be accounted for.

<comment><USER8> That's not true. There's a system for sending gifts to the treasury right here: [https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to- government.html](https://fiscal.treasury.gov/public/gifts-to-government.html)

<comment><USER11> It's a funny and forgotten relic. Many countries had similar schemes from around the same era.

There was a fashion to bequeath part of your estate to the government "to pay down the national debt". It was thought the patriotic thing to do. Obviously little impact was made on national debts. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Can't they just pay more tax dollars that is higher than they are obliged to pay? I guess this is America.

</comment><comment><USER3> That's an admirable expression of morals, but everyone with a calculator figure out that the 1% don't have enough money to pay for a welfare state.

The plain truth is, if you want a welfare state, the middle class has to pay for it:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global- opinions/demo...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/global- opinions/democrats-use-nordic-nations-as-models-of-socialism-they-actually- involve-a-lot-of- capitalism/2019/06/24/b6d9bbdc-945c-11e9-b58a-a6a9afaa0e3e_story.html)

I was really glad to find the _Washington Post_ publish this. Perhaps it will wake up some people to the questionable promises that certain Democrats are espousing currently.

(The wording of this comment was edited to cause less offense)

<comment><USER13> Can you clarify why you believe this is a "virtue signal?" You're the second person in this thread to do so.

My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action." And yet:

> Two decades ago I turned full-time to philanthropy and threw myself into > supporting public education, scientific and medical research, and visual and > performing arts, believing it was my responsibility to give back some of > what had so generously been given to me.

In the article he's saying this isn't enough. So, why use the term "virtue signal?" Are you arguing that he's doing nothing about the issue but writing a blog post?

<comment><USER3> > My understanding of "virtue signal" means promoting "virtue" over "action."

That's a misunderstanding.

(edit)

"Virtue signalling is the conspicuous expression of moral values"

That's the definition on Wikipedia, which I agree with.

(edit 2)

I don't think of it in terms of "right" and "wrong".

<comment><USER13> So, what does "virtue signal" mean to you, and why should we care that you're describing someone with it? I.e., why is it "bad?"

I'm working off the definition I found on wikipedia:

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

> In recent years, the term has been more commonly used within groups to > criticize those who are seen to value the expression of virtue over action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Does IRS prohibit people from paying extra in tax if they want to?

<comment><USER15> If you were a military commander and someone proposed attacking an opposing force with a unified front, would your answer be "You're welcome to go out there and attack them yourself if you want to"?

The point is to enact tax policy that applies to everyone, so that the sum total of the changes can actually make an impact. Saying "well people can always donate to the treasury" is a ridiculous way of dismissing it.

<comment><USER4> I'd actually love to see politicians who voted for overseas wars visit the war zone (though I know it's impractical).

The point is that nobody will take you seriously until you show some concrete action. It's easy to claim that you'll give your money willingly, if you know that it's extremely unlikely to happen.

<comment><USER8> I'd love to see politicians who voted for overseas wars have to fight in those wars, especially if it was impractical.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If you took the total combined wealth of the wealthiest 100 Americans, you wouldn't be able to fund the federal government for more than half a year or so.

Taxing the rich sounds nice as virtuous political rhetoric but it won't effectively address poverty, just further erodes the liberty of private citizens. If you want to fund more social programs then tax corporations, like the oil companies and the large investment firms, like ExxonMobil and Goldman Sachs. Don't punish success.

<comment><USER17> > just further erodes the liberty of private citizens

How does taxation do this? Taxation is a mechanism for funding the maintenance of an ordered society which enables extreme wealth creation. It's the wealthiest citizens who benefit the most from law enforcement, infrastructure, and national defence.

<comment><USER16> Taxation is well-acknowledged a trade-off between liberty and social responsibility.

This is a new type of tax that has never been implemented in the US. If the goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that. So what is the goal?

<comment><USER9> > If the goal is to reduce poverty, it won't do that.

[citation needed]

<comment><USER16> Do you really think an extra $100B-$200B added to federal revenue of currently ~$3.6T (5%) will have any noticeable effect on poverty?

<comment><USER9> Yes, because the amount the US spends on welfare is a smaller fraction of the whole budget. For example, the US spends around ~$100 billion on food assistance [1]. Wikipedia estimates that all non-medical poverty assistance accounts for around $400 billion of the US budget [2]. Increasing expenditure by 10-20% (or even 5%) will almost certainly have a noticeable effect on poverty.

[1] [https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget- graphic....](https://media.nationalpriorities.org/uploads/budget-graphic.png) [2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_Sta...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expenditures_in_the_United_States_federal_budget#Mandatory_spending_and_entitlements)

<comment><USER16> Yeah I don't think increasing welfare is really the solution to ending poverty. Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty, not to mention the waste endemic to bureaucratic administration. How about instead of taxing individuals we tax corporations to incentivize paying their workers more?

<comment><USER9> > Lots of evidence that welfare actually prolongs poverty

[citation needed]

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare%27s_effect_on_poverty)

<comment><USER16> These statistics don't tell the whole story and often are misleading. While increasing the number of welfare recipients may decrease poverty stats for paper-pushing bureaucrats, on the ground you're increasing the number of people who are dependent on the govt for subsistence which isn't viable in the long-term.

It's been shown that a comfortable reliance on welfare disincentivizes becoming independent again. Especially when welfare recipients have a higher income than minimum wage. Any rational actor will have a hard time transitioning to minimum wage work at the risk of losing welfare when income from welfare is higher. This is plainly obvious [https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare- recipients...](https://www.cheatsheet.com/culture/states-welfare-recipients- paid-more-minimum-wage.html/)

Would you be in favor of adding a time-limit to welfare eligibility to disincentivize long-term reliance on welfare?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> But why raise income or wealth taxes when you can raise land value taxes or carbon/pollution taxes instead? My income does not harm anyone else, nor does being wealthy. But my hoarding of land does exclude land from others. My release of carbon / pollution into the atmosphere even more obviously harms other people. I think we're doing a huge disservice taxing the wrong things, when there are things that are useful to tax (apart from the government revenue).

This is why I think we should lower (or remove) income taxes -- because we could raise the same amount in more useful ways. I think there are also economic reasons to believe income taxes make the labor market less efficient. If your goal is to tackle inequality, why insist on doing it in a sub-optimal way? It absolutely matters not just how much you tax and who you tax, but also what you're taxing (and therefore discouraging). Let's start with some revenue-neutral changes to the tax structure. We might see both a stronger economy and less pollution because of it, for free.

<comment><USER19> By the same logic, should we tax having babies too? Especially multiple babies. Large carbon foot print for a bonded set of genes.

<comment><USER6> Given the current state of AGW and Climate Change, taxing babies beyond replacement rate (2.1) is not a bad idea.

I mean it's political suicide, but I don't see anything morally wrong with it.

After all, we already subsidize babies with our taxing scheme. So you wouldn't even need to tax babies. You would just cut off the subsidy after 2 kids.

<comment><USER19> That would work too.

If we incentivize those who are childless and have shrunk their carbon foot print, that would also encourage people to make thoughtful decisions about baby making. Example: If someone didn't have any children at all, then they should get tax free status or reduced premiums etc.

A woman increases her carbon foot print 10-20 times with every child. Medical costs and food and transport and pretty much everything is borne by the rest of us. Suspend benefits. Tax excess children and give tax breaks or retirement benefits to those who didn't have children.

I suspect that retirement benefits would be a better incentive than tax free status. Most people hope that children would take care of them when they get older. It's not worth the true cost of over population.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


How can PrivateSky not see your data? - <AUTHOR> http://security.stackexchange.com/questions/13226/how-can-privatesky-not-see-your-data

<comment><USER2> This is an example where a short answer is better than a long answer. There is so much detail provided by the CEO in his explanation, that it is very difficult to understand the outline of the protocol and structure of the system. Security does not derive from complexity, but rather a careful analysis of the potential attacks and their difficulty.

So, rather than allay fears about his service, I'm left feeling more skeptical about their claims.

I would love hear from people more versed in cryptographic key exchange protocols as to the basis for their claims.

 _And, seriously, a Michael Scott protocol?_

<comment><USER3> > And, seriously, a Michael Scott protocol?

Can you elaborate?

<comment><USER4> [http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GsM- aeEAAAAJ&hl...](http://scholar.google.com/citations?user=GsM-aeEAAAAJ&hl=en)

Seriously

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the crypto behind this is valid; weaknesses would be in implementation or in bypassing it.

There isn't anything inherently browser based about this.

I'm not a huge fan of browser based security (I know just enough appsec to be terrified).

If they had an API, it would be fun to do a secure mobile client for it (I trust iOS security way more than PC browsers..). There is less point when you have a client (just as easy to build some kind of key server with locally stored keys), but being able to send messages to future users is a nice trick.)

It looks like an interesting use of HSMs. I'm curious if they do real crypto in the HSM or just use it to protect a bootable VM. If it is just a VM, there are a lot more attacks possible.

<comment><USER6> I can confirm we use the secure execution environment of the HSM, we say VMs in a general sense because of the limited knowledge of HSMs, makes it easier for people to understand. But it is actually compiled C code running in the tamper proof / tamper resistant part of the module doing the share issuance and the multiparty computation protocols.

<comment><USER5> Awesome. Thales/nCipher or SafeNet or something else? I'll assume that since you're in the UK and doing HSM stuff it's ex-nCipher people from Cambridge...

Overall this is quite an impressive application, especially on the backend/server side. I wish more people used HSMs in a productive way (I've done some stuff with them in the past, and am working on related things now)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> All these acronyms for a browser-based service? Even if you trust this company to have good intentions, it seems that the weakest link by far is the possibility of an XSS, a malicious extension, or a CA compromise. And of course the whole thing depends in multiple ways (verifying your identity, logging in if you clear localStorage, etc.) on the security of your inbox. Their crypto and protocol might be fine, but they should be more forthcoming about the many pieces of software that you are trusting when you use their service. I skimmed their whitepaper but didn't see any mention of the ways that they or someone else could in fact see your data.

<comment><USER6> You obviously haven't worked in a real business. You would NEVER disclose your internal processes or architecture, that's nuts, it's like drawing out your whole attack surface for your adversary.

Nevertheless, someone asked a follow on question with these exact same points back on the thread; we have posted answers.

It also seems you are being a bit disingenuous. You've studied under Dan Boneh, the founder of our competitor. You know very well what these acronyms mean.

Also, who said this is only going to be "browser based"? Browser's are a good start though....

<comment><USER7> _You obviously haven't worked in a real business._

Yes, I have.

 _You would NEVER disclose your internal processes or architecture, that's nuts, it's like drawing out your whole attack surface for your adversary._

Though it might not be a bad idea, I wasn't actually intentionally suggesting that you open-source all your code and make your internal processes completely transparent. I was suggesting that you maybe add a section in your whitepaper detailing the possible attacks, and that you reconsider phrases in your marketing copy like: "Who can see your data with PrivateSky™? No one, not even us." I find it misleading.

 _Nevertheless, someone asked a follow on question with these exact same points back on the thread; we have posted answers._

In the stack exchange thread, you talk about what would be needed to compromise the SkyPin authentication process. But I don't see how this is sufficient. Suppose there is an XSS vulnerability on the browser-based inbox on your site. What stops an attacker from inserting a single line of Javascript that opens up a message of his choice in my inbox, decrypts the contents, and sends the contents to the attacker? Suppose that your SSL private key is compromised. What stops the attacker from eavesdropping on my connection to PrivateSky, stealing my session cookie, and using that session cookie to open up my inbox in his browser? Maybe you have some defenses against these attacks, but you don't seem to address them anywhere (at least that I can find).

 _It also seems you are being a bit disingenuous. You've studied under Dan Boneh, the founder of our competitor. You know very well what these acronyms mean._

The point was that there is a lot of heavy-handed crypto thrown around and not enough discussion of the actual weakest links in your system.

 _Also, who said this is only going to be "browser based"?_

Definitely not me. The current offering is browser-based, and the currently advertised guarantee is that no one can read your data, not even your company.</comment></comment></comment>


Data Showing Increasing Shift to Nvidia and Intel from AMD - <AUTHOR> https://blog.parsec.tv/nvidia-and-intel-are-increasingly-dominant-in-gaming-hardware-since-pascal-and-skylake-releases-5a8d216564cd#.vhhgx0h0w <comment><AUTHOR> What do you guys think is driving these shifting behavior? Do you think it's actually the Skylake and Pascal releases? Is there something that AMD can revert this shift or that you think they're doing today that will change consumer preferences?</comment>


Drinking Dom Pérignon On A F#ing Boat - <AUTHOR> http://www.mittal.vc/2013/10/28/drinking-dom-perignon-on-a-fing-boat/

<comment><USER2> for some reason I clicked through thinking it was about f#

<comment><USER3> I didn't think it was about F#, and I didn't click through, but indeed I noticed the functional language right there.

So how many MLs of champagne do you expect?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> some crappy sticked box in left corner hides part of text.</comment>


Opera 9.5 Alpha 1 Released Today - <AUTHOR> http://www.opera.com/products/desktop/next/

<comment><USER2> In a sane world, Opera and IE's market share would be reversed.</comment>


SpaceX Dragon's Rendezvous with ISS Live Feed - <AUTHOR> https://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/index.html <comment><AUTHOR> Original target was 7AM Eastern. They're running 30 minutes behind due to atmospheric drag but trying to get back on schedule, may wait less than 15 mins @ 250m interval.

Update: Looks like they're shooting for 7:30am ET/11:30am UTC.</comment>


BoA denied my mortgage because I own equity in a venture-backed startup - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/startups/comments/2ha4et/bank_of_america_denied_my_mortgage_because_i_own/

<comment><USER2> A basic flaw in the complaint is that that there are, in fact, a number of situations in which an equity holder in C-corp might be on the hook for liabilities incurred by the corporation. Its somewhat worrying that someone who has been involved in multiple startups is unaware of this (and that they are unaware of it increases the likelihood that they might engage in conduct which would realize this risk.)

BofA may be overweighing the associated risk when denying the mortgage, but it is certainly non-zero.

</comment><comment><USER3> Doing business with Bank of America is it's own punishment.</comment>


Still Hiring - <AUTHOR>

This is my 5th time posting this on Hacker News I'm hiring web developers and mobile app developers. Please only apply if your willing to work in-house at our start-up in Maryland. If you are interested please email me at firstname.lastname@example.com <comment><USER2> Since you've tried 5 times why not take a little time to write a more compelling job offer? Describe what the person's responsibilities will be, what you're expecting from a potential hire, what makes working for you cool and worth while, etc. Write a little about yourself in your profile. 5 failed attempts had to have told you _something_.

<comment><USER3> Why not look for remote workers as well?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think this is his website: <http://keithclarksolutions.wordpress.com/></comment>


What point on mainland of the Netherlands is furthest away from any buildings? - <AUTHOR> http://travel.stackexchange.com/questions/87917/what-point-on-the-main-land-of-the-netherlands-is-furthest-away-from-any-buildin <comment><USER2> That density is impressive, and a little frightening, for reasons I cannot fully articulate.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you avoid being negative online? - <AUTHOR> I often reflect on my actions as a means of self-improvement. I've noticed a disproportionate amount of my online interactions are rude, cynical, or generally less empathetic than I aspire to be. Maybe it is easier to be indignant toward words on a screen than another person face-to-face.<p>Do you find that it is easier to be negative than positive online? What strategies do you use to counter these impulses? <comment><USER2> Jim Jones once said "If I'd hated you more, we would have had a lot less trouble"

No doubt most will see the messenger and not the message, but much of IRL is suffering fools whereas online most don't feel that need.

It's telling that the youts I've advised to tell their dependent peers to "RTFM" are now the angriest or most jaded luddites now. Something about turning 30, managing or too many taps on the shoulder? Who knows.

Today, we seem to reward a benevolent culture that feeds the man (sic) but doesn't teach them how to fish. And wiki and google have never taught anyone how to be a good fisher(man). And as time goes on, it is now a daily experience to find yourself interacting with someone too lazy to even google or think.

It's great that I work with some awesome people, and I'll crawl over glass for them. But the older folks are afraid of email and texts, they've been burned too many times with misinterpretation. OK or Kk? What is a 40-something to do? They will never be woke.

So they avoid online and always want to call. The least efficient means of communication is the safest space for them. And it's always a positive to hear their voice.

</comment><comment><USER3> Simple. I am less negative when I don't take it personally.

A lot of times defensiveness is due to thinking that it's about us...100% of the times, it's not.

Online interactions can be exhilaratingly freeing because we don't have to be held accountable or follow norms. If it seems negative to you, then it means you are holding yourself accountable.

You won't feel negative if you release yourself from accountability. That's another way too.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just like the real world, you are influenced by the environment and people around you.

What made my online life more pleasant was cutting out the social media I have no hard need for. The remaining ones I specifically follow only those who post informative/funny/educational stuff.

Any poster with opinions (especially involving politics) are blocked/muted instantly.</comment>