What Opera is about to Unveil? - <AUTHOR> http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2009/06/heres-what-opera-is-about-to-unveil.html

<comment><USER3> Hmmmm... This fellow's suggestion may sound far-fetched, but if you look at the source code of the page by Opera:

      <!--
      We start our little story with the invention of the modern day computer.
      Over the years, the computers grew in numbers, and the next natural step in the evolution was to connect them together. To share things.
      But as these little networks grew, some computers gained more power than the rest and called themselves servers ...
      -->

I'm not sure what to make of it...

<comment><USER4>
       All computers are having enough power that each of them can become a server now?

<comment><USER5> Wimpy little 50 cent microcontrollers can be servers. I have personally done this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know general guidelines say that titles should not be edited usually, but in this case a hint that it is all one man's wild speculation would have been nice and I would have not have bothered to read it at all.

</comment><comment><USER7> I had the idea of a webserver on each machine in 2002, and they were connected across the p2p Gnutella network, where searches were contents by substring (not just filename). I got as far as writing a webserver, which ended up in Gnucleus (the Gnutella client), got 100 million downloads as part of Morpheus Preview Edition (same as Gnucleus), but wasn't enabled because the guy who wrote Gnucleus didn't get it.

In 2004, I did the same with Limewire, but again, nobody included my code.

I've come to accept it as a total failure, and since then I've known that it's best to get the job done yourself, as otherwise collaboration depends on their priorities.

</comment><comment><USER8> Course, could just leverage opera's built in torrent functionality - <USER2> amongst opera users at least. Maybe somehow interoperable with Weave? Although I think that somewhat goes against Weaves point currently, being to keep your firefox installs on various machines in sync.

<comment><USER9> Maybe something like this could be used as an anonymizing web browsing service as well. Just load web pages from what other uses have already loaded instead of leaving tracks on the original server.

<comment><USER10> So basically Freenet but without all the extra security of it?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Noticed the "freedom" in the URL? Does that mean something?

The Hicksdesign tweet also says something about the convenience of having "a connection wherever you are" = Freedom?

I don't know, but here is what I think:

Opera is already serving millions of mobile users through their proxy servers. I think there is support in the upcoming version of Opera(v10) to connect to the web though the proxy server. Now they certainly would want to monetize this traffic. What would they do? Give internet connection for free (using some USB device) and then serve ads. But how does this USB device connect to the servers? May be they have made a tie up with some telecom majors.

Of course, this is also a speculation , just as ridiculous as the OP.

<comment><USER3> Opera 10 Beta has built-in support for Opera Turbo. I think those are the proxy servers you're referring to. They speed up page loading by gzipping pages and downgrading the quality of images.

One of my friends suggested it might just be the release of Opera 10.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm not familiar with the author, but I don't see why embedding the server would change things. Mac OS X has had one-click Apache since it was released and I would imagine OS X has a larger active install base than Opera. Of course, Opera has had a lot of innovation trickle into other browsers (tabs, thumbnails, etc.), so maybe they've solved some other issues involved with personal web hosting.

The "hard parts" would be reliable dns resolution, finding common ISP open ports, and security of all kinds.

<comment><USER12> Here's an interesting scenario: the Opera installer asks you if you want to install the "Freedom" service, if you agree, it installs a background server (always on, launched on start up). This service is a local web server + web application that provides a user interface to all your local data : your address book, your music (you can listen to your mp3s with a flash player, streamed), your calendars, your documents, etc. Of course the access is protected by default.

The networking issues aren't that problematic : the local app would periodically update a central database with the computer's IP (dyndns.org has been doing this for years) and an available open port. So when you identify yourself on the <http://freedom.opera.com> service, you are redirected to <http://YOUR-COMPUTER.freedom.opera.com:OPEN-PORT/>.

So basically, Opera would be going against the current trend of putting all your data in "the cloud". Sounds interesting to me…

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This couldn't be true. By embedding a web server, you imply that all mainstream routers are aware of the web server thing and can route a query to itself correctly to the desired computer. As the IPv4 thing and all the huge local network used in family (your wireless router) and enterprise, a embedding web server can hardly serve anything on the Internet unless you get router manufacturers' support.

Still, you can achieve the "web server" thing by establishing a client-server connection to the Opera central server and the Opera central server will act like a "router". That, is more like what Windows Live file sharing feature.

Opera all these years acts like a good citizen with W3C's guideline. There is no way for Opera to support two-way ajax because there is no general standard.

<comment><USER14> i think the router-issue is not really a blocker, and you wouldn't need to establish a connection to a main server either.

for example, any bittorrent client 'drills' holes through firewalls and routers to receive incoming connections.

<comment><USER13> yes, you can forward port. But for standard web server, that is 80 port. If more than one user uses the embedded web server, there are port conflict. At least, it is not the normal web server.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My bet is on a combination of

      (a) Dynamic DNS client
      (b) UPnP client
      (c) built-in browser

I.e. every installation of Opera gets its own unique permanent DNS record, which is dynamically updated to the IP of the host computer. The UPnP is used to make the Opera instance accessible from the Internet and the Web server is used for sharing stuff.

Specifically, if I need to share a file with someone, the Opera will host this file locally and generate a unique URL that will point at my box and will be served by Opera's web server. I will then be able to pass this URL around and the recipients will fetch the file using their browsers directly from my machine.

</comment><comment><USER3> If I may speculate as well. I really hope they will open source their browser. I'm not sure how likely it is, but it would be really cool.

I hadn't heard of this before, but now my interest is peaked.

<comment><USER16> " _now my interest is peaked._ "

Piqued. Unless this is the most interest you've ever given Opera ;)

Going open source would be cool, but given the nature of the comment on that page, my money's on something like an embedded webserver, with some interesting means of finding and sharing things with it. Maybe some integration with Opera Link, so users can always find one of your running clients (or even Opera in --server mode somewhere on 24/7; something their good cross-platform support will help).

Opera do have a very good full text search engine, currently used for email and to index the content on every page you visit, and obviously has the ability to easily generate HTML from content it has stored and indexed; if they wanted to go this route they could easily make some sort of CMS using it.

They also do blogs on my.opera. Maybe an integrated blogging engine, which can serve content on its own and also upload it to services using some open protocol anyone can implement (e.g. pushing people to support importing .atom feeds). Publish content on your browser, push it to any online service which supports it, and keep it locally accessible and indexable and outside the control of any third party.

<comment><USER3> _> Piqued. Unless this is the most interest you've ever given Opera ;)_

:-) Should've looked it up. But I thought "hey, my other option - "peeked" - is definitely wrong, so this one must be right" :-) Thanks.

As for the open source thing, I wouldn't put money on it, but I do think it would be very cool :-) I really don't have a clue what it can be. I just hope it won't be a let down :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> XMPP is more probable than a full on web server

</comment><comment><USER18> Opera will be the new Kazaa. It's going to be P2P glory all over again.

</comment><comment><USER19> Don't forget guys, the web likes free. :)</comment>


Scientists discover evidence for a habitable region on Saturn's moon Enceladus - <AUTHOR> https://phys.org/news/2017-04-scientists-evidence-habitable-region-saturn.html <comment><USER2> Even if it was habitable, isn't most of the problem with going to Mars the fact that it takes a half of a year to get there - not a couple days like the moon?

Saturn is YEARS away. Like 4-7 depending on where the planets are at.

<comment><USER3> I figure that until we build one of the various nuclear-powered boost options that have been proposed, we're not going very far in the solar system. Either we get over our fear of launching OMGNuclear!!!1! stuff, or perhaps we can loft a booster and figure out a way of launching the fuel in enough smaller launches that nobody freaks out at the idea of a few dozen pounds of uranium being dropped into several quadrillion gallons of ocean, or something.

Because the numbers just don't work for chemical rockets. The already-harsh rocket equations get even worse when you have to carry along the mass to feed, water, and breath, too.

<comment><USER4> You know how sometimes you've got the best possible people, really brilliant, and all the resources, and still things go wrong? Rockets blow up for example. The fear of that happening which you see fit to mock, is justified, and no amount of self-righteous dismissiveness is going to help bridge that difference.

<comment><USER3> The thing is, _even if_ a rocket blows up and a few dozen pounds of uranium get strewn about, it isn't anywhere near the disaster people think it is. Until we can rationally compute dangers instead of simply assigning infinities to the dangers, we're not going to get anywhere.

There is _~4.5 billion tons_ of uranium already in sea water [1].

If that fact surprises you, you may just have not known it. If that fact scares you or makes you want to deny it, you're probably still stuck in the irrational fear I'm talking about. The world is not a pristine place with no radioactivity in it until Man comes along and somehow, like, manufactures it from nothing but his sheer Evil for the nefarious purpose of destroying the environment, mu-hu-ha-ha-ha. It's a thing that's already out there. It's not _that_ terrifying if we take basic precautions that, it turns out, we _already take_ because you know what's way scarier than a few dozen pounds of uranium falling near you? A _flaming exploding rocket_ falling on you. So we already don't launch over cities and such.

And we _really_ won't progress as long as people can not only act irrationally about the real dangers, but think they're being _more moral_ by being irrational about the dangers than people actually using their brains and that it's vital to yell at the people using their brains and attempt to socially pressure them into just going with the herd and assigning infinite danger to the scariness of OMGRadiation!!!1!.

[1]: [http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/ferguson2/](http://large.stanford.edu/courses/2012/ph241/ferguson2/)

<comment><USER5> This stuff has been studied for a long time and is still being studied - [https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/ntrees.html](https://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/features/ntrees.html)

So I don't know what you are raving about.

<comment><USER6> He's talking about public perception, not about NASA research.

<comment><USER5> Public perception has nothing to do with it. The Russians and Chinese don't care about public perception. Why aren't all their rockets using nuclear propulsion? This is very expensive research. Nuclear propulsion is definitely going to be utilized it just isn't a budget priority right now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So there's this big hydrogen vent in a moon of Saturn. Where's the energy coming from to drive that? Too far from the sun. Enceladus is tidally locked to Saturn, so there are no tidal forces. Enceladus has very low orbital eccentricity, a near-circular orbit, so there are very low tidal forces from that. Some phenomenon must provide energy for the hydrogen jet.

<comment><USER8> Orbital eccentricity gives rise to tidal forces in this case.

<comment><USER7> What orbital eccentricity? That moon has a nearly circular orbit. Much less orbital eccentricity than Luna.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of articles like this overlook a lot of physics that actually matter a lot. Not only would it be incredibly difficult to get humans up there, much more so than Mars, but even once we get there we have serious problems. Just like Mars, we can solve many problems with electricity. We can create water and many chemicals, provide shelter and even ways to grow food. On Mars you can get electricity vs solar, which is perfectly doable. You can take some solar panels with you, over provision for damage, and build-out capacity over time. Saturn is too far for solar to be of any use. The only power source there is probably geothermal, unfortunately there's no lightweight way to convert geothermal energy into electricity. At least there isn't any that I'm aware of. This is quite a problem, as without electricity most modern conveniences cannot be bought. In fact, modern human life might be very difficult without electricity on a place that is not earth.

<comment><USER10> The article has nothing to do with human habitability. The potential is that there could be microbes found on a planet other than Earth for the first time.

From the article:

"The amount of molecular hydrogen we detected is high enough to support microbes similar to those that live near hydrothermal vents on Earth," said SwRI's Dr. Christopher Glein, a co-author on the paper and a pioneer of extraterrestrial chemical oceanography.

<comment><USER11> The link was switched to phys.org. Previous source was scientifically illiterate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I couldn't read this on iOS as I kept being forcibly thrown into the App Store by some advert. If anyone else is having trouble, you can read the article here: [https://archive.is/tPvTT](https://archive.is/tPvTT)

<comment><USER13> Purify is an excellent ad blocker for Safari on iOS. I recommend it without reservation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Update: An earlier headline read that signs of life were found on Enceladus. We regret any misunderstanding this headline may have caused. NASA has discovered that Enceladus is habitable, not inhabited. "

Wow. Maybe basic transport is not the first area where intelligent machines will make their human counterpart superfluous. I'm sure machines can do better than this.

<comment><USER15> Nope, machines would optimize for number of views / clicks, not for correctness.

<comment><USER16> Im sure, if we had better telescopes, we could see a tentacle-frozzen alien Galileo drifting in the gas fountain, who until his last moment exclaimed "the sky beyond the sky is not solid".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Just a thought for everyone discussing human settlement - habitable doesn't necessarily imply humans _should_ go there, robots growing stuff far far away would be great as well. I'd say having farming planets (or in this case moons) is worth a sci-fi book at least.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is quite old news, not sure what it's doing here now, and with a clickbait title too.

<comment><USER19> survival of the clickbait-est.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Right, about as "habitable" as areas around mid-ocean ridges. Quite the temperature gradient there.

Probably similar are Europa and Triton.

</comment><comment><USER21> Nothing definite in here, just theories needs more research. Just a shinny news title

</comment><comment><USER22> Nothing new at all the same thing was said almost word to word about Titan 20 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER23> This article seems written to sound as spectacular as possible while hiding anything that might lead to real understanding.

"Habitable" makes it sound like we could move there and live there without too much trouble. That's not true. What has been discovered is that microorganisms might be able to live there, near hydrothermic vents that seem to create free hydrogen, which could support primitive life. That life could be similar to life living around hydrothermic vents on the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean. No sign of life itself, though, just a process that could theoretically sustain life without requiring sunlight.

</comment><comment><USER24> Better link : [https://phys.org/news/2017-04-scientists-evidence- habitable-...](https://phys.org/news/2017-04-scientists-evidence-habitable- region-saturn.html)

By the way, it's already a month old, there's nothing new since Cassini's last trip.

Also, can't believe Newsweek did a mistake like that if not for clicks...

"Update: An earlier headline read that signs of life were found on Enceladus. We regret any misunderstanding this headline may have caused. NASA has discovered that Enceladus is habitable, not inhabited."

<comment><USER22> Yeah well you cant trust nothIng out of newsweek anyway. Its been as reliable as reading the Daily Mail for most of it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> HN needs to adopt a [clickbait] tag to flag articles like this with misleading titles.

<comment><USER25> Even better, HN should hide the real title until hover to reduce the number of clicks clickbait articles get.

<comment><USER22> Even better, ban newsweek which is nothing but a tabloid these days.

<comment><USER26> If you're going to ban anything that's basically a tabloid these days, doesn't that mean there won't be any news sites left?

<comment><USER22> I don't really like the NYT that much, but I don't think you can classify it as being a tabloid. At least it's usually well researched and substantiated for a good amount of articles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "a force of 800 miles per hour"

It's Newsweek, but still...

<comment><USER28> slugs</comment></comment>


Selenium: web app tester. Record/playback tests in Firefox, dumps Python code. - <AUTHOR> http://seleniumhq.org/

<comment><USER2> Currently, I have been driving Selenium through Pyccuracy (pyccuracy.org). We have been conducting a couple of proof-of-concept projects and we are very happy with it, specially when non-experts can write the tests.

Writing the tests in English is great.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The Selenium plugin/system looks really nice. I just about wrote my own (the Python part, anyway), but then found this. :-)</comment>


Elegant Variations and All That (1996) - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/12/elegant-variations-and-all-that/376744/ <comment><AUTHOR> Editors' survey of the English language as it's written and spoken, and its wonderfully workmanlike idiosyncrasies: descriptivism & prescriptivism; British, American, and other regional variants; political (in)correctness; sexist and racist epithets; corporate and business jargon; opinion, wit, advice, and history.

I found this gem especially relevant to this community.

 _Burchfield has his own idiosyncrasies (he devotes an entire page of a six- page preface to a description of the database of examples he set up on a personal computer, for instance), but although he has a far better understanding of the English language than his predecessor, he does not have the style and wit. Rewritten, this book has ceased to be Fowler. Those who still want their Fowler must acquire an original. This is as it should be, for Fowler, with all its authentic interest and appeal, is now a period piece, to be read and enjoyed for what it is. Burchfield, in his new edition, has succeeded admirably in producing a sensible, practical, up-to-date, sometimes controversial, and altogether excellent guide to English usage, and it will be welcomed by those seeking a prescriptive usage guide for this generation._

The book is _The New Fowler 's Modern English Usage, 3rd Edition_, edited by Robert Burchfield and H.W. Fowler.

[Original title was vague and lacking context. It was: _Elegant Variations and All That_ ]

For those who have trouble with the link:

[https://web.archive.org/web/20200107142207/https://www.theat...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200107142207/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1996/12/elegant- variations-and-all-that/376744/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Speaking of period pieces, the _3rd Edition_ (1996) has itself become one. The current _4th Edition_ (2015), edited by Jeremy Butterfield, is also highly regarded.

[https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/978019966...](https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/acref/9780199661350.001.0001/acref-9780199661350)

A selected review [not mine, no interest but literary and informative]:

[https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/fowlers- dicti...](https://stroppyeditor.wordpress.com/2015/07/16/fowlers-dictionary- of-modern-english-usage-4th-edition-by-jeremy-butterfield/)</comment></comment>


The Facebook Demetricator: Living Without Numbers - <AUTHOR> http://bengrosser.com/projects/facebook-demetricator/ <comment><USER2> this browser extension removes all quantifying counts from the Facebook interface. friend, like, and comment counts all disappear. '16 people like this' becomes 'people like this'. 'View 8 other comments' becomes 'View other comments'.</comment>


Why EdDSA held up better than ECDSA against Minerva - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cr.yp.to/20191024-eddsa.html <comment><USER2> DJB has spearheaded bringing practical, safe cryptography to software.

Does anyone else bridge academia and ruthlessly practical software engineering quite as well?

<comment><USER3> Half the Internet is now protected by djb's secure, robust, practical, high- performance algorithms (Curve25519, Ed25519, ChaCha20, Poly1305), it's not an overstatement, and it's a decisive victory in the Crypto War.

What I'm worrying now is the post-quantum future.

You see, elliptic curve cryptography was introduced around 1999 (NIST curves), but it took 10 years to have a robust, secure, and practical algorithm developed (Curve25519) in 2007, and another 10 years for tho public to accept and deploy it in major systems in 2017. [0] And now the threat of quantum computers is getting closer and closer, cryptographers are well-aware of that, post-quantum cryptography is a huge area of research nowadays (just follow the NIST competition).

If the past history repeats, it would mean that we'll have some usable post- quantum public key algorithms soon, which will be secure in a theoretical sense, but with huge number of pitfalls in practical systems, and it will take another 20 years to deploy something really secure and robust in a practical sense. And all the horrible stories of weak crypto, all the vulnerabilities, and NSA, etc, will repeats again in the next two or three decades!

[0] I'm not advertising for djb, if it's not him, there will be something else as well, but the point is...

<comment><USER4> How much of this stuff was validated through public competitions like for AES, etc.?

I have no doubt he's a stellar cryptographer but it looks to me like there is also some fanboyism from programmers with no particular crypto background.

<comment><USER5> > How much of this stuff was validated through public competitions like for > AES, etc.?

Curve25519, Ed25519, ChaCha20, Poly1305 have all been entered into competitions like AES and usually get to the final round which is usually more about politics than security.

The algorithms have also been validated by independents like google who where one of the first to review, use and promote the algorithms.

> it looks to me like there is also some fanboyism from programmers with no > particular crypto background.

Absolutely but we fan boy for him because he has been so widely reviewed with stellar results.

<comment> floodyberry- None of them have been in any competition like AES

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Perhaps there haven't been enough tutorials showing how to implement constant-time fixed-base scalar multiplication."

<comment> loup-vaillant I have written one here: [http://loup-vaillant.fr/tutorials/fast- scalarmult](http://loup-vaillant.fr/tutorials/fast-scalarmult)

It explains various constant time and variable times ways to do scalar multiplication (assuming constant time point addition), and clearly marks what is constant time (like combs) and what is variable time (like sliding windows).

One big missing part is modular multiplication, needed to perform constant time point addition. I explain some of it in my Poly1305 tutorial (search for "Cheating at modular arithmetic"): [http://loup- vaillant.fr/tutorials/poly1305-design](http://loup- vaillant.fr/tutorials/poly1305-design)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> 21 days ago | Minerva: Practically exploitable side-channel leakage in ECDSA implementations (muni.cz) [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21147865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21147865)

</comment><comment><USER8> djb: "I'm not being selective in my summary."

From Minerva research team's web page[1]:

Update: The EdDSA scalar multiplication code in libgcrypt was leaking, however due to the way it was used, it was likely "not exploitable". It did not reduce the scalar which was a SHA512 digest by the curve order, but used the digest directly, thus the leakage did not represent the bit-length of the reduced scalar. Thanks to Daniel J. Bernstein for the note.

[1] [https://minerva.crocs.fi.muni.cz/](https://minerva.crocs.fi.muni.cz/)

<comment><USER3> The Curve25519/Ed25519 code in _libgcrypt_ is not a full constant-time implementation and it greatly decreased the inherent security provided by EdDSA's design, and already had timing problems in the past: in CVE-2017-0379, we have a timing attack against GnuPG's Curve25519, it's possible to inject malicious input with invalid curve points and observe the timings, hence recover the private key "in as few as 11 attempts".

In other words, it was used in a way that djb never approved, so I don't think djb should be responsible for that. And it's not that the libgcrypt developers were stupid, but the due to how libgcrypt is architected, how bignum is implemented, issues on portability, legacy code, there were many difficulties to implement full constant-time code in libgcrypt.

In 2017, one developer said,

> dd9jn: Implementing constant time processing in a _portable_ way is really > hard up to impossible. DJB steps most problems aside by writing curve > specific code for certain CPUs. We are in the process of improving our code > for commonly used curves by replicating the reference code. Using the > reference code directly is not possible due to different ways of > representing big integers and the fact that the reference code has zero > comments. For the Gnuk token (hardware OpenPGP card) Gniibe (author) is even > considering to move to a different MCU to have better control over the > pipeline.

In the article, djb had an analysis as well,

> The real fix, the constant-time approach, would start by changing the > interface to replace mpi_get_nbits(k) with a maxscalarbits specified by the > caller. But this would require going through dozens of functions that call > _gcry_mpi_ec_mul_point and figuring out the appropriate maxscalarbits for > each. This is an example of tension between simplicity and security.

> There have been many other timing-attack vulnerabilities in libgcrypt, and > clearly there will be more. We have to throw away variable-time crypto code > without waiting for attacks to be demonstrated. For example, libgcrypt > should use the constant-time ladders supported by Curve25519. But this > doesn't mean that Minerva broke libgcrypt's Ed25519 implementation: > libgcrypt was saved by another Ed25519 feature, the double-size hash.

<comment><USER9> It looks like cryptography would benefit a dedicated programming language, aimed at verification and with other constraints such as "constant time" backed in the syntax of the language.

At least, maybe it would ease code review and introduction to cryptography.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I particularly enjoyed the section where he talks about the importance of distributions for security, and how the product of two independent random primes in the {2^1023,...,2^1024} is harder to factor than the same in the {1,...,2^1024} space despite the latter having far more possibilities available. His explanation of this is concise and clear, and while the point is fairly simple once understood it's a great example of how counter-intuitive this stuff can be.

<comment><USER11> You also have to be careful here because such unintuitive factors plus a desire for optimisation can lead to grave security holes, and DJB links such a thing in that section. ROCA (Return of Coppersmith's Attack) is a weakness where Infineon designed a hardware library RSAlib that chooses numbers that were much more likely to be prime, so that (as I understand it) their key generation is nice and fast because it spends less time failing primality tests and trying again.

Unfortunately it uses very particular smooth numbers (1 x 3 x 5 x 7 x 11 and so on) to pick keys for each key size, and so an attacker who knows this essentially get some bits from the private key for free, whereupon Coppersmith's approach may turn that into a working attack.

The people who found ROCA started by examining the key pairs chosen by different generators because they were interested in whether you can diagnose who made a key based on what you see of the public key. They wrote a paper about this showing that e.g. sometimes you'd get a certificate with a particular 2048-bit RSA key in it and you could tell immediately oh, that's from OpenSSL even though this cert is deployed on a Windows server with IIS, so that's interesting. For example let's say you pick random 1024-bit integers and multiply them together, but you insist on trying again if you get anything other than a 2048-bit result, this will be annoyingly slow, it often fails, so you of course optimise by picking only a specific range of integers where a 2048-bit result seems likely. Exactly how you do this may give away _at least_ exactly which implementation was used to make the keys, and as ROCA shows maybe much more.

One of the clearly better things about public key cryptographic systems that depend on arbitrary random integers as keys rather than primes/semi-primes like RSA is that it's less tempting to build very complicated contraptions like RSAlib which may conceal this sort of terrible flaw.</comment></comment>


Study of 4chan's Politically Incorrect Forum and Its Effect on the Web - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/1610.03452 <comment><USER3> Are the academics involved in the creation of this document aware that they are, in 4chan parlance, 'raiding'?

So far as I am aware this is not illegal, merely annoying or immoral.

Here's an example of when somebody almost certainly from /pol/ managed to stage a TED talk.

Sam Hyde's 2070 Paradigm Shift - <USER2>

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yFhR1fKWG0)

Professional trolling is an ancient internet tradition that is worth defending. There's a difference between harassment and bringing narcissists back to earth.

</comment><comment><USER4> the board's quality is very bad. lots of racism/shitposting that got /new/ shutdown in the first place.

However it's very useful for breaking news and events if you're able to sift.

'Happenings' are often kept in fast moving threads where people pool together information rapidly as the threads degrade and vanish.

</comment><comment><USER5> Chapter eight is refreshing. I hope it makes it into print.</comment>


IBM Research: Brain-inspired Chip - <AUTHOR> http://www.research.ibm.com/articles/brain-chip.shtml <comment><USER2> Lots of posts: [https://hn.algolia.com/?q=ibm+brain+chip#!/story/sort_by_dat...](https://hn.algolia.com/?q=ibm+brain+chip#!/story/sort_by_date/0/ibm%20brain%20chip)

Significant recent discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8149198](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8149198)</comment>


Netlify raises $30M to replace webservers with Application Delivery Network - <AUTHOR> https://www.netlify.com/blog/2018/10/09/netlify-raises-30m-to-replace-webservers-with-a-global-application-delivery-network/ <comment><USER8> I use Netlify for all my static sites and it's been amazing. All I have to do is push and they take care of everything else, I can't understate how much I love the product. If you want to check out a live deployment, my website [https://www.stavros.io/](https://www.stavros.io/) is on Netlify.

I especially like how they provide forms, lambdas and very easy testing by just pushing to another git branch. I don't see why anyone would use Github/Gitlab pages when Netlify exists.

<comment><USER9> Can you edit (say Jekyll blogs) on GitHub and them somehow push to Netlify automatically?

This is critical for me since I edit using my Android Jekyll-optimized tool Teddy Hyde ([https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.EditorHyde...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.EditorHyde.app)).

<comment><USER10> Have you tried using Github pages for that? Really easy to setup Jekyll blogs there

<comment><USER11> Sure, but GitHub Pages is a relatively "dumb" host. You don't get preview builds, branch deploys, and lots of other things. It's nice for a minimal approach but for a large site with lots of people working on it I would not recommend it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> May not be widely known, but a startup named Divshot launched what feels to me now like an identical service to Netlify, just a few years earlier. Existed ~2012-2015. They were acquired by Google and their product was converted into Firebase Hosting. I haven't tried it, though:

[https://firebase.google.com/docs/hosting/](https://firebase.google.com/docs/hosting/)

<comment><USER13> Founder of Divshot here, and engineering manager of the Firebase Hosting team. Thanks for the shoutout! :)

<comment><USER14> Your co-founder is one of my favorite people, we were good friends in high- school. I'm super proud of you guys whenever I see divshot mentioned. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So much praising so little talk about its limits. I consider myself to be kinda stick in a Rails way of thinking. But most projects I touch heavily depend on a backend, database, or raw computing power.

Everything that doesn't fall in those categories is something I create static (ex nanoc.) i just build out locally push to my git and let a post-commit hook do the Copy pasta. My static Web server runs without attention for 5 plus years now.

I see it makes stuff easier, but i fail to see why it would be so much better than any other git deployment method.

<comment><USER16> They're basically giving you:

\- the "static webserver"

\- the sandbox for commit hooks

\- instant CDN & cache-busting

\- 1-click domain setup

\- 1-click SSL setup

\- git-branch powered a/b testing

\- git-branch powered deploy previews

\- Functions-as-a-service deployment and routing

and that's the free tier

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Ok, I'm a web dev and I hate having to deal with web servers, configs, CI, etc. The idea sounds great, but I can't understand how this works from this post.

Can someone explain how this works exactly? Are they basically offering a way to prebuild apps to static assets and host them on CDNs? How do server-side only things will happen then?

<comment><USER18> Think Heroku but just for deploying static assets. You can do something as simple as have a git repo of assets, push it, and you're up and running with SSL, etc, straight away.

How do you get dynamic? Well, they support a build process so static sites or assets can be built at their end, if that's how you roll. But if you want _fully_ dynamic sites, well, no, you can use their AWS Lambda-powered functions service to help build this out, but you won't be deploying something like a PHP or Rails app to Netlify :-) This limitation opens up a lot of other opportunities to simplify deployment, however.

<comment><USER19> Databases are, in general, the next obvious question for a dynamic app on Netlify. Some solutions can use lambdas, but since a straight-up database is always going to be necessary for certain things, it makes me wonder if they'd roll out a paid database at some point... though that sort of conflicts with their "JAM" "no backend! well somebody else's backend maybe?" selling point

<comment><USER20> Firebase Cloud Firestore is so nice and they've been working on it for a long time, this would likely not be a good use of their time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Not seeing any bandwidth, storage or other costs so I wonder what their soft/hard limits are for those things. I see their forms have really low limits for the price 1000 submissions and 1GB file upload limits, 2m functions on the $45 plan [1].

[1] [https://www.netlify.com/pricing/](https://www.netlify.com/pricing/)

<comment><USER22> They can be found in the TOS (see Quota & Limits section)

[https://www.netlify.com/tos/](https://www.netlify.com/tos/)

<comment><USER21> Thanks, strange it is in the ToS.

For paid accounts:

\- Network bandwidth: 1TB/month - <USER6>

\- Storage: 1TB - <USER6>

\- API requests: 500 requests/minute, 3 deploys/minute* - <USER7>

For free accounts:

\- Network Bandwidth: 100GB/month - <USER6>

\- Storage: 100GB - <USER6>

\- API requests: 500 requests/minute, 3 deploys/minute* - <USER7>

I wonder if they do overages, or just a hard cut-off, no mention. They probably nudge users that go over soft limits to the enterprise column.

<comment><USER23> I work for netlify, and yes, we ask you to upgrade, don't just turn you off if you go over.

<comment><USER24> My concern was that there is no clear upgrade path for static websites, if running out of free bandwidth.

All per-site addons focus on different kinds of dynamic features (Forms, Identity, Functions, ...) I suppose a Team account would work, but that also seems like paying for unneeded features.

The support team just linked me to the pricing page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Question to Netlify's founders. Did you really have to raise from VCs? Was the company already profitable?

<comment><USER26> We started out bootstrapping and were profitable before our first round of funding. However, we always strongly believed that the larger vision of what we wanted to build would be impossible to achieve without outside funding.

<comment><USER27> How did you decide when it was time to stop bootstrapping and raise a round? Was there a magic number traction-wise (total users, MRR, etc) or was it motivated by the desire to staff up a team and execute on your product vision?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> One of the things I love about Netlify is that I have never asked my clients to flush their cache after updating their sites... everything is invalidated and refreshed almost by magic. I suddenly realised this after months of using it, sometimes multiple pushes to live each day and it never skipped a beat, no issues with clients getting edgy because their site hasn't been updated or because something doesn't look right (css not refreshed but html has) etc.

It just works. Every time.

</comment><comment><USER29> Built vote by mail website for Florida ([https://www.stampthevote.com](https://www.stampthevote.com)) using a single JSON file with 1500 zip codes and Gatsby.js and deployed with Netlify.

Great to be in the future and not have to worry about hosting a server for such a simple site.

<comment><USER30> Nice work. I did see a small issue...you're getting the string "(undefined)" in some of the page titles:

<title data-react-helmet="true">How to Vote in Clay County (undefined)</title>

<comment><USER29> Thank you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The pricing seems a bit weird. I'm dubious about hosting something semi- important on the free tier, but the first paid price point is $45, which seems too high for easier static hosting.

<comment><USER32> On the free tier you're just hosting static files on Netlify, so they can cache very effectively. Also since you're just hosting a set of static files you're hardly "locked in", so if for whatever reason the free tier stops being appealing you can just move on to a different provider.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I've been tinkering with Netlify for a year or two now and have two production sites on it for the last ~6 months, and it's amazing. If you have a site built with Vue/React/Angular, there really is no reason to not use Netlify! I've even been playing around with some API endpoints using Netlify Functions (which is AWS Lambda) and it's pretty neat, you can develop the front end and back end in the same repo and have it all automagically deploy with a git push.

</comment><comment><USER34> This is just marketing pitch. Could someone paste some technical architecture on how this is done?

Also how you manage applications and data across different jurisdictions and countries?

<comment><USER35> It's static hosting + CDN + ergonomic tooling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> How is an "Application Delivery Network" different from a CDN (which AFAIK is what Netlify currently is)? Netlify still only handles static content, right?

<comment><USER37> They run the buildprocess for your static content for you, and have a functions as a service thing integrated, which I think wraps Amazon Lambda.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> How does this compare to zeit (zeit.world)? I notice they support functions and identity.

</comment><comment><USER39> Netlify is great. I have 5 sites there. All for free. My only concern is that it's too good to be true. I hope nothing changes for the worse (i.e. they get bought and cripple the free tier).

<comment><USER40> I knew nothing about Netlify before this post, so this is a purely generic, rational note: yes it will. You lure in customers with an attractive free tier and then change it so you can monetize at least some of them and be profitable. Choosing the right business model however, is what I think shows the true character of the company's leadership. Unfortunately greed usually wins. But enjoy the product while it lasts. Might be a good amount of months, or even years before that happens.

<comment><USER41> On a sidenote: Please be aware that they didn't start free - I used them before their current pricing tiers and happily paid about about 25 € for their entry- or mid-level tier. Sometime after the new plans kicked in, I realized that I'd loose absolutely nothign by downgrading to the free plan.

It still sounds to good to be true, but I just wanted to point out that they charged for their service when they were much smaller.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Netlify is fantastic. It simplifies deployment and delivery of the websites dramatically. What Heroku did for app development, they did for websites. And even though they are nominally static websites, you can wire them with React or Vue and still have apps.

They make my life easy.

<comment><USER43> Agreed. I've switched out my complicated GitHub+S3+CloudFront+Cloudflare for static hosting to Netlify. Netlify also handles some of the stuff you don't even think about - e.g. partial deploy failure. With my past scripts I might push `index.html`, lose network, error out, etc, and not push the updated `assets/blah.css`.

They also have Functions [https://www.netlify.com/features/functions/](https://www.netlify.com/features/functions/) for dynamic content, but I haven't worked with those, yet.

<comment><USER44> Neither of you explained in layman terms what they actually do.

<comment><USER45> They're a static site web host. You deploy using git, and they handle pulling your site from git and deploying it to a CDN. If you're using a static site engine like Hugo or Jekyll, they'll build the site for you as well.

I think what people are excited about is deploying a JavaScript-based frontend (probably written in React or Vue.js) using Netlify, so the client-side code is quickly distributed and accessible.

<comment><USER46> Building Javascript-based frontends are already compiling to static assets, which Netlify could already host. JAMstack is about having the javascript front-end call APIs on the backend. This is about creating an environment for all the back-end functions to be in one place, possibly with the front-end deployment. Not sure how it is going to be implemented though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I don't quite get this. I'm a long time Heroku user and this seems to be much more limited and not much better in any dimension, why is this so popular?

This is an honest question, I just don't quite get why there's so much excitement in the comments.

Thanks!

<comment><USER48> Many brochureware websites can be deployed as static sites.

There are many sophisticated static site generators which allow creating and maintaining large complex sites.

There are static site generator CMS apps which provide viable front-ends so that non-technical people can manage content. See netlify CMS.

All content is kept in git with all benefits derived from it.

Netlify hosting is free, simple to set up, secure by default, and provides lightning fast access in a "set it and forget it" manner.

To update your site, push to your github/gitlab/bitbucket repo. To create a preview of changes, push to a branch.

Form processing, logins etc. are inexpensive easy to set up add-ons.

Static websites are a magnitude faster, less hack-able and worry-free.

It's a really sweet spot.

Heroku could be used for this but the free tier is limited.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> I have a few popular HN-launched static sites on Netlify including [https://servicelist.io/](https://servicelist.io/). Not only do they provide a seamless hosting and CDN (cache-expiring) experience but they also have a wonderful multi-user CMS that eliminates about half of my Rails sites!

I'll reiterate a few other sentiments in this thread, it feels a bit too good to be true. Even with 300k monthly traffic, not paying a dime seems like a precarious situation to be in for a free service.

<comment><USER50> Is 300k monthly traffic even a big deal when all you are doing is serving static files?

<comment><USER49> With images it can definitely add up. On S3 + Cloudfront, I was paying about $85/mo for coolbackgrounds.io

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I'm in love with Netlify. The product is spot on. The support team is fast and knowledgeable. Things are simple and they just work, and it doesn't feel like it's holding you back.

</comment><comment><USER52> It's been a year since I last spoke with Netlify staff [^1]. They weren't super keen on the arguments I raised against using their service given you can host Websites that load in 100-200ms on S3 with CloudFront for pennies a month. If course S3 isn't as push-button as Netlify but it's certainly much more extensible and will probably be around longer.

[^1]: [https://habd.as/zero-to-http-2-aws-hugo/](https://habd.as/zero-to- http-2-aws-hugo/)

<comment><USER53> Can you push straight to S3 from git? I know you can wire up S3 sync with commit hooks or something similar, but that's more work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Also they developed a CMS: [https://github.com/netlify/netlify- cms](https://github.com/netlify/netlify-cms)

</comment><comment><USER55> I love Netlify! In my opinion, it's not "just" a great way to host static sites, but also probably the easiest (and cheapest) way to get started with functions as a service/serverless.

You don't need your own AWS account to use Lambda functions.

I compiled a landing page example with Mailchimp mailing list signup a while ago:

[https://github.com/tobilg/netlify-functions- landingpage](https://github.com/tobilg/netlify-functions-landingpage)

</comment><comment><USER56> Our studio, Marquee ([https://www.marquee.studio](https://www.marquee.studio)), has an in-house publishing platform called Proof ([https://www.proof.pub](https://www.proof.pub)) that we started back in 2012 which couples fully customizable editorial tools and content model, a headless CMS, and React/Serverless based SDK to compile static websites specifically for editorial and content marketing teams. An example that was designed by our team and managed through Proof that HN is probably familiar with is The First Round Review ([http://firstround.com/review/](http://firstround.com/review/)).

It's a similar approach that Netlify has put together and works great. Can't advocate for it strongly enough.

</comment><comment><USER9> Having spent the last few days trying to get Cloudfront with Lambda@Edge working, I'm excited to see this. Cloudfront is a mess and clearly Lambda@Edge is "cutting edge" at AWS (where cutting edge means "full of bugs")

<comment><USER57> You might want to try Cloudflare Workers instead. (disclaimer: I work at Cloudflare)

<comment><USER9> I assumed they were for service workers with SPAs. Not the case? The AWS landscape is so massive it's hard to understand what everything does. I'll check out CloudFlare workers, thank you.

<comment><USER9> Funny, I keep getting confused between _CloudFront_ and _CloudFlare_ and assumed this was another AWS product but it obviously isn't.

Do workers somehow operate inside your AWS stack via distributions of CloudFront? If not, that's probably not going to work, we have so much in S3, etc.

But, if that assumption is incorrect, can you point me to a document that suggests a transition path?

<comment><USER57> Cloudflare is actually a totally different company, yes! Here is more info about Workers: [https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/about/](https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers/about/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Netlify has been very tempting these last years, and it looks like they're constantly upping their game, but still, I think will pass.

Why ? Because it's a US company. I am trying very hard to give the least data I can to companies under the Patriot Act, and by subscribing to Netlify, which afaik have their main datacenter in the US, I would be "offering" it all my most precious content. So even if it is more work, I will host my static websites on my personal Gitlab instance (which has lots of workers based on Docker to automatically deploy your Hugo/Jekyll/... website).

Or do you think I am being too paranoid ?

</comment><comment><USER59> These guys are absolutely great. Well deserve and super glad they will be able to keep growing.

We're running Standups.io frontend ReactJS app with them, and for $0 / mo, which sounds nuts. Sometimes I wish they'd even charge us.

</comment><comment><USER60> This may be a naive question, but how many websites are actually static these days?

<comment><USER61> Not a ton. But the idea here is you use javascript to call an API for your dynamic content. This way your javascript/css/images are all setup on a CDN that you don't have to manage.

<comment><USER62> But where does the API come from? Dynamic content needs don't go away with static sites and usually it's yet another service to worry about.

<comment><USER63> In our case, we moved a blog from WP to a static Gatsby.js site. It's hosted on Netlify and all content is driven by Contentful where updates trigger a webhook on Netlify to rebuild the blog (new posts are pulled during this build process).

<comment><USER62> So now you're using 2 different services to host a site, instead of just using hosted Wordpress (or squarespace, wix, etc). Does Contentful provide the same content editing experience? What are the advantages here?

<comment><USER64> The advantage is that the resulting website being just static pages will be much faster and secure that your hosted wordpress. And compared to wix etc, you have a lot more control on the appearance and structure of your website, because you can use wathever static website builder you choose

<comment><USER62> How is it more secure when you're still accessing an API? Wordpress itself might not be the best product but other fully-hosted services are all the same, whether they render the site or just give you an API.

A CDN is equally fast when the content is cached, and if you're building the entire site as static pages then it's not really a dynamic site in the first place and can also be done with HTML or markdown in the same repo.

The fine control seems the be the only real advantage, at the cost of more moving pieces.

<comment><USER65> Good luck getting content editors to commit code to a repo or in markdowns. The contentful + netlify setup is really elegant.

<comment><USER62> If you're using Contentful then how is that different or better than wordpress or any hosted system that is made for writing posts?

The only 2 advantages of splitting this into separate systems is extra customization (even though hosted solutions are already very flexible) and compiling the entire site into static files. The 2nd seems to be more of a thing for devs to enjoy rather than something that makes a real difference to users, especially when you're already using a CDN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Well-deserved -- congrats to Chris, Matt and the whole Netlify team!

</comment><comment><USER67> Does Netlify support 2FA for paid tiers? Their settings page is really clear about some features being available in certain plans (and btw I love this, it's really clear and it's not very aggressive of an upsell / not obnoxious), but there is no such callout for 2FA.

This is one critical feature that github pages has over Netlify. Github's 2FA is really nice, actually; you can add multiple U2F keys and you can also use TOTP and/or SMS if you want, all at the same time.

<comment><USER23> I work for netlify. We support 2FA on any tier, since you can auth via git provider and require 2FA there.

We presently don't support REQUIRED 2FA (you can also set a password) under the enterprise account level, since that's what enables SSO using a SAML-based identity provider and enforcing those limits there.

<comment><USER67> Thanks for the answer from a direct source :)

A core part of Netlify's offering (any SaaS's offering really) is some kind of guarantee that attackers can't get in and vandalize users' sites. When you delegate authentication to an identity provider (whether that's through OAuth2/OIDC or SAML), you're delegating that core feature to a third party. You've assuredly gone through the due diligence of asking them how they manage their own security and authentication, but it's still something that you don't control.

Facebook, one of the most valuable public companies in the world, recently reported a breach where they had to reset any "log in with Facebook" authentications for millions of users. Github has roughly two orders of magnitude fewer employees than Facebook.

Anyway in case you have an internal feature request for U2F on "email" logins, please consider this an external "+1" for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> Could someone enlighten me how does Netlify differ from Github pages? If I want to put up a static website, what's the advantage of using Netlify over Github pages?

<comment><USER69> I use Github pages. I'm not a professional web developer so my take is pretty non technical.

The main difference for me seems to be netlify let's you have input forms and do POST requests whereas github pages is more static and only serves static pages via GET.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> I've started using Netlify for a lot of my freelance work which lately is mostly static sites. It's been a real treat using it from all aspects. I almost wish their lowest paid tier wasn't so high as I gladly fork over some dollars.

Recent site I built hosted on Netlify: [https://www.magnoliasmill.com](https://www.magnoliasmill.com)

</comment><comment><USER71> Sorry if this is a little offtopic but I use pfSense DNS Resolver (126.96.36.199 over TLS) with DNSSEC support and every Netlify page I check fails on DNSSEC. Is this a problem on my side or is the Netlify DNSSEC configuration wrong? It seems like CNAME records at the domain root might be the problem.

</comment><comment><USER54> Netlify doesn't even require Git - you can just zip some static files and drop it in their uploader.

</comment><comment><USER72> I've been looking for a service like this and I'm really interested. Too bad the site is choking a bit on extra traffic right now. I'll have to check back later.

</comment><comment><USER58> By the way, does someone know if Netlify offer their webserver code with an open source license ? I can't find such a repository on their github profile ...

</comment><comment><USER30> I wonder if Cloudflare has plans to compete in this space. If they added it to the $20/month plan, it might push more conversion from the free plan.

<comment><USER8> I asked them once, and they seemed pretty adamant about not hosting content. Then again, with the IPFS gateway they just added, you can pretty easily do that.

<comment><USER30> Their (newish) cache API, and worker-kv API seem to be all the foundation you would need.

Basically, it feels like they would need to make a nice UI and perhaps some connectors for github, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> Netlify has been a great help in building [https://localgov.fyi/](https://localgov.fyi/) Kudos!

</comment><comment><USER74> The documentation says it supports NodeJS, Ruby and Python for static site generation. Any other languages/tools supported?

</comment><comment><USER75> Maybe I've just reached curmudgeon age, but how exactly is this an improvement on: FTP to server, upload files?

<comment><USER76> I suppose you get a cdn and easier configuration (?) of ssl.

Now the question is do I need a cdn to host my blog made of static files? No. But I will take it if it is free.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> Any tips on moving a Node.js based Ghost blog to Netlify. I am open to moving to static blog generators.

</comment><comment><USER78> it is like firebase?

</comment><comment><USER79> Imagine that I set up/rent a server with apache or nginx pre-configured for mass virtual hosting.

For instance, servicea.org and service.org are placed into two separate directories with the same names, respectively. As soon as web pages are uploaded the pages are served.

What is the difference between that method and Netlify, aside from the forms function?

<comment><USER53> The CDN, and the fact that your server is a single point of failure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> >"This is where the web is going," commented Chris Coyier, CSS expert

are you kidding me?

<comment><USER81> About which part?

<comment><USER80> CSS """expert"""

<comment><USER81> Chris Coyier is pretty well known in the front end community. He created CSS- Tricks and co-founded CodePen. If anyone can claim to be an expert it's him. But if you're just trying to have a laugh at CSS - well, that's fine too I guess.

<comment><USER80> I didn't mean to belittle they guy at all, but the title "CSS expert" looks ironic to me, just like "SEO expert"

<comment><USER51> What's so wrong with an "Expert" title suffix?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> i dont get why i should use netlify over aws? what is the advantage here, i might give it a try.

<comment><USER53> What part or AWS? Lightsail? S3 pages? Cloudfront? Lambda?

<comment><USER82> you can do it with cloudformation, although the SSL stuff might need automation but nothing impossible.

where does netlify host my site? with git hooks you can trigger CI and automation on AWS, perhaps even AWS SWF

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Replace y with x and shuffle some letters and you have Netflix.

<comment><USER84> Did I type "netfl" and hit enter a million times the first few months I used it? Probably.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> Netlify has a free plan for hosting personal sites. Though I could do things manually, the continuous integration, free SSL, and Hugo integration make deploying my personal site as easy as anything I've ever seen.

Plug for my site: [https://www.joshuahu.io/](https://www.joshuahu.io/)</comment>


Resolutions - <AUTHOR> http://www.penny-arcade.com/2014/01/01/resolutions# <comment><USER2> I thought the dickwolves comic was funny. I can certainly see where some people wouldn't. In my opinion, making the comic wasn't the problem. The problem was when they took it upon themselves to tell rape victims that they weren't allowed to be offended by rape jokes.

The classy thing to do, after the original comic blew up, would be to ignore it. Let the internet storm blow over and get on with their lives and their comics. A brief, tasteful apology could've worked as well. The absolute wrong thing to do was to get all huffy and self-righteous. Don't start dishing it out if you can't take it too. If your material can't stand on its own, attacking your critics is never going to help.

I do hope that Mike's apology is sincere. I'd like to be able to respect PA again. I'm not sure distancing themselves from PAX and Child's Play was the very best decision--I'd have liked to see them clean up their acts enough that they were no longer a black mark. Still, it's a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I don't think I know anyone who actually cares about the initial comic-- the complaint on it was very localized and small. It's the fact that he kept whipping up more drama about it and continued espousing "poor me" viewpoint about _rape survivors_ bullying him, on a near-yearly basis, that really drove people away.

<comment><USER4> To be honest, the number of feminists who would have actually bought any of the penny arcade stuff is tiny, while the number of people who would enjoy the controversy and buy a rude t-shirt because it annoys all these people is probably very large. They actually said they were sorry they took down the merchandise, probably because it made a huge amount of money.

So I think they didn't really drive many people away and likely got more publicity, advert impressions and merchandise revenue by stirring the controversy. So maybe they handled it just right if their goal at the time was to make money and not make everyone happy? I'm guessing this 'apology' is because the idea of 'boycott pax' has come up in large gaming media now and they need to stop it quickly? Pretty sure we wouldn't be seeing this if there was no boycott movement.

<comment><USER3> I think you're underestimating who's a "feminist" and who's not. It's not just a small cluster of women who say "all men are bad"; it's (finally) gaining the same sort of widespread acceptance that gay rights are. And there are quite a few indie developers who were either rejecting invitations or being on the fence about attending PAX even before this most recent "we regret taking the shirts down" thing.

Also worth noting is this isn't the only situation where Krahulik has shown off his ability to place his foot firmly in his mouth-- there's also things like his peculiar stance on transgender people[1], which is why people have such a hard time taking him at face value when he apologizes.

[1][http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013/06/21/why-we-are-not- sh...](http://thefullbrightcompany.com/2013/06/21/why-we-are-not-showing-gone- home-at-pax/)

<comment><USER5> Please don't compare gay rights to feminism. It's insulting to GLBT people.

It's hilarious that you bring up trans issues, given how poorly feminists have treated that particular minority over the years. The existence of trans people directly contradicts mainstream feminist ideology, therefore they are deemed "problematic." And everyone in the tech community knows by now what feminists do to people they consider problematic...

<comment><USER2> > _Please don 't compare gay rights to feminism. It's insulting to GLBT > people._

Bullshit, speaking as a queer man.

 _Some_ feminists, a minority, have treated trans people very poorly. Quite a few gay and lesbian activists have done the same. Gay/lesbian activists have denied the existence of bisexuals, transwomen have feuded with transmen, African-American activists have treated feminists and GLBT activists poorly and vice versa... Look, some people in every group are closed-minded assholes. That doesn't give us an excuse to dismiss an entire group.

Equal rights and equal treatment for women, black folks, Hispanics, gay men, lesbians, transfolks, and every other minority are all in the same boat together. If someone thinks we're not, fuck 'em--and that goes for you just as much as it goes for bigoted feminists.

<comment><USER5> Feminism is fighting a war that was won long ago. Women already have equal rights in modern countries. GLBT people are only just now starting to see things progress. That's why it's not fair to GLBT people when feminists appropriate our struggles--they're trying to retain an appearance of legitimacy despite the fact that their movement is no longer relevant in virtually every first world country (and let's face it, first world feminists are too focused on criticizing any and every fictional female character to care about the problems of third world women--except for when they need to justify the continuing existence of feminism, after which they promptly go back to their first world "problems" again).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I don't know if this necessarily matters to the HN crowd, but in case it does, this[1] is why him coming out publicly with an apology for his behavior overall is a thing.

Personally, I'd say it's a good first step provided he can actually follow through with it, but I'm not holding my breath.

[1][http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of- pe...](http://debacle.tumblr.com/post/3041940865/the-pratfall-of-penny-arcade- a-timeline)

<comment><USER6> That entire article is a prime example of idiots blowing things out of proportion to generate internet drama.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The whole debacle is stupid. Someone online said something wrong. Move on. Seriously.

<comment><USER3> This feels like the Hot Coffee thing again. The problem is not that he said something wrong, the problem was that _he himself_ kept bringing it up.[1][2][3]

[1][http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2010/8/13/](http://www.penny- arcade.com/comic/2010/8/13/)

[2][http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/10/06/our-store-is- back](http://www.penny-arcade.com/2010/10/06/our-store-is-back)

[3][http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-hern/2013/09/penny- arcade-r...](http://www.newstatesman.com/alex-hern/2013/09/penny-arcade- reopens-dickwolves-controversy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Who thought it was going to be about screen resolutions before clicking?

<comment><USER9> HN is less and less about hacking and more about feelings, I am actively looking for a more technical news site, this site is turning into Jezebel.

<comment><USER10> Flag the submissions that don't belong here. Upvote the submissions that do belong here. Post great submissions.

HN has always had this kind of content. You can ignore most of the "feelings" by saying this is an example of how a company shouldn't apologise - and that's important for HN because startups sometimes make mistakes thst have to be apologised for.</comment></comment></comment>


Why I've started using NoScript - <AUTHOR> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/AwAA4y698dgbYfgeQ/why-i-ve-started-using-noscript <comment><USER2> So as I click the article about why the guy started using noscript, the first text I am greeted with is this:

"This website requires javascript to properly function. Consider activating javascript to get access to all site functionality."

Which, granted, does not interfere in my hability to read the article using my non-javascript web browser. But it is quite ironic.

</comment><comment><USER3> I use uMatrix, which gives better control.</comment>


The seeming irrationality of a well-tuned emotional system - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/1313944/being-rational-all-the-time-isnt-going-to-do-you-any-favors/ <comment><USER2> I like the "The marriage of sense and reason" section.

There are so many "wrong-on-the-internet" folks who believe they're being rational, but in fact are merely cherry-picking whatever bits of reality (they use the word "facts") they understand, formulating their response only on that basis and ignoring everything else that isn't easy to observe, measure or reason about.

Being rational or objective is a very tall order. We are never _actually_ prepared to do that in real-life scenarios. It is only remotely feasible in the most stripped-down, simplified set-ups.

<comment><USER3> Being rational is separate from being objective. Please do not mix these terms to confuse people.

Typical way to attempt rationality is to follow a well defined algorithm to make a decision, with well defined inputs. Even if it is a simple as "sum these assigned numbers and pick highest option" it is more rational than the alternative.

You can quantify and tune your "gut" or estimation skills the same way as with any other. Remember and learn from both successes and mistakes, exercise the skill.

Most people learn only from representative instances which is actually irrational and a known human logic hole - representativeness heuristic. This means their gut feeling is relatively mistuned this making for bad decisions.

Asking just one simple question - how meaningful was it - is very effective to avoid the pitfall...

Emotions have more context than one would wish and not all of it obvious. This is what makes using this as decision input hard.

<comment><USER4> Similarly, quantification is separate from being rational.

In your simple example "sum these assigned numbers and pick the highest option," how did you assign those numbers? In most real life scenarios, qualities are difficult to quantify. If you start from questionable quantifications, as the saying goes, "garbage in, garbage out."

Often the rational thing to do is to acknowledge the nigh-impossibility of quantification (let alone combining those quantifications; what if the qualities interact in nonlinear ways?).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> One thing I thought about recently is just how 'theory of mind' works. When you're trying to figure out someone else's motives, often times logic and reason just get in the way. Emotional processing uses the limbic system and is much 'faster' than cognitive thought. You definitely don't want to over-rely on knee-jerk emotional responses, but you don't want to completely throw out the hundreds of thousands of years of primate social evolution in a vain effort to be smarter.

</comment><comment><USER6> Game theory is extraordinarily helpful for understanding what's going on, IMHO.

First off, not every capability is positive value to have. If you can irreversibly give someone a million dollars from your phone, people have a pretty big incentive to stick a gun in your face and make you do that. "It's physically impossible to do that" is an extremely useful negotiation stance; the winning strategy in a game of chicken is to make sure your opponent knows you threw the steering wheel out the car window.

Your emotional system is a really powerful decision-making engine that is almost completely immune to reason. It's extraordinarily hard to use logical reasoning to convince someone to not be sad that their dog died. This is a _feature_ , not a bug. Anger is a much more relevant emotion for this - someone with a hair trigger on their temper has figured out that wielding that implicit threat serves their interest.

<comment><USER7> For all of that theory crafting you forget the person holding you at gunpoint is emotional as well and would just shoot you for having ruined their chance to get money. What use are you to them at all now?

<comment><USER8> Outside of _extreme_ irrationality, this is difficult to imagine: murder is a much bigger crime than theft, and a much, much bigger crime than threatening someone (but ultimately doing nothing).

The detterance from simply being shot is that theres nothing to gain, and doing so increases your risk _substantially_.

Now, if there was little risk, such as you're in a shithole that the cops have gave up on anyways, or you're a known and hated gang member that no one will particularly miss, then its another story. But this why an eye-for-an-eye is an almost necessary strategy in lawless areas: the threat of your kin means that killing just you doesn't end the story. In lawful lands, the police play that role.

Of course, some will just ignore the risk and shoot you anyways, but thats just how it goes. After they take your money, they could shoot you too. Hell, if they're really stupid they might even shoot you _before_.

If they're going to ignore the risk associated with the act, regardless of how risky it is, then there's not much you can do about it. Except shoot them first, I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is an interesting article in the sense that it is impossible to comment on it without making the point of the article even stronger.

<comment><USER5> I like to make up terms on the spot for interesting phenomena I see, the term I came up for for this one is a "rational ratchet". I see it a lot particularly in this space of combining reason with intuition. No matter which direction you push in, you can only apply torque in one direction.

I specifically look for this sort of thing when I meditate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "For example, this would suggest that if an event that makes you "angry" occurs multiple times in succession without actually harming you in a way that the feeling of "anger" predicted, and you don't aggressively hold on to that label, by the tenth time you experience this event, your initial response would have slowly changed from the feeling of "anger" toward something more representative of the situation."

I don't agree with this universally. Case in point: road rage. A person could get cut off 100x and still feel anger. That's because emotions arent just a predictive system about an event. They are also about related ideas. In this case perhaps our driver feels like people take advantage of him. As long as that belief is there he may get angry every time he is cut off.

<comment><USER11> I would guess that driving is an inherently stressing activity, where people have internalized the knowledge that any mistake can kill them (like nearly no other activity they do nowadays), and thus are prone to getting angry even if they happen to escape most of the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> When the author talks about not aggressively holding onto labels he is basically talking about meditation.

In my experience, emotions generate discursive thought. Meditation is a process of dropping that discursive thought and feeling the emotions directly. This leads to clear insights on your world.

</comment><comment><USER13> Headline doesn't match the content; while the article is more nuanced, it still seems to put too much blind faith in our evolved emotional systems.

> On the other hand, given that our emotional system—that gives us information > points through a sense or a judgment—has been refined by the battery of > evolution for much, much longer than the thinking mind, we know that it > absorbs more of the nuances of reality before it comes to a conclusion.

That doesn't follow at all; if anything the opposite is true, our emotional system is quicker to discard nuance (because in the ancestral environment it was more important to make an approximate decision quickly, whereas in the modern world the opposite is true).

> In fact, Barrett's model even suggests that cognition and emotion are not > distinct at all. > the seeming irrationality of a well-tuned emotional > system, within the right context, can fill in gaps that reason misses.

It's not about irrationality being an advantage or "filling in gaps". It's about the speed of our emotional system making it useful despite the irrationality. It's well worth making the best possible use of the cognitive tools we have, including our emotional system, but that doesn't mean the flaws of those tools cease to be flaws.

<comment> proto-n He says "seeming irrationality". Meaning something that is judged irrational by our logical system, which has limited capacity thus limited information.

He says that, if you account for certain biases, the much higher capacity emotional system can be a useful input feature for the final decision.

In summary, don't trust the input of your instincts blindly, it is biased. However, flawed as it may be, it is probably based on much more information than your logical decision, so you should not discard it completely either. Try to account for biases, better yet, train your emotional system for less biased decisions.

<comment><USER13> > He says "seeming irrationality". Meaning something that is judged irrational > by our logical system, which has limited capacity thus limited information.

But this fails to acknowledge that very often the reason our emotional system seems irrational is because it _is_ irrational.

> He says that, if you account for certain biases, the much higher capacity > emotional system can be a useful input feature for the final decision.

> In summary, don't trust the input of your instincts blindly, it is biased. > However, flawed as it may be, it is probably based on much more information > than your logical decision, so you should not discard it completely either. > Try to account for biases, better yet, train your emotional system for less > biased decisions.

That's a very generous reading of the article, and a much better takeaway than anything I got from the article itself. There is value in our emotional systems, but the biases of that system are very real and warrant more attention and caution than the article pays them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The article makes the case that our "emotional systems" can be understood as an effective way of internalizing and responding to our experiences in a complex world.

Maybe this is obvious but I think equally important is the emotional interplay between people, and the dynamics of that larger emotional system. Emotions are like a protocol that humans use to communicate their mental states to each other. If emotions were just about understanding the world, there would be no reason for humans to express them visibly & audibly.

A little bit of occasional anger can effectively communicate that someone has crossed a line. Laughter is positive feedback. etc. etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> I thoroughly enjoyed reading Predictably Irrational. It's a book about experiments in behavioural economics and relevant anecdotes. I'd recommend it to anyone, it's easy to read and highly informative.

</comment><comment><USER16> Finally, someone is speaking about this.

</comment><comment><USER17> If one accepts that one is an emotional animal, and that over-suppression of emotional irrationality can lead to mental illness and non-adaptive stress responses, then the rational thing to do is to let yourself be irrational. Escape the local minima.

</comment><comment><USER18> Are we discussing "rationality" without having defined that term? I would guess that's probably an _example_ of irrationality.

As I see it, people mostly use "rationality" to refer to a set of theories, such as mathematics, which are useful tools that can help people make decisions in the real world. However, people still have to decide when and how to use those tools. Deciding which tools to use and how is another thing that theories, such as mathematics, might help people with, but, again, people have to decide when and how to use those tools in deciding which tools to use. To avoid an infinite regression, most decisions need to be made unconsciously: at some point people just do what feels right.

If you've discovered some theory that seems really useful and not as well known as it deserves to be, tell us about it: that sounds interesting. If you've got some vague waffle about the usefulness of theory/rationality in general, then I'm not so interested because I don't even see any entertainment in that, let alone practical use.

<comment><USER19> "Rationality" should be pretty obvious ... in accordance to logic. And logic has a very rigorous definition.

> " _people mostly use "rationality" to refer to a set of theories, such as > mathematics_"

Your thinking is flawed, probably by having wrong ideas about what mathematics is. _Mathematics is logic_ , a fact obscured by the math we end up learning all the way up to high school, which does not capture the essence of math. Speaking of which, add the Curry–Howard correspondence in the mix and the plot thickens ;-)

]

<comment><USER20> Rigorous definitions of logic—the various systems of formal logic—do not fully define reason. They are more like particular schemes that formalize and idealize some aspects of reasoning.

Those systems are derived from reasoning, using reasoning, in accordance with reason, but they are not reasoning itself, unless you want to claim that the process of inventing or refining formal logics is itself unreasonable.

It's impossible to fully define a foundational concept like rationality. This concept has been used as an example of an "essentially contested concept" whose "proper use… inevitably involves endless disputes."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This can't be true by definition. Being maximally rational means behaving optimally. If your behavior doesn't provide a good cost-benefit ratio, what it wan't rational to begin with.

One big issue I see with people acting "rationally" is they don't take into account all factors, like the time it takes to analyse your options vs just going with your gut.

<comment><USER22> I don't agree with you on this completely, even though I'm very pragmatic and usually very rational myself. Sometimes it's better to consider the emotional effects your decision has, rather than just the logical reasons to pick A or B. I learned that the company lives and dies with their employees so sometimes making the rational decision can cost you a lot, even though, most people would agree with you about it being the right decision.

<comment><USER23> > Sometimes it's better to consider the emotional effects your decision has, > rather than just the logical reasons to pick A or B. I learned that the > company lives and dies with their employees so sometimes making the rational > decision can cost you a lot, even though, most people would agree with you > about it being the right decision.

You talk about eschewing "just the logical reasons", and then describe a perfectly logical decision making process. I'm confused.

Do you believe that logical decisions can only involve quantitative factors?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm well-grounded in science and the the rationalist worldview. Imagine my wonder and curiosity when I went for a Reiki "initiation" and I could _feel_ the "energy"!

I've worked with electricity, I understand that, if I _feel_ something, a _force_ is involved in the sense of Physics. I wasn't hallucinating, nor was there a Van de Graff generator concealed behind a screen. I'm more-or-less a Rational Materialist, so I immediately began to try to find the physics behind the "Chi" or "Ki" phenomenon. Fortunately, there was a well-stocked metaphysical library in my neighborhood at the time, (a physical library of books on all metaphysical subjects.) I began to spend hours a day there, poring over the books trying to find a rail on which to lodge my foot.

I discovered that "Chi" has been discovered and re-discovered several times in the West by many people, beginning with Mesmer[1], and including a Baron Carl von Reichenbach (who called it "the Odic force")[2], one William Walker Atkinson (who called it "Vril")[3], he was contemporaneous with the founder of Reiki, Mikao Usui[4], and Wilhelm Reich (who called it "Orgone")[5].

That's not a complete list. Some investigators were more scientific than others, to put it mildly. But it's fair to say that this phenomenon has been known to and investigated by Westerners continuously for about three centuries, yet it has somehow never fully broken into consensus reality despite having been granted the benefit of the Scientific Method in at least a few cases.

I failed to find anyone who had developed any sort of mathematics or engineering around it. It's possible that it has something to do with EM. (I did find a lot of magic. There are more and stranger religions in our world than you can possibly imagine. I did discover that there is a sort of formula or algorithm in common to _all_ prayer, magic, ritual, new age magical thinking wish-fulfillment, etc. Every single cult, religion, lodge, mystery school, etc. has the same basic structure to its magic regardless of the trappings or outer organization. But that's a tangent.)

My point is, "chi energy" is real, and it is the medium of emotions. Whatever emotions are they happen in this "chi field." You have experienced this yourself your whole life: the ineffable part of experiencing an emotion, the part that _isn 't_ proprioceptive feedback from your muscles and glands, is your subjective experience of a phenomenon that has a real physical existence. Your emotions extend out from your body for a meter or two. (The literature speaks of the "Emotional Body", and "aura".[6])

My meta-point is, _we should do science to this_. This is a body of knowledge clogged with nonsense and bullshit, and dogged by skepticism and apathy, "and yet it moves"[7]. I did experiments, other people felt it, it's real, whatever it is. (And in the case of Reiki it has the capacity to engender healing, which is pretty important and should _also_ be scientifically investigated. But that's separate from the fact that we should investigate "Chi" in general.) If we want to understand emotions we have to study this "energy".

[1] 1734 – 1815 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer#Animal_magnetism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franz_Mesmer#Animal_magnetism)

[2] 1788 – 1869 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odic_force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odic_force)

[3] 1862 – 1932 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_Atkinson](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Walker_Atkinson)

[4] 1865 – 1926 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikao_Usui](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikao_Usui)

[5] 1897 – 1957 [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilhelm_Reich)

[6] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_(paranormal)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aura_\(paranormal\))

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

</comment><comment><USER25> Wouldn't "well-tuned" in this case mean "an emotional system which improves reasoning where logical thinking fails". And in that case isn't the title of the article a tautology?

I think most would agree that a "good" emotional system can be an aid to reason. The reason many think we shouldn't trust emotions is because most systems are "bad" (as in, it acts counter to capacity to reason).

<comment><USER26> OK, we've updated the title from "A well-tuned emotional system can fill in gaps that reason misses".

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> If someone wanted to connect with others and have a good time, rationality is the number one party buzzkill. I'd trade all rationality in perpetuity for being able to connect with people without even needing to think about it... social skills are far more vital to well-being than almost anything else besides industrious productivity. Worse, these skills are in abject crisis with infinite distractions, negative social polarization/crybullies/humorouslessness/long-tail civilization decline and a disposable, social-dilettance mentality that only allows for surface, fake relationships that go to die on Facebook. You also can't have love with Vulcan analysis... it's incompatible with mutual-affinity.

<comment><USER28> Rationality also keeps you from getting taken for a ride by failing for every last scam in the book. Productivity doesn't do you any good and probably not society getting siphoned. And that is before getting roped into doing harm to others intentionally or otherwise.

Personally I disagree with the mutual affinity incompatibility. If rationality is getting in the way it is for a reason - if you both like rowing and musical theater there is nothing to object to but if they are also say a serial killer to give a deliberately extreme example....

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can I suggest that the whole "Lean startup" process is an example of dangerous hyper-reason? You're A/Bing your test subjects, you're responding purely to data and a dogmatic following of the technique results in you never asking how your users/test subjects _feel_ but only how they behave. Thus we end up with software like Facebook that arguably makes a lot of people sad while being unable to stop using it.

</comment><comment><USER30> The mind is meant to be a servant to the body, not the other way around.

A life lived disconnected from the body results in depression, illness and ultimately, one devoid of humanity and instead enslaved to systems and institutions.

Darth Vader represents the ultimate disconnection of mind from body.

And, our collective and individual trauma makes it difficult to remain in our bodies.

The trick is not to suppress or numb out the emotional information we receive.

Rather, we are being called to feel it fully, heal our bodies and traumas, so that we can be in deep attunement with our body and life itself.

<comment><USER3> This post is so full of platitudes I do not even know how to start. It is in "not even wrong" category as used by recruiting into cults.

1\. Depression has many causes and this thing is probably not one. If it is, show evidence.

2\. Darth Vader did what he did because of reach emotional decision, after emotional manipulation. Your argument is extremely invalid. Plus he's a fantasy literary character.

3\. What does "remain in your body" mean anyway?

4\. Is there any evidence that mind - body dualism is real and not just a concept?

5\. Emotional responses are still of mind, just a faster less controlled system of it, influenced by internal chemistry too just like the rest of it.

6\. How do you define "fully healed" or what the trauma means?

<comment><USER30> 1.) I'd recommend starting with the book The Body Keeps Score, if you are interested in the role of trauma & depression.

2\. I'm really just paraphrasing Joe Campbell here. If you want to see his take on mythology, what it represents, and how Lucas used the Hero's journey to craft Star Wars, I'd recommend the current Netflix special on Joe Campbell.

3\. People tend to dissociate and disconnect from their felt body experience. There is a fairly established body of work on "embodiment" and somatic based therapies.

4\. We have our conscious logical brain and we have our emotional brain. Our emotions are mapped to physical sensations in our body. That is what I mean here.

5\. I don't disagree with this.

6\. I would say fully healed would be releasing the traumas. One way might say that you demylinate that pathways that trigger the fight or flight response in similar contexts and form new pathways that create a more accurate model of the world as well as increased capacity for self regulation.</comment></comment></comment>


GADTs: Wizardry for a Typesafe Age - <AUTHOR> http://dttw.tech/posts/SkHN2ZlEG <comment><USER2> I literately know less about GADTs now...</comment>


Mastering the Ghidra Reverse Engineering Tool [video] - <AUTHOR> https://vimeo.com/335158460 <comment><AUTHOR> Slides and script examples at [https://github.com/0xAlexei/INFILTRATE2019](https://github.com/0xAlexei/INFILTRATE2019)</comment>


Payments Startup Balanced (YC W11) Raises From Andreessen Horowitz, CollabFund - <AUTHOR> http://blog.ycombinator.com/payments-startup-balanced-yc-w11-raises-more-money-from-andreessen-horowitz-collabfund-and-others <comment><USER2> Balanced are great and offer way more than stripe with their payouts and marketplace support. We're just waiting for them to add international ACH (IAT) so we can jump ship (they told us it's coming soon).

</comment><comment><USER3> Congrats @balanced folks, really dig what you guys are building.</comment>


99 Designs for Music - <AUTHOR> http://musikpitch.com

<comment><USER2> Great idea! It's cool that you can listen to the submissions in public too. As you could expect, the quality is insanely variable so far.. anyone who can make it through entry #2 at [http://musikpitch.com/songcontests/reach-for- your-college-dr...](http://musikpitch.com/songcontests/reach-for-your-college- dreams/entries) has my eternal respect. I'm almost tempted to create an account just to submit humorous a-capellas.

<comment><USER3> I can't tell if #2 is a joke or not. Entry #1 is funny though, "beam me up, Steve G.".

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I definitely like the idea of pushing the 99 designs concept into new verticals. That being said, it seems like one would want to target the low end of the market such as people doing music for a friend/lover, podcasts, indie games, etc. Bigger ticket items are likely to be done in-house by a studio or outsourced to an already known quantity. As an analogy, I'd be happy to make use of 99 designs for a personal side-project or a place without much money, but when it comes to bigger projects that have a little more money to spare, I'd be much more inclined to go directly to a trusted professional and feel happy that I was in good hands.

<comment><USER5> IMO, the larger the budget you have, the more valuable the 99designs model becomes.

I agree going to a trusted professional is _always_ a good idea, budget allowing. The value of 99designs at that level isn't so much to crowdsource your fundamental design as it is to quickly generate multiple views/impressions/takes on a particular theme, either for the benefit of your chosen designer, or to present a list of basic designs to the stakeholders. 99designs becomes a way to get a bunch of cheap "looks" at different designs, that your GA and stakeholders can use to help define what it is they're actually looking for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> In Chrome 6.0.453.1 dev, neither the "Submit an Entry" nor "View Entries" button works on this page:

<http://musikpitch.com/songcontests/pump-up-music-for-warm-up>

You can click them all you want but nothing happens. It essentially makes the site unusable.

<comment><USER7> Thanks. I'm the developer for Musikpitch. I'll check it out and if you clearly see the fix in the code let me know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> As with 99designs, there is a high risk here for the buyer to end up paying for plagiarism and rip-offs. People with low/non-exiting ethics will throw together rip-offs and submit them to a broad range of "contests" hoping that a fraction of them will lead to money. The buyers on the other hand will find themselves liable for using the rip-off.</comment>


Stalk your boss timeline on GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://githubtimeline.xyz <comment><USER2> there's no timeline, this is just a list of contributions...

time·line ˈtīmlīn/Submit noun a graphic representation of the passage of time as a line.</comment>


An Open Letter to WeWork - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/29/an-open-letter-to-wework/

<comment><USER2> At first I thought this was satire.</comment>