Vim After 11 Years (2013) - <AUTHOR> http://statico.github.io/vim.html <comment><USER3> I'd add to that to try and start using neovim. I've switched to it on Mac without a hitch and we (Floobits) have already moved our vim plugin to use the new neovim python-client plugin for much better async behavior. Making an async plugin for NeoVim is pretty trivial, here's a clock in your status bar:

[https://gist.github.com/btipling/0d6faa80b24ccee5caea](https://gist.github.com/btipling/0d6faa80b24ccee5caea)

Note this requires +python, :he nvim-python for how to get that (involves pip install neovim)

You can't do something like this clock in vim without the feed keys cursorhold hack that breaks using leader keys. Otherwise I'm still using vundle and have made 0 changes in my .vimrc other than move it all to .nvim and .nvimrc. All my plugins and vundle worked out of the box.

<comment><USER4> I had put neovim out of mind and settled for emacs/evil, but seeing an actual use case for the new plugin system makes me hopeful for it's fast growth and adoption.

<comment><USER5> Remember that floobits are the people that threw a tantrum when upstream vim wouldn't accept their patches, and have a vested ego interest in pushing a vim fork.

<comment><USER6> Source?

<comment><USER7> Eh... unless there's more to the story that I'm missing out on, I don't think it's fair to say they "threw a tantrum".

Basically, that company has a service that lets developers do real-time collaboration. Like working on a Google Docs document... except that it's for code, and collaborators can all use whatever supported editors they like. When they went to add support for Vim, they ran into problems with the "real-time collaboration" part... because Vim is single-threaded and doesn't have a non- blocking event loop:

[https://news.floobits.com/2013/09/16/adding-realtime- collabo...](https://news.floobits.com/2013/09/16/adding-realtime- collaboration-to-vim/)

So they kinda hacked together the means for a non-blocking event loop, and submitted it as a patch to Vim:

[https://news.floobits.com/2013/09/17/adding-settimeout-to- vi...](https://news.floobits.com/2013/09/17/adding-settimeout-to-vim/)

The Vim maintainers kept rejecting it, for different reasons each time. After two months of back-and-forth, the Floobits guys asked the Vim guys to either give a comprehensive list of things in the patch that need to be different... or else acknowledge that they simply don't want the event loop thingy merged at all, and that Floobits should move forward with their own fork of Vim instead:

[https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_dev/-4pqDJfHCsM[...](https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/vim_dev/-4pqDJfHCsM\[1-25-false\])

Personally, I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the merits of that patch. However, I think the Floobits guys were justified in feeling frustrated about the Vim guys dragging their feet and not being completely forthcoming.

Either way, if you do some quick web searching, you'll notice that Floobits became pretty big fans and online promoters of NeoVim from that time forward! So much so that you kinda have to take it with a grain of salt.

I'm not exactly sure what to even think about NeoVim. They've been plugging away for over a year, their GitHub repo has over a hundred contributors and two-thousand commits, and yet it's still pre-alpha? Also, the primary purpose seems to be allowing people to write Vim plugins in any programming language. However, it's not like the Vim ecosystem is hurting for plugins today. Besides, the whole point of "vimscript" is that it's self-contained and baked- in as part of the editor. Totally cross-platform, and always there. If I install a NeoVim plugin, then I have to make sure I have the right version of Ruby or Python or whatever on my box to support it? Yuck, no thanks.

As near as I can tell, any real value-prop for NeoVim is using it as an embeddable component. Like the Cloud9 guys' cloud-based Ace editor ([http://ace.c9.io](http://ace.c9.io)), or as something that IDE makers could bake into their desktop IDE apps. I don't really see what's compelling about it head-to-head with standard Vim, assuming it ever fully ships.

<comment><USER8> That is an excellent summary.

teacup50 has an axe to grind. See:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7279358](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7279358)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287939](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7287939)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7288699](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7288699)

<comment><USER5> You're the one whose bad patches were rejected, you just dug through a year's worth of my comment history, and you're constantly and heavily promoting a terrible-design-and-still-no-beta-even-after-a-year-and-a-lot-of-donated-money fork of someone else's open source project ...

... and _I 'm_ the one with an axe to grind?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> _" It's so useful that I've bound it to ; (and nobody remembers what ; does anyway)."_

The original binding of ; is super useful, and I would argue it should not be rebound.

; repeats the last f, t, F or T command.

There's also , which is the same as ; but in the opposite direction.

<comment><USER4> I agree. I initially found many recommendations to bind "," as leader, and it _was_ convenient, but after learning what ";" and "," do, I've changed my leader to <space>.

<comment><USER10> What's a leader?

Googling some, it seems to mean a backslash in the vimrc... but I don't really understand what you mean.

<comment><USER11> It's a way of namespacing commands—if you install NERDCommenter, for example, <leader>cc comments out the current line (whereas cc by itself changes the current line). It's traditionally bound to backspace, which is actually-free, but many people bind it to keys that are free but never used personally.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a hard time understanding vim users. All the cool features listed in this article exist in any modern text editor. I personally use Notepad++, but I'm sure the same goes for Textmate, Sublime Text and many others.

The only advantage I can see in Vim over a modern solution is that it runs in the terminal (which I guess is useful if you like to remotely modify files in your production environment?). Is it that after they have spent so many years learning the arcane controls, users feel obligated to stick with it in order to justify all the time they've already invested?

I must say I've only spent ~2 months of my life using vim before giving up, which I think is already pretty long for an evaluation. I have never experienced or even witnessed the productivity gains you're supposed to get from mastering vim. All I've seen is very unintuitive shortcuts for Ctrl+Backspace advertised as unique features in the world of text editing.

I would be very happy if someone could point out to me the elephant that I am not seeing here.

<comment><USER13> Former longtime emacs (and previous to that, vi) user here.

vi and emacs seem like magic if you're coming from something like SublimeText. Compared to modern IDEs like VisualStudio or IntelliJ products, however - <USER2> so much.

vi users tout the rapid text editing features, but you can generate and navigate code just as fast with an IDE - out of the box - no configuration incantations or third party packages required.

Until very recently (early to mid-2000s), IDEs for open source web frameworks were non-existent, unaffordable, or slow. Once you have a working vi or emacs setup, there's a lot of inertia in place that discourages switching.

That explains the continued popularity of vi, imo.

<comment><USER14> > vi users tout the rapid text editing features, but you can generate and > navigate code just as fast with an IDE - out of the box - no configuration > incantations or third party packages required.

You can navigate code and you benefit from powerful autocompletion (well, depending on your language, because it may quickly degrade to "laughable" with something a bit dynamic). However, the pure text editing experience with vanilla Eclipse/VS is rubbish compared to Vim. In addition, there are languages for which IDE-based code generation/autocompletion is not that interesting due to the language being a lot more compact. And with something like syntastic + the right language plugin, a strongly-typed language gets syntax checking, a description of the type of a variable, and possibly autocompletion. I use both Eclipse (with a Vim plugin) and the real Vim, and it feels much nicer not have to deal with the resource and mental overhead of a full-blown IDE. I think the only feature I really miss when working OCaml/Merlin in Vim is being able to get a list of call sites of a given function in the current project.

<comment><USER15> This. Java with a great IDE is like a half-assed Smalltalk environment (with the notable exception that editing Smalltalk as text is trivially simple compared to java). Java+IDE gives you a kinda-sorta-macros (were macros are defined as code that write code - only the IDEs use some form of simplistic text-replacement code-generating stuff, not true macros), and kinda-sorta "smart" code (but you're not _actually_ modifying objects in memory via a text view, like Smalltalk).

So the IDEs make it feasible to manage all the poor horizontal "abstractions" (complections, really) with all the different files and paths and whatnot. But they're much inferior to vi(m) for _editing text_.

Granted, if you don't do much _text editing_ (writing, modifying, moving lines around) - the work you actually do do ("programming") - won't benefit much from a great text editor.

I used vim for small java projects before inner classes (massive spill of code/classes across files and folders) -- and it was pretty painful. When I changed to use Literate Programming - and could easily _work_ on one file, letting the system generate the arbitrary structure java needed -- things went much more smoothly.

So, yes, YMMV - but if what you do is write/edit stuff that fits in a sane text format, a great editor is a great help. If what you're doing is composing objects from a large standard library of objects, you probably want an object editor like a visual, image-storage (as in vm image) based system like Smalltalk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> There're things I agree or disagree on with author (for example, I still have NerdTree installed, but find myself almost never using it, instead I use tree -f in separate terminal window) but probably only one thing I'm still not sure about:

I don't use buffers explicitly at all, only tabs instead, like in any IDE. Sometimes vsplit. I even have custom mappings for ctags to open stuff in new tabs instead of buffers. I treat hidden buffers as legacy needed mostly for technical reasons. Yet I keep seeing other people using multiple buffers, switching between them. So, should I reconsider, maybe? And why?

<comment><USER17> I used tabs, but nowadays I don't seem to need them. One day I thought I could try if I could survive by just using buffers, and apparently I do. Might depend on the way you want to navigate the project and so on. For me personally the most common buffer switch is between two or three documents at a time and for those needs split windows are absolutely the best for me (which removes any needs for tabs, naturally).

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > backslash isn't bound to anything by default

Actually it is. That thing is called "leader" and is used exactly for the same purpose as author uses backslash. So better way to write

        :nmap \o :set paste!<CR>

would be

        :nmap <leader>o :set paste!<CR>

Reasons to use "leader" are discussed more than once, so I'll leave reading the docs/blogposts to you.

</comment><comment><USER18> Why do you advocate using vim in a terminal?

I prefer unite[1] to ctrl-p[2], it's much more flexible.

1: [https://github.com/Shougo/unite.vim](https://github.com/Shougo/unite.vim) 2: [https://github.com/kien/ctrlp.vim](https://github.com/kien/ctrlp.vim)

<comment><USER19> I also prefer cntrlp, it's much more performant in my experience.

<comment><USER4> This is true (something like junegunn's fzf is even faster than either), but I think the tradeoff is between performance and consistency of interface. Unite can provide the same interactions for recent files, buffers, file navigation, grep results, etc.

<comment><USER20> You can do this with ctrlp too. The standard sources are files, buffer, and MRU files, but it comes with extensions for things like the quickfix list (grep results), tags, and scripts in the runtime path. You can also write your own: [https://github.com/kien/ctrlp.vim/tree/extensions](https://github.com/kien/ctrlp.vim/tree/extensions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've found split windows and buffers in vanilla vim to be somewhat lacking -- CtrlSpace [1] and GoldenView [2] plugins are truly awesome enhancements. The latter I wish I could have at the OS level, just incredibly efficient usage of screen real estate, and the former makes buffer management a breeze.

[1] [https://github.com/szw/vim-ctrlspace](https://github.com/szw/vim- ctrlspace) [2] [https://github.com/zhaocai/GoldenView.Vim](https://github.com/zhaocai/GoldenView.Vim)

<comment><USER15> Not familiar with goldenview - but it looks like something similar could be achieved with eg xmonad? Or are you not using Xorg and a tiling wm?

<comment><USER21> I do use a tiling WM, just not Xmonad ;-)

With i3[1] you get split windows out of the box, but the splits are fixed by 1/2s (kind of a Russian Doll box model) that you can then incrementally resize via hotkey by some percentage of your choosing.

That's different than GoldenView which automatically gives the _focused_ window the lion's share of screen real estate, thus providing a kind of distraction free mode with the added ergonomic benefit of not having to crane one's neck to left and right when working with split windows on a 27" monitor.

Maybe Xmonad, Awesome, and other highly programmable TWMs provide such functionality (or are trivial to pull off), although haven't heard mention of it (spent a couple of months with Awesome before switching to i3).

[1] [http://i3wm.org/screenshots/](http://i3wm.org/screenshots/)

<comment><USER15> Right. I generally just make do with fewer windows (typically Firefox with a gazillion tabs w/vimperator, and a terminal or two, each running screen with a few screens) -- so I rarely need to do much jockying around with windows. A little more shifting around on my laptop (14"), a little more on my desktop (20"@2048x1152).

I can see the need for more windows on a 27" (or 30") though. Maybe xmonad with "Spiral" or "Spiral Golden Ratio" does something similar (although probably not quite the same)?

[https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Xmonad/Screenshots](https://www.haskell.org/haskellwiki/Xmonad/Screenshots)

Generally I just use a standard tiled layout, with 2/3 of the screen for the "main" window (vertical split, works best on a 16:9/16:10 display), and bring witch ever window I want there with alt+enter.

But then, I find that things that change "automatically" end up being distracting (eg: relative line numbers in vim) -- so odds are we just have different preferences.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Emacs has a useful mode which highlights hexidecimal colors in CSS and SASS

There's plugin for it in vim. Even several of them, as always. I don't remember which one I used and if it was completely ok, but I can find [https://github.com/skammer/vim-css-color](https://github.com/skammer/vim-css- color) right away.

<comment><USER22> Emacs can highlight colors in ANY text buffer if you activate it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Thanks for reading! Don't forget to check out the follow-up to this article, "Everything I Missed in Vim After 11 Years" \- [http://statico.github.io/vim2.html](http://statico.github.io/vim2.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> The author mentions a lack of good smart completion, but if you use C# there is omnisharp, which works quite well.

[https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp- vim](https://github.com/OmniSharp/omnisharp-vim)

</comment><comment><USER25> Another person who recommends pathogen... There's multiple better plugin managers now including Neobundle and vundle... I find neobundle to be unquestionably superior and well worth using.

<comment><USER26> Just curiously, what do you find superior?

pathogen loads the plugins which is all I need. Does Neobundle do something else?

<comment><USER25> Here's a vimrc that showcases some of its features: [https://github.com/bling/dotvim/blob/master/vimrc#L324](https://github.com/bling/dotvim/blob/master/vimrc#L324)

Pathogen loads plugins, but it doesn't manage them. Neobundle lets me list some plugins in my vimrc and it'll take care of installing them, updating them, and even only loading them on filetypes where they're useful.

Pathogen does none of that and I find every one of those features useful. One of the big ones, honestly, is just the simplicity of listing a new bundle in my vimrc, syncing it to all computers, and having it deal with getting it. Much better than syncing large git repos across computers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Why is iTerm2 being suggested for OS X when the built-in Terminal.app also supports 256 colors?

Also, I find MacVim to be a better experience than Vim in the terminal.

<comment><USER28> iTerm 2 has _way_ more options than Terminal.app, my favorite being the ability to set your color scheme.

<comment><USER29> The killer feature for me is Hotkey Windows - I set it up so that pressing Ctrl+Space from anywhere will slide out a terminal. So convenient.

[http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/48796/iterm-as-a- sl...](http://apple.stackexchange.com/questions/48796/iterm-as-a-slide-out- terminal-from-the-top-of-the-screen)

<comment><USER30> To be fair, you can do the same for iTerm (or _any_ application, really) by using other tools. Quicksilver, for instance, allows you to define system-wide hotkeys.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Apropos of nothing in particular: a good way of spotting vim hipsters is that they don't know what ; does, because they never used t or f. They do however very carefully use hjkl to move around, because the cursor keys are for squares ;)

<comment><USER32> I remapped ; a long time ago (to ":", because I can't be bothered to hold down the shift key) because I rarely need to repeat a t/T/f/F motion. I typically already know how many times I need to invoke it (and use "3f)" for example), or I use a quick "/" followed by a couple of letters in the word I want to jump to.

<comment><USER33> That's a great idea; never thought of it before. The only worry is that it is not going to work on remote systems out of the box, confusing my muscle memory.

<comment><USER32> Yeah that's true. I have a lot of remappings and shortcuts in my vimrc file, and I struggle a bit when I'm using vanilla vim on another server. Thankfully, I'm usually able to snyc my ~/.vim/ and ~/.vimrc files to that machine if I'll be using it for more than just a one-off.

But it is frustrating otherwise.

<comment><USER15> The main thing I've yet to figure out wrt vim is _good_ keybindings with a Norwgian key layout. We have ø where ; lives, æ in place of ', no single (non- shift ) [ and ] due to å. and a composing accent/single/back quote. Loosing three full keys to actual letters is a though break ;) I know a lot of people simply switch to a US layout, but it's not really a great solution when freq uently also typing in Norwegian.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> In my experience nerdtree is bad. You loose a lot of goodnes that splits can offer you. Netrw or netrw+vinegar is more vim friendly way to do file navigation.</comment>


Exploring Literature with Stanza - <AUTHOR> https://lemmalytica.com/posts/2020/08/23/exploring-stanza/ <comment><AUTHOR> Stanza seems like a pretty neat NLP library. I think it may become by one of my go-to tools for text analysis projects. This post is from an afternoon I spent playing around with basic Stanza functionality.</comment>


Microsoft Is Rumored to Be Building a New Browser That Is Not Internet Explorer - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/12/29/microsoft-is-rumored-to-be-building-a-new-browser-that-is-not-internet-explorer/

<comment><USER2> Cool. I don't have enough to support.</comment>


Goldman Sachs Plans to Clear Bitcoin Futures When They Go Live - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-07/goldman-sachs-is-said-to-clear-bitcoin-futures-when-they-go-live <comment><USER2> Has anyone discussed the future of forks with respect to futures? Or indeed to any cryptocurrency denominated debts.

The easy case is: Alice owes Bob 1.0 BTC in year 2020. Between then and now, BTC forks into BTC and BTZ -- and so now Alice Owes bob 1.0 "new" BTC and zero BTZ. On net, does this mean that whatever fork retains the legal position of BTC is going to be in more demand than hypthetical BTZs?

Given that, will it create a incentive for forkers to fight for legal recognition such that debts can be / have to be payed in their own currency. And if they do this with some success, what happens when instead of having a clear BTC/BTZ split, you have a BTC_forkA and BTC_forkB for paying debts in.

<comment><USER3> > _Has anyone discussed the future of forks with respect to futures?_

The reference bitcoin index for futures is well-defined: [http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/files/bitcoin-reference- rate...](http://www.cmegroup.com/trading/files/bitcoin-reference-rate- methodology.pdf)

I would guess that this was done in collaboration with the relevant exchanges. So forks are pretty much a don't-care for the futures that begin trading in the next two weeks.

<comment><USER4> That doesn't actually address the case where the constituent exchanges disagree on which side of a contentious fork is "Bitcoin".

Exchanges are incentivized to quickly converge on one or the other so it may not be a problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >"The decision to clear client trades will be made on a case-by-case basis, the person said."

Could someone say what "clearing the trades" mean here?

<comment><USER6> It's where Goldman would net off trades between their own clients, effectively acting as an exchange for their clients using the prices on the official exchange. They say in the article they won't act as market-makers or hold their own positions. That means they won't perform their usual capacity for clients, where they act as middleman between the exchange and their own clients. ie they won't make a price for their clients to buy a bitcoin future the client wants to sell, and then turn around and sell the bitcoin to someone else the exchange later in the day. They won't do that. What the will do is buy the bitcoin future if they have another client that wants to buy it at the same time, because then they will never assume much risk.

<comment><USER7> So if the blockchain evolved such that it took 2 or 3 hours for a transaction to clear, and cost, say, $5,000 then during the same 2-hour block Goldman could let A sell 50,000,000 pretend bitcoins to B, B could sell 25,000,000 pretend bitcoins to C, and 25,000,000 pretend bitcoins to D, then the price could move up (or down) and A could buy back 25,000,000 from C and 25,000,000 from D, so that A, B, C, and D have the same number of virtual bitcoins that they started with - but the exchange could have resulted in a transfer of net actual dollars between A, B, C, and D - without incurring up to 50 million * $5,000 = $250 billion in transaction fees?

Where even though this net transfer happened, all of A, B, C, and D think that it was fair and what they wanted? (I call them "pretend bitcoins" because they don't need to be reflected in the blockchain - the transaction of 25 million pretend bitcoins in motion aren't reflected in the blockchain.)

feel free to correct me if I'm very wrong.

<comment><USER8> Neither CME or CBOE bitcoin futures are directly connected to bitcoins. Both will be cash settled (i.e. no bitcoin delivery). There will be no need for buyers, sellers or intermediaries dealing in bitcoin futures to buy/sell/own bitcoin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have been trading crypto for 5 years now and it is a wet dream for rogue traders. There was a myriad of stories about traders and even banks that tried to pull of some shady statretgy in the stocks markets that the SEC shut down, those same strategies seem to be fair game in the crypto world, you just have to have pockets that are deep enough. My point is that if you are smart and think you can beat or even keep up with the crypto market, you will end up losing because it's been rigged for years.

<comment><USER10> If you are short term day trading you're likely to be a victim of pump and dump groups and manipulation.

Going long on high market cap coins with a longer timeline is a relatively safer bet.

<comment><USER9> There are fees to any position you hold so even though going long is indeed the safe bet, having a longer timeline requires deep pockets.

<comment><USER11> You can avoid the fees on some bitcoin exchanges if you're a market maker, and with the volatility that's pretty easy most days. I made a couple 0% fee trades today alone. But, the second part is definitely true... you still need deep pockets to hold a long position.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This should give the big Wall St banks the ability to muck with crypto prices however they choose, just like they can do with gold and silver and other commodities (for example, Goldman magically closed gold positions and sold short 2 days before historic 25% price drop in 2 trading days in 2013[0])

Hopefully people will read those contracts and understand how delivery actually works and realize that COMEX or whoever can halt delivery and settle in cash if they want to, etc.

[0] - [https://www.cnbc.com/id/100630626](https://www.cnbc.com/id/100630626)

<comment><USER13> > This should give the big Wall St banks the ability to muck with crypto > prices however they choose,

The current status quo is that large bitcoin holders can muck with crypto prices however they choose.

<comment><USER14> Futures exchanges will have to buy large sums of underlying assets (one reason for the recent spike.) So, in the end a lot of exchanges will be some of the largest crypto holders.

<comment><USER8> The currently proposed CME and CBOE futures are cash settled. No actual bitcoin is involved. Neither the buyers or sellers of the futures, nor any other entities involved, will need to buy/sell/hold any bitcoin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I suspect the investment banks that say they're going to stay away will quickly get FOMO and jump in sooner rather than later.

Crypto is always in the headlines and will constantly occupy the headspace of trader's colleagues and peers, so it's just human nature that they will not be able to resist having a taste.

</comment><comment><USER15> Key part being that they'll let client's play that game. I don't see any enthusiasm from them to put their own money into futures layered on top of what looks decidedly bubbly.

<comment><USER16> Because the best way to trade is to announce your intentions 2 weeks before you execute...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I have no idea if Bitcoin is going to succeed or fail, but if anyone thinks the second guy in the video has no idea what the block chain is because he mumbled "block-coin", you have been fooled. Who the hell is that "reporter"? When would the CEO come out and boast this is all a joke. Of course Goldman has an very keen understanding of what's going on. They are almost guaranteed to have a position on BTC one way or another and be goading people into buying it. That doesn't mean smart or lucky people won't be able to ride their wave up if they are successful, but to think Goldman is dumb as those two guys seem is completely ludicrous, its obviously an act.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wonder what Jamie Dimon thinks about this! Funnily enough, my sources tell me JP will be in on the futures contracts as well. What hypocrisy!

<comment><USER19> It's not really hypocrisy. There's money to made by clearing futures and some of the banks want that money. What's being traded doesn't really matter.

<comment><USER18> Maybe, but then the things he said about his potential future clients are just downright hurtful: [https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/jamie-dimon-says-people- who-...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/10/13/jamie-dimon-says-people-who-buy- bitcoin-are-stupid.html)

<comment><USER20> > "The only value of bitcoin is what the other guy'll pay for it," Dimon said. > "Honestly I think there's a good chance of the buyers out there are out > there jazzing it up every day so that maybe you'll buy it too, and take them > out."

Is there any reason to consider this statement inaccurate?

<comment><USER18> It's accurate, but it's also accurate for almost every fund/structured security that many of JP's desks are peddling.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I bet Ethereum futures come within a year or so. Now that the banks are executing trades for one, it's much easier to add more.

</comment><comment><USER22> [https://www.aprexcoin.org/](https://www.aprexcoin.org/)

</comment><comment><USER23> bitcoiners in 2012: "Bitcoin will eliminate the wall street banksters!" Bitcoiners right now: "OMG Goldman is getting in, who's ready for their moon rocket?"

<comment><USER24> Expectations are rather more mixed than that.[0] Sure, the price could spike even higher after futures go on sale. But volatility will increase dramatically. And you can't count on exchanges, if the price collapses.

0) [https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-futures-make-way-new- kind-w...](https://www.coindesk.com/bitcoin-futures-make-way-new-kind-whale/)

<comment><USER25> Futures markets reduce volatility.

<comment><USER26> Can you do an "Explain it like I'm 5" of this? I don't doubt you but I'm struggling to make the connection. Will futures affect the pricing of the underlying asset? (I don't think so?)

I think you are saying "futures reduce volatility for the trader" but I'm not sure.

<comment><USER27> It allows participants to short and therefore should allow more balanced flows.

However one needs some pretty steel-made cojones to short a bubble....

<comment><USER28> More specifically, it allows one to short with limited downside. There are some exchanges that provide naked short positions in Bitcoin, but those have theoretic infinite downside and your broker will force you to liquidate at a loss at a certain point.

With futures, however, you can put together positions that will provide a known limit on your downside for short positions. This provides a more appealing avenue for shorts to get in with much less risk.

<comment><USER27> I am not sure I get how the risk is limited with a future. If the price goes to $1m when you traded at $16,000, you will have to make a $984,000 margin call payment (+margin).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> wow, these guys seem even shiftier than usual, trying to deflect whether or not they have a bitcoin strategy..

<comment><USER30> Oh, they have a bitcoin strategy: making money out of the fools trading it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> > In fact, the Bloomberg system is a blockchain, just instead of having the > users control it, we control it, but it has all the attributes of that.

Thus proving that whatever he thinks about Bitcoin, Michael Bloomberg is clueless about the blockchain.

<comment><USER32> Why can't they run an internal blockchain?

<comment><USER33> Why can't a fish wear swimfins?

A blockchain is a solution to the problem of establishing consensus without relying on an authority. If your systems relies on trust in an authority, adding a blockchain is good for one thing: marketing.

<comment><USER34> You just provided a reason to use a block chain, not a reason that it is implausible.

Whether or not it is something you think of as a good reason, "marketing" is a real reason things get done in businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The bigger it grows the harder it will fall. The design/implementation of bitcoin as a currency is severely flawed.

Projects like Ethereum, Hyperledger, and IOTA have a more long term focus. Full Disclosure: I have no positions in any crypto but have been reading a lot. Also, in the midst of two courses that go that cover crytpocurrencies and blockchain tech.

1\. [https://www.coursera.org/learn/cryptocurrency](https://www.coursera.org/learn/cryptocurrency) 2\. [https://www.edx.org/course/blockchain-business- introduction-...](https://www.edx.org/course/blockchain-business-introduction- linuxfoundationx-lfs171x)

#1 gives a very good history of what a blockchain is, and how is implemented by bitcoin. This is enough to keep me away since I have learned about all the technical flaws:

#2 discusses blockchains, and consensus algorithms. This project shows lots of promise. They just added code that allows the consensus algorithm to actually be changed via a transaction, without a hard fork.

Bitcoin gets all the credit for introducing the world to the blockchain concept, but its far from a sound solution as a cryptocurrency.

<comment><USER36> You should take a look at IOTA's github repo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> > "Given that this is a new product, as expected we are evaluating the > specifications and risk attributes for the bitcoin futures contracts as part > of our standard due diligence process,"

How can you be diligent at identifying risks in bitcoin derivatives? O_o</comment>


Here's why Obama is giving up the element of surprise in Syria - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/08/27/heres-why-obama-is-giving-up-the-element-of-surprise-in-syria/

<comment><USER2> It is state terrorism.</comment>


Show HN: I'mBusy - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.iambusy

<comment><USER2> It is a nice idea, but that UI is straight from the Jelly Bean era. Have a look at the latest design guidelines for Android: [https://developer.android.com/design/index.html](https://developer.android.com/design/index.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks MegaLeon. I will update in future.</comment></comment>


Tesla Driver Watching Movie While Using Autopilot Crashes into Cop Car - <AUTHOR> https://jalopnik.com/tesla-driver-watching-movie-while-using-autopilot-crash-1844858198 <comment><USER3> Interesting. The Jalopnik writer suggests that autopilot (in addition to not seeing the big stationary car and hitting it) "steered the car off the road". Is this known, or assumed? Is it possible that the cop car (with its warning lights on) was parked slightly into the lane the Tesla was driving along?

Interested as these would be totally different failure mechanisms - <USER2> the cop car whilst maintaining reasonable position within a lane is pretty different from deliberately steering out of the lane and heading directly for the cop car.

</comment><comment><USER4> Autopilot really loves crashing into cop cars. This isn't the first time it's happened...

</comment><comment><USER5> Tesla Insurance is going to be a runaway financial success! Maybe even the greatest hit of this decade.

</comment><comment><USER6> why not full article title?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hacker News submission titles are limited to 80 characters.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The tone of this article is incredibly arrogant. Yes the autopilot made a mistake and yes the driver shouldn't be watching a video, but to state with absolute certainty that autopilot is more dangerous because of a single incident is sensationalistic BS. Does the author realize that 45k people a year die from driving? Where is the outrage there? I see people watching tv on their phones all the time while driving without autopilot.

<comment><USER8> > 45k people a year die

I am not sure you are looking at the correct numbers. according to NHTSA – [https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx](https://www- fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx) there are 1.18 fatalities per 100 millions miles driven. That means, if an individual drives 15.000 miles per year, that individual will face the possibility of dying in a fatal crash as a driver, passenger or pedestrain, once in 6666 years, so the cars and road system are extremely safe as they are today. Most of the self driving cars developers recognize this like Chris Urmson in his Recode Decode interview – "Well, it's not even that they grab for it, it's that they experience it for a while and it works, right? And maybe it works perfectly every day for a month. The next day it may not work, but their experience now is, "Oh this works," and so they're not prepared to take over and so their ability to kind of save it and monitor it decays with time. So you know in America, somebody dies in a car accident about 1.15 times per 100 million miles. That's like 10,000 years of an average person's driving. So, let's say the technology is pretty good but not that good. You know, someone dies once every 50 million miles. We're going to have twice as many accidents and fatalities on the roads on average, but for any one individual they could go a lifetime, many lifetimes before they ever see that." – [https://www.recode.net/2017/9/8/16278566/transcript-self- dri...](https://www.recode.net/2017/9/8/16278566/transcript-self-driving-car- engineer-chris-urmson-recode-decode) or Ford Motor Co. executive vice president Raj Nair – "Ford Motor Co. executive vice president Raj Nair says you get to 90 percent automation pretty quickly once you understand the technology you need. "It takes a lot, lot longer to get to 96 or 97," he says. "You have a curve, and those last few percentage points are really difficult." Almost every time auto executives talk about the promise of self-driving cars, they cite the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration statistic that shows human error is the "critical reason" for all but 6 percent of car crashes. But that's kind of misleading, says Nair. "If you look at it in terms of fatal accidents and miles driven, humans are actually very reliable machines. We need to create an even more reliable machine." – [https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/self- driv...](https://www.consumerreports.org/autonomous-driving/self-driving-cars- driving-into-the-future/) or prof. Raj Rajkumar head of Carnegie Mellon University's leading self-driving laboratory. – "if you do the mileage statistics, one fatality happens every 80 million miles. That is unfortunately of course, but that is a tremendously high bar for automatically vehicle to meet." min.19.30 of this podcast interview – [http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/if_then/2018/05/self_...](http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/if_then/2018/05/self_driving_cars_are_not_yet_as_safe_as_human_drivers_says_carnegie_mellon.html)

What you are using is a fallacy, emotional statement done by self driving cars developers and enthusiasts in order to make people think by adopting this technology they will be part of a bigger better future, by doing essentially nothing.

<comment><USER9> > I am not sure you are looking at the correct numbers. according to NHTSA – > [https://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx](https://www- > fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx) there are 1.18 fatalities per 100 > millions miles driven.

Proper number seems to be ~40k, and the rate is ~ 11/100,000

This isn't a fermi question, it's just google-able.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in_U.S._by_year)</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Searching specific post on hackernews - <AUTHOR> i am specificaly looking for a post where described was a google developer program where wvery two engineer give a complete solution to a problem leveraging gcp describe it in a youtube video and let user vote on  the better system. i have been unable to find this post so far eother on here or on youtube <comment><USER2> Did you try "site:news.ycombinator.com keywords" in google?.

</comment><comment><USER3> Have you tried using the search bar at the bottom of HN?

</comment><comment><USER4> you can try searching on [https://hn.algolia.com](https://hn.algolia.com)</comment>


Largest-ever password study: We are all idiots - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2012/06/01/when-it-comes-to-passwords-we-are-idiots/

<comment><USER2> I wonder if the researchers realize that people sometimes intentionally maintain weak password, since they are easy to remember and it's an acceptable risk for the account to get compromised.

For example, if my Gawker commenting password is 'hello1234', and it gets compromised, what's the worst that can happen? My Gawker commenting account turns into a spam feed? Oh noes my life is over!! </s>

For some applications, weak passwords are perfectly acceptable.

<comment><USER3> I use layered passwords. For simple things I've used the same password for years with only slight variations on it. For things like my email account or servers, I use randomly generated passwords managed through LastPass. Although my personal favourite password system is XKCD's password algorithm: <http://xkcd.com/936/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Troy Hunt analysed the passwords of the Sony and Gawker compromises and shared the results in July 2011[1]. The analysis is worth reading and contains pretty plots that can be digested in a glance. His other blog posts at [2] relating to password security are also worth reading.

[1] [http://www.troyhunt.com/2011/07/science-of-password- selectio...](http://www.troyhunt.com/2011/07/science-of-password- selection.html)

[2] <http://www.troyhunt.com/search/label/Passwords>

</comment><comment><USER5> Isn't the problem that people see passwords as "access" rather than "security"? General public see complex user-names and passwords as an impediment to access, which they are.

I rather think the people who run sites, etc see it the same since often passwords are allowed to be simple by design. Where real security is required users are given passwords like "we%W%G^&FGH344N" to use. Or there s a strictly enforced policy that the user is made to follow.

</comment><comment><USER6> > Bonneau suggests that people chose a randomly selected number at least nine > digits long

I've been working on a program that generates passwords that are (1) English- sounding by nonsense words of a specified length, and (2) where the letters alternate hands when typed.

So (1) makes a password that's pronounceable and therefore easier to remember semantically, while (2) makes it quick-to-type and therefore easier to "remember" via muscle memory. This should make frequently changing one's passwords less painful.

Is there any reason this is a bad idea? Obviously it's not as secure compared to a purely random string of the same length, but my thought is it would encourage people to change their passwords more often since there'd be less friction involved in doing so.

EDIT: I should note that a password manager is a far better idea. But for places where that's not practical (OS login, or the password to your password database), I feel this might be useful.

EDIT ALSO: While I like the XKCD idea in theory, I think it sucks in practice. You're typing four words without the benefit of screen feedback, so typos are more likely, plus it takes a relatively long time to type them.

</comment><comment><USER7> People are not idiots. Those who say we are just don't understand how human behaves. You expect most people will remember a 8-letter random strings consisting of letters, numbers and underscore?

</comment><comment><USER8> I try to use this method: find a password that is very abstract, but meaningful to you. For example, one of my passwords included my exact motherboard model.

<comment><USER9> I once had a large chunk of my user group using acronyms followed by a symbol and the three letters of the previous month.

Not the best, but better than 'qqqqq' followed by 'wwwww'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> >analyzed the password strength of about 70 million _Yahoo_ users.

Ahem.</comment>


If I'm printing in color, should I get a laser or an inkjet printer? - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/news/2011/02/ask-ars-if-im-printing-in-color-should-i-get-a-laser-or-an-inkjet-printer.ars <comment><USER2> Lasers have a killer feature most people don't consider. You can not print color for months at a time and then instantly print a perfect color image. I've never seen an inkjet that can pull that off.

</comment><comment><USER3> Epson color printers. Hands down. The technology blows everything else out of the water.</comment>


PROBLEM OF WORLD: MISSING EQUALITY  (siq, a message from the comodo hacker) - <AUTHOR> http://pastebin.com/a30b9kPF

<comment><USER2> Did he just forget about Nagasaki when talking about nukes?</comment>


Show HN: Potbox – A premium cannabis subscription club - <AUTHOR> https://www.potbox.com/?ref=hn

<comment><USER2> Anyone interested in the subject _must_ read the US Supreme Court case _Gonzales v. Raich_ to understand the serious and weird risks involved.

Raich was a terminally ill old lady, living in CA, who in compliance with state law and under her doctor's oversight, was growing 6 pot plants for her personal medical use. She was subjected to a federal DEA (Drug Enforcement Agency) home-invasion raid wherein said plants were seized.

Raich argued the legality of growing the plants for personal medical use under state law, intra-state, alleging doing so in no way affected interstate commerce and thus was not subject to federal regulation & seizure (and violently so at that).

The Court ruled that her growing her own pot for personal use _did_ affect interstate commerce by _reducing_ demand in an _illegal_ interstate market.

No, I'm not kidding. Yes, they said that.

While the current federal administration may be opting for leniency in enforcing controlled substance laws, the next (1.5 years away, whichever party) may choose to resume aggressive enforcement to the limits of the law which SCOTUS has defined, which as _Raich_ shows is very, very expansive. I suspect a, say, premium cannabis subscription club might be first on the DEA hit list.

[PS: the ruling in _Raich_ may have been affected by the pending _Stewart_ case, which was remanded in light of _Raich_. If _Raich_ had been ruled to the reverse, _Stewart_ would have in likewise reasoning legalized convicted felons building machineguns at home (legal under Washington state law). I'm not kidding about that either.]

<comment><USER3> Would be better off arguing any or all of the following:

* Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. Statue provides no evidence of, nor ability to verify, its claim that there is a lack of evidence of medical value.

* Individual prohibition requires a constitutional amendment a la amendment 18.

* Founding leaders of US grew hectares of cannabis. System is in gross hypocrisy.

<comment><USER4> No, one would not be better off making these arguments in court.

> Cannabis has demonstrated medicinal value, directly contradicting statute. > Statue provides no evidence of, nor ability to verify, its claim that there > is a lack of evidence of medical value.

Please cite a case of a law overturned in the US judicial system because of medical value.

> Individual prohibition requires a constitutional amendment a la amendment > 18.

Again, please cite case law. I'm pretty sure you don't need a constitutional amendment to outlaw possession of a type of good.

> Founding leaders of US grew hectares of cannabis. System is in gross > hypocrisy.

Seriously? It wasn't outlawed until the modern era. By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?

<comment><USER3> Case law is largely irrelevant. You know what existed before 'case law'?

I think the logic is sound: Party A (statute) argues a->x, b->y, c->z. Party B shows a, b, c don't actually hold in reality and therefore you cannot conclude x, y, or z based on a, b, or c.

Statue is therefore meaningless.

Amendment 18 & 21 set the precedent. Amendments 4, 9, & 10 provide huge cover.

>By your logic, should slavery still be legal since founding fathers owned slaves?

I didn't expound my whole logic, but the largest difference is that slaves are human beings and cannabis is a plant.

Also note, slavery is outlawed by the US constitution. Cannabis is not.

<comment><USER2> SCOTUS has demonstrated, as I pointed to in _Raich_ , a willingness to engage in staggering contortions to reach/justify/support a goal. Accepting your reasoning, however correct it may (or may not) be, would mean massive changes in what constitutes contraband and how it may be suppressed - a degree of change SCOTUS is rarely willing to cause (and certainly not over cannabis).

Your reasoning has been tried, and failed. People are working very hard to make such reasoning work, and are making little progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Critiques:

\- "enter" was pretty far on the right side, and didn't seem intuitive

\- may want to add geo-ip service to forewarn visitors of legal status and if it's a serviced area

Other comment:

\- sampler packs would be nice for first-timers. especially strains on the far sides of the spectrum. maybe do a free sampler if they buy 3 months in advance?

\- when do you plan to expand into CO, OR, AK and WA?

\- for year-round sun growth are you just planning for low yields in the winter time? is your supply accommodating that?

<comment><USER6> Also, it didn't say anything about the effects of the strains. I personally know very little about pot, but when you say things like "It's smooth on the tongue and nose, while giving a delicate blend of sativa and indica qualities that make for a well balanced hybrid." it basically means nothing to me as a total novice. I think it would make a lot more sense to list the effects of the strain and what an intended user might experience. I'd make your listing much more geared to newbies, who would likely benefit the most from a sampler style offering.

<comment><USER7> Hi Free Kill,

Ian here, co-founder, thanks for that feedback. We'll be refining those sections :) Effects can range from person to person, especially depending on how much cannabis you consume. We also stay away from making promises on that end as well, as it does not effect everyone the same. As a general rule of thumb (we should make this more-clear) sativa has more of a "mind" high and indica has more of a "body high". Depending on what the plants are crossed, variations fall somewhere in-between those two experiences depending on the person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was thinking about this same idea for awhile, and maybe this might catch on.. but heres the general issues I found from talking with customers in a major metropolitan area in California. One delivery for most dispensaries or services are everywhere. Theres no need for most people to expect random strains when they can choose and get it on demand. The variety of strains don't vary that much from dispensary to dispensary so unless they are growing unique strains that are unique to their service. Dispensaries are everywhere. You can literally find 3 to 5+ dispensaries in a 10 mile radius in most parts of my city. Most people like going into the shop and seeing whats available and talking about weed. The biggest challenge as other pointed out is delivery of the product. You have to have either connect with existing dispensaries to distribute your product, but if thats the case the customer has to be a member of that dispensary or you have to be your own dispensary. No credit card processing is another big challenge.

Either way best of luck to these guys.

<comment><USER3> >Most people

Do you have the data from your study? I'd be interested in checking it out.

I know I sometimes enjoy getting to try a sampling of something that varies a lot. Especially, if I do not have much experience in that particular market. How (or, better, why) should I discriminate between the thousands of strains of cannabis? Why not try out a variety of claimed high quality strains?

The only way you seem to be able to pay is with a credit card, so I guess they already solved that challenge?

<comment><USER8> >How (or, better, why) should I discriminate between the thousands of strains of cannabis?

Well thats why people like going to a dispensary and talking to the staff, even other customers are very helpful in this area. Usually the staff are incredibly knowledgable (this is just in my own personal experience from researching this).

>Why not try out a variety of claimed high quality strains?

Most dispensaries do offer various levels of quality usually you can tell by price, but like I said theres not a huge amount of variety. Its seems this company is going with the sustainable/ethical route, but I really don't know how most indoor grown hydroponics is not sustainable or ethical.

I'd really be concerned with the credit card processing. I would guess even if they were just a middle man to other dispensaries its still likely to get shut down or I have heard of high risk credit card processors, but I really don't have many details on that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This won't be available in my state for the foreseeable future (current new admin unlikely to relax laws anytime soon) but just out of curiosity, I looked at the site and saw your typical cannabis buds and joints.

Is this still the norm as other delivery methods have gained popularity? I haven't smoked cannabis in a long time but I also stopped smoking anything a few years ago as well. Aren't more people moving toward edibles, vaporizers, and the like? I know you can use "plant" cannabis in lots of vaporizers that minimize the combustion of vegetable matter but I guess I just assumed that in places where you weren't dependent on black market dealers trying to cut costs and streamline, it would be more about hash oil or candies or any other form with no smoke or at least minimal smoke involved.

I guess I don't know much about the market as legal options aren't available to me and I got tired of dealing with the black market sources. Just seems most friends who still use cannabis for fun or for medicine have moved past joints and bong rips whenever possible.

Seems like a "premium" service would be just the place to find those arguably premium products.

<comment><USER7> Hi soylentcola,

Ian here, co-founder of Potbox. Very good question. This is something that we might explore in the future, but right now we wanted to get our core product out and branch out from there based on feedback. From our experience, concentrates seems to be a lot popular with younger age groups that don't really seek out farm-to-table products (they are also super strong). On your last point, a lot of our user-base use premium vaporizer systems like the Volcano, which is able to vaporize your cannabis without the use of chemicals. Most concentrates are made using chemicals (like butane) and you will taste it, we want to avoid adding any additional chemicals into something that can be enjoyed safely without them. We aren't ruling it out, but for right now we are focusing on our core product, premium all-natural cannabis.

As for editables, this is a very gray area of the cannabis industry right now. They can be pretty scary if taken in excess and it's very difficult to measure exact doses contained within an editable and how much someone should consume. The way we see it is that there's just so many variables in editables, from production to effects, that we thought we'd hold off on that for right now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> How will they ship this? It is probably a big crime to commercially mail pot across state lines that have not legalized and decriminalized it.

<comment><USER11> It's illegal to transport marijuana between Oregon and Washington currently because as soon as you cross state lines it becomes a federal matter.

<comment><USER12> Just to be clear; it is a federal crime before you cross state lines too. It is just that the current administration has represented that it will not pursue federal charges for cannabis that follows stat law. The current, or next administration, could change its minds at anytime without any need for a vote or law or judicial decision. At that time, the DEA could arrest and a U.S. District Attorney could pursue charges. The Federal Court would be obligated to convict and individuals would be subject to Federal Punishment.

Until Federal Law changes, this is a real threat to cannabis users. Not to mention, the ATF could go after anyone that uses marijuana and possesses a firearm. The way the statutes are written, it is a federal crime to possess or use a firearm (even for sporting purposes) and be a consumer of cannabis.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> That Quicksand font is extremely hard to read in Chrome on Windows. Even zoomed up to 150% or more it's still hard to read. And regardless of font, the body copy is much too small without zooming.

Know your market: a substantial portion of your patients may be older people who have trouble getting around and less-than-perfect eyes, unlike a 20-something web designer with 20/20 vision and a giant monitor.

You can still fit the same text in about the same space or just a little more: simply choose a more readable font, and reduce the excessive line height to allow for a larger font size.

<comment><USER7> Hey Stratoscope,

Ian here, co-founder, thanks for the feedback. You make a very valid point and we are working to refine our design and type on our site. There's definitely room for improvement and optimization on that front. Keep an eye out!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I recall news stories about legal pot businesses in Washington not being able to keep their money in banks because of federal regulations, so I'm curious how they're able to take credit card payments. Is it different for medical marijuana? (I wouldn't think so, as that is still illegal federally).

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, good question! Austin here, one of the co-founders of Potbox..

It really is a state-by-state and bank-by-bank (or credit union) issue. Same with the credit card gateways -- some are completely fine with it and others freak out right away.

When I spoke with SVB they told me their view on it was similar to Bitcoin. Oddly enough, SVB will no longer open accounts for Bitcoin startups. :-p

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The scrolling is completely broken here. Chrome Version 43.0.2357.130 / OS X 10.10.3.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey slig, can you send me a screenshot by chance? We'd love to fix it obviously. Thank you! My e-mail: email@example.com

<comment><USER16> A screenshot won't help much. It has some kind of acceleration so when you scroll it moves twice as far as you'd like.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm not seeing prices anywhere. Are the prices available yet?

<comment><USER18> $149.99 per month

<comment><USER3> What's the total weight of cannabinoids?

<comment><USER19> Half an ounce - two strains, a quarter oz. of each Edit: Oh, "cannibinoids" my bad. Maybe that's in the breakdown they deliver with each strain.

<comment><USER3> Flower weight is good enough (assuming flowers aren't 1% THC 1% CBD) :) Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Hey Austin, looks like a very nice service. Let me know if you'd be interested in integrating with our API at [https://prestodoctor.com/](https://prestodoctor.com/) (for new recommendations and patient verification) firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER21> "You must be over 21 to enter" Haha! The warning kind of works like a teaser to build hype, as if to say "this website is totally legit way to score weed" without violating the premium brand. Love it

</comment><comment><USER22> Your sharing links at the bottom of each strain appear broken for me, intermittently. Firefox Dev Edition 41.0a2.

</comment><comment><USER23> Is the 14g/mo some legal thing? I know people who smoke a lot less and a LOT more than that.

</comment><comment><USER24> Awesome idea!

</comment><comment><USER25> slackerne.ws, amirite?

</comment><comment><USER26> Bok bok!

</comment><comment><USER27> It was only a matter of time, thanks internet.

</comment><comment><USER28> I just can't see myself supporting marijuana startups unless they are doing something about the millions of people who are locked up nationwide for sale or possession. It's great you saw and opportunity to make some money but people's lives have been destroyed before we got to the point you could stroll in and make an easy buck.</comment>


Q: What do you call an IT admin for 20 children? A: A teacher - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/01/29/school_it_security/ <comment><USER2> _> Ultimately, Smolen says, developers and schools will need to take a different approach to handling student data. Ideally, going forward developers will make security and privacy systems that are both easy for kids to understand and simple for teachers and parents to set up and manage._

It means, that he is not a teacher. Working with children doesn't make a teacher. Teacher is a mindset. Teacher doesn't tune a system to a children, teacher "tune" children to work with a system. Teacher know that children mistakes are inevitable, and doesn't take it for granted, that mistake is a bad thing. A mistake allow to learn something.

For example passwords. Child can forget his password. And then he would need to go through a process of retrieving a new one. One time, second time, tenth time, then child will learn how to remember his password. Easy.

The same with fogetting to log out. In the ideal setup this should be a special case when child experience some losses. Costs shouldn't be high, but they should be percievable. The trouble is to devise such a system, where losses would seem as a natural consequence for a child, not as something induced by an angry teacher or an admin.

By protecting children well from any treat you teach them that they are perfectly safe and protected and that they shouldn't bother with a security. Why should they bother if all of their experience points to idea that security is a task for teachers, parents and admins? But if you make security a game, where mistakes are not harmful (but make some inconveniences for a child), then children would learn how to avoid mistakes when handling security issues.

</comment><comment><USER3> Q: What do you call an IT admin for 20 children?

A: A good trade!</comment>


U.S. coding school Galvanize to lay off 11 percent of workforce - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-galvanize-layoffs-idUSKCN1B92AD <comment><USER2> I'm wonder what effect the unemployment levels have on bootcamp attendance?

I would guess low unemployment would cause attendance to go down for people grasping at a chance for a tech job?

<comment><USER3> I also wonder if the market for low-skill juniors is really bad right now (note: I'm not saying that bootcamp grads are bad). I started to see this a couple of years ago and I had the sense that most of the hirable people past their college years who would attend a bootcamp probably did already.

<comment><USER4> disclosure: I used to work at Galvanize as an instructor, a couple years ago.

I don't have any connection to Galvanize now so I don't feel the need to defend or promote bootcamps, but I do feel like I have some knowledge on the situation. When I was instructing I was constantly worried about there being enough jobs for my students. This was also when the startup market was "hotter" than it is now. The thing that I came to realize looking back is that there is actually still a huge amount of steady demand for software engineers.

It isn't necessarily startups though. I have definitely heard from startups that they feel like they are inundated with bootcamp grads. I think part of the reason is because working at a cool startup is part of the picture that is painted to perspective students.

The less exciting (to the graduates) opportunity is working with big companies that are replacing their previous outsourced staff with internal junior engineers. They also didn't want to hire one or two grads, they were interested in hiring five to ten.

To me at least it seems like larger companies are trying to adjust their staffing to accommodate a more fluid staff that comes and goes rather than the longer term employees of previous generations. Which includes always having a broad opportunity for new employees, which dovetails into the bootcamps constantly producing graduates.

<comment><USER5> I always got the impression that most of the truly entry-level software jobs (the kind where they routinely hire people with associates degrees or no degree) are in unglamorous companies, in cities all throughout the country, writing code in unsexy languages like SQL, C#, and J2EE. These companies don't typically try to pretend they only hire the top 10% of the entire industry, and they're willing to train people on the job. They don't pay the big bucks, but it's better than working at Kroger.

Unfortunately the narrative of "you too could be writing ugly line-of-business applications for $40k/year" is not an exciting sell, as you've said, to people who have watched a few episodes of Silicon Valley. So there's an expectation mismatch. We want to point at the Bureau of Labor Statistics about openings in the software industry and think that they're about changing the world with node.js and AWS lambda, because that's a more promising vision of tomorrow that doesn't involve encountering Windows Server 2005 in the course of your daily work.

<comment><USER6> Sure, doing your time in those sorts of places and then moving on is a good approach. That's more or less what I did. (I went to college for CS, but I'm oldish.) But those jobs can suck for reasons that don't really have anything to do with technology.

While you're unlikely to catch me extolling the virtues of cool-guy startups, they do tend to have the benefit that they "get" developers and bias towards facilitating the work rather than the endless bullshit you tend to get sucked into in the bigger places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I always thought it was weird that they had their own venture fund. Shouldn't a growing business invest in itself?

<comment><USER8> The two aren't mutually exclusive. You can both invest in yourself, while investing in other opportunities. The problem is how to allocate your resources optimally.

Having early access to motivated and talented programmers that may have a good idea for a disruptive product or technology seems like a potential advantage for a venture fund.

Particularly if those seeking funding are also seeking training and career advice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does anyone have experience as a student there? How did you fare in the job market afterwards?

I almost went there but chose not to.

<comment><USER10> Bit of context: I used to live in Denver, and I would hang out at Galvanize a lot. I was friends with a number of the instructors and students.

I worked at a company in Denver that hired at least 5 people straight out of gSchool, and I was one of the employees on the team who was given the task of onboarding and mentoring the gSchool graduates and helping them when they got stuck (which was pretty much constantly).

Each one of the graduates had at least a basic, fundamental understanding of programming with Ruby on Rails and Javascript, but they were all very much junior-level. They were all deeply brainwashed in TDD and Agile dogma, but would often become paralyzed when encountering real world problems.

Most of them had sub-par developer instincts (as was expected), and all of them required about a year-long ramp-up and a lot of on-the-job mentoring and training before they were really pulling their weight.

When you look at the quality of the code that was being created and the sheer amount of manpower and money being thrown at mentoring all of the junior level code school graduates, I would rather have had a single senior level developer than 4 juniors combined.

But that's not how the pay worked out. A senior dev doing the same amount of work as 4 juniors was only making like $120K, and I happen to know that every one of the code school students was hired on for at least $65K a year (if not more).

The worst part? After about a year, half of them had leveraged their new year's worth of real, on-the-job experience into job offers from other companies, where they were presumably hired for even more.

My personal opinion is that the company I worked for kind of got shafted a little bit by their enthusiasm and optimism with the idea of bringing on so many junior level developers straight out of code camp. Especially after we spent so much time and money mentoring them, only to have them leave for better jobs elsewhere.

I have a strong suspicion that many other companies have suffered from similar experiences with code school graduates and were left with bitter taste in their mouths.

If so, that would certainly explain why so many code schools are starting to encounter difficulties and are having to downsize or close. Companies are starting to catch on to the fact that they are still going to have to dump a good year of mentoring and training into each one of these "graduates" before they are earning their keep.

TL;DR: The gSchool graduates that I had personal experience with seemed to make out like bandits. That was before the market cooled down, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is this the same company in SOMA by the Bay Bridge?

<comment><USER12> yeah</comment></comment>


Apple to add USB port to next-generation iPad - <AUTHOR> http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/10/12/29/apple_to_add_usb_port_to_next_generation_ipad_rumor.html <comment><USER2> Why did Apple wait for iPad2 to include a basic feature called USB.</comment>


SpinLaunch raises $40M to build a machine to catapult objects into space - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/this-startup-got-40-million-to-build-a-space-catapult <comment><USER2> So, I worked at Hyperloop One for a time, and that experience made me skeptical of the type of complaint I see in this thread.

Yes, a high school physics student can tell you the accelerations will be huge unless the loop is too, and a smart one can explain you need a circularizing burn.

But, contrary to popular belief investors aren't total idiots who neglect basic questions. Hard tech companies do face major challenges of course, but they aren't the ones armchair engineers on HN can point out with 5 minutes thought.

So instead of indulging in the "hurrr it'll never work" superiority stimulus, I'd Like to point out some rays of hope:

I don't think "catapult" means "solid arm on an axle spinning at high speed." I'm guessing it actually means a large-ish diameter magnetically levitated and accelerated loop. That makes much larger radii possible: at 1 mile you're looking at ~300g acceleration, 150g at 2 mile. We have loops much bigger than this with much more complex magnetics and vacuum components in our particle accelerators, so this wouldn't be terrifyingly novel tech.

Those accelerations are big but not horribly painful to make a smallsat stand up to. We have guided artillery shells that bear 15,000g launches.

I think it's somewhat feasible. I also think big fully reusable chemical rockets will beat this thing on cost and ease of use, but i don't think it'll fail because of armchair physics.

<comment><USER3> > _We have loops much bigger than this with much more complex magnetics and > vacuum components in our particle accelerators, so this wouldn't be > terrifyingly novel tech_

Last cost estimate I saw for a reasonably-sized slingshot was $10 billion, which is in the neighbourhood of the LHC's €7.5 billion accelerator + accoutrements cost [1].

Some of the skepticism in this thread, particularly regarding the technology's core viability, is premature. But economic scepticism is warranted. I would be skeptical of a space elevator project without mass-manufactured carbon fibre; I am skeptical of a slingshot proposal without cheap superconductors.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Cost)

<comment><USER4> Keith Lofstrom wrote about the electronics costs associated with a mass driver back in the '90s [1]. It's dated so some of the base costs have gone down, but it's still a good primer.

[1] [https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Nowicki/SPBI1SI.HTM](https://settlement.arc.nasa.gov/Nowicki/SPBI1SI.HTM)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The tyranny of Tsiolkovsky's rocket equation [1] results from the need to burn fuel now to accelerate fuel for later. "Catapulting" sidesteps this issue by energizing on the ground.

In selling away the rocket equation you buy yourself drag. Lots of energy up front means lots of drag. Overcoming that drag means more energy and, hence, more drag. The middle child of this solution is tremendous G force.

You can't slingshot complex things into space. Pretty much just fuel and raw materials. That means you need in-space (a) refueling and (b) additive manufacturing capabilities. There are teams working on both problems, though they are presently in the domain of science versus engineering. Perhaps that will now be incentivized to change.

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

<comment><USER5> > In selling away the rocket equation you buy yourself drag. Lots of energy up > front means lots of drag. Overcoming that drag means more energy and, hence, > more drag. The middle child of this solution is tremendous G force.

Would it be possible and useful to do it with a 2 payloads system: one dumb piece of material first which can take lot of G followed closely by your "fragile" payload using its draft?

<comment><USER3> > _followed closely by your "fragile" payload using its draft?_

G-forces [1] are a consequence of acceleration. An accelerating object will experience g-forces in an atmosphere or in a vacuum. ("Drafting" [2] is an aerodynamic process by which a following object exploits a leading object's slipstream to reduce the former's drag.)

With a slingshot, the destructive force is the g-force inflicted by the acceleration. (With a rocket, the destructive forces are mostly vibrations and aerodynamic stress.)

Note that a slingshot doesn't require lots of Gs. One could use a super-long slingshot to achieve the necessary velocity. But super long is super expensive, so high Gs it is.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G-force)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting_(aerodynamics)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drafting_\(aerodynamics\))

<comment><USER6> I can imagine a heavy dead weight accelerated in the slingshot. Once released, it drags a cable, carefully laid out at an angle, with the payload attached. That payload would be accelerated into line behind the weight over a brief period. Taking fewer Gs and only once.

Very long cables are a lot cheaper than very large slingshots?

Anyway just thinking out loud.

<comment><USER3> > _Once released, it drags a cable, carefully laid out at an angle, with the > payload attached_

Unless your cable were elastic, this would not materially change the payload's acceleration. That said, you might find skyhooks [1][2] interesting.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_%28structure%29](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skyhook_%28structure%29)

[2] [http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Skyhooks](http://adventuretime.wikia.com/wiki/Skyhooks)

<comment><USER6> Of course it would. Like a lever has different forces on the short end and the long end, the cable could be curved and lengthened to control exactly the rate of transfer of momentum between weight and payload.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm very skeptical, of course I'm not as smart or as informed as many other people so what I'm saying might not mean anything.

1) if the idea is to impart all of the kinetic energy needed to get into LEO at once, on the ground, then you are talking ~17,000 MPH worth of KE (though truly, more, because of loss to drag). There's a reason why max-q is an important consideration in the design of space vehicles. The space shuttle reaches max-q at 30K feet, where the density of air is 3x less than at sea level. How do you design your vehicle so that it doesn't turn into dust when it hits 1 ATM at 17,000+ MPH?

2) the centripetal force on the vehicle, prior to launch, will be enormous. So in addition to not deforming and/or burning up the moment the vehicle hits the air, the vehicle also needs to be built sturdily enough to not get crushed while being accelerated.

I read Bad Blood a few weekends ago. Holmes hoodwinked investors who wanted to believe that a fairy tale technology could exist, by never publishing or otherwise allowing outside scrutiny of their technology. How is this company different?

<comment><USER8> > So in addition to not deforming and/or burning up the moment the vehicle > hits the air, the vehicle also needs to be built sturdily enough to not get > crushed while being accelerated.

Since launch mass is less of a concern maybe they can just manufature the satellites differently, e.g. filling the voids with a resin or oil which distributes the forces uniformly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Years ago I backed the Slingatron [0] on Kickstarter, but sadly it was not funded. At first I thought maybe SpinLaunch was a rebrand of HyperV, but that is not the case and its an entirely different group of people. Either way, I'm glad this is getting actual money behind it since it's a very interesting solution, and I hope it "takes off" (sorry).

[0] [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/391496725/the- slingatro...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/391496725/the-slingatron- building-a-railroad-to-space)

</comment><comment><USER10> It's surprising how many ways there are to get things into space. Everyone seems to assume we've already considered all alternatives and rockets are all we have.

Off the top of my head:

Providing laser power from the ground station

Giant rail gun

Launch fountain

Launch loop

Space elevator

Sky hook

This spin machine

<comment><USER11> How about "floating balloon launch loop"?

A giant torus that floats near the edge of the atmosphere. Spin it for more lift, stability, and to throw things.

;)

<comment><USER12> You beat me to it, I was just about to add balloons/rockoons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is just total lunacy. Have we reached peak VC yet? If not I have a startup that is building a warp drive even though its totally theoretical and the technology to build one is 100+ years away. Throw money at me please.

<comment><USER14> If it's built on blockchain, I'm in.

<comment><USER13> Its built on blockchain using state of the art Deep Learning. Our website is pleasegivememoney.io and all of our founders dropped out of Stanford CS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've wanted to build a Gerald Bull style space cannon (but the more modern UW RAMAC style) for a long time. Prototype would be $2-5mm, something small which could actually put something decent into orbit around $50mm. I've heard there is a group in SoCal which finally got funding to build it.

<comment><USER16> Would love to know more if you have a link about this group. For some reason I'm fascinated by the space gun concept. Even if it were only used to launch raw materials into space cheaply that could still be a huge boost to space exploration.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder what the flight path would have to look like - I assume you wouldn't be able to accelerate in a circle on the ground and then tilt upwards because of the G force of the tilt. So you would either sling horizontally at a fairly slight incline (taking advantage of the curvature of the earth, but imagine keeping that flight path clear), have a slowly increasing ramp that would probably have to be really long to manage the G force, or accelerate in a vertically-oriented loop (which would have to be huge to cope with faster speeds). I'm guessing the slow ramp is most practical.

Either way, there's some interesting info on the concept at [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun) and [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_driver).

<comment><USER18> If the radius of the ramp is the same as the loop wouldn't it experience the same acceleration once diverted to the ramp? (but in a different direction)

<comment><USER17> I did the maths and if I'm right (I'm terrible at maths) then a loop would be impractical for any reasonable G force anyway - the radius would have to be over 100km for even 50gs. I'm guessing they'd need some kind of linear acceleration, in which case they can just point upwards anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hadn't occurred to me before but this article made me curious.

Every time that an object leaves our planet's atmosphere we (apparently) minutely change the earth's orbit.

[https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/26733/does- launchi...](https://space.stackexchange.com/questions/26733/does-launching-a- device-into-orbit-change-earths-orbit)

<comment><USER20> Every time you fart you minutely change the Earth's orbit.

<comment><USER21> No actually. The mass doesn't leave the earth.

<comment><USER22> The mass leaving the surface and entering orbit around Earth doesn't change the location of the pair's center of mass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would love to see these guys succeed both because it would be something truly novel, and because I think low cost access to space is going to be critical moving forward.

But the physics of getting through the troposphere at 7 to 9 km/sec seem to be really difficult to overcome.

</comment><comment><USER24> There is a lot of published raw science on Electromagnetic Linear Motors, with several feasibility studies on Earth to Orbit and Earth to Moon systems.

There are several challenges with building on that large, such as building large capacitors, building a structure big enough, and dealing with something that high energy. However, I think we are at a critical point where this might become something we understand how to build. We use the fundamental technology everyday in high speed rail, and we've learned a lot from constructing projects like the LHC and Hyperloop. The Navy is planning on implemented these motors for launch assist on the next generation of aircraft carriers.

</comment><comment><USER25> THE LOGIN DOESNT WORK WTF [http://spinlaunch.com/](http://spinlaunch.com/)

</comment><comment><USER26> Will reaching max q at sea level limit how much energy they can put into the projectile?

<comment><USER27> Drag being a factor of velocity squared means diminishing returns for increasing launch velocity, but there's no hard limit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Can someone ELI5 how this Space Catapult should "theoretical" work?

<comment><USER29> The article is very light on details, but I believe what's being proposed is an evacuated tube with maglev propulsion, used to accelerate a rocket up to 5000mph (as stated in the article) while on the ground. The rocket is then released, and travels until some altitude is reached, at which point engine then starts and it continues to orbit. This results in a large fuel saving over a conventional rocket.

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

The g-forces involved would be very high, well beyond lethal to a human, so this would be for launching robust satellites, raw materials, or fuel cheaply into space. They would still be substantially lower than those of a space gun / intercontinental artillery.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun#Practical_attempts](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_gun#Practical_attempts)

<comment><USER28> Would it be fair to say it is kinda like punkin chunkin?

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

<comment><USER29> Similar. I'd like to see a maglev (railgun) pumpkin chuck though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Kind obvious solution when you loop the idea of long gun launch into a fast spinning ferris wheel. Much easy and simpler power delivery. Centripetal acceleration bites though.

</comment><comment><USER31> Seems like a reasonable next step following impeachment.

</comment><comment><USER32> I've been exploring large-scale structures built using the "Tensegrity" concepts of Bucky Fuller and Ken Snelson. I'm pretty sure you can build _really large_ structures using modern materials (e.g. kevlar and carbon fiber.) Call it "giga-tech" (like nano-tech but scale up instead of down.)

One thing in particular that seems feasible is a large floating structure, like a mile-high pyramid, placed on an ocean at the equator, and supporting a launch structure.

I _think_ you can make a very large whip-like jointed spaceframe that acts like a catapult to accelerate payloads.

By enclosing the outer surface with a membrane you can use solar energy to evaporate water, then condense it at the top of the structure into holding tanks. The mass of the water powers the whip like a trebuchet. (Or you can extract electricity using the principle of Lord Kelvin's Thunderstorm.)

I'm pretty sure it would work. No advanced technology or concepts used at all. I don't quite have the chops to do the back-of-envelope math though. Right now I'm working on computer simulations (Finite Element Method.) I'm fortunate that NASA has a program working on tensegrity robots for exploring the surfaces of other planets, and they have released a tool that can simulate tensegrity structures.

One other thing, in re: rockets and drag. I can't find a reference right now, but _electrifying_ a rocket with a charge difference from the nose to the tail can significantly reduce drag as the field accelerates the air itself.</comment>


Play Stadia Pro for free, starting today - <AUTHOR> https://blog.google/products/stadia/try-stadia-free-today <comment><AUTHOR> I imagine the 14 countries are Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States (from [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Stadia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Stadia) )

However, visiting the stadia site from the UK only gives me a Stadia Premiere purchase option.

</comment><comment><USER2> I wasn't able to figure out how to actually sign up for Stadia for free from their home page, but I found a direct link to the sign up process here: [https://stadia.google.com/setup](https://stadia.google.com/setup)</comment>


What Are Cats Thinking? - <AUTHOR> https://slate.com/technology/2014/04/cat-intelligence-and-cognition-are-cats-smarter-than-dogs.html <comment><USER2> > The dogs pawed at the bowl for a few seconds and then gave up, gazing up at > their owners as if asking for help. The cats, on the other hand, rarely > looked at their owners; they just kept trying to get the food.

This surprises me because my cat often seems to ask me for help. For example, if I leave a door closed (most cat owners will tell you that a cat cannot abide a closed door!), he'll spend a minute or two trying to open it himself - pawing under the door, clawing at the crack in the door frame, and nudging it with his head. When he concludes can't get in, he'll meow at the door, or in my direction. Then he'll walk nearer to where I am and meow again, while looking right at me. This seems pretty clear "I can't do this, so you help me" behavior. He also meows at me if I forget to scoop his litter box.

I wonder if the cat-dog difference in the case of this experiment is that cats are solitary hunters, whereas dogs are pack hunters. Trying to get food out of some kind of puzzle box doesn't sound like a general intelligence/social task as much as a hunting-type task. A cat asking for help hunting would be like a human asking for help chewing their food. It would never even cross your mind to ask for help doing this innately personal task of chewing the food you're about to swallow. I'm of the opinion that we underestimate just how social or intelligent cats are, so I'm pushing back on the idea that that experiment proves anything obvious. It is interesting, though!</comment>


The Internet Archive hosts a large collection of abandonware games - <AUTHOR> https://archive.org/search.php?query=collection%3Apc_cdrom&sort=-publicdate

<comment><USER2> I'm curious how/why archive.org is allowed to do this?

There's obviously a need to safeguard pc (and others) gaming history but some of these are still for sale with support for modern operating systems at [http://gog.com/](http://gog.com/).</comment>