Bitcoin broke $700 ($750 at this moment) - <AUTHOR> http://bitcoin.clarkmoody.com/?blah <comment><USER2> Bitcoin's price at the first of November was $197. That's around a 250% increase over the course of two and a half weeks.

General question: if you expect the price of Bitcoin to continue this rate of growth, does the rational consumer have any reason to spend? I don't follow BTC too closely, but it feels as though there's an innate conflict between its role as a speculative investment and its role as a currency.

<comment><USER3> > but it feels as though there's an innate conflict between its role as a > speculative investment and its role as a currency.

Exactly the reason a deflationary by nature currency isn't going to succeed as a currency. Bitcoin might want to be a currency, but it isn't a currency, it's a commodity like Gold and its deflationary nature dooms it to be.

<comment><USER4> Pulverizing the dead horse: it will hold value like gold, but its infinite divisibility and ease of transport make it more like an evolved currency.

<comment><USER3> Good currencies aren't about divisibility or about holding value long term, they're about being useful for exchange. Being deflationary by nature makes Bitcoin a bad currency, but a good commodity (once it settles down). A good currency slowly inflates.

<comment><USER4> "A good currency slowly inflates." This is the "common wisdom" which BTC assaults frontally.

<comment><USER3> And it's proving the common wisdom true, as history has already done.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The most common question I get every day when the topic of bitcoin comes up: "This is skyrocketing. Is it a good time to buy?"

The truth is, there is no right or wrong answer. Bitcoins could very well go to 6000/coin and we'll still be asking that same question. Bitcoins could also just as likely go down to $1/coin and everybody would be talking about how they could've sold at $650/coin. The beauty here is that BitCoins is not managed by anyone, its completely p2p, and its 100% opensourced. Nobody controls it, nobody has insider info, nobody knows what is going to happen.

I would personally throw in a few thousand just see what it becomes. If nothing comes of it, think of it as a very expensive speeding ticket.

<comment><USER6> "nobody has inside info"

It is not known who are making all the trades, wouldn't it be possible that a small group of large bit-coin holders are simply trading between each other in an effort to inflate the price... they have nothing to lose.

<comment><USER7> > they have nothing to lose

the trading fees ?

<comment><USER8> Which are optional

<comment><USER9> How are exchange fees optional?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The number of bitcoins is fixed, so price is a solely function of mass adoption.

All else being equal, the more people who adopt Bitcoin, the higher its price.[1]

\--

[1] [http://cs702.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/on-the-potential- adopt...](http://cs702.wordpress.com/2011/05/29/on-the-potential-adoption-and- price-appreciation-of-bitcoin-in-the-long-run/)

\--

Edits: replaced "supply" with "number of bitcoins" and "demand" with "mass adoption," which more accurately convey my thoughts. (Thanks for pointing that out, amalcon!)

<comment><USER11> The Winkelvosses must be laughing all the way to the bank.

Must have at least made one trip to cash out a portion, since they first started stashing the coin. [1]

[1] [http://www.bloomberg.com/video/winklevoss-twins- mine-11m-bit...](http://www.bloomberg.com/video/winklevoss-twins- mine-11m-bitcoin-fortune-dh7Tpl8NTaOaiTgec3dT2g.html)

<comment><USER12> I don't think anything can put the smile back on their faces due to the fact that they still feel as if someone stole their $100 billion idea.

<comment><USER13> They'll soon have a 100bln. Withtout even having an idea. Apart from "let's buy bitcoins".

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure their BC investment will ever be worth that much. Time will tell though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't pretend to know anything about how bitcoin works but it seems to be very volatile. The stock market is bad enough, but this fluctuates wildly just on speculation and seemingly nothing more.

<comment><USER15> What really grinds my gears is that you have to assume that everyone who talks positively about it, just does so to make his bitcoins "worth" more. For that reason alone I hope that it will fail. Speculation and hype should not be rewarded.

<comment><USER16> I guess by the same token, everyone who doesn't have any has to criticize it to justify their decision not to buy.

<comment><USER15> well, I have 1.something bitcoins which I once mined because it seemed like an interesting idea for "pseudonymous" online.payments. What it primarily has become utterly disgusts me. I always felt (yeah, it was uneducated) that bitcoin would be something opposed to our financial system with all its unsocial speculation, lies and deceit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Interesting.

Clarkmoody is using "Mt. Gox", which is a well known exchange where it is damn near impossible to get your USD out of. Notice that other BTC exchanges (btc-e is more cannonical right now...) have prices closer to $550.

Keep in mind WHICH exchange these prices are coming from. Unlike more established currencies, there is very little arbitration going on between exchanges, and prices swing DRAMATICALLY between say... Mt. Gox and BTC-e.

<comment><USER18> BTC-e is above $610, BTCChina at $830.

[edit current prices]

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Whenever I look at the evolution of Bitcoin's price, I feel oblige to think about the internet bubble...

But I was too young to care about that then.

Could someone explain to me the similarities and differences between those two events ? How Bitcoin could avoid the "too-early" bubble ?

<comment><USER17> Bitcoin is designed to be deflationary in nature. Many people here will see BTC's dramatic rise in price as a feature, not a bug. I personally am more concerned about the difficulties of BTC -> USD conversion... with exchanges going down and others getting hacked.

Speculators obviously love BTC's volatility. But surely, this is not a sign of a healthy "currency".

<comment><USER20> Bitcoin is indeed designed to be inherently deflationary, but the volatility is far too great to be explained by that; it's likely in a speculative bubble.

<comment><USER21> Or it is just really young and eventually will be less volatile.

<comment><USER20> I have difficulty thinking of _anything_ that went from being as volatile as that to stability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> not to add fuel to the fire: but if bitcoin is really un-hackable (can't guess individual keys held offline by private owners), untraceable, and all that goodness ...

... and there are only 21 million of them in the world ...

... then the value of each bitcoin could be $100,000 or more, assuming it can attract 1/4 of the interest that gold currently enjoys worldwide.

of course, as the value creeps up, it's use as a currency will diminish, and it becomes more of a store of value. eg, without bitcoin dimes and quarters, you'd have a hard time buying smaller items. but it is lighter than a pound of gold for sure.

the possibilities are interesting.

<comment><USER23> And my company will be huuuuge, once it captures 1/4 of the market of China.

<comment><USER24> Bitcoin isn't a company. It's not comparable to much that has existed before, actually. So, while I won't try to predict where BTC will end up, I think it's not a useful analogy to compare it to a company and discuss market share in those same terms.

<comment><USER25> It is not going to eclipse gold in terms of importance. It won't even come within an order of magnitude.

<comment><USER24> That's an assertion I've heard, mostly from goldbugs who have a vested interest in gold remaining high and going higher. But, I haven't heard any useful evidence to support the thesis.

<comment><USER25> Seriously? Will the US and other major countries hold their _reserves_ in Bitcoin?

It's not goldbugs or small-time hoarders. There's literal tons of the stuff held in vaults around the world.

This is just _one_ vault: [http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247196/Pictured- Pro...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2247196/Pictured-Professor- Poliakoff-takes-TV-cameras-inside-Bank-Englands-gold-bullion-vault-197BILLION- precious-metal-stored.html)

The total reserves are 31,000 tons of gold ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold_reserve)) which at $35M works out to about $1 trillion.

So if the sum of all Bitcoins is to be worth the same, then you'd need a per- Bitcoin price of $51,600 for all 21 million _theoretical_ Bitcoins.

I find it unlikely that price could be sustained.

<comment><USER24> I've asked you why you think gold is a better currency than Bitcoin. You've answered, roughly, "There's a lot of it being hoarded by some people all over the world."

I think maybe I just don't understand you. Are you saying because gold is one popular store of value, it is a better currency than Bitcoin? That's kinda what I'm hearing, but that doesn't really make sense, so I assume I'm misinterpreting you.

From my perspective, the US currency (and most of the currencies found the world over) are not backed by gold or other precious metals. The idea of gold==money has been kind of dead since before I was born, and I'm not convinced there's a useful reason to return to it in the Internet age. Sending gold over a wire is not feasible, so I'd have to trust someone to hold my gold for me, were I to use it as a currency. That's not really appealing to me. The de-centralized nature of BTC is what makes it so disruptive.

It just feels like a really old-fashioned idea that we should return to gold for currency (and I've felt that way even way back when I was a card-carrying member of the LP and a subscriber to Reason _and_ Liberty magazines).

<comment><USER25> The thing is, gold is a physical commodity that requires great expense to mine, process, and produce in a form that's useful. This limits the amount of gold that can be produced. That's why, historically speaking, it was used as a backing for currency, or as currency itself in some circles.

Worst case scenario, no matter what the price of gold is, you still have the gold itself, and it can be made into things. If Bitcoin collapses you have nothing, the currency is intrinsically worthless.

You can easily validate that someone owns a certain amount of gold, and you can be reasonably assured that, if you've put a gold brick in your safe, that barring someone physically breaking into your safe, that it'll still be there when you need it later.

Bitcoin, on the other hand, is digital, and comes with it all the risks of digital data. It can be stolen silently, invisibly, or your wallet can become corrupted, or you can lose your password, which renders it utterly worthless.

I'm not saying we should return to gold, but that gold is a commodity with more stability than Bitcoin.

Bitcoin could utterly collapse tomorrow and the impact on the markets wouldn't even register. If gold collapsed tomorrow the markets would crumble.

<comment><USER24> This is probably something we'll just have to agree to disagree on. To me, gold is a ridiculous thing to base money on. It serves the interests of an elite few at the expense of everyone else, it is impossible to transfer over the Internet without a trusted intermediary (presumably someone with a presence on both sides of the transfer and owning large quantities of gold) imposing high fees and inconvenience on all parties.

There's nothing, in my estimation, good about gold as a currency. It is, maybe, a useful store of value, if you're wealthy enough to store it safely. But, its value as a substance (should you decide to make it into things) is vastly lower than its trading value. So, you're still trading mostly on what everybody agrees the gold is worth, rather than its expected utility as a substance. Bitcoin just removes the fiction that it is "backed" by a useful substance.

In the past, there have been times when gold was _fantastic_ as a store of value. When the Jews fled Poland, Germany, etc. during World War II, the lucky and the rich had some physical gold or silver reserves to take with them. That allowed them to rebuild in a new country, even after all of their Polish or German currency became worthless or was confiscated.

So, that's cool. Gold has a purpose. I understand that. When shit hits the fan in your home country and you need to rebuild, historically speaking, gold and silver were good to have. Why? Because they were accepted for trade the world over and had some kind of value. But, nonetheless, the fiat money economy is vastly larger than the gold economy...and Bitcoin is slightly more gold-like than fiat money, in this instance.

If, suddenly, my government became really oppressive and started spying on everyone all the time and I felt unsafe because the police had become militarized and equipped with drones and tanks and had placed cameras all over the city (umm...wait...that's sounding vaguely familiar...but, whatever, let's continue...) and I felt I needed to flee for the safety of myself and my family, I could take my Bitcoins with me. They'd be spendable or convertable to local currency in almost any locale on the planet. Even if there is no currency exchange operating in a given local currency, there may be individuals who will sell local currency for Bitcoins. And, that's happening more frequently every day, just as more local exchanges spring up.

"Bitcoin could utterly collapse tomorrow and the impact on the markets wouldn't even register. If gold collapsed tomorrow the markets would crumble."

Of course. Gold has had thousands of years to establish a vital position in the market. Give Bitcoin a little time. It's still a puppy.

<comment><USER25> > It serves the interests of an elite few at the expense of everyone else...

I think you've just described Bitcoin. The early adopters have benefitted _enormously_ compared to everyone else.

I do know that when "the shit hits the fan" that I'll be able to trade junk gold for goods and services, but I have zero faith that Bitcoin will be worth _anything_ in the future. It has zero fundamental value.

If you think you can "take your Bitcoins with you" I think you're mistaken. The whole apparatus could be disrupted and destroyed overnight by an organization like the NSA or China's equivalent. Also it's dependent on the Bitcoin infrastructure being operational.

The government can try to seize your gold, they can make it hard to move, but there's always a way. With Bitcoin there may be no-win scenarios no matter how hard you try. All you'll have is some cryptographic hash and a whole lot of tears.

<comment><USER26> While I tend to agree with you:

> _The whole apparatus could be disrupted and destroyed overnight by an > organization like the NSA or China 's equivalent._

Just for fun, how? And not just a one sentence quote of "the 51% attack", but how much computing power would be needed for that attack? (Forget electrical power for the moment, and money.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wouldn't mind buying some to speculate since I can only lose the amount I buy which won't be much. But it's not very easy to do it.

What's everyone using?

<comment><USER28> I signed up with Coinbase (YC S12) today specifically to engage in gold rush type speculation. Much better odds than lottery tickets, and more convenient than driving to Vegas.

<comment><USER29> Well did you pick the wost possible service for the job. Currently you can't buy coins at Coinbase til the 22nd.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "One likes to believe in the freedom of Bitcoin. But glittering prices and endless rate rises shatter the illusion of integrity."

</comment><comment><USER31> Everytime I see a new bitcoin article discussing its' new price, I'm reminded why I should have never sold at $75. Sigh.

<comment><USER32> I look at it and think its a con. Coincidentally after a several massive thefts, the price suddenly raises? sounds like deliberate manipulation to dump stolen coins to me.

Wouldn't mind betting some syndicate took a huge upfront loss to drive up price, and are now recapitalising that loss with said stolen coins.

<comment><USER33> Can be explained as "no news is bad news", e.g. high profile thefts got BTC a spike in publicity.

Up until this month, nobody but geeks knew what BTC was. Now I'm hearing philosophy & art majors talking about it.

<comment> vezzy-fnord Not really. Bitcoin got its first mass mainstream exposure around February of this year when it broke its peak from mid-2011, IIRC. Definitely before this month, however.

<comment><USER33> That's true, but if memory serves that was a metaphorical 10th-page oped. The coverage we're seeing now, starting around the thefts, is 1st or 2nd page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> An obvious bubble but impossible to predict when it'll pop. It could easily go to $1k, $10k, $100k and beyond since supply is so limited and most of the coins are held tightly by folks who have already cashed out nicely.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm interested in it's psychologically limited factors related to price "per" bitcoin... or, in other terms, bitcoin's "exchange rate".

Owning 1 bitcoin, no matter what it's worth, psychologically makes you feel poor. It's an arbitrary habit and, really, meaningless but to the average person they can't stand trading $1000 for 1-2 bitcoins. When people look in their bank accounts, they want to see thousands... millions! Not 1 or 2. Right? I think people would more likely buy 10,000 of something they perceive as a currency instead of 1.0000 -- even if through a change of "terms" they were worth the exact same in USD. Am I selling the general public short in this assumption?

(Probably not pertinent note: I sold today and no longer hold any BTC.)

</comment><comment><USER36> There is good reason to assume that the senate hearing on CSPAN-3 has something to do with it. Strong positive signals there.

[http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN3/](http://www.c-span.org/Live- Video/C-SPAN3/)

</comment><comment><USER37> I've been seeing the bitcoin news hitting [more major] news outlets. Seeing an article like this [http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/michael-santoli/bitcoin- price...](http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/michael-santoli/bitcoin-price-bests- one-apple-share--but-is-it-worth-buying-185417569.html) with a picture of physical coins worries me. Why? All the uninformed people that want to get in on this bitcoin action may be sold of physical coins by scammers like the coins in the pictures. I'm concerned for the technically illiterate.

<comment> vezzy-fnord I'm not feeling very jaded today, but I think you might be underestimating people's intelligence.

If they want to get into Bitcoin, I think they'd read up on it being entirely virtual (minus the optional paper wallets) pretty quickly.

<comment><USER37> Sadly, I worried about older folks. I bet you could get some metal "bit coins" like those in numerous pictures and go door to door selling them for several hundred dollars to some people. It'd be easy o come up with a story as to why you're selling them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Does this mean that it's become more economic for miners? Are people breaking out their GPUs right now to make a few dollars?

</comment><comment><USER39> Man I really wish I had a handful of bitcoins right now.But I think that it is going to be rough for people either way if the price goes up you will have a bunch of depressed people not buying in and if it goes down a bunch of people are going to be REALLY depressed for obvious reasons

</comment><comment><USER40> That graph is darn sexy, and I am talking about the object itself not the data. The most practical and useful "interactive chart" I have ever seen. Props to Clark Moody. Does anyone know how to use that type of chart to display information from other data sources?

</comment><comment><USER41> How is bitcoin income reported and taxed? Is it the same as holding a stock?

<comment><USER27> Don't think it's regulated that much yet.

<comment><USER42> In the absence of specific regulation, everything is taxed by default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I bought a bit of BTC in October because I am interested in it. I've now sold off enough to cover my initial investment plus a bit extra, and now get to watch BTC with house money.

</comment><comment><USER44> China: Bitcoins welcome here.

</comment><comment><USER45> I bet the only goods that are currently bought for bitcoin are US dollars.

</comment><comment><USER46> I wonder how many ppl are repurposing PS4 or XB's to mine.

<comment><USER8> Noone in their right mind would do that

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Already down to $520.

<comment><USER48> Check out prices at bitcoinity.org/markets, prices haven't gone down to $520, it's short term stabilized around $720 after the first round of congressional meeting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Will cross $1000 within 2 weeks.

<comment><USER50> But how many more weeks before it comes crashing down?

<comment><USER32> Probably as soon as all the stolen coins in circulation have been cashed in and suddenly there is no market manipulation to keep it up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> how easy is it to sell your BTC for USD?

<comment><USER25> About as easy as scoring a kilo of weed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> To the core!</comment>


A firefighter is writing apps for Google Glass to make his job safer - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2014/1/21/5328784/firefighter-from-north-carolina-is-writing-apps-for-google-glass

<comment><USER2> Its an explanation of the cop-space overlay from "Halting State" by Stross (who comments here occasionally). And a zillion other fictional examples.

I don't find it interesting to read iteration #2352 of re-explaining a concept from heavily discussed several year old sci fi to a "popular audience". Although probably the people attracted to the story will be precisely the type who already read Halting State and others.

Theres an even older sci fi explanation of augmented reality, I don't remember the author or title but it was along the lines of an airline mfgr story. Vaguely 90s era, female management perspective, "outsourcing drama", near future setting. So as the A+P mechanics looked at the aircraft, they saw the blueprint.

Now what would be really cool is if the dev has an account here and posts a stereotypical "show HN" or "ask HN". Or a review of the guy's app.</comment>


Mile-long "Band of Holes" in Peru may be remains of Inca tax system - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2016/04/investigation-of-mysterious-inca-holes-gives-insight-into-ancient-economy/ <comment><USER2> Source: [http://www.archaeology.org/issues/213-1605/features/4325-an-...](http://www.archaeology.org/issues/213-1605/features/4325-an- overlooked-inca-wonder)</comment>


Static, static blog generator on GitHub pages - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/isnowfy/simple

<comment><USER2> Not only is this a duplicate, but the previous two submissions were also by you. I believe that's generally perceived a poor behavior.</comment>


Feds Beg Supreme Court to Let Them Search Phones Without a Warrant - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/04/smartphone-kill-switch <comment><USER3> They want the authority to search phones _incident to arrest_. Before you form an opinion about this --- I'm not sure what mine is --- you should know that the police have always had broad authority to conduct warrantless, intrusive searches at the time of an actual arrest. That's one of the things that makes arrest very different from mere detention.

If you're arrested by the police, they will not generally need to obtain a warrant to search your person, your pockets, your bag, or the passenger compartment of your car. Thoroughly.

People confuse "search incident to arrest" with "Terry stops", which are light, supposedly unintrusive searches that can be conducted without individualized suspicion for purposes of officer safety (ie, for weapons). Terry stops are the ones where, supposedly, the police aren't supposed to be reaching into your pocket. Search incident to arrest, going back over 100 years, has always had a purpose of _discovering and preserving evidence_ ; they aren't simply about officer safety.

That said: a modern smart phone is more than just a container you carry on your person. It can provide access to much of the same personal information that a search of your most personal possessions would. It's a totally reasonable question as to whether an intrusive search of the data on a smartphone falls into the rubrick of what search incident to arrest was meant to cover.

Either way: make sure your phone is encrypted.

<comment><USER4> _Either way: make sure your phone is encrypted_

> What is to stop them from compelling your PW?

> Is the 5th amendment sufficiently broad to invoke here for blanket > protection?

<comment><USER5> IANAL, but the "search incident to arrest," for all its broad powers, still doesn't reach the strength of what a court can compel you to do.

During arrest, you have the right to remain silent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Since modern technology keeps extensive track of everybody's life at all times, when police take an interest in you they now get to examine a complete picture of everything about you. What you were doing, what you were going to do, who you've been talking to, who you work for, your family, your sex life, your romantic life, your interests, your politics, your religion, everything. Why get a search warrant if they can just pull you over for not signaling correctly and then get access to your entire life nicely packaged for them?

Ten years ago they didn't have any of these tools that they now claim are indispensable to do their jobs. How did they do their jobs back then?

<comment><USER7> > Ten years ago they didn't have any of these tools that they now claim are > indispensable to do their jobs. How did they do their jobs back then?

To be fair, ten (well, twenty) years ago people did all those things in a way that was much more visible to the police. People would go get film developed at the drug store, people would use pay phones, etc.

<comment><USER8> I would say nothing has changed in the long run. As new technology has appeared that may make it easier to avoid the interest of law enforcement, so has the technology that law enforcement uses to counter the avoidance.

If you were a part of a criminal enterprise twenty years ago you developed your own film and never use the randomly chosen pay phone more than once.

I would even go as far to say that their jobs of collecting usable evidence is much easier today than it was twenty years ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Police work /should/ be hard. We don't /want/ it to be trivial for police to poke around in the depths of your personal data, fishing for reasons to think you might have done something wrong in the past.

"my job is difficult" is not sufficient reason to justify what they are asking for.

</comment><comment><USER10> As the article mentions, there's no real need for these search powers, when the phone can simply be turned off or physically taken out of range of reception to prevent it from being wiped. The feds have yet to prove this is even a real problem.

<comment><USER11> What about a "dead-man's switch" that wipes if the authorized user doesn't authenticate every 30 minutes or so? If network connectivity is lost for too long? And turning it off risks losing resident data on the latest activities of the phone, encryption keys in memory, etc.

I'm by no means a whole-hearted supporter of DOJ's position on this, but I think their opponents are also exaggerating the availability of other options to collect evidence later.

<comment><USER12> That dead man's switch sounds like a great way to wipe your phone every time you take a nap.

Regardless, if the hypothetical possiblity that some incredibly uncommon dead man's switch exists is justification for this sort of search, then only allow that sort of search if the police have some sort of reasonable suspicion such a switch exists.

It's analogous to how unwarranted home searches are permitted only if an officer reasonably believes there's imminent destruction of evidence - <USER2> don't just allow all home searches without warrants because somewhere out there someone might destroy evidence in their house.

<comment><USER11> If I were a drug dealer, I think I'd take on pretty onerous risks like that. You could reconfigure the wipe interval and/or drop all sensitive data from RAM and leave it in a safe encrypted state, as the situation requires.

You have good points. Both sides seem to be pushing for the extreme permissiveness or restriction in their respective viewpoints, but the best probably lies in between, as you say.

<comment><USER13> Drug dealers use burners by the bucketload. They have no need for fancy smartphone encryption.

<comment><USER11> And when their burner is seized by the police, what protection do they have from all their accomplices being harvested from the contacts list? I guess the numbers can mostly be derived by subpoenaing call records from the phone company, but the names could be useful to police.

I guess really smart and serious dealers are going to use cheap burners AND not save numbers, or at least only with useless (to the police) names.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why are warrants so bad? How about a public log of every agent and what they searched for and why they searched it.

I believe we would be exposed to the inanity of their methods and means. It is sheer embarrassment that they don't want their actions logged.

<comment><USER8> Because sometimes a police goof that goes public may hurt the victim more than the police. Many people would note that the police searched your house for child porn but many may fail to notice the police got a bogus address from a paid informer who needed money.

Plus I believe that stuff is often public knowledge, it's just not collected in an easy to use manner I would imagine.

It's not that warrants are bad, it's just that the abuse of warrants and SWAT being used for trivial warrants makes them seem bad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Do you think the kill switches mentioned in this article are really to help with mobile phone thefts? It's probably more likely the kill switches will be used to turn off phones in areas where people are doing things the government doesn't like. Want to take a photo of that police officer beating your friend? Sorry, kill switch.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm completely un-surprised this came up in the context of a drug arrest.

</comment><comment><USER17> Honestly, I dont feel like the mandated kill switch is going to be an issue for someone who is wanting to be able to wipe their phones in the case of apprehension. The guys out there today already have a means ready, such as rooting and having a wipe program ready.

<comment><USER18> If you root an android phone then it's trivial for police to bypass the lock screen. There also isn't any time to fiddle with a phone while guns are being pointed at you and police are screaming orders not to move.</comment></comment>


256 Shades of Gray [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.256shadesofgray.com/assets/pdf/report.pdf <comment><USER2> I love the arsclassica latex style!

[http://www.ctan.org/tex- archive/macros/latex/contrib/arsclas...](http://www.ctan.org/tex- archive/macros/latex/contrib/arsclassica/)

<comment><USER3> Shhhhhh! Remember the comment about Riff-Raff :)

<comment><USER2> ???

<comment><USER4> hsmyers is referring to the first sentence in the linked pdf.

        Parallel machines are hard to program, and we should
        make them even harder – to keep the riff-raff off them.
        — Gary Montry

<comment><USER2> Thanks mertd. Can you explain what this has to do with my latex comment? I was not supposed to describe the magic behind the typesetting/layout?

<comment><USER5> I _believe_ hsmyers was jokingly trying to say that it would suck if everybody ("riff-raff") started using that template going forward, rendering it "normal", hence not special anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The 256shadesofgray.com website is currently work in progress. There will be more details and stuff there soon.

Video of the 256 Shades of Gray machine in action: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOXzD_7pL4M&list=PLA329EE...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOXzD_7pL4M&list=PLA329EE5B0A89A9E0&index=6)

</comment><comment><USER7> An enjoyable paper, a thoughtful example of engineering under constraints, and a successful outcome. Congratulations!

(But, and I'll gladly take the karma hit for saying this, please don't pay any attention to my fellow HNers complaining about every possible tangential non- issue.)

</comment><comment><USER8> Thats cool, but it seems to have the performance equivalent of an early P4. Theres talk about FPS, but then its mostly about static images?! Theres little information about the actual performance of the system on the FPGA because everything is seemingly hamstrung by the woefully inadequate AVR used for feeding the data.

<comment><USER9> Sheesh. It's an undergrad term project. They're not trying to line up an IPO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This submission needs a better title.

<comment><USER6> Yes, the name of this project is "256 Shades of Gray" – with an 'a' instead of an 'e' in Gray.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> To the implementers: congratulations on a successful project, but please make sure you consider the ethics of your field before applying what you have learned for money.

</comment><comment><USER12> Am I the only one that is dissatisfied with all of the Lena references in the computer vision community? For a few years I was righteously indignant about the gender issues involved but now it's just trite. Makes us seem like adolescents that we find it so important to reference a Playboy photograph.

<comment><USER9> _For a few years I was righteously indignant about the gender issues involved but now it's just trite_

Why should anyone's opinion matter except for Lenna's own? You are complaining about an uncoerced act.

For reference: <http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~chuck/lennapg/lenna.shtml>

<comment><USER13> Lena's opinion on the matter is not really the point - the criticism is along the same principle as exemplified here: <http://martinfowler.com/bliki/SmutOnRails.html>

<comment><USER14> It's at least as important as anyone else's.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Uncovering Hidden Text on a 500-Year-Old Map That Guided Columbus - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2014/09/martellus-map/ <comment><USER2> Interesting to see that hidden text has been around for much longer than it has been on websites.

</comment><comment><USER3> The text isn't "hidden" per se; it's just faded. Important distinction.

</comment><comment><USER4> They could crowdsource combining the images.</comment>


McLaren F1 Developer Designs New Auto Driving 100 MPH on 96 MPG - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/printer/articles/86366?type=bloomberg

<comment><AUTHOR> The business model of licensing designs reminds me of ARM and Android. Less capital intensive, and allows people with imagination to elbow into the game.

</comment><comment><USER2> Lousy web site (IMHO) a 3 inch wide column of text in the middle of my browser and not even a picture of the car</comment>


Seven open hardware projects working to solve Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://opensource.com/article/20/3/open-hardware-covid19 <comment><USER2> They are just great.</comment>


Ask HN: Why don't companies use hand-coded ads? - <AUTHOR> I personally detest ads and don't see myself ever using 3rd-party ads on my sites, but I have been seeing a lot of "please turn off your ad-blocker" banners the last year or two. I'm curious why companies don't use more hand-coded HTML ads with inline images and direct links to prevent blocking? Is it too expensive? Am I missing something else, ie are they still blockable somehow? <comment><USER2> Daring Fireball does this. Charges $8,500 per week.

See: [https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/](https://daringfireball.net/feeds/sponsors/)

<comment><USER3> Blimey. That's a good living for what is (I think) a blog with one author.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >why companies don't use more hand-coded HTML ads with inline images and direct links to prevent blocking?

Ad-blocking relies on knowing the origin of ads and blocking requests to the servers browser-side.

Regardless of where you shift the content it is just a matter of time until it is fingerprinted and blocked.

On the side of sites selling ads and hosting it co-mingled with other content, it is an issue of business priorities.

I know some sites that do this which causes the ads to be a feature rather than a bug. The ads are helpful and targeted specifically, requiring no fingerprinting of the user or tracking. The ad buyers get great throughput, the ad sellers get easy cash.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Ad-blocking relies on knowing the origin of ads and blocking requests to the > servers browser-side.

Regardless of where you shift the content it is just a matter of time until it is fingerprinted and blocked.

Right but if the ad is simply an inline image with an anchor link, the image will have been loaded from the current origin, so the user will see the ad. And if they click on it, it's a direct link in response to user action, which I don't think I've ever seen an ad blocker interfere with.

<comment><USER5> As a visitor if you don't like this ad or find it distracting you can still usually right click it and block it manually by its CSS properties.

<comment><USER6> When I get annoyed by magazine ads I cut them out with scissors and throw them away. Viola, ad free magazine!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Most ads are bought and sold based on impressions, and the measurement of impressions is done via a 3rd party to ensure the publisher doesn't over- report the amount of impressions they delivered. Advertisers also typically pay for some level of ad verification to ensure their ads appear on the sites they are targeting, and were in-view when clicked, etc.

The model you described works fine for a directly sold placement; the publisher places the ad for a fixed amount of time for a fixed fee. They may still want to have impression and conversion tracking via a 3rd party to measure performance across the multiple sites/ad networks they may be buying on. A pure HTML ad could absolutely work and be ad-block proof, but that doesn't really scale for pubs or advertisers. I have seen that model where the publisher represents a very specific audience, like a trade association. It really doesn't work on a general content site unless there is a high degree of faith from the publisher to the advertiser.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think you have a great question here and all the answers so far seem like a stretch.

My answer is that it's human nature to be lazy and want to use an already existing ad ecosystem. Plus lots of systems are built around it.

And that ad blockers aren't enough of a problem to justify leaving the ecosystem.

</comment><comment><USER8> Because advertisers would lose tracking people which would make very hard to measure ad effectiveness. Also, ad tech co would lose tracking which would make it harder to profile peoples behavior on line.

<comment><USER2> You can still track click-throughs on the destination site. If the source site sends you its stats then you get the click-through rate.

What you won't get is automation and profiling.

</comment></comment><comment> e-clinton Or just have the ad selection happen server-side and for assets to be proxied via your domain. The content of the ad to be embedded with your sites code. And maybe a JavaScript library which is also proxied and gathers the metrics.

It'll cost more bandwidth and hurt the site experience, but I's imagine that'd fool adblockers.

<comment><USER9> Unless you are running self-selected first party ads, _the ad companies do not trust you, the publisher, to not lie about proxied traffic_. Ths is one of the reasons they demand invasive, malware JS to run that loads Java, Flash, and all sorts of bullshit.</comment></comment>


How to Get Rid of Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@caityjohnstone/how-to-get-rid-of-paranoid-conspiracy-theorists-ef6c5793ce43 <comment><USER2> Article doesn't say anything new or profound, of course with some things it takes a grain of truth to build a conspiracy theory.

Things like Q-anon restructures criticisms in the lack of government transparency, cultures of elitism, and criticism against the military- intelligence complexes and creates a pro-Trump-right-wing narrative. It's a narrative that beckons it's own reality, which is not something that can simply be argued away as apparent by persisting conspiracy theories. It's deeper than a delusion, it's a fork of reality created by and generating context to a network of memeplexes.</comment>


Magnetic Monopoles Detected In A Real Magnet For The First Time - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090903163725.htm <comment><USER2> As with all the previous stories of this kind, we are again not dealing with an actual monopole particle, but rather with an aggregate of material whose behavior resembles that of the elusive monopole particle. This 'monopole' is more like a phonon than like an electron.</comment>


Why do Startups Fear their Idea? - <AUTHOR> http://calebelston.com/why-do-startups-fear-their-idea <comment><USER2> "The idea should be sharp and pointy, an idea that lodges itself in people's brains where no other idea has already taken up residence."

</comment><comment><USER3> Never forget the critical meta-features: usability, performance, and robustness.

Get those right, even with a well-worn idea, and the world's your oyster (see the iPod, google, etc.) Fuck those up and you better already have a monopoly or the market will grind you into the ground.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I should print this post in a booklet and hand it to all my new potential clients...

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't think it's fear so much as perceiving a particular conception of simple as bland. It would be a sign of failure to demote oneself to that, and secondly it does not jive with the concept of a long and difficult journey.

Things can be outwardly simple and have a complex underbelly, or vice versa, or some other mix. Anyway, I think this article is tied up with passion because if you lose it, fail to renew it, or actively destroy it, too much resistance develops to proceed.

</comment><comment><USER5> i think they get too caught up in their own ideas and lose touch with the market. the eventual reality check is what they fear. so they avoid it by becoming more immersed in their ideas, hence compounding the problem.

<comment><USER6> I hesitate to say it after his recent "I will reveal my methods" fiasco but this reminded me of:

<http://maxkle.in/programming-is-a-way-to-procrastinate/>

"Max", if you're reading this, weren't you going to give away your methods in August or something?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't think that fear is the driving force for the added features... Not at all... Many startup founders get to the realization that they want to venture on their own because they feel that their day jobs constrain and bore them... So, when they finally start working on their own startups, all the gloves are off... they feel like they finally can utilize 100% of their potential and creativity... I believe that is the core reason for all those extra features the author has mentioned. At least it was true in my case :)

</comment><comment><USER8> why do people fear their talents? it's the same.</comment>


How and Why I Switched to a Standing Desk  - <AUTHOR> http://smarterware.org/7102/how-and-why-i-switched-to-a-standing-desk

<comment><USER2> I almost died from two large pulmonary embolisms 4 years ago from sitting too long while working (I injured my shoulder, was bored not being able to do normal physical activities, so I ramped up my consulting work to 10+ hours a day - sitting).

Fortunately I recovered OK, and I now switch between three different working postures/environments: sitting at my desk with my legs raised under the desk, in a lazy boy chair with a lap desk, and using a high counter so I can stand. I also use a timer on my laptop that I set for 20 minutes when I take a minute to walk over and scratch my parrot's head: good for me to get up and the parrot likes it.

It is time consuming but I also try to hike and/or walk 5 to 8 hours a week. The exercise and social interactions (I have a pool of 20+ people I hike with) nicely offsets spending a lot of time in front of a computer.

</comment><comment><USER3> More on the topic: <http://www.localconspiracy.com/2010/08/get-up-stand- up.html> (Full disclosure - I wrote that. I've been using a stand-up desk for 9 months now. I'll never switch to sitting down again!)

</comment><comment><USER4> I've started making sn effort to do the opposite. I work sitting down, and do all my idol browsing, email, video watching standing up while using an iPad. So working is the relaxing part of my day.

</comment><comment><USER5> This timing is perfect! Just yesterday I was reading the post about how sitting for hours at a time increases risk of heart problems significantly (regardless of exercise) and... began to wonder if it'd be feasible to work at my computer standing up. I use a laptop but I think I could definitely work something out.

It'd probably make me an overall happier and more motivated (to do other things) person. I've noticed that sitting down all day staring at my laptop makes me feel like crap and not really care to do anything else.

Again... perfect timing for this article. Now I just need to figure out how to make the transition...</comment>


Where to find the best cheese in the U.S. - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/where-to-find-the-countrys-best-cheese-11578058050 <comment><AUTHOR> [http://archive.is/Vo9GQ](http://archive.is/Vo9GQ)</comment>


New Apple devices that will follow the iPad 3 HD - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/07/astonishing_osx_devices_to_follow_ipad_3/

<comment><USER2> looks like this is moot</comment>


Show HN: Promote your business and find others that provide flat quotes - <AUTHOR> https://www.flatquotes.com <comment><AUTHOR> I was talking to someone recently and they were wanting a way to find more businesses that provide flat quotes instead of hourly rates for predictable services. For example, if a lawyer reviews a lot of employment contracts they could probably provide a fixed price instead of an hourly rate for this type of work. It isn't always easy to find these types of businesses though.

I decided to create a simple proof of concept site where people can go post your businesses with contact information and list what type of services you provide. Then other small businesses can search and hire you for those services.

This is a pretty barebones implementation just to see if there is enough interest to make it better. There's no cost to use it, just trying to provide something useful right now.

Any feedback is appreciated.</comment>


Google Java Style - <AUTHOR> http://google-styleguide.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/javaguide.html

<comment><AUTHOR> A good set of basic, controversy-free guidelines for clean java code style</comment>


Nomophobia affects majority of UK - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/10267574/Nomophobia-affects-majority-of-UK.html

<comment><USER2> "Nomophobia"? Who invents these words? How about lexiphobia, the fear of not having an erudite-sounding but meaningless polysyllable on the tip of one's tongue at the perfect moment?

<comment><USER3> The British Post Office invented it to advertise something or other. I assume it was a joke based on no-mobile-pho(ne|bia).

Also, wiktionary tells me nomophobia already means fear of laws.</comment></comment>


KubeInvaders – Gamified Chaos Engineering Tool for Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://kubernetes.io/blog/2020/01/22/kubeinvaders-gamified-chaos-engineering-tool-for-kubernetes/ <comment><USER2> > replicaCount: 1

is an odd default for a chart designed to run in a cluster where pod killing is the _expected_ outcome ([https://github.com/lucky- sideburn/KubeInvaders/blob/master/h...](https://github.com/lucky- sideburn/KubeInvaders/blob/master/helm-charts/kubeinvaders/values.yaml#L5))

I guess it depends on how much of the game runs entirely client-side, versus polling an api or whatever</comment>


Which pentesting certificate is worth it? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.peerlyst.com/penetration-testing-certifications/

<comment><USER2> Completely agree with the whole assessment. I once requested to do the SANS course (on my company's dollar), and they declined based on cost, but offered me the CEH as an alternative.

Since it was still on their dollar I sat the course.

The syllabus was effectively "here's a bunch of FOSS hacking tools that you could use. Here's a lab manual that's a sort of 'Dummies Guide To...' a handful of them. And here's a really high level 'methodology' you might use".

Interestingly there were people on the course who had never used a non-Windows machine, or a command line before. This wasn't a problem.

I learned absolutely nothing new from the course. I could have sat the exam on the way in and got a broadly similar result as I had on the way out. I learned nothing about "hacking", I learned nothing insightful about network, computer, or application architectures, there was no discussion about protocols, shells. Nothing about the fact that "hacking" is hard work, heavy thinking, and ultimately clever exploitation of subtle problems born from deep, hard-earned, studious understanding of something.

But yeah, it's a post-nominal, and it gets me through a surprisingly high number of HR sifts, so I leave it on my CV. At no point have I ever made any suggestion to anyone in the industry that it's worth a jot, though.</comment>


Ask HN: Debian or Ubuntu for Web Servers? - <AUTHOR>

I have been using Debian for a while now and love it, wondering what advantages Ubuntu may have over it? <comment><USER2> The heuristic I use when choosing between them is: What is the server supporting?

If it's legacy PHP apps (like SquirrelMail, or SugarCRM) that need specific versions of PHP and mysql to be happy; then debian.

If it's more modern apps, or things that are currently in development Ubuntu. Ubuntu's python and postgresql support are excellent.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting, that seems exactly what my situation is. Legacy apps are on Debian and considering moving to Ubuntu for new app using Python / Postgresql.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I use Debian for most of my servers and the only complaint I really have is that the repos are extremely outdated when compared to Ubuntu. Ubuntu's main strength, at least as I see it, is the fact that the packages are updated more frequently and there are more of them than for on Debian (even Backports).

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I can always count on Debian to be dated but for the most part I have been able to work with it despite that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also, Ubuntu has LTS (long term support) versions. The server versions are supported even longer.

</comment><comment><USER5> I favour ubuntu on servers mainly because it's what I use on my desktop, and it's handy to be able to write & test scripts on your desktop and deploy to the servers only once everything works.</comment>


Mattress Company Stiffs Some Lenders - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-07-10/mattress-company-stiffs-some-lenders <comment><USER2> I found this way, way more fascinating than I had expected to. The writing style is great!</comment>


Obscenity Filters: Bad Idea, or Incredibly Intercoursing Bad Idea? - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001176.html

<comment><USER2> There probably is a better solution - likely one involving some minimal human moderation paired with machine flagging, but the technical challenges don't make obscenity filters a bad idea. A young startup could face a make or break moment when its site starts attracting obscenity and thus repelling all its early users. This is clearly worse than having some odd misspellings. Consider the worst case scenario of implementing an obscenity filter and not doing so - the decision becomes quite clear, it would seem.</comment>


Michael Tsai: Subversion to Git - <AUTHOR> http://mjtsai.com/blog/2007/07/15/subversion-to-git/

<comment><USER2> I'm using both on different projects. I've run into some subversion bugs and never had any problems with git so far. I'm a fairly boring user who uses the command line interface and doesn't do anything very tricky. I'm enthusiastically using git for all my new stuff.

I definitely think all open source projects should move to distributed revision control, like git, so the commit access problem is eliminated.

</comment><comment><USER3> Git looks really cool, but there just isnt enough support yet to make it a viable alternative to SVN, IMHO. Once there is a good Eclipse plug in, Apache extension, etc we may switch over but until then Git looks to be only really be useful to the most hardcore (think Linux kernel developers).

<comment><USER4> Git is worth a look....yet again I don't know why this guy got down modded.

<comment><USER3> Thanks, I'd like to check it out more when I have time... I mean hey if Linus Torvalds swears by it then its gotta be cool right?

Not surprised I got down modded, revision control is apparently a very passionate subject for some people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Asking some folks who know about such things in detail, they said this about Git: \- Designed specifically to deal with managing the Linux kernel \- Not suited for large projects \- Reliability of the database is way below acceptable levels.

Svn works pretty well.

<comment><USER6> I suggest that "those folks" don't have a clue, at least if their quoted response is any indication. Git is plainly "suited for large projects" (if the kernel qualifies as large), and I'm mystified as to why they think the "database" is unreliable in comparison with other VC systems (Git places a pretty strong emphasis on guaranteeing that exactly the same content that was put into the system can be subsequently retrieved).

<comment><USER5> This goes to show it's an issue. The source is a very smart guy, but I too was confused about the "large project" comment. I work in robotics, whose systems can get very, very large.

And perhaps by large, he means many different projects in a company. I don't know enough about Git to say.</comment></comment></comment>


NY Agency Creates Electromagnetic Dot Display, up in NYC - <AUTHOR> http://breakfastny.com/reactive-super-speed-electromagnet-dot-display-per/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really happy to see agencies selling better advertising than standalone CRUD apps or native apps. Hope ya'll like it too.</comment>


Presence of a threatening humanoid robot improves human performance - <AUTHOR> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327043656_Not_as_bad_as_it_seems_When_the_presence_of_a_threatening_humanoid_robot_improves_human_performance <comment><USER2> Congratulations. You've automated workplace bullying. Now we can get rid of all the human managers.</comment>


Why Derek Chauvin May Get Off His Murder Charge - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@gavrilodavid/why-derek-chauvin-may-get-off-his-murder-charge-2e2ad8d0911 <comment><USER2> A lot of things in this article are not directly related to the point, IMHO.

If the discussion is about the charges of murder v. manslaughter, then IMO the key is that 'murder' is deliberate whether manslaughter isn't.

The question is then not whether the police officer's actions cause Floyd's death but whether the officer intended to kill Floyd.</comment>


Illegal Pot Farms Are Poisoning California's Forests - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/03/backcountry-drug-war/521352/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> Legalization and regulation would help move the market away from operations like this to sustainable farmland operations

<comment><USER3> I'm honestly not sure that's true. Legalization and regulation will make it easier to grow legally, but it's hard to undercut someone who isn't paying for the land they use. This is similar to how cheap ASICs and electricity haven't pushed out botnets mining bitcoin - free is still cheaper than cheap.

<comment><USER4> When was the last time you went looking for moonshine or had moonshine offered to you?

<comment><USER3> If you know the right people - or are in the right areas - it's not unusual or even uncommon. I know people who make moonshine in California.

<comment><USER5> I think the vast majority of people DON'T know the right people.

<comment><USER3> Probably true! But I stumbled into it in Oakland without even trying, and large swaths of Appalachia have longstanding moonshining traditions.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yes, Google Photos Can Still Sync Your Photos After You Delete the App - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/07/13/yes-google-photos-can-still-sync-your-photos-after-you-delete-the-app/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure what is a good solution here. For the apps to register onDelete actions? Can you image what mess that will turn into? Perhaps this is best solved by better upfront messaging.</comment>


Internet access: Gordian net - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21641201-why-network-neutrality-such-intractable-problemand-how-solve-it-gordian-net?fsrc=scn/tw/te/pe/ed/gordiannet <comment><USER2> The narrative that "the internet [is] becoming more crowded" is a gimmick to raise fees. I'm already paying for the capacity I expect to use. My fees should be applied to upgrade capacity. If that model isn't sustainable, there is no business. Microsoft doesn't get to send me a bill for buying the console (hypothetically low margin), but no games (higher margin).

Differently: I pay X dollars per month for a maximum rate. Somewhere along the lines, people (who didn't want to upgrade their networks) started talking about "toll booths", and "bandwidth hogs", saying that there are "capacity" problems, implicitly requiring that my maximum rate for a month - which I can compare easily to alternative providers - be turned into a maximum rate (... based on a model business person, or senior, who checks email twice a week, or some other idealized average subscriber). It was a grift to turn a fungible commodity into a value-added, highly tiered, set of offerings (which I can't differentiate between readily, and so am less able to switch providers), but with larger margins. In short, it's not a surprise to see network neutrality dismantled now that this billing model is completely swallowed.

</comment><comment><USER3> I agree with "More providers, fewer rules".

However, it seems like sticking a "common carriage" rule in there would be a good idea. Especially for the 75% of US households who won't have a perfectly competitive market to turn to in the next few years.</comment>


Distributed Operating System Amoeba (1996-2002) - <AUTHOR> http://fsd-amoeba.sourceforge.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> Apparently this was the operating system that python was originally developed for.</comment>


Three Secrets to Make a Message Go Viral - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/135/made-to-stick-getting-your-ideas-to-fly.html <comment><USER2> Am I the only one who sees the irony in the Digg bait title for an article about Digg bait articles? Or, is it intentionally ironic? I must be getting old, I can't tell anymore.

<comment><USER3> I really don't what is wrong with a Digg bait title. Every writer should know that a good title is a good style of writing an article, right? Correct me if I am wrong since my writing really sucks.

<comment><USER4> A Digg bait title indicates that the author is more interested in getting page views than in writing a good article, at least that's what it means to me.

<comment><USER5> Unless, of course, the article is actually quite good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Try to amazon this book named Made To Stick. The whole book is about how to make a message go viral.

<comment><USER6> The article linked is from the authors of Made to Stick. They have an updated edition out. I'm guessing it won't have a section on Dominos Pizza or Susan Boyle though.</comment></comment>


The Minecraft Creator Markus Persson Faces Life After Fame - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/04/the-minecraft-creator-markus-persson-faces-life-after-fame.html <comment><USER2> > _Computer magazines of the day would print strings of code on their back > pages, which could be transcribed by the reader to create a playable game, > and this code-by-numbers task gave Persson his first experience of what > would later become his profession. "My sister would read the lines out to me > and I would tap them into the computer," he says. "After a while, I figured > out that if you didn't type out exactly what they told you then something > different would happen, where you finally ran the game. That sense of power > was intoxicating."_

It's kind of weird to think that no-one gets their start like this anymore.

<comment><USER3> This story is incredibly common amongst my age group (40) in tech. What is the common story amongst those that are 30? 20?

<comment><USER4> 24\. Even though we always had a computer at home, I never got into programming and spent most of my time playing games. (The learning curve was too steep, and besides, what could I possibly make that was better than the games I was playing?) Then when I got to college I majored in CS. Now I'm definitely interested in making games. :)

In my opinion, the abundance of dynamic and interpreted languages, powerful tools, programmable hardware, and the internet make getting into programming WAY easier than it was before.

<comment><USER2> But even you - a smart capable person who likes computers - didn't do so because you already had all the games you needed.

Those home computers? You load a game, or you start programming. Since loading a game often meant fiddling around with a tape cassette and cable, and a few minutes hoping it would load, it's easy to see why people decided to try to code themselves.

I know abstraction is a good thing. I know it's powerful and etc etc.

But there's something nice about being able to squirt data to an address, and know it's coming out the parallel port, and having a hokey resister-ladder DtoA converter hooked up to turn that data into music. Or to have a single instruction to draw a pixel.

<comment><USER5> As a counterpoint, I'm 20 and I started programming exactly because I was playing around with extending a game (Neverwinter Nights was the game), which involved using the built-in tools to make new levels/worlds but getting elaborate behaviour required scripting in a C-like language.

I remember being utterly confused by what a statement beginning with "while" did, but eventually I was reasonable enough to mostly implement a (very weak) checkers-playing AI.

This then lead to programming Lego robots in C, which was pretty neat. (Actually, thinking about that, the first programming I did was using the graphical LabView thing that Lego provides for Mindstorms robots.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> From the article: Since the game's release, in 2009, Minecraft has sold in excess of twenty million copies, earned armfuls of prestigious awards, and secured merchandising deals with LEGO and other toymakers. Last year, Persson earned over a hundred million dollars from the game and its merchandise. Persson—better known to his global army of teen-age followers by his Internet handle, Notch—has a raggedy, un-marketed charm. He is, by his own admission, only a workmanlike coder, not a ruthless businessman. "I've never run a company before and I don't want to feel like a boss," he said. "I just want to turn up and do my work."

\----

He sounds like a modern day Woz, except he was successful despite not wanting to get involved in business. (by that I mean, Woz was successful, but we don't know how he might have turned out if Steve Jobs didn't push him to cofound Apple)

<comment><USER7> He has something more easily translatable to a product, just add a login system. Woz had blueprints and a few of his own, a physical product with massive costs for each one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What is the longevity of Minecraft? As a social sandbox game, people can play for a long time. We have a habit of treating games like movies, good for one time through, and perhaps most are. But what if some games are more like Legos, playable for years? Instead of a franchise (King's Quest I, King's Quest II, ...), what if there is some other extendable model, like buying a new Lego kit? I have no idea, but Minecraft is one of a handful of long- lasting games that suggest a different business model entirely. The MMPORGs are like this, too. I'm curious to see what they do with Minecraft Realms.

<comment><USER9> > What is the longevity of Minecraft?

There's an unofficial modding API and thousands of mods [1], some of which are extremely sophisticated. For instance, "Red Power" [2] includes an in-game 6502-based computer for which the author wrote a Forth interpreter that can be used to control in-game objects, and somebody else has embedded a Lua interpreter that can do similar things, IIRC.

There are also dozens of user-created game modes (some of which only have informally-enforced rules) and special maps like "Feed the Beast" [3].

The only games I can think of with comparable amounts of content are MMOs and possibly the Elder Scrolls series, though in both of those cases the content is nothing like as varied, nor does it rely on its user's creativity to anything like the same extent.

Minecraft is very much like Lego, only you can also program your own bricks.

[1] <http://www.minecraftwiki.net/wiki/Mods>

[2] [http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/365357-125-eloraams- mods...](http://www.minecraftforum.net/topic/365357-125-eloraams-mods- redpower-2-prerelease-5b2/)

[3] <http://feed-the-beast.com/>

<comment><USER10> The cool thing about a lot of the mods is that they don't just add more content to the game, but they add whole new ways that the game can be played. In vanilla minecraft you can build all sorts of structures, and that's very cool and has a lot of room for a creative mind to explore. But then there are mods that add the ability to build automated factories. Or robots that you can program to do almost anything the player can, like gather resources. Or movable structures which allow you to build bases that can fly around the world. Or bees that you can selectively breed or even genetically engineer, which will produce useful resources for you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This struck me as extraordinary:

 _"My strongest early memory is of my dad dragging me through very deep snow on a sled," he said. "I looked up at him and he seemed annoyed at me. Perhaps it was tough work, dragging me, or perhaps I had been crying. And I realized that—hang on—he's actually a real person, with his own perception of things. It's not just me looking at things; he is also looking at things."_

I wonder if it's rare for someone so little to experience empathy so powerfully. Certainly I don't recall realizing anything like that until much later.

The whole story about Notch and his father is very moving.

</comment><comment><USER12> My wife and I have had so much fun playing Minecraft with our two sons and their friends. It really is special.

We have a Minecraft server running on an older Mac mini in the house, and my kids' have friends — some local and some from other states — that log in and play with them. Sometimes they are all on Skype, talking to each other while they play. It is so cool, and fun to watch them all interacting in their Minecraft world together.

</comment><comment><USER13> _> "I have the ability to get code done, but I'm impatient and it's scrappy as a result. Maybe that helped me with Minecraft, as it came quickly. But, well, at some point, I'd like to actually become a good programmer."_

It's amazing that he doesn't consider himself to be a good programmer. In what other profession would someone as accomplished as Persson say that?

<comment> kostya-kow From programmer's perspective, Minecraft is nothing special (and it's written in Java!). There is much better code out there.

Quality of programming and success are not necessarily related.

<comment><USER14> Have you actually seen him coding? From what I have heard/seen on video, he is very fast, his code is readable and relatively concise (for Java). And efficiently displaying this giant fully-modifiable voxel world on all types of hardware is no small feat. Also the procedural landscape generation is fairly brilliant. And the whole crafting system that allowed for world modification. I think you should give him credit for doing a great execution of some really cutting edge ideas.

<comment><USER15> Not wanting to take anything from notch, but I do concur with the parent. I've seen his live casts, and sure they are great, but let's not kid ourselves, his code is not that great. He is fast cause he knows the libraries he uses very well (which is admirable) but at the time, put me in front of DX9 and my speed was the same. Now put me in front of iOS code and I can probably match it. I think he just got to that status where people idolise him (heck, I remember when his first livecast was out, 100s of blogs doing their own 'what I learn from watching notch code' like he was some super coder, which weren't much more than typical stuff you learn in the first 2-3 years working at a company(at least in games).

And from other sources (can't verify) minecraft code is reported to be quite bad, which is the main reason many of the bugs weren't fixed very fast.

Having said that, he had a vision, executed it well and made a lot of money. My hat is off to him for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I thought he was charged with murder or something.

<comment><USER17> no - it's abundantly not trying to be sensationalist.

Life typically means just that - it's not some shorthand for a term of imprisonment.

<comment><USER18> "Life typically means just that - it's not some shorthand for a term of imprisonment."

Can you show me an _actual_ statistics on what percentage of "X faces life" in English texts relates to severe criminal charges, and what percentage means something "non-sensationalist"? Because as a non-native speaker, I've always seen it in the former context.

<comment><USER19> Where the heck would anyone find a corpus of text to study that phrase?

Oh, <https://www.google.com/search?q=faces+life+after>

(Incidentally, Google's de-duplication logic fails horribly on that query. 6 of the top 10 results are the same blogspam-copied story, and it's not even fresh news.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Another finely written newspaper article about indie game development / mindsets involved, titled "Where Do Dwarf-Eating Carp Come From? / The Brilliance of Dwarf Fortress", centering around the two brothers, mainly focusing on Tarn Adams:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance- of...](http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/24/magazine/the-brilliance-of-dwarf- fortress.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0)

</comment><comment><USER21> Compared to the other story of a $100M GOOG Exec, this is a story I really like, as a programmer.

<comment><USER22> Apples and oranges.

<comment><USER21> How so? The GOOG exec story is about how to get rich by climbing the "Corporate Ladder", while Persson's way is to become successful by going indie and producing games people want. The interesting fact is that their wealth are comparable number-wise.

<comment><USER22> I guess I wasn't really focusing on the wealth as it seems to me to be only mentioned in an effort to get people's attention. I think both stories are fascinating.

<comment><USER21> Agreed on the link-bait factor. Though the perfect timing of these two stories got me think why so many great programmers go indie: if you are great at building stuff, try to be next Persson, or if you have great vision, PG will be your model. Otherwise, you're screwed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Last year, Persson earned over a hundred million dollars from the game and its merchandise."

If you made that kind of money, why would you even bother to do anything but just retire and enjoy life?

<comment><USER24> In some sense, enjoying life is hard when you have lots of money. It gives you lots of options, and you cannot do all you would ever want to do.

Say, you are a programmer, and you are enjoying your work. Would you enjoy yourself more riding a Ferrari today? Sitting on some Caribbean beach? Following your favourite NBA team by going to all their games? Study medicine? Start a charity? How do you know you would stay happy doing that? Would you feel guilty spending your life lying on a beach, where you might have written some useful software instead?

Most people would shrug of those ideas or not even think about them because "that's life". If you have a hundred million in the bank, though, all of these are realistic options.

If money is no objection, some feel that they really are themselves to blame if they aren't happy for a minute or don't accomplish anything they feel valuable in the rest of their lives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> He sounds pretty sad.

<comment><USER26> Most people are pretty sad when their family members commit suicide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> [http://kotaku.com/minecraft-creator-we-did-not-pay-anyone- to...](http://kotaku.com/minecraft-creator-we-did-not-pay-anyone-to- party-462712664)

<comment><USER28> Wow, some real schadenfreude going on there.

I really don't understand some of the bile that follows Persson around.

Are people really that fucking bitter that a guy who by his own admission is a complete klutz (programming and business-wise) can become so successful?

<comment><USER29> Hmm, I didn't really see any bitterness in the article (even in the tweets they list). Are you talking about the comments?

<comment><USER28> Yeah sorry, should have made that clear.

<comment><USER30> Someone tagged the picture of the DJ with the comment "This just in : Mojang might have paid a famous DJ to help people feel more inclined to party. This is disgusting."

Apt.

<comment><USER29> And exactly why do you think that's apt?

To me, it seems like a superficial comment that misses any of what _actually matters_ about the topic for the sake of a smug joke.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Backpack Hydroelectric Generator for 500 Watts on the Move - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/03/backpack-hydroelectric-plant/

<comment><USER2> I'm feeling like conservation of energy wouldn't work out. Can anyone do some envelope math on this?</comment>


The Chatbot That's Acing the Largest Turing Test in History - <AUTHOR> http://nautil.us/issue/52/the-hive/your-next-new-best-friend-might-be-a-robot-rp <comment><USER2> It's possible to lower human expectations to the point that current chatbots can satisfy them. That's a much easier task than raising chatbots up to the point that they can actually hold their own in probing, intelligent conversations without prevarication, as in the original proposal:

[http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html](http://www.loebner.net/Prizef/TuringArticle.html)

 _Interrogator: In the first line of your sonnet which reads "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day," would not "a spring day" do as well or better?

Witness: It wouldn't scan.

Interrogator: How about "a winter's day," That would scan all right.

Witness: Yes, but nobody wants to be compared to a winter's day.

Interrogator: Would you say Mr. Pickwick reminded you of Christmas?

Witness: In a way.

Interrogator: Yet Christmas is a winter's day, and I do not think Mr. Pickwick would mind the comparison.

Witness: I don't think you're serious. By a winter's day one means a typical winter's day, rather than a special one like Christmas._

I suppose that cobbling together enough evasions and simulated mood swings to _bypass_ the challenge of a sustained conversation is impressive in its own way. But it's mostly disappointing. Imagine seeing repeated claims of public key encryption weaknesses that all turn out to be variants of social engineering approaches to stealing passphrases. Those wouldn't exactly be _incorrect_ claims but wouldn't be very _interesting kinds_ of correct claims either.</comment>


Bitcoin's Intentions - <AUTHOR> http://edwardaten.co/intentions

<comment><USER2> After reading the blog I am still no closer to understanding bitcoin intentions. But hey, now I know about magic wand and coca-cola roots.

</comment><comment><USER3> Using it exactly like money is a waste. But some interesting things can be build over it, like Twister ([http://twister.net.co/](http://twister.net.co/))</comment>


Python Puzzlers - <AUTHOR> https://speakerdeck.com/alangpierce/python-puzzlers

<comment><USER2> Even the hardest one was only 4 out of 5 Guidos.</comment>


What Would a VC Sponsored Coworking Location Look Like? - <AUTHOR> http://www.centernetworks.com/vc-coworking <comment><USER2> They wouldn't, People are supposed to work at home and basically sleep where they work</comment>


Ask HN: Is there a place where I can sell an MVP? - <AUTHOR>

I built a minimum viable product for an idea earlier but moved on to another one.
But the MVP is fully functional and the idea is generic so it can click with someone else too.
I have following things to go with it: - domain name - brand logo - themed already - an year worth of hosting to go with it as well (obviously hosting is reusable but since its hosted already, you get a fully functional thing). - technology stack is RoR, MySQL, JQuery, Bootstrap.
I have heard of couple of sites such as: stylate.com and brandbucket.com for selling domain name with brand logo.
I was wondering if there is a market place to sell MVPs (basically a domainname, brand logo, fully functional website, themed and hosting for an year) <comment><USER2> <https://flippa.com></comment>


Universal Picks Up Steve Jobs Movie - <AUTHOR> http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/universal-picks-up-steve-jobs-752149?mobile_redirect=false

<comment><USER2> I really don't care. Steve Jobs was a huge prick in real life and Hollywood will canonize him again.</comment>


The Email I Sent Steve That Kicked Off Reddit - <AUTHOR> http://alexisohanian.com/the-email-i-sent-steve-that-kicked-off-reddit

<comment><USER2> I love reddit and has been a user for several years, but what was the pitch exactly? "Digg with only headlines and no preview?"

<comment><USER3> I'd be willing to bet the sub-reddit idea was heavily emphasized since that's arguably the only novel idea that reddit had, but it's a good one that allows it to not turn to shit and stave off eternal september for as long as possible.

<comment><USER2> Maybe I'm super naive, but that really seemed like something that was added when people wanted to filter posts, and then later these filters got styling and a community sense.

Maybe it was the plan all along and they just gradually implemented it in a way that felt organic and user driven.

But I agree with you, the subreddits are brilliant at what they do. The concept of merging all your favorite BB into a single stream is fantastic and pulling it off is even more impressive.

But early reddit did not look to me like anything that was aiming to be more than a digg clone that used basic text layout to scare the n00bs away and then it just gradually evolved into this crazy huge community.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ah yes, all the keyboards in Singapore are Dvorak :p</comment>


Italian Anti-Corruption Authority Adopts Onion Services - <AUTHOR> https://blog.torproject.org/italian-anti-corruption-authority-anac-adopts-onion-services <comment><USER2> Nice. I am hoping onion services become more ubiquitous for desktop use. So many decentralized networks work so hard to solve things like NAT busting and network issues, and they still forget about anonymity.

I am personally working on a tiny side project to build a chat/forum/etc platform based around onion services for all users. Traditionally, it was annoying to have to ask users to install Tor and open up the control port so your app could leverage it. In a recent alpha there is an experimental tiny little C API that can start the Tor system in-app [0]. Leveraging some of the work from [1], I put in some effort to get all the steps working to compile Tor statically in a a single Rust exe on Windows [2]. As Tor's embeddability game increases, I hope more apps will consider using it as part of their network stack. Granted I know the problems that are inherent with "vendoring" security libs like these, but for some uses the benefits outweigh the costs of requiring separate downloads and separate daemons running.

0 - [https://blog.torproject.org/tor-0331-alpha-released-back- uns...](https://blog.torproject.org/tor-0331-alpha-released-back-unstable- development) 1 - [https://github.com/iCepa/Tor.framework](https://github.com/iCepa/Tor.framework) 2 - [https://github.com/cretz/rtsw-poc](https://github.com/cretz/rtsw-poc)

<comment><USER3> A mix between IPFS and onions would also be very promising. There's current work on that.[1]

[1] : [https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37](https://github.com/ipfs/notes/issues/37)

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I've seen that. OpenBazaar's onion transport is similar to what I'm talking about when I mean the user has to have their own tor process IIRC. I would have used Go instead of Rust of CGO on Windows and static compilation didn't suck so much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> They're running a Tor website... that requires JavaScript. smh

>Error! :(

>Your browser is not running Javascript that is required to use the whistleblowing client.

>It's common believe that Javascript and security don't sound well together, for this reason we suggest to use the Tor Browser, an extremely tuned FireFox browser with Tor integrated. Here you can found and download the latest release of: Tor Browser.

<comment><USER3> Note that those who want a JS-free whistleblowing platform should look for SecureDrop.[1] It's also harder to setup and may not be possible for certain threat models.

[1] : [https://securedrop.org/directory](https://securedrop.org/directory)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's refreshing to notice that in the typical italian political climate of general incompetence, there are still people who do a good job.

<comment><USER6> You are right in the first part (I'm italian). Regarding people doing a good job, I don't know if this is the case. I tried to use this service (just to see how it works), and:

      - "anonymous reports will be considered only in particular cases" (!)
      - you cannot report if you are a private person/company
      - you have no kind of legal counseling / protection
      - other limitations

I'm not sure if it was designed to get actual reports or not.

<comment><USER7> How anonymous could it be, if they know whether a reporter is a "private person/company"?

<comment><USER6> Look at the form, they ask for you are you working, in which departments, etc.. It is just silly!

<comment><USER8> Not really, they ask you other information and only these market with * are required.

In fact, only a few information are required. Your job title aka position (make sense in case is a manager reporting an illegal activity other than a cleaner which might have really small amount of information) the entity involved and if you work in that entity or you just had some sort of relationship.

After all it make sense to have a big set of data to investigate in. If not would be complicated for anyone to understand what's going on. You're still reporting it at the anti corruption authority, so even if you give them more details you should be confident that they'll treat it carefully.

All the personal data (such as name, last name and so on) are optional. And, if you choose to not share your personal data, the form will be considered only if you complied with a level of detail that's enough to do an eventual investigation (if not, since they can't reach you out to ask you or details, would be useless to say "on December 2014 I saw a guy giving 10 euro to another one in the aisle of the department X in the state company Y. But was too dark and I can't tell who they are").

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone able to comment on the state of Tor security and suggest an up to date OpSec guide to using Tor?

<comment><USER10> This opinion is controversial, and I'm not going to go into all of the reasons why, but unless you REALY know what you're doing Tor can't be trusted.

I'd wager only 1% of people on Hacker News would be capable of using a Tor setup for more than a day without getting owned.

You're better off buying a burner iPod or iPad, stick to public wifi spots, and factory reset it once a week. Even then, watch what you type since vocabulary is fingerprintable.

It's very hard to stay dark these days.

<comment><USER11> Is that actually a controversy? I feel like everyone I talk to with any credible claim to security expertise recommends against it.

So much so that I'd like to see an expert recommend it.

<comment><USER10> There is a wide and growing gulf between what cyber experts know and what the tech savvy public knows. The world is changing so fast right now you almost need to invent your adversary's tools to be free from them.

If you're talking with large numbers of people that don't trust Tor then it speaks more to the quality of your friends than it does about the prevalence of this opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The more one studys the mechanics of corruption, the more one begins to understand that a similar battle has been waged in biology since the dawn of time.

The corrupting entity can not replace the corrupted entity, because it does not have the sufficient structures- and would fall prey to other corrupting entitys almost instantly. It can not grow bigger then the corrupted entity, due to its being dependent regarding nourishment on the corrupted entity.

All is fair in this little war. Strategys include shedding hard to corrupt matter (skin, muscus, nails and hair), have tissue with incredible replacement rates (colon-cells). Fast pace the life cycle of the corrupted entity, and have not enough nourishment in the offspring to continue the corruption.

Remedys include using of all natural substances (eat leaves to kill the worms), to behaviour changes (famous the way foxes bath, with a brush of hair forming a flea-raft)

Synchronize breeding cycles, to starve parasites and diseases. Destroy breeding grounds and switch locations, for stationary parasites.

Diversify into different corrupted entity-types to prevent specialized parasites from target hopping.

Im aware that this is dangerous comparison, and thus want to press that i do not compare humans with vermin. I do compare organizations made up by humans with organisms and parasites.

This measure is basically encouraging the parasites infrastructure to turn upon themselves. There is no reward and there is no protection of the parasite being damaged. So it will be used mainly by other parasites to battle among one another (leak information about the neighboring clan)- or to have parasites on the parasites (aka the lower echelon members of the mafia removing upper echelons to raise).

<comment><USER13> I would love to read this as a much longer article with links. What did you mean with the fox?

<comment><USER12> My father is a hunter- he observed foxes, with lots of fleas ripping out hair and then going slowly into ponds, letting the raft of hair float away with the fleas on them.

I have to admit i never observed this myself, so for what is worth is currently hear say.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's been unfortunate to watch regulatory bodies accross the globe try to suppress p2p over the last few months by highlighting only its illicit uses.

Kudos to Italy for betting on the horse that will inevitably win.

<comment><USER15> why do you think tor is going to 'inevitably win'? Win at what exactly?

<comment><USER14> Ahh ok good question I didn't really flesh that out.

>"Why do you think tor is going to 'inevitably win'?"

Not just tor, but p2p in general. __Basically the theory is that, as a species, we 're used to few-source/many-sink communications networks. __

We 've been using them from the printing-press all the way up to DVDs. The internet & its "many-source" capabilities represents a threat to the prior (and existing) information-source monopolies...such as any media industries, national-banks, or governments.

A great way not completely lose control of information dissemination is to control the paths information must take.

Two great examples of threatening p2p protocols are Tor and the distributed bitcoin-ledger. Taken in conjunction with "criminal activity" historically being the way to demonize most cutting-edge tech when it challenges the status-quo, and a pattern starts to present itself.

To answer your question: I think our regulators are being reactionary Luddites & that p2p is sort of the spirit of what's driving this whole internet- thing...otherwise it would be interactive television.

<comment><USER15> i understand your sentiments, but i think the p2p model is never going to become so mainstream that they take over the equivalent centralised model. The reason being that "normal" people prefer ease and convenience.

The internet is practically already interactive television! very few people create and host, compared to the number of consumers.

<comment><USER16> > The reason being that "normal" people prefer ease and convenience

You're assuming we can't build a p2p network that is faster and better than the centralized ones we have today. People will eventually choose p2p because it brings them more ease and convenience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Onion link to the service: [http://bsxsptv76s6cjht7.onion/](http://bsxsptv76s6cjht7.onion/)

(source linked in the article, but in Italian: [http://www.anticorruzione.it/portal/public/classic/Servizi/S...](http://www.anticorruzione.it/portal/public/classic/Servizi/ServiziOnline/SegnalazioneWhistleblowing))

<comment><USER18> Looks like they aren't taking advantage of the latest version of the onion services. A shame.

[https://blog.torproject.org/tors-fall-harvest-next- generatio...](https://blog.torproject.org/tors-fall-harvest-next-generation- onion-services)

<comment><USER3> > Looks like they aren't taking advantage of the latest version of the onion > services. A shame.

Because they're still not production ready. The code for v3 onion services still needs to mature, and when it does, it will become the default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Stupid question: there are so many public places that provide free wifi without authentication. If you go into one of these places and it is populated enough, and you have MAC randomization on, no smartphone on you, isn't it good enough? Surely there are CCTV. But if you connect from a changing room or toilets of a busy mall, I don't see how anyone could trace the connection.

<comment><USER20> [https://panopticlick.eff.org/](https://panopticlick.eff.org/)

See how unique you are. Spoiler; You are unique unless you are paranoid. Really, really paranoid.

<comment><USER19> Unique doesn't mean identified (and if you disable javascript browser fingerprinting doesn't really works). In any case Tor doesn't help with that either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Too bad onions was compromised by the NSA. that makes speaking up against the Bad Guys a bit more dangerous.

Admittedly there is a high chance that the Italian high brass has NO finger on the American high brass, however as long as there is no certainty it's a safety risk.

<comment><USER22> Even if you believe the NSA have some practical attacks against Tor, are you not still better off using Tor than not using it?

<comment><USER21> What happened to my brain? I just bought the idea that the surveillance state is overall more effective in suppressing criminality.

<comment><USER23> It's simple. Hand over the monopoly on information to your surveillance state and you don't get to know when it still doesn't work.

If thinking the govt is broken is treason, you can't fix it any more, but not because it's perfect.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google banned from listening to Google Home recordings for three months in EU - <AUTHOR> https://techerati.com/news-hub/german-regulator-bans-google-from-listening-to-google-home-recordings-for-three-months-across-europe/ <comment><USER2> I feel like this part of the article is a bit misleading:

> _it emerged the company had been listening to intimate conversations of > customers, even when users hadn't activated the device by saying the phrase > "Ok Google"._ [ ... ] _In a blog post, Google later admitted the claims were > accurate._

While not outright stating it, this makes it sound as if Google admitted that listening regardless of whether the user said "OK Google".

Here's what the blog post ([https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/more- information-...](https://www.blog.google/products/assistant/more-information- about-our-processes-safeguard-speech-data/)) actually says:

> _The Google Assistant only sends audio to Google after your device detects > that you're interacting with the Assistant—for example, by saying "Hey > Google"_ [ ... ] _Rarely, devices that have the Google Assistant built in > may experience what we call a "false accept."_

<comment><USER3> Yeah, that is a bit of a stretch, but still, there are a number of problems here. Google trumpets its artificial "intelligence" capabilities as they always do, and it eventually comes out that that its not "just a harmless computer algorithm" thats looking at your email or photos or whatnot, they give access to humans too. Oh, but only in a small tiny negligible, really just forget about this tiny tiny number, of cases.

"[...] confirmed that he worked for a sub-contractor, paid by Google, to transcribe and annotate recordings, including presumptions of the speaker's age and other demographics."[1]

We don't collect any personal data. Its just non-personal stuff to feed into our algorithm. Promise!

Also Google: "We partner with language experts around the world to improve speech technology by transcribing a small set of queries - this work is critical to developing technology that powers products like the Google Assistant"[1]

Seriously? What kind of BS logic is that. Let me just snoop on everyone so that we can improve our products to make more money, after we just made money selling you the product. They should be paying people to sign up for a study where they put in a listening device in their home to train their algorithm. Or purchase voice data from a corpus. Now they can ethically listen in on whatever they want and whenever they want. Instead, they just bury this under some opaque lawyerly language and spy on everyone. Is this the same company that purports to employ the smartest genius level talent?

[1] [https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3078773/google- ass...](https://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/3078773/google-assistant- voice-data-third-party-transcription)

<comment><USER4> > Let me just snoop on everyone so that we can improve our products to make > more money ...

MS uses exactly the same twisted logic for their telemetry collection. :/

<comment><USER3> Agreed, Any telemetry that touches personal documents or data should be an opt-in.</comment></comment></comment></comment>