Did PZ trust a mailing list where anyone could post? Or did the attackers spoof the "from" field? The former may have been prevented by employee training, the latter by SPF or similar technologies.
This article could definitely augment the anti-phishing education at your organizationthe only downside is that it's a bit long, so busy people probably won't want to read it :/.
One hour in or so Google made it so that the emails (even those already received and opened) were blocked. It helped to mitigate the issue. Most of the outside contact that would have received the mail received it in their spam.
We learned from it and have better security now.
Garry and Alexis are the most founder friendly investors I've ever had the pleasure of working with. Late nights and early mornings in every time zone were normal for them. When I managed Garry's schedule, he held 3-5 hour blocks every single day to talk to founders. Then, in addition, we'd squeeze in as many calls and meetings the schedule would allow to speak with founders who reached out cold asking for general advice. A nightmare logistically sometimes, but a true testament to just how much they care about helping others.
When stereotypes of fund investors are that they are sluggish to make investments, quick and impatient when it comes to vetting teams and products, it is refreshing to see that Garry and co consistently break that view with their founder-first approach.
It might be an understatement for me to say that I'd recommend Initialized to any founder!
We're engineers and designers and product folks, and most investors aren't still (which is crazy, right?) so we figure if we can do what we're doing while being the investors we wanted when we were founders, that's about as good as it gets.
They made a decision in 2 minutes.
That's what it's like working with other founders. There's no bullshit. They proactively ask how they can be helpful, are empathetic and understanding when we go through tough times, and push us in a great way.
I'm pretty critical of a lot of Silicon Valley, but we are big fans of Initialized.
really happy to see this happen. i think this will be great for the community.
So for me, this announcement is bittersweet. Initialized will be great for so many early stage founders, but now I don't have a simple way to book office hours with Garry. Well actually, I bet if I shoot him a message, he'd still be glad to help anytime.
When I talk to other founders, I keep hearing how helpful they are. This is one of the most talented and genuine groups of people in the valley.
Congrats on the raise!
A few questions.
1. An obvious question is: Why start out on your own rather than via YC as you've done for a while and seems to have succeeded for you.
2. Would you actively seek investments from outside the United States? As you may well know, emerging markets are gaining a load of attention. In 3 months Nigeria would have hosted Zuckerberg, YCombinator and 500 Startups. (You're always welcome :D)
3. What's the investment thesis of Initialized. Didn't see an Investment Thesis on the website.
Congratulations and all the best!
PS: Not sure if you remember me but you were in the panel that interviewed me for YC in Summer 2014
the age old question comes to mind; how do you value startups with a prototype with little traction. assuming the target market is the size of markets for airbnb,facebook,dropbox, etc.
do you guys follow YC with a fixed rate, (7% for 120K) like 10% for 1M; do you have a min and max for equity and valuation?
"Were founders who are engineers, designers, and product people. "
How would someone make the determination that you are the right firm to pitch to? How would they bend your ear? What's the best way to get your attention? I'm missing a lot of this from your site.
Curious, have you funded any startups under Init? If I had to guess, "Our Startups" are startups you (Garry / Alexis /et al) personally invested in.
Will members of the Initialized Capital team publicly disavow and refuse to do business with Thiel?
(disclaimer: I work on Are.na...it's still contains my favorite internet rabbit holes, though.)
Related, for maintaining a path during rabbit hole seshs: https://pilgrim.are.na/
Some of the most mildly interesting:
V9543XD Spacecraft collision injuring occupant, subsequent encounter
W5602XD Struck by dolphin, subsequent encounter
X35XXXD Volcanic eruption, subsequent encounter
X52XXXD Prolonged stay in weightless environment, subsequent encounter
Y0881XD Assault by crashing of aircraft, subsequent encounter
All the internet debates I saw when the confederate flag came down got me really interested in how so many people could know TOTALLY different things about the most historically significant event in the country.
Now I've got about 12 books covering things in different ways (and there are so many more). Thanks to the Library of Congress and Google's efforts to scan books it's really easy to check citations as you read when you're having those "There is no way that's real" moments followed by "Holy crap! That's real?!?!"
The whole thing has sparked an overzealous interest in history, which is the subject that interested me the least when I was younger. Now I give serious consideration to pursuing a doctorate one day with the aim of being a History professor when I get closer to 50 (which is still a decade or so off).
I stumbled into Venkat's blog about two and half years ago and I'm still trying to find my way out. The rabbit hole gets even deeper when you look at his list of recommended reading. The material on John Boyd and OODA loops in particular has been bouncing around my head for about a year. Ribbonfarm quickly turns into a choose-your-own-adventure type of experience as it's very easy to bounce between articles and start looking everything that you don't know.
If you're interested in getting below the surface level of how organizations, teams, and business cultures work Ribbonfarm is the best place I know of that really digs into the details. If you're expecting the typical "be a leader, not a manager" platitudes, then you'll be disappointed.
Some of the thought that goes into answers is really cool. Good ones from recently are:
Meditations on Moloch is one of my favorites:
The Getting Stronger blog is another wonderful health and fitness blog which focuses on training the mind to thrive in difficult conditions, though it has really amazing insights on diet and training as well: http://gettingstronger.org/about-this-blog/
Some particular good ones are:
Discover new command line utilities or combinations of them to solve various things. Learned all kinds of useful stuff. Things like I know but always forget about:
python -m SimpleHTTPServer
Then there is silly stuff like:
dd if=/dev/dsp | ssh -c arcfour -C username@host dd of=/dev/dsp
This is a Tumblr blog going back years of extremely disturbing medical imagery and art of the same style. Oftentimes there's almost no context given to the pictures other than a name of the author or a title which makes them that much weirder. The images also tend to be associated with fascism or BSDM. I've spent at least a few hours trying to find more about some of the pictures because they were just too weird to go without explanation. The guy has one post about how he really values quality and obscurity in his images and nothing else; no explanation as to who he is or why he collects such horrible and terrifying art. I've always wanted to email him and ask what the hell is going on but I'm kind of scared to know.
Obviously don't click on the link if you do not like gore.
Accident reconstruction/investigation videos. NTSB, CSB, and OSHA have some really in-depth ones:https://youtu.be/tMsjJWJFBbAhttps://youtu.be/gDTqrRpa_ac?list=PLUXYDid45duP-lg8Kh_hSw841...
Also, +1 for TV Tropes
Edit: Also, http://www.scp-wiki.net/ has some classics.
Which contains (apart from the obvious Murphy's law and Occam's razor) such pearls as the Peter Principle, the Dunning-Kruger effect, and Hofstadter's Law. 20+ tabs guaranteed!
The SCP foundation is also excellent, and The Digital Antiquarian is my new favorite.
Fallen London is a browser MMOCYOA on steroids, and it's glorious.
The Jargon File (before ESR ruined it with the latest round of updates) was amazing, and still is great fun.
Bash.org is another classic rabbit hole, although far from the best for that purpose.
And Youtube contains many rabbit holes, but my favorite by far is Tom Scott's youtube channel. Also of note is Tom & Matt's Park Bench, where he vlogs with Matt Grey on a semi-regular basis, Yahtzee Crowshaw's channel, where he used to play games with Gabriel Morton in his "Let's Drown Out" series, and Channel Awesome. Just, all of Channel Awesome.
Also search youtube for conference video playlists.
I have my mythtv set up so downloaded conference videos show up as a channel just like a recording on my mythtv system, so I can just sit on the couch and watch a clojure conf or whatever just as if it were a recorded PBS program. Very convenient.
As a side issue I raided archive.org for hilarious black and white silent films of Buster Keaton who was quite a comedian about a century ago.
* Rogue waves (it is not that deep of a hole but for some reason I find it interesting).
* Knot theory and category theory (again not sure why).
* Social Psychology on wikipedia
* Ben Thompson's Badass blog (more for humor and a little old now. not sure if it is updated) 
* If you are an older mid to late 30 something like me X-Entertainment  used to be an awesome rabbit hole (no it is not a porn site). Sadly it is very very broken rabbit hole with collapsed tunnels all over. The author's penchant (Matt) for 80's crap ultimately succumbed to complete utter disorganization and proper backups. It is a 404 wasteland. I recommend googling "x-entertainment and he-man" (yes it is scary to google such terms but trust me)
Surprised MF has not been mentioned, yet.http://www.metafilter.com/
The most remote inhabited island with a strange history with a few founding families, an exodus because of a volcano, an isolated economy/society and research into asthma as a genetic condition
It's a puzzle solving website. It isn't updated very regularly nowadays, but all the old "Theorems" are still there.
The SCP foundation has been mentioned, but a lot of people don't know they have a sister site. http://wanderers-library.wikidot.com
The wikipedia articles about unsolved problems in physics and emerging technologies are huge click holes for most nerds:
Reading about neolithic archaeology is way more fun than you might think. 10,000 years ago people built these huge sites with literally stone age technology, and the nature of their rituals and beliefs are mostly unknown.
Shodan is a search engine for devices on the Internet. Looking at other people's queries is a good way to get started. Every time you think, there's no way someone would connect one of those to the Internet, you find out that at least 10 people have gone and done just that. https://www.shodan.io/explore
Running an NTP server in the public pool gives you the IPv6 addresses of all kinds of whacko IoT stuff. Every once in a while p0f can't figure out a TCP/IP stack that's connecting to my server, so I connect back and there's sometimes a really weird device with an open telnet or HTTP port or something. About once a month I have to call someone to tell them that they misconfigured their firewall when they turned on NTP and I'm logged into an air conditioner on a cruise ship or another bizarre combination of thing and place that I never thought I'd ever say out loud. Browsing the logs is a never-ending source of amazement.
PSA: connecting to public NTP servers exposes you to people like me, don't do it unless you have to.
There is always something stimulating and new in the archives, which go back years for some programmes.
Also, every episode of "Short Cuts" (available above) is usually something amazing that you've never heard of. "Resistance" and "Rivals" are both great starts.
The Digital Antiquarian - a very well written running history of computer games, especially adventure-y ones from the beginning to about 1989 now.
My current fav is Sixty Symbols, endless very interesting videos: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCvBqzzvUBLCs8Y7Axb-jZew
Also PBS Space Time, MinutePhysics, MinuteEarth.
Useful sections include the one on tips to speed up mowing the lawn. Less useful ones focus on things like how to open soda bottles.
1.1) My current favorite is reading about the Warhammer 40k universe: (http://warhammer40k.wikia.com/wiki/Warhammer_40k_Wiki and http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Main_Page)
2) reddit.com is a never ending source of entertainment if you know how to use it:
2.1) Go to any sub which kind of interests you and sort either by "top" or "controversial" for "all time". "controversial of all time" is especially interesting if you apply it to subs like /r/relationships (if you are into that kind of thing).
2.2) Start with this post on interesting subs: https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/28il5s/what_is_a...
/r/UnsolvedMysteries and /r/AskHistorians are by far my favorite subs at the moment
2.3) /r/ThreadKillers/, /r/DepthHub/, /r/goodlongposts/ are also a good sources of interesting posts
3) If you are into DIY, building boats, woodworking, metal lathes, surface grinding, scraping, and stuff like that, then you will and endless supply of videos on YouTube.
/r/ArtisanVideos is a good source for interesting videos. If you want to find your own content you should have a look at this list: https://www.reddit.com/r/ArtisanVideos/comments/3v264a/meta_...
My favorite channels are This Old Tony (his newer videos are incredibly well made and very funny if you like dry humor. Check out his video on how to cut threads on a lathe https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lb_BURLuI70), Abom79, Clickspring, Keith Rucker, Keith Fenner, Stefan Gotteswinter, Walter Sorrells, ...
4) Reading trip reports on https://www.erowid.org/ is also a good way to waste a lot of time
This is the rabbit hole you've been waiting for. Be warned!
Google Scholar, legal edition
I don't use YouTube at all for music recommendations/discovery but every once in a while, I'll chance upon something amazing.
A comment on an upload of Seventh Wonder's The Great Escape led me my discovering Shadow Gallery's First Light, which I enjoyed almost as much. (Almost. SW's track, based on Henry Martinson's 'Aniara' poetic cycle is, in my opinion, at another level. Martison was awarded a Nobel prize for his work but unfortuntely commited suicide as a result of fierce criticism against this decision).
some choice links Blaise Pascal's Privilege http://history-computer.com/Library/PascalPrivilege.pdf
Ada's Sketch of the analytical computer http://history-computer.com/Library/Ada/Sketch%20of%20The%20...
* Art of the Title, in-depth analyses of movie title sequences: http://www.artofthetitle.com
* Damn Interesting, it's damn interesting: https://www.damninteresting.com
* LEGO subreddit, do I need to say more? https://www.reddit.com/r/lego/
This is a very under-the-radar organization funded by the whos-who of Silicon Valley. See the "Billionares Dinner" they host yearly in Napa.
They have great resources such as Philip Tetlock x Daniel Khanmen Superforcasting mini-course and thorough discussions by great thinkings around tech and ethics.
It has links to architects and those pages in turn have links to beautiful buildings. Also the wikipedia pages of art museums tend to be awesome timesinks as well, you can click through every artist and all of their famous artworks.
Bastard Operator from Hell
It's an amazing compilation.
I'm actually wary of woodchucks because of that now :D
Even more recently, I've been indulging some nostalgia related to my time as a firefighter by spending a lot of time on Youtube looking at videos of structure fires from around the world. It's kind of addictive to play "arm chair incident commander" and sit there going "why'd they stretch a 1-3/4" line instead of a 2-1/2?" or "why didn't the first in engine lay their own supply line" or "why aren't they using elevated master streams here", etc., etc., etc.
I could read this for days.
https://mindhacks.com/ -- Neuroscience and psychology news and views.
It gets weird.
Another honorable mention is that I've been having a great time learning about AI techniques competing at codingame.com. It's something that's easy to get into, and hard to leave, for me.
The title truly says "A meaningful inventory of Life".
I get lost in the labryinths in that blog covering science, philosophy, literature & art.
Definitely this one.
http://trenchescomic.com/tales/post/9810 (dead, but a lot of content there)
Reddit can be, depending on your community.
But I miss Kuro5hin.
Some games have a ton of unused content left in them
I also love ribbonfarm, previously mentioned in the thread.
It's not high-brow by any stretch, but is's a great time waster.
The nlab is a remarkable mathematical resource open to everyone. I've been using it to contextualize my mathematical learning since I was an undergraduate.
Just don't go there.
Now, you wouldn't call that slow as molasses.
But unless the music also contains some 1Hz modulation (or a power-of-two multiple thereof) then the 432 base frequency isn't related to anything fundamental in musical terms. Speaking as a DJ, if you take a track and play it a little bit faster or slower it still sounds great or awful as at the default speed in most cases. 432Hz vs 440Hz is a ~2% difference, while DJ equipment commonly allows for +/-10% pitch variation so you can match the pace of different tracks smoothly while people are dancing. Only the very tiny number of people with perfect pitch find this disorienting to listen to. If there were really something special about the duration of the second and the base pitch relative to that, you'd have expected it to emerge from dancefloors years ago. In reality 432Hz is basically cargo cult numerology, something fun to think about when you are not having any success coming up with a kickass tune. And kickass tunes derive their quality from the relative rations of the note pitches, not from some absolute Magic Frequency.
Trust me on this. I really love numerology, sacred geometry and so on, and I try to integrate this into my artistic work regardless of medium. I would love for there to be some special key that would unlock the gate to cosmic/ biological/ quantum harmony and allow my artistic work to automatically echo the heartbeat of the universe. I'm a mystic by temperament and have been looking for such things my whole life. I would go so far as to say I have some religious faith in the significance of such things. But this ain't it.
I can say as someone who performs a lot of Baroque music (c. 1600 - 1750) that there is a relatively common standard of A=415 for music of this period. A=415 is often referred to as "Baroque pitch."
This mainly applies to ensembles that specialize in Baroque music, and use historical instruments. If you see your local symphony orchestra play Bach on modern instruments, they will probably play at A=440.
I have never performed at a pitch higher than 440. I'm sure it happens sometimes, but I think it's more of a niche thing.
> A=432 Hz, known as Verdis A is an alternative tuning that is mathematically consistent with the universe. Music based on 432Hz transmits beneficial healing energy, because it is a pure tone of math fundamental to nature https://attunedvibrations.com/432hz/
Oh new age pseudo science. My mom loves this stuff and I never fully understood why. My sister gets angry at me when I point things out or level any criticism because "it makes her happy". This apathy to the issue from people who should know better is likely why nonsense like this keeps spreading in an age of Snopes and Google.
NOTE: I hope the word chuckle isn't interpreted as condescending, I only meant that this story is almost a perfect parable for our relationship with Great Britain throughout history, one of mutual defiance and refusal to acknowledge the other party as an equal even though I've always felt that there is some hidden love and respect going on at a deeper level on both sides.
Hideaway Jacob Collierhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4v3zyPEy-Po
I did not explicitly notice this the first time hearing it, but I certainly felt it. When I discovered the change it made sense to me. The mood is lifted over the course of the song as the tuning is also lifted.
There are so many elements of music that are routinely varied within a song dynamics, texture, timbre, rhythm, key, and tempo (though less frequently during this age of the click track). I don't think I'd noticed tuning used prior to this.
I followed, until this. Earlier he debunks the significance of 432 per second (including that it's a sum of four consecutive primes), because a second is an arbitrary length of time. But now he says that 439 per second is difficult to generate electronically, because it's prime.
I'm not an EE. I'm willing to believe, but could a knowledgeable someone help us out here?
While I appreciate Jakubs breakdown for the reader to get to explaining why the 432 number itself is effectively fabricated for convenience, he eventually states: _The 432 Hz tuning, the divine tuning of nature itself, is ultimately defined as one vibration per 21279240.2083 periods of radiation of an uncommon chemical element_ however hes missing the critical argument.
What is missing from the argument is the irrelevance of the number. For example, if 432 Hz resonates with I dont know, the neocortex, there is no relevance what the number is or that weve associated with what we humans currently call a time second thats just a standard way of identifying the number.
What needs to be done is validation or invalidation of this frequency in terms of healing and soothing properties. Its also important to not do so defensively, otherwise youre arguing against organized religion or Santa Claus or Unicorns its a useless effort to argue against something that has no scientific evidence. If someone is making a claim without evidence in the first place, youre arguing irrationally already and youve already lost. Reason requires logic.
Here is my repeatable scientific evidence why I feel the world is flat is different than I have a feeling the reason the sky is blue is from unicorn tears prove to me its not.
It is my suggestion that if someone feels that 432 Hz has healing and soothing properties, they take this hypothesis and run it through the scientific method. It will be these published results that can be responded to, directly. A quick search on plosone doesnt show that theres any documented research in this area currently, a new opportunity for those interested.
It's not legal to "convert" Hertz to other units willy-nilly, especially because Hertz is tagged with an attribute that says "this relies on arbitrary constants", meaning you would have to multiply 432 by some conversion factor before you can compare it to pure numbers.
Thinking about things in terms of types (in a fuzzy, intuitive way) like this is a very powerful mental shortcut that is useful surprisingly often.
An equilateral triangle whose area and perimeter are equal has the area of exactly the square root of 432.
3x = sqrt(3) * x^2 / 4 3 = sqrt(3) * x / 4 3*4/sqrt(3) = x 12/sqrt(3) = x
sqrt(3) * (12/sqrt(3))^2 / 4 sqrt(3) * 144 / 12 sqrt(3) * 12 sqrt(3) * sqrt(144) sqrt(432)
Worth noting that today's strings are made from steel and nylon, as opposed to gut.
C5 = 512HzC6 = 1024HzC7 = 2048Hz
In such a method, 'A' would be closer to 431Hz, so slightly flatter than the 440 we use now.
However, if these tunings and notes vary so much, what does it mean when one claims that they have 'perfect pitch'? Is it an ability that uses the relative distance between notes? That is, given an A they can identify the C?
The simplest argument against this is the casual way your typical garage bands tune. Not everyone is busting out the tuners and dialing up 440 Hz, when the guitar player figures out they're out of tune with the bass they just tune up to wherever they're at. With strings strething, drop D tuning, and tuning down a half step, most bands would have hit the 'magic' 432 Hz every other practice and would have stayed there if it had any special properties. And this isn't just me and my buddies in the garage but musicians of nearly every style, genre, and background around the world. We'd revolt if we found our magic 432 Hz and then some clown brought a keyboard in that was at 440 Hz. This simply doesn't happen.
The 'cymatics' demonstrations are great, even the professors I work for get excited about how these demonstrate standing waves in materials. Unfortunately for the 432 Hz people the wave patterns depend on the vibrating materials. I make music out of vibrating strings, resonating wood and digital beeps and boops instead of square plates of metal (nothing against square plates of metal, I'd use those too). So maybe they should start by making pretty pictures of sand on top of a guitar to have a point with the cymatics. Also, the tuner they keep showing for the notes in their video shows their frequencies sharp or flat. They should at least get their notes right. They're also using a modulated tone with harmonics which introduces all kinds of questions about whether they're trying to prove a point or just make cool patterns with the sand. But really, who cares if it sounds good, right? Seriously, if you like your music 'detuned' to 432, go for it.
I've got a theory that altering familiar music is a great way to get us in different moods. We like remixes, right? So a 432 Hz retune might be just the thing to mellow out to. Likewise, a 448 Hz retune might be just the kick in the ass I need in the morning to get going. So retune all you like.
I do have a technical quibble with the suggested method in Audacity, the resample will do bad things to the high end of the music, all those harmonics and partials and stuff (of course, some feel all that is lost in digital music anyway so YMMV). The Audacity wiki talks about better ways to do frequency shifts. I definitely wouldn't do this to anything that has been digitally compressed at any point, your mp3 folders and itunes collection will lose even more when you start pitch shifting them. Rip the original CDs and mess with the .wav files or get the FLAC files if you're serious about retuning your music collection.
The real way to test their idea would be to blind test a bunch of music you've never heard before, some that has been pitch shifted to a variety of frequencies including 432 Hz and some that is unaltered. Score the music and your emotions after each song and see if there is a pattern to the pitch shifting. Now do this to a bunch of people and see if there are patterns in cultures, age groups, musical preferences, etc.
The paper states that three general categories of tactic are used to "pre-suade" civilians that may be otherwise on the lookout because they think someone may be trying to influence them (in which case cognitive defense mechanisms come into play).
The paper summarizes that a few techniques can be used in an attempt to circumvent active and alert defenses:
1. "affirmation" - attaching your message to something that the target wants to affirm or reaffirm and including your new information along with old information.
2. "resource depletion" - providing so much information or stimulation or messaging that the target is 'exhausted' of trying to resist the message and relaxes into coping with it.
3. "narrative persuasion" - masking the message or information in a story with which the target self-identifies, therein allowing the message to seem like legitimate material to the target.
I have no idea if it works, but I often try to lead gently into my arguments here. I try not to make too many assumptions about what the reader will think about the prerequisites for my argument, and so go through my assumptions about them and why I believe them, and then present my actual argument. It's my hope this somewhat softens the natural tendency to ignore evidence and claims counter to their own beliefs by presenting supporting evidence they might agree with first. This is a simple concept and one I'm sure many people use, whether they are specifically working around what they see as a deficit of human rationality like me, or just because they think it's effective (if it is!).
What I think is important about this is that it's an example of how we can use our cognitive biases for good. We can pit them against each other to open ourselves up to the more rational sides of our minds. It's important we don't associate all forms of manipulating our minds through presentation negatively through labeling. It's easy to say it's manipulation, and manipulation is bad, but that's just falling prey to another one of our cognitive biases, where we group similar things, and transfer attributes between them, whether they apply or not. It's very important we as a specifies learn from our weaknesses, and try to mitigate them, not just paper over them like they aren't there. I think the future is bleak if we don't.
In my personal experience, being honest and reasonable, sticking to the facts and presenting good arguments have worked better in the long run than any eristic tricks. It depends, though, there are some fields where arguments do not really count and people are fairly irrational anyway, so I don't want to condemn these methods in general. Just as a tendency, it seems better to take other people seriously rather than only as allies or antagonists and as mere means to an end.
Anyone know how well this new psychology stuff is surviving the replication crisis in the humanities?
Edit to add: less charitably, it also reminds me of Scott Adams' rambling blog posts about Donald Trump. Adams has persuaded himself that this persuasion stuff is like magic, and applies it to everything he sees. It's the new astrology.
Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking - The author mentions experiments where people exposed to more agressive or relaxed interactions can react differently and many other situations (similar to the money/cloud backgrounds examples).
How to Win Friends and Influence People - Describes interaction strategies to avoid conflicts and create trust (such as the letter example).
Then the opposite example is used - a queen says "I have a weak body but" and then excites the troops to battle. How is that similar? Its the opposite. They 'explain' it by suggesting the truthfulness of the initial statement establishes the truthfulness of the following statements. Very meta.
This sounds weak. Either 'pre-suasion' works one way or it doesn't? Which is it? I don't think the OP understood what they were saying. In fact, I think they made the whole thing up.
Oh yeah? How much more likely? And with what confidence interval?
My guideline is pretty simple: Would I be upset if someone used this tactic on me? If so, I shouldn't use it either.
people are always looking for shortcuts and life hacks to get what they want, and I wish it were that easy
Because the DDOS's costs are borne externally to the consumer, consumers can't really be counted on to mandate security fixes. On the other hand, establishing liability for a company adding to a preexisting botnet through security faults seems tenuous.
One solution seems to be regulation (self or third-party), and it's exciting to see a manufacturer take this issue seriously and start us down the path of self-policing.
[edit: for clarity]
What's all this crap about simple fun web cameras as "Bad Actors"... In fact the use of the term "Actor" as applied to a pretty dumb piece of electronics is pretty creepy in itself. What are we trying to do here?
The term "State Actor" is fairly new in terms of popular usage. Thanks to CNN and media, we are being trained to know this word in a particular context.
Now, we are being trained to place dumb pieces of electronics in the same bucket as Russia and China. LOL
I'm sure there wasn't a meeting where the camera manufacturer execs set around a table and said let's make these things blow up the world.
And you know, even if there was, the shame lies on the fact that we don't have better edge level security that can detect and shut down abnormal traffic patterns close to source.
There is some fairly low hanging fruit here. Routers and gateways with pretty damn simple algorithms could detect and prevent these types of attacks if they were available.
The network should protect itself against "Bad Actors", because... trillions of devices are a coming, and we can't expect them all to be certified to protect the network. The concept itself is completely absurd.
Fat better to improve the infrastructure than to impose per device level policies. It's the IETF that needs to step up. Not the guys in a garage who couldn't code.
Sure maybe they could have done a better job, but from the level of programming we are currently at it is an absolute certainty that this will happen again whether we like it or not.
curl ... | sh
It's almost poetic that the IoT devices in question are remote-controllable webcams, since constant surveillance is the other symbol of a dystopian Big Brother society.
Thee is no way these horses can be put back into the barn, there are too many of them. As long as consumers make their decision based on price there is every incentive for the manufacturers to continue cutting corners - the ones that put extra work into security will be at disadvantage compared to those playing fast and lose.
Can we talk about BGP flowspec instead? Filtering offensive traffic early and often can end DDoS once and for all.
Why isn't there a uber secure OS written in a high level language that would prevent easy privilege escalations, vulnerabilities caused by buffer overruns etc?
It would be nice to have a standard security approving body (like FCC) that gives out graded standards.
It is like every generation forgets the mistakes of the past and repeats them. When $5 Raspberry Pi is powerful enough to run desktop OS, I see no reason to not adopt a high-level language that prevents basic security violations at the roots.
There is absolutely no way that we can protect all devices on the internet from being bots, etc. Just as it is almost pointless blaming hackers when in most cases the hacks were because breeches from failure to update software, to put in proper security software, and to hire top level consultants to implement secure systems.
Put another way, we can't possibly jail everyone who would want to steal money. That is why we use safes.
Who could you hold responsible? The user for not setting a password or the manufacturer for accidentally creating a backdoor? Neither is really reasonable nor feasible. Filtering the attack is also extremely hard due to the scale of distribution.
Will this lead to a more locked down internet?
However, these being used for a DDoS attack puts a spotlight on the issue. While I don't know the solution, I feel it will become harder for manufacturers to shrug this off.
A hardware recall seems silly when it's clearly a software issue. Unless they didn't include any firmware updating system... which is likely the elephant in the room not being addressed with most insecure IoT devices. Android faced this problem as well and has recently made progress addressing it. Although a lot of phone companies get in the way and manufacturers have very short support lifespans.
I think it's kind of troubling that "the vast variety of information services that comprise the internet" apparently means "Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook" to laymen now.
You can't un-ring this bell, and it might actually be harmful to try. A free and open Internet is more important than DDoS attacks.
The courage to try something new. Oh wait it isn't new, this is being a copycat.
Except it's not. They can't touch me, hurt me physically, take things away. All they can do is see me.
So what they see some guy in front of a computer. I'm more worried about the hacks that can take over my keyboard, and can access financial data. But even then it's the banks problem and insurance that will take care of it.
1. Any device with internet access must be able to automatically update all its software.
2. Because a manufacturer can either go out of business (some devices are used for >10 years) or not care about its users, all its software must be open source. A code, which needs to be secret, can be stored on a hardware level.
3. But if a software is open source, it doesn't mean there would be people who'll fix the bugs, therefore there should be the list of OSes approved (by a regulator and EFF?) to be used on IoT-devices. The development of these OSes should be public (on GitHub, etc.). By having ~10 different OSes instead of a million, solving bugs would be possible and much easier.
4. By having such list of approved OSes, we also solve the problem of having a vulnerabilities in the updating process, e.g. missing signatures, using RSA-1024 or even RSA-512 for signatures.
5. By having such list of approved OSes, it'll be easy to maintain the live kernel patching service (in the future it'll be hard to imagine an OS without it).
6. By having such list of approved OSes, community would quickly fix the problem of using default passwords.
Without such law, expect 10 Tbit/s attacks in a year, and >500 Tbit/s attack in 2022 (if popularity of IoT would increase as fast as mobile phones did).
Now go promote what I've written (after fixing the flaws in my ideas), otherwise we'll live in the security hell (dystopian world!) where billions of devices would DDoS.
Would the old method of a bunch of small png files in a directory work much better, now that HTTP/2 is here?
1) it's FA and looks alright as it is
2) can't beat free, so I don't need to worry about licenses for every single web project
A completely redesigned, larger, commercial library might be interesting, but it is a new project and has practically nothing to do with FA 4.
Also the option to commission your own icon is really exciting! :-)
Still no answer. Am I the only one that cares that the current state of FontAwesome encourages tying your email address (via a unique token) to your site's specific FontAwesome usage?
Also, there are too many unnecessary brand icons (e.g. skyatlas? houzz? most people aren't gonna use those).
Donated $5 anyways.
Who can bootstrap a business like this? So people are staying with their powerful big corporations if they can't get millions in funding for a startup (and outside of tech this is simply not even a consideration).
Edit: and if at some point you hire an employee, you will need / want to provide them with health insurance, and it will cost just as much. Large corporations have an advantage in that they negotiate lower premiums in bulk. Add this as yet another barrier to entry, along with their lobbying for protectionism, tax loopholes, their ability to hire huge teams of tax lawyers and accountants, and if you really start to get their attention, they can sue you baselessly by throwing lawyers at you to keep you in court. Merely defending yourself and getting to the point of dismissal is unaffordable for a budding small business.
Take a look at S&P500's profit margins. They are at record highs and not coming down as economics teaches us, meaning new entrants are not coming into the market.
This is one of the outcomes of oligopoly, and a system that encourages oligopoly (see: "legal" tax evasion).
Google and Amazon, in particular, have their tendrils extended to many more areas in tech than Search, Affiliate Marketing, good Hardware, and selling products at cheap prices and highly developed operation systems.
In fact, one of this year's most successful tech IPO, Twilio, put the disclosure on their filing that their entire business is toast if AWS begins offering a VoIP / SMS delivery service and start undercutting their costs.
Huh? Haven't small firms pretty much always been funded by personal saving of the founders, sweetheart loans from friends and family, and perhaps the odd bank loan secured by the personal assets (read: homes) of the founders?
Banks aren't interested in lending directly to businesses until they are large enough to have concrete assets to secure the loans. And they never were.
The same happens in transportation, restaurant business, hotel industry. Firms get bigger since 1800. Naturally, the number of new firms decline. In govt stats, it appears as "fewer startups."
Meanwhile, the economy grows thanks to productivity gains in big companies. So what do we want: productivity or new small businesses?
The macroeconomic environment where everything relentlessly consolidates is the problem. For software, entire categories are either dependent in advertising and not long term viable or are scoped from a revenue point of view from bundled offerings by Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Salesforce, etc.
Every other business is the same way. My neighbors dry cleaning business was forced to use a centralized plant because they just couldn't compete with the scale of the local big consolidated industrial cleaners.
Reminds me of something Terry Gilliam said... "Usually you spot how societies work by what they glorify: it's usually the thing they're deficient in."
Sad part is that as far as I could read economies promoting this kind of behavior are the only ones doing well, yet even here(in the US) it seems things have worked out at best "average" for a vast majority of people. The ones that actually tried to do better for everyone failed spectacularly(read collectivism and socialism).
I always wondered why truly bettering ones self in every way(health, furthering ones own knowledge, exploration, helping others) are goals available only to the select few and not made available to more people more easily? Why are economic efforts geared towards these dwarf in front of more consumerist ones? Why do economics and behavior align in a way that makes it impossible to do better than a narrow predefined narrative someone set for me(or go through immense pain to achieve the one I want)?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilY4hRgfC2QFor example, I was looking at the simple task of affording a house with wife and kids and the only narrative available to have all this are "Zipcode", "School Districts" and "Zoning laws" which puts me in debt for life to get a decent thing choice for those options.
Why do smaller economies seem to do better than larger ones(like in europe). It always seems to me that the bigger the group of people that try to align towards a common goal(be it insurance premiums or world peace)the harder it becomes. Why is this so?
And yet, in the end, by and far large my experience of living in 3 vastly varied countries in the last 20 or so years still makes US a better place to be. But things could be a bit easier/simple https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJRcDHKrSqw
You're damned if you put your idea on the net and damned if you don't and it's all getting disheartening. I just want to find a career so I can go out and court someone but even the people with CS jobs that I know are constantly complaining of work / life imbalance and not getting to see their loved ones in person enough. Everytime I try to start studying some topic in the hopes of pursuing a living the shellshock of robophobia and the likelihood I will be too late overwhelms me. I can only cry at that leaked Clinton speech where she says we know what to do with the 120 IQ kids, but not the 100 or 80 kids. Well here I am at 145 mopping floors and literally shoveling shit despite only ever being excellent in school I guess it's just bad genes because my uncle could solve a Rubik's cube blind and built all sorts of electrical contraptions and has been a homeless drunk for decades. Here I am, another sandwich eater in front of thw trash pile as in Godard's weekend.
All of this is intuitive, and I have no hard data to back up my theory, so I would love for someone with much more econometric experience than I to prove/disprove this thesis.
Thesis: The global economy and US economy in particular is going through a radical productivity growth spurt and shift that is not currently being measured properly.
This article is the perfect example of this. You mean to tell me that during a period where there has been an explosion of independent contractors of many different types, we have seen "Startups Weighing on US Economic Growth"? Surely that can't be true and fully reflective of the reality.
There are two aspects to this. There is direct job growth within startups (so Employee headcount) and there is the issue of what is a 'new company'.
Direct Job Growth.
It is hard to argue that the average startup isn't much more productive today than it was 10 years ago, much less 20 years ago. Particularly tech startups. For tech startups it's most glaring, because you have things like AWS, Heroku & the App Stores that allow you to deploy a relatively easily scalable, product that can reach hundreds of thousands/millions of users/customers as a team of 1 - 5.
No longer do you NEED someone just to manage 1 server, or even add additional server capacity and deal with Colocation-related issues and all of that stuff.
You also no longer need to pay huge licensing fees for development software platforms and developer tools. So the barrier to entry to shipping has dropped to 0, basically.
So whenever a startup raises a nominal amount of money, it can go into much more high-value jobs (like customer acquisition and customer support) for which there isn't always a direct correlation between each incremental dollar in revenue earned with the number of people you hire to support that revenue. In some cases there is, but in many cases there isn't. Or rather, the up scale hiring process is horizontal rather than vertical. Each customer support specialist can handle more support tickets today than they used to 20 years ago, for much cheaper. Aka, the support systems that multi-national companies have always used are now available for much cheaper and often much better to startups at $50/employee in many cases.
When you think about the various aspects within a growing tech startup, you can see this same principle across all disciplines (even including HR and Employee benefits via services like Zenefits and its competitors). So the productivity that can be bought with each marginal dollar invested in a nascent startup is so much greater as a result of these highly, specialized and in many cases very economical services that can be leveraged from third-party providers, than had been the case 20 years ago....yet these articles and current econometric models would have us believe that productivity growth has flatlined. Really?
What is a 'new company'?
While there may be significantly less direct job-growth (as a result of the issues I highlighted above), there has been an explosion in the number (and types) of marketplaces that have sprung up that allow customers/users to be independent contractors. Not just typical web dev/writing/etc. But your excess space (AirBnB and all its clones), your excess vehicle (Uber, Lyft and all clones and derivatives), your excess time (Instacart, TaskRabbit, Mechanical Turk, etc.), and any other service that has sprung up that allows random people to do random gigs from a marketplace of gigs of different kinds.
So yes, the Ubers of the world no longer add significant employees to their payroll to service increasing revenue as a part of operations, but by creating marketplaces where random people can earn a living, doing things they previously never did (or even considered doing), surely has contributed significantly to economic growth in ways that aren't currently being measured properly.
Those people likely haven't registered legal entities, they probably just have a bank account, so they won't show up in "new company" data. But I bet if there was a way to measure those non-registered, independent contractors across all of these problems and you contrast that figure with the same category 20 years ago, you would get a much different picture of the US economy and productivity growth.
I could be wrong with all of this, but every time I read one of these articles....that's what jumps out at me. The disconnect between what is being measured and reported in articles like these, and all the products/services we see being launched on TechCrunch, Product Hunt and HN that significantly improve the average person's earning power by both being able to sell said product/service or sign up to be a participant in that marketplace, has always been jarring.
Let me know if this makes sense to anyone and if I am missing anything.
I would love to crystalize this thesis and ideas some more, to do a full write-up in a blog post so please poke as many holes in this as you can.
The well-known good practice: use const by default; use let when it's needed. At the release of ES6, it was the way to go. But everyday I notice librariesand some really famous that use let everywhere in their docs, or some really influent developers from Google or Facebook who share samples of code on Twitter using let when it's not needed . I don't know why. Seems like most people now think that const is for declaring constants (in the traditional meaning, like const API_URL) when it's just the normal way to declare variables that don't need to be reassigned (so basically most variables).
Dan Abramov said: "some people say const is ugly" . Well, if it's a matter of appearance...
const a = "SELECT id FROM foo WHERE name CONTAINS r'\\n'"; const b = String.raw `SELECT id FROM foo WHERE name CONTAINS r'\n'`;
const r = String.raw; const s = r`SELECT id FROM foo WHERE name CONTAINS r'\n'`;
This is because of hoisting. Not quite right as described.
What does `for element of arr` buy me over `arr.forEach(element => ...)`
I don't find the for...of syntax particularly appealing or useful, but I might be missing something. Is it a matter of preference?
Cool stuff: Tail call elimination. Arrow functions. Assignment spread for multiple return values and "rest" / default parameters. Proxying (combined with computed get/set on properties) for easy decoration.
Classes and let: meh.
The point of constructor functions is not having to write new. So classes does nothing besides syntactic sugars over the prototype system, witch actually makes it more complicated and the code harder to maintain.
Async programming is hard, but not because of callbacks. Promises is just a wrap around callbacks, witch just adds complexity and more boilerplate. It will get better with async/await but I will still prefer simple callbacks.
Arrow functions are very nice for one liners, but will ruin your code if you use them everywhere instead of named functions. You should always name your closures, then it's easier to debug and lift them out.
Is it? Personally I'd say that was bad code. What so wrong with using the original objects?
Putting aside the need to variable swap once a year or so, all the other examples look really confusing to me and unclear what they're doing. The `Deep Matching` especially.
const info = [1,2,3,4]
const newInfo = info.splice(2);
'info' has changed
If you have never seen a glacier calve before, check out these videos:
I know a few people (non it related) that dropped gmail.
Snowden confirmed that we have 0 (zero) privacy and that government has unrestricted access to all of your personal data, and if needed that data could be "pulled" and used against you.
If all he'd done was the first he should be pardoned. Because he did the second he should get life without parole.
UX continues to dominate all other market factors in computing by a huge margin.
Security efforts will get serious if state actors decide to try to escape this web.
If you say that disclosing surveillance on US citizens was ok, how do you explain these leaks:
* """The Norwegian Intelligence Service (NIS), which cooperates with the NSA, has gained access to Russian targets in the Kola Peninsula and other civilian targets. In general, the NIS provides information to the NSA about "Politicians", "Energy" and "Armament"."""
* """In France, the NSA targeted people belonging to the worlds of business, politics or French state administration."""
* """the NSA had been monitoring telephone conversations of 35 world leaders"""
* """In an effort codenamed GENIE, computer specialists can control foreign computer networks using "covert implants," a form of remotely transmitted malware on tens of thousands of devices annually."""
* """According to Edward Snowden, the NSA has established secret intelligence partnerships with many Western governments."""
* """revealed NSA spying on multiple diplomatic missions of the European Union (EU) and the United Nations Headquarters in New York."""
How are these matters relevant to the citizens of the United States? Aren't these things exactly what spy agencies are supposed to do? Why should Snowden get a pardon for disrupting normal intelligence work?
Habanero peppers on the other hand - have a wonderfully fruity flavor. I wish I had a bit more stamina with regards to eating them. :(
Unfortunately, this article is almost completely devoid of real information, and doesn't answer the question at all.
Brighton also has an annual chilli festival. There's a chilli eating competition, and paramedics are often needed by the losers, sometimes the winners.
It's a bit stupid really, a bit like the teenage-boyish pursuit of unnecessarily strong marijuana, but whatever floats your boat I suppose.
To my surprise, I read about him in a local newspaper a few years ago. He apparently died from actually swallowing a lit charcoal covered in Pace Picante sauce.
not a true story
> It is an implementation problem in OpenSSL that OpenSSL would ignore undefined warning, and continue dealing with the remaining data(if exist). So the attacker could pack multiple alerts inside a single record and send a large number of there large records. Then the server will be fallen in a meaningless cycle, and not available to any others.
SSL3 is vulnerable and should be banned in the webserver's configuration. It stopped being supported by major browsers years ago.
The article doesn't say if webservers are vulnerable when they block SSL3 entirely. If so, it's the hell of a critical vulnerability! Otherwise, http://disablessl3.com/
It would be helpful if the researchers clarified how potent this DoS attack vector is. Is sending "a large number of these large records" more efficient at denying availability than a naive flood using e.g. SYNs or UDP?
Sure -- you can send an SSL server a bunch of junk data, and it'll try to process that data. But from what I gather, it's not as though it takes an unusually long time for it to process these warnings either. Any attacker with the resources to perform this attack could probably just as easily saturate the host's network connection without involving SSL at all.
They should also sell those tokens as a means of generating revenue. I'd buy some and hand them down.
The article also talks about the possibility of civilizations losing the ability to read in three generations, but there's no mention of a plan to deal with that. These archives would be mostly useless to an illiterate society, except maybe as objects of wonder or worship.
That would be an interesting challenge, actually -- how could you teach an illiterate, collapsed civilization to read if they don't have access to electronic gadgets like audio players, computers, monitors, or projectors?
My first thought is to have some audio on wax cylinders with hand-cranked players or something. But then there's no guarantee that the hearers will even speak the language. Assuming the language is similar enough, though, it would still be challenging to teach someone to read merely by such primitive audio recordings. They'd have to be paired with some visual aids, and the people listening would have to be really motivated to learn.
Maybe fake but still food for thought.
Maybe have a couple of those probes become read only after a couple of centuries (to avoid a hack/attack of overwriting and blowing away all data).
The moon has very few impacts with asteroids and very little geo activity.
Inspired by Jonesforth, I wrote a complete Lisp interpreter in a single ARM assembly file: https://github.com/marcpaq/arpilisp
https://inst.eecs.berkeley.edu/~cs61a/fa14/proj/scheme/(no link for the current semester is up yet)
it's not meant to be pythonic -- it's meant to readable and organized
my inspiration was Interpreting LISP by Gary D. Knott written in 1997 (the pdf of it is included in the repository)
(and many re-submissions after that)
(how (in 'python (write (interpreter 'lisp))
I don't know what Amazon does for AI, I haven't seen anything convincing from them, but I'll trust the author that they are working on it.
However it's tough to beat Google in this space, because AI and machine learning is what Google has focused on since their beginnings. Google's own Search has always been a limited form of AI on which most humans with access to the Internet have come to depend upon. And it is tough to beat them because they not only have 20 years of accumulated knowledge and talent, but they also have a lot of data on users and haven't been afraid to break users' privacy in order to get that data.
Now say what you will of Tim Cook, but he's nothing like Steve Ballmer, with one big difference being that Tim Cook's Apple is making a stand for privacy and security, which is actually quite rare to witness in this day and age. He's a man with principles and for this I appreciate him a lot, maybe more than I ever appreciated Steve Jobs.
It would also be stupid to try and beat Google on their own turf. It would be like trying to beat Microsoft at Windows or Office, or Amazon at AWS. And for important markets, Apple's secret is that they never had to beat anyone in market share, all they had to do was to take over an important slice of the high-end market, which is something they are really good at.
My experience with large corporations is that they naturally produce mediocrity. The ownership of the final product or service is too diluted, with too many people involved, pulling in too many conflicting directions. They employ people who individually know what "good" means and what should be done in an ideal world. But that knowledge and common sense gets lost with the bureaucracy and the scale of the organisation.
So unless you get someone at the top who will force the company to still achieve something great for their customers, you will end up with an MBA style manager who will make decisions based on options provided by his teams and get products designed based on specs from the top rather than trying to make something great.
A great example is Windows 8. I heard Sinofsky had already been sacked by the time he walked on stage to introduce Windows 8. Microsoft knew it was a shit OS, and decided to push it nevertheless. I have seen this happening so many times in other contexts.
But tablets are another example. Microsoft knew that tablets would be a big thing well before the introduction of the ipad. In fact I remember a pre-ipad interview of Ballmer where he was deploring that the Windows tablets never took off. The problem was that windows-based tablets were too mediocre to create a market.
But Apple is moving in that direction too now. The user experience is deteriorating with every iteration of iOS. I can't think that someone at Apple thinks it's a good user experience to nag their users with all of their services (Apply Pay, iCloud, Apple Music, etc) over and over, with multiple buttons to click to opt out. That will ultimately bite them too. Not overnight, but over 10 years like with Microsoft. Not Tim Cook's fault. That's what large corporations do.
Apple has devalued the PRO moniker under Tim Cook's guidance.
By trying to ram it's Mobile OS into a PRO product (iPad PRO). I mean the UI grid is still 4 x 5 on a massive 12 inch display. Nobody noticed it feels more like Fisher Price? And the iPad "PRO" apps are all dumbed down, feature limited versions of actual pro desktop apps.
Then, by stagnating a once well regarded PRO product, the Macbook PRO, they further eroded the PRO moniker. Did they delay significant updates to the Macbook PRO to see if existing users would eventually give the iPad PRO a try first? Or did they simply want to drive Desktop OS marketshare back to Windows?
And what about the slim Macbook with a fancy new port (USB-C) that's still not available on any other Macbook, even 1.5+ years later!!!? Yes, that's exactly how you devalue the PRO moniker. By releasing new, cutting edge tech on your consumer products first. And then wait years before adding that tech to your PRO line (I know, the new Macbook PRO is rumoured to ONLY have USB-C ... sigh).
Don't even get started on the Mac PRO. Ya, that ridiculously underpowered, overpriced PRO computer that you forgot about, that looks like a NYC subway trash can. https://www.google.com/search?q=nyc+subway+trash+can&tbm=isc... Talk about an awesome PRO design.
Talk about losing focus.
Eerily similar to later stage Ballmer Microsoft.
He built a watch, which was a "me too" product and answered a question that no one asked. Jobs would never have done this because of the marginal increase in utility that smart watches provides users.
He also wasted company time and resources on trying to build a car, which is completely outside Apple's skill sets (the supply chains and profit margins are radically different). It seemed like he was just trying to do something innovative instead of actually looking at the needs and demands of users inside the computing industry where apple should be focused.
Its unfortunate that Jobs didn't see his lack of product development skills when he made him CEO - Jobs always talked about how product companies falter when marketing/sales/supply chain guys run the company and not product guys.
Chromebooks are fantastic products but I grew up in the Microsoft dominated 90's and hated it. It feels like Apple's almost trying to make itself obsolete in markets it once owned. Competition please!
So maybe this is just regression toward the mean and hasn't that much to do with whoever is the CEO.
In other words, every very successful company is bound to be less successful later. Nothing really exciting about this.
These are the people who obsess over flaws in how work is done rather than the work itself. Which has it's place in larger companies but even there it really needs to be balanced, much more in favour of outward work.
Being a front-end dev I've had to work with many 'product managers' who spent a big chunk of their time on the process stuff and most of the product ideas were just shots in the dark without backing it up with data or experience, or otherwise entirely reactionary to local customer issues or the bosses moods, rather than with a strong vision or focusing on high level trends in customer behaviour. Largely, I believe, because they spent a lot of their finite resources focusing on the wrong things (internal optimization rather than external, ie talking to customers, value prop).
There are many many traps that startups can fall into and this is a big one. Especially when companies get VC and start adding non-core team members, then feel the need to bring in managers.
Another one is a new lock screen on iOS 10, sometimes the fingerprint does not work or the finger is dirty and i know I want to unlock it with a pin, before I used to be able to just swipe right away and type the pin, now it won't let me and I have to repeatatly press the home button until it figures out that the fingerprint won't work and it has to show me the pin enter screen.
Might be little things but it's what used to separate Apple from the crowd, I don't want them to lose focus on those. And don't get me started on the new OS X, which makes my maxed out 2014 rMBP look like slow PC from 2000.
The question is not whether Tim is the right guy for innovation but whether he has put the right guy into the place. John Ivy certainly continues to play a big role but has/is/will there be another internal leader emerging?
> About Steve (Blank)
> After 21 years in 8 high technology companies, I retired in 1999. I co-founded my last company, E.piphany, in my living room in 1996. My other startups include two semiconductor companies, Zilog and MIPS Computers, a workstation company Convergent Technologies, a consulting stint for a graphics hardware/software spinout Pixar, a supercomputer firm, Ardent, a computer peripheral supplier, SuperMac, a military intelligence systems supplier, ESL and a video game company, Rocket Science Games.
> Total score: two large craters (Rocket Science and Ardent), one dot.com bubble home run (E.piphany) and several base hits.
That AI capability could have been Apples.
Instead of concentrating on user experience as a whole, they concentrated on "look and feel" of devices, along with UI.
Those are all good things. But having an iPhone with a useful AI would be a killer.
Instead, Google is pushing hard in this area. And will likely do well. Because they're a data analysis company. Not a "pretty picture" company.
Is not about selling more watches and phones. And Aetna alone has 23 million members.
One of the attributes that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates appeared to share (I have never met either) was a massive amount of trust/faith to run their respective companies (eventually).
I imagine that this must translate to the board room where they were provided the freedom to pursue avenues that a newly promoted CEO would just not be allowed to do.
The author praises Steve Ballmer and Tim Cook for their ability to drive short term growth, but had they failed to do so they may have been replaced by someone more willing to focus on these returns. Eventually as disruption occurs the share holders start to prioritize facing these new challenges.
Being compared to Ballmer is a compliment in my view.
Though, there's something fabulously pretentious about writing an opinion piece and then concluding it with a "Lessons Learned" section.
come out of Google for the simple reason they are busy playing empire defense all the while the need for a centralized search engine reduces.
Ballmer and Cook have made extreme amounts of money for their shareholders. Major super truckloads of money. That's what businesses do.
The meta narrative of disruption is marketing, but somehow everyone keeps talking about it like its real.
Even weirder is the emotional responses from some of the other commenters about cloud providers? It's like they are sports teams or something. Just like sports teams they have nothing to do with you, really. It's just a brand that somehow you identify with.
(You could carry the sports team metaphor a lot further...tax abatements to build datacenters/arenas...but let's leave it there...)
Being in the right place at the right time.
It is a delightful bit of luck that Steve Jobs made it back to Apple. That scenario could have been way different where Apple bought BeOS, and Steve Jobs didn't return to Apple.
If Jobs isn't at Apple, he doesn't have the opportunity or resources to make his vision for the iMac, iBook, iPod, iTunes, iPhone, or iPad a real thing. In fact, he probably wouldn't have had the reason to envision any of the things at NEXT.
Also, you could argue that Jobs being at Apple when ARM got good enough for mass market smart gadgets at scale played into it too. If the tech isn't quite there, it doesn't look as interesting at all.
Without the right tech being available, Apple stalls out at the iMac and Power Mac and so on and is a profitable computer vendor, but not the most valuable company in the world.
So, Tim Cook might not be as visionary, but it might also be a poor time for anyone to be CEO as the opportunities shifted.
The marker is probably from 2000, when large rocks were placed over the entire site. It already looks dated.
The relevant part was the waste processing area, which had a smokestack (presumably for power). Painted eighty or a hundred feet up was a large stripe. The guide said that that was how deep they were going to bury the building once it had reached end of life.
Having just watched "Beneath the Planet of the Apes" I could imagine a future where explorers go down the stack because they were attracted by the 50+ feet that would remain above ground. Curiosity is hard to fight.
Plot M is about half a mile away from Site A, and is easily missed. If you look on Google Maps for a small clearing just northeast of Site A, that is where Plot M is. (41.707279, -87.910550)
The Forest Preserves of Cook County website has some good information about the history of the site: http://fpdcc.com/site-a/
Also, the trails around that part of the FPDCC system are amazing. They might be the one thing I miss about suburban life.
On the other hand, a media company that relies on advertising for a significant chunk of its revenue naturally seems like it will have a conflict of interest between its advertisers and the products it may be reviewing.
Anyways, congrats to Brian Lam and co., but I'm curious how this would benefit the Times in the long run.
PS Wirecutter/sweethome replaced consumersearch.com for me. ConsumerSearch summarized meta-analysis of reviews. After they were sold to about.com (NYT) it became 'stale' so I stopped using them. Just checked, it's still a decent site.
I can see how it could work because I have spent several thousand based on their advice. Several times through the Amazon link.
Wirecutter, like Macrumor's buyers guide, have my admiration for building a vital content service out of a pretty simple idea. Gives hope that content-creators don't have to go the viral-spam-crap route to be a success. Or, at least worthwhile.
Hope being bought doesn't screw the quality, but if it does seems like a good business model for someone else to fire up. "We only give As to people who deserve As..."
Right now they make all their money off of affiliate links, so let's see what happens when the parent company depends on advertisement.
This is the bottom line; you can plant trees all you like, but this is not a matter of simple erosion due to overuse or clear-cutting. Rather, the climate systems of the region are changing, and presumably they suffer from the same overuse of subterranean water that everyone else does in the developed/developing world.
I feel terribly for these people, desperately slapping band-aids on a sucking chest wound, especially since the story of this century seems to be that the people on the front lines of climate change are the people who contributed least to the creation of the problem in the first place. It's also hard to see a happy outcome for them, since they're first on the metaphorical chopping block; even if the world suddenly woke up and took notice, it would be too late for them.
I think that makes sense. There is no reason to favor individuals investing into an unproductive investment (property) over productive investments (stocks and bonds, which enable companies to raise money to start new projects, create jobs, etc). Over-borrowing to bid the maximum amount one can to buy a nineteenth century house doesn't create any job for anyone, it just transfers wealth to the hands of the seller.
Serious question: Why is it not very popular in other countries?
1) The vast majority of your assets becoming concentrated in a single plot of land, in a single neighborhood, in a single city
2) Your future mobility to pursue jobs in other cities, becoming significantly constrained
If you want to invest your savings, then invest them in the stock/bond markets. If you really love real estate investments for some reason, invest in a REIT fund where your assets will be diversified across thousands of properties, and fully managed by others on your behalf. Pursuing a national policy of home-ownership makes little sense.
Aside from that it takes liberties right left and centre. I cannot structure my house and life as I want from painting and shelving through pets and kitchen appliances.
I cannot fix something without causing a hassle and days off work.
I cannot register a business here.
I am at the whim of my landlord.
Renting in the UK is a pain in the arse. I do to see renting as particularly positive for the individual.
Buying a house can be a net loss over the years, if you're not located in a major city. Especially in East Germany, house prices are declining. See this graphic . Everything yellow basically doesn't yield any returns. Housing prices in orange and red areas decline over the years.
But even in green areas, there are so many knobs you can turn to make buying or renting more feasible than the other. It boils down to lifestyle decision: Do you want to live in your own house or not? If you prefer to rent: Are you willing to save money by other means? Because buying a house works for many people simply because they're forced to "save" a certain percentage of their income every month.
I prefer renting, because of the flexibility. I put quite a bit of money in stocks instead.
When compared with big housing companies, private landlords require bigger profit margins, leading to low quality maintenance of existing houses and ex-orbital rents. Especially in crowded cities, rent regulation is non existent and its a sellers market, inflated by wealthy students that rent expensive micro-flats during university.
You or your parents dont own houses, and are self sufficient on a regular job? Well, you are shit out of luck then. As much as 70% of your income will go towards your rent, effectively financing the better-off and the further expansion of their inefficient renting businesses.
There, saved you a click.
Also, recently, I've been looking at housing market in Munich and it's very very expensive. Renting is ~20% more expensive than in Brussels and acquisition is +100% more expensive. So, although I admit I do not know rest of Germany housing market, I have some troubles thinking why Munich would be more expensive than Brussels. And I certainly miss, from that perspective, why German system would be more interesting.
Those countries will have policies that lcaim help poor people buy houses, but the effect is to just inflate prices and increase financial risk -- as the world has already seen. The one thing that would really help -- increased supply is blocked by a powerful home-owners lobby damanding zoning rules and other restrictions.
In Germany the bloc is powerful, and probably gets more goodies than it should. But at least here they are constant building new housing.
By the time the cold war made it apparent that 20s style economy destroying reparations would not be paid, renting was already baked into the cake.
Residential real estate is non-productive and post WW2 Germany had not use for a capital drain if anything they needed capital along the lines of the Marshall Plan so its not like anyone was interested in wasting capital in a modern USA style housing bubble.
You only trust the statistic you created yourself.That is not a true statement.
> Germany also loosened regulation of rental caps sooner than many other countries,
Does that mean the amount of rent control was deregulated? I thought the rent control here in Germany was pretty strict -- at least in the sense that the landlord can't increase the rent during an existing tenancy.
I'm Denis, one of the people working on Mediachain! We're really excited to launch Mediachain Attribution Engine today!
We think it's the best image search engine for creators. You can find free, high quality images that you can share and re-use, with attribution automatically baked in.
Mediachain Attribution Engine makes it easy to find a great image that you can feel good about sharing or using in your blog post, presentation, website, etc.
You can upload any image from the web to find out who made it and where it came from. If Attribution Engine doesnt know the creator, itll suggest visually similar images that are licensed for re-use and give credit to the author.
Attribution Engine is the first application powered by decentralized, open data in Mediachain and is built on top of the newly launched protocol architecture (v1.0).
Creators can sign up to register works and developers can use the data in their own apps, or contribute directly to Attribution Engine by following our quick start guide.
Learn more on our blog!
How do you guard against people fraudulently claiming they own images?
It has benefits over real-world experimentation because the fundamentals of the system are known and everything can be observed. No messy approximations are needed. Most guesses can be confirmed. But then we still end up with an unconfirmed hypothesis about how the situation came up in the first place. Reasoning is presented but there's no way to confirm it beyond asking...the creators.
The tooling used to recreate certain game situations is like a magical testing apparatus that doesn't really exist in the real world.
If you haven't done so already, go ahead and watch his Watch For Rolling Rocks .5 A Press commentary.
Need to flesh them out..
1. His first two points, stripped of the irrelevant polemic, are the complaint that software is meant to help the business meet its goals. Well, obviously it is. Very few people are paid to build software as artistic expression; that's for personal projects. Software that doesn't meet a business goal is bad software, no matter how elegantly designed.
2. His third point is that when you're in an organization staffed by people with their own personalities and goals, you need to be able to communicate and negotiate and engage in all kinds of human interactions. People who call this "politics" dismissively, as the author does, and think that it is intrinsically bad should never have a job where they have to interact with people; stay a low-level code-wrangler.
3. His fourth point is... well, honestly, it's that he hates his job. Sorry. Most people don't, though. If I were him, I'd look for a different role.
4. His fifth and sixth points are that if you work on a team, you also have to work with teammates, who will have their own personalities and goals and interests, and you'll need to be able to communicate and negotiate and engage with them. Um, yeah. If you aren't willing to do this, you're going to be a terrible teammate, and this guy sounds like he would be one, with all the griping he does about the coworkers he hates.
5. His seventh point is about collective code ownership, which is about treating developers as collaborating equals rather than letting one person on a power trip control everything. This upsets him, because he's the guy on a power trip and he wants to control everything.
6. His eighth point is that management methodologies exist. He seems to think this is self-evidently terrible, rather than considering that changing management methodologies can make a huge difference to the success and happiness of a team, and that agile methodologies are much better than old-school command-and-control waterfall stuff in a ton of ways.
7. His ninth point is that you're not cynical enough, because you don't hate everything already, and he does, and that makes him a better person, and you should also join him in hating everything and everyone.
This is literally toxic advice. Do not take it, and if it sounds reasonable to you, it's time for some soul-searching.
If you were hard working, ambitious and curious, there is a point (for me it took about 12 years after I started programming) when you realize that you know pretty much everything that there is to know about software. Anything that you don't already know is just tedium.
Being a software developer is tough, but then again, most jobs are. I do think that among the jobs that require advanced education, software engineering is definitely one of the toughest psychologically.
Software engineering damages you psychologically. The best software engineers that I know are also the most cynical people I know - All atheists, nihilists and pessimists (and sometimes downright depressed).
Being a software engineer can subject you to the full, ugly complexity of life.
That's true only if you have experienced engineers from a range of backgrounds. Put a bunch of junior devs on the project, and they'll prevaricate about issues such as "tabs vs spaces".
The whole article sounded too much like a rant. The problem is not "how do you build good software" but "how do you build software that's good enough to generate value, manage technical debt, and still make money?".
The privileged few who have not been forced into these situations should take a silent moment, and be thankful of their own luck.
For the rest of us, we'll just have to try to distance ourselves from our jobs, and let our wounds teach us.
>let us consider that being blocked from making changes can actually be a very good and necessary thing. Its something that the senior engineers of yesteryear once had the power to do. They sometimes did it out of spite, yes, but more often to keep code over which they had stewardship from being compromised by short-term thinking. Blockers were put up to ensure that software could be developed at a sustainable pace with the minimum of human suffering involved, and to be used as a check and balance against a management team not in a position to understand or learn about engineering trade-offs at stake.
Every time I've been blocked from immediately merging in my changes I've learned how to be a better developer. Yes there's a few times where it's been out of spite but the majority of the time it's led to conversations that have significantly improved my understanding of the code base and how to approach it and the culture of development at the company.
Have a spine and be willing to say no to plain old bad code.
Does not seem like good advice, or taking enough responsibility ("it's their fault I am semi-retired").
In fact, the whole article is a manifesto on how to shift blame onto external sources from oneselfprojecting blame onto others and taking as little responsibility as possible.
Particularly with regard to how DEV is commoditised by management and the inevitable downfall should you choose to fight the good fight.
The money pressure from top simply engulfs technical rationale and makes priorities seem extremely short sighted. And should you want to make technical progress, by all means do by stuffing estimates, but it will be thankless.
Yeah, it was rude. But it does some up the end of some weeks.
Lower interest rates express a smaller time preference. Ceteris paribus, lower rates encourage risk taking. Longer-term bets are higher in risk, particularly when one considers principal-agent aspects.
Portraying the situation as it is may at least give us a better chance of coping with it. I doubt we can effect more than cosmetic changes.
It is pretty much the wild west of the economy that is fueled on lack of fair law to balance private interests vs public/consumers interests.
Just because you know something doesn't mean you know everything. I doubt any top down approach can save you from all the negatives listed in this article, but I believe it could cause them. I believe it more after reading the article too. It's a strange conclusion to draw anyway.
I appreciate a look into this world, but routing on the web isn't supposed to be very complex. One of the big simplicity wins of the web network architecture was that it was stateless almost everywhere, with hypertext as the engine of application state.
Anybody can write some HTML with some anchor tags and tie it to some routes declared in a server-side routing file. The back button will work. History will work. Refresh will work. Copy-and-pasting the URL into an email will work. It's so easy that even I can do it.
E.g., the URL to the demo's about page: http://www.thinkloop.com/article/state-driven-routing-react-...