While the Raspberry Pi is not the perfect hacker-friendly computer, it has done a lot of good. Some reasons off the top of my head:
1. Providing a low cost computer has given many people access to computers. Giving more people access to the web, email, an office suit, a programming environment AND giving people the ability of safely tinker without the fear of bricking an expensive device.
2. Introduced many different types of people to the FOSS landscape of powerful tools (e.g. distros such as Debian, tools such as Python).
3. The Raspberry Pi foundation has paid developers to write/optimise FOSS (e.g. paid Collabora to optimise WebkitGTK+ -- I think some Wayland work was also done).
4. Built on top of existing FOSS tools (e.g. building Raspbian on top of Debian), instead of doing everything on their own in a proprietary fashion. This has no doubt also helped to introduce new people into these communities.
This is a really good counter-point to all the "locked down" (hacker unfriendly) devices like smart phones and tablets.
Some people are bound to gripe about the "lack" of ports but its not like this one displaced the A or B models. Its just another spin of the concept where you don't have to pay for expensive physical parts you don't need. Its a linux server at a price cheap enough to buy one for each little project you want to do and then leave it there. Makers rejoice.
I've got to hand it to the Raspi folks. They've really done an outstanding job creating their product line and getting it out to the masses. When they started, there was nothing but a sea of vaporware and "next-year" promises in the inexpensive SBC linux world. I rather famously doubted them at first. I am very happy to have been wrong.
It feels a lot like a tipping point for something.
I've recently figured out that there's no point in designing your own PCB for placing sensors at home, when you can get an Arduino and an ESP8266 for $5; add power (and some ~$0 of voltage regulation) and you have a base station. Or just buy NodeMCU for $3 and skip on wiring Arduino and ESP8266 together.
I know there are ethical implications here, but that doesn't mean that something like this shouldn't or won't exist eventually.
I'm curious to see how far optimisations could go. Analagous to the old consoles where developers could squeeze incredible performance out (compared to the equivalent processors elsewhere) since it was so uniform. e.g. the later games on a nintendo or neo geo were incredible compared to what was capable on a typical 8/16 bit computer of the time.
A $5 version is just going to accelerate this ecosystem... looking forward to it.
I am very optimistic about the future, given that people (and children) these days have trivially cheap access to powerful programmable and easily connectable computers, and hopefully they'll start to demand more and more that all their other devices are equally hackable. If most people have a microcontroller at home that they made themselves that controls the coffee maker, they will want to be able to connect other stuff around the house up, and that can only be done with open protocols.
The next few years are going to be very interesting on the maker scene.
LCD screens are like, $100, a mouse is $10-$20 new and low-end keyboards are $10-$30.At that combined price, why does it matter if the computer is $25 or $5?
And if one is going to outlay the 150 bucks in peripherals, they might as well spend a bit more than $5 on the computer to get a significantly better computing experience.
Is there anything else going on here? Do they have a different approach that I'm not getting? It feels like, yeah, Moore's law is great and computers are cheap, but once RPi got to around or <$50 (which it did with the first version anyway), the computer was already cheaper than everything you needed to plug in to it.
Sure, it won't have the same IO capabilities as there's much more layers but it will be pretty close and I don't really need great performance anyways.
I guess, I'll have to switch to the Pi, it's not even a fair race at this point.
(luckily for me, I was mostly writing the SaaS that would work with the Arduino and only spent about a full day's work doing C/C++ coding so far)
Such step would increase price, I know, but AFAIK, most people are almost always buying either wifi or bluetooth dongles anyway.
All in all, RPi ables to deliver exciting, rather (for me) unexpected and most importantly great and user-friendly products.
The sheer amount of "stuff" you get for $5 (albeit USD) is staggering.
I am designing some simple electronics gadgets for Burning Man, and the electronics (low-end MSP430 based) for that is costing me a significant portion of $5 yet its significantly less powerful.
I know, I know, volume is a key issue, but honestly, that doesn't make it any less impressive to me.
Probably a neat little board too, but unlikely to be $5. It's at 11.88  ex VAT ex shipping at farnell UK (and can't be ordered anyway) -- that's more like nearly $20 these days.
- A Broadcom BCM2835 application processor
- 1GHz ARM11 core (40% faster than Raspberry Pi 1)
- 512MB of LPDDR2 SDRAM
- A micro-SD card slot
- A mini-HDMI socket for 1080p60 video output
- Micro-USB sockets for data and power
- An unpopulated 40-pin GPIO header
- Identical pinout to Model A+/B+/2B
- An unpopulated composite video header
- Our smallest ever form factor, at 65mm x 30mm x 5mm
Also, the compute module has support for USB Slave mode but there is no documentation for this - I'd like to see some expansion in this area as well.
Or choosing of a CPU with a MII interface to allow real GBit or, heck, fiber/powerline/wifi adapters...
- 512MB ram
- 40 pin GPIO
The title should say "the computer that might be available to some people at $5 at some time in the future".
I understand they had to cut some features to reduce the prize. But networking is such a fundamental requirement for these types of systems, you'd think that it would be the last feature to be excluded.
The Zero, which like its predecessors is being manufactured in Wales
The Zero would need an Ethernet-port addon-board.
And for further RPI 2 iterations they should move the power-connector to a different position (e.g. like the original RPI) - would be better for headless embedded projects with limited space. Having the Ethernet and power cable on the same (or opposite) side would be a great benefit.
A Broadcom BCM2835 application processor 1GHz ARM11 core (40% faster than Raspberry Pi 1) 512MB of LPDDR2 SDRAM 1 x micro-SD card slot 1 x mini-HDMI socket for 1080p60 video output Micro-USB sockets for data and power Unpopulated 40-pin GPIO header Identical pinout to Model A+/B+/2B Size: 65mm x 30mm x 5mm
"Zero" is a great model name, since the price is negligible (approximately equal to 0 for most purposes).
The current go-to device for semi-disposable network-attached devices is the ESP8266, which was supposed to be a WiFi add-on board for the Arduino until someone ported Lua to run on it. That is ~$3, but nowhere near as functional as the Pi Zero.
Personally, one of the downsides of the original RPi (and RPi 2 as well), was it's , believe it or not, size.
Sometimes I wanted to have some portable embedded projects, for which small micro-controller would not be enough, but RPi, was 10 times bigger.
But it's just my personal nitpick, overall RPi devices, community and it's ecosystem is just great.
Here's a couple of links:
* Blog post: https://medium.com/@mikemetral/a-homemade-sports-ticker-875c...
* Code to write to LED Sign: https://github.com/metral/led_sign
* Code to pull the scores: https://github.com/metral/scores
* The LED sign itself: http://brightledsigns.com/programmable/indoor/bs-4x16-mini
Fair Warning: I haven't touched the code in over a year so it's not maintained. If I were to do things today, I'd probably switch to Go to make the score requests a bit more streamlined than the single synchronous process I have now, and I would throw it into a container as the #1 request I get is people struggling to install both the code base and the dependencies.
I'm confused: they say it's $5 but at Adafruit (one of the places where USAians can buy it), the cheapest are the Raspberry Pi Zero Starter Pack and the Raspberry Pi Zero Budget Pack, priced at $59.95 and $29.95, respectively.
Could I make some kind of driver/controller for a small synchronized christmas light show with this? Or some kind of toy with lights and sounds for my toddlers?
Its amazing what you can do with $5.
The question I really want to ask is, how long will a 1.2A supply last with nothing else attached to it ?
(just don't try to order more than two or hours later your order will be canceled)
What will $5 buy in 2080? It's going to be a billion times faster than this, but it's hard to imagine the form factor.
Someone have a different experience or can tell something about this ?
You could literally build a 100Ghz machine for $500.
I have home server on MacMini - so WiFi could be option. Any ideas?
I've always wanted to build something like this which - but always ended calculations that are rather expensive and devices are relatively big.
Wanted the MagPI Magazine with a free RPi Zero but its sold out!
Is there a list somewhere that shows the cheapest possible place to get raspberry hardware modules.
Also, where do you guys buy your modules? You can include Arduino stuff.
Edit: it was a dif time, but wasnt that hiw google got started? Tgey just bought a ton of hardware.
I could see printing a 3D shell and selling a kit for $20 with the appeal of users being able to easily break it down if they wanted to repurpose the RPi.
ps: too late, they're call phats http://pimoroni.com/zero stupid me)
I wonder if they plan to make it modular like the folks over at Project Ara from Google ATAP. That would be a total hit with the Maker community.
Almost every Raspberry Pi project I have encountered needs some sort of connectivity and doing this with 3rd party dongles (some don't even work on most recent versions of Raspbian) is just ridiculous in my opinion.
Plugging in a USB hub fixes the issue, but then it would be smarter to just buy a normal PI.
For me something like NVidia Jetson is a far more significant (and useful) development than the ever-shrinking bubblegum stick computers that simply aren't that useful. Yes, it costs 100x more but there's no comparison when it comes to what you can do with one.
And, if that's too much, how about something like this for $39 (includes CPU):
or this for $59 (includes CPU):
of this one for $99 with a quad-core 2.4 GHz Intel CPU:
No doubt that a $5 stick computer has huge value for educational purposes and in some parts of the world it's going to make a HUGE difference. Bravo for that.
Yet, we still need a keyboard, mouse (maybe) and a screen. Because the Pi Zero has an HDMI output the cheapest monitor you can buy is likely to be in the $80 to $100 range:
In other words, this is great in that now the cost of the computer has become a rounding error in the total cost of everything you need to actually make it useful.
In other parts of the world if you are going to be in computing the difference between spending $5 and spending $100 is zero. If you have an iPhone in your pocket (very likely) you or your parents can certainly afford to spend $200 on a computer.
Every single kid in the FRC robotics team I mentor has a smart phone and a laptop. If they want to hack on some hardware it'd be no problem for their parents to buy them a $200~$300 setup. You can buy a whole new mini laptop for that kind of money.
Same token, every single kid in the FLL team I mentor owns one or more Lego Mindstorms kit at $350 a piece.
Maybe what I am saying is this: What I would see as having more impact in education (again, the economic in other part of the world are different) isn't necessarily a cheaper computer. A race to the bottom with a crippled $1 computer isn't what is keeping the kids I interact with from having access to technology and computing. No, what's keeping them from entering is a lack of motivation due to a decidedly uninteresting process.
When I was a kid I had to work hard to have a computer. I had to build it out of chips. Wire-wrap it. Bootstrap it with assembler. Write my own Forth. Write my own text editor. Learn about electronics and software. Build my own floppy disk controller board, etc. I was challenged and had to engage in discovery and there was no internet to hold my hand.
I am not sure what the modern equivalent to this might be. I find that things like Pi, for some kids, make things so easy that they are bored almost instantly. Once they get the thing up and going there's nothing to do or whatever it is they can do gets complicated and messy very quickly.
At the other end of the scale I see kids absolutely ripping it with Scratch on their laptops. It's fun, interesting and challenging enough with some guidance.
I don't have the answers. Just a brain dump from working with about 100 kids of different ages and levels of motivation in two robotics programs.
Second thought: This is G-R-E-A-T!!! :-)
Great if it has a solar panel and gpio, so I can stick it anywhere and forget about it.
I suppose if you have some mass deployment to do, then great. But for the individual maker hacker.. there must be a better way to setup and experiment than waiting for this computer to reboot with the new config, recompile, etc.
Otherwise, Apple makes ridiculously durable products that I use for years on end. It's just weird that their charger's wire almost seems purposefully designed to break in this manner.
This isn't just a minor annoyance and monetary concern where I'm just annoyed at having to buy a new charger every year or so - there's a real safety issue here with this wire being so fragile - it could be both a shock and fire hazard.
Shame on Apple for ignoring this very real problem with their product.
Also, Jobs was a blatant liar :-). The SMPS in any modern computer is based on a standard topology that Rod Holt -- though a brilliant engineer in his own right -- didn't invent. I don't remember the specific details, but it's based on a flyback design that was certainly well-known at the time.
Ended up just blowing cash on a new brick.
I was rather impressed by how many components they stash away in these things. I just wish the cables themselves were a little more reliable. They're otherwise fine devices.
> "That switching power supply was as revolutionary as the Apple II logic board was. Rod doesn't get a lot of credit for this in the history books but he should. Every computer now uses switching power supplies, and they all rip off Rod Holt's design."
This is what I got-- took an eternity to get to me, but it works well enough. I wrap my cables. I had my Macbook Pro for two years, abused it, charger was fine. I sold it with the Macbook when I moved back Stateside after living abroad.
My next charger broke, because my kitten decided it made a great teething chew. Cha-ching. $80. I noticed a bit of wear, so I got the dinky plastic protectors. They seem to be working well. I use it on my lightning cable, too.
The 68000 microprocessor from the original Apple Macintosh and the 430 microcontroller in the charger aren't directly comparable as they have very different designs and instruction sets. But for a rough comparison, the 68000 is a 16/32 bit processor running at 7.8MHz, while the MSP430 is a 16 bit processor running at 16MHz. The Dhrystone benchmark measures 1.4 MIPS (million instructions per second) for the 68000 and much higher performance of 4.6 MIPS for the MSP430. The MSP430 is designed for low power consumption, using about 1% of the power of the 68000.
But, as the article says, reliability is a problem. The thing is definitely not toddler-proof. I have a 2012 Macbook Air, and I'm on, I think, my fourth charger.
Even just putting a magsafe connector on the brick itself would allow the cable to be easily replaced if it frayed.
Does anyone know if Apple laptops contain enough protective circuitry to be used safely with inferior power adapters? It appears that some of that sophistication is actually just moving parts out of the laptop and into the adapter.
Maybe that's what they want...
You'd think with all this industrial design effort spent (pretty successfully IMO for the most part), there'd be an improvement in that particular cable.
1. Sometime during warranty period, purchase AppleCare extended warranty.
2. Dont worry about cable strain, just treat cable as if it were well made.
3. When cable frays, return power adapter to Apple Store for a free replacement.
4. Rinse and repeat.
AppleCare also comes in handy when the $800 display fails.
Its both entertaining and informative:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wi-b9k-0KfE
This sounds a bit dodgy to me.Could someone with domain expertise comment on whether this is normal ?
Wonder what would happen if the 500 kHz signal would be fed to an antenna? Would that emit a signal, would it not work at all or become dangerous and probably highly illegal?
Here is an example what an antenna for 500 kHz looks like:
I treated my Apple chargers carefully. They destroyed themselves after about 2 years.
Laptops get transported a lot. Their chargers should not be so delicate.
I don't think this is actually true...
I found out by doing something really stupid. The pins on my charger get really dirty, which makes the charger connector get REALLY hot (like burn your finger hot). One day, I was cleaning the pins off with a wire brush, but I [stupidly] forgot to actually UNPLUG THE CHARGER. I knew this because when I applied the brush, (the end of it looks a lot like steel wool), it started sparking against the brush.
You see, a Macbook Air charges on one side, but the Thunderbolt port is on the other side. It creates a lot of strain. No such issue with Macbook Pros.
Genuine Apple adaptors come with plugs with plastic earth pins. You can feel the tingle from leakage current with such plugs.
that's surprising b/c i've had a good experience with firefox on android: i particularly like the "send tab to desktop browser" feature, and although i'm still using adb for debug, newer versions apparently do debugging direct with desktop browser instances, no adb needed. for all i know, chrome has similar features as well, so i'll just say that i haven't found firefox mobile lacking.
i was totally unaware that mozilla was making that much money (or any significant amount of money) from corporate deals, but that's probably b/c i'm naieve. proprotionally larger donations will go to wikipedia instead of mozilla in the future.
Mozilla can be more ambitious. Or atleast as bold as they once were, when they took on Microsoft.
If they can convince Baidu, Yahoo et al to keep them open, independent and competitive against the likes of Apple, Google or Microsoft, then there is no reason they can't pull the same thing off to fund an open social network or a open search engine that can shake things up a little at Google and Facebook.
I am really quite sick of the Google and Facebook ivory towers deciding where and how things should work. Most of these decisions are based on empire defense rather than the common good.
They speak the language of the common good, but constantly do things that benefit them disproportionately.
So what is their purpose at the end of the day, other than "... we are the rich; we own america. God knows how. but we intend to keep it".
They need saving from themselves. And I am glad Mozilla exists like a Ralph Nader does to keep things honest.
Also generally my first move when I install FF on a new machine is to switch out the default search provider so... This doesn't affect me too much
Mozilla's work on Firefox, Rust and Servo is great. Thunderbird and a real multi-process browser could get a bit more love. The later probably can only be achieved with a Servo based engine (probably not not with Gecko and its XCOM, XUL legacy code - the current multi process work uses just two processes (sandbox plugins) and doesn't scale - opening hundreds tabs won't spawn dozens of processes as we know from IE and Chrome (with all its downsides but even more upsides (stability, usability, UI latency)). Firefox with Firebug and all its plugins is the best web development browser, Chrome with its ever changing DevTools (UI changes) comes second (for me).
Mozilla's browser is very important for the open Web.
> The organization once banked on the millions that Google paid for search traffic from the Firefox browser.
Then, there is this:
> Now it relies on Yahoo, Baidu and others, and it expects revenue to grow.
> is confident new search-engine deals will bring in even more money
Granted, I have a lot of pages and tabs open, more than 20 at any given time. But I fail to understand why that leads to such a dramatic slow-down after having the browser open for a day or two. If I type text, it will appear with a delay of up to 20s - on a 16GB computer where a lot of RAM is free. And with only uBlock.
Something in the core of Firefox is completely rotten.
Wow, that's a lot of cash. What are the top expenditures of Mozilla?
I like how the article references twitter quotes:
<span data-popup="twitter">"We're going where the users are going,"<span class="icon-small-twitterBlue"></span></span>
So you're just reliant on Yahoo/Bing money now.
Hey @udemy - For the third time this year, my content is being stolen and sold on your site. Don't use Udemy, folks.  So @udemy, 373 users signed up for that stolen series at $19 - or a total of $7,087.
Update on the Udemy selling my stolen content issue: they finally responded, and will not reimburse me, unless there is a court ruling.
This may even be criminal copyright infringment under 18 U.S. Code 2319 (Criminal infringement of a copyright) if the total retail value exceeds $2500.
Get a lawyer. This looks winnable.
Hey guess what, Silicon Valley has been doing this for nearly 20 years to other people. Funny how the HN crowd gets riled up when it happens to programmers.
Movies cost tens of millions to make and employ hundreds if not thousands. Tv shows are maybe an order of magnitude smaller, records maybe one more. Any of those media products blow these aggrieved programmers out of the water, impact wise.
But the founders of YouTube -- who played this little copyright game like a fiddle -- are heroes in the Valley. So are the founders of Napster, one of whom helped get Facebook going.
I guess "move fast and break things" is a great motto until it's your stuff getting broken.
They will even brand your videos without your consent by adding Udemy logo watermarks to every video.
If you guys want to hear another horror story about Udemy, take a skim through:
(note: the above post is a few days old)
Someone really needs to step up and create a more reasonable course hosting platform.
Lesson: If you create courses and sell them to people have stipulations regarding resale.
My story wasn't theft so it's not the same, but I figure it might have some utility to someone on hacker news.
I am against DRM. I don't think it helps anyone to hide content behind buggy technologies, especially when they cause problems that have nothing to do with protection such as security holes. I think you just have to modify the content itself; make it "hard" to cleanse every last mention of the true copyright owner, and stop worrying if some loser actually wants to spend the time and effort it would take to strip all of those mentions out.
The only solution that comes to mind is for independent content creators to vigorously litigate and ensure that their DMCA claims are taken seriously.
"Dear Udemy Company,
I read about your questionable practice of not fighting against pirated content on your platform and not rightfully reimbursing the original creators.https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10638795 I am not willing to support your stance on this topic and will delete my account within minutes.
Now it's actually proven they don't give a shit what's happening on their 'platform' and have a frankly absurd response to copyright claims. Given how quickly Youtube will block a video given a content claim, it seems any sort of legal action against Udemy will bring their house of cards down extremely quickly.
It's a much better idea to use your own platform.
Is there proof of this? Author went from providing examples and evidence, to pure speculation. Kind of lost me there.
The fault is with the user who uploaded the content and the most effective and realistic option for companies that host user provided content is the DMCA process. No matter how good the filtering process (and I do think Udemy needs to improve vastly here) it's never going to catch everything and this situation is all explained and handled by the DMCA.
The real issue is how they're handling the takedown requests. If they are prompt and accurate with the takedowns and refunding customers then there should be no issue. How they get their own money back from the fraud user is their problem as well. If Udemy is not handling takedowns or refunding customers, then there definitely is a problem and that should be met with actual legal action, not just social/twitter justice.
Edit - why the instant downvotes? haven't seen much other than emotional rants about how Udemy is profiteering but no evidence that the proper DMCA process was followed but denied.
My expectation is that at a minimum, Udemy would investigate the claim once it's reported to them. But you need to provide sufficient proof that you are the content owner. Just because your face is in the video is not enough, but it's a great start.
Should that stop us from getting a lawyer? Certainly not. Can we still believe in humans usually trying to do good? Yes.
it has been almost a year since I notified them
You are confusing things here. A Udemy user took some content from Pluralsight and published the content on Udemy. Where Udemy is in the wrong is in not taking the content down and banning the teacher from their platform.
Its not like theres a database of copyrighted content out there you know
Ahh so a database of copyright might work. cf https://twitter.com/robconery/status/670389852974657536
Facebook freebooting, too.
You would think the person selling the course would have payment information that could be used to track that individual down, the correct course of action is to sue.
If the content isnt worth doing this then the content isnt actually that valuable to the author.
This could be awesome, if it works as advertised.
It's not in the stable channel yet, so I assume it's not really released for the broad public yet?
Is it to measure engagement? Surely there are better ways.. Most of the sites don't lazy load the hidden content, so there's no bandwidth benefit either...
Windows version: x64
Mac OSX version: x64
Linux version: x86
Why? Why do companies not release 64-bit versions of their programs for Linux? This seems to happen all the time, and it utterly baffles me.
Did TC have the best rewritten press release? There doesn't seem to be any mention of 2.0 on http://developer.android.com/tools/studio/index.html for example.
Although the example they show is editing a resource, so it could be fast-pathing resource-only edits (buck does that too).
More docs here:
Skip to ~1:00:00
Hmm. I wonder if the search engine is going to phone home anything it finds interesting in your local files.
The Samy MySpace worm: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_%28computer_worm%29
And so much more... http://samy.pl/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samy_Kamkar
I knew from people losing their cards which continued working some places but not others there was a relationship in the issuing. I got a reader, decoded the card (zeropadded student ID, issue number, and XOR checksum).
I found other places to find the student ID number, and could enumerate a few issue numbers. I built this spoofer: http://www.instructables.com/id/Arduino-Magstripe-Emulator/Then I could get into my friend's apartments (as a POC with their permission of course).
I disclosed and got a thank you (I built a good relationship with my IT dept over the years), but never figured out if they fixed it.
> I found a global pattern that allows me to accurately predict American Express card numbers by knowing a full card number, even if already reported lost or stolen.> This means if I were to obtain your Amex card and you called it in as lost or stolen, the moment you get a new card, I know your new credit card number.
Another way of looking at it is that the magstripe reader is a wireless receiver. It just usually works with signals so weak that they can only be transmitted a miniscule distance.
I'm planning on seeing if I can decode data from higher density mediums with the same approach, when I can get my hands on some iron nanoparticles.
Edit: I meant on an EMV compliant terminal.
Edit: Also, that is considered fraud and your best not testing it, unless you like the prison environment.
Yes everyone is going to run around and scream 'security!!' when they realize how ridiculously trivial this process always has been, but it does not change facts - it has always been this easy, but this is a new way to highlight that fact.
Don't get me wrong - I think it's a good move to discontinue support for older IE versions... There is just something with all the smiling and laughing faces all over the page that make all my alarms go off
I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome...
This is a (primarily UK) product most of whose users are on internal bank networks. It's come down from about 40% 2 years ago, so it's heading in the right direction - but I'm not sure I see it going away any time soon.
There's huge organizational inertia inside these banks around IT systems - if we want to serve them, we need to support IE8 for the foreseeable future.
In practical terms it's still IE9 and IE11 for a while (so far as I can tell)?
I'm sure there is still a load of Windows Vista SP2 machines around...
"Does this mean Microsoft is changing the support lifecycle policy for Internet Explorer?"
"The latest version of Internet Explorer will continue to follow the component policy, which means that it follows the support lifecycle and is supported for as long as the Windows operating system on which it is installed. Focusing support on the latest version of Internet Explorer for a supported Windows operating system is in line with industry standards."
A simple yes or no will do.
What bugs me is so many negative comments along the lines of "What about all those poor helpless trillion dollar megacorporations that are stuck on an old version because they use proprietary custom software? Microsoft is evil because they don't guarantee to support and repair everything that they've ever made for free until the heat death of the universe!"
Those companies and organizations are stuck not because of Microsoft, but because they mismanaged their own proprietary software or web applications. For more than a decade, they never even bothered to plan for maintenance, although they routinely plan, budget, and schedule depreciation and maintenance for everything else in the business - things that move much slower than software and far far slower than web development. I'm no fan of Microsoft, but that's their fault, not Microsoft's.
My Windows machine is still on Windows 7 now, and not ready to upgrade to 10 yet due to compatibility issues. But I have 4 more years to get things working in a virtual environment, or find replacements. Software that I run dates back to the 70s, so some didn't work by default in 7, but in the end there was only 1 program that I couldn't replace or get working with an upgrade or VM. I reverse engineered the data to migrate it (it used an obsolete floating point format from before floating point ops were standard in PCs). If I can do that, a company or large organization can do it.
For web software, the pace of the state of the art is even faster. Most anything over a few years old probably needs a rewrite and data migration if it hasn't been maintained properly (and possibly even if it has). Especially anything that used old plugins.
But the focus on browser versions is weird. I strongly dislike the practice of web developers/designers speaking of 'supporting' IE6/IE8 or whatever. That's a Microsoft product, Microsoft supports it or not, you and I don't. We support the websites that we build, which we build to current industry standards (such as they are). If you try to access it using a nonstandard client like IE6, Arachne running on DOS, Hyperlink on a C64, or a line mode browser on a teletype, then your experience will be different. The server side will work fine, but your client may not do what it's not capable of.
You can't expect to stick a blu-ray disc on a record player or shove a flash drive full of MP3s into an 8-track tape deck and have the end-user experience be the same. It just doesn't work that way. Sure we can try to build custom client-side workarounds, but is that worth the cost (especially given that new browsers are free)?
Overheard at a meeting once:
Client: "Our stats say that'll be fine for our customers, but our executive team mostly has older versions of IE, so this won't work for them. We don't want it to look bad to the CEO."
3rd Party Agency Manager: "We'll order new laptops for them and have them delivered, just tell us how many and where to send them. It will be much cheaper for you and save us all a lot of time."
They will be vulnerable to attacks because of this and they will refuse to pay money to upgrade from XP or Vista to go to Windows 10. It will be because their business software only works with older Windows versions. They can't afford someone to migrate to Windows 10 or they lost the source code after programmers retired or got fired and took it with them on their personal laptops because they lacked a source control system.
It is a big mess out there. Colleges are even worse as is the federal government who use outdated Windows Updates by three years and expired antivirus products.
In most cases the hardware vendors never address the browser compatibility issue (due to focus on new products) and only provide a warning sign upon login. Likewise the hardware isn't easy to replace in some environments.
This use case is completely absent from the web browsing traffic usage patterns on the internet which predominate in browser usage statistics.
My thinking is just that most larger companies will have zero chance of hitting a January deadline, and once the deadline passes, there's really no urgency to upgrade by any particular time. I would think a ~12 month deadline might be more effective in getting people to upgrade (as well as resulting in fewer compromised browsers).
As Vista is still supported, the IE9 lives on.
To IE 9. :(
This paragraph is, arguably, far more important than all the hysteria about flavor packs, but it's only partially correct. Fibre does help provide satiety but, in and of itself, it isn't what's good for you about eating whole fruit unless you simply aren't getting enough fibre and have issues with constipation. What fibre does do is reduce the rate at which we absorb sugar. Apple juice will give you a nice fast sugar high and then a low, much like candy. An apple will give you a gradual surge of energy for a while. If you're going to eat something sweet, it's far better for you if it comes combined with fibre.
So don't go searching for juice that doesn't use flavor packs. Don't buy a juicer and juice your own either, because you're still throwing away what separates fruit from candy. Don't mess around with fermenting juices and all that probiotic jazz. If you simply must drink your fruit, use a blender.
Maybe don't buy your orange juice from subsidiaries of the Coca Cola company and Pepsico, as a starting point.
Also interesting: https://www.reddit.com/r/YouShouldKnow/comments/2684u1/ysk_t...
Just google GMO and this blog:https://www.google.com/search?q=GMO+site%3Afoodrenegade.com
Oh good, I thought you were afraid of chemicals
>Im questioning the health or merit of so-called foods that are so devoid of flavor or color that we have to add back in chemical flavorings and colors to make them palatable.
Wait what? I thought you weren't questioning the health or merit chemicals? People like orange juice (more specifically, not from concentrate), and the cheapest way to produce something that resembles that is to store them in oxygen-free vats and add back flavor packs. Who cares if chemicals were used to achieve that flavor?
> Havent you ever wondered why every glass of Tropicana Pure Premium orange juice tastes the same, no matter where in the world you buy it or what time of year youre drinking it in? Or maybe your brand of choice is Minute Maid or Simply Orange or Floridas Natural. Either way, I can ask the same question. Why is the taste and flavor so consistent?
> The packs added to juice earmarked for the North American market tend to contain high amounts of ethyl butyrate, a chemical in the fragrance of fresh squeezed orange juice that, juice companies have discovered, Americans favor. Mexicans and Brazilians have a different palate. Flavor packs fabricated for juice geared to these markets therefore highlight different chemicals
It's almost as if they are two completely separate drinks.
It's one reason why I'm a fan of Soylent. I hope it starts a trend where we get we get honest industrial food instead of fake natural food. I'm not not at all convinced that their product is unique, but I hope it starts a trend, where manufacturers don't hide the fact that flavor and nutrition need to be designed in, and instead try to explain why the design they chose is the best design.
> Im sure youre careful to buy the kind thats 100% > juice and not made from concentrate. After all, > thats the healthier kind, right?
> flavor packs are made from orange by-products even though > these by-products are so chemically manipulated that they > hardly qualify as by-products any more.
> Yet those in the industry will tell you that the flavor > packs, whether made for reconstituted or pasteurized orange > juice, resemble nothing found in nature
The most interesting thing was that people were so used to the taste of the processed OJ that they preferred it to the fresh squeezed OJ.
this is a tiny part of the price i pay for being able to buy it in a shop from bulk suppliers rather than having to juice my own fruit... besides that, i don't think its a heavy price to pay - i'm not sure i really see the harm tbh.
its not like they are flavouring it with deadly toxic poisons.
Since realizing this, I've stuck to plain old oranges and fresh squeezed OJ and not had a problem. The link between consumer OJ and my migraines, if one exists at all, never made sense ("it's just crushed oranges, after all") until now.
So, theoretically at least, my body could have a bad reaction to whatever is in the flavor packs that are used to make the tasteless juice taste more like real orange juice.
Sulfur Dioxide The most widely used wine additive. It kills microbes and prevents oxidation. Few vintners dare to bottle a wine without it, but overuse can make a vino stink like burnt matches.
Ammonium Salts A touch of diammonium phosphate revives dying yeast and keeps it from producing too much sulfur.
Water If a batch of vino ends up a bit too boozy, just add some water.
Oak adjuncts Oak barrels can make wine taste drier and lend it notes of vanilla, but theyre expensive. A cheaper alternative? Oak chips, sawdust, or essencea liquefied wood product that can be added directly to an otherwise finished wine.
Tartaric Acid A naturally occurring acid found in grapes, its particularly critical in white wines, where tartness gives each sip a pleasing snap. Wines with insufficient acidity can get a boost from powdered tartaric acid.
Powdered Tannin Naturally present in grape skins and seeds as well as oak, tannin creates texture and astringency. Typically made from a growth on oak trees called a nutgall, powdered tannin can punch up lackluster wine.
Sugar If grapes arent ripe enough when picked, adding cane or beet sugar to the must can help them ferment. The catch: Adding sugar, called chaptalization, is illegal in California, Italy, and Australia. (Its legal in New Zealand, Oregon, and parts of France, though allowed amounts vary.)
Pectic Enzymes Complex proteins that can be used to alter color, improve clarity, release aromatic compounds, and speed up aging.
Gum Arabic Made from the sap of the acacia tree, gum arabic softens tannins to reduce astringency and make the wines body more silky. This can make a tough and somewhat bitter red wine ready to drink immediately.
Velcorin (dimethyl dicarbonate) First introduced in the 1980sthough increasingly controversialthis microbial control agent can kill a half-dozen wine-ruining bacteria and yeasts when added in minute quantities. Its also widely used in fruit juices.
Mega Purple Made from the concentrated syrup of Rubired grapes, Mega Purple is a thick goo that winemakers rely on to correct color issuesa few drops can turn a bottle of wine from a weak salmon blush to an appealingly intense crimsonand to make a wine look consistent from batch to batch. In a 119-liter wine barrel, just 200 milliliters is enough to do the trick. Mega Purple is made by Constellation Brands, the company behind famous labels like Robert Mondavi and Ravenswood. While on the record no one will cop to using it (or any other additive), industry insiders say that even high-end winemakers have employed it to deepen the color of their wines, a trait that connotes richness and quality, earns better ratings from critics, and commands higher bottle prices.
I have gotten it into my head that these are pretty much low-nutrition non-foods, and as such, I only eat them on the rare occasion.
And I always found the OJ to have a very distinct and unusual taste when in the US.
Being brazilian, I find US "orange juice" to be TERRIBLE. So yeah, we do have different tastes in juice.
Nothing beats freshly squeezed juice, as in just squeezed. Try to drink it one hour later and it will have changed the taste already.
With two incomes and 3 kids, my family has no time for homemade organic fermented (!?) Lemonade.
I'll tell my experience when visiting the US a few years ago. I'm from the Netherlands, and here almost all orange juice is "from concentrate".
It doesn't quite taste like freshly pressed juice, but I was never quite able to put my finger on it what was missing.
In the US I saw cartons of "actual really real juice not from concentrate really" for the first time, in a Whole Foods supermarket in Manhattan, NYC. So I got one of those and it was delicious. Still not quite like fresh juice, but really close.
(I don't think you can actually get the "real fresh orange juice" experience if you don't have fingers that smell like orange peel, and this vague worry that you should really wipe the kitchen counter before it'll dry all sticky)
So two days later I got another, different brand carton of "actually really real juice for realness totally not concentrate really". And it tasted pretty much like the "from concentrate" stuff at home (which still isn't bad, IMHO--unlike that "nectar" crap).
Next time at the same Whole Foods supermarket, I took a good look, and discovered there's basically (at least) two kinds of orange juice in the US: made from oranges in Florida, and made from oranges in Brazil (I think it was Brazil, 98% sure).
Now it made sense to me. In the Netherlands, nearly all our orange juice is from Brazil (afaik). And it was the "real juice not from concentrate" stuff from Florida oranges that was the juice that tasted (to me) mostly like fresh juice. And the Brazilian "real juice not from concentrate" that tasted like the "from concentrate" stuff at home.
Unfortunately I couldn't completely test the theory that maybe Florida oranges just juice better, concentrate or not, because at this particular Whole Foods I couldn't find any "Florida orange juice from concentrate". I'd have totally bought it to test the experiment, but I just couldn't spot any.
Does this make sense to any US-people? That have more time to buy and try different types of OJ? :-) Otherwise, just disregard this N=1 anecdote (but do let me know :P)
 There's an even cheaper kind called "orange nectar" which is half juice-from-concentrate plus water and some sugar/sweetener, but I can't imagine why anyone would buy that, ever. You can add water to juice at home without the sugar and it'll taste better, be cheaper, and healthier.
Of course sugar free Coke is close to good for you compared to the toxic juices and Coke.
Water is only better than sugar free coke in that it teaches you not to continuous rely on the addictive sugary taste and better on your teeth.
Mozilla "Mentor BugsIf you are looking for a bug with guidance, we maintain a set of bugs that are marked with an assigned mentor (see "Whiteboard" field). The mentor will help you get the necessary information to understand the issue, point out relevant parts of the code to look at, etc. You can browse these bugs on Bugs Ahoy!, but here's a list of unassigned mentor bugs to get you started:"
> Use npm scripts so people dont have to understand or globally install any build tools
I do this on every project I work on. In fact, where possible, I completely skip globals entirely (for instance in my msngr.js library it uses Grunt but it executes grunt locally without it being installed globally on the machine).
I think it's really important that anyone can go up to a library, pull it down, and start it with little to no further effort. The less friction you can provide a developer the better.
I've been thinking about a very similar issue for a while now, and I'm still trying to organize my thoughts into a blog post or something, but here's the basic idea:
Hire more juniors. Or cross-train people from other departments. Doesn't really matter who. But they should be pretty darn close to beginners.
Assign a relatively small issue to them. The kind of thing that would only take about an hour for a more senior dev to look in to. Plan more than an hour for the junior. Probably a lot more. Also plan some time for one of those more senior devs. Sit them down next to each other.
Point the junior to the readme. Ask the junior to ping / poke / bother the senior every time they hit a roadblock. Every single time. Ask them to be relentlessly persistent. (Not everyone's good at being relentlessly persistent. So encourage them. Create an environment where they feel like they can be relentlessly persistent.) Then leave them alone.
Give it a day or two. Watch as interesting things start to happen.
Watch as the junior dev learns how to be a better communicator. Watch as they learn how to make problems visible. How to get help. And as an added bonus: how to program.
Watch as the senior dev goes insane at first from all the questions. Watch them start to wonder how they can avoid going through this every time somebody needs to touch their code. Watch them remove obstacles. Or at least reduce their number. Watch them automate things. Or speed up things that are already automated. Or improve processes in ways they had never even considered before sitting with the junior. Also watch them learn how to be a better communicator.
Do this a few times. Watch for magical things. Code quality improves. Onboarding times plummet. Hiring friction melts away. Teamwork starts... working. Productivity skyrockets. Job satisfaction goes up. Happiness prevails.
 See also https://twitter.com/patio11/status/657902663686754304
One of the unexpected benefits was that we could quickly take part in things like Outreachy and GSoC, as we already had a curated list. Reviewing this list every few months has become part of the normal process now.
In addition, asking people to act as mentors also gives them a different perspective on the existing code base, especially where things are particularly thorny.
I would add: if someone tries to do contribute something, but maybe they have a git issue, don't step in and push it yourself. This happened to me on one project, and it bothered me so much that I stopped contributing entirely (which was the right move, it turned out).
I mean, it's very well possible that the long-term investment in expanding the "base" of willing coders is worth the short-term loss in productivity. But even long-term investments in human capital need better planning than just "hey, I bet a high-schooler could deal with this simple accounting spreadsheet; that would train him even if it takes him a day to fix what I can fix in ten minutes". It's fine investing in high-schoolers, sure, but that's not the point.
(Or a vagrant file)
If the image is set up so it "just works" and has all tools preinstalled, you can be up and running locally in seconds.
With NPM scripts, its often possible to run I to problems with node-gyp... Or any other number of cross platform incompatiblities.
The docker/vagrant route is a really novel solution I've seen used effectively in other projects.
I've contributed a lot of code and have had vastly different experiences. Sometimes people are excited and accept a PR without question. Some people just ignore PRs. Some people make you feel as though you've just spit in their face. I had one pull request that I thought was reasonable which was met with a ridicule from the maintainer at how useless my idea was (to him). I'm a seasoned programmer with my own projects and a lot of code under my belt but, even knowing how these things work, that one really soured me on his project. I can't imagine if a novice who was excited at their first PR was treated so poorly.
If I could suggest anything to maintainers, it would be to simply appreciate that somebody was trying to contribute. If their code doesn't meet your goals or standards, try to still respect that they spent some time on your project.
If you're in the Salt Lake area, also please consider joining us next Saturday  or Tuesday, Dec. 15  as we give a little back to the Open Source community!
Edit: Changed "spamming" to "filling" That was meant as a positive thing but I guess I shouldn't have used the word spamming.
Why is CONTRIBUTING.md important? Its just another file for someone to read alongside COPYING, INSTALL, README, TODO, and perhaps what's in the doc/ directory. And why markdown?
Organising and comments are good but people have been trying to get devs to do that for decades and we're still mentioning it.
"Add an up-for-grabs label" to what? Where? How will people see this?
Adding a githook might be useful on a remote repository but I don't want to run a full test suite every time I commit, ammend a commit, rebase, or otherwise trigger it.
What's NPM? Why would anyone use it over a makefile?
Dell is serious about your privacy
Worried about Superfish? Dell limits its pre-loaded software to a small number of high-value applications on all of our computers. Each application we pre-load undergoes security, privacy and usability testing to ensure that our customers experience the best possible computing performance, faster set-up and reduced privacy and security concerns.
Source: I worked for hardware vendor and wrote windows drivers.
This is worth a vulnerability report to US-CERT, and more publicity.
> You have been linked to a read-only version of this subreddit. Please respect the community by not voting.Please do not vote or comment when you come from external subreddits.
"Congrats to Jeff Bezos and the BO team for achieving VTOL on their booster
It is, however, important to clear up the difference between "space" and "orbit", as described well by https://what-if.xkcd.com/58/
Getting to space needs ~Mach 3, but GTO orbit requires ~Mach 30. The energy needed is the square, i.e. 9 units for space and 900 for orbit."
Orbital velocity is in the vicinity of 7500 to 8000 m/s. At that speed your KE is 1/2.m.v^2 which is about 32e6 Joules/kg.
Orbits are, conveniently, at about 320 km, so your PE is m.g.h, or about about 3.2e6 Joules/kg.
In other words, the energy to get to orbit is ten times the energy to get to the altitude of orbit, and this exercise only got to 1/3 of that. So the energy involved was about 1/30 of that required to put something in orbit.
It's still a fantastic achievement, and an important - nay, critical - step on the way to properly reusable rockets, but it does lend some perspective to it.
The Falcon 9 first stage, if I recall correctly, is incapable of either hovering or slowly decending. The engine has simply too much power. A Falcon 9 first stage, stopped mid air has two choices, keep the motor on and go up, or turn the motor off and fall - and I don't think the motor has too many extra restarts available.
Because of this inability to hover the Falcon 9 first stage, SpaceX is attempting to have the rocket's vertical velocity reach zero at the exact moment the rocket reaches the pad. This is why when you watch the grasshopper or other SpaceX landing videos, you always wonder for a split second if the rocket has just smashed into the ground. In order for this to work, all nine axis (three each of position, rotation, and velocity) must be brought to zero at exactly the same fixed time. This is insane level control theory here.
Now this type of landing is theoretically possible - and I think it has been tested on the grasshopper at lower speeds, but it scares the willies out of me. There's almost no room for error nor for the chaos of the universe.
New Shepard on the other hand, comes to a hover about 100? feet above the pad, moves horizontally to be above the pad, stops, then lowers itself down. This is tremendously simpler since the rocket only really cares about one or two set of axis at a time, it does not have to be nearly as precise, and you have time to fix anything that's not lined up.
I'm still curious to see if SpaceX can pull off their landing style, or will instead change so that their first stages will be able to hover.
It would seem that SpaceX remains in a totally different league. By only going vertical, this is a very limited "spacecraft", more akin to the Virgin spaceplane than SpaceX's launch vehicles. For proper access to space, rather than tourist hops, everyone wants to see a reusable launch vehicle --> a craft to actually boost something towards orbit rather than an altitude record. That means returning to some sort of landing after huge downrange progress. So while this is an impressive achievement for space tourism (roller-coasters for billionaires) I still see SpaceX's efforts as the more revolutionary.
To jump in with the inevitable SpaceX comparison. Worth noting is you see the Blue Origin booster: fall, slow, hover, correct any drift, descend then land. The SpaceX booster cannot hover, it has more thrust than it weighs.
The landing footage begins at 1:40.
Larry Ellison; Oracle:http://www.superyachtfan.com/larry_ellison.html(including his Americas Cup yachts)
James (Jim) Clark; Silicon Graphics, Netscape:http://www.superyachtfan.com/sailing_yacht_athena.html
Paul Allen; Microsoft:http://www.superyachtfan.com/paul_allen.html(3 very large vessels)
And more recently:
Larry Page; Google:http://www.superyachttimes.com/yachts/details/333
Now you need a rocket! OK, Paul Allen did go there first, as far as I can tell.
Is this gonna turn into a price war ?
As the great philosopher Mike Tyson once said:I'm a dreamer. I have to dream and reach for the stars, and if I miss a star then I grab a handful of clouds.
The New Shepard went much higher though (100.5km vs 744m).
Brew this up and one gets a majority of students who are reasonable but a small minority who drive all the discourse.
I don't teach at Yale and have never taught at Yale or schools with similar cultures, so I can't speak to the environment there, but William Deresiewicz did, and his book Excellent Sheep: The Miseducation of the American Elite and the Way to a Meaningful Life came out of that and I recommend it. His book A Jane Austen Education (http://jakeseliger.com/tag/a-jane-austen-education-how-six-n...) is also very good, even for someone like me who does not love Jane Austen.
Edit: Also, almost all of the censorship calls and nasty behavior / comments came from students on the left. Vox's "I'm a liberal professor, and my liberal students terrify me" (http://www.vox.com/2015/6/3/8706323/college-professor-afraid) is congruent with my experiences.
I find that quite ironic because presumably, these people subscribe to left leaning ideologies. But maybe there isn't so much of a contradiction. They are simply more elitist than they are anything else.
They don't really stand for equality because they do not possess the humbleness to bring themselves to the level of the common person. They believe themselves to be intellectually and morally superior to the common Joe. And yet they want to dupe the common Joe into thinking that they will safeguard his interests while at the same time thinking so poorly of him!
It's not just academia where you can't speak freely.
I know this is all anecdotal, but I put a lot of trust in his opinions and pay attention when he says something.
Unrelated, but he gave a great Ted talk in 2008 about the difference between liberals and conservatives: https://www.ted.com/talks/jonathan_haidt_on_the_moral_mind
This is the key takeaway for anyone interested in getting this nonsense to stop.
I'm a true blue leftist not long out of a famously liberal liberal university and I would have raised my hands on the eggshells questions. I vividly recall a student proposing a test on candidates' general positions at polls and being literally shouted down before he could finish speaking. Despite its ugly history in the US it's not of liberals vs conservatives, at least not in the way we use those terms in the US.
We have a problem with limiting discourse in schools but trying to shoehorn it into the usual political framework frankly alienates those of us in the left who are having to choose between apologizing for zealots on our side of the spectrum or aligning with groups that seem to inevitably take on repulsive undertones of intolerance and a whole other host of positions that have nothing to do with our own beyond being marginalized by the same extremely vocal group.
I think even if you have the most leftist SJW views and objectives, you have to see this as counter productive.
Never got accused of being racist in Calc.
The old-fashioned ("culture of honor/dignity"?) style of one-on-one negotiation is often futile when you are dealing with a company.
* Validation of raw talent by a third party (admissions office) --> can be done by technology today in ways impossible 10 years ago and hard to imagine 30 years ago
* Socialization around other people in the top decile (or higher) of book-smarts --> can largely be done by online communities (not a full replacement for interpersonal interaction but better than what was available before)
* Access to top-tier employers who didn't have time to look through every candidate out there, so economized their recruiting efforts at places where smart young people are concentrated --> this model made largely obsolete by internet
* Access to lots of obscure books at college library --> made completely obsolete by internet
* Access to great lectures --> made obsolete by internet / MOOCs
* Access to a diversity of opinions, the exposure to which will make you a better and more informed person --> these days only applicable if you come from a very sheltered conservative background....otherwise college just reinforces existing biases
//grumpy old man rant over
As a student of centerville high school as well, I can assure you this comment is completely true. While multiple questions were phrased as attacks towards Haidt personally, many of them were completely rational. In response to one question (about his annoyance towards people who are pushing women to be in more stem positions) he stated a very vague position on how women, no matter their environmental conditions in childhood, are still predisposed to not be in stem positions (genetically).This was not the only sketchy point he made. The question about his condoning of rape, while completely unnecessary, was founded on his insensitivity towards the subject (which continued into many subjects, including race and gender).His careful picking of data allowed his points to made clearly and succinctly in his mind. Questions that were too long or that had follow ups were completely ignored. In response to one of the first (albeit angry and unnecessary) questions, Haidts response was to tell the audience that in order to fully look at an argument, one had to look at both sides, something I (as someone who did believe in a large amount of what Haidt was saying) had to scoff at. His entire argument was founded on the idea that everyone being free to say whatever they want is the best thing possible for American schools, while being politically correct in all scenarios is the worst thing possible for American schools. Obviously there are positive and negative aspects to both. This completely contradicts his belief to look at both sides of an argument dispassionately, not to mention being hard, as students who do care about their education, to listen to.Haidts talk was difficult to listen to. Even though I believe in almost all of his points (despite being part of many, although not all, of the minority groups mentioned) his inability to speak to us effectively (in a way that didnt seem like he condoned rape) made it so that his argument was not relayed to us clearly. His blatant misunderstanding of his audience put him in the position to be attacked.One can say that he did that on purpose, to prove his point about shaking those who do walk on eggshells. But that doesnt work. Telling defensive people their wrong doesnt work. Sorry.
I want to know if there's skinheads who want to start a race war or the black panther party leader who advocates violence against non-whites. Sure it's offensive to me, but I want to KNOW these people are out there and know what they're thinking.
being reflexively deferential to every conceivable sensitivity causes us to disproportionately look out for the safety of some at the expense of the overall atmosphere of civility, dignity, respect, and yes, 'safety,' of the campus. it really hit home when recently Wesleyan's campus newspaper lost a good portion of its funding because it dared to publish an op-ed criticizing the Black Lives Matter movement on effectiveness grounds . After all, students no longer felt "safe" knowingly attending the same school as someone who disagrees with them (rightly or wrongly). i am completely embarrassed.
On the one hand, I think the whole point of university is debate, discourse, critical thought. The apparent trend away from liberalism is very distressing.
On the other, I sympathize with the notion that liberalism can often be a way for the privileged to entrench their privilege, and that unprivileged voices don't benefit from it equally. If you're black and you believe that black americans are owed reparations, you probably can't say that freely without expecting some negative repercussions in your future life: you'll be judged and categorized, marked as "uppity". Liberalism doesn't exist in a vacuum: we have to take into account other societal truths when we're evaluating its effects.
I don't have a great handle on how to reconcile all of this.
I'm struggling to understand why these articles should be flagged and removed, rather than downvoted or debated in the comments. Thoughts?
Then think about what happens if you try to have a discussion about something that is not "politically correct".
The problem with not allowing discussion about extreme topics is that the extremists will end up only discussing among themselves. And that's where it can become dangerous.
And I realize I am doing a form of derailing right now, because the matter at hand is white boys being heard. But we're actually talking about white boys being heard during advanced discussions of race and gender. And honestly I feel a little bit the same about it that I feel about girls being heard during advanced discussions of parallel CPU architectures. I wish there were more women who were in those discussions, but I don't think the solution is "just let them participate even if what they say is totally ignorant".
Frankly, most white boys are not skilled enough to participate in discussions about race and gender. It's not that there's anything inherently wrong with them, the pipeline is just letting us down completely. Most of us get almost no education in race and gender, while girls and people of color get it for free just because of their gender or race.
The solution in my mind is the same as the solution to getting more women and other disenfranchised groups into computer science. Everyone just needs to take a little bit of responsibility for the part of the pipeline that's one step upstream from them. You can't just have boys who have never thought about what colonialism actually feels like diving right into university-level gender politics classes. But as a university professor I think you can support summer programs for teenage boys to help them do really basic level gender analysis stuff so that when they do get to college, they can actually participate meaningfully with the girls, and not be seen as second-class citizens just because they have less direct experience.
We shouldn't think of these boys as "bad gender theorists" we need to broaden our understanding of what gender theory is, and make sure we are creating opportunities for disenfranchised novices to get involved.
But this naive affirmative action approach OP is advocating, of "just make sure the boys participate equally" is not taking the problem seriously. Proper affirmative action requires you to get in and take responsibility for your recruitment process and the social issues surrounding it.
Almost feel sorry for them, like these views are thinly-veiled insecurities about some aspect of themselves or trauma experienced.
What I can't stand are these "Women in technology" conferences and workshops to "close the (gender) gap". Why? Because if you focus on one group, then you are actively not focusing on another. Given the dichotomy defined by their stated purpose, they are actively dismissive of men (boys). That is wrong.
I don't care about the men/women ratio. People will choose whatever path they enjoy and want to work at. I do care very strongly, though, about treating people equally.
If I say this publically, then I, too, will be ostracized. That is why this article is so very important!
Not sure why it is on HN at all as the content has nothing to do with tech...
My perception is that this is an effort to weaken student's ability to speak freely, but is coded as a "free speech" issue. Similar to how many churches coded marriage equality as trampling on their freedom of religion.
Just to remind everyone how free speech works: You are free to say whatever you want. I am free to choose to speak out against you or even pull my support from you if I disagree with what you say. My freedom extends to let me voice my opposition to you just as loudly as you voice your opinions. That is not censorship.
Of course, it's not perfect. It appears to try and load the entire file to memory to seed, which makes sense, but that means you can't transfer a 1GB file without using 1GB of RAM...
It's very basic, and doesn't have proper error messaging. Would recommend only attempting to stream mp4 (h264) if you're giving it a shot.
Rather than restricting what browsers can send and making kludgy workarounds that waste resources, why don't we just allow browsers to send whatever they want?
Yes, the media manufactures outrage for attention. This is not the problem. The media has done the same for as long as it has existed. The problem is that real people are willing to believe and act upon this "outrage", sometimes in an extreme manner, to avoid being on the "wrong side".
The action I care about isn't the media writing a libellous "story" about how "outraged" people are at some action of mine, though they are scum for it. What I care about is when people use it as justification to call my boss/family/friends and go after me personally.
It's not the media that doxxes, makes death threats, and gets people fired. Who does that is a population that increasingly cannot tell the difference between words and violence, a population that sees bad thoughts as assault and disagreement as evil. Even the smallest infraction is justification for ruining lives.
Brendan Eich was ousted from his position at Mozilla for his donation years ago. A pizzeria owner was threatened with death for merely saying he wouldn't serve gays. The mob retaliations are completely disproportionate to the "crime".
That's why people are afraid of the new outrage. They know one violation of the ever changing set of rules can now cause a mob to go nuclear on everything they hold dear.
If your best example is a grammatically challenged tweet that racked up 4 favs and a retweet... you're probably inventing a controversy.
Here's some insane examples from the first page of a Google News search for "Twitter Backlash":
To be fair though there is a culture of "outrage" that exists. The media may be implicit in propagating it but they don't always create it.
For example, this recently happened:
I think it's important to study the media's role in creating and extending the reach of outrage, but it's equally important not to deny that there is a growing movement of people who are interested in limiting free speech and get very outrageous about it.
Something about the Middle East? You need at least a hundred years of historical knowledge to understand what is playing out. Ideally more. But it's not that simple; you need to understand the politics of countries that are recent but significant players.
And this is the problem: people believe it's reasonable to form an opinion on complex matters from consuming a few soundbites and massaged footage. How is that at all reasonable? Answer: it isn't.
The internet has a serious problem with fame.
Before the internet, fame was usually something that required an investment in media access. Everybody knows about the big Hollywood movie because they paid for a lot of advertising/etc. A low-budget film could potentially be more popular if people knew about it, but the meager (or nonexistent) advertising budget usually guaranteed it would never become famous.
This is what the internet changed. It's fundamental power is that anybody can publish because the network doesn't differentiate between "publishing" hosts and "consumer" hosts. All peers are supposed to be equal in capability. The internet is media access. What used to require significant investment of time and/or money now happens to people regularly when they post something casually on the internet: they can become famous.
Unfortunately, our social norms are still adapting to this change. As this article shows, trivial posts are incorrectly interpreted and the author ends up wading through flames and insults. This is because what started as a casual post is now addressing an audience.
For a very good explanation of this type of change-in-relationship, I suggest watching "This is Phil Fish". As this is HN, many of you probably know the drama involving Phil Fish and his game "Fez", but tht doesn't matter because this video is about everybody who is not Phil Fish: the audience that supplies the projection, tokenism, and hatred that fuels the media when they want cheap hits/impressions.
 I am ignoring the phenomena of some movies gaining a cult following a long time after their initial release for simplicity and questionable relevance (time).
 NAT has destroyed a lot of this equality, creating a situation where you have to get the permission of a 3rd party (port forwarding at the router, some centralized server, etc). If we allow this digital imprimatur to continue to exist, then the internet has truly reverted back to "TV".
- Nov 5: Breitbart reports "Starbucks faces criticism from politicians and campaign groups today after it decided to remove all references to the festive season from its Christmas red cups'
- Nov 8: Huffington Post picks up the Breitbart story and reports "Some Christians Are Extremely Unhappy About Starbucks' New Holiday Cups"
Note the difference in headlines. This started as a Tory MP and a professional Christian shit-stirring group in the U.K. criticizing the move. It is rapidly generalized to "Christians".
In an age of people consuming news in 140 characters or less, news outlets really have a responsibility to apply the same journalistic integrity to their headline as to the rest of the article. They are there to report the news, not cause the news.
Either way, for my own sanity I now have to avoid twitter and any article that even remotely looks like it might be about someone being offended about something.
This whole story (including this post) may just as well be part of a smart promotion stunt for Sephora lipstick. Some agency might be getting paid for generating all this attention, stirring up controversy around the brand, with the media and bloggers masterfully manipulated into cooperation. There's no way to know...
It gives the impression that certain political groups are more influential than they are. It encourages outrage culture and the censorship that follows that movement. It's a lazy tool for certain types of journalists.
There's so many more constructive things to do than use social media. Delete your accounts, wait a month for any addictive urges to pass and enjoy life again.
She gets some more attention for calling attention to this, and increases our collective cynicism a little more (and rightly so).
It's tempting to call this a victimless crime, but it's really not. The victims are those who are actually outraged, often by actually outrageous things, like US police taking people's money, beating them up, and killing them. Or by regulatory capture in energy and banking. Or by US foreign policy hypocrisy. Or any number of other things.
Honestly, if there was some way for me to fine media outlets in general and specific authors in particular for this behavior, I would do it. It is wrong to shovel shit into people's minds especially if you have an official "press" designation. You've violated trust, and if the media doesn't police itself, then the media itself is going to be replaced with something that does.
Also journalism = marketing now. Headlines, scoops, shocking videos...
Close down Twitter, the 140 characters are exactly enough why those things get blown out of proportion. Also why ADD "journalists" adore Twitter.
"Is the world more easily outraged than it used to be? I dont think so, but then again, theres no real way to tell."
Presumably one could go build google N-gram timeseries plots for various n-grams associated with what the article calls "outrage culture" and then look for big bumps in the curve.
I'm not close enough to the phenomenon to guess the correct buzzwords. Maybe "problematic" or "offensive"?
Some fairly weak logic.
The internet means information travels faster than ever before, but also inadvertently causes "interesting things" to outpace "the truth".
Properties like Upworthy/Buzzfeed/ect. exacerbate this. Von D is right not to capitulate.
2) Craft tweets that are likely to be picked up
3) Sit back and enjoy (for extra credit, mail predictions about the news to someone in a sealed envelope)
And now for my less civil and less thoughtful rant:
This is why I think journalism and media is one of the biggest thing that's turning the world to shit. The key observation from the article:
> 3. The narrative told by the media in step 2 is considered reality.
Every time they lie - and they lie often, regardless whether you want to call it "bias" or "agenda", it's done on purpose; you can't not notice that level of intellectual dishonesty - every time they lie, people believe them. And no, lying in headline and "correcting" it in the middle of the article doesn't cut it, almost nobody reads the damn article. People go on believing what they read, and then they demand changes accordingly, and then they vote accordingly, and stupid policies get instituted and people get hurt.
As the good old LW quote goes, "Promoting less than maximally accurate beliefs is an act of sabotage. Don't do it to anyone unless you'd also slash their tires." Except in case of media it's really sabotage. It can take your job, your career or your home at a whim. It changes national and international policies.
Take Europe and the immigration crisis. You know what's actually the problem there? It's not just immigrants, and it's not just xenophobia. It's media feeding off each other, causing outrage after outrage, overblowing the issue to the point of turning half of otherwise sane people into aggressive xenophobes, and the other half into high-horse riding apologists.
I tend to get strange looks when I say there's a problem with media, because Free Media is obviously a Key Element to the Democratic Process (and Democratic = Good). But you know what also is free to do whatever the fuck it wants? Cancer. And it doesn't end well for the host organism. So maybe we need to reevaluate what do we really gain from having this feedback loop running unchecked.
I'm not saying, get rid of media. I ask only one thing, I ask it from editors and from journalists: have some fucking integrity. Don't publish blatant lies.
And yes, I know that's in a way not your fault, Moloch - "the abstracted spirit of discoordination and flailing response to incentives" - publishes whatever he wants. But if you want to stand up to him, I'm willing to join. I'd be happy to pay for a news source whose primary goal would be to present facts and just facts, the way they are. No spin, no lies, no reporting scientific papers as if they proved the opposite of what they actually do - just the raw truth.
Another thing. It used to be that the best way to filter out lies and propaganda was to run articles through Reddit and/or Hacker News - lots of people with random biases, combined with quite a good chance of there being a person directly involved with the thing described, was usually enough to sanitize the news story. But I'm worried this is slowly stopping to work too. Outrage is exactly what's eating us. I've seen too many times HN jumping to conclusions. Hell, I've personally been guilty of this myself far more than I'm willing to admit. And don't even get me started on Reddit.
 - http://lesswrong.com/lw/uy/dark_side_epistemology/
We are the angry mob We read the papers everyday We like who we like, we hate who we hate But we're also easily swayed
Also, if you get offended by "underage red", maybe your mind is dirty is a bit weird defense. What is the name meant to imply?
And finally, if we should be outraged by anything isn't underage red better than war on christmas?
I don't follow this line of reasoning. Let's say the same media often create a fake sexism/ism scandal out of something innocent or unrelated. Can we conclude that sexism/ism is not a problem anymore?
Aren't safe-spaces real? Is this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QqgNcktbSA staged? I don't remember things like that from my university years.
This used to give me a dangerously false sense of optimism - that the modern society is a stable scientific one, where good intelligent people are in charge, and that the state of affairs are always improving. This notion partly came from the privilege of never having lived in a war-zone. The life of chaos of those who are unfortunate to be in one is even now beyond my understanding.
I think that the idea that humanity is always marching forward to better days is something implicit among people who live in peaceful affluent societies. But if you look at history, the world has always gone through cycles. No matter how much we improve socially, a regression seems almost inevitable. The Roman Empire did fall, and was followed by the Dark Ages.
Even in the most democratic countries of the world, fascism is only just around the corner. There is a large chunk of society who're easily swayed by purely emotional rhetoric based on in-groups and out-groups, and likes to follow leaders who make a show of macho masculinity. The status-quo is pretty fragile. The nerds aren't safe. Those with warrior tendencies always have upper-hand over those with nation-building tendencies, and that reads like a tautology.
"The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt."
"A hundred years ago the philosophical radicals formed a school of intelligent men who were just as sure of themselves as the Hitlerites are"
The Great Depression of 1929 struck America hard but Weimar Germany much harder. Incremental changes and hard work did not produce improvements. Life was uncertain and critical amount of people felt that life was unfair to them. They were ready to try stupid and unorthodox.
I find it unlikely that radical and stupid ideas alone can rock liberal democracies. They are always present. What is needed is personal uncertainty and fear of the future that resonates with the society.
Aside here is an interesting article regarding this > https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/russia-great-for...
Well all was not perfect even there - just a couple of years later all Japanese were "wholesale imprisoned".
Among other things, such as having a false impression of what else is possibly going on, one might be inclined to dismiss the problem too easily.
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt. Even those of the intelligent who believe that they have a nostrum are too individualistic to combine with other intelligent men from whom they differ on minor points.
Around the same time (1930), Sigmund Freud articulated the concept of "the narcissism of small differences" in his book Civilization and its Discontents, a concept that is endlessly useful in understanding how otherwise like-minded people tend to tear themselves apart. A related concept in software development is "bikeshedding".
In my experience bullying and persecution are very often more about fear and insecurity. If you're persecuting and blaming someone else, you're not being persecuted and blamed yourself. It's a way to deflect hostility and responsibility away from yourself and on to other people. It seems to me most of the people Russel was writing about may not even have been going along with the mainstream because they genuinely thought Jews, Communists etc were a real threat, but because if everyone is having a go at them they're not having a go at me. If I join in then I become one of the team and can buy safety and security for myself that way. In the uncertain and dangerous times Germany had been through, any route to personal security and safety must have looked very attractive.
How is this relevant today? Clearly Putin is using this sort of response to great effect by using conflict and rivalry with foreigners to deflect criticism away from his abysmal record at actually achieving anything of value for the Russian people. Even having a Russian jet shot down by Turkey plays to his advantage in that respect.
For us the question is, how to treat Muslim minorities in the West, and what to do about the Syrian refugee crisis. The refugees didn't create this crisis and are the primary victims. The vast majority of Muslims in the west are against ISIS and deplore it's tactics. But blaming 'The Muslims' for all of this and using excuses such as that terrorists will infiltrate the west disguised as refugees are blinkered and cowardly. What are we going to do? Drive millions of refugees back into the Mediterranean sea?
It's going to take determination and perseverance to do the right thing. Take as many refugees as we can. Build bridges with Muslim communities in the West. Confront IS and it's backers militarily and economically. There will be further attacks. Integrating so many refugees is going to be expensive, hard work and there are going to be negative consequences and mistakes made. It's not going o go smoothly. But we still have to do it not because we are 'Intelligent' but because we have courage.
Let's consider this part:
"A hundred years ago the philosophical radicals formed a school of intelligent men who were just as sure of themselves as the Hitlerites are; the result was that they dominated politics and that the world advanced rapidly both in intelligence and in material well-being."
Another example of this is neo-liberal capitalism: from Hayek  and his disciple, Friedman , to myriad think tanks, Reagan and Thatcher, SCOTUS (eg Powell ), etc. We're still living with the outcome of a generation of intelligent, organized, ambitious people united by a [flawed] ideology.
 Hayek - "The Road to Serfdom" http://amzn.to/1PRWyDj Friedman - "Free to Choose" http://amzn.to/1QKIewt Powell - "Attack on American Free Enterprise System" http://bit.ly/1Q2bHR7
Russell here is making the same mistake as most people today. It wasn't the "Germans collectively", it was the German government, tolerated by a mostly ignorant population with a few "hawks" to show support for the government action.
Contrary to the top post here right now, this is the same thing happening in the US right now. The government bombs another country every 1-2 years and people let it happen. We're still in appeasement times but the state already gradually disrespects individual liberties and soon America will become a collective much like the one described in the article.
The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre The falcon cannot hear the falconer; Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world, The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere The ceremony of innocence is drowned; The best lack all conviction, while the worst Are full of passionate intensity. Surely some revelation is at hand; Surely the Second Coming is at hand. The Second Coming! Hardly are those words out When a vast image out of Spiritus Mundi Troubles my sight: somewhere in sands of the desert A shape with lion body and the head of a man, A gaze blank and pitiless as the sun, Is moving its slow thighs, while all about it Reel shadows of the indignant desert birds. The darkness drops again; but now I know That twenty centuries of stony sleep Were vexed to nightmare by a rocking cradle, And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
"What we may be witnessing is not just the end of the Cold War, or the passing of a particular period of post-war history, but the end of history as such: that is, the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalization of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government."
It was Hume and Kant who injected skepticism back into Western thought and are responsible for empowering the stupid, including the Nazis. If you know the cause of your plight then you can fix the effect.
It would be interesting if people reading this would say here which country they associated Germany to. I suppose almost all the countries will be on the list.
So an interesting question would be which country you associated the US in the essay to?
Now go figure who was the most prescient of the two.
reminds of current US foreign policy.
^ The terrorism of armed forces part is particularly important. We tend to think that terrorism is something crazy non-state actors do in religious or delusional fervor, but it is really just the use of violence to achieve certain political ends. This is precisely what the American army started doing around the world after World War II. If you include psychological manipulation with it as well, as recently evidence by the disclosure that the DOD was paying NFL to propagandize during games, we get a very concerning picture of the role of the US military in today's world and in the US itself.
In this gloomy state of affairs, the brightest spot is America. In America democracy still appears well established, and the men in power deal with what is amiss by constructive measures, not by pogroms and wholesale imprisonment.
^ How dated that sounds. Wonder what Russell would say about the America of today, with the oligarchy entrenching itself to replace a democracy, a wide-scale militarization of the police, a pogrom against Muslims in some southern states, the wholesale imprisonment of African Americans, and the popularity of near-fascist leaders like Donald Trump.
More countries are participating in the global conversation than ever before.
Enhancements in security and privacy are evident and improving (albeit slowly).
The internet is becoming a lot less like TV and will continue to do so. People care more about commenting and creating content. They care about participating more than they ever did and this is increasing. In fact, this is a problem because the quality of participation is diminishing as EVERYONE jumps in.
Existing power structures are not being retained. As the internet enters the equation new laws are being put into place. Look at Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb. The only difference in how they are regulated is basically because they are internet oriented.
Yes we still have work. Infrastructure is still a big issue. If we want to reduce centralization, we need better infrastructure and equal access to it. That one is very political.
We got this ;) Stay vigilant friends.
In order to keep the corruption away, or maybe even limit it, all of us and our coworkers would have to start risking their livelihoods by torpedoing the insane ideas our managers and bosses have. I tried, and it's hard, and unless it's a collective action your boss won't listen to a lone techie telling him that this business idea of his is actually socially destructive and is abusing the users.
And that even doesn't begin to solve the problems of techies who went over to the dark side, who have both the profit-at-all-costs mindset and skills to pull it off.
This isn't a change from the current state of things. For a hundred years, each of these decisions have been made by neural networks which we scarcely understand.
As long as you can read Stormfront's White Pride World Wide , censorship isn't working.
Facebook is not the Internet, even if Zuckerberg would like it to be.
 http://www.clarionproject.org/docs/islamic-state-isis-isil-d... https://www.stormfront.org
It never ceases to amaze me the amount of leverage software engineers already have, as evidenced by the wages and benefits that are standard in this industry, that we nevertheless refuse to use to try to exert some control over what we are building.
She talks about right to tinker and end-to-end communications. Back in the 90s, I played with HTTP and SMTP services on my Mac. It was just install a program and go. No root permissions for special ports. No configuring port forwarding, because even on dial-up I had a global IP address. And HTTP was a simple text protocol. Network protocols these days are so complex, I don't know how kids learn how they work.
One essential component is IPv6. I perceived that centralized control would be a problem as soon as I heard about how NAT works, but short-term costs have kept IPv6 inaccessible. This is an immense frustration.
When normal folks start having personal servers at their home, and have all their traffic and data fully encrypted on their personal server which is in their turf, they will have the freedom to act as they like.
The problem with these two hurdles is infrastructure (being ISP dependent) and regulation (Government can make up rules for personal servers) - if we can get past those, oh my it will be wonderful. But I don't think it will be possible until someone forms a "Digital Country" - a territory with 'open source' government with some sort of 'digital rights constitution' that would allow the above to really happen.
Seriously, what's the deal with these poor quality posts and why do they float so high in the Hacker News rankings?
Aside: The same can be said for posts linking to theguardian lately.
The internet dream is far from dead. Despite numerous setbacks surrounding lack of security/privacy, new standards/practices are being introduced to fix the issues.
The whole personal computer ecosystem that used to be dominated by vendor-monopolized platforms have continually become more open and flexible over time.
The flexibility to share data and services across the web in a standardized manner has never been better. 10 years ago, tools like Zapier that thrive in the ecosystem of openness never would have been possible. There are public APIs and microservices for anything and everything nowadays.
The developer tools and platforms are evolving at an ever-increasing rate. Data silos are crumbling. Patent/copyright trolls are getting paid their due. Sources of very high quality educational materials are abundant and free. etc...
We live in truly exceptional times.
Then with increased monopoly and commercialization, the ISP's shut down, and Verizon and AT&T gained a duopoly over the majority of the US's wired and wireless last mile. With this accomplished, they shut down their Usenet feeds.
A programmer I know calls it digging ditches with air conditioning. Programmers are wage slaves, just a slightly more exalted position than the people who come in at night to empty the waste baskets.
Beyond that encryption, etc has allowed us more freedom.
The story of internet centralization is one of network effects. Even though the internet connects every computer on the planet directly, finding people to interact in the ways we want is difficult. We post things to Facebook and Twitter because that's where our friends and like-minded strangers are actually looking for things.
To fight this, we tried federation. We tried building social systems that allowed people to choose their own provider but participate in the same network, but federation hasn't worked since email. If you take a long look at email, you'll see why: federated systems can't keep up with the pace of evolution that we see in successful social systems. The design-test-iterate loop that design thinkers use to build products people want doesn't work when the rest of the federated providers don't keep up, and they never do.
Where federation failed, I believe decentralization will succeed. There is an honest-to-god renaissance happening right now in decentralized systems, and the tools to continue the internet dream are reaching maturity. Core to this renaissance is our new ability to use blockchains to establish universal cryptographic identities with no intermediaryno federated server to hold back the tide of progress. When you want new features, you don't switch servers, you switch clients. They all speak the same peer-to-peer protocol using the same portable, blockchain-based identities. This has a very useful side-effect: systems that don't rely on servers never shut down as long as people keep using them. Decentralized systems are forces of nature.
This combination makes network effects a public good. Second place companies in network effect industries today have their own private networks that just aren't as useful. It is in their best interest to make their networks as large as possible, and treating the decentralized network as part or all of their network achieves that. It creates a network used by all the competitors who aren't in first place, even as those competitors die off. I think the immortal network used by competitors will over time become as large as the front-runner's. At equal size, the open network is more valuable than the closed onethe open one can be built wholesale into any other product that benefits from it. If you want, you can use a ride-hailing app that uses your social network connections to share rides with friends of friends instead of complete strangers, and anyone can build that app when the ride-hailing and social networks are decentralized.
When our industry gets great at creating decentralized application protocols, it will no longer be feasible to build a business on privately controlled network effects. It's not a defensible business anymore. Users will be able to choose which clients they use instead of being forced to sacrifice their data to a company to benefit from its network.
The internet dream is back, y'all. If you want to help rebuild it, come join the folks using Ethereum, IPFS, and related protocols to build networks we can't control.
Hence what? In France prison population is 96.5% male. Does it prove sexism? That's it, I quit reading women, they can't write without pulling the cover to themselves.
As sosuke mentions in another comment, possible alternative mesh networks might regain some freedom and flexibility but we will all be vulnerable to embedded IoT technology that tracks us and because of laws prohibiting looking at embedded code (assuming this happens) it will be difficult for white hat privacy advocates to check the information shared out by these devices. Cars, home appliances, electronic gadgets - a lot of areas that might leak privacy.
Another interesting site here is http://citizenlab.org/ and the idea of 'distributed security' they champion.
I'd love to read more I guess.
The ones that are often written about are Wyden (D), Rand Paul (R), Amash (R), Massie (R), any others?
But we can go a different route. Would love to see mesh technologies get dirt cheep so we could stick nodes everywhere. Develop a new internet such that nobody would be in control.
In a strange twist on things, where in the traditional body-politic one says, "It's the economy stupid", in Internet-politics it's actually the politics. Who participates. What are the power relations. Who makes the laws or enforces the norms. I think this is because, where as in traditional economies money and goods are scarce and so we must have a healthy economy to eat and have shelter, in the information economy scarcity is fast becoming a thing of the past and so a democracy is being replaced by a do-ocracy. Whoever builds it, makes the rules. The law is always two steps behind. So as corporations and governments increasingly hire and direct all the professionals and bureaucrats that produce the Internet, it is created in their likeness or in their interest. So participation, power dynamics, and participant empowerment become foundational.
Unfortunately, the tech industry often superficially dismisses traditional politics. When it does engage it often claims the ideology of libertarian or plays the part of technocrat, seeking purely utilitarian approaches. Libertarianism, you'll please forgive me for phrasing it this way, is rather sophomoric. It's rather like that guy in college that had the Che Guevara t-shirt, but really didn't know what it was all about. Like it or not, we're in a highly coordinated, interconnected, interdependent society, and just as fully realized communism was a very romantic notion but would never get the job done, libertarianism just won't get the job done. We need each other, and we need participation from each other. And this is, in a nutshell, a political issue. Technological, disruptive, efficient "solutions" will not solve this problem. Or worse, the tech industry might engage purely to satisfy its commercial interests. Think about the idea that, a start-up creates a product, and then hires lawyers to "legalize it". Then the start-up claims that it is libertarian or not participating in politics.
We need the equivalent of "The Federalist Papers" for our time. Something contemporary, but grounded in history. Something academic, but pragmatic. Something plain spoken, but inspiring. Instead, we've created the TPP.
First off, there's always a tendency to overplay the negative aspects of the present while dismissing the positive aspects and to treat the past with excess nostalgia.
Moreover, it's very difficult for most people to grasp the significance and degree of major changes in society, culture, and the economy on short time scales while immersed in it.
I've been using the internet for more than 20 years and while there are certainly many negative developments that have happened along the way there have also been many positive ones. I would not at all characterize the modern internet as heading toward less freedom, not at all. My impression is that far more people are far more aware of issues of injustice and oppression today than was previously the case. It used to be that only a tiny sliver of "radicals" were really clued into those issues, and many of them also adhered to one or another nonsensical conspiracy theory to boot, which weakened their cases when it came to appealing to the modern world. Today I see growing kernels of increasingly less marginalized and increasingly more powerful people who have been educating themselves, participating in the conversation, and speaking out.
No it's not perfect, and it's not happening absent a lot of the revelation of lots of repugnant behavior. And it's also happening seemingly very, very slowly. But my perception is that the trend is for the most part in the right direction and strong. Giving up is the only sure way to lose at this point.
The bulk of this article seems to be completely out of touch with the way people have been using the internet, especially younger people. It's not becoming more TV-like, it's becoming more interactive and participatory. It's not retaining existing power structures. That only appears to be the case when you look at bullshit measurements based on bogus statistics like paper valuations and user counts. The reality is that the real power is in the people. In the content creators, in the groups, in the social networks themselves. The value layered on top of that or spread in-between to facilitate it is fragile and small by comparison. It's the same as in Silicon Valley. Having a billion dollar valuation doesn't mean your company is powerful or secure any more than having a billion users does. And it doesn't.
I predict that within the next 5 or perhaps 10 years there will be another great shift and "implosion" of one of the current major "internet powers". Perhaps facebook, or youtube, perhaps even google or amazon. I don't think people understand the mobility of the modern technological market. You do not own users or customers, you retain them through superior service. It will probably shock people who vulnerable these mega-corps are to disruption, and once one of these big shifts happens once you are going to see a crapton of bloviation from the chattering classes about how absolutely unpredictable and ground-breaking the whole thing is, but it means nothing more than that they haven't been paying attention.
Why are there so few male manicures? Why so few male babysitters? Why so few female NASCAR drivers? Why so few female in the army? Why so few male in the wedding dress business?
We MUST to do something about this! People of a certain gender cannot prefer some activities over others!
This is ridiculous.
I mean nothing against the author and like-minded individuals and I have the utmost respect for people with such a "tinkerer" mindset, but often reading things like this on Hacker News makes me feel like a bit of a fraud, because my internal answer to the question above is basically "No, not really". I'm wondering if others feel the same way. Does it make me less of a "hacker"? I enjoy programming, sometimes I wonder how things work, but oftentimes I don't mind that it is abstracted from me and "just works", and I rarely if ever have the urge to integrate two seemingly unrelated things to create a unique hack.
I have a raspberry pi controlled cat feeder I built and have been playing around with the last couple of weeks as a side project. I showed this to my wife and she said "Oh so can you make it so I can feed that cats while playing minecraft?" LOL
Somewhat unfortunately, it hasn't been updated since 2012 and lacks a lot of features of the Pocket or PC version.
In all seriousness. As networking structures become more modular, it might not be a bad idea to have systems where the architecture can be modeled and monitored visually.
I have come across presentations of some custom/proprietary systems that provide interesting visualizations of networking interactions. It would be awesome to see a generalized platform implementation.
If you are interested in what you can do for the climate, we need all the help we can get. Our code may not be the epitome of hygiene (think decades-old python with docstrings that haven't been touched in that long), but in the time I've been here we've gotten loads better. All of our code lives on github ( and ), we have way more funding than we know what to do with, and we have more work to do than people to do it.
If you're interested, shoot me an email (in my profile). I'm still hunting for the job application link.
EDIT: Job link found! http://careers-ext.llnl.gov/jobs/4494026-software-developers... Don't worry about all of the skills listed, it's a generic one. Feel free to shoot me an email if you have any questions.
: https://www.llnl.gov: http://climatemodeling.science.energy.gov/projects/accelerat...: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_for_Climate_Model_Diag...: https://github.com/ESGF: https://github.com/UV-CDAT
Most of the companies were here in the Netherlands, one was in the USA. I applied to them all, and got 3 interviews. I ended up choosing a utility startup called Vandebron based in Amsterdam.
Vandebron (https://vandebron.nl/) means "from the source" in Dutch. They're an AirBNB-style marketplace for renewable energy. Customers choose the supplier ("generator") they want to buy their energy from. They're growing quickly!
I've been there a little less than 3 weeks, and I feel like it's the best career decision I've ever made. I've never felt so motivated before. I encourage anyone wanting to join the effort against climate change to dig deep. Find the company you think will make the most impact. Get yourself in the door. Most companies are happy to find talented IT people.
Our Software engineering team specifically works on improving efficiency of our sales workflow, geo spatial systems that support our installation crew, grid systems that monitor and work with the grid, and providing the best experience for our customers.
I'm happy to talk to anyone who is interested in joining us. Shoot me an email at email@example.com
Our career's page: http://solar.solarcity.com/careers/software-engineering/
I compare Ruby and Haskell, as that's what I have experience with; but I expect it to hold true for any Ruby/Python/Java/etc vs C/C++/Haskell/Go/Rust/etc shootout.
Just some typical numbers:
Disk space to house one app deployment: 800MB Ruby/Rails vs 80MB Haskell/Yesod.Memory consumption of one instance: 350MB Ruby/Rails vs <1MB Haskell/Yesod.Time (CPU bound) needed for a request: 80ms Ruby/Rails vs 8ms Haskell/Yesod.Startup time of app: 30sec Ruby/Rails vs <1sec Haskell/Yesod.
Especially for large scale apps this makes a difference. Just through metal at it, is not a sustainable answer. The Googles and FBs know this; and they compile a lot.
I think going compiled is going green with your software in many cases; especially on scale.
Giving people the tools to properly manage a remote team (including non-experts that are unaccustomed to remoting) is something we can do and that will take commuters off the roads.
That said, anything that doesn't discuss the global shipping industry (or more abstractly, emissions due to globalized trade), nuclear power, and solutions for developing countries* is missing more than half of the discussion (I'd personally argue it's almost missing the entire forest for a couple of trees). I'd be very careful to follow any conclusions or suggestions that don't factor any of that in.
* This is the biggest annoyance for me when climate change is discussed in general. Moving the US and other developed countries to clean/renewable energy is mostly a matter of time and money. But developing countries like, say, India, have neither the money, infrastructure, or time to do so (not even broaching the fact that some don't even have the human rights framework to maintain an environmentally sustainable economy). Furthermore there's a moral issue, in that US/China led development essentially set the stage for global climate change. Is it morally acceptable to punish developing countries for following the same route? Fossil fuels are essentially the only way these companies can begin to compete... and after all it's the developed countries that took us, at a dead sprint, to the edge of the cliff.
It's an information problem because we base much of our behavior on feedback loops. When we get a big electricity bill, we take a closer look and perhaps rely less on our heaters or air-conditioner. When we see the odometer on our car hitting big numbers too soon (and repair bills looming), perhaps we look into a job closer to home. There's thousands of examples, many of which have an impact our our environment.
So if we focused on developing a tool whose sole purpose was to give us quantified feedback on the consequences of our actions - much like how we use utility bills - we might be able to make a real dent in the big problem of climate change and others like it. We already have the pieces for a tool like this (Internet, computers everywhere, software libraries) along with the skills of technologists, so what's needed is the vision and the demand.
I recently wrote these ideas in long form: (https://medium.com/@SteveHazel/we-re-drowning-in-low-quality...)
One recommendation, at your earliest convenience do something about this:
> I didnt mention nuclear because I dont know much about it.
While that's going on, lobbying for a carbon tax would be a great way to lower emissions from industrial or other sources.
This is an amazing presentation and I've loved Bret Victor's other presentations but, and I'm making an assumption here, I kind of assume he's rich or at least financially independent given where he's worked and when he worked there. Assuming I'm right I find it a little hard to listen to the advice which sometimes sounds like "Consider saving the planet but with a high possibility of a financially challenged life. I've already made my money so I'm free to give you this advice in comfort and security".
Of course that doesn't mean you can't get rich following one of these solutions. It also doesn't mean that money = happiness or anything like that. It's only this nagging feeling that the reader is being asked to sacrifice something the author themselves has not and that the author has forgotten where they are in their lives relative to most of the people they are asking.
If I knew all my financial needs (health care, retirement, family) were already well met I'd have less trouble dedicating my time to worthy causes like say Bill Gates apparently is. But, I'm not there yet. I do have to worry how I will retire, how much I'll need to spent on healthcare as I age, etc... Sure I can still make the decision to chase financial independence or chase worthy causes but it's just, I guess maybe the word is frustrating, to be asked to make that choice but someone who I assume doesn't need to choose. They've already achieved financial Independence and therefore the choice is far easier. (maybe one more reason for basic income).
I'm also aware it sounds stupid to even bring this topic up. There's all kinds of ways to frame this and ignore the part of it I just mentioned. But, for whatever reason I can't ignore it. I guess because I've seen my father too old to get an engineering job he's qualified for and too poor to retire.
(2) Political economy is a much bigger issue right now than technology. Most of what we need to do is deploy, and the tech we have is good enough for that.
(3) Low-hanging fruit for self-identified "Technologists" is to reconsider some of the blind spots caused by their social identities. David Roberts explains:
I'm looking forward to the hours it will take me to work through this web page and its hyperlinks.
Well that was awkward transition.
It may also help you become a more effective & well rounded technologist.
I would change that to say, "Climate change is a problem that will always be 50 years away".
I'm sorry, but wind kites or wind blimps aren't going to substantially affect carbon emissions.
I am not a fan of the idea of lithium or current tech batteries being stacked in mass. I just think that there would be bigger environmental concerns long term with these as servicing is a big issue.
Still as a technologist two things.First never consider the science of the climate as settled. As soon as you do you close so many doors in your own mind that you will hamper yourself.Second realize the one big area we are truly short on isn't the technology but the people who can service it. From electricians, hydraulic engineers, and mechanical. Get people interested in those careers too. For many who might not have the technical chops to create such systems many more are far more capable of maintaining them
He looks at it as an engineer, using generally-accepted data. His conclusion is that the alarmists are wrong.
Check out http://BeakerNotebook.com and especially https://pub.beakernotebook.com/#/publications
The final step of making authoring and execution work in the cloud is still under development...
Haven't read it all yet and forgive me if I'm repeating what's already mentioned there, but I would also add the following..
I think that climate change is the consequence of people doing too much X.One way to curb it would be for people to do less X or do (more) Y instead. No governments, no grants, you and me - the people, aka users.
But that involves changing the people's behaviour, which is very hard. Or is it ? Well, advertising works quite well and we've become very good at manipulating and determining people to do (buy) all kinds of things.
What if we used all that ad tech and all that exposure that tech corporations have and implement a global 'climate change' propaganda ?
This can be done starting tomorrow.
Microsoft Windows popping up an alert "Do you really need all your lights on in your house ?"
Facebook wall containing ads encouraging people to be less wasteful, respect nature and think about the future (we can do incredibly cool ads nowadays!).
iPhones displaying "plant a tree !" on the home screen with the button to actually schedule it in the calendar.
Google search returning a 'sponsored' link to climate-healing projects ...
There's so much, we, the tech people working at the big corps can do today .. We don't need startups for that, we already have most of the eyeballs of the planet in our operating systems, social networks or search engines.
It's a matter of delivering the right information and people will follow. We all want to do this, regardless of country or race or religion.
So, Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Apple , etc - why not allocate 1% of your UIs to fixing the climate ?
You can reach everyone on the planet and we are ready to do it, just give us some pointers, remind us to do the good stuff and we will, because that's how advertising works !
I'd happily discuss this more, so let me know if anyone's interested ;).
Let's figure out how to build electronics & devices in a manner that enables systemic recycling and has more reasonable power costs. As it is, we just bury our old tech under a pile of trash and go mine some more. That is not a sustainable or in my opinion, sane, practice.
Swing for the fences since we need the homerun.
You need a long planning horizon. Be prepared to spend decades for the problems that matter.
Z-Wave already has ADR (Automated Demand Response) capabilities. http://z-wavealliance.org/energy-management/
So the protocol (OpenADR2.0a) is defined, the messaging is available (from a DRAS), and the consumer client is listening (Z-Wave). We just need more appliances to build ADR integrations to Z-Wave.
Technologists have a hard time being employed past a certain expiration date.
I don't know anything about creating vaccines or cures for malaria or HIV. I don't have a degree in social work or behavior science. I don't have any experience with economics outside of personal investment and filing my income tax paperwork each year. I don't have billions of dollars to fund a company to focus on these things.
I make a small salary relative to what's required for these things and have very limited knowledge.
I'm a programmer and a manager. So how do I contribute to these problems? How can I take the skills I have and get homeless people the help they need? How do I take my web development skills and reduce income inequality? How do I help stop the next Trayvon Martin incident?
I have no idea. This article goes into great detail about climate change, but I finished reading it and still have no idea. I don't even know where to start.
That truth is that the United States and its closest allies use about twice as much fossil fuel as the rest of the countries, and being able to continue that is completely dependent upon a massive military campaign that stretches thinner as the years go by.
Technologists can work on education and preventing the spread of war propaganda, which is rampant in Western television and media. Notice how the terrorists always seem to be loudly explaining which currently most strategic middle east country they come from.
If you want to believe the main problem is just that 'da earf is melting' or climate change or whatever, the root of the problem is still fossil fuel dependency.
The massive amount of fuel used for moving 3,000 pound vehicles to and from offices everyday, for work that probably 75% or more can be done over the internet with Skype or whatever, is the most obvious low-hanging fruit.
Another thing is, as the dollar hegemony fades, what replaces it, and what sort of conflict arises during that transition? Something like bitcoin might be a good alternative to WWIII.
We can also look toward alternative technological frameworks for society that support decentralization. Named-data networking, IPFS, Ethereum, etc.
Suburbia is a prime target for reform. Here is my idea: https://runvnc.github.io/tinyvillage/
UPD: Lovely stockpile of relevant information though. But I have a better one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FfeytbHBPFM. Snows always melt. Look at glaciology data, dudes!
The way nginx handles requests and responses in an implicit event loop reminds me of a recent talk by Brian Kernighan, in which he mentions the ubiquity of the patternaction model in many domains. I think its a very useful architectural pattern to have in mind when youre designing a configuration system or a DSL.
I also liked this quote:
> it is worth avoiding the dilution of development efforts on something that is neither the developers core competence or the target application.
I would like to mention agentzh and his team that did an amazing job in releasing OpenResty which makes it easy to extend nginx with custom Lua functionality, which also happens to be the backbone of CloudFlare architecture, and the core technology being used by projects like Kong when it comes to microservices management.
FTA: In February 2012, the Apache 2.4.x branch was released to the public. Although this latest release of Apache has added new multi-processing core modules and new proxy modules aimed at enhancing scalability and performance, it's too soon to tell if its performance, concurrency and resource utilization are now on par with, or better than, pure event-driven web servers. It would be very nice to see Apache application servers scale better with the new version, though, as it could potentially alleviate bottlenecks on the backend side which still often remain unsolved in typical nginx-plus-Apache web configurations.
I'm using Apache 2.4 with mpm_event + mod_proxy_fcgid and it's doing fine - 99% of the work and time spend is done in the FastCGI application anyway and for static content mpm_event is good enough. I wouldn't run a dedicated static CDN box on Apache but for everything that can run on a single server Apache can also do the job... even HTTP/2 with mod_h2 works fine as of 2.4.17
A problem with nginx is to figure out what matches in a complex config... it's not straightforward. .htaccess is nice and simple for a shared server with lot's of users.
I really like nginx but I guess most people just don't really need it. Migrating to 2.4 and mpm_event should be good enough.
Just for anyone interested: https://www.hiawatha-webserver.org/
The dev doesn't do much advertising, so word of mouth on a place like HN really helps.
That's not really correct:
Nginx makes it easier to handle a bunch of concurrent connections, but it's not as if Apache simply forks for each new connection.
When was this written? Is it still too soon to tell? 2.5 years seems like enough time to tell?
 http://grisha.org/blog/2013/11/07/mod-python-performance-rev... https://bitbucket.org/yarosla/nxweb/overview
The Internet has a much richer history and larger ecosystem than just the World Wide Web. The Internet started nearly six decades ago, the web has only been around for a bit more than two.
Delayed ACKs are a win only in certain circumstances - mostly character echo for Telnet. (When Berkeley installed delayed ACKs, they were doing a lot of Telnet from terminal concentrators in student terminal rooms to host VAX machines doing the work. For that particular situation, it made sense.) The delayed ACK timer is scaled to expected human response time. A delayed ACK is a bet that the other end will reply to what you just sent almost immediately. Except for some RPC protocols, this is unlikely. So the ACK delay mechanism loses the bet, over and over, delaying the ACK, waiting for a packet on which the ACK can be piggybacked, not getting it, and then sending the ACK, delayed. There's nothing in TCP to automatically turn this off. However, Linux (and I think Windows) now have a TCP_QUICKACK socket option. Turn that on unless you have a very unusual application.
Turning on TCP_NODELAY has similar effects, but can make throughput worse for small writes. If you write a loop which sends just a few bytes (worst case, one byte) to a socket with "write()", and the Nagle algorithm is disabled with TCP_NODELAY, each write becomes one IP packet. This increases traffic by a factor of 40, with IP and TCP headers for each payload. Tinygram prevention won't let you send a second packet if you have one in flight, unless you have enough data to fill the maximum sized packet. It accumulates bytes for one round trip time, then sends everything in the queue. That's almost always what you want. If you have TCP_NODELAY set, you need to be much more aware of buffering and flushing issues.
None of this matters for bulk one-way transfers, which is most HTTP today. (I've never looked at the impact of this on the SSL handshake, where it might matter.)
Short version: set TCP_QUICKACK. If you find a case where that makes things worse, let me know.
OTOH bottom up thinkers take much longer to become productive in an environment with novel abstractions.
Swings and roundabouts. Top down is probably better in a startup context - it's more conducive to broad and shallow generalists. Bottom up is great when you have a breakdown of abstraction through the stack, or when you need a new solution that's never been done quite the same way before.
By setting TCP_NODELAY, they removed a series of 40ms delays, vastly improving performance of their web app.
(Alternatively, turn Nagle off entirely and buffer writes manually or using MSG_MORE or TCP_CORK.)
For all I know, they believe everything is kept together with the help of magic. I guess I don't trust people who don't have a natural urge to understand at least the most basic things of our foundations.
One thing I haven't understood fully is that this only seems to be a problem on Linux, Mac OS X didn't exhibit this behaviour.
Is this really true? In Lazard's 2014 comparison of total cost per MWh, both wind and solar beat coal and nuclear . Costs have fallen so much that it's becoming hard to justify continued subsidies .
If they said it was going to take 2 years and 1 billion dollars and it stretched out to 3 years and $1.5 billion that is one thing.
Back in the 1970s it was more like 2 years stretches to 9 years and $15 billion and you could blame union workers who never did nuclear work before, the no nukes, high interest rates, etc.
The industry was supposed to come out with standardized reactor types like the EPR, and we have low interest rates, little active opposition to nuclear power, and projects like Olkiluoto-3 are still 9 years late.
Nobody is going to put up billions of dollars unless there is some predictability in terms of cost and schedule. The fear of Fukushima is just icing on that cake.
Kirk Sorensen at http://flibe-energy.com/ has some great talks about this. I highly recommend watching some of his content on youtube.
This is a good place to start: https://www.ted.com/talks/kirk_sorensen_thorium_an_alternati...
> Critics often point to the Chernobyl accident in the Soviet Union as an even more terrifying warning against nuclear power, but that accident was a direct result of both a faulty design and the operators incompetence. Fewer than 50 people were reported to have died at Chernobyl; by contrast, the American Lung Association estimates that smoke from coal-fired power plants kills about 13,000 people every year.
So on one hand you take the failure of a single nuclear plant, and count the direct, local deaths from that. On the other hand you take the sum of all coal-fired plants, and count the number of global, indirect deaths from them. OF COURSE the latter number is going to be bigger. The comparison is dishonest.
As regards solar and other "clean" alternatives, there exists vast potential for reducing daytime electric grid load by throwing a few panels on residential and office rooftops. Why don't more people do it? As the cost of panels plummets, the payoff time is decreasing and ROI over time is increasing.
A whole industry of solar panel leasing has sprung up, whereby residential home owners let an installer put in the panels for free, then pay a discounted electric rate. Not exactly like going off-grid, but it does have the same effect of reducing demand for coal/oil/gas generated power.
I'm envisioning future new home developments where every house comes with solar pre-installed. No decisions to make; the cost is baked in (so to speak) and you get a home that will incur minimal electric bills.
I don't see a government role in all of these initiatives, which are market driven. People want green energy these days; it's become a fad. Almost gone are the days when homeowners associations sue a member for putting "ugly" solar panels on his roof.
Is that not feasible?
If the world had the capacity to deliver one of the largest nuclear power plants ever built once a week, week in and week out, it would take 20 years to replace the current stock of coal-fired plants (at present, the world builds about three or four nuclear power plants a year, and retires old ones almost as quickly).
Morton goes on to make the case for considering geoengineering, and for ramping up research on it. I don't know that I can do justice to the argument in a short summary, but one key point is the extent to which we're already doing it in an unplanned way. We all know about all the carbon dioxide we're putting in the air, along with other greenhouse gases -- nitrous oxide, for example -- but there's also the massive amount of reactive nitrogen we're creating, mostly for fertilizer. We all know about the massive local environmental effects of burning coal, but there's also some evidence that coal smoke has a cooling effect; changing from coal to nuclear may actually worsen warming in the short run.
I was favorably disposed toward geoengineering before I got the book, so I can't claim to have been won over, but there was an awful lot I didn't know about it -- for example, how the various approaches would affect different regions of the globe differently, and how those effects could be adjusted to some extent, though not optimized for everyone simultaneously.
Again, I highly recommend it.
Nuclear technology's achille's heel is waste disposal. Sure, there are technical aspects to it, but it's mostly a problem in the political realm.
The Feds were supposed provide a disposal mechanism, but there's apparently no political will to do that any longer. Instead, we have nuclear waste piling up all over the place at facilities that were never meant to store it. As soon as we have a natural disaster at one of these facilities, it will be like fukushima all over again. Such a shame.
A quick calculation shows that if you only consider heating up our atmosphere and assume an entire switch of all our energy consumption to nuclear energy you end up with a temperature rise of 0.1 deg C per year. I know it is a worst-case scenario - energy will be stored in land/water as well, dissipation etc. - but still.
Compared to fossil fuels, the plus side is you do not produce any greenhouse gases. However, I'm unsure which contributes more to global warming, could well be the former is negligible. Would love to hear an expert on this.
Thiel is a self-described conservative libertarian.
I'm not terribly keen on living in a world where most of the countries in Africa, the Middle East etc. are able to build nuclear bombs.
EDIT: Would someone care to point out why that is not an valid option? Lack of technological viability? Lack of energy storage technology or capacity? Ideological resentment against a political over an economical driving force for the change?
Much smaller residential plots in suburban/urban areas, cut out commuting by 60 plus percent by using Skype etc. Move to much smaller single passenger electric vehicles (300 pounds instead of 3000).
Switch to high-tech (or low tech) efficient ultra-local food production, like potato bags on every roof, a tilapia farm on every corner. Solar on every roof, transparent VAWT on every roof. Solar roadways. Ground-source heat pump and net zero airtight ventilated homes. Wide deployment of residential energy storage.
We can literally make society 5-10 times more efficient.
On the other hand, new-tech nuclear looks very attractive. The argument gets circular, because new-tech nuclear is speculative. Lots of old-tech nuclear should get shut before we get another Fukushima. So despite the theoretical ability to scale up faster, does nuclear really have an advantage over renewables?
When a robber baron like Dale Carnegie wanted people to believe in his steel bridges, he staked his life and reputation and walked across the damned bridge.
Another major risk not mentioned by Mr. Thiel is a financial one, as it seems every nuclear project in the West at least has become a boondoggle. Even the project a few hours from my house - Plant Vogtle - where the state legislature generously transferred the financial risk to the taxpayers and customers - is behind schedule and over budget.
Until nuclear cheerleaders develop a taste for risk that will not be borne by others, maybe we should reduce consumption. If Las Vegas were to shut off 90% of its' outdoor lighting and fountain displays, would everyone there go blind and lose their enthusiasm to play slots? I doubt it. Just a thought.
Taylor Wilson's TED talk on low pressure, molten salt, modular reactors built as standardized modules with a scram / recycle pool underneath and made in a factory is one of the best ways to go. Smaller, isolated, modular setups limit failure risk compared to a single reactor having a big, explosive meltdown. The other one is thermal generation using chip-like technology with tiny amounts of radiological material isolated in individual "wells" making it safer, more efficient and scalable for many types of battery and generation use-cases.
I think we can do fission safer, cheaper and smarter, responsibly, but repeating the same failures by taking the same risks without learning from the past is inherently dumb.
Disclaimer: nuclear energy consultancy alum
Personally nuclear energy is dangerous because when it goes wrong the result is really bad.
And the source of error is infinite, human, software, design, terrorists, war, civil plane, drone ...
Nuclear energy is highly deficient, building nuclear plants uses much more energy and concrete (bad for the environment) and you have to store nuclear waste.
I know Thiel is a long term thinker, but maybe Kaynes view is also important.
To some people, that article is going to seem like nit-picking, and insofar as it affects most people, it may be.
But my feeling on reading this article is gratitude. Thanks for writing it.
It's good for Udemy. If their business practices end up costing some content creators 87.5% of list price, then it's because the evil and/or lazy forces in the company have gained ground, and this kind of sunshine may weaken them.
It's good for content creators.
It's good for consumers. As a potential customer of courses like yours, I was discouraged at seeing their incentivization of cheaper, spammier courses. Why? Because even if education is turned into a product, it's is still a "buy-it-for-life" product where quality matters, and quality is the only metric I (and probably many of Udemy's shoppers!) really care about. Anything that could result in less noise/spam in their signal is appreciated.
It'll be interesting to see how Udemy responds.
A buddy runs a pro recording studio and recommended Aphex Microphone X. I haven't looked back. Aphex makes amazing pro microphone preamps that are pricey. They launched something called Microphone X which has a compressor and a "big bottom" feature that were previously only in their high end pro gear. It's quite affordable - about $200 compared to an EV RE20 broadcaster mic for $600. It's a USB mic, so you don't need a preamp or digi interface. You just plug it into your computer and you're all set. I use it with a boom stand and pop filter. I love them so much I use them for everything including skype calls.
What this does is negate the changes in volume as you get closer or further from the mic (compressor). Add some nice radio bass to your voice with the big bottom effect. And generally give you a pro quality mic with a USB interface.
Here are all three:
Sure, purists will argue the EV20 is worth every penny. But pre's like the aphex have gotten so good that they've made the gains from a high-end source mic worth a lot less, if anything.
Maybe I'm in the wrong line of work.
Some comments on book publishers:
> A book publisher will happily give you better margins >
No. If, an author makes 5% royalties on their book sales they're really lucky! Mainstream publishers must make a cut, so they'll only fork out a tiny percentage of the profits, which is a tiny percentage of the wholesale price, which is 45% of the list price (standard wholesale discount).
So 12% royalties, is really like 4-5% of profits, and if the book is sold with extra discount, we're dropping into the 2-3% range.
> than that AND print you high quality hard cover books > while bending the world to sell it for you in the process.>
More no. They'll put the book in a few catalogues, and maybe make a flyer or two. No world bending stuff.
Heres the link to its source for those interested: https://github.com/0ad/0ad
The other game Hedgewars has a great haskell server, you can read a summary here with lnk to source: https://github.com/jwaterfaucett/awesome-foss-apps#hedgewars.
Anyway tip of the hat to O A.D devs they are doing a great job!
I loved the Age of Empires series, as well Empire Earth, C&C Generals. And building games like The Settlers, Anno 1602, Sim City.
0 A.D. is similar to Age of Empire/Mythology. Keep up the good work!
Another great RTS, with a strong focus on fun gameplay and modding, is Megaglest https://megaglest.org/
I kept getting my ass kicked by catapults though...
By the way, it seems to me that open source games don't have visible milestones. So one cannot notice when there's a good moment to download and play bug free game. Do you have same impression?
I think it was done just for fun. It is slightly concerning that a live equipment has such a joke enabled, but I'd say its fun-to-price ratio is relatively high.
I love that anyone's implemented it at all though, and I really hope it's deliberate on the part of the people who drop the packet.
This made it easier for manufacturers of IDS/IPS/UTM/NGFW equipment to quickly isolate false negatives during fully loaded tests.
I am more than happy to answer any questions. It has mostly been an academic project while I was doing during my undergrad, but I am now looking at continuing the project as part of a Ph.D. Of course, I would love to coordinate a broader development of this project. :)
You may also be interested in another project I and some lab mates have been working on over the last couple of years, IonDB: https://github.com/iondbproject/iondb.
EDIT: You might also be interested in the initial paper, which can be found here: https://people.ok.ubc.ca/rlawrenc/research/Papers/LittleD.pd...
I investigated query precompilation in another paper I am waiting to here back on, and once everything has been a little better tested, that code will get pushed out as well. :)
And seriously, if anybody is interested in contributing, I would love to have some help. Get in contact with me!
I understand programming in general and microcontrollers; I was paid to program one. Still, surely nowadays a system with a tiny 8-bit microcontroller is probably considered as auxillary to some kind of larger machine, which should be way better equipped to do the heavy lifting such as SQL databases?
While I applaud the effort, and it will certainly be useful for many people for many other reasons, I don't think IoT is the best use case here. If your data is at all valuable/useful, you don't want it sitting out somewhere on some device that will hopefully/maybe be online when you go to query it. Plus now just to be able to query it remotely you will still need to develop some sort of API that lives on the device that can talk to the LittleD database.
Finally if you really are doing 'IoT' you clearly have a bunch of things that you want to view/control from a centralized platform. When you have the devices talking to a server, you can do this. When you have to ask each device individually what is going on with it, this becomes much harder.
Love the name, too, haha.
Note: How much of a need is there for a SQL database on 8-bitters, etc? Can't one do that in a front-end at the client side and just have simple commands sent over network to device? What I always did for limited or security-critical devices. No way I'd put a whole 4GL on them lol.
(In other words, how big is SQLite and what are the size restrictions for IoT devices I haven't built one before)
However, I think the introduction could be improved by briefly describing the "why/what" of Bayesian modeling before you get into the first Hangouts example.
I have a few suggestions, maybe i missed it, but a prerequisite section would be useful both for knowledge and platform, software etc.
I am new to python and believe this tutorial would be great for me. However in the case of novice-users as myself, lots of time is spent getting the environment right rather than understanding the code.
For example, after downloading and installing anaconda, jupyter and seaborn, i stumble on error message "C:\Anaconda3\lib\site-packages\ipykernel\__main__.py:89: FutureWarning: sort(columns=....) is deprecated, use sort_values(by=.....)"
And here i am stuck, my next step, had it not been this post, would be to investigate syntax changes in python.
Maybe I that's not a correct way to address that problem however that is mainly my point. If the tutorial is targeted to beginners as me, a few more pointers to common errors setting the environment up would be helpful!
Thank you for otherwise great tutorial and keep up the good work!
I like the matplotlib style created for this too.
I should say that the first step is to clone:
cd where_you_want_the_data_to_be_copiedgit clone ....
# and now start jupyter notebook with
# go to File/open/ and select the first section.
I see that I can edit the markdown. I translated the introduction to section 0, here it goes. Thanks for this tutorial. The graphics are nice.
### Seccin 0: IntroduccinBienvenido a "Bayesian Modelling in Python" - un tutorialpara personas interesadas en tcnica de estadstica bayesiana con Python. La lista de secciones del tutorial se encuentra en la pgina web del projecto [homepage](https://github.com/markdregan/Hangout-with-PyMC3).
La estadstica es un tema que en mis aos de universidad nunca me gust . Las tcnicas frecuentistas que nos ensearon (p-values, etc.) parecan rebuscadas y en ltima instancia di la espalda a este tema en el que no estaba interesado.
Esto cambi cuando descubr la estadstica Bayesiana - una rama de la estadstica bastante diferente a la estadstica frecuentista que se suele ensear en la mayora de las universidades. Mi aprendizaje se inspir en numerosas publicaciones, blogs y videos. A los que se inician en la estadstica bayesiana les recomendara fervientemente los siguientes:
- [Doing Bayesian Data Analysis](http://www.amazon.com/Doing-Bayesian-Analysis-Second-Edition...) by John Kruschke- [Python port](https://github.com/aloctavodia/Doing_Bayesian_data_analysis) of John Kruschke's examples by Osvaldo Martin- [Bayesian Methods for Hackers](https://github.com/CamDavidsonPilon/Probabilistic-Programmin...) fue para m una gran fuente de inspiracin para aprender estadstica bayesiana. En reconocimiento de la gran influencia que ejerci en m, he adoptado el mismo estilo visual que se usa en BMH.- [While My MCMC Gently Samples](http://twiecki.github.io/) blog de Thomas Wiecki- [Healthy Algorithms](http://healthyalgorithms.com/tag/pymc/) blog de Abraham Flaxman- [Scipy Tutorial 2014](https://github.com/fonnesbeck/scipy2014_tutorial) de Chris Fonnesbeck
He creado este tutorial con la esperanza de que otros lo encontrarn til y que les servir para aprender tcnicas bayesianas de la misma forma que me ayudaron a m. Cualquier aportacin de la comunidad correccin/comentario/contribucin ser bienvenida.
XP has had longer support than any Linux distro out there (aside the rolling release ones, but that's a little different).
I know this submission is intended to be biased, and I do honestly favour Linux over Windows anyway. But surely FUD like the above is so painfully transparent that it only undermines the credibility of the larger argument?
For example, the backdoors are required by government, and Microsoft is not above the government and cannot really refuse if it is a legal requirement for national security. They're not exactly designed as backdoors either - mandatory security updates are necessary to prevent the spread of botnets. There is a valid argument that users should not be allowed to stop these essential security updates. Unfortunately, there are far more changes than only security updates.
DRM is pretty much required for Microsoft to be able to get into distributing media for a fee. The same applies to a lot of the rest - it's all for being competitive in a world where Apple and Google are doing the same thing.
However, that they are all legitimate doesn't actually change that it really is malware at the end of the day and this page is pretty much true.
A person or company has the right to cease to work on a particular program; the wrong here is Microsoft does this after having made the users dependent on Microsoft, because they are not free to ask anyone else to work on the program for them."
Microsoft did not make anybody dependent on them, and should have zero obligation to open source Windows XP. There are thriving alternatives to Windows like OS X, Android, Chrome OS, and iOS that XP users could have moved to in the last 14 years.
I really want to support GNU and FSF but they seem to be constantly fighting some 20 year stale war against a company that is in many ways way more open than Google, Facebook, and Apple.
They add the following disclaimer about that:
> A person or company has the right to cease to work on a particular program; the wrong here is Microsoft does this after having made the users dependent on Microsoft, because they are not free to ask anyone else to work on the program for them.
which if that is the case, means the whole spiel at the beginning about non-free software not automatically being malware in the FSF's eyes pretty empty if "non-free software not supported forever" is malware.
Some days I'm pretty sure bash is malware, too.
I think there are better ways to educate and spread this message. Whoever wrote this page is a bit too emotionally vested imo.
I love open source software, and I even like the GPL a fair amount.
Do I think this goes too far? Absolutely. The Free Software position is that the benefits of Free (libre) software outweigh all of the disadvantages, so anyone who chooses proprietary software has already made a big mistake.
Given that the mistake has been made, there's no particular advantage in castigating the manufacturer of that software for living up to the FSF's predictions. It's not a surprise, and the FSF is much better off pointing out that, sure, enough, they told you so, and it happened. Make a better choice next time. Here are some alternatives to help you out.
This is a tactical mistake.
Stallman feels the same way about Facebook as well. He got mad at Berkeley when he came to speak and found out someone posted a Facebook event about him coming to campus to speak lol.
He also feels cloud computing endangers us because we aren't in full control or fully aware of the computations being done with our data.
(He told us this at a meeting in Berkeley back when I was in school)
So he has similar views on Google, Apple, Facebook but only Microsoft is being hated on here lol
His views are a little extreme. even if his points are valid they seem impractical given the computing paradigms and cultures of today.
Don't get me wrong I work at Microsoft in hybrid cloud storage in a team that's a startup that got acquired and I think not having the NT kernel under a GNU v2 license is sad. Any kernel imo should be open source but I don't want to get into a debate on this at least not today.
But I'm glad people like him still exist.
I'm finding this claim from the article to be very true and it's a pity. Users are often powerless in fixing the software they bought, or the services they subscribed for, with the cost of switching to something else being often very significant. Users are also often uneducated or ignorant in what the software does, not realizing the long term consequences of their interactions with software.
And because users are often powerless or uneducated or ignorant, software developers feel empowered to move the boundaries, preferring to ask for forgiveness than for permission as they say, with current casualties being the loss of privacy and even the loss of freedom of speech. And then it isn't a wonder that intelligence agencies get a free pass to spy on everybody's communications, I mean if the software makers and the service providers are doing it themselves, the government would be stupid to not be a part of it, given that we've made it so easy.
I've always disagreed with Richard Stallman's stance on Free versus Nonfree software, preferring Open-Source instead and being relaxed about developing and using nonfree software. I've always said to myself that many companies are doing a good job and software developers have to eat, including myself. But some of FSF's arguments hold very true and it makes me wonder. Maybe Free Software is the only ethical choice.
Even if people do not produce material objects, I think that products of labor especially those can be exchanged for material wealth do require legal protection. (Note that this is separate from Intellectual Property, as in simply thoughts and ideas)
If you want proprietary software to go away, you should pay people to write even more open source software and then give it away. You should not have an agenda that demonizes people trying to earn a living. Calling someones means of living as illegitimate/immoral/unethical is simply going to ensure that they never support you.
I would claim that there is not only room for non-free open source software sans abuse, but even closed source software. When it comes to something you want to use as a core foundation on which to build (whether you are building software, general business, academic work etc.) I completely understand how this is very likely to lead to you being exploited. This applies for example to an operating system, or a programming platform (JVM, .NET, etc.). But there are plenty of places where you can use closed source software that don't put you in such a disadvantageous position.
One example is non-required tooling like an IDE. If Jetbrains goes Dr. Evil on everyone tomorrow (though I guess some would argue their recent pricing model changes have done that), there is still Eclipse and plenty of room for someone else to break into that space. Changing IDEs isn't nothing, but it's not like I'd have to rewrite my code.
Another is various general XaaS offerings. If Heroku (or more likely Salesforce) goes off the deep end tomorrow, worst case is that I have to administer some servers myself. Again, I don't lose anything that I would have had before anyway.
The current trend is already building everything on top of open source infrastructure. Even the JVM and .NET are open source now, as are most other pieces of the development puzzle (Databases, libraries of all shapes and sizes, etc.). In fact, I don't think even a big player like Microsoft would have much luck trying to get people to invest in another closed source platform. So if we walk this line between open and closed software, what do we lose by using some replaceable closed source tools or services? That is one question I think the FSF doesn't have a good answer for.
RMS produces an opinion piece -> everyone denounces it as extremist -> some time passes -> something horrible happens that proves RMS was right (like the NSA disclosures) -> everyone freaks out at what's happening -> some more time passes -> RMS produces another opinion piece -> repeat
From my personal opinion, it's not better than and maybe worse :- Obligation of having a G+ account. Disable it is NOT straighforward at all and it will try to recreate himself often.- Personal content publicly uploaded/displayed in G+ accountI had the bad surprise, and few friends also to see that the photos taken with my android phone were automatically published on my G+ account !
When you notify what it's visible, you are are afraid about what is not visible...
Personally, I understand the main reasons people have issues with this though, because very often they simply haven't actually taken the time to think of computing as a philosophical choice as well as a practical choice.
As the surveillance and control engine enlarges itself though, those who are more closely aligned with GPLv3-esque ways of computing will have more freedom and control over their systems than others who accept fuedal walled gardens will be, and it is at that point that the walled garden people will start to understand the real impact of what are often considered frivolous arguments like BSD vs GPL.
Enjoy your locked down BSD playstation/iBrain/iHome etc, I for one intend to stick with GNU/GPL, and the FSF, as much as possible. The reality is that we have been locked in so much though that this process takes time and should be started now and not later. For example, in my various workflow pipelines, I still have a handful of apache, mit, and bsd licensed programs, but I have at least dramatically reduced the number of them...
If you haven't taken the time to understand the differences between BSD and GPL you owe it to yourself, as I consider it foundational knowledge for modern computing, the same way I consider history foundational knowledge of current events.
I use OS X, Ubuntu, and sometimes Windows 10.
I want security updates as often as they are released.
I don't often use my Windows 10 laptop but when I do the first thing I always do is to update the system and anti-virus definitions.
I also frequently check and update OS X and Ubuntu.
I happen to trust Apple and Microsoft to perform automatic updates, but that is my personal decision.
Even if we trust MS, do we trust MS to keep these keys safe from outside hackers?
I laughed. I don't think its their choice that the app store is horrific.
Speaking as a professional software developer who typically does not write free software: [expletives inappropriate for HN deleted]
The allegation that any developer who does not share the FSF's views on the advantages or otherwise of free software is inherently more tempted to screw their users is not only wrong, it's offensive. I have never imposed any of the kinds of malware listed in this article on any user of any project I work on, nor would I be happy to do so in the future. This is more than can be said for several popular software products that also happen to be FOSS.
Also, the idea that Microsoft, or any other commercial software provider for that matter, should be responsible for supporting its software indefinitely, entirely at its own expense and regardless of context, is just silly. I think it is sensible to expect and if necessary legally require a basic level of support for commercial software products that were defective when first supplied, for some reasonable period that will probably vary greatly with context. In practice, actual regulation or legislation has rarely been necessary as most major software vendors have volunteered such support anyway, though the unwelcome trend is for this to change and so the regulatory/legal framework may need to change to match. However, Microsoft has, at least until recently, gone far beyond that industry norm in terms of long term support for its older software, and far beyond any major Free Software project. It might have been fair to say that Microsoft was the last very large software company that should be criticised on this score, but for their recent shifts in policy to much more user-hostile terms.
In terms of outreach and informing new generations of users... I think adopting that style would be a big win. Even non-technical users have a multi-year investment in Windows, and in spite of all the polish of modern distros, the jump to FOSS is still a big one. Help people make it.
I do agree about the privacy aspects, but unfortunately most users do not care about security or privacy and "most users" (the mainstream of the market) pays the bills. Until users care and vote with their wallets, companies will continue to disregard these things.
One of the greatest benefits of purchasing software instead of using SAAS products is that you can keep using your purchased software regardless of changes the vendor may make in the future. If you're not free to reject updates, you've lost this advantage.
What an apropos marketing campaign.