Maybe it's a limit of the measuring device?
A couple minutes of 90mph winds is one thing... hours of 90mph winds is entirely another thing.
And now back to our regularly scheduled React component.
The government has been doing an excellent job of basically extorting these companies into compliance. They threaten the full weight of the US government's wraith and then tie every order up with classifications and gag orders.
You aren't legally allowed to talk to other companies in the same position. Most your legal team probably doesn't get to know what's going on. You can't take your case to the public without being held in contempt.
I'm not giving these companies a complete pass for being complicit in the erosion of individual's civil liberties but treating this as if the decision is easy is vastly unfair.
> Barack Obama: NSA is not rifling through ordinary people's emails. US president is confident intelligence services have 'struck appropriate balance', he tells journalists in Berlin
edit: link fixedhttps://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/19/barack-obama-n...
However, if it went down like this -- he did probably the least destructive thing possible. I probably would have gone public or done something stupider, but at the very least not being a party to ongoing abuse of users' trust is necessary.
I'd like to see what other senior execs at Yahoo! were aware of the program and supported or at least tolerated it, so I can avoid ever working with any of them.
Also, I'm wondering if this story is bigger because people love to hate on Mayer. I am certain this kind of thing happened/happens at Facebook, Google, Twitter, WhatsApp, etc., so it's confusing why this is so newsworthy. It's not really newsworthy that data from an email provider is sent to NSA under secret court orders and NSA can search the full text of it. Is the newsworthy part that she asked the team to do it without consulting the security team? My question would be, why wouldn't a manager from the email team consult the security team if they had the power to?
You're knowingly sending your data to a 3rd party. You're not encrypting. It's not through the USPS (special protections).
It seems bloody evident that, of course, your email provider can read your emails! Unless you're encrypting with GPG, then they can (and they can still read the signing keys).
Yahoo, Google, and friends all scan, dedup, and all sorts of tricks to determine marketing and quality content (spamming). If you're worried, run your own mailserver. It's what I do, along with using gmail. But I know that, at any time, people/scripts/ai are reading everything sent and received.
edit: I'd much prefer to hear commentary/how wrong/how right/how crazy I am, rather than -1's.I'd like to hear a discussion about the "Secrecy of text written on postcards"....
> According to the two former employees, Yahoo Chief Executive Marissa Mayer's decision to obey the directive roiled some senior executives and led to the June 2015 departure of Chief Information Security Officer Alex Stamos, who now holds the top security job at Facebook Inc.
"... he had been left out of a decision that hurt users' security, the sources said. Due to a programming flaw, he told them hackers could have accessed the stored emails...."
The CEO of Yahoo must have known that this kind of scanning and storage puts their users at risk. She choose to do it anyway as being the path of least resistance against a more powerful adversary (US govt.). Bad judgement compounded by zero spine... Verizon looks like the perfect fit.
$250k per day doubling every week that can come with a gag order sounds like the sort of thing that could damage a business to the point of extinction, no?
How would a company under such a gag order announce bankruptcy? "Sorry, we lost all the money and we can't tell you why"?
Congress is up for grabs. You can really change who is in congress this round. If you don't like the guy you have vote in another. Vote for people that want to cut surveillance programs and agencies that request them. We could save or reallocate mountains of money.
Maybe the Yahoo! Board should have surveyed the startups scene, looking for founders who bootstrapped successfully and proven their worth, and recruit the best they could get. I am not very familiar with management of people and aspects of running a business, but I believe there is a lot more to it than being a smart person with computers.
This involved bulk search of data past the decryption layer.
What will they do??? Fine, court, shut down the company? If that happened would the public not outcry?
I don't believe they are capable of writing the "siphon" they are accused of. To be honest, I don't think they actually have engineers. I think they just use summer interns.
Or take her to a super boss level, she could have used whisper to talk to guccifer and let him know about some vuln that would allow access to the legal directory.... which would have to gag order. #wikileakitup
Former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker said email providers "have the power to encrypt it all, and with that comes added responsibility to do some of the work that had been done by the intelligence agencies."
Getting anyone else I know to do this seems like a long shot. Is there something simpler?
Yahoo Inc last year secretly built a custom software program to search all of its customers' incoming emails for specific information provided by U.S. intelligence officials, according to people familiar with the matter.
Like most people, I have no problem with the government using probable cause to get warrants that are in search of something specific (none of these grab-all bullshit orders). If you have a legitimate reason to be looking at someone, then there should be no problem getting a warrant.
These secret FISA court orders are a serious violation to the rights of Americans in many cases. At minimum, if we really do need these secret courts to prevent people from finding out they are the subject of surveillance, then there needs to be an expiration on those gag orders. This crap about never being able to mention it FOREVER has to go. There should be a limit, say 5 years, which is well beyond the length of time most investigations take. At that time, those orders should expire so that these government actions can be brought to light if there is any question of wrong-doing on the part of our overzealous law enforcement.
"Former NSA General Counsel Stewart Baker said email providers 'have the power to encrypt it all, and with that comes added responsibility to do some of the work that had been done by the intelligence agencies.'" Sorry, but no. That's not how it works. There is no obligation to do the work of government unless it is actually written into law (i.e. record-keeping laws). And it currently is not. This is precisely why everyone should be encrypting all communications on the CLIENT side themselves. It should never leave your device (PC, phone, whatever) unencrypted. That way, if the government wants to go on a fishing expedition or has an actual legitimate reason to look at you, they will have to get a warrant for the device itself, which will at least give you a head's up that they are trying to put you in the clink with a bunkmate named Bubba.
The NSA, and the government in general, has completely blown any goodwill they once had with the public. Under no circumstance will I ever advocate for anything that makes their job easier. And it is for no other reason than simply because they have proven time and again they cannot be trusted.
Honestly, I'm still not even clear why every employee of project PRISM isn't rotting a jail cell right now after Snowden shed some light on the program for the rest of us peasants. Every single employee of that program had to know the clear violations of the constitution they were helping to partake in. Keep in mind the constitution protects against unreasonable SEIZURE as well as search. Gobbling up communications in the manner they did clearly counts as seizure because they would not have had them otherwise - whether or not they actually search the records is immaterial.
I'm not an Apple fan, but when they told the government to go pound sand regarding that terrorist phone encryption case, that was the first time that I can recall I actually approved of Apple's political position on something.
I'm really hoping and trusting they haven't.
The first case to surface. Anybody else could have been doing it for just as long, but we don't know yet.
This is why no provider can be trusted. Every routine communication should be e2e encrypted. Otherwise this WILL happen.
Pass: Apple, Google
Fail: Microsoft, Yahoo
Unknown: Facebook, Twitter
I hope this development is not so much a product of internal company bullshit, but now I'm very worried it is. KSP is one of the most genuinely important games out there right now. I would be surprised if many less than 100% of the next generation of spacetravel-involved scientists and engineers counted KSP as part of their journey.
Honestly, this is one of the very few games I've enjoyed in the last 10 years.
This one: https://alexmoon.github.io/ksp/
Is a great example. This is the one game I've spent hours on as an adult. I wish the team the best.
Wow, just wow. The company must be run by absolute sociopaths.
For those who don't know about it, it's a spaceflight simulation game. You design a spacecraft from parts, assembling rocket engines, fuel tanks, thrusters, command modules, etc. into a design, and then test it and try to get it into orbit; or from there, to other planetary bodies. Multiple spacecraft if you want: you can dock and coordinate them, or build space stations or moon bases.
It's got an incredible amount of detail, modeling a whole solar system with various planets and moons and asteroids. Remember how the staff working on "No Man's Sky" made claims about how "all other video games are fake, they have a skybox, the planets and sun in our sky are real real and you can fly to them" (claims which turned out to be largely false)? Well, Kerbal Space Program actually delivers on that experience. You can rocket into space, dock in orbit with something you've put up there previously, gravity-slingshot yourself to another planet, parachute a lander down to the surface and roam around, etc.
The game has realistic space flight physics and orbital mechanics (though tuned to be very generous to players compared to real life). You can learn a lot about the basic mechanics of spaceflight just by playing it; you begin to intuitively understand delta-v, apoapsis and when to apply thrust, etc. If you want to dock with with something then you need to plan an appropriate launch window. Maneuvering in orbit is very interesting and initially counter-intuitive (if a spacecraft is "ahead" of you in orbit, in which direction should you boost to "catch up" to it? If you boost directly toward it, you'll increase your orbital speed and thus the shape of your orbit, taking you away from it in a different dimension!). Getting to other astral bodies is tricky and requires more planning. KSP manages to make all of this challenging but fun.
If you'd like to learn more about it, or are even just curious what the fuss is about (the game itself, not the drama), I'd direct you to videos by Scott Manley . Here's a video of a fairly sophisticated mission starting with liftoff from the launch pad, made by another YouTuber  (skip to 13:00 to see him planning orbital maneuvers like circularizing his orbit). Manley's "Interstellar Quest" mission has even more complex orbital planning (5:00) .
The depth of KSP is astonishing and there's not much else out there like it. It's in the same ballpark as Minecraft in terms of the amazing creative sandbox it provides, with a world that has a ton of depth to explore. There's a wonderful atmospheric feel with the music and artwork that happens when you successfully lift off into space, going from the thrill of launch to the serenity of orbit. It's a beautiful feeling and one that isn't easily captured by recordings.
So it's sad to hear that the company and/or developers who made the game aren't carrying on. The game may not be a commercial success on the scale of Minecraft but the artistic and conceptual achievement are on par or greater.
 https://www.youtube.com/user/szyzyg  https://youtu.be/RzbDyx4Tpdc?t=10m7s  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSzj_uk1fRQ
Who dose not immediately hire that team en masse has missed a huge opportunity.
I don't really know what the solution is, but I'm very uneasy about the central point of failure Open Whisper Systems is. Moxie's previous points about the difficulty of upgrading a federated protocol are correct, but I think that despite the difficulty it's important to do.
Outside the usual "let's ask for more than we're legally entitled" shtick, there's nothing particularly alarming about this subpoena; it was narrowly focused on two phone numbers, for which only one was a Signal user.
It's good on OWS to fight so hard for transparency.
It's volatile data exchanged between the clients only, but not centrally stored anywhere (contrary to all other secure chat systems out there).The FBI has probably no idea how Signal works, what is stored and what not.
Even a grand-jury subpoena has no chance to produce more data. But maybe they can force them to re-implement Signal with a government backdoor (because it's a police state after all), and that's what Open Whisper Systems is really objecting to?Or just logging the metadata? (Which btw. duckduckgo does, even if it slows down their webserver by at least 20%).
Or did they just try to mess with the FBI lawyers?
They don't have access to group message membership directly. A group appears as a bunch of one to one messages between the participants, so they might still be able to infer it.
I note that the documents use a proportional width font, and there's been previous research into using the width of blacked-out sections of redacted documents along with information about the font to work out possible character combinations that fit appropriately...
I'm curious what type of metadata Facebook would have from the signal integrations with Whatsapp and Messenger. Is there more, less, or same? Has anyone looked in to this?
Signal is the best shot we have at widespread, usable private communications at this point. It's about time we get around to supporting it. Be pragmatic.
A serious question though, how do gag orders work? How do I notify an attorney?
- 100+ years of business telecommunications without significant strong encryption. - Robust wiretapping and law enforcement access laws and practices that mean there is NO place or piece of information within US sovereign territory that is inaccessible to an authorized agent of the state. - they have the expectation of total control. Hell, beat cops can shoot you over minor "comply or die" orders. - Crypto isn't about your email or even evidence in a particular case, it is about the completeness and totality of their authority. - States around the world routinely decimate their populations in civil wars and massacres to ensure the same people remain in power. From the LE perspective, anyone who threatens the sovereignty of the state is a terrist they would complete for the opportunity to shoot.
Hackers don't get it. If the crypto debate ever gets real, you cannot imagine how real it will get.
The way I'm reading/understanding this is that they have the encrypted messages, but don't specify whether they are stored. However, since the messages are encrypted, they don't have the message contents/that information. Concluding, they may have all the messages saved, albeit in an encrypted format and with minimal metadata.
Did I come to the right conclusion? Or does Signal not store the encrypted message data either?
We know freedom loving software engineers after decades of posturing have long folded and left Snowden holding the baby.
We also know companies here are either closely linked to intelligence agencies or bending over backwards.
We know the executive branch is in the middle of a full blown identity crisis of whether they are the good guys or bad guys of the world. Closesly followed by a legal system that has developed a third world regime like affinity for blanket gag orders and rubber stamping with 100% approval rates. This is a bit like tasking the fox to protect the hens.
What stops a goverment friendly company from acquiring whispersystems, or whisper itself being some sort of a release valve operation?
When do we stop buying into the Google product hype? How many other chase-the-rabbit approaches to products is Google going to shove in front of our faces before we realize it's almost all smoke and mirrors? It seems completely laughable to me that this "product" will even exist past 2017, let alone be any kind of leader in anything (innovation, market share, creating a new market space, etc.).
I know jaded cynicism is never attractive, but it's honestly baffling to me how these threads aren't peppered with what I would think to be well-justified skepticism when it comes to Google and their ambitious hardware products. They almost never succeed, period! You never even hear about them most of the time a few months after they get launched, and the only time when you do is when the PR machine is working fast and furious to prop it up (see: Glass).
So sure, let's all pretend that wearing a pair of underwear on your face stuffed with a cell phone is going to advance VR. Yeah. That seems totally plausible.
Edit: In my fantasy world Carmack is teaching himself chip design and will put a low power positional tracking computer vision ASIC in the next GearVR. Why Oculus isn't putting the full force of their company behind that National Treasure of a man I have no idea.
If I could attach this to my Mac and use the headset instead of hunching over a 15" laptop, I'd be very happy!
I used to commute by bus, approx 45 minutes each way. I don't think I would've used this on that trip. Extending that, I don't think I'd be particularly interested in using this at home, as infrequently as I genuinely plop down for an immersive HDTV (or 3D) experience (ex. football games & films are my draw, not very often). I just giggle a bit to myself thinking what I'd look like wearing one and bobbing my head around in public or at home. Heh.
VR needs low end alternatives and "phone on the face" is it. From what I have read, Samsung's POTF device actually works quite well.
Manufacturers such as Apple will see it as appealing because it gives incentive to buy new and more powerful phones.
Google's POTF likely won't succeed (mind you it might have if they had more control over the fragmented Android ecosystem), but Apple's POTF, when it is announced, will be the winner in this category.
Were you wondering why the new audio port on the iPhone 7? That's the VR POTF port.
I wish flicker free VR existed.
The 6P is a very capable device and I don't see a reason to upgrade mine. But I am thinking of trying out some Daydream VR development.
I know that till now, 6P was the only device to develop for Daydream, but I'm wondering how well would it work with the actual headset released today. Maybe just run at some low fps but not too bad for trying it out? Or is the headset locked for only "Daydream certified" phones (I doubt they'll lock out the 6P though).
This looks more like lipstick on a pig than the future of VR.
God forbid we come together on WebVR instead of turning the VR space into yet another "monopolies punching eachother" not-invented-here pit fight.
cross this off my list then.
P.S. For bonus points, add pupil dilation measurement for emotional analysis. And bloodflow including respiration (perhaps in conjunction with periodic micro-movement).
Maybe three cameras? More?
All of the big SV companies need to have a VR play and this is Google's.
Personally I believe in the long-term viability of VR, but in this case it just seems like an expendable just-in-case-it-takes-off thing.
/ Feeling slightly burned from them more or less abandoning the last Google hardware I bought; the Nexus Player tv set-top-box.
Of what very few details the article outlines, they just go on about nifty hardware. Have we not learned by now that cool hardware still sucks when hamstrung by crappy software? (A Samsung logo popped in my head while writing that, don't know why.) Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.
(EDIT: the Pixel phones could be all that, but I wouldn't know it because I'm currently content with iPhones and have paid no attention to Pixel. Point is, this article does nothing to relieve my ignorance, which is why I clicked on the thing to begin with.)
I have been running my Nexus 5 into the ground (soldered on a new power button when the original broke) in anticipation of the next Nexus phone. Pixel is no Nexus.
Seriously, what does this have that the year-old Nexus 6P and 5X don't, other than incremental hardware improvements? And a massive price hike? Why should I buy this?
(Seriously, Google? You want $650 for a phone with a 1080p screen? I know there's benefits to a lower resolution but then why not drop the price? It's ridiculous.)
My perception is that Google no longer knows what it's doing. Reference Allo for an even better example. The company can coast on their existing products but only for so long.
I don't like Apple because it's a walled garden and millions other reasons.
I don't like Samsung because they bloat Android.
I don't like Huawei because I don't trust the Chinese government to not do stuff to it.
I don't like LG and HTC because the smartphone market is slipping away from them.
Am I just getting old?
95% of the visitors (startups, entrepreneurs, investors, executives) had iPhones. We later confirmed this by looking at the network stats and couldn't believe it. In a country where Android statistically has 80% marketshare. The Android users loved the product, but we failed because we couldn't generate word-of-mouth.
For the target audience of the Pixel, this is an uphill battle.
Nest was broken out as a peer to Google, but now apparently hardware is using Nest staff and expertise, but hardware is part of Google.
And apparently this new hardware team is going whole-hog after the smartphone market, which is WAY larger than thermostats and web cams. But Nest is an Alphabet sub, and hardware is under Google.
And Android needs a "firewall" to protect existing hardware vendor relationships from the new hardware team. But both Android and hardware remain under Google, with YouTube and Search.
And there are 2 separate Alphabet subs for biosciences, and 2 separate subs for finance.
It doesn't look like it's implementing any sort of coherent strategy. Aside from company politics, why are some programs peers to Google, and others are subsidiaries of Google?
Started from scratch, yet the end result looks like a iPhone knockoff from a random Chinese shanzhai company?
One of the best things about the Nexus range was they offered the Google vision of android at a reasonable price. The Nexus 4, 5 and 6 were affordable.
I purchased my Nexus 5 for a shade below 300 when it came out, which I thought was excellent value for money in comparison to how much I had paid for a Samsung previously.
This Pixel line seems to have abandoned that ideal to compete directly with the iPhone.
Personally I'd feel very uncomfortable walking around with a 600+ phone.
We're hackers, let's get fucking excited about the new cool gadgets! This phone is awesome.
How about, before nitpicking and criticizing, we take a moment to appreciate and celebrate the new technology developed by our colleagues?
You mean not including the time they bought Motorola?
"Google Assistant" replaces the Google search bar... but only on the Pixel? So this is yet another Android device that behaves differently from every other.
The exclusive carrier is Verizon. Why not Google Fi?
The default video app is Duo. Why not Hangouts?
Does "Google Now On Tap" get replaced by the assistant for the Pixel? Is that just for the Pixel?
I don't get it. I don't understand how Google can think this produces a cohesive, meaningful experience for their users when they keep changing things or fragmenting their platforms.
Edit: Full disclosure, my only smartphone is a Nexus 5X. I like it, I don't like Google's platform chaos.
And who is the servicer of broken phones? Is there a warranty? Can I get a customer service agent on a real voice line?
Given Google's track record of hardware they could have answers for all of this and I still wouldn't own one.
Silicon is not a buzzword. It is the element with which the processors are built. Perhaps it's colloquial or jargonistic to refer to processors as silicon, but it's not a buzzword.
I guess what I'm really asking is if I will be able to flash a custom "ROM" and kernel to this. I've heard rumors of Google taking a more aggressive stance on locking down their hardware, so I'd like to know if there's been any new information regarding this.
If I can't flash custom software to this, I may get the iPhone or HTC 10 instead. The main attraction to Android phones to me was the fact that you can flash modified kernels to do things like force fast charge on USB data links, etc
So... Can anyone convince me that this thing is going to be different from the iPhone killers that are reported on every year in these regurgitated press releases?
I was hoping to upgrade a nexus 5 I paid 399 CAD and this year they want to charge 899 CAD for the base model!
This is insane and I just ordered a OnePlus 3 (519CAD) hoping that we'll see more competition instead of reliving the 90s desktop OS situation...
Outside the US it is not the dominant platform. Sure, it has a good share of the market, but it's not like Apple even outsell Samsung's Galaxy range.
The gap from 88-92 is actually shorter than the gap between 86-89.
So far, of everything software that people have enthused about with the Pixel... none of that software shines if you only have Google Apps accounts.
Aside from the camera, why would anyone with a Google Apps account buy this?
(I'm referring to the Allo AI assistent, etc which only has limited functionality for Google Apps users, as does Now, Trips, Spaces, App Sharing, Play Music Family, etc.)
Look for a third ecosystem to come out of China.
Treated the same, to a limit, I guess. If everyone is treated the same, they wouldn't be able to guarantee to be the first ones out with Nougat.
Let's see how short or long the lead start is they will give their own phones.
I can't justify spending $650 on the newest phone for a slightly better camera.
My current iphone 6 is just fine, the battery is waning but not unbearably so.
Does the pixel offer anything that justifies the price? Or would a consumer be better off just purchasing an older generation smartphone?
Maybe I'll just hold out on my Nexus 5 for a couple more years...
I've only heard bad things about it - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpsMkLaEiOY
This phone isn't going to kill the iPhone - in fact it would take a big screwup on the part of Apple for people to start migrating away from its products. Not that Apple is incapable of screwing up, but so far they've sailed their ship pretty well.
Apart from the hardware, there's the whole ecosystem of app developers, programming environments, cloud services.. Ultimately it's about who can attract the more talented developers - and that is a lot more difficult than snapping a faster CPU or better camera in your phone.
Apple it seems can do it for devices in those price range.
I really, really, really want a good phone with hardware keyboard.
Even better if the dialer is not a common app, and is something you can access immediately even if the "user OS" crash.
At $649, it's in iPhone 7 and Galaxy S7 territory.
It doesn't have an impressive curved display like the Galaxy S7 Edge so the 5.5" Pixel is likely to be larger than a 5.5" Galaxy S7 Edge.
The Snapdragon 821 is probably the best processor they could get, but it doesn't stand up well against an iPhone 7 (or even older iPhones on common tasks like web browsing). So, that doesn't bring anything impressive to the table that I couldn't get before.
Google has just said that the display is "Hi-Definition" in their presentation slide. Looking at one of their videos, it looks like 441ppi on the 5" which means 1080p and 534ppi on the 5.5" so the 5.5" matches the S7 Edge, but the 5" is a lesser display than the Galaxy S7. Not sure it makes much of a difference, but it doesn't best a competitor at the same price.
The Galaxy S7 and many other devices come with 4GB of RAM.
There doesn't seem to be anything in this device that's so exciting with the possible exception of the camera. But how much of that is software? The DxOMark review notes that "Pixels biggest innovation is an enhanced version of Googles HDR+ multi-image capability. . .the Pixel pushes the capability further than weve seen before". So, is this simply software that Google is going to keep proprietary in order to sell its device? That's certainly fair game, but it points to exclusive software, not hardware being the draw.
Unlimited photo and video storage is nice, but that really doesn't have anything to do with the device. That's just google offering an exclusive service with purchase.
To me, it mostly looks like what I can get in competitive phones, maybe with some exclusive software. It's not faster (constrained by the best Qualcomm can muster). The camera is marginally better than an iPhone 7 (though no word on the iPhone 7 Plus). The display is competitive with or worse than a Galaxy S7 [Edge].
I think Google has a better chance if they start developing their own chips as the article alludes to. Apple has a large single-code speed advantage that's particularly noticeable on the web (https://twitter.com/codinghorror/status/775777790494846976).
The Pixel looks fine, but it doesn't have something amazingly impressive. It's good, but nothing that truly makes me think that Google has outdone itself. If I were in the market for a new Android phone, I'd consider it. But the OnePlus 3 seems to have most of the same in a much cheaper package. The Galaxy S7 Edge seems to have a cooler package for much the same equipment. Plus, I guess my concern is whether Google is going to care about the Pixel phone 9 months from now. Maybe this is a huge new push. But OnHub seems to be abandoned for this new Made By Google thing after a very short time and generally Google has a bit of a history of not caring about things that don't immediately gain traction. So, maybe a couple years from now it'll look more attractive.
EDIT: looking at the specs, it's 8.5mm thick at the thickest which is how they avoid the camera bump compared to an iPhone 7 at 7.1mm thick.
EDIT 2: I'm very glad that Google is getting into the hardware game. I think they can create great devices and help push the industry forward. I think competition will be great for consumers. I think there are lots of areas (like WiFi) which need to be made better. But it's hard to beat the best smartphones with your first model. I'm glad Google is creating a phone, but smartphones aren't low-hanging fruit to create something remarkably better.
Maybe we'll actually start seeing Tizen headsets from Samsung.
Is or has there been any way I could purchase a new phone assign it my number and have 2 phones ringing at same time? I would have a side by side comparison in each pocket?
Like I buy pants. But 4 at the store and return 3
Vertical integration FTW.
After using Android for a few weeks I would be pretty happy using it instead of IOS. Among top tier apps and Google provided apps it's definitely now on par with IOS. $59 for a phone is unbelievable.
I just got my iPhone 7 and while it's a great phone and has a slightly higher build quality, it's more than 10x the price.
> Pixel comes in two sizes, 5 or 5.5, and three colors: Very Silver, Quite Black and our limited edition for the U.S. only, Really Blue.
What's your problem Google? You keep being the only big company still pulling this "U.S. only" stuff.
Sorry I'm so absolutely excited.
Edit: Ah, I was mistaken. Contract exclusive, still outright.
That's funny, I thought all the ones before it were "iPhone killers". Hmmmmm.
Fortunately, I'm not feeling the need to replace my Nexus 5X yet. Maybe next summer when the Moto G5 comes out, I'll see if it's worth switching -- or maybe I'll wait until 2018 and get a Moto G6, but I'm not getting a Pixel.
And if some key apps I use ever end up getting ported to Windows 10 Mobile, I'll consider Microsoft for my next device. But that'll be a ways off: I rely on Lyft to get around, so I can't use a phone that has no Lyft app.
Why is Google still insisting (with 7.1) that the 3 navigation keys (menu, home and back) need to be on screen - either wasting real-estate or annoyingly hidden - requiring a swipe to expose them?
Old Android phones used to have hardware or software keys that were off the bottom of the screen - and in fact my Xiaomi Mi Note Pro still does - it frees the entire screen for content. If the '3 keys' regularly changed meaning I could see the need to have them 'on screen' but they don't.
On another note, it's pretty f*cking lame that the only discussion in this post is a tangent about error checking and not even remotely related to the content.
I wonder if you could use annotations to manage the visuals e.g http://drakon-editor.sourceforge.net/folder-night.pngYou'd have an inline annotation to separate the code blocks and generate the visuals so you don't have to maintain/update two places.Any tool that does that?
Also, integrating different level of complexity using system 1,2,3 (from https://www.amazon.ca/Software-Requirements-3rd-Karl-Wiegers...) to represent user flow diagram in addition to flow charts.
Flow charts get confusing after some complexity. Useless if you want to represent multiple actors + messages. Systems/sub-systems view.
There is a tendency to think of visual programming as an all or nothing. Either we have all text or all visual. As long as it is "Write once, update everywhere", visual tools can be useful in navigating new code bases, obtaining insights and quickly understanding a piece of code.
The problem though is they often require maitenance and get out of date with reality (even if it is comments/annotations)
Go to "Built with Blockly" which includes BBC MicroBit, MIT App Inventor, code.org, LEGO (3rd party), PBS, Minecraft (3rd party), etc.
We've all heard it already, we all know what you'll say. So skip the smug post, and go do something productive. Like writing a really cool piece of new code, or fixing a use-after-free, or posting something more insightful, or inventing a new type of shoelace that doesn't come untied until you want it to.
Both service give me the hints of popularity of the article. Pocket adds 'Best Of' label for popular articles. Feedly adds a number of 'Read it later'.
I'm currently using Feedly for subscribing podcasts. But it's not handy to use. If RadioPublic give me the same feature that feedly and pocket provide for the sake of podcast listening, I'll definitely use the service.
It can make you feel really small at times when the product you are creating is standing on the shoulder of not-so-benevolent giants. For example, Craigslist apparently hates when somebody actually uses their feeds. They IP ban anyone doing a pretty regular amount of requests per hour, and are completely impossible to get ahold of. (have you seen their forum?) When our spiders are blocked by Craigslist, our users suffer. And then they come to us asking why feeder doesn't work...
RSS has been damaged by in-fighting among those who advocate for it
I hope, given the combined efforts of people in this space, we can break podcasts out of the grip of the iTunes store (e.g. Why do podcasts need reviews? Have you ever seen a Youtube video where someone urged you to leave a review? It's because reviews catch the attention of iTunes store curators, but Youtube does more automated personalization.)
To me it doesn't make any sense to bemoan that it is in XML.. so what. It includes a schema and can be validated. That's a good thing. Don't throw json into this.
Beyond the factual errors, there are numerous unsubstantiated claims. I don't know how one would come up with an objective way to measure philosophy and poetry. How much philosophy and poetry from (for example) the Kushan Empire has survived? What's the background for the claim that its philosophy and poetry dwarfed the Roman Empire's?
The idea that we should pay more attention to many of the other polities in history is a valid one. But I don't think an article filled with errors and baseless claims is terribly useful.
> Imperial Rome was a dim backwater by comparison
This is a slippery claim, especially when you consider how long the Roman Empire lasted and how widely its relevance and regional dominance swayed over its lifetime. During its peak, Rome spanned dozens of cultures on two separate continents and liberally imported other peoples and norms into their own. That's not to say that the contemporaneous Chinese empires didn't do the same, only that the distinction between the two in this aspect is less stark than the author would have us believe.
> Romes legions were fighting fiercely for control of Gaul (modern France and Germany), Britain, Egypt, and various parts of the Balkans; while a succession of (often unfairly maligned) emperors scrambled to hold Rome together through an endless series of famines, wars with the East, coups dtat, refugee crises, and revolts.
This is not strictly false, but it's again muddied by the extreme duration of the Roman Empire. The Pax Romana lasted for two centuries, spanned three major political dynasties, and is generally the period people think of when they think of the Roman Empire (or Rome in general). By the time the Chinese Empire(s) had begun trading silk with the Roman Empire, peace was already the norm in the Roman world.
The author is correct in his characterization of Rome as less artistically and creatively inclined than it perhaps ought to have been, considering its size and wealth during its peak. That being said, Rome's accomplishments in architecture and culture are visible (and audible) everywhere in the Western world. I don't think that any one Eastern power of the same period can claim such cultural permanence to any comparable degree.
"So why, then, would I write such an anti-Roman article? Because Im trying to give people whove received a eurocentric education a different set of goggles to try on: the lenses of Romas Asian contemporaries, some of whom genuinely did believe the Romans were primitive and unclean. This is a perspective we almost never hear about in the West, and I think its an interesting one to ponder.I do my best to keep my facts straightbut all the historical stories I write are colored heavily by my own interpretations and blind spots. My favorite history writers are Will Durant and Pierre Briant. I realize that this kind of interpretive historical writing is now considered obsoletemaybe even dangerously slanted and over-simplisticbut its the stuff I enjoy reading, so its what I write."
> its always made me sad to think of the Romans being largely cut off from the main action on the world stage.
This is incorrect because the Romans knew about Greece - in fact they ran the place.
The Romans were barbarians, in a sense, I suppose, just compared to Greece. They didn't do anything that could compare to the Greeks in math or philosophy, for example. And by, say, the fall of the Roman Empire, India had far more interesting philosophy (sadly little known because not very accessible) than Rome, so sure, "Asia" had better philosophy than Rome (really India specifically). But it turns out that Indian philosophy was heavily inspired by Greek philosophy (highly recommend The Shape of Ancient Thought for anyone interested in Greek-Indian intellectual exchange), and I wouldn't say it was better (though I wouldn't say it was worse either). Rome wasn't cut off from the best of philosophy - they were just too practical to care much about it - and they knew it and said as much.
Philosophy I know something about - I dropped out of the PhD program at Harvard after studying quite a bit of it. But some of the other parts seem dubious or of questionable importance. Architecture? The Romans look pretty good to me there, and I mean they even used concrete. Medicine? Let's be serious: almost all medicine before the 1800's was placebo. Population? So what?
The article claims that China dwarfed Rome, but the course actually claims that Rome and China under the Han dynasty were about equal in many ways (geographic size and population). There are several lectures comparing the two.
I didn't read very far past this. I am under the impression that Rome was pretty technologically sophisticated, even beyond what we normally picture. Does the author go on to compare tech sophistication with examples?
I feel there's a market need for a browser plugin that lets you filter out clickbait factories like his employers and all the dirty tricks they use to hijack our attention. There's no way we can keep up with them without computer assistance.
Lots of arguments are a pretty big stretch in this article.
Maybe no more togas, but isn't this basically true? While for example Spanish is Basquified and French is Germanicified, modern Italian is basically the direct descendant of classical Latin just as Mandarin is a direct descendant of classical Chinese.
'The Asian continent' is not a nation, and as a bonus, it also includes Rome. How much does it include Rome? Well, the last thousand-odd years of Rome's run were basically in Asia (who we call the Byzantines, they called themselves Romans).
It's also weird to proclaim 'cultural diversity' as a symbol of power in that period, when it was those who could spread their core culture that were the most powerful. Weirdly, the article later expounds on the cultural homogeneity of the Chinese as their strength. So Rome is weak because of lack of cultural diversity, and China is strong because of lack of cultural diversity?
Ultimately the article doesn't even discuss what it suggests in the title - it expounds upon those wonderous exotic peoples, and then sadly shakes its head on how two travelers must have felt dying in the 'backwater' of the Roman empire (of course, we'll neatly ignore that they were also found in a Roman backwater to begin with - Britannia wasn't exactly paved with marble). No real discussion on the meeting of the cultures.
China's historical culture and power is often overlooked by us westerners, sure, but the article is too much "gosh, those exotics!" for me.
From what I learned in school and remember off the top of my head:
- Rome was an ugly place, but they kind of knew it hence upper classes went Greek and the eastern empire became more prominent. Romans were great for trade, but their empire could only be held together by growth (plunder) and that's not sustainable
- Greeks were more civilized, but clearly sucked at empire building (Alexander is Macedon). Hellenization shows that even if he messed up Persia, the culture was influential.
- China couldn't really expand because it is so isolated geographically, so it is harder to for it to influence other places. But this had an effect that arguably they were less interested in conquest and influence (outside of uniting accessible areas) - Confucianism raggin' on merchants, artisans, and whatever else might form a middle class - Ming treasure fleet might have reached Africa, but no fucks given.
- Mesopotamia did do great things back in the day, but by 1000 was past its peak (as was the Levant). Interesting how ethnic identity, especially among Semitic groups, seems quiet fluid, though invading armies + Islam explains a lot of that.
- Persions were not at all taught (before college). Seriously wtf, we covered everybody else said to be skipped in American education. But I later learned in college that perhaps they were more rural/feudal than eastern Mediterranean, (the article says more Urban than Rome, but then makes a bunch of medieval comparisons, so who knows?)
- While we didn't cover it. I read about Kush/Bactria on Wikipedia (and the other Kush hah (south of Egypt not what you were thinking hah)). I can kind of understand that as an influenCED rather than influencING kingdom it was easy to gloss over (oh we talked about the silk road, but usually in the abstract). But I do like covering it as concrete evidence that those things which were said to be influential actually were.
Basically, even in fairly leftist history curricula, it was all about who does the most trade, most urbanization, and most interaction with neighbors. Any overly courtly civilization was suspect.
Arguably then the same things that made China so dominant early on and steady thereafter also lead to its eventual falling behind. Central Eurasia might have become the dominant world culture except the Europeans got a huge steroid injection with easiest access a humongous place you could depopulate by coughing.
Author asked in a caption about better timelines. I inherited some company's Hammond's "Graphic History of Mankind" from the 1950s. Some things there should definitely be revised (though they kept on extending and publishing the timeline until at least 2000) but the concept is great.
Somebody should make some crazy SVG thing where as you zoom in more details would appear. Make it procedural generated and open source so non-technical history buffs can send you PRs (or figure out how to scrape Wikipedia). I'll be forever grateful.
(Also, it's open-source.)
It shows how nodes are explored on the map with different search algorithms and the optimal path once the search is completed.
Also, there's talk about how slick this is when using IJulia notebooks. It would be cool to provide a link to an actual notebook.
For "laughing at ourselves" and oddities of computer languages, there is "Wat" by Gary Bernhardt:https://www.destroyallsoftware.com/talks/wat
For an opinion on the Sun to Oracle transition, there is "Fork Yeah! The Rise and Development of illumos" by Bryan M. Cantrill, Joyent. His Larry Ellison rant makes me smile:https://youtu.be/-zRN7XLCRhc?t=33m00s
Another fantastic one is Steve Jobs' 2005 commencement address at Stanford:
Growing a Language by Guy Steele.
It completely changed my perspective on how design shapes our world.
Bryan Cantrill's 2011(?) Lightning talk on ta(1). It's fascinating, but it also shows you just long-lived software can be.
Randall Munroe's Talk on the JoCo cruise. Because it's effing hilarious, and teaches everybody the important art of building a ball pit inside your house.
Finally, an honorable mention to three papers that don't qualify, but which I think you should read anyway.
Reflections on Trusting Trust: This is required reading for... Everybody. It describes a particularly insidious hack, and discusses its ramifications for security.
In the Beginning Was The Command Line: If you want get into interface design, programming, or ever work with computers, this is required. It's a snapshot of the 90's, a discussion of operating systems, corporations, and society as we know it. But more importantly, it's a crash course in abstractions. Before you can contribute to the infinite stack of turtles we programmers work with, you should probably understand why it's there, and what it is.
Finally, The Lambda Papers. If you've ever wondered how abstractions work, and how they're modeled... This won't really tell you, not totally, but they'll give you something cool to think about, and give you the start of an answer.
Discovering Python (David Beazley)
David finds himself in a dark vault, stuck for months sifting through deliberately obfuscated pile of old code and manuals. All seems lost, but then he finds Python on a vanilla Windows box.
Fork Yeah! The Rise and Development of Illumos (Bryan Cantrill)
History of Illumos, SunOS, Solaris, the horribleness of Oracle
These are not technical, but they are entertaining.
Really set me on a path of re-examining older ideas (and research papers), for applications that are much more contemporary. Absolute stunner of a talk (and the whole 70's gag was really great).
"What would be really sad is if in 40 years we were still writing code in procedures in text files" :(
I think it is so easy for us to discuss the impact of big data and quickly get into the weeds, but I think in this talk Norvig does an especially great job in making you truly appreciate the seismic impact that the availability of massive quantities of data can have on your way to think about problems. This is one of the first things I ever saw of him, and I've been in love ever since.
We can argue on some of the points he makes but we can all agree that the demos are very impressive.
"Ask HN: What are your favorite videos relevant to entrepreneurs or startups?" -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7656003
"Ask HN: Favorite talks [video] on software development?" -> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8105732
The Coming Civil War over General Purpose Computing by Cory Doctorow http://boingboing.net/2012/08/23/civilwar.html
Cybersecurity as Realpolitik by Dan Geer https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT-TGvYOBpIhttp://geer.tinho.net/geer.blackhat.6viii14.txt
1) Alan Kay: Is it really "Complex"? Or did we just make it "Complicated"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubaX1Smg6pY
Take note that he is not giving the talk using Window & PowerPoint, or even Linux & OpenOffice. 100% of the software on his laptop are original products of his group. Including the productivity suite, the OS, the compilers and the languages being compiled.
2) Bret Victor: The Future of Programminghttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGMiCo2Ntsc
It's a terrific window into the future of web application development.
I love everything about this talk. It walks you through building a lexer from scratch in a simple and elegant way, through a very interesting use of coroutines. I appreciate the bits of humor in the talk as well.
Carmack's talk about functional programming and Haskell -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PhArSujR_A
Jack Diederich's "Stop Writing Classes" -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9pEzgHorH0
All with a good sense of humor.
I'd mention Bret Victor's work before (maybe Drawing Dynamic Visualizations?), but Bret cheats by writing a lot of amazing code for each of his talks, and most of the awesome comes from the code, not his (great nonetheless) ability as a speaker.
Then you have John Carmack's QuakeCon keynotes, which are just hours and hours of him talking about things that interest him in random order, and it still beats most well prepared talks because of how good he is at what he does. HN will probably like best the one where he talks about his experiments in VR, a bit before he joined Oculus (stuff like when he tried shining a laser into his eyes to project an image, against the recommendations of... well, everyone): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wt-iVFxgFWk
 https://vimeo.com/36579366 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cN_DpYBzKso
Great talk about BBC micro and much more
3Matt Adereth - Clojure/typing
History of keyboards and a custom keyboard written in Clojure
I like the 3 for their content and how each speaker presented the background and their project/hack/ideas.
This was the first time I watched pg give a talk. It was the talk that brought about the biggest change in the way I think about the world, my ambitions. The talk was the beginning, reading more about pg, I came across his essays and then HN.
It's mostly about the history of HCI up to that point.
It's what I direct non-technical people to when they ask what the big deal about internet privacy is.
It's about much more than games. To me, it's about identifying and not doing unnecessary work.
The second half of this video is a Q&A session, which I would skip.
Related slides: http://static.googleusercontent.com/media/research.google.co...
"What the heck is the event loop anyway?" by Philip Roberts
I think this can really really change how we look at everyday programming tasks everywhere from the type of tooling we choose to how we approach problems.
I love his talks for a few reasons:
1. He's anti-hype 2. He's contriversal 3. He's right.
The title says it all. It's really a summary of several software systems with good ideas abound. I believe all the software is 80s or prior.
Edit: I also forgot to mention some psychology and math.
not a high tech talk, or particularly technically complex, but it shows a common blindspot in a way that is both clear, enlightening and frightening.
It's fairly high level, but he really burrows into computer history and it's simply fascinating to watch, helped by the fact the person is extremely passionate about what he does https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gB1vrRFJI1Q&list=PLbBZM9aUMs...
I especially like the part in the middle where he tells the story of how a an awful GNOME applet was killing a Sun Ray server, and how he tracked down the culprit with DTrace.
Sussman goes over some interesting ideas on the provenance of calculations and asserts that "exact" computation is possibly not worth the cost.
InfoSec talk. Best lines from talk..
"Basic lessons are not learned such as know thy network"
"You have to learn your network, you have to have skin in the game"
"Defense is hard, breaking stuff is easy"
"If you serve the God's of compliance you will fail"
"Compliance is not security"
"Perfect solution fallacy"
"People are falling over themselves not to change, shooting great ideas down."
"Perfect attacker fallacy, they don't exist, they are a myth!"
"Attackers are not that good because they don't need to be that good."
Speaker is Eric Conrad
...very inspiring if you're bored with the way websites have been looking for the past few years.
Watching that talk brought me over to the "a picture or a few words per slide" style of presentation, rather than the "wall of bullet points" style. It also helped me move from "stop talking, change slides, start talking again", to smooth transitions while talking.
It completely changed the way I approach front-end development (Not that talk in particular though. I saw an earlier, similar talk on Youtube but this one has much higher quality).
Detailed discussion of how to get the most out of your memory cache and memory bandwidth, focusing on games development. It's full of examples of how understanding both the problem and the hardware, and working in a straightforward way, can give you huge performance gains over using poorly suited abstractions. It shows how low level thinking is still important even with modern compilers. I recommend people interested in performance optimization watch it.
A deeply thoughtful discussion of the impact of metaphors on how we think about software development.
Skip to 0:40 if you don't want to hear the MC.
The rest of his channel is full of his talks https://vimeo.com/channels/761265
The simple and followable progression to more and more complex ideas blows my mind every time.
> Visualizing Algorithms A look at the use of visualization and animation to understand, explain and debug algorithms.
I like how this talk cuts through a lot of the BS in security. One of his points is that the US and other rich Western countries have a lot more to lose from a possible "cyber war" than our potential adversaries do.
Another key point is that we'll never make much progress unless we can somehow start building better systems in the first place, with fewer vulnerabilities for an adversary to exploit.
I think the second point has become a lot more widely accepted in recent years since McGraw started giving this talk. Unfortunately it sounds like a lot of government folks still haven't got the memo on point #1.
A fascinating tale about using python during the discovery phase of a trial. Very fun watch. Anything by David Beazley is great!
Scott Meyers' talks are fun to watch too.
Aside from the comedic aspect (which makes the talk incredible), Mickens is a genuinely brilliant thinker and has a marvelous way with words.
Great overview of value types, performance and how hardware that runs things still matters.
Guy Steele's How to Think about Parallel Programming: Not! at Strange Loop 2011: https://www.infoq.com/presentations/Thinking-Parallel-Progra...
How Google backs up the internet.
At the time it changed how I thought about backups/reliability.
"The Science of Insecurity" by Meredith L. Patterson and Sergey Gordeychik (2011)
Warning: speaker likes to use profanity (which I enjoy :) but possibly NSFW if you're not on headphones
Any of Jason Scott's talks given at various hacker cons are usually historically informative and always a lot of laughs (but they're decidedly not "technical").
One of the best talks about code reviews and similiar things
He is kinda awesome in Herzog's recent 'Lo and Behold' too.
For those how likes computer graphics (or want to learn), this is a gold piece.
"LoneStarRuby 2015 - My Dog Taught Me to Code by Dave Thomas" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCBUsd52a3s
"GOTO 2015 Agile is Dead Pragmatic Dave Thomas" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-BOSpxYJ9M
He was a co-speaker at TEDxGlasgow with me and I thought his talk was brilliant. Cyber-crime is a really interesting area.
It's worth joining a global-scale tech company (AWS, Google, Azure, Facebook) just to have your mind blown by some of the internal materials.
Humour, serious technical insight and a good reminder of why being a generalist is an advantage.
The best practical talk is of course this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=asLUTiJJqdE - Robert "Uncle Bob" Martin, Clean Architecture and Design
So many lessons in short, beautiful piece.
If you are in for something out of the ordinary.
edit: +Ryan Dahl
How I met your girlfriend: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5xRRF5GfQs&t=66s
Not sure if it's my favorite. And the subject is more technology than "tech". But the talk that keeps haunting me is Michael Dearing's lecture from the Reid Hoffman "Blitzscaling" class at Stanford:
Heroes of Capitalism From Beyond The Grave
Dearing draws upon an obscure letter by Daniel McCallum, superintendant of the New York and Erie Railroad, written to his bosses in the 1850s. In the report, McCallum bemoans the stress and frustration of operating a railroad system spanning thousands of miles. All of the joy and magic he used to revel in whilst running a fifty mile stretch back in his home town has long since dissipated. Furthermore, the unit cost per mile seems to be exploding rather counter-intuitively!
Dearing goes on to elucidate the absolute necessity of the railroads ("the thing to know about the railroads is: they were startups once") themselves. As guarantors of civilization and progress. Beacons bringing light and reason to the dark swamps of ignorance and inhumanity. And not just in the physical transport of goods, people and ideas across the continent. But as the wealth created from that creative destruction remains the best cure for all of our other inimical maladies: poverty, injustice, disease and stagnation.
So, no pressure. But civilization depends upon you!
Links to References in the Talk:
Estimates of World GDP: From One Million BC to the Present
The Process of Creative Destruction by Joseph Schumpeter
The Visible Hand: The Managerial Revolution in American Business by Alfred D. Chandler, Jr.
Report of D. C. McCallum to the stockholders of the New York and Erie Railroad
Things As They Are In America by William Chambers
I like it because it is the intersection of so many things. He starts slow, is very intimidated by the audience. The audience, obviously super skeptical of the clown from that 70s show giving any useful information, they could learn from. He finds his footing with a great morivational story (albeit laden with a few cliches) about a forgotten entrepreneur and how he built some lasting value.
For me, this is a great talk. The story is extremely motivational and has some interesting bits of history & entrepreneurial genius-- but the entire experience is extremely educational. About bias, drive & success.
I liked it for what it wasnt.
It's well worth watching if you are interested in vms at all.
Bret Victor - Inventing on Principle
Philip Roberts: What the heck is the event loop anyway? | JSConf EU 2014
This guy is just too funny.
Under the hood, they run ChromiumOS, including things like trusted boot (yes, this home router has a tpm), and the A/B partitions so when you get an automatic update, (which happens during a time of low bandwidth usage), it reboots into the new version in about 6 seconds. The security team is awesome: they pushed an update to all onhubs within 48 hours of public disclosure of a critical RCE earlier this year.
There has been some slowness to expected features, like ipv6, but the PMs have been clear about their goal: they won't include a feature that's buggy. It's exactly what you want in a piece of infrastructure.
* Eero: https://eero.com/
* Ubuquiti: https://www.ubnt.com
* Cisco: http://www.cisco.com (sized for larger buildings)
Does this new Google device come with the Google Fi feature which backhauls all your traffic to Google via a VPN?
I'm seeing about a dozen fancy modern wifi routers all trying to solve a problem I'm not sure exists.
On a different note, is there any reason why someone should prefer this to Ubiquiti's AmpliFi? Unlike Google, Ubiquiti has a long history of making networking gear. The only obvious benefit I see right now is Google Wifi starts at $129 for one unit whereas AmpliFi starts at $199, but that $199 includes 2 "mesh points" and presumably to get the same effect with Google Wifi you'd have to shell out $299 for the 3-pack.
This is misleading. You can create your own mesh networks with several off-the-shelf routers / access points using open source software like batman-advanced .
It is (I believe) a temporary project to explore how it all might work. In that sense, it's prototype and that's in fact really cool too. Basically they did an MVP of a Superille - low cost and very fast - in order to validate their hypotheses.
They mocked up the place to give people a feel of how living in this way could be. And they spent as little as possible - using old tyres and paint and recycled plywood to mark out spaces and make them feel "owned" by the people. Placing large lots of (quite big) trees and plants in pots on the car-free streets to see how it felt to walk down a street that was leafy and spacious and open.
The amount of extra space feels inspiring and liberating. Walking is faster if you want it to be - you can cut across streets and don't need to wait at stop signals. A lot of people riding bikes. A lot of smiles.
They definitely could have done a better job explaining it though. I have friends who support the idea but felt they could have been better informed. It felt like they didn't give enough warning.
However, what is interesting and cool is that once it was in place they did their best to engage residents in a dialogue about the proposal - they painted markings on the tarmac of the streets to lay out spaces for people to assemble and discuss. They had a soapbox platform for people to rant from, and a bunch of chairs scattered around the street for people to sit and discuss. They had walls for comments to be posted.
I certainly hope they go ahead with making it permanent and making more of them.
Cities without care are very different and much more humane places to live. Scale matters and cars warp the scale of a city in ways that are counterproductive to vibrant urban life.
I'm pretty sure we can overcome the technical issues that restrain us from our inevitable transition away from routine private car use in cities. Problems like what to do about parking are a legacy of the current broken system, not a fact of nature. The economic incentives to car ownership and the infrastructure that supports it are baked into cities right now. But this can change - but not by solving parking but by solving the underlying system and that includes pressuring the system to change through initiatives like this.
Side note, anyone here work at or know about Pier 01 down near the water? I just walked by there and was wondering what kind of companies were located there.
Also their way of having dedicated bus lanes.
NYC has a LOT of people living in every area of the city. There is a lot of construction and residential deliveries, and emergency traffic. Certain areas have become pedestrian plazas, and some are closed off during the weekend but it is simply not possible to close off a significant amount of space. Anyone driving to Manhattan especially during peak times is not doing it out of convenience as it is extremely inconvenient to drive there. Often people have tools and equipment, and parking in garages in Midtown can easily cost you $40-$60.
If you live or are visiting NYC it is a nice thought to have pedestrian only roads. But we have to remember that the trades people that make city life possible really need roads to work.
A street that has pedestrian/event space in the center and one lane roads on the outside. This street connects the Convention Center to the Bankers Life Field House (where the Pacers play).
Perhaps I can see this being tested in another borough in an area with lower density.
If you are looking for an example in Barcelona, it should only be l'eixample, which is one of architectural and engineering successes of 20th century.
And many times a very big fact is overseen: Barcelona is a village comparing to other big cities of the world. It is famous, popular, a great touristic destination in the summer but in the winter it is a village. A small city where people has normal, calm life. You can't compare it to any metropolitan city.
But that part rarely happens. Everyone loves doing the easy part (ban cars!). No one wants to do the hard part of still letting people and stuff get around somehow.
It's like saying "sewers smell gross, we should ban them", while conveniently ignoring the fact that thousands of people are still going to generate wastewater, and it's has to go somewhere.
This is more like the budget version of that. Don't really solve the big issues, don't really improve the central areas.
What would make this better is consolidation; actually moving the parking to the interlink point of the node, making it faster for a pedestrian to get from there to their home, or another point within the node. Improving the center so that it's more of an actual park, possibly with the shopping at level around it. Raising the standard of integration, interaction, and building codes for noise/fire suppression.
I posted this yesterday on HN, and am glad to see some discussion around it. Just curious that the new submission didn't get mapped back to the old one I've usually get linked back to an already posted article if I repost it after a short time.
Why is it considered progress to go back to how urban life was several centuries ago? Peter Thiel is right; we used to be optimistic about the future being better than today.
It was mind boggling to sit, day after day, in stalled traffic on the 101 with two empty carpool lanes on my left and four lanes filled with lone drivers all the way between San Jose and San Francisco.
Because wild Bitcoin fluctuations are somehow less akin to gambling than the securities market?
Glad he also threw in some "buy gold" scaremongering too.
Does Janus benefit somehow from this kind of talk?
I think what Bill means is that central banks have now taken a seat at the casino's table.
If a whale sits down next to you at the casino and starts playing unorthodox strategies and betting crazy and distracting the dealer - well some old folks don't like that.
Side note: Read Bill's bio, he is a very good gambler, especially blackjack.
Which points out... Casinos are sometimes a bad model for randomness in the real world. In a casino you have only "known unknowns", but in the real world it's "unknown unknowns" that often cause problems.
Lmao here. Any cursory study into the history of financial markets will show that they've always been "casinos".
(Baylor was writing pre-9/11. The rules are different now for US citizens.)
See "The Road To Raqqa" (http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MzPiuwzEtuY) for examples of bikers, homemakers & software dev mercenary outfits organized just on Facebook, operating in combat zones currently.
> Why do programmers looking for easy cash from VCs they can blindside with a storm of buzzwords migrate to San Francisco? Its one of the absolute worse places to run a company, but its one of the best for starting a company simply because the community is there.
Makes sense. I always considered myself a tech mercenary.
Back when Sourcegraph supported Ruby, I found myself reaching it for all the time. It was slightly half baked (semantic analysis of Ruby is challenging) but still incredibly useful. I look forward to the day Ruby support returns and it being better than ever.
Slightly unrelated, if you're based in the Bay Area, you should go to their meetup. I don't like going to meetups because the content is usually a bit fluffy but they've constantly had strong technical speakers. Here's one with the creator of Raft (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dfSOFqOhOU).
As far as I know this is the only use of the language server protocol in a web browser. Have you documented anywhere how you made this work?
We spend a lot of time thinking about how to make AI succeed in medicine. Given that so many efforts, including MYCIN, have been tried and failed before, one of the key questions to answer is "Why now?" In other words, what has changed in the world which will let AI succeed where it has failed before?
I'm curious: is anybody else here applying deep learning, or any other subfield of AI, to healthcare?
If so... do the challenges listed in this post resonate? Do you believe the shifts identified are the right ones to focus on?
Actually, regulation and fear are the main reasons that machine learning hasn't taken off in clinical medicine. More precisely, the provider's fear of getting sued and the regulations that require a licensed practitioner to "have the final say." There is one more problem as well --> machine learning doesn't solve a problem that providers think they have. It's lesson #1 from The Lean Startup or The Startup Owner's Manual. You may have the best EKG-reading software in the world (I have no doubt computers could surpass providers on this task), but if the providers don't feel they need it, it simply won't be adopted. This is the Watson situation at heart.
Conversely, here are some areas in medicine where machine learning has been adopted:
1. Medical billing code generation: Several companies have systems for reading notes using natural language processing and predicting billing codes using market-basket analysis.
2. Identifying bacterial cultures: Inpatient bacterial cultures are placed in a big incubator and constantly scanned for growth. When growth is suspected, there are emerging algorithms to automatically classify the bacteria. Similar work is being applied to other areas of pathology (see: http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms12474)
3. Image-analysis in radiology: There are a few radiology companies that are demonstrating superior results by applying novel algorithms. While not "machine learning" per se, the existence of such algorithms is encouraging for future advancements in radiology, since it's a step beyond just viewing the image. Here's one such company that has gained FDA approval for their blood flow mapping technology: http://www.ischemaview.com/
The most pressing thing to understand is that clinicians spend the VAST majority of their time gathering all of the necessary information to make a diagnosis. In other words, they aren't puzzling over how to diagnose about 85% (made that up) of their patients.
Once the necessary information is gathered, an experienced doc doesn't usually spend more than about 10-15 seconds debating different diagnoses. Therefore, if your tool takes more than 10-15 seconds to launch, enter any necessary data, and get a result, you are slowing the clinician down and they won't use it. This is why automated EKG interpretations (which are very much a real thing used at hospitals across the country) print directly on the EKG printout - it doesn't cost the clinician more than about 2 seconds to read what the machine thinks and adjust their interpretation accordingly.
One of the major problems limiting adoption of "expert" computer systems is the amount of (very expensive) integration it takes to get them under that 10-15 second limit. One of the big reasons radiology is seeing a lot of buzz around machine learning and automated interpretation is that integration becomes a lot easier when you can just feed in an image and maybe 5 words about the indication for the study.
I would love to go on for a while about this stuff, but I'll stop there for now :)
 Some people here might be interested to learn that non-cardiologists generally don't have negative views about automated EKG interpretations. But we are also very well-aware that when we make decisions about a patient, those decisions have to be anchored to something a lot more substantial than "the machine told me to do it."
Here in the UK, DeepMind has been doing interesting work on retinal and radiology images with NHS.
While I agree that large enough quantities of labeled data and legal access to it can be hard to get, interestingly, there are many more low hanging fruit in medtech space that don't necessarily have anything to do with machine learning.
Take hospital IT software for instance. Doctors literally waste double digit percentage of their time wrestling with really bad legacy software.
Even the really expensive solutions, like Epic Systems, is horrible. I am hopeful that better options will become available and future public health budgets don't get wasted on the kind of systems that exists now
In real life, medical information often is stored as PDF or similar in the hospital information system. An interesting challenge for AI would be to encode these PDFs.
Yes, self-medication is wrong, right now is wrong, and there exactly is the disruption. Give information to the patients as a first line of defense, then let doctors handle the special cases.
I wish I'd discovered her sooner...she's easily in my top five favorite scifi authors, today. Parable of the Sower (and its sequel) is beautiful and thought-provoking; the Lilith's Brood series (starting with Dawn) was way ahead of its time, tackling gender, race, sexuality, and xenophobia, in a really thoughtful and nuanced way (in a genre that is not renowned for nuance on any of these subjects). Even her early Patternist series is awesome. It's like she sprung up fully formed as one of the great scifi writers (though, apparently, she had several years of rejection, so I guess she honed her craft in relative obscurity).
I suspect I was slow to read her because her best known work, Kindred, just didn't sound like something I would like (I did end up reading it, and liking it, though it's not my favorite of her work, and I don't really get excited about alternate histories or time travel stories). But, most of her other stuff is right up my alley. She's got dystopia covered with the Parable series, she's got weird aliens in Lilith's Brood, and she's got creepy evolutionary speculation in the Patternist series.
I really just can't say enough good things about Butler, and strongly recommend every scifi fan check her out. I wish she'd written more, as I've read most of her novels a couple of times, and loved nearly all of them. It's disappointing to have discovered someone so good, and then run out of books by them to read, knowing there will never be another. (Similarly, I never "got" Asimov as a kid, but then read Foundation as a young adult and finally understood it and loved it, only to find he'd died a couple months before...but, at least Asimov wrote enough books to keep one busy for years.)
FYI for those who haven't read it, Butler's "Parable of the Sower" is one of the most crucial novels of the last century. It mixes a future so dark and plausible it makes other dystopias look sweet and cartoonish with -- incredibly -- a cosmic optimism so deep and hopeful it makes you proud to be human. It's really an amazing book.
I found the answer in a comment on "Explain XKCD". The RLM usually only reorders characters, but does not mirror their glyphs. The exception are glyphs with the "Bidi_Mirrored=Yes" property, which are mapped to a mirrored codepoint.
The half-stars proposal includes a note on that property: "Existing stars are in the Other Neutrals class, so half stars should probably use the ON bidirectional class. The half stars have the obvious mirrored counterparts, so they can be Bidi mirrored. However, similar characters such as LEFT HALF BLACK CIRCLE are not marked as mirrored. I'll leave it up to the Unicode experts to determine if Bidi Mirrored would be appropriate or not."
If anyone wants to submit some new characters, all of our documents are on GitHub https://github.com/jloughry/Unicode
HN strips the characters out from comments, but they're displayed in the beginning of the article.
It's getting really complicated. There are now skin-tone modifiers for emoji.
A zsh theme with those characters in use: https://gist.github.com/agnoster/3712874
We're discussing the appropriate code-point for different smiley faces,obscure electrical symbols or, in the present case, half stars to expressfilm or book ratings, yet we have no complete set of sub- and superscripts!
Am I mistaken in thinking it odd, that there's a complete Klingon alphabet but norepresentation whatsoever for most Greek or Latin subscripts? Or what if, heaven forbid,I'd want to use a 'b' index/subscript? Tough! Not even the "phonetic extensions",where subscript-i comes from, provides it.
Refer tohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_supersc...or look for SUBSCRIPT in http://ftp.unicode.org/Public/UNIDATA/UnicodeData.txt
Surely there's the one or two actual scientists on the Unicode consortium?Or even the one odd soul still sporting a notion of consistency who finds itonly logical to provide a "subscript b" if there's a "subscript a"?
How am I wrong?
I've had in mind for a long time the idea for a short story (or perhaps novel) set in a future where one is able to purchase an "intelligence upgrade", given enough money, which bestows upon the customer a stronger reasoning ability and an overall more capable intelligence.
If we accept that particularly capable people (disregarding why they are particularly capable, when adults) then imagine a world where already successful people are able to purchase neural upgrades that enhance the cognitive aspects that let them become as successful as they already were able to become.
On the one hand, this might create an exponentially larger social inequality, if it is true that most successfully people are selfish and take advantage of others. On the other hand (and if you believe that at least 51% of the human race is "good"), it might not. Which one would it be, and would it depend on how and why society got to the point of developing those sorts of neural upgrades? I don't know.
I think that the premise could make for an interesting thought experiment expressed in literary form, even if it would depend on its author's personal beliefs. Alas, I am not a creative writer by any stretch of the imagination.
Normal mice put inside a watery maze took more than a minute to locate the submerged platform that would let them escape. But these mice which had been injected with a curious new molecule found it in an average of just 16 seconds.
Memory is a 'muscle', it can be trained, it's possible to train yourself to have 100% recall and I think people should concentrate on that as much as physically working out.
I actually think that's the approach schools should take, instead of cramming children full of facts they'll never remember, take a couple of years, train everyone to have a photographic memory, then teach them, no more cramming, no more panicking, no more not understanding, you just absorb everything!
Google 'memory palace' for learning resources on memory etc.