Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | mmh0000's commentslogin

I’m not sure if gitfriend is a typo.

I’m lonely and really want a gitfriend to push and merge with! Please tell the story of how you got one!

/s for the /s impaired


I'm afraid of commits.

You could wait a bit after forking.

Don't worry! We're moving away from automatic cameras, too. Soon, you'll just use ChatGPT to generate your vacation images on demand.

I'm being a little hyperbolic, but it really seems like, for a non-insignificant portion of the population, that will be true.


Friend of mine suggested "vacation camera" concept when Panoramio was established (around 2006): box with compass, GPS and Internet connection. You point it to the sight, press button, it downloads photos of this sight. If you have premium subscription, it downloads professional photos with professional post-processing.

Inserting user's mates was a problem in 2006.


The rate at which people are currently posting AI enhanced or modified images of themselves is a bit surprising to me. Apparently people very much like wearing different outfits or travelling to new places without actually having to put them on or actually leave the house.

I would recommend reading the Freakinomics book or listen to their podcasts on drugs.

TL;DR: drug cartels are run like businesses. They are very rational. But, unlike your boss, their boss can also shoot you in the face if you annoy them too much


netcat, socat and openssl s_client are all available for general manual connection testing.

As are many other tools. But the ones above are basically far better direct telnet alternatives.


I've never really understood why it's a thing to use a telnet client for transmitting text on a socket for purposes other than telnet. My understanding is that telnet is a proper protocol with escape sequences/etc, and even that HTTP/SMTP/etc require things like \r\n for line breaks. Are these protocols just... close enough that it's not a problem in practice for text data?

Because for a long time, on most computers, the telnet client was the closest thing to an "open a tcp socket to this ip/port and connect the i/o from it to stdin/stdout" application you can get without installing something or coding it up yourself.

These days we have netcat/socat and others, but they're not reliably installed, while telnet used to be generally available because telnetting to another machine was more common.

These days, the answer would be to use a netcat variant. In the past, telnet was the best we could be confident would be there.


You don't even need netcat or socat for that, probing /dev/tcp/<host>/<port> from the shell is enough.

Telnet was available in the 90s. I reckon /dev/tcp is way more recent. GP did say a long time ago.

That's some gnu bash shenanigans. There is no /dev/tcp in unix

Lots of shops didn't have gnu installed: telnet was what we had.


In corporate environments, netcat was often banned as it was seen as a "hacking" tool. Having it installed would sometimes get the attention of the security folks, depending how tightly they controlled things.

Same reason that people use vi. It's always there.

In the days of yore, Windows had telnet installed. Most hackers used telnet in the 90's and early 2000's.

The telnet protocol with escapes, etc. is only used by the telnet client if you’re connecting to the telnet port. If you’re connecting to HTTP, SMTP or something else, the telnet protocol is not enabled.

Because it's there.

It hasn't for the most part of the last 2 decades.

The telnet client comes with MS Windows, Linux and macOS. The only platforms were you need to install some extra component are Android and iOS.

Many companies have been preventing its execution or removing the package by default for a number of years.

Also most linux containers do not ships with such binaries to save on img size and reduce vuln management overhead.


> to save on img size

    $ ls --human --size --dereference $(which telnet)
    144K /usr/bin/telnet

The point is not that this particular binary is huge, the point is that we tend to strip images of anything that is not useful for the actual application shipped. So we strip everything. Also: small things adds up. On AI prompt can be handled reasonably by a single machine, millions of concurrent ones involve huge datacenters and whole energy plants being restarted/built.

The point of reducing the amount of binaries shipped with the image is also to reduce the amount of CVEs/vulns in your reports that wouldn't be relevant for your app but woulld still be raised by their presence.


Telnet client is an optional feature in Windows that needs to be enabled/installed.

telnet hasn’t shipped with macOS since 10.12 Sierra, ten years ago.

Debian also isn’t shipping telnet in the base install since Debian 11.


Thanks, sounds like a recent development. I don't use macOS, but on other peoples macOS computer it was always there, even when they are not developers. But it could very well be that these computers are ten years old.

I mean technically MS Windows 10 is ten years old, but the big upgrade wave to 10 only happened like 4 years ago, which is quite recently. Maybe that is similar to macOS users, I don't know that.


If it's alright to be pedantic, anyone with programming knowledge can do the same without these tools. What these offer is tried and tested secure code for client side needs, clear options and you don't need to hand roll code for.

You can program without tools? I want to see that. Do you still have switches to alter RAM content, or do you use the butterfly method?

who's hand rolling code anymore these days though?

If you miss that and long for the olden days, you can still do it today with OpenSSL’s sclient:

  openssl s_client -connect www.yahoo.com:443

There are many things I want to say in reply to this. So I’ll bullet point them:

* yes, do not buy equipment that has acquired so much tech debt that it still requires telnet.

* there are a million telnet clients out in the world. And ones far better than the default OS one. Apple not shipping one standard is not the end of the world or really anything more than a mild inconvenience for the small handful of people who need actual “Telnet” as opposed to Netcat or socat, both of which are far better than base Telnet.


> yes, do not buy equipment that has acquired so much tech debt that it still requires telnet.

No, you already own this capital equipment. It's the laptops running macOS that are ephemeral and disposable.

I don't care for excuses or workarounds; why did they do it?

It was an explicit decision whilst leaving a lot more—arguably more useless—garbage in.

Every OS that removed telnet did so for a symbolic reason, not because it was helpful technically.


It seems rather typical for Apple. The removal of the headphone jack obsoleted thousands of consumer devices.

Some of the big providers already do this, notably Apple and Gmail:

https://www.litmus.com/blog/gmail-prefetching-images


Gmails prefetch is terrible for privacy because it honors http cache headers, which means tracking companies simply use a "no-cache, must-revalidate" header to defeat it.

That sounds like a feature, not a bug, given where Google’s revenue comes from.

Google's revenue comes from Google's ads, not other people's ads, and they already know when you open your emails. They should block remote loading, to ensure their ad platform works better than other people's.

Which is completely stupid since images in an email should never change.

Why shouldn't they? There's plenty of scenarios where you might want to swap images after a period of time has elapsed, or to fix a mistake.

The ability to swap images but not text seems arbitrary.

You could imagine a system more like the notification tray on iOS/Android where at any time a notification can appear, be edited, timeout, or be deleted.

Your email inbox could be like that. The email saying "Your parcel has been dispatched" could be edited to say "Your parcel has been delivered".

When you refund something you've bought, the original purchase receipt could be crossed out or hidden. When you get invited to a wedding but then the wedding is cancelled, the original invite could be deleted, etc.


It's counter to the principle of what e-mail is. It's supposed to be static. Just because you can doesn't mean you should.

> It's supposed to be static.

Says who? It's not in the original RFC as far as I'm aware.


I'm pretty sure the original RFC (RFC 821) does not include remote resources and it was written far before HTML or HTTP was invented.

It was text delivered over SMTP.


specifically to prevent this kind of tracking

I know of an invoicing system that updates the image when it's paid. Seems pretty useful to me.

And yes, that means that an image with an amount is publicly accessible, so what, there's no information about the invoice in there as that's in the text of the email.


Bet they send a separate mail when you paid though, in which case updating the picture is not much more than a means for them to hide errors.

I subscribed to the daily headlines from a newspaper, they delivered them as a remote picture in the mail. Only it was always the same remote picture each day, just updated. So if you didn't open the mail each day too bad: you snooze you loose, those past headlines are gone.


You really shouldn't trust the CPU maker.

On Intel & AMD, both have a "hidden core" (i.e., a 4-core processor is really a 5-core processor), and they run proprietary, closed-source operating systems that literally no one outside of Intel or the NSA has any idea what they do.

We do know it has full access to the fTMP, RAM, and Network.

We also know that the NSA has a special contract to obtain Intel processors with the IME disabled... Why would they want that if the processors were trustworthy[1]?

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20170830201623/https://hardocp.c...


He literally said he was gonna:

"Trump vows massive new tariffs if elected, risking global economic war"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2023/08/22/trump-tra...

(https://archive.is/20231125045858/https://www.washingtonpost...)

EDIT - Found this after my post, a MUCH better "he said it":

https://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-president-tru...


And he did it last time too: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariffs_in_the_first_Trump_adm...

“Living under a rock” is the technical term, I believe.


Yep, in his first term he was called "tariff man" (among other things).

He didn't do it the same way last time. Trump's second term is significantly different.

Yeah, I find it curiously delusional, but the reality seems to be a segment of the population just refuses to accept the drastic change in pace to political change.

No, knowing that Trump really likes tariffs is not enough to know specifically how he's going to do it. (And which laws he's going to break to get there.)

Well yeah, but the man is also a pathological liar. I would not blame anyone for not believing he was going to do anything that he said he would do.

This is super interesting, and I'd actually be quite interested in buying a 60K-Lumen lamp... but not at $1200.

Years ago, there was an HN article "You Need More Lumens"[1], which in turn led me down a rabbit hole.

I ended up purchasing:

   4 standard table lamps from Target,
  28 2000-lumen Cree LEDs bulbs[2] and,
   4 7-way splitters[3].
The end result is somewhere around 56,000 lumens. And I LOVE it. Makes me much happier in my home office, especially in the winter months.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10957614

[2] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08H4RJQTT

[3] https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01FKIE6M4


Just a fun random fact from me: We do need more lumens. Not for normal (non-production) indoor lighting in most situations, however, I always want a bright light for my outside lights, and I find that most 100w-equivalent (1500 lumens) are just not quite enough. 2,000 lumens is almost there, however, 2,500 lumens would be beneficial. Both 2,000 and 2,500 lumen bulbs either don't last in temperature extremes, or are super expensive. The power on time (think hours per day of use) and color of the light matters as well. In my use case, I need a bulb that can withstand long periods of time being run from dusk till dawn. I am willing to pay a decent amount for a guaranteed warranty for X years, however most bulbs of ANY amount of lumens only guarantee 1-3 hours a day for 1-5 years. When you need 7-10 hours a day, well...

You can derate/"underclock" a regular LED and it will run significantly cooler, heat being one of the big drivers of LED lifespan. Downsides are less output per lamp (so need more lamps, probably why long-life lamps are expensive on a per-lumen basis) and you need to do a bit of DIY.

bigclivedotcom video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISTB0ThzhOY


Have you seen the Philips TrueForce Core 40W LED bulbs? Not sure if they're sold in the US, but they're 4000 lumens, "last up to 15,000 hours" (whatever you make of that phrasing). They're quite huge but fit into a normal light socket. Not very expensive either.

It's a literal streetlight. It has the bigger E40 screw, not the standard E27 screw. It has an awful spectrum, it's basically blue + yellow, with a massive gap inbetween.

Oh I see. I can explain my confusion: They come in two varieties, one is E40 an the other is bayonet (B22). Here in NZ interior home light sockets are sometimes E27 and sometimes B22. I have a couple of the bayonet Philips 40W bulbs here and they do fit a normal socket size, so I figured the screw version would be the normal size as well. But I see you're right that it's a larger size, and I know you guys don't use bayonet. Sorry!

Interesting. 25000 hours actually.

Try looking into videography COBs. I would recommend something like the Zhiyun Molus G300, SmallRig RC 220B or similar.

The absolute cheapest lumens per dollar COB would be the GVM SD300D, although I highly question the reliability and light quality.


I have a pair of PAR38 LED bulbs from Cree Lighting (2100 lumens) that are rated for 25,000 hours. They're in a flood-light mounted under the eaves of my house.

I never got around to putting them on a dusk-to-dawn timer, so they've been burning 24/7 since I purchased them at the end of 2020 (except for the occasional power outage, of course). I paid $20/each for them.

Sample size of 1 (technically 2), but there are definitely products on the market that meet your criteria.


Don't know enough about your neighborhood, and I might have misread your comment (the "under the eaves" makes me think these are outdoor)

but as someone who appreciates darkness I'd be really upset to live near someone who did this.

Unless you can keep your light on your property (as in, you are extremely rural).

why are you lighting up outside unless you are outside in the light?


The lights are indeed outdoor, and cover most of my backyard. It's a neighborhood within a major metropolitan area, but the light doesn't bleed beyond my property lines.

As for the "why", the answer is security. If someone attempts to hide in my yard, they'll find it quite difficult to remain unseen.

Most of my neighbors have floodlights of their own (though mine are easily the brightest), and I've gotten no complaints in the years I've had them. If any of my neighbors voiced concerns about them, I would try to work with them to find a solution. I have to live next to them, so it only makes sense to stay on good terms.


My neighbour has a motion activated flood light. It's annoying. Not annoying enough to risk a feud by telling them though. It also completely ruins any natural habitat for nocturnal animals.

The whole concept of permanently lighting your garden is crazy! Where do you live that you're so worried about people hiding in your yard? Could you not solve that with cameras and an infra-red floodlight?


Even infrared is weird to me. Insects and other creatures living in the garden have issues with it, while they are important for a healthy environment ...

I live in a not-so-great area of town. There were two murders in the last 6 months. One in my neighborhood, and the other in an adjacent public park.

The always-on lighting is a deterrent to anyone trying to hide from police.


Relinking what I've already linked in a sibling comment, but I've just started having these die after 4 years of continuous use ~12hrs/day: amazon.com/dp/B07BRKT56T

Interestingly, 4 of the 6 that I had running all died in the same ~3mo period, but still I was pretty happy for 4 years of use for $25/ea.


Why do you need bright lights on outside all night?

In my case, I park a car in my driveway overnight. My lights also help deter anyone who might wander near my neighbor's open carport. I run GE daylight 100w equivalent bulbs purchased from Lowe's from dusk to dawn. They last for years and are cheap. Two bulbs at my driveway and two 60w equivalents on my porch.

We have a gated garage in the building, well lit as well, but cars are regularly broken into, bicycles stolen etc. Doesn’t discourage, in fact the light probably helps them do their job, haha.

I throw 200w led onto my garden. Enough to see where you are but a long way from daylight.

Costco sells a ceiling light that does 24k lumens for just over $100.

https://www.costco.com/p/-/enbrighten-ultrabrite-hex-lights/...


The problem with lights like that is the CRI[1].

Getting just lumens is cheap. Getting a full spectrum of light is where costs increase.

This is the reason I chose to go with the specific Cree bulbs (linked in original post) that get a 90+ CRI rating

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index


The Costco lights list a CRI of 90 in the user manual.

https://enbrightenme.com/cdn/shop/files/85837_QSG_v4.pdf?v=3...


Oh my... Thank you for finding a thing I need to spend money on now. =D

I hate dark/dingy basements, so one of my first purchases with my new house was 100k lumen of Costco shop lights. I do find myself cleaning the basement, doing laundry, and working on projects more when the sun starts to set at 5PM.

I did something similar, but a slightly different approach. I installed grow lights in my ceiling conches: amazon.com/dp/B07BRKT56T?ref_=ppx_hzsearch_conn_dt_b_fed_asin_title_1

In my office I have 6 of these, for a total of around 13,000 lumens. It effectively 6x'd my light output for around $150. Worked wonders, especially in the PNW winter.


> the PNW winter

It rains only once ... but for six months :)


$1200 is a lot, and it would be a straight dealbreaker to me as well. But I also noticed it draws 580W, which is a lot too.

Besides not wanting to waste the money, I doubt the lamp will last 5 years (not 5 years of projected use of XX minutes per day…). 580W converted to heat on a small disk will take its toll.


~100 lumens per watt is rather poor, especially given the cost. It's the same as a standard LED lightbulb, and that includes the miniature AC voltage converter.

150lm/w would make it at least a cut above domestic lightbulbs.

200lm/w would make it a premium product.


fwiw, LEDs with higher CRI will generally be less power efficient, so the premium category has a 3-way tradeoff between brightness, power, and color quality. It's common for high efficiency LED lightbulbs to be much worse at illuminating red objects.

True enough, although CREE's XT-E offers 140 lm/w at a CRI of 80 and a colour temp of 3000k.

I assume this product has not met any regulatory requirements, because selling a ~600W hot plate suspended at eye level cannot be legal.

These LEDs are just the ones found on imported LED strips. Adjustable colour temperature is a novelty that is not compatible with LED efficiency or lifetime.


CRI of 80 is not great. From my reading, you want CRI 90 if you want light that's pleasant to exist in.

Fair point. Given that this product has adjustable colour temperature, I really doubt all of the lumen, CRI and watt values. It sounds like the designer also got stung when the chosen LEDs didn't give the expected power output.

> ~100 lumens per watt is rather poor

Is it, though? Most of the LEDs I've seen are very similar, and lower temp LEDs are slightly less efficient. If it were 60lm/watt I'd be a bit surprised, but 100lm seems pretty typical. Maybe not "well engineered", but average. (Which, with all due respect to the founder, seems the quality of the product.)


CREE offer a variety of LED types with efficiencies 150lm/w (eg CMB, XT-E), up to 230lm/w (eg, 5050).

While 100lm/w is typical for domestic LED lighting, it's going to cause problems when the total power is several orders of magnitude higher but the form factor is approximately the same size. That heatsink will probably fry an egg, and I wonder about the lifetime of the diffuser plastic.


The 'wasted' electricity is turned into heat, which should be welcome by their target customer base.

I can't imagine the customer base for people who want a ~600W metal disc suspended at eye level is very big.

Q: Does it get hot/how is it cooled? A: It's cooled through our large heatsink and ultra quiet Noctua fan. The fan only turns on above 75% brightness. At max power, the heatsink is cool enough to put your hands on it for a couple of seconds.

It's still dissipating near 600W. "I can put my hands on it for a few seconds" tells me it's dangerously hot and would not pass any kind of safety certification. How many other objects do you have in your house that heat up to a similar degree? How many of those objects would you like suspended at eye level with no particular safety guards?

It is way too expensive for me as well. Yeh, world's brightest lamp is costliest to buy & maintain.

You can also buy photographic lights and umbrellas; it's dirt cheap and works well.

Related thread I wrote a bit ago: https://www.reddit.com/r/Lighting/comments/1po7sxb/are_there...

I do think it's actually quite hard to beat the Brighter lamp on all of: Lumens, $, QoL (ie: Google Home integration + temp control), Form Factor (ie: not looking ugly), CRI.

I personally noticed issues w/ CRI & Form Factor quite a lot with my previous options.


Curious if LEDs can really match the black-body that is our sun (and therefore incandescents).

I would get/build such a thing for my mental health, but I worry the LED illumination will be counter-productive.


I've found that a 250w incandescent bulb (can be had for ~$10) paired with a 4000 lumen LED produced decent results on a budget. Search for "reptile" or "chicken" lamps, they are usually red. You can feel the HEAT from a 250w light bulb.

The only thing to watch out for is that the lamp base you're using can support the high wattage.


Look for the CRI rating of bulbs that you buy. It's a measurement of how close to a blackbody spectrum the bulb is putting out, the highest fidelity being 100. Note that this is not the temperature measurement, and you can have e.g. 2700K or 5000K bulbs with high CRI.

Newer LED phosphors are typically 90+ CRI, and I commonly find 93 CRI bulbs available off the shelf.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_rendering_index


Sunlight diverges significantly from a black-body spectrum because the atmosphere absorbs so many wavelengths.

I didn't want to mention that CRI is matched against the spectrum of _daylight_ because of the confusion that happens with color temperature when you mention the "daylight" word. You're right though, the CRI reference spectrum is matched against sunlight rather than a true blackbody.

Even high cri lights have a huge blue spike that doesn't match the sun. I don't know what chip OP uses, but you need a full spectrum light if you actually want very sun-like light. This page has some details:

https://optimizeyourbiology.com/best-natural-full-spectrum-l...

No idea if there's any evidence or not of the blue spike actually mattering for human biology.


Kind of what I worry about—the spectrum mismatch. Damn but incandescents sound pretty good for just this one application. I must be (am) getting old.

Interesting. The Wikipedia entry mentions SPD and I think that is where I think LEDs fall down—having a skewed and/or incomplete spectrum. Even though it may make certain target colors look correct.

I have seen a couple studies that show having/adding deep red is an important part of LED lighting because deep red penetrates your skin the deepest and is used as a signal to your body that it is receiving light/sun.

Personally if I wanted "daylight" replicated by LEDs I would go for a higher quality white grow light that included deep red LEDs. Just be sure you don't get one that is also outputting in the UV range, although most don't.


Any spectrum you want with the right phosphor mix, but are they commercially produced, or must you make your own?

don't worry, there soon will be knock-offs way cheaper

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: