UK triggers the official Brexit process in a letter to EU - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/live/uk-politics-39424391 <comment><USER2> I'm a big believer in not having assumptions and testing things with actual experiments. This is one experiment I'd rather not be participating in, though.

It's difficult to see very much positive about this move; certainly there will be some benefits, but I expect greatly outweighed by the negatives (which will include higher prices, lower employment and probably lower standards for UK workers - the EU has consistently been the only organisation willing to drag us out of the dark ages).

<comment><USER3> The EU is a novelty in human history. The desire for independence, for better or worse, is human nature.

<comment><USER4> Independence from what? Should England be an Independent state? London? The City of London?

<comment><USER5> Each British homeowner should be independent. A man's house is his castle. The could all be lords of their own empire but band together when needed to fight common enemies. Perhaps they could all group together money to help pay for common services like roads etc.

<comment><USER6> I had to check your history to see if this is satire.

Since it's not: this is a completely misguided view of human nature. Humans are among the most social of all animals, and our successes and failures have always been a function of our ability to work together. Humans everywhere, and at any time, have created groups held together by a lot more than transactional opportunities.

And even if you were right, and it is our fundamental nature to be lone wolfs, plundering the lesser lords and raping their ladies: the actual overarching feature of humanity is our unique ability to overcome base instincts with reason and morality. And both reason and experience tell us that cooperation is much more successful as a strategy for anything you could possibly desire than the alternatives.

<comment><USER5> Why wouldn't you think it was satire?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a bit tired of reading doomsday messages by now. I am an European living and working in the UK and even though this affects me I have no reason to believe that things will go downwards now. If there's anything I've learned so far then that every analysis I've read couldn't have been more wrong.

It almost seems like the more the UK economy doesn't collapse the more people shout even louder how bad the Brexit is. Maybe I am just too indifferent or chilled, but I think the best is to just sit back and watch what will happen.

Also I seriously don't think of the Brexit that the UK leaves Europe. I think the UK and the EU will strive for the closest relationship possible. The only thing that I see changing is that the UK withdraws from a formal contract with the EU with the hope to negotiate a better deal. I don't think this is racist. Not every contract makes the same sense for every country in the world.

\--- EDIT:

Wow lots of responses to this comment. Thank you all. There's a lot of good discussion and some suggest that I am more relaxed perhaps because I am maybe financially secure, but that is not true. When I was a child I watched on television the Fukushima disaster in Japan and I was totally freaked out. I was afraid for many reasons and then as I watched longer I was totally amazed how relaxed the people in Japan dealt with the situation. There was a crisis, but nowhere near what I thought would have happened in the western world. Nobody was running or fleeing the country, nobody stopped going to work, etc. People worked together to fix the problem as good as they could and everyone lifted their weight. All news in Europe were talking about how cool-headed the Japanese dealt with this situation and it was something which I never forgot in my life. I then realised that only because everyone stayed calm and cool headed they were able to deal with this problem the way they did. It was not perfect, but boy it was much better than what I thought would happen.

So this is my childhood experience which has marked me for life and made me realise that mass hysteria is never good. No matter what the situation is.

<comment><USER8> You haven't been affected by the changes because nothing has happened yet. This is the start of the negotiations to decide what those changes will be.

And when I say nothing has happened yet, I mean apart from the massive drop in the value of sterling and inflation massively outstripping wage increases.

I assume you're based in London, which means you're fairly isolated from the social changes that have happened across the UK in recent years. London is very pro-EU and immigration friendly. The statistics do show a massive increase in race related hate crimes in the UK since the referendum, so even if the vote wasn't racist, it has given racists a confidence boost.

<comment><USER9> Except "the experts" were predicting terrible things immediately, not later on - remember the punishment budget necessity? Inflation "massively outstripping wages" is just over the Bank of England's target, the one it has been massively under for the past 5 years. The drop in sterling doesn't lead to sustained inflationary pressure. Wages are also picking up as well, though not in the public sector.

The "massive increase in race related crime" is also far more complex than newspaper headlines give credit to. The big headlines came from the immediate aftermath 4 days where crimes reported to a website went from 54 to to 85 - i.e. 57%. The police statement on this made the point that it was only a single source that they weren't seeing an increase in community tension - guess what the press went with? The police statistics do bear out an overall increase since the previous year, but by a much lower margin - and in line with year on year increases.

The key point though is that in the UK hate crimes are defined as when the victim, or any other person, perceives a crime to be a hate crime - thanks to the legacy of Macpherson. Reported hate crimes have been trending up for years, partly because there has been a massive cultural shift in the police to record them and on people to report them. So, as with all statistics, it is complicated - did more people perceive an increase in hate crimes because they were being told that they were spiking? Has Britain become a more intolerant place or are we just recording better how intolerant we've been for a while? The Civitas report on this makes for interesting reading [http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/hatecrimethefactsbeh...](http://www.civitas.org.uk/content/files/hatecrimethefactsbehindtheheadlines.pdf)

<comment><USER8> > Except "the experts" were predicting terrible things immediately, not later > on - remember the punishment budget necessity?

As a matter of fact, I do remember the "punishment budget", the one which was mocked up for 2019-20 [1], around the time that the UK would actually leave the EU.

No one expected the UK economy to crash the day of the referendum. The projections are all projections for AFTER we have left the EU, not before. The reason exports get that title is because they know enough to at least make their projections from when the changes actually happen.

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/15/revolt- of-6...](https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/15/revolt-of-65-tory- mps-over-osborne-tax-rises)

<comment><USER9> The language around the budget was "emergency" and "in the event of a vote to leave". You are correct the IFS analysis was about post leaving the EU, that was certainly not the spin the remain campaign placed on it.

Saying "no one expected the UK economy to crash the day of" is a little odd - the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee certainly seemed to think they needed to act in the immediate aftermath of the vote with the interest rate cut which is now looking not such a great idea.

<comment><USER10> Remember that we had a prime minister that lied and said he'd invoke Article 50 immediately?

All the predictions were based on a bunch of promises by certain people to make rash, idiotic changes immediatly after the vote. Promises that were thankfully broken.

Most of the conditions that these kind of predictions were made under changed the moment Cameron resigned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I sincerely hope that today (and obviously the day it actually happens) isn't something that I look back on with sadness in the future. I live in the UK, and am really saddened by the way that politics is 'progressing' \- in fact, regressing to a time where nationalism seems to be the voice, and one which I think will inevitably lead to conflict. Combined with the Trump situation in the USA, I am extremely pessimistic about the future - more so of my four step children, who are all going to reap the adult world that people such as Johnson, Gove and Farage have sewn.

<comment><USER12> We had plenty of conflict while part of the EU: the Falklands, Iraq, the IRA, Bosnia for example.

It wasn't nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe, it was a lack of democracy.

<comment><USER13> Well, you didn't see a war between Germany and England though... Bosnia, Iraq etc were not part of the EU. The point was to create a closely integrated Europe so that war would become unthinkable just like a war between England and Scotland is unthinkable now. Of course it was nationalism which caused conflicts in Europe. Did democracy prevent Russia to invade Ukraine? UK simply decided the European project is not worth it and they are better off trading as an independent country than part of a european family. This may prove true but we will have to see and for how long. If the EU reforms and sticks together I fail to see how leaving it is a good choice. I hope this will make EU stronger and more competitive as UK will force their hand to do more.

<comment><USER9> I'd argue we didn't see a war between Germany and England, or Britain as we are these days, as we were occupying them in the aftermath until 1949 and maintained a British Army of the Rhine there until 1994. The Allies also established a new Constitution and political consensus that is vehemently anti-war - witness German reluctance to be involved in fighting in recent NATO and other coalition conflicts.

There's also the small matter that the Russians were effectively still occupying half of Germany until the late 1980s. The origins of the EU came that trade prevents wars. The Democratic Peace Thesis likes to discount all sorts of countries as "not a democracy", a good example of No True Scotsman. Given we're seeing Turkey rapidly heading towards dictatorship, Hungary's far right leadership despite being an EU member, and all the problems the US is going through it is a salient reminder that just because you are a democracy doesn't mean you stay one. One of the pretty unique things about the UK in the EU is its political history - France is on its 5th Republic, Germany has only been reunified within living memory, Italy's system is from 1946 etc. You can see how relatively new, potentially fragile systems of Government might want to prevent resurgences of problems, especially under the shadow of the Cold War.

Edit to add: Oh - there's also this thing called NATO as well. When two countries are in a military alliance they also tend to avoid going to war with each other. NATO is of course also the body that intervened far more decisively than the EU in the Bosnian and Kosovan Wars - those pesky examples of genocide in Europe that people overlook about how fantastic and peaceful we are as a continent.

<comment><USER13> A military alliance (such NATO) alone cannot prevent war between its members. The recent events(Trump threating to pull U.S. support or Turkey's behaviour) proves how fragile a such alliance is. I wouldn't be surprised to see Turkey leaving NATO and join an alliance with Russia.

If a member decides that the alliance doesn't serve its national interests anymore nothing can stop it from leaving and joining a different alliance.

The point of EU was to make european interests indistingusible from national interests. It seems it hit a brick wall on UK.

<comment><USER14> After Turkey shot their plane?

<comment><USER13> I think they already settled that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Whatever one may think of the politics or if one's country should join/leave, it's absolutely true that EU has been a big factor in keeping the peace between European nations for decades. The Nobel Peace Prize to EU got a lot of criticism because of politics, but I think it was important to show that EU has helped keep the peace.

<comment><USER16> I know there has been intra-nation peace in western Europe since the end of WWII, but how do we know it was due to the EU?

Both the peace and the EU would seem to as easily explained by the post war situation where European nations were now second tier economicly, and threatened by a big external nation. The reward for war was no longer there, and the need for cooperation was high.

<comment><USER17> All of your points also existed before the second world war. Russia was already a big empire, other big empires existed throughout the history of Europe. That never stopped European countries from attacking each other. Basically, almost everything else has staid the same, the only change was the EU and its predecessors came into existence after WW2. That's certainly not a proof (it's impossible to proof such thins without a alternative-history- viewer-machine, which hasn't been developed so far) but it is a very strong hint.

<comment><USER16> I don't think either one of those was true after after WW1.

Russia, though large, was not regarded as a serious military threat to Europe. When attacked by Russia, Poland (!) beat Russia in the 1920's and gained half of the Ukraine and half of Belarus in the subsequent peace treaty.

An although a European nation was no longer the world largest economy, they were still regarded as the powers that mattered. The Washington Naval Treaty on arms control between the wars even gave the US a ship allocation on par with a European nation.

The world at the time still revolved around Europe and the actions of European powers. To be premininet in Europe was to lead the world.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Are British HN'ers taking any mitigating steps due to this whole situation?

I'm currently in the process of incorporating in the Netherlands, and it turns out setting up a Ltd is a lot more expensive over there than in the UK. I just don't feel that the UK will make good use of my tax receipts any more, so I'm almost obligated to take my work elsewhere.

<comment><USER19> > Are British HN'ers taking any mitigating steps due to this whole situation?

Campaigning for the Liberal Democrats.

<comment><USER4> If only there was a snowball's chance in hell of this achieving something. (disclosure: party member)

<comment><USER20> indeed, but NOT campaigning is guaranteeing party death (disclosure: party member). The lib dems are pretty useless right now, but they may have a big swing next election and they need keeping alive until then. Generally, they're the only sane party. Mostly because it's easy to have ideals when you're not in power.

<comment><USER21> It's really sad that the Brits didn't succeed in getting rid of the first- past-the-post system. Here in the Netherlands with our somewhat extreme version of proportional representation we still have similar problems, but they seem to be much less than over there.

<comment><USER22> We didn't have a chance at PR. Highly emotive[1] and ridiculous[2] campaigning from the No side saw to that, much in the same way as it saw to Brexit.

[1][https://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Admin/BkFill/Default_im...](https://static.guim.co.uk/sys- images/Admin/BkFill/Default_image_group/2011/2/25/1298628970292/no-to-av-baby- campaign-005.jpg)

[2][http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SkJXglPtoq0/TW6vXWrtyuI/AAAAAAAADO...](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-SkJXglPtoq0/TW6vXWrtyuI/AAAAAAAADOQ/zktt- bbalH4/s1600/Say%2Bno%2Bto%2Bthe%2BAlternative%2BVote%2Bposter%2BHyde%2BTameside.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Today is the day that David Cameron's legacy is solidified: The hubristic toff who saw his nation as a play thing.

<comment><USER24> He gambled 64 million people's livelihoods to defend his party against another, that right now, doesn't even have a sitting MP (for those outside the UK, that's the UK Independence Party).

There's tables at Vegas that haven't seen that level of loss.

<comment><USER25> > oesn't even have a sitting MP

While technically true, that's deliberately misleading to those not familiar with the UK. That party got 3,881,099 votes (12.7% of all, making them the third biggest in results) but the craziness of the First Past The Post meant that didn't translate to seats.

<comment><USER26> While FPTP is responsible for its own share of distortions, in this case it's the use of Single Member Electorates that was the primary cause of UKIPs poor seat-for-vote return.

For example, something very similar happened in the last Australian Federal election, which _doesn 't_ use FPTP (it uses full preferential voting) but does also use Single Member Electorates: The Greens got 1,385,650 first preference votes, also making them the third-biggest party, for the return of 1 seat (out of 150).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > _As Article 50 is triggered today, many European expats in Britain, as well > as European-minded locals, are packing up, moving on or eyeing up their > options. Brexit brain drain could spell disaster for industries like > technology already facing shortages of skilled talent._

Sorry, what about the brain drain when those "European expats" came from their countries into the UK?

Or that doesn't matter because it was all "within EU" anyway?

Still, UK hadn't paid for their education and other benefits while they were growing up in their native countries, and their native countries didn't get taxes from those people while they were living in the UK.

And those countries would also like to have their scientists etc stay and work there to improve the country's industry and economy.

Brain drain works both ways. You can't lament brain drain from an economy that actually caused brain drain, and now those brains leave it.

<comment><USER28> What about the brains who never moved now moving away?

I am British and have lived here for nearly 40 years. I'm currently looking at an Irish passport (Irish wife) or maybe France. My taxes and know how will be better put to use somewhere our values (openness, tolerance, mutual respect) agree.

<comment><USER29> If having an irish spouse and not living in Ireland is all you've got, then you're not getting an Irish passport. On the other hand, you definitely can have one 3 years after you've moved here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> My theory on brexit has been for a long time now that, after entangling the EU with the Euro, and globalization actually hurting the first-world EU, the UK is simply attempting to isolate it's vulnerabilities to the coming impacts of globalization.

If my theory is true, it means essentially that brexit is designed not to create wealth in the UK, but to make the losses less than the rest of the world by comparison.

With such a large surveillance state though, and a massive propaganda operation wing, the UK has done a good job confusing it's people into the core reasons because to admit them would be to admit the weaknesses of the global monetary system it has had a large part in fostering on the world through the IMF, the World Bank, and fiat, fractional reserve central banking systems not tied to gold or oil (bretton woods without the key things that made bretton woods good).

<comment><USER31> Your theory assumes a lot of forward-thinking, competence, benevolence and cooperation between subsequent prime ministers.

The simpler explanation is that David Cameron's gamble to silence the more extreme side of his party (and UKIP) failed. His (or his pollsters) incompetence led to this, helped along by protest votes and online Russian campaigns.

A less charitable explanation is that certain Tory elites took advantage of the narrow majority to preserve power in their hands - there are a number of disagreements with the ECHR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's amusing to read all these calls for a more democratic EU, specially when comparisons with the USA are made.

EU membership is voluntary, you can leave if you want. What would happen if an USA state decided to leave? Check the history books.

Truly democratic nations respect self-determination principles. In this sense, USA is closer to the authoritarianism of Spain than to democracies like Canada or the UK itself.

<comment><USER33> To be fair, some of the EU leaders have made it clear that they intend to make the brexit so costly on britain that no one else dare leave. So, it remains to be seen how voluntary EU membership is.

<comment><USER34> But nobody will die. You're contrasting bad trade terms with literal wars, really apples and oranges comparison.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> From the letter[1] of PM May to Pres. Tusk:

> _At a time when the growth of global trade is slowing and there are signs > that protectionist instincts are on the rise in many part of the world, > Europe has a responsibility to stand up for free trade in the interest of > all our citizens_

This is pretty rich. Protectionist "instincts" are on the rise in the UK and the US first and foremost today, so maybe those countries are not in the best position to lecture the rest of the world against them?

The crux of the matter is, countries have no friends and no moral imperatives, they only have interests; May's letter is very short on what the interests of the EU are, to try to give the UK a "nice" deal. How would the EU benefit from a deal -- any deal at all -- vs no deal?

(Also, this is a small detail but maybe not an insignificant one, negotiations cost money; if there is no hope of gaining anything, why should EU negotiators even show up? It would save money to simply not talk at all).

[1] [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article50.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER36> Corbyn for Labour Party: "There are Conservatives who want to use Brexit to turn this country into a low-wage tax haven." Well, full automation = no wages at all, ehehe. I am not sure how it is going to end and it is not my strict business anyway but there is a chance, not a slim chance imho, we may well see some sort of sci-fi dystopian UK emerging from this process. Interesting times ahead. Disclaimer: spent five years in the UK on the cusp of the 2007-8 financial crash and could see this was going to happen somehow someday, all starting from there and from perverse globalisation enhancing inequalities imho.

</comment><comment><USER37> This story is going to get very boring very quickly.

Little will be decided until close to the deadline in two years.

In the meantime life will go on as normal as it has for the last year.

What is much more interesting is what will happen shortly in France and whether the phenomena that led to Trump and Brexit are repeated elsewhere in Europe.

<comment><USER38> So far it's looking good. Wilders did not make significant headway in NL, AfD is down significantly in the polls in Germany and the EU politician who returned to head the SPD in Germany has dramatically reversed that party's flagging poll numbers.

Opinion polling for the expected 2nd round of polling in the French presidential elections put Macron at almost 2/3rd majority vs. Le Pen.

Overall, pro-EU sentiment in EU member nations is rising.

<comment><USER37> Maybe, but opinion polls got it wrong in the cases of Trump and Brexit. It seems a lot of people who intend vote on the right (for the want of a better term) are coy about it when asked.

<comment><USER38> I knew someone was going to mention that.

Yes.

However, I mostly talked about relative movement of polls. While not entirely impossible, it seems implausible that people should suddenly all get more coy. Especially after "their side" just had huge victories. If anything, I'd expect them to be less coy than before, because they just got validated.

And the one absolute I mentioned about the French runoff is 2/3rd vs. 1/3rd. Trump and Brexit polls were never that far apart.

<comment><USER37> Le Pen is steady at about 1/3 Macron is at about the same with everyone expecting the final 1/3 to support him in a run-off. Seems pretty safe for Macron. I don't know much about France, is there ever much of a shift before the second vote historically?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Since the actual outcome now seems to be that it'sore England leaving the UK, than the UK leaving the EU - doesn't that constitute a huge change in circumstances, enough to warrant at least a parliamentary election before the exit is triggered?

I mean, imagine if the Brexit ballot had said "Do you want for the UK to remain intact in the EU, or be broken apart with England and Wales leaving the EU?"

Or if it had 3 options

\- remain

\- leave

\- leave, if the UK stays intact.

Leave would never had won. Which makes this whole charade completely insane.

<comment><USER40> Leave would probably never have won if the ballot paper specified leaving the single market, either.

It might also not have won if the ballot paper had said "leaving will provide no extra money for the NHS, actually probably less money because the pound will be devalued and much of the NHS workforce comes from Europe, and also various prominent Leave campaigners are actually eager to dismantle the NHS and privatise healthcare bit by bit".

But, oh well, we are where we are, I suppose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I know it is nerdy, but what a weird PDF ([http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article5...](http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/29_03_17_article50.pdf))

Pages 1 and 4 are text (allow text selection), the other ones are images (on iPad)

I wonder what process could have led to that; it is not simply a matter of having one section produced in a different way from the other, as, for example, page 5 continues an enumeration started on page 4.

</comment><comment><USER42> Hopefully, like Trump in the US, this will wake them up.

<comment><USER43> Who? And wake up to what? To do what?

<comment><USER42> The people of the UK.

I had the feeling they were resting on the inherited wealth of their empire for rather long now. They always wanted special treatments in the EU. They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing.

Maybe this Brexit will go down bad and they will change their ways and join the EU in 10-20 years as 'real' members.

But I don't have many hopes in that. Probably they will end up like Switzerland or something :/

<comment><USER44> >They even pay mad bucks on their royals for basically nothing.

Royal family costs the UK £307m (highest number) with a revenue from them of £500m [1]. Seems like good business to keep paying for them.

1\. [https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is...](https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is- the-british-royal-family-worth-the-money/278052/)

<comment><USER45> I've heard two different versions of this.

The first being that the Royal family actually makes the UK money because they cost less to maintain than what is made up for in brand image and tourism benefits.

The second is that because they don't pay tax, it means their enterprises are not as efficient and the return on the crown lands is about half of what could be expected on a normal enterprise.

The source for both these viewpoints are videos on YouTube. The first is from CGPGrey (I think), while the second is a reply to that video.

<comment><USER46> CGPGrey's vids are awesome. Unique perspective as an American living in the UK. I highly encourage anyone interested to go seek them out.

Also, he mentions in his podcasts that he is a HN user.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Democracy is a double-edged sword. I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down.

<comment> k-mcgrady >> I may not like the way it cuts sometimes, but no way in hell I'll ever put it down.

Why not? It's not a perfect process and blindly accepting it because 'democracy is good' is dangerous.

Personally I'm against Brexit and don't think we should go through with it. BUT the reason I don't think we should go through with it is that most voters were woefully uninformed or completely misinformed. Both sides were lied to and manipulated. Having a referendum on an issue that experts fail to understand is just plain idiotic. If there was a way to have a well informed vote and it didn't go my way I would accept it without complaint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> The Guardian have published the letter on Scribd: [https://www.scribd.com/document/343396953/PM-Letter-to-EU- Co...](https://www.scribd.com/document/343396953/PM-Letter-to-EU-Council- President)

</comment><comment><USER49> Scotland now wants to get out of the United Kingdom and stay in the EU. When this thing settles down, the EU will probably be OK, but England will stand alone.

</comment><comment><USER50> Hopefully, UK will now get rid of onerous, business-strangling regulations of the EU. That's at least one good aspect of Brexit.

</comment><comment><USER51> I'm British but live in the EU. I've been watching this from the outside and it makes me so very sad and despondent. Forgetting any inconvenience on my part (of which there are very few -I likely have access to an EU passport.).

It's fucking stupid. No ifs, no buts, no apologies and respecting of alternate opinions. Just fucking stupid. Every single reason for leaving (other than "leave so the EU can get on without UK obstructions) has been debunked. Poeple protest voted, they voted with feelings instead of sense. They ignored people who knew what they were talking about and went with idiotic soundbites. I don't know what the actual fuck is going through the minds of our government, but it's not sense.

Hell, it's going ahead. We don't have the manpower, experience or knowledge to replace things that have been done with the EU. The boring administration. Standards, procedures... All the little details that mean the difference between something that works and something that doesn't.

I trust the EU oversight much further than the bunch of fools in the UK. Too entwined with their own interests. Who has bought them, why are they so scared of newspapers, why they seem utter cowards... We have some wonderful examples of how education and arrogance can seem like intelligence.

Aaaand yup, this is a rant now. I shall carry on, because now I'm finding it a little cathartic.

I'm not left wing, not right. I earn well above the average. I'm a pragmatist and I firmly believe that having strong and successful neighbours is good. I do not want a neighbour that throws the metaphorical shite over the fence. There are poorer countries in the EU. Movement is good between countries and those that people complain about will not bother taking the leap when their home country is made attractive enough not to.

Nothing is perfect. The EU is far from it, because it involves people... But they move slowly in a direction of interest to its citizens. Not just in the interest of the people of those governments.

It's been pissed away by liars and imbeciles now. I cannot unite behind it in the same way I would try to stop idiots from walking off a cliff, rather than joining them.

Possibly a little harsh. Probably not though.

<comment><USER51> It's rather notable that the UK has the option of aborting this process during the 2 years. (According to an EU official who's name I forget), it's incredibly unlikely that anyone will go back on this though. The uncertainty of having this option available is bad for the UK though. Markets hate uncertainty.

<comment><USER52> Does it?

I thought Article 50 was very much a 'hand grenade', once the pin is out there's no going back. If the two years run out without an agreement being reached, doesn't the UK just get chucked out and revert to WTO rules?

<comment><USER51> [http://nordic.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution- artic...](http://nordic.businessinsider.com/eu-brexit-resolution- article-50-can-be-revoked-2017-3?r=UK&IR=T)

Says "leaked document"

<comment><USER53> > "subject to conditions set by all EU27 so they cannot be used as a > procedural device or abused in an attempt to improve the actual terms of the > United Kingdom's membership."

Is an interesting quote. It implies that everyone has to be in agreement? So one country could veto our remaining?

I'm assuming any remaining being agreed would also be subject to us losing special privileges we enjoyed yesterday.

Who knows what the final process will be following negotiations & interpretations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> #PunishUK

</comment><comment><USER55> Sure enough Henry VIII leaving the Holy Church of Rome will lead to all kinds of disaster for the kingdom. Oh wait no, they actually went on to rule about half of the world afterwards.

<comment><USER56> Sure, and they ruled so well that today that half of the world lives in peace and it is proud to have been a British colony.

<comment><USER55> Which was a problem for the British back then in what sense?

Looking back at it now with our current look on things, for the other countries involved, sure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Theresa May wants deep and special partnership with the EU, without contributing at all to its existence. If every country in the EU does the same, guess what, there is no EU.

And without EU, without compromises, without rules, without standards, without common legislation, nothing of value rests. Just a bunch of countries, a bunch of private enterprises, trying to cherry pick in each an every transaction, looking for the shortest of short term profits, continuously changing course, now associating with this country, now with this other. Now selling round bananas, tomorrow selling bananas polluted with lead. Today not allowing imports of bananas from Romania because they are not straight enough, and tomorrow not accepting them from Italy because they are too straight.

Foreign citizens get expelled with made up reasons, according to what the popular opinion of the moment is. Trucks get delayed or not in a complete obscure manner.

Products get made and exported without any respect for work or environmental regulations. Quality does not satisfy any kind of standards. Nobody can trust any foreign business because there is no institution to complain to in case consumer rights are not respected. Financial products are sold to steal savings from foreign investors - until this is recognized and foreign investors stop using those investment vehicles, completely destroying the market.

</comment><comment><USER58> Great news. Of the four happiest countries in the world, three are European countries outside the EU. Autonomy is crucial to happiness.

<comment><USER58> A great thing about autonomy is the ability to quickly solve national problems. Compare and contrast non-EU Iceland and EU Greece. Both came near to collapse due to financial crises. Iceland jailed the bankers and recovered. Greece is in the EU straight-jacket, the corrupt bankers became kings and the people will be in debt bondage for decades.

Brexit is comparable to the Berlin Wall falling. Like the Soviet Union, the technocratic elites could not imagine it collapsing until the people willed it.

<comment><USER59> > Greece is in the EU straight-jacket

The lack of freedom for Greece to manage its finances is because it's a member of the Euro, not the EU. That isn't really relevant to the UK.

And as far as I know, neither the Euro nor EU laws limited the Greeks' ability to prosecute their bankers. Is there a reason those are connected?

<comment><USER60> > And as far as I know, neither the Euro nor EU laws limited the Greeks' > ability to prosecute their bankers.

Same could be said for Ireland[1]. You might wanna take a closer look.

In the words of M. Thatcher: "He who controls interest rates in Europe, controls Europe."

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnG0bq77N8w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pnG0bq77N8w)]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> The EU should treat this like America treated secessionist states - the UK should be compelled to stay by force. Obviously there should not be any actual war, since the Brtis should just say, "well, all right."

Afterward they should be full, normal participants, just as every state is a normal participant in the United States and has equal and fair votes in the Senate and House of Representatives.

Why should this be done:

1 - America shows that it is great that there is a unified country, which benefits from huge economies of scale.

2 - Can you imagine how much money is saved by not having to have border control, separate visas and citizenships in the United States? The same applies to the EU.

3 - The EU should directly compete with the United States as the second of three world poles (Asia being the third).

4 - The good of the Union outweighs the UK's selfish and shortsighted act.

Why shouldn't history repeat?

Would America be better-off if it were split into two countries?

Would America be the world's leading economy (by far)?

Citing the close historical precedent I have mentioned, I do not think that the UK should be allowed to leave the EU. Its request should be denied.

<comment><USER62> Putting aside the lack of knowledge of the situation or what the EU actually is, the UK has nuclear weapons, the highest EU defence spending and a permanent UN security council seat. The EU has no army.

What you propose would mean the end of the UN, the end of NATO, the end of the EU and a possible WW3. And Russia would probably 'liberate' a few border countries from the 'imperialistic EU' while that's all happening.

<comment><USER61> Its request should still be denied. I notice you have not in any way attacked my historical foundation, secessionist states. The implication that the UK would detonate a nuclear bomb over this is laughable on its face.

Its request should be denied.

<comment><USER62> I'm not attacking it because it is stupid and shows a shocking lack of knowledge of the situation.

The EU is not a country, it is a trade union with aspirations to become a full political union one day. You're talking like it's the latter when it's not.

<comment><USER61> You grossly underestimate the long-term importance of it and its institutions. it's not just a "trade union" as a glance at its budget will show. Anyway we obviously have a different vision for it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: I built a website with productized service case studies - <AUTHOR> https://www.productizedstartups.com <comment><USER2> I'm definitely all for "others" and "alternatives" .. so good job and good luck. Hope it is as successful as IndieHackers ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!</comment></comment>


CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell Resigns - o0-0o http://bigstory.ap.org/article/cia-deputy-director-michael-morell-resigns

<comment> o0-0o Director John O. Brennan said Morell will be replaced by White House lawyer and agency outsider Avril D. Haines</comment>


On Pokemon GO - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@pcperini/on-pok%C3%A9mon-go-6cfa2e94401f#.jytkpu6oi <comment><USER2> This completely misses the fact that GO's success has nothing to do with game mechanics and everything to do with the Pokemon company's IP, something that can't be copied.</comment>


Spray-on liquid glass is about to revolutionize almost everything - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news184310039.html <comment><USER2> Sounds great. I hope when pieces of it fall of the surface they won't have similar effec on human as asbesthos.

<comment><USER3> [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicosis)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is from Feb 02, 2010... What happened since?

<comment><USER5> It seems to be a little harder to commercialize than the PR would have you believe, but it is still going. See this page with news from this year from a British supplier of the coating.[0] From that company's FAQ: "NP Liquid Glass is applied by our fully qualified team, we do not sell the product separately as application by untrained individuals is ineffective."

[0] [http://npliquidglass.ie/news/](http://npliquidglass.ie/news/)

<comment><USER4> Interesting, thanks for the link. It seems like a highly useful material, but the fact that this is not a consumer product limits its practicality a lot. I would love to have my complete apartment coated and do it myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not sure, but I think that this is colloidal silica. It's super-easy to make (from a $3 bag of finely-milled silica from a ceramics supply store, and some water). It's also commonly available as a filler for epoxy resin.

I'm sure they put a lot of work into the uses and research and all, but colloidal silica has been around for a long time and it, if it was so revolutionary, it would have been more more widely used already.

</comment><comment> xkcd-sucks Sounds a bit unpleasant to inhale... hope it isn't applied as an aerosol</comment>


Iron law of wages - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iron_law_of_wages <comment><USER2> This seems to describe disparity in tech worker wages across different cities. The value provided by an engineer in SFO is almost definitely not 2x what an engineer in SLC provides. However, the wages are way higher b/c cost of living in higher.

Companies don't pay your equal to the value you provide, they pay you as little as possible.

<comment><USER3> If they paid you the value you provide, they would go out of business.

<comment><USER4> Worker cooperatives exist. They just don't pay out value to shareholders who do nothing.

<comment><USER5> The problem is, shareholders can do something cooperatives cannot - they can operate at a substantial loss, effectively indefinitely, with the knowledge that they can get their profit by selling the share.

Amazon, for instance, ran at a net loss for much of its history. I don't know how a workers cooperative would manage this.

Secondly, in capitalism, capital is concentrated among a small number of people, who are often friends. Shareholders therefore often help with raising further capital, since they are always from the capitalist class. So a worker's cooperative won't be as good at raising funds.

<comment><USER6> Not the full answer, but loans. Trading equity isn't the only way to get a pile of cash. It isn't even the most common way.

<comment><USER7> Business and (especially) consumer lenders are, by and large, much more risk- averse than investors, almost by definition. They would absolutely not be okay with near-indefinite loss; they would never regain their principal!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is no "law". It presumes that laborers cannot switch to a different employer, that there is a massive oversupply of laborers, and that laborers are completely interchangeable. I'll accept that in conditions like that, wages will be significantly depressed. But this is not a truth in general.

In fact, laborers have strong incentives to want more than a subsistence wage. So many laborers are going to take actions to counteract this, such as by learning skills and gaining education to differentiate themselves. Then they are in demand with a smaller supply.

There are lots of people who are making more than minimum wage as required by the laws in their country. So this is obviously untrue.

<comment><USER9> Happily, indeed, the iron law is not quite as iron as it might sound. But Moloch's hand still grips firmly where it is given a hold: if you're working two minimum wage jobs because you absolutely need the money, where are you going to find the slack in your life to allow you to learn new skills and gain education? I work just one full-time job at substantially more than minimum wage, and even I can feel Moloch's cold caress and his call to sacrifice the long-term on the altar of the short-term; if my life weren't so comfortable, I can easily see how I might not even have the _choice_ to resist him, let alone the willpower.

<comment><USER10> To add on to this, America is particularly cruel in this regard since so many benefits are tied to employment. It's incredibly risky to drop a job to free up time to gain education or even look for another job.

Employers hold all the cards. They know it. They probably lobbied the government to gain this advantage. Workers are powerless against their bosses, but at least we can vote in more sympathetic government representatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This seems easy to disprove simply by the fact that a single labourer can produce far more than is needed to sustain a single life -- at least today. So as long as that's true, people on average won't accept being paid the equivalent of a bag of rice a day if you could always go out and produce several on your own. Obviously this is an over simplification, but you get the idea.

I think there could be some truth in this though. I wouldn't be surprised if wages do trend towards the average productivity of labours, but again, that would be far higher than barely surviving -- at least today in countries with access to productivity boosting technology.

<comment><USER12> > I wouldn't be surprised if wages do trend towards the average productivity > of labours, but again, that would be far higher than barely surviving

The cost of reproduction of labor is more than base subsistence, it's things like base subsistence, cleaning your house, child rearing, and so on.

> at least today in countries with access to productivity boosting technology.

Wages, in the US, largely don't track to productivity gains. For other countries, I wouldn't be too surprised to see similar statistics, but modified according to labor rights, culture around unions, etc etc.

> So as long as that's true, people on average won't accept being paid the > equivalent of a bag of rice a day if you could always go out and produce > several on your own.

You have to have land to grow rice. This, like yours, is a simplification, but it largely abstracts to the present situation. You can always drive for Uber, but you need a car to drive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd suggest that it depends on the work. Like most things it tends to come down to negotiation, skill, value and how difficult or easy a specific person is to replace. Although that last bit isn't always well understood by MBA types in various cases.

That said, making everyone the same isn't a better solution, just a different one and in many ways much worse.

<comment><USER14> I don't think this article was suggesting any solutions, so the second paragraph seems like a straw man argument. (I mean it's literally a Wikipedia page.)

<comment><USER13> Considering one of the attributions was Marx, I'm not sure I would agree that it's a straw man at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Doesn't make sense - everyone I know is paid far more than minimum wage necessary to sustain life.

If it were a true law then everyone would be on literal subsistence wages - they aren't. The illusion of this law is that people spend all their money, so their lifestyle costs (typically) exactly match their wage. This is independent of the wage.

<comment><USER16> Sustaining life is more than paying rent and buying food. It's the ability to pay for medical care, to support yourself if you become disabled, to retire when your body is frail and work is difficult, it's being able to afford the expense of raising a child and being social and bettering yourself. These are all basic human needs and it's virtually impossible to do this on minimum wage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Think about that next time you volunteer to teach children how to code ;)

<comment><USER18> Or going to $poor_country and helping them bootstrap your future competitors...</comment></comment>


Show HN: A digital coach to kill procrastination - <AUTHOR> https://getsofia.com <comment><USER2> >uses state-of-the-art machine learning algorithms

:eyeroll:

I wish people would stop saying this. It's just cringy. Just say "adapts to you as you use it more" or something similar.

I don't care if it is hot-sexy-ml-algorithm or boring as heck. In fact, I would bet most applications are really boring, well-known algorithms.

<comment><USER3> why so negative?</comment></comment>


Now you can upload your PDFs to Google Docs - <AUTHOR> http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2008/06/upload-your-pdfs.html <comment><USER2> PDF,,, ugh. The thing is about PDF is it is closed and I never understood why Flash gets so much beef but PDF flies under the radar. A collective groan when a PDF is opened happens across the internet as a consistent chorus.

Flashpaper almost killed the PDF but Adobe bought Macromedia and then killed Flashpaper (which is now open and more indexable than PDF). Instead Flash paper died only to be picked up as a killer app portion of PGs companies like Scribd. I wish Adobe would drop PDF for Flashpaper, it is a format killer like FLV video was for Real, Quicktime, Windows Media etc etc that made video a horrible web experience. Flash paper came up instantaneously and is much better, if you want a compact format.

<comment><USER3> PDF is not a closed format.

<http://www.adobe.com/devnet/pdf/pdf_reference.html>

<comment><USER2> Sorry should have clarified, it is un-indexable without conversion. IN terms of open it is arguably an open standard. Controlled by a proprietary entity but puppeted as an open format.</comment></comment></comment>


Google throws away 12 years of work by investors (Portfolios in Google Finance) - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.harvard.edu/philg/2018/09/14/google-throws-away-12-years-of-work-by-investors-portfolios-in-google-finance/ <comment><USER2> Hi - I'm the creator of [https://bravos.co](https://bravos.co), a replacement for Google Finance. (I didn't have anything to do with this article being posted.)

I actually left my job two months ago to work on this full-time... Google Finance used to be a "home page tab" for me and it was just killing me that I couldn't find a good alternative. Bravos.co features a clean interface for tracking public companies, cryptocurrencies, and even private companies. The platform pulls in news, social conversations, and key financial data, and has modern features like a "Dark Mode" and mobile site. APIs, native apps, notifications, and more are coming soon.

We have a 2 minute video walkthrough here: [https://youtu.be/gpQpCK9Ydl0](https://youtu.be/gpQpCK9Ydl0)

We would love to get your thoughts - we want to build this based on community feedback.

<comment><USER3> Hi Daniel, neat site and I'm really happy someone is taking this on! As the OP noted, the killer feature for me to choose GoogleFinance (GF) above all other "free equities tracking websites" [1] was its portfolio.

I've just tried to see if your site addresses those pain points and it doesn't - but I think you're halfway there.

What OP's "hypothetical portfolio" means is basically the tracking of a whole set of selected equities (so in your site's case: the performance of everything within a watchlist, including a graph visualizing it plus all the common features like comparing that portfolio-graph to that of the Nasdaq, Dollar Index, BTC ...). [2]

GF's UI was horrible, but they allowed to create endless amounts of those portfolios, which was really helpful for finding one's investment strategy because you could compare "ideas". Or you could gather groups of similar equities to track their performance and decide whether they are ripe for becoming "a new idea" (like "I believe that downturn of x is at some point going to halt, maybe then it's worth investing")

When GF still had its portfolio feature, I hoped their "re-design" would allow for more mobile-friendliness (which you address) but more importantly comparing portfolio graphs with each other.

Also, as non-American I repeatedly ran into trouble finding an equivalent ticker sign for non-US equities [3]. Supporting WKN or ISIN would be an improvement over GF!

Anyways, quitting your job for this is a bold step and I wish you the best!

[1] Putting that label in quotes maybe highlights the fringeness of that niche and why Google shut it down :-(

[2] To be clear: not a graph where i have all the graphs of the items of a watchlist - but one line for all items combined

[3] My trouble was usually resolved, finding some European stock's ADR and converting the EUR amount invested to the amount of ADRs i'd have gotten in USD

<comment><USER4> > What OP's "hypothetical portfolio" means is basically the tracking of a > whole set of selected equities (so in your site's case: the performance of > everything within a watchlist, including a graph visualizing it plus all the > common features like comparing that portfolio-graph to that of the Nasdaq, > Dollar Index, BTC ...). [2]

> GF's UI was horrible, but they allowed to create endless amounts of those > portfolios, which was really helpful for finding one's investment strategy > because you could compare "ideas". Or you could gather groups of similar > equities to track their performance and decide whether they are ripe for > becoming "a new idea" (like "I believe that downturn of x is at some point > going to halt, maybe then it's worth investing")

I just want to second this point made in the parent comment. What I've always wanted to do that I can't really do in an app out there, is compare my "what- if" scenarios (e.g. what if I had held onto 20% of my AAPL in 2015, instead of selling and buying NFLX and UA/UAA?). I always imagined that there'd be an easy visualization comparison between two scenarios, to allow me to "evaluate" certain buy/sell decisions I've made, retrospectively.

<comment><USER5> I think Excel would be the best tool for that type of analysis, not an app.

<comment><USER6> An app would be a lot nicer to get a graph of performance offer time for that hypothetical decision. Excel would be okay if you just wanted to know today's position of various decisions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is why Richard Stallman calls SaaS "Service as a Software Substitute" and recommends running your own programs on your own computers: [https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server- really-s...](https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/who-does-that-server-really- serve.html)

If you are using any Unix derivative there are still Free Software applications from the 1980s (or 1970s if you run BSD) that you are running every day without any problems, whether you realize it or not.

Consider doing your financial modeling with a Free Software program like Gnumeric: [http://gnumeric.org/](http://gnumeric.org/)

<comment><USER8> But any replacement for Google Finance will require a pricing feed, so in this case you cannot get away from a 'service' model.

<comment><USER9> For now, but soon our markets will be run completely p2p, and order books will be shared with whoever wants to see them for really cheap. And no breakage. Like I said before: this is good, the more saas are disrupted, the more we can focus on a real distributed OS.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is mind boggling to me that both Google and Yahoo have thrown away their finance sites. It's utter garbage. And on the phone, Google Finance is even worse. They don't even use the same site or the same behavior, even though I'm pointing to the same URL. It's insane. Why would they completely disregard finance? Are they really not able to make a profitable site using ads?

<comment><USER11> What's funny to me is that so many people complain about large tech companies eating up every product category and preventing competition. But when they later kill these products, people complain all the same. Which is it?

Seems like an opportunity for someone else, if it was really being relied on that much.

I suspect it wasn't. The author of the article said he hadn't checked in six years. Six years! And he's complaining that Google threw his work away.

People want to have their cake and eat it, too.

<comment><USER12> _What 's funny to me is that so many people complain about large tech companies eating up every product category and preventing competition. But when they later kill these products, people complain all the same. Which is it?_

Both. They expanded into an area and killed the competition then killed their product and left a void. See Google Reader for the life cycle.

<comment><USER13> Yes, exactly. Those are not contradictory. If anything, it makes it more obvious why unchecked Big Tech expansion into every market, subsidized by their core monopolies, is a bad thing for consumers in the long run.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Was anyone really using this feature? Even the author sounds like he wasn't actively using the feature. He entered some data 6 years ago, and went back today to find it was missing.... He didn't even notice until almost a year after it was removed.

Keeping every feature around, even the unused ones that look like failures, is a bad idea.

<comment><USER15> Repeatedly destroying trust by dropping things and breaking things for people, is a bad idea.

<comment><USER16> At this point Google projects are basically less reliable than hobby projects.

<comment><USER17> But hey, come build your company on top of GCP!

<comment><USER18> Funny thing is, people are lining up to do just that. I think that's a symptom of an industry where following the hype is more important than long term stability.

<comment><USER19> Or maybe they've carefully weighed their options, and concluded that e.g. Kubernetes on GCP works a lot better than on either AWS or Azure?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> We built [https://wallmine.com/portfolios](https://wallmine.com/portfolios) that can import a Google Finance CSV. The stock search/screener can filter stocks listed on US, Canadian, and international exchanges. Happy to hear your thoughts.

</comment><comment><USER21> > _When we combine this with Google's destruction of millions of person-years > of (part-time) work in Picasa, is the only reasonable conclusion that Google > has re-hired Marissa Mayer?_

Huh?

<comment><USER22> Seriously, what a nasty comment. Trying to think of what possible context they could put around this comment that would justify it.

<comment><USER23> Obviously you're not familiar with Marissa Mayer's work.

I remember that before Mayer, Yahoo Mail was lightweight, fast and it displayed emails chronologically and in a well categorized way.

After Marissa Mayer joined Yahoo, the Yahoo email client became slow and clunky and it grouped emails together in a strange way which made it hard to find stuff; thankfully I was able to figure out a way to disable this 'feature'. That's not even mentioning all the Yahoo Mail hacking scandals that happened on Mayer's watch.

Also, the new Yahoo logo is bad.

<comment><USER24> I'm not sure how you can hold Meyer directly responsible for the clunky Yahoo email client. This reads as incredibly sexist.

<comment><USER25> Why is it sexist? She did terrible at Yahoo. That's fact. Or you say, just because she is woman, people should say she did a good job?

<comment><USER26> No but they shouldn't single her out either. I don't see him slamming any number of male tech executives who made mistakes.

<comment><USER25> You can single out whoever you want. It is not sexist. What is wrong with the world?!

<comment><USER26> Consistently singling out a certain group of people betrays bias and likely animus towards that group. For this author, that group seems to be women.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> As long as Google reports 90% of the revenue from a single stream (Ads), anything else is a pet project that can be canceled or left to rot since there is no strong incentive to keep working on it. I try to back up whatever work I do on any Google service. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me -> Google graveyard for more info: [https://www.lifewire.com/google- graveyard-products-1616198](https://www.lifewire.com/google-graveyard- products-1616198)

<comment><USER28> There's a caveat there; Google is very incentivized to keep around any service on which it can display those ads! Gmail isn't going away any time soon in large part for that reason.

<comment><USER29> Does Gmail show ads? I had the impression that was not the case now.

<comment><USER30> I just got one in the inbox list for Nokia (by a reseller) - not an email: clicking it takes you to an advertisement.

Edit: I have noticed adverts depend on how your access Google e.g. I found the iOS YouTube app way worse than the website in the browser.

<comment><USER31> This is likely based on how captive of an audience they believe they have at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Welcome to the new age of not owning or controlling anything. Your work belongs to "the cloud," whatever that is, and can vanish at any time and without warning. You can't make a backup... or not one you can use at least.

</comment><comment><USER33> That is the problem with depending on a third part service. Even if it was a company that you paid for the service, at some point they might not find it profitable and close down the service or company.

<comment><USER34> Finance is just a pile of third-parties trusting each other in exchange for money.

<comment><USER35> Or business in general.

<comment><USER36> Or (generalizing money to utility) society in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I created a Google Finance replacement – [https://stockdaddy.io](https://stockdaddy.io) – in my spare time. This can track your investments and returns including dividends for stocks and ETFs (real-time) and mutual funds (EOD). It's basically a pure portfolio tracker without much of the frills of a full finance site. It's meant to be a solid performance tracker and good full screen layout to glance at throughout the day.

<comment><USER38> I get different looking 5-year charts for symbol HYG when I look on stockdaddy.io and finance.yahoo.com. Where do you get your data?

<comment><USER37> IEX whom I would say for the most part is very reliable, although I would only base actual trades off of your brokerage's data and leave other sources like Yahoo and Stockdaddy for real-time portfolio tracking.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I switched over to Yahoo Finance. Works pretty well, the UI especially on the phone leaves some to be desired but it gets the job done.

</comment><comment><USER40> Stay away from Google products and services! With all their stringent to the ridiculousness level hiring, they seem to hire calculators, not humans in the negative sense. They don't get families either - I haven't seen their diversity numbers, but maybe they are predominantly a bachelors' company, yet, they try to design products for families. For example, I am the family manager of our Google Play store account. Now, after the clowns come up with Google One, which for whatever reason needs a massive migration, so, after six months I'm still not in. Well, guess what, they invited my son and my wife to One, but not me, you know, the family manager. Well, my son created his One account, and my wife's old Storage account got converted to One, and suddenly, she became the Google One manager. See, one family, two managers. And this cannot be undone. So, if they had a single family man in this circus, he or she would have influenced the product design, and deliver something that doesn't lead into double charges, countless calls with customer support, and most importantly - customer frustration. At the same time, Microsoft gets it. Amazon gets families, too, and Facebook and Google don't. I had similar experiences with the bachelor demographic of Facebook's in Product Design. Anyway, back to the original point - Google doesn't get social dynamics, as they don't get regular people in general. Most importantly, with all their computer scientists, they don't seem to realize that by abusing us repeatedly, they make sure we don't bother to use their future products and services. They recently killed Inbox, but, honestly, that was a belated decision - they had to kill it a second after it was launched as a completely idiotic product! Sometimes I wonder what kind of people work on their products! They are way too full of themselves and live in their twisted reality. That's why I would never respond to their recruiter emails and calls! Google and Facebook are the last place on Earth I'd go! And the ex-Googler title means nothing nowadays anyway. I repeat, keep off Google! Short their stock!

<comment><USER41> (pro tip - line breaks aid readability...)

<comment><USER40> Thanks! I didn't expect it to be that long!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> In terms of actually understanding how a hypothetical portfolio would have performed, something that is much more meaningful then the overall ROI provided by Google Finance is the concept of the annualised return.

We built our portfolio functionality with this in mind to empower investors to understand their true returns, respective of time. It often amazes users here at Australia's #1 stockmarket app, disclosure: I founded and bootstrapped the business and it's iOS/Android only at the moment.

Refer: [https://stocklight.com/faq](https://stocklight.com/faq)

<comment><USER43> Why do you consider annualized return more meaningful than alpha or Sharpe ratio?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> I understand that the purpose of this blog post is to discuss the collective loss by the general public of access to this type of feature, but...

This dude's employer has access to data and tools that were never available on Google or Yahoo. All _he_ needs to do is walk over to the business school and ask someone in the computer lab for help creating a mock portfolio of stocks and tracking performance over time.

</comment><comment><USER8> The stocks that someone puts in a portfolio can be useful in targeting advertising to that person. I'm surprised that Google decided this benefit was less valuable than the ongoing cost of maintaining the Google Finance website. Perhaps the problem is that that noone at Google wants to do the boring work of maintaining what is essentially a CRUD application.

</comment><comment><USER45> Use cloud stuff? Witch means use someone else computers? That's an example results.

In the past few people design Multics/Plan9 with a concept: a network OS, but with our desktop at the center of the universe, simply because we work there, our data are there etc. The network simply work as a helper, cache, horsepower etc, no more.

</comment><comment><USER46> I remember using Google Finance in one of my business classes in High School. I haven't checked on it since, but I didn't know that Google would kill something that was definitely promising.

<comment><USER47> I still miss Google Reader. I just wish they would somehow let community take over for the project. I don't know how it would work but I just don't see another way. I've moved everything off Google other than email and calendar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I would love to know internal story behind the disaster that Google Finance has become. I'm not against new designs and evolving but the new website misses out on one simple thing: People using this site loves numbers, they want numbers! "Minimal & dumbed down" doesn't work with investor types. My guess is that they got new VP and the moron decided to wield his steve-jobs- me-too minimal everything stick. The guy has to be wearing turtleneck every day in the office and probably got big bonus for driving this trainwreck to its conclusion.

</comment><comment><USER49> Google Finance was a free site if I remember. If a consumer expects a level of service without offering a payment, any pains the consumer has are entirely their fault. If it was a paid service however, the consumer should control (via a contract or terms of use) what will happen when something goes wrong. If anything, people should thank Google for offering their service free of charge.

<comment><USER50> I am paying Google for storage. Last year my credit card went bust and Google told me via e-mail I had 7 days to provide an alternate card, when payment failed. Before that time was up, Google cancelled my subscription unilaterally. They told me it's no problem, I just have to renew the subscription, except by then the cost of the subscription had gone up 8%.

It was impossible for them to restore my previous subscription cost. As a paying consumer I expected a certain level of service, but I had not control over what was happening when something went wrong.

When paying Google, you're not better off.

<comment><USER49> Absolutely, don't use a company as large as Google for your data services. An individual customer is not a significant income source, so they care less about their customers. But there are several services out there offering paid data services that _do_ care, because their main income source is the customers, rather than advertisement and data collection companies.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Any other disgruntled investors, I'd recommend ShareSight (not my company). Generous free service.

</comment><comment><USER52> This new website is doing a nice job: [http://www.cmlviz.com/](http://www.cmlviz.com/)

</comment><comment><USER53> Quick shout-out to the commenter who mentioned Boggleheads.org. If you're into finances, it's a great resource.

<comment><USER54> that's bogleheads.org I take it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Its a shame Google/Yahoo finance couldnt pivot to become Robinhood. It was so close.

<comment><USER56> You can now link your RH account (and many other brokers) directly to Yahoo Finance and trade and track your portfolio in real-time, so really it's even better than them becoming a broker.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Stockrow.com

</comment><comment><USER58> This title seems clickbaity to me. Didn't the author lose about 5 minutes of work they did 12 years ago, and not the effort resulting from continual work over 12 years?

<comment><USER59> You're correct. Author added some stocks into their hypothetical portfolio and went back to check to see how it was doing.

I wonder if Google sent emails to uses notifying them that the service was going to be discontinued.

<comment><USER60> I had a portfolio there, just to see what the feature was about.

There was a notification on the site a while back (months ago, can't remember exactly when), but I don't think they sent an email announcement.

<comment><USER61> At times I'm annoyed they don't update it. But given the modern idea of "updating" is to remove functionality and add white space I'm thankful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> To be honest, this article just seems like a thinly veiled attempt to poke google because he doesn't like their political leanings.

Frankly, I'd be surprised if any of the services I used today were still around 12 years from now, let alone waiting with my previously saved settings. If it was that important to you, you should have either used a paid service (hey, bloomberg exists for a reason) or stored the data locally at your own cost.</comment>


Don't submit to the SSL cert racket. You can get one for no charge - <AUTHOR> http://www.startssl.com/

<comment><USER2> I've used StartSSL in the past. I will never do so again.

Yes, the certs are free, and yes, they work in all common browsers. But the process of obtaining them is a horror of Lovecraftian proportions. I'll happily pay a few dollars to Namecheap to be able to avoid the nightmare that is StartSSL's UI.

<comment><USER3> I second this experience, and "Lovecraftian" is indeed an excellent way to describe it. It's not just that the process was difficult, it's that my confidence dwindled through every strange and baffling step.

Since you mentioned paying "a few dollars" to Namecheap, can you comment on the feasibility of their $8.95 "PositiveSSL" certificate? ( <http://www.namecheap.com/ssl-certificates/comodo.aspx> )

<comment><USER4> The best (in terms of browser compatibility) cheap cert that Namecheap sell is the RapidSSL cert at [http://www.namecheap.com/ssl-certificates/geotrust-ssl- certi...](http://www.namecheap.com/ssl-certificates/geotrust-ssl- certificates.aspx)

<comment><USER5> Be aware though that GeoTrust and Thawte certs don't work[1] on android devices. There are claims that it can be fixed by adding a cross-root cert[2] but for me that didn't work out.

More generally: If you need to support mobile devices then read your CA's compatibility list closely (if you can find it...) and test, test, test. You'd think this shouldn't be an issue anymore in 2012, but it sadly still is.

[1] [http://www.zimbra.com/forums/administrators/44675-new- geotru...](http://www.zimbra.com/forums/administrators/44675-new-geotrust-ssl- certificates-android-users.html)

[2] [https://support.servertastic.com/entries/426677-rapidssl- and...](https://support.servertastic.com/entries/426677-rapidssl-and-geotrust- certificate-not-trusted-on-mobile-device)

<comment><USER4> Sigh. I spent way too much time picking these particular certs and they've gone and messed it up. :)

The cross-root cert should work, but you need to make sure it's presented in the right order, I think.

FWIW, my latest RapidSSL-through-Namecheap certs were issued by:

issuer=/C=US/O=Equifax/OU=Equifax Secure Certificate Authority

And that's the "good"/trusted CA. I'm not sure when they made the switch, but I only got this cert issued a couple of months ago.

FWIW, we also support Docomo phones, and that is a huge pain in the ass. The only CA that works there is:

i:/C=US/O=VeriSign, Inc./OU=Class 3 Public Primary Certification Authority

If you don't need to support really old mobile devices, the best certs going are, IMHO, Digicert. They get chained all the way back to Entrust:

1 s:/C=US/O=DigiCert Inc/OU=www.digicert.com/CN=DigiCert High Assurance EV CA-1 i:/C=US/O=DigiCert Inc/OU=www.digicert.com/CN=DigiCert High Assurance EV Root CA 2 s:/C=US/O=DigiCert Inc/OU=www.digicert.com/CN=DigiCert High Assurance EV Root CA i:/C=US/O=Entrust.net/OU=www.entrust.net/CPS incorp. by ref. (limits liab.)/OU=(c) 1999 Entrust.net Limited/CN=Entrust.net Secure Server Certification Authority

And the company has some of the best customer service going anywhere.

<comment><USER6> _If you don't need to support really old mobile devices, the best certs going are, IMHO, Digicert. They get chained all the way back to Entrust:_

Not only that, they check your installed cert after you buy it and email you if you installed it incorrectly: <http://www.digicert.com/help/>

<comment><USER7> So does StartSSL.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd feel a lot better about using this if its website looked a bit more professional.

<comment><USER9> This seems to have been downvoted but its not an invalid point. The web is old enough now that a certain level of design is expected of things people need to trust. A shop down a side alley with a hand written sign inspires less confidence than something plastic on the high street - however wrong that initial impression may be.

People with background knowledge may know startssl is legit/good but to a newcomer I can easily see why their first impression is off.

<comment><USER10> Absolutely! I had never heard of Start before and I honestly thought for a moment that maybe this was spam that had somehow got on to the front page as a fluke. I'm serious. I'm not used to seeing a company website make it on the front page of HN or HN at all without there actually being some kind of article on the page you get to.

SSL certain are important and I don't think their design is helping them look like a legit business. I trust they are after all the comments here but on first glance I was skeptical and thought it was too good to be true. I know we all pride ourselves on being smart, critical thinker that can look past a site's design and see the true value behind it but I think in some cases it's perfectly normal and acceptable to react this way to a design. Superficiality be damned. I'd rather run from a poorly designed, non-legit looking site and be safe rather than risking it and being sorry later because I gave in to the PC, "don't be superficial" side of me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Keep in mind that Gandi includes 1 free SSL cert with every domain name. Per year.

<comment><USER12> Only with the first year, if I'm reading their site right?

> With each domain name transferred to Gandi, we include a Standard SSL > certificate for free the first year.

<https://www.gandi.net/domain/ssl#nav>

<comment><USER11> Uhm. It is ambiguously worded, that's for sure -

      Included for free the first year with the purchase,
      transfer, or renewal of your domain name.

My understanding was that if I had a domain with them and renewed for another year, that would fall under the "renewal" clause of the above.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I started to do Class 2 identification with StartSSL, but I chickened out after they asked me to provide my marriage certificate and wife's personal info.

They have a very detailed policy document describing all sorts of security procedures they purport to adhere to, but I have no way to validate whether they are actually following those policies and no recourse for me or my wife even if it was determined that they are not following them.

That is just too risky for the value I would get out of the process.

(posted to twitter also <https://twitter.com/#!/deinspanjer/status/158596876772450304> )

EDIT: I was contacted by Eddy Nigg with some follow up information. I should have said that the reason they asked for my wife's info is because they wanted phone bills and those are in my wife's name which isn't the same last name as mine. That said, I'll still stand by my statement that the risk and complexity vs. reward was just not suitable for me.

EDIT 2: Okay, they offer an alternative for validation: they can mail you a registered letter with a validation code on it. That is much more acceptable to me, so I'll continue on with the process to see how that goes.

</comment><comment><USER14> Its worth to mention that their certificates cannot be used to secure a Java web service because their CA is _not_ included in Java's cert bundle. I had to learn this when I tried to callout to a web service (with a startcom cert) from Salesforce.

Also their certs are only free as long as you don't need to revoke it.

<comment><USER15> Came here to say something like this. While the site is a bit of a pain, and the certs are free, make damn sure you have your site configured the way you want it before you generate the certificate.

It's $25 to revoke a cert, i.e. free up the name so you can use it again elsewhere. I used part of my domain name for an XMPP cert that I later wanted to use for a web subdomain with the same name.. nope. Stupid.

<comment><USER16> Why bother revoking? Get a new cert from someone else for 10$, ditch the old one, done.

<comment><USER17> you'd want to revoke it if someone steals your private key.

<comment><USER15> Given the way Startcom operates, that could become expensive quickly. Since your private key is your gateway into your account (Why they went with this method instead of requiring a sensible password is beyond me, it's one of the reasons their site is a huge pain...), theoretically every certificate you own is compromised, and therefore you'd be out $25 for each one.

..ouch!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My understanding is free ones are not trusted/accepted by the browsers, hence to have something that isnt tossing errors at your users requires a small payment to a CA.

I've used positivessl from namecheap whenever I need certs, its something crazy cheap like $5

<comment><USER19> _My understanding is free ones are not trusted/accepted by the browsers_

You might mean self-signed certificates?

<comment><USER20> Well anyone could start their own CA and hand out free certificates. The problem is that nobody trusts Joe Bloggs' new CA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell The SSL certificate for <https://grepular.com/> is from StartSSL. I renewed it 5 days ago. The CN is for "secure.grepular.com" (for historical reasons), with a subjectAltName of "grepular.com"

I'd like to create a wild card certificate, but that costs money. My understanding is that it is a one off fee (60USD) for them to validate your identity and that it doesn't cost money to renew after that point. I could be wrong though. It's not completely clear.

<comment><USER21> The identity validation expires every year, and you have to pay the $59.90 again to renew it. However, once you've validated your identity, you can generate as many "class 2" certificates (including wildcard certificates) as you like, and those certificates last 2 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is it possible to sign object code (.exe , .dll etc) with any SSL certificate that we buy ? or does this have to be mentioned clearly in the list of features of SSL certificate..

<comment><USER23> It's possible that an ssl certificate may have that capability added, but in my experience they've always been sold as separate products. If you need a code signing certificate the cheapest I've found was through Tucows. It's hidden in their developer resource subdomain. We paid $199 for a 3 year code signing cert.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I actually did pay them a bit, but only so that I could obtain "verified" status and generate unlimited wildcard certificates for all of my domains. It's a good deal :)

</comment><comment><USER25> I did not get a good feeling about StartSSL when I tried getting a free cert. First, as many have pointed out, the web site experience is miserable.

Second, I just got a "Error 107 (net::ERR_SSL_PROTOCOL_ERROR): SSL protocol error." at <https://auth.startssl.com>

For a product that is supposed to be confidence inspiring, StartSSL is the opposite.

<comment> mike-cardwell You're supposed to have installed the client SSL certificate in your browser before visiting that URL. It caught me out too initially. They use client side SSL certificates for authentication. I don't know any other site which does this.

<comment><USER26> It's the first time I came across client side certificates as well. As others have pointed out you have to jump through a bunch of hoops to get a certificate from StartSSL, but if your free time is cheaper than a certificate from another party it can still be worth it (especially because the cost repeats with other parties). I've been a happy customer for more than a year now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm using it. It is very great to get wildcard certificates, and multi-domain certificates. Yes, their web interface is not great, but it does work.

</comment><comment><USER28> I tried some time ago and didn't get the certificate or any email back, not worth the hassle to save $20 imho.

</comment><comment><USER29> I went through the horrendous enrolment process only to find they don't issue certs for subdomains.

<comment><USER30> Sure they do. I'm using a bunch of them right now. The only restriction startSSL has is that they don't accept popular names like 'amazon' or 'google' for subdomain names (I found out after I tried to get a cert for 'amazon.xxx.com' which we'd run in an AWS EC2 instance for testing). So we switched to 'sandbox.xxx.com' and got the cert within minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> upvoting advertising spam? get a free cert with openssl and a shell!

<comment><USER26> While technically possible that doesn't get you very far, you'd end up with a self-signed certificate. That works fine except for the scary warnings (which look a bit unprofessional). And of course if the client programs of your service do not have an interface for accepting self-signed certificates, you're back to square one.

<comment><USER31> yes i know, this people scaring started with ff2,ie7? - there is nothing wrong with self signed certs, except useless companys wanna make a quick buck selling fud

<comment><USER32> There absolutely should've been some sort of "encrypted but not verified" handling for self-signed certificates. The current state of browsers is that unencrypted HTTP is presented as safer than self-sign encrypted HTTPS. That's lunacy.

Unfortunately, there isn't, and as a result self-signed certificates are useless to anyone running a HTTPS site that expects any visitors.

<comment><USER33> Though I don't enjoy the current sad state of affairs with regards to the security and validation of CAs, there's something to be said for the old adage that no security is better than false security, and trusting all self-signed certificates would definitely be false security, since eavesdroppers could just do a man-in-the-middle with their own self-signed certificate.

I'd personally be really happy to see something like <http://perspectives- project.org/> instead of the current web of mistrust.

<comment><USER32> > Though I don't enjoy the current sad state of affairs with regards to the > security and validation of CAs, there's something to be said for the old > adage that no security is better than false security, and trusting all self- > signed certificates would definitely be false security, since eavesdroppers > could just do a man-in-the-middle with their own self-signed certificate.

Currently, self-signed HTTPS is trusted _less_ than unecrypted HTTP. We don't get a massive warning if visiting Facebook over HTTP, despite the MITM risk _and_ the fact that data is being sent in clear to boot.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Google Home couldn't tell users who Jesus Christ is – here's why it matters - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2018/01/26/google-home-jesus-christ-gaffe-highlights-featured-snippets-problems.html <comment><USER2> What makes it relevant is that GH _does_ readily identify other religious figures such as Muhammad and Buddha. Whether or not one believes in any or all in a religious context, each is an important historical figure.

</comment><comment><USER3> There was similar story about google redacting results critical of hillary clinton.

Hard to believe this isn't abuse of power. Hmm, maybe they were being sarcasting with their slogan "don't be evil".

</comment><comment><USER4> So Jesus is vulnerable to spam but Muhammad or satan wouldn't be? Seems kind of unbelievable.

Also, we got a lot of fun asking ok google what an angry dragon or other such things is.</comment>


Russian Peasant Multiplication Explained and Generalised - <AUTHOR> http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/RussianPeasantMultiplication.html?tb07hn <comment><AUTHOR> The recent(ish) NumberPhile video about Russian Peasant Multiplication seems to have struck a chord, being submitted here three times[0][1][2] (that I've counted).

It seems to be new to a few people, even though it's old (obviously), based on binary (not so obviously), and ubiquitous in learning about taking powers (critical in cryptography).

So I thought I'd submit this post that I wrote ages ago. The material isn't time critical, it's always true, it's always relevant, so I didn't put a date on the title.

Comments and feedback welcome and invited.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22241502](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22241502)

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22256230](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22256230)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22265913](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22265913)</comment>