What is the book that has completely changed your way of thinking? - <AUTHOR> Someone suggested me "How to win friends & Infuence people". I read it 4 times in past 3 months. And I'll keep reading it through out my life. It has completely changed the way I see things. Now before I speak I think and I  can understand how many mistakes I've been doing. It had a lot of impact on me. Like wise, are there any other books? Which book had such an impact on your way of looking at things? <comment><USER5> _The Design of Everyday Things_ by Donald Norman. It talks about good and bad design in everyday objects through lots of enlightening and amusing stories and examples (doors that look like you should push them but you actually have to pull, mixing boards with dozens of identical knobs, aircraft software that hides important state information, etc). It provides some interesting insights from cognitive science and psychology too. It definitely made me a lot more conscious of how I went about making things that people would use and how those things could effectively communicate through their design what should be done with them. This also had an impact into how I went about communicating in general.

[http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald- Norman/d...](http://www.amazon.com/Design-Everyday-Things-Donald- Norman/dp/0385267746)

<comment><USER6> Without a doubt. The big takeaway from the book is that when you encounter something that's hard to use, it's not your fault for not knowing how to use it. It's the thing's fault for being badly designed. Read this book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> _Rich Dad, Poor Dad_ opened my eyes to some commercial realities of the world. I realised the career I was training for wasn't going to give me the life I wanted, so I began focusing more time learning about money, investements, business etc.

 _7 Habits of Highly Effective People_ is a book I've never been able to get more than 1/3 of the way through, but its 'Circle of Control' framework made me a much happier and more content person.

I enjoyed Dale Carnegie, but took some of the lessons on board a little too much, which got me into trouble in some social situations where I didn't have awareness (eg, using mirroring or copying techniques to build rapport, and later discovering I was standing next to my girlfriend and flirting with other women!).

</comment><comment><USER8> Atlas Shrugged (Ayn Rand), In Memory Yet Green/In Joy Still Felt (Isaac Asimov), The Moon is a Harsh Mistress (Robert Heinlein).

Those books are probably what made me into a self-sufficient human being who wants to stand on his own and keep living the best he can.

</comment><comment><USER9> I can think of a handful of books that have had a major impact on me. Off the top of my head:

 _Nineteen Eighty-Four_ \- George Orwell

 _Fahrenheit 451_ \- Ray Bradbury

 _The Game_ \- Neil Strauss

 _The Fountainhead_ \- Ayn Rand

 _Atlas Shrugged_ \- Ayn Rand

 _Four Steps to the Epiphany_ \- Steve Blank

 _Business @ The Speed of Thought_ \- Bill Gates

 _The Art of the Start_ \- Guy Kawasaki

<comment><USER8> The Game is an interesting book for a lot of reasons; I don't agree with the idea of picking up tons of random women or some of the methodology he espouses, but it's a powerful book for making people sit up and realize that yes, you can change your life, and yes, you have the tools to do it. It says that "Hey, people think in certain ways and you can hack that," which may be the first time a lot of people encounter any kind of social engineering.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, I'm not trying to be a big-time PUA or anything either. But as a guy who was the stereotypical geek in at least one regard - being horrible at meeting and interacting with women - I've learned a ton since reading _The Game_ and joining some of the PUA forums and reading some of their material.

I've gotten more dates and had more success in the past year and a half than I probably had in my life up to that point.

Truth be told though, I think it's as much "magic sword" syndrome as anything. I big part of being successful with women is confidence, as we've all been told. Unfortunately you can't just tell somebody "go out and be confident with women" if they're not confident with women! But you can say "Here, here's this opener and some routines and some theories about attraction, and if you use this stuff you'll be successful" which gives them a certain form of confidence, which leads to some success, which leads to more confidence, etc. I look at it as way to kick off a positive feedback loop. Sorta like giving a young knight a "magic sword" to give him the confidence to go out and slay dragons.

Whether there's really much to the actual theories and what-not is debatable, but I have no doubt that dabbling in the PUA world has improved my life. And _The Game_ was my "gateway drug" into that world, so it was definitely an influential book to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> _On Intelligence_ By Jeff Hawkins.

[http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff- Hawkins/dp/080507853...](http://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-Jeff- Hawkins/dp/0805078533/)

Hawkins was the founder of both Palm and Handspring, but comes from an academic background where he studied neuropsychology (how the brain works). The book is a thorough look at how the brain experiences the world, with the goal being the creation of artificially intelligent machines.

It'll change the way you perceive perception (if that makes any sense).

</comment><comment><USER11> _Learned Optimism_ by Martin Seligman, while not the most influential book I've read, affects my thinking on a daily basis. Whenever something bad happens to me or I come across a mental block, I use a few techniques from the book to keep it from affecting me.

Keep in mind, my definition of "bad" is pretty loose. For example, one of the bad events I encounter on a regular basis is being stumped by a difficult math problem. If I were to allow myself to fall into a pessimistic line of thinking, it would make solving problems that much harder in the future.

Seligman found that pessimistic people learn to be helpless and that once they do, they stop believing in their ability to change things. For example, a certain subset of subjects who were given a series of unsolvable problems were unable to solve simple anagrams afterward. These people, according to the theory, learned to be helpless. However, there was a subset of people who were able to solve the anagrams. These were the people, according to the theory, who had developed the ability to remain optimistic in spite of misfortune.

Amazon link to the book: <http://www.amazon.com/o/ASIN/1400078393/>

</comment><comment><USER12> I've never read a book, no matter how weird or even badly written that didn't have a bit in it somewhere that stuck. There is gold to be found just about everywhere. A _single_ book that has changed your way of thinking, and I would assume that you meant 'in a positive way'?

For me if I had to point at a single book it would have to be Bill Bryson, A short history of nearly everything.

It shows besides being a very compact overview of how we got where we are today how often we repeat our mistakes and how easy it would be to make this world a _much_ better place than it is today and which forces are holding that back. It changed maybe not my way of thinking but definitely my view of the world in a way that changed how I lie my life. I used to be an idealist thinking that we could achieve some lofty goal of human accomplishment during my lifetime (for instance, an end to wars of commerce) but now I realize that we may not realize that goal ever.

So, effectively this book freed me from fighting windmills and freed my resources to try to improve the lives of those directly around me instead of on a larger scale. The effects have been pretty dramatic.

<comment><USER13> I completely agree. One of those books which was in some passages extremely hard (or even painful) to read is "Thou shall prosper" from Daniel Lipman, a (right wing) Rabbi! It changed the way I look at business. Some arguments convinced me, others I still can't accept. But it showed me that axioms which seem counter-intuitive to me can build a very practical world view.

Another book which is rather on the extreme side is Eckart Tolle's "The Power of now!". Again, I sometimes couldn't stand his opinion. For example whenever he quotes Jesus and explains that most people get it wrong but in fact it would be like this or that.

But the book showed me that I was worrying and thinking way too much and that this is at best useless and sometimes even dangerous.

Often books don't even tell you something new. And I think even this is worthwhile as long as the author explains what you already know in a very different way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Heinlein: He presents a characterization (or characterizations), but some of his core points soak in over time, as one gains one's own life experience.

Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance": For letting me know I was/am not alone (even in my alone-ness).

Upon reflection, I guess these books haven't _changed_ my way of thinking. But they've influenced them. Perhaps Heinlein helped me to change from approaching the world as it was presented to me to approaching it as I actually saw and see it. Pirsig helped me recognize and... formalize[1], at least for myself, some of my thoughts on quality.

Emily Dickinson: Less really can be more. So much more.

\--

EDIT: Re [1], perhaps "explore" would be a better word.

</comment><comment><USER15> Four Hour Work Week by Timothy Ferris. My life was never the same again.

<comment><USER16> Care to elaborate? I read it too and it really inspired my but I just can't seem to pull off a successful muse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Deleuze and Guattari's Anti-Oedipus. It changed the way I think about sanity and insanity, my model of the mind and motivational forces, the "big-picture" view of economics, how government works, how psychiatry works, and the way media affects us.

IMO it's treatment of desire (from a negative (lack) to a positive (thought production machine); relationship of desired object to its platonic object desire; how desire is generated) is a great framework for advertising and product development.

</comment><comment><USER18> The Game - I never became a PUA per say, but it helped me a lot in dealing with co-workers, team members, investors, customers, and random people I come across every day.

</comment><comment><USER19> "Gödel, Escher, Bach" by Douglas Hofstadter. It taught me a lot about thinking about not just patterns, but metapatterns and metametapatterns.

"The Emperor's New Mind" by Roger Penrose. A truly brilliant and eminent mathematician/physicist boldly stepping up to grapple with the profound challenge of understanding how math, mind, and physics intertwine. Penrose's commentary on the role of entropy in cosmology transformed how I understand reality.

</comment><comment><USER20> Few of them are: \- I am OK you are OK, Thomas Harris (not sure) \- Fountain Head, Ayn Rand \- How to win friends .. \- Lateral Thinking, Bono

</comment><comment><USER21> Vedanta books - so many good authors all saying the same thing

Art of Happiness - Dalai Lama

Jonathan Livingston Seagull - Richard Bach

Physics problems - <USER2>

Seven Mysteries of Life - Guy Murchie

</comment><comment><USER22> The Facebook Effect

It's real, it's true, it's my version of Cinderella story. I've read many motivational books, they're good, but Facebook Effect conveyed the idea of possibility to me, and I love it.

</comment><comment><USER23> _Change your thinking_ by Sarah Edelman

<http://shop.abc.net.au/browse/product.asp?productid=162469>

No, seriously.

</comment><comment><USER24> _Atlas Shrugged_ , _The Fountainhead_ , and _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology_ , by Ayn Rand.

To a lesser extent, _The Double Helix_ , by James D. Watson.

</comment><comment><USER25> The Biology of Belief by Bruce H. Lipton The Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand The Attractor Factor by Joe Vitale The Magic of Thinking Big by David J. Schwartz

</comment><comment><USER26> Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance

The Fountainhead

Ishmael by Daniel Quinn

The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins

The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle

</comment><comment><USER27> Thus Spoke Zarathustra

</comment><comment><USER28> "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand

<comment><USER28> Other books that influence how I build software:

"The Biological Basis of Teleological Concepts" by Harry Binswanger, "The Fountainhead" by Ayn Rand, "The Autobiography of an Idea" by Louis H. Sullivan, "Reason and Analysis" by Brand Blanshard

<comment><USER28> My favorite science fiction story is "The Tactics of Mistake" by Gordon R. Dickson.

<comment><USER28> A few great biographies: "The Man Behind The Microchip" by Leslie Berlin, "iWoz: Computer Geek to Cult Icon: How I Invented the Personal Computer, Co- Founded Apple, and Had Fun Doing It" by Steve Wozniak and Gina Smith, and "Just One More Thing" by Peter Falk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Demian - <USER4>

Narcissus and Goldmund - <USER4>

Man's Search for Meaning - Viktor Frankl

</comment><comment><USER30> Napoleon Hill's Think and Grow Rich

</comment><comment><USER31> The Pragmatic Programmer</comment>


Prince of Persia creator finds lost source code 23 years later - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/games/prince-of-persia-creator-finds-lost-source-code-23-years-later-20120329/ <comment><USER2> For those of you who haven't read them, Jordan Mechner's "The Making of Prince of Persia" is one of the most engaging things I've read online.

<http://jordanmechner.com/old-journals/>

Just realized there's an e-book now... I'll probably get it.

<comment><USER3> Fascinating!

He taped his friend jumping and climbing in a parking lot to model the animations after (and posted the video): [http://jordanmechner.com/old- journals/1985/10/october-20-198...](http://jordanmechner.com/old- journals/1985/10/october-20-1985/)

I can definitely see the character performing all those actions from my own childhood memories..

<comment><USER4> I know this comment doesn't add up much to the conversation but that is one of the coolest things I've ever seen, I don't know why I'm so hyped, maybe it's the memories...

<comment><USER5> Must be memories. Prince of Persia was the first program I ran on my computer.

One day me and my father drove 30 kms to buy the box. We talked with the guys about what we wanted ('16Hz, no, its to fast, 12 will do') and they sad it would be ready in three days. Then, we were very surprised and disappointed. They were surprised that we were surprised and finally said 'no biggie, we will set it up right now for you'. So we were back home with the box this evening.

At home we plugged it in only to discover that it was totally useless thingy blinking at us. This evening I learned why software was so, sooo important.

Only the next day I would get some floppies from friends and feed the beast.

Empty parking lot, 1985... Shoot!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is a link directly to Mechner's blog post about the found disks.

[http://jordanmechner.com/blog/2012/03/prince-of-persia- sourc...](http://jordanmechner.com/blog/2012/03/prince-of-persia-source-code- found/)

</comment><comment><USER7> I wish him well. A while back I read "Floppy Disks: Its Too Late" [1] when it was posted on HN and decided that I would finally get round to pulling the data off some old (mid to late eighties) 5.25" Appple II and DOS 2.1 disks I had sat in a drawer.

After buying a 5.25" drive (from ebay), acquiring a PC (from the dump, literally) that was old enough to have a drive controller that could talk to the drive, and tracking down old software for reading Apple disks on a PC, I found that the bits had just faded away and all the disks were unreadable.

Time and money (and luck) can't beat entropy. It wasn't even much fun.

[1] <http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3191>

<comment><USER8> Hopefully if it comes to that, he'll consider using a professional data recovery service or paying this guy for his time. It may not be worth a pile of cash to read the disks sitting in your drawer, but it's probably worth the cost for such a priceless piece of gaming history.

<comment><USER7> I hope so, and I sincerely hope he is successful. I contacted a few data recovery companies myself, but they were changing over UK£60 per disk.

<comment><USER9> Thats what Kickstarter is for. I'm sure we can get a bunch of us to pledge some money to pay for data recovery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There is a novel by famous Russian writer, Pelevin. It is called Prince of Gosplan (Принц Госплана), written in 1991.

[http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86_...](http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9F%D1%80%D0%B8%D0%BD%D1%86_%D0%93%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BF%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0)

Protagonist works for the huge gov bureaucracy in Soviet Union (Gosplan) and imagines that he is going through the levels to reach the Princess. He pretty much lives in the world of Prince of Persia. Hes colleagues, OTOH, live in the worlds of F19 or M1 Abrams, so when protagonist goes to speak to his boss, he has to go through the tank battlefield of M1 game.

<comment><USER11> I thought that I knew all novels by V. Pelevin. I haven't even heard of this one before, although I've read almost everything by him. Thanks for the info.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I hope that his friend is not just someone with a usb 3.5" disk drive, as I think just shoving these disks into a drive will end up with them erased.

For extraction he should be contacting this guy:

<http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3191>

<comment><USER13> It looks like Jordan has contacted Jason "textfiles" Scott:

<https://twitter.com/#!/jmechner/status/185540207200833537>

 _I think @textfiles may have it covered. Fingers crossed_

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I remember playing the original. What a great game. It really was the first game where natural body movement and acrobatics became important.

I haven't heard the term lately -- but for quite a while, Prince of Persia was more of a genre description than anything else. Any game where you could have some freedom to move around the environment, climb up, and drop yourself smoothly down was "like Prince of Persia".

<comment><USER15> I played it once... For about three years straight.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Fun factoid: when Linus was coding the early kernel, he wasted a lot of time playing Prince of Persia on a dos box (according to his co-workers in his early biography Just for Fun). Maybe now we'll get a native port of PoP to Linux so he can run it without DosBOX.

(IIRC the game was written in Assembly so it's not going to be easy, though).

<comment><USER17> Not necessarily a direct port, but a clone written in C/SDL with the original artwork is doable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The same happened to me, on a bunch of old diskettes I found a computer game I wrote more than two decades ago.

[http://www.michielovertoom.com/software/risky-software- archa...](http://www.michielovertoom.com/software/risky-software-archaeology- discovery/)

It's revealing to look at source code you wrote 20 years ago. For example, back then I was already using the 'banner' indenting style for C and C-like languages. I picked this up from the book Software Tools, by Kernighan and Plauger, a book which has been formative for my programming education.

</comment><comment><USER19> Lots of collectors have machines around that can read ProDOS disks. A quick note to the Classic Computer Collectors email list [1] would turn one up.

[1] <http://classiccmp.org/cctech.html>

<comment><USER20> So maybe the Library of Alexandria wasn't burned, it was just stored in a format that no one knows how to read any more. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The journals referenced in the article are an excellent read and will likely hit home for those pursuing or considering startups:

<http://jordanmechner.com/blog/2011/10/ebook/>

</comment><comment><USER22> We were demo'ing the recently created Commodore 64 port of PoP at MGC. It was funny to hear people say, "I used to play this on my Commodore" (No, you didn't.)

Funny how they finish the C64 port and now the source turns up. Glad he mentions that in his post.

<comment><USER23> In a similar vein someone once told me that they'd ran Unix on a TRS-80. (In case you don't know, older *nixes required a mainframe to get running.) The TRS-80 ran a BASIC prompt.

<comment><USER24> I don't know if you're just trolling or not.

There were UNIXes that ran on desktop hardware as far back as the early 80s. In particular, the certain TRS-80 models were sold with Xenix -- a port of UNIX that Microsoft did which later was passed on to SCO (the original company in Santa Cruz, not to be confused with the notorious Utah company that ended up owning the name)

<comment><USER23> I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that __nix was a hog until the 90's.

The place I read that from probably _was_ trolling.

(Then again, IIRC the original V6 source code was 10K or so lines, which doesn't really match up with that statement. (That it was a hog.) I figured it was just written in a way that needed lots of memory.)

Thanks by the way. Filling little gaps in my knowledge like that is always a treat.

<comment><USER25> Unix was a success exactly because it _wasn't_ a hog and didn't require a mainframe. Instead it could run on PDP minicomputers (small and cheap at the time, they cost only $100k and were only as large as a small car).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Yikes. I would be scared to look at code I wrote 23 years ago.

<comment><USER27> I recently recovered code that I wrote 23 years ago in middle school. It was for an Apple II BBS we ran for a little while.

To read source code (and BBS messages) that you wrote in 1989 as a kid is quite a surreal experience, to say the least.

I got the code running, too, thanks to an email I wrote to a friend on said BBS describing in detail how to edit the code (using the AppleWorks word processor), recompile the code, and operate the BBS from the console. Without that 23-year-old email there's no way I would have ever figured it out.

<comment><USER28> Last month I found, in an old box, a listing of the first computer game I wrote back in 1975. I thought that had been lost forever. I'm going to try and scan it & OCR it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> He's very fortunate that the code wasn't lost in the sands of time.

</comment><comment><USER30> Those spike traps were brutal.

</comment><comment><USER31> I had so much fun playing PoP when I was in college! I lived in a student co- op at the University of Texas, late 80s, and we had a little 'computer room' (more like a closet) in the hallway with a Mac Plus (one 400k floppy drive, i think) and I would battle those stupid squeaky bats all freaking night. I loved it, great memories of that game.

</comment><comment><USER32> > The problem he faces now is how to extract the code from those old 3.5″ > disks to his MacBook Air, but he has a friend on board with the requisite > skill set.

... a floppy drive? Or am I missing something. Do the disks degrade over time?

<comment><USER33> Yes, disks fail. See "Floppy Disks: It's Already Too Late", by one of the most prominent digital archivists: <http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/3191>

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This would be awesome!

How can old floppies be read without destroying them? Somehow I don't feel comfortable with inserting them into a modern machine...

<comment><USER34> Darn, I just read the article below :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Will this be released as open source?

Can wait to see it and may be hack on it.

<comment><USER36> yea, I would love to see this put up on github once he gets it off the disks

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Oh, it was such a tough game to play!

</comment><comment><USER38> But wait, wouldn't releasing the source code violate Apple's copyright? :)</comment>


A new start-up service for tired Google users - <AUTHOR> http://igoogleforyou.com/

<comment><USER2> Is this an April Fool? In either case, here's some suggested searches: [http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/chachacom- ge...](http://www.somethingawful.com/d/comedy-goldmine/chachacom-get- people.php)

<comment><USER3> From the FAQ: <http://igoogleforyou.com/igoogleforyouhelp.html>

       # Is this an April Fool's Day joke?

       No, this is an innovative Web 2.0 start-up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This service is a very efficient use of my time, but it is slow in real time.

</comment><comment><USER5> Logic dictates that it's an April Fool's joke.

</comment><comment><USER6> Best place.</comment>


Yandex divulges info on Russian anti-corruption crusader - <AUTHOR> http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110502/tc_afp/russiauseconomyitinternetipocompanyyandex <comment><USER2> RosPil is not about whistleblowing, they're better. What they do is they analyze public government purchasing tenders and try to stop illegal ones by filing official complaints and trying to publicize the issues. There are many reasons a tender can be "illegal" – e.g. if it does not contain enough information on what the government wants to be able to check that the bidder did the required work.

Alas, I have a feeling these guys won't last long if they're effective.

</comment><comment><USER3> _In August, 2004, two passenger planes fell out of the sky within three minutes of each other, killing eighty-nine people. It turned out that they were downed by two female suicide bombers who had bribed an airport security officer with five thousand rubles—around a hundred and seventy dollars—to let them onto the planes._ </quote> [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_ioffe?currentPage=all) from <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2508107>

</comment><comment><USER4> A few months ago, Facebook and Twitter took flak for deleting the accounts of revolutionaries, as it was a form of censorship.

Thinking about it, I decided the action wasn't all bad. If those services are unencrypted, and operating in a regime that might compel them to disclose information (& hurt activists), it _makes sense_ to delete the accounts. Let the people know they aren't using the right tool for the job. Not only would this act as an impetus for the creation of new tools, but it might directly save lives.

It sounds like Yandex found itself in a similar position here, but failed to act (or whatever). And now people will probably die or be ruined.

If you run a service that people could hurt themselves with, take a moment to think about what will be safe for the user— aside from what you must do to be safe/legal yourself. We live in a world where technology has created a new, more dangerous form of illiteracy.

A phrase that describes it in my mind: "Adults become children when they play on the information superhighway."

<comment><USER5> Yandex Money is more like PayPal. This is money changing hands, and to do business you'll have to comply with various strict anti-money laundering/anti- terrorism/tax/whatever-the-next-anti laws. The only alternative is cash and/or better government.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> _Yandex had planned to sell up to 20 percent of its shares in New York before the onset of the global 2008 global financial crisis forced it to postpone the_

And the article cuts off. Would assuming the word "listing" was intended to be at the end of the sentence be a bad assumption?

</comment><comment><USER7> relevant: [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/04/04/110404fa_fact_ioffe?currentPage=all)</comment>


Bitcoin Blows Past $9,000 - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/bitcoin-blows-past-9-000-1820747737 <comment><USER5> I've been playing with Bitcoin since 2010, the first price I remember was $0.10 a coin. I even did some CPU mining (!). I have never seriously invested in BTC but I've been paying attention.

It's amazing to watch the price go up as utility has gone down. In 2012 or so Bitcoin was legitimately useful. Coinbase was around so it was easy to buy. You could move it for reasonable fees / transaction times and it gave you access to Darknet Markets which offered services you couldn't get anywhere else. We also believed it to be private because law enforcement had not yet developed any block chain analysis software. Bitcoin was the only credible coin, everything else was a joke or lacked critical mass.

Now none of that is true. If you're interested in privacy you don't touch BTC with a 10 foot pole. If you want an actually usable currency with speed and low fees you use ETH or any other. And if you're a financial institution you're looking at Ripple. Oh and let's not forget all the BTC forks and exchange hacks.

Yet the price just climbs and climbs, and many people are getting quite rich. I can't say I'm not jealous, but I still won't invest because the fundamentals are all wrong. Someone will be left holding the bag.

<comment><USER6> I think people aren't as rich as they think they are. Let them try and cash out the bitcoins on bitfinex and discover that what they actually get are funny-money tokens called 'tether' which they can't exchange for dollars anywhere.

<comment><USER7> ... nobody would do that though. I can sell my BTC for USD on Kraken and withdraw to my bank account. And I have.

<comment><USER8> Kraken is the only exchange where you can actually exchange USDT for USD. However, at the time of posting, you can only redeem 320k Tether before the price of it will half. Only 320k out of 650M+ (and growing) has any real value. Where are the remaining 649780k USDT going to be redeemed for USD? (Hint: Not from Tether themselves, they clearly state in their own terms of service that they're not redeemable for USD).

<comment><USER7> Right, Tether is a scam. But my point is that Bitcoin can be sold directly for USD (not USDT) on some exchanges.

<comment><USER6> I like how you just sort of blithely say that tether is a scam when there's nearly a billion dollars of it trading on margin, inflating the bitcoin price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love Bitcoin (and the broader ecosystem). The promise of great riches if you can survive long enough in a lawless new world, navigating the schemes, scams and intrigue and the government besides. It must be a glimpse of what got people to pack up and and head west for the gold rush.

The mysterious author, watching mtgox grow, collapse and subsequent revelations, "we found Satoshi" debacle, the DAO heist and reaction, altcoins, block size schism, ICO's, segwit activation, segwit2x deactivation and bugs, Teather's "theft", this rally ...

Chinese mining pools, Russian hackers, the dark web, struggles for control; it's like living in a Neal Stephenson novel. Worth the price of admission just for the entertainment value.

<comment><USER10> "The promise of great riches if you can survive long enough"

Except that there is no net new value being created - and it's a zero sum game. So any 'riches' you make are from some suckers pocket.

No thanks.

The Valley and tech works because we are doing a lot of non-zero sum game stuff. Whenever anyone invents/creates something new - we can grow the whole pie.

Yes - I see how it could be considered fun ...

But most of the 'riches' from the 'Wild West' went to those who were just willing to be the most brutal.

So in reality ... no thanks.

<comment><USER11> Value is created by destroying friction: if financial transactions become decentralized, cheap and fast, you already have created some value.

Even more: having the masses controlling the capital would allow for novel allocation of financial resources: nobody would have killed the electric car 40 years ago if research capital had been more distributed (just an example, not trying to bring up any specific conspiration theory).

More applications, taken from git: before git took the development world by storm, everybody was pretty much used to cumbersome and slow merges when doing team development. Once a fast vcs tool appeared, the possibilities multiplied, and whole new industries emerged. A couple of simple features (speed, low cost, easy setup) where enough to create a miriad of new applications.

Money being at the base of everything, from economics to politicis to science, the blockchain is poised to revolutionize society as no other technology has achieved before.

<comment><USER10> " if financial transactions become decentralized, cheap and fast, you already have created some value."

\+ There is no evidence of value from a 'decentralized' system - in fact, there's considerable value from a managed currency which we know will expand as the economy needs it - not an some arbitrary and ridiculous parameter such as the availability of computing power.

\+ Most monetary transactions are already cheap and efficient.

"having the masses controlling the capital would allow for novel allocation of financial resources:"

A) BTC in no way enables 'the masses to control the capital' \- it's probably more concentrated in terms of ownership than other currencies fyi - moreover - it's just a currency. It's not capital, per sey. B) There's no indication that the masses are better investors than the very large category of investment managers. C) "nobody would have killed the electric car 40 years ago " this is patently false. People have been working on electric cars basically forever and it's been ongoing.

As for GIT ... 'faster merges crated new industries'? If that's what you meant to say then I don't really buy the argument at all. And this has nothing to do with BTC nor is it even analogous.

"Money being at the base of everything, from economics to politicis to science, the blockchain is poised to revolutionize society as no other technology has achieved before."

From your comments I might argue that you might not know what 'money' is.

BTC is not 'money' \- it can kind of be used as that, but is not, and is used less and less as such.

BTC has many structural elements which make it not very useful as a currency.

Having a 'Central Bank' is not a drawback in the opinion of most people - <USER2> 'decentralization' stuff is technology/libertarian ideology, nothing more. A well managed Central Bank is preferable to a fairly strict currency with arbitrary control mechanisms. An economy that loses the ability to have monetary policy ... well ... loses a lot.

There is a huge ugly factor with VISA/AMEX taking 2% of so many transactions ... but that's another story.

Aside from that transaction fee - our monetary system works pretty well - <USER3> better than BTC. The 'problems' that BTC is trying to solve are not real problems. Many of the opportunities it creates are simply the result of bypassing regulations which are there for the most part to protect us.

<comment><USER11> > Most monetary transactions are already cheap and efficient

Say that to peple sending wires with Western Union at 40% commission, and waiting one week for them.

> BTC is not 'money' \- it can kind of be used as that, but is not, and is > used less and less as such

Revolutions take some time (this one is going pretty fast). Would I work for bitcoin now? No. Do I consider working for bitcoin in the short future? Yes. Is it important for me to have government approval to work for bitcoin? Haven't decided yet.

> People have been working on electric cars basically forever and it's been > ongoing

As said, my comment was not specifically about electric cars, that was just an example. Any other example would do. It would be naive to think that powerful interests have never succeeded in halting progress.

> Having a 'Central Bank' is not a drawback in the opinion of most people - > this 'decentralization' stuff is technology/libertarian ideology, nothing > more.

Most people do not know or care about this. Whether that is good or bad for them is debatable.

> A well managed Central Bank is preferable to a fairly strict currency with > arbitrary control mechanisms. An economy that loses the ability to have > monetary policy ... well ... loses a lot.

Sure, amongst other things:

\- the ability to debase savings of people and force them into brainless consumption, ensuring everybody is playing the rat race.

\- the ability to privatise profits and socialize losses (see financial crisis)

And other niceties.

> The 'problems' that BTC is trying to solve are not real problems.

You are just not seeing the problems, as nobody could see clearcase's problems pre-git. And, more importantly, you are not seeing the possibilities.

<comment><USER12> I've sent and received money with Western Union... where does it take 40% commission or one week?

It takes about 10% commission at most and it's same-day.

Definitely can be improved upon but you're exaggerating.

Plus, bitcoin has huge friction for people unfamiliar with it - <USER4> Union's network is great.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> My store of wealth, denominated in GBP, is no more 'real' than bitcoin, however, the issuer is a large entity, with deep and diverse global assets and the military means to protect those assets.

The GBP I hold is a promise that the issuer will go to almost any means necessary to maintain the value of my wealth in respect to its fungibility.

While there is a raft of risk associated with my wealth, it may diminish in respect of its inter currency value, it may suffer hyperinflation, as a part of my 'deal' with the issuer, they additionally provide a framework for a bank to operate, the bank has insurance, this means that a proportion of my wealth would be preserved even if the institution with which I entrusted my wealth turned out to be a bad actor.

Furthermore my currency is protected from entropy, the accounting system used to store the value of my wealth is secure, by design, and by insurance by the issuer.

In 'good times', I am rewarded for making my wealth available as capital for other users, or interest as it is known.

Bitcoin is exciting, as a follow of everything from e-gold to beenz and an original CPU miner, not to mention possibly the only person to actually profit from the first generation ASIC you have to believe me when I say I am not here to detract from Bitcoin, I'm here to say it's not a currency, it's not an asset, it's really something novel, the value is indeterminable.

<comment><USER14> With current interest rates and inflation, I believe that GBP stored in savings accounts actually decreases in value over time in real terms... There doesn't seem to be many great places to store money in general, which arguably has resulted in bubbles in absolutely everything.

<comment><USER15> Inflation is a feature, not a bug. It encourages you to spend your money which, in turn, allows others to use it to produce "growth".

The reason we need money, from a societal sense, is that there is a time gap between when we decide to build something and when that thing is finished. You need access to raw materials, or labour _before_ the thing you are building is completed. The premise is that the thing you are building is more valuable than the raw material and labour that went into it. Money is basically a lubricant that allows you to pay people before you start and then balance the books after you finish.

If money increased in value over time, we would have a problem. Let's say that the thing you are building will return an extra 5% on the investment. If holding on to money and doing nothing returned 10% in the same time period, you would be stupid to build the thing. You will make more money by doing nothing.

In a deflationary system, people will tend not want to risk the money they have by spending it to build something. This means less demand for goods and services and causes people to be idle. Access to capital is harder because why would I lend you money when I can just make a return by doing nothing? If I'm going to lend it to you, you had better lock in a _really_ good rate -- which means you need to have a spectacular return on investment in your enterprise.

Essentially, rich people are rewarded and poor people are screwed. Society has no incentive to build things and poor people can't bootstrap themselves out of poverty without incredible risk.

I think the easiest way to verify this for yourself is to look at BTC. If you own BTC, what value does it have on society sitting in your wallet? Now consider _using_ those BTC to buy something and employ people. Would you do it? Or would you rather park the BTC in your wallet and hope for a 2-300% return through deflation? Imagine I wanted to start a game company and I would like to borrow your BTC so that I can hire artists, musicians and programmers? Would you lend me your money? What kind of promises would it take to entice you to lend me your money?

Now imagine a currency where the value decreases over time. So you have a million units and over the period of your lifetime, the value will decrease to almost nothing. How does that change your view of whether or not it's a good idea to lend me your money? How does that ultimately affect society?

<comment><USER16> you make the argument that inflation is good, but prove it by specifics which only suggest that deflation is bad.

Why is inflation better than no-inflation and no-deflation?

<comment><USER17> I would love to hear a decent answer to this as well. To this day i have never received a satisfying answer to this as most inflation supporters think I am a deflation supporter. While i really support No-deflation and No-inflation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Sometimes I kick myself for not buying any BTC for the novelty factor...you know, back when the primary use was buying illicit substances online.

Then I realize, I would've sold it off when it hit $250 per BTC and I'd probably hate myself more.

<comment><USER19> I remember buying a couple dozen BTC for $0.10, and thinking I was amazing when I sold all of the coins for a total of $20.

Still don't regret it though because I know the next few years of my early 20s would have been spent tracking BTC like a bloodhound rather than spending that time on things I enjoy.

Then again I'm probably telling myself that so I don't feel bad for missing out on 100s of thousands of dollars.

<comment><USER20> So... is there a "Bitcoin" now, that we'll wish we'd taken seriously in ten years? What do you think it might be?

<comment><USER21> Buy a winning lottery ticket. Spending a little now to earn millions later- you'd be crazy not to! It's easy money!

Most people buy lots of lottery tickets that don't win. What a waste of money! What a bunch of suckers! If only they'd been paying more attention to the lottery tickets that won, they'd be rich now!

<comment><USER22> This lottery comparison is wrong and obnoxious. With the lottery you have a known chance of success (minuscule). With crypto you have some measure of control of your expected returns. Having foresight and the technical ability to judge promising projects goes a long way.

<comment><USER23> The ability to convert insights about the future success of projects into returns has always existed via self-directed brokerage accounts. That's probably the closest analogy, except that crypto might not (yet) have skyscrapers full of people paid seven figures to know more about it than you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is Bitcoin a bubble or not? No one knows for sure, but it reminds me a lot of the 2000 dot-com bubble, when Internet companies were overvalued like crazy. We had basically the same selling line: it's a new economy, a new paradigm, an exponential growth, you better join if you do not want to be left out, it will rocket to the moon, and so. I fear it will end up badly for a lot of people in Bitcoin. Make sure you exit before you end up with nothing.

<comment><USER25> The entire market cap of crypto is around $250bn at the moment. The .com bubble went up to $6.7 trillion before correcting back down to 1.7tn. In todays dollars that's close to $8tn.

One can only hope this will be "the next" .com bubble -- there will be money to be made. Given the amount of liquidity that was pumped into the market by the fed, it will be interesting to see what stops this train.

The more and more you look around, money isn't worth anything anymore. Like that recent Leonardo Da Vinci painting that was sold for $450m. Assets and companies selling for a 10-12x multiple, excessive property prices in prime locations, etc. Asset prices have been driven up significantly across the board.

<comment><USER26> Yep, it's like Fiat currency is some crappy thing poor people use to live on while the rich accumulate actual scarce resources with infinitely appreciating prices.

<comment><USER25> There are advantages as well though -- for those being able to create assets (companies, profitable products, etc), those will generally sell for a higher multiple than before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I don't think you can compare Bitcoin to stocks, housing, tulips or any other commodity and draw bubble conclusions based on that. I think we're dealing with a whole new area of economic psychology that the world simply hasn't experienced this before.

Not saying it won't crash though but I think the reasons will be different than traditional bubbles.

<comment><USER28> I tend to agree with this assessment of global markets in general. Things have accelerated to a point that no one has any idea what's going to happen anymore. Past experience is not only misleading, but meaningless now.

<comment><USER29> A quote from The Four Pillars of Investing:

"Of the four key areas of investment knowledge — theory, history, psychology, and investment industry practices — the lack of historical knowledge is the one that causes the most damage. In finance, there is no controversy: the same speculative follies play out with almost clock-like regularity about once a generation."

A whole lot of investors have come to believe that history is obsolete, and later regretted it.

<comment><USER30> "The four most expensive words in the English language are 'This time it's different.'"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I live in a retirement town where many of the retirees have put their entire life savings and more into USI Tech. As far as I can tell USI Tech has properties of a classic pyramid scheme. I wonder how much this and other similar schemes are driving the price of bitcoin. I also wonder what will happen when entire towns get wiped out without recourse.

<comment><USER32> I see a lot of similarities in the kind of people that get pulled into Amway/Herbalife/etc and Bitcoin people.

<comment><USER33> In my experience there's stark difference between those who got into the cryptocurrency culture at large, and those who just trust some specific platform/service to make them rich riding the Bitcoin wave. The latter group certainly tends to have MLM mentality and the services they use usually have all markings of a scam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Bitcoin is really starting to resemble a pyramid scheme or penny stocks. No one can really cash out without people cashing in, otherwise the entire pyramid collapses. And the cult-like mentality of many Bitcoin holders does strike me as a multi-level marketing attitude. Just visit any forum or thread about bitcoin and there will always be that one person with some kind of tagline "it's not too late to get in!" which is a classic FOMO sales tactic. You know when the average person is getting into the market, we are in the late stages of the game.

When suckers enter, smart money leaves.

It's a very interesting technology which will continue to exist but it's really looks like an out of control bubble. In some ways it would be better for it to implode and get the snake oil salesman and sketchy white papers out of the ecosystem.

It used to be a really cool proving ground for cutting edge technologies but now it's looking more like rampant greed, excess and arrogance.

<comment><USER23> You have to remember that many of these people are not planning on "cashing out" but on crypto _becoming_ the new cash.

<comment><USER34> If that were true, why does everyone talk about it in fiat currency terms? Why would it matter what price BTC is, if the goal is to just use it? Who cares, then? I don't buy that argument. It seems to be mostly fueled by greed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What scares me is not the success or failure of BitCoin. What I find troubling is the spirit of BitCoin is paving the way for the exact opposite result.

The idealism is to produce a system for faster, cheaper, and censorship- resistant way to transact. BitCoin is actually becoming unusable for that. It's slower than Etherium, the fees continue to climb when measured against the US Dollar, and the privacy issues are not being addressed.

Sadly, no one will pay any attention to this while the price continues to climb. Only when the price crashes will folks come to their senses, just like when MintPal was hacked which destroyed VeriCoin and when The DAO collapsed with people voting to roll back and fork.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'd be interested to see a timeplot of the timing of ICO's against the price/trading volume of bitcoin. My feeling is that there's a lot of wash trading / market manipulation of bitcoin going on by the perpetrators of ICO schemes, to provide themselves with a way to funnel money out of crypto into dollars. The Bitfinex / tether fraud only works of bitcoin keeps going up.

</comment><comment><USER36> All currencies are based on commonly shared beliefs.

I accept $20 bills because I believe other people will accept $20 bills. The paper itself is worthless.

Bitcoin is the same.

It's worth $9,000 as long as enough people believe they can find other people who believe it's worth $9,000.

Meanwhile, trust in governments and banking systems is crumbling. We've seen the hyper inflation in Venezuela. We've seen Saudi Arabia seize 800 billion dollars in assets. We've seen the banking bailouts in the US. As uncertainty rises, a system based on math begins to look like a far safer place to park your wealth.

Belief in Bitcoin may be at an all time high, but it's still the early days. Only 21 million bitcoins will ever be created. Most of them have been mined already & there aren't enough left for every millionaire in the world to own even a single Bitcoin each.

<comment><USER37> > I accept $20 bills because I believe other people will accept $20 bills. The > paper itself is worthless.

The real worth of a US dollar bill comes from the US military. In case the value of USD starts going down, the military will do whatever is "necessary" to restore economic order.

<comment><USER36> how does that work exactly?

<comment><USER37> Suppose there is an increase in oil prices. That means the US now has to spend more to satisfy domestic demand. That invariably results in devaluation of the dollar. If this becomes extreme enough, US boots march into the middle east and "make things right" again.

Another example. Suppose a bunch of terrorists crash a couple of planes into a symbol of American economic strength. Again, US drones and boots on the ground would fuck up whatever corner of the earth that needs to be obliterated in order to restore people's faith.

These two are very direct actions, but most influences are far more subtle. What happens if China tries to manipulate US currency using its vast dollar reserves? It won't, because within hours a couple of aircraft carriers would show up inside Chinese sea waters. Just the existence of capability is enough to deter China.

<comment><USER36> What if the American people wake up to the fact that the dollar is leveraged beyond reason? And realize that it's all a house of cards? And that military doesn't think the dollars they're paid with are worth anything?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Well that pays for my Christmas shopping. Made a couple thousand now off ~$10 I spent out of novelty. Hurts a bit seeing what I used to have

I really don't see it personally. It seems pretty clear people are buying and holding en mass at this point and it just seems like pure FOMO. There is no underlying asset and I don't think its that useful for replacing cash. Not going to complain though. I'll go on, take my money and run.

</comment><comment><USER39> Goku would be proud.

<comment><USER40> By the end, power levels were at absurd numbers (I think in the billions?) Crypto bulls' collective wet dreams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Bitcoins aren't backed by anything or to anything. Whether it's worth 1 dollar or a million dollar makes no difference, it's our perception that gives it value. Plus they are limited unlike Fiat currency

<comment><USER42> The backing of fiat is illusory.

I always posit this question, to which I have never received a satisfactory answer: What, exactly, would the US do if the world suddenly decided that the dollar was worth nothing?

Massive buybacks of dollars by the Fed would be seen as an ineffective and desperate move. Besides that, what other recourse do they have?

<comment><USER43> >What, exactly, would the US do if the world suddenly decided that the dollar was worth nothing?

Why would the rest of the world decide this? It'd hurt them more than it'd hurt the US or else they'd have done it already.

<comment><USER42> This is not logical. Just because something hasn't happened doesn't mean it can't happen.

<comment><USER44> I think it's about as likely as somebody dropping something and it falling up. Keep testing the existence of gravity, it could change on you.

<comment><USER42> I'm not sure that you realize that the current monetary system is only about half a century old. Fiat currency, backed by nothing except the government, has only existed since the 1970s.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I don't care what the price is, take a look at those price swings: [https://i.imgur.com/pR15IgV.png](https://i.imgur.com/pR15IgV.png) Data: [https://charts.bitcoin.com/chart/price](https://charts.bitcoin.com/chart/price)

<comment><USER46> Percentages are what matter here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> What's the story with Bitfinex (or even Bittrex!) and the Tether situation? It sounds stigmatized and instilling terror as the medium of exchange, but it's all you really have when using a system like that internally (I have to use Tether as an intermediary to swap between coins).

Is that just another component in this house of cards?

If Bitcoin takes a dump, will people panic-sell other cryptos?

If another big crypto explodes, will people panic-sell other cryptos?

The problems and risks in this -- what feels to me, like -- a system, seem interconnected by human psychology if not ACTUAL structures like the exchanges.

</comment><comment><USER48> Someone should write a book like, say, "Bitcoin 36,000".

</comment><comment><USER49> Gizmodo already updated their title to say "past $12000", but that was a short-lived spike. (For now?)

<comment><USER50> It is in AUD$

<comment><USER47> At least it's not posted in Tether. I should say, I'm almost surprised it's not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I encourage everyone to watch this [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHc81OL_hk4&feature=youtu.be...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DHc81OL_hk4&feature=youtu.be&t=1h44m28s)

especially the Q&A after the talk. Its extremely thought provoking</comment>


The future of ad blocking - <AUTHOR> https://freedom-to-tinker.com/2017/04/14/the-future-of-ad-blocking/ <comment><USER2> Dupe. [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116413](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14116413)

</comment><comment><USER3> uBlock Origin in Firefox on Android still seems quite effective against ads on Facebook

</comment><comment><USER4> I find extreme stances towards ads somewhat silly. If you're consuming a free service like Facebook, it's reasonable for the provider to show ads along with it. As long as they're not intrusive, taking extreme measures to hide them seems a bit unfair.

I'm also using ad blockers, because some websites just go way too far. But I wouldn't consider Facebook one of them.

<comment><USER5> I'm curious why you think it's "unfair". Can you give an argument why Facebook owns the attention of its users?

<comment><USER4> You're not forced to consume the service. If you do, you "pay" by seeing ads.

Imagine you play in an amateur football team and get provided with sportswear by a sponsor, but it has their logo on it. Now it also wouldn't be fair to rip those off.

<comment><USER5> Show me the signed contract. With a promotional deal with sportswear there is a contract, where's the contract here?

Let's stretch this analogy a bit. Let's say I watch broadcast television with ad breaks. Except every single ad break I either go to the kitchen to get a snack, go to the bathroom, or go do something else. Every time completely missing 100% of the ad. Is this "wrong"? Did I not "pay"? Why? Would the broadcaster be legally within their rights to come to my home strap me into a chair and force me to watch 15 minutes of ads (that I missed) for every hour of content I watched on their network? Would they be within their rights to send me a bill for the content because I decided to spend the time urinating instead of consuming their advertisements?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Realistic Facebook Privacy Simulator - <AUTHOR> http://toys.usvsth3m.com/realistic-facebook-privacy-simulator/ <comment><USER2>
        Don't not make everything not private

        [ ] Not No
        [ ] Not Not Not Yes

My brain was too slow!

Great game.

<comment><USER3> Took me another 30 seconds just staring at your post here to work it out.

<comment><USER4> The trick is to just cross out pairs of negatives. Same thing for reading news stories like "court overturns ban on prohibiting suppression of car share services". Is that positive or negative for car2go?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's not just Facebook, Apple does this too with their "iAd optout" pages too.

Limit tracking: [ off | on ]

I'm still not sure which side I want really.

<comment><USER6> Facebook and Google make money selling your personal data, Apple makes money selling hardware.

<comment><USER7> Can't speak for Google, but Facebook certainly doesn't sell personal data. Facebook internally uses personal data to show targeted advertisements. Big difference.

<comment><USER8> Nor does Google. Twitter, however, does. That being said, Twitter is default public and they've been really open about it since day one.

Note: I have no special knowledge of Google, so maybe they do. Given that it would be really dumb to do so and lie about it, I believe that they do not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Please, make a version suitable for kids. This would make an excellent teaching tool.

<comment><USER10> If they haven't by the time I am done with my current project (middle of next month) I'll do it!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just watched the zealous Zuckerberg dance for three, straight minutes.

<comment><USER12> Its his face photoshopped over the woman from this video:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-50GjySwew](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-50GjySwew)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This would be amusing if I were Commander Data, and so could actually see my score in the brief moment it shows the results before switching to taunting me for losing my privacy.

</comment><comment><USER14> I got to level five. This simulator is not realistic enough.

<comment><USER15> It's not not not realistic enough

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is too realistic, I'm super stressed out now because I didn't have time to answer everything right. Next thing I know, there's probably going to be something embarrassing on my FB timeline!

</comment><comment><USER17> Dancing Zuckerberg is the new trollface

</comment><comment><USER18> Conditioning has taught me never to press the blue facebook button on another website!

I took a leap of faith though when I read the comments here.

Good game, although I was checking my FB profile every five mins to make sure it hadn't posted any crap!

<comment><USER19> I swear, I was about to post exactly the same thing!

I had to try it a few times, as I was laughing too much too, even have chance, when I first saw the line up of "settings"

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'd like to take a moment here to be "That Guy" and throw a wet blanket on the Facebook hate train:

      * The options given here are not at all representative of the actual Facebook privacy settings, which my freaking mother can understand.

      * There is not a countdown attached to usage of the real privacy settings

      * Privacy is not a binary thing you either have or don't. Checking the wrong option in Facebook might result in some piece of information being available for certain other people to view. That doesn't mean they necessarily did. Nor does it mean that you can't go back and change the setting around later.

      * Facebook's redesigns were all centered around the goal of misleading people into publicizing information they didn't want to. /s

      * Whatever point this game is trying to make is completely overshadowed by its tone.

<comment><USER21> People take the internet too seriously. It used to be a fun place, I promise. And there used to be lots of terrible shareware games you could buy on CD-ROM or floppy disk, and they were often much, much worse than this game. Take these games for what they are, which is basically like the little puzzles on the back of a cereal box.

<comment><USER20> If this were posted anywhere else but Hacker News, I'd agree. But this site has a downright pathological hatred of it. It's like listening to conservatives banging on about how terrible liberals are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is the best game I've ever found on the front page of HN! Absolute awesomeness.

</comment><comment><USER23> I suspect there's a whole department at Facebook, Google, and other companies that sole purpose is to come up with cleverly puzzled opt-in questions for users.

</comment><comment><USER24> I noped out of there when I saw the triple negative :-)</comment>


Using Nginx and Lua and Redis to Build an Edge Computing Platform - <AUTHOR> https://leandromoreira.com.br/2020/04/19/building-an-edge-computing-platform/?update=now <comment><USER2> nginx and lua is great. I just used it for a project POC and it's very cool to have that kind of flexibility for a load balancer.

</comment><comment><USER3> it's a great way to learn a little bit of lua within nginx</comment>


SVPT – Next Generation devices for biofeedback in PT(Article 3 in series) - <AUTHOR> https://firstname.lastname@example.com/svpt-experience-and-data-collection-article-3-in-series-b80a464ec176 <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN!

This is the 3rd article in series discussing our companion device platform for physical therapists. Please take a look and let us know what you think!</comment>


What Every Government (Except One) Doesn't Get About Startups - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/what-every-government-except-one-doesnt-get-about-startups/244467/ <comment><USER2> The main point these types of articles ignore is the huge wave of immigration from Soviet Union in the 90's. It was extremely skilled population with many phd's , professors that worked on pretty amazing stuff back in USSR. Then to help these 1 million (20% of country's population) the government just helped everyone a bit with their ideas.

THAT'S ALL , the rest is history!

I remember my backwater desert town 50k population where they quickly build cheap office buildings and stuffed them with all these 1-2 person "startups" full of bearded Soviet Phd's. They called them "hothouses" (of ideas). What happened to Israel can not be repeated again unless US collapses and 1 million of Silicon Valley engineers(not that they have so much) will move back to India or China.

</comment><comment><USER3> I havent gotten round to reading the book yet, but there is further evidence of this in the book "Startup Nation: The story of Israel's economic miracle" By Dan Senor.

He also did an introductory talk which was brilliant, on Fora.tv. I'll post the link here, but it may be affected by the new Pay Wall.

[http://fora.tv/2009/11/03/Start- Up_Nation_The_Story_of_Israe...](http://fora.tv/2009/11/03/Start- Up_Nation_The_Story_of_Israels_Economic_Miracle)

<comment><USER4> Israel is a somewhat controversial example in economic terms. Some like to point to it and say "look what they made from nothing" but Israel has, over the years, been the beneficiary of significant economic (and military) aid from primarily the United States.

But more importantly (IMHO), Israel was the beneficiary of the largesse and support of a people decimated by the horrors of WW2.

It's fair to say that the US probably had a large cultural impact on the development of Israel, both for direct economic reasons but also that the US has a large Jewish population.

The lesson I personally take from the success of Israel is how important it is for a country to be bound together by a common set of ideals and purpose. Not that I'm arguing for any kind of cultural homogeny but if people in one country become sufficiently different it tends to drive that country apart. I think you see that in the US today as the red and blue state divide.

<comment><USER5> Jews only make up 2% of the population in the United States. I would argue that US policy toward Israel is motivated more by Christian end-times theology of the religious right than by the Jews themselves.

<comment><USER6> The right context is the cold war. For a long time, Israel was the ONLY dependably-US friendly country in the middle east. Almost all the others (Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, ...) were, in the context of the cold war, soviet outposts. Their army was trained by the soviet union, all their arms supplied by soviet union, and high ranking soviets were roaming all around. The other US-friendly middle east countries like Saudi Arabia did not have a meaningful army or fighting ability, and were unable to make any difference if the cold war ever heated in the middle east (which was not improbable).

In that context, US support for Israel was a cheap hedge against soviet domination of middle east - everything else is secondary. Furthermore, that support came (and still does) with strings attached - almost all of it must be spent in the US (and I am sure some of it is/was specifically earmarked, even if it isn't official). So you also get to divert money to your military- industrial pals, get a bunch of right wing and jewish americans feeling good -- and get some investment in an anti-soviet force. Isn't that a good deal?

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what the US is doing in Iraq, both wars were much helped by Israel's experience fighting the soviet war doctrine (which is what iraqi defense/offense was based on; Israel had experience with it fighting Syria and at an earlier stage, Egypt).

<comment><USER7> Overstating it a bit WRT Egypt, Iraq, Iran. They played both sides to get the best deal they could, sometimes that was the soviets, sometimes that was us, but notably there was no period where all 3 were sponsored by the soviets at the same time, and more notably they weren't reliable proxies for either side - always kept their own interests first. Egypt even managed to split the US from Britain during the Suez Canal war.

Egypt - entirely US armed after 78

Iran - entirely US/British armed prior to 79

Iraq - a mix but very US-supported post-79 and a pariah to all post-91 (with a few covert non-soviet Russian arms).

Syria - Pragmatist dictator who never happened to line up with us.

Libya - The only case here where the leader actually had an ideological disposition towards the soviets (but only a little)

I agree with your take on the motivations for US aid at that time, though.

One other caveat, Israel did help train US forces but it was their experiences in Lebanon and Palestine that helped, not those with Syria and Egypt. Syria and Egypt had/have iraq-like armies of medium-quality gear and poor quality conscripts, that's conventional warfare. It was the nonconventional stuff that they helped train US troops for on the way to Iraq.

<comment><USER6> I shouldn't have lumped Iran with the rest of them, you are right about that -- it is a completely different story. I stand corrected.

But I don't think I was overstating when I claimed

> Israel was the ONLY dependably-US friendly country in the middle east

Look at your own dates: that's 30 years (1948 till 1978) in which Israel was almost the only middle eastern country WITHOUT soviet influence -- and one that's strategically positioned near the Suez canal.

We are not in disagreement about the reasons, only about the magnitude.

Re: training experience - I've heard differently from people who were involved. "Conventional war" is still not a standard thing, and knowledge of your enemies' doctrine is golden. From what I heard, the whole Iraqi doctrine in '91 (where you put your defense tanks, how you back out when outnumbered, how you plan your battlefield supply chain, how you plan ambushes, etc) was almost exactly the same as Syria's '67, and getting all that info from the Israeli army made life much easier for the US Army.

(For all I know, this was self-glorification and/or disinformation from the Israeli side, but it was supported by supposedly knowledgeable US people I inquired with)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Briefly: this reads like Steve Blank is wandering the Earth trying to get companies to legislatively promote venture capital as the preferred vector for starting companies.

<comment><USER9> An amendment to make it more accurate: "...trying to get _countries (not companies)_ to legislatively promote venture capital as the preferred vector for starting _scalable startups (one of the 6 types he outlined in the article and not just any company)_."

<comment><USER8> Countries/companies was a typo. Thanks.

The 6 types of companies Blank outlines:

* "Lifestyle companies", like the companies associated with individual professional surfers.

* "Small businesses", like money-losing corner groceries.

* "Scalable businesses" (ie, your typical YC company, "born to be big")

* "Born to flip" companies that are conceived of as features of some other company's product

* "Large companies" like Google

* "Social companies" with missions other than making money

The implication of my brief comment was specifically that this way of breaking down companies suggests that he's promoting venture capital.

 _

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wouldn't a better (read less link baiting) title be. What one country got right in one example of funding start-ups? The article basically describes a bunch of different business models and then hails the Yozma program. I don't know anything about it and maybe it's been immensely successful but I would have thought it would be far more interesting if it told me why and how it had been successful. To be honest I would have thought a better explanation of the success of entrepreneurs in Israel would be the large number of highly skilled/motivated first/second/third generation immigrants moving into the country.</comment>


Safety Implications of Serialization Timing in Autonomous Vehicles (2017) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5a60ec649f8dce866f011db6/t/5ab286da2b6a283afce7d752/1521649372997/Safety-Serialization.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Author compares different message serialization libraries (protobuf, capnproto, flatbuffers, etc) using real world data.</comment>