The Hosting Provider Time Machine: Paying 2006 prices in 2009 - <AUTHOR> http://statsheet.com/blog/the-hosting-provider-time-machine-paying-2006-prices-in-2009

<comment><USER2> There are providers offering better pricing.

ChunkHost has 2GB instances for $66/mo. You can get a 512MB instance to try for free during their beta.

Prgmr (which is very, very basic and much harder to use) offers 2GB instances for $36. However, their service isn't so automated.

The issue is that Slicehost now operates on a premium level - they're a big name. And you're paying for that name. Linode offers slightly more competitive pricing, but again name.

People are willing to pay up a little in order to get something they think will have better uptime. But this is one of the reasons that I left Slicehost. When they started, you could get a 512MB dedicated server for around $70-100 with no RAID and crappy reliability. The cost thing is starting to swing back toward dedicated hardware as for $160 a place like Softlayer will give you a 4GB dedicated box or an 8GB server for $210 (both coming with 2,000GB of bandwidth). It's still hard to match on the low-end because when you're dealing with dedicated hardware you have electricity and rackspace which, well, a server has to take up physical space. But Slicehost and other VPS providers haven't cut prices and adjusted as things changed which has made dedicated boxes a lot more attractive.

 _If you have 7 2GB slices, you might want to look at a dedicated box._ Buy a box with 16GB of RAM, 4 processing cores, and get your VMs running on it all for around $460. That compares favorably to the $910 Slicehost would charge. Gets even better at 32GB for $660 vs. $1820.

Just remember that VPSs aren't the be all and end all. They're a tool. If the pricing of other options is working out better for you, look into that.

</comment><comment><USER3> The idea that you should price things based on what they cost you to acquire is the reason engineers are rarely trusted with pricing in established companies. Slicehost can charge whatever it wants for storage, because you can't get storage with a Slicehost wrapper around it anywhere else. This is just an optimization problem.

Something to like about this situation: most startups price too low out of the gate, and should be _raising_ prices regularly. Here Slicehost gets a (small) shadow price increase over time, as its costs for storage and compute decrease.

<comment><AUTHOR> You make it sound like this is a highly differentiated market. We are talking about hosting hardware. Sure Slicehost (and others) throw some software in to the mix, but the main thing everyone buys is access to hardware (and not specialized hardware at that). So yeah, price does matter. I think it makes them vulnerable to new entrants into the market that can base their prices on today's hardware.

Also, I don't think this is a "small" shadow price increase. Hardware gets cheaper by 50% year-over-year. Even if you cut that in half, a 25% yearly decrease in hardware costs is pretty good for them.

<comment><USER3> Yup. That sounds good. I'm still not moving to Linode. Slicehost fucking kicks ass. Everything it claims to do just works, with zero messing around. I have zero time to dick around with Linux kernel builds and drivers and ISOs and who-the-hell-knows. They could charge significantly more and it'd still be worth it to me.

Other people value their time and effort differently. Slicehost might not get them. I think they've factored that in. =)

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately I have to agree with you ;-) My experience has been so good with them that my default option is to shell out more money and keep using them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think he has a very valid point, and Slicehost should take notice. However, I also think that he has outgrown the VPS space. I would contact SoftLayer if were him.

<comment><USER5> A big "seconded" for SoftLayer here. I've trusted a lot of stuff to them in the last few years and never had a problem.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I looked at Linode and their offering is pretty competitive with Slicehost (slightly higher price but more storage).

Any positive/negative experience with them?

<comment><USER6> I'm quite happy with them. Since I signed up in 2008, they've increased the base storage once:

<http://blog.linode.com/2009/04/23/33-additional-disk-space/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Have you looked into EC2 at all?

While they have precanned "instance types" as well, they also offer a separate Elastic Block Storage service where you can ask for as much storage as you want, and it acts like a virtual hard disk on your partition.

<http://aws.amazon.com/ebs/>

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm also on Slicehost, and have been for a few years now. My spending on hosting goes up every year, my spending on hosting as a percentage of sales keeps going down. This is principally because I spend most of my time figuring out more ways to charge more customers more money (they certainly don't pay 2006 prices any more) and less of my time worrying about servers or trying to shave money off my hosting bill.

Now, if you want to treat hard drive space as a commodity, there are many service providers out there who are happy to meet your needs. You'll have to put up with some of the pain associated with dealing with a commodity service. Slicehost (sensibly) has no particular desire to commoditize their offering or price like they have done so.

</comment><comment><USER9> Linode allows you to upgrade disk or RAM independently. Sounds like it's closer to what he wanted.

</comment><comment><USER10> Their customers pay it, their competitors don't undercut it, and they get an increasing profit margin out of it. Sounds like they've found the magic number to me...

I'm also curious how you know that their numbers would actually let them drop the price yet. You really think they pay for all their hardware and software with a few month's worth of fees? That after paying personnel/electricity/marketing/rent each month they're going to wipe out the long-term investment numbers each month? I'm willing to bet they have some kind of spreadsheet somewhere and understand where they stand on their pricing requirements much better than you do.

<comment><USER11> I run a small VPS hosting company.

You are right; the hardware cost is only a small part of the total outgoings for this type of business.

In that regard, the pricing model tends towards how big a slice of the 'pie' each customer gets to buy. The 'pie' is the total amount of hardware available for customer use.

So if you want to buy more disk space only, that would reduce the size of the pie for everyone else who wants disk space, so you'd need to reduce the allowed disk space on all plans to leave some 'spare' in case someone wants to expand their disk.

Slicehost instead have maximized the amount of disk space per customer and that hasn't left any spare, so you are (in theory) already getting a good deal.

Perhaps there's room for a small startup company to arbitrate buying and selling of extra disk space amongst Slicehost customers :-)

<comment><USER12> _So if you want to buy more disk space only, that would reduce the size of the pie for everyone else who wants disk space, so you'd need to reduce the allowed disk space on all plans to leave some 'spare' in case someone wants to expand their disk._

Or maybe Slicehost could use some of the money to buy some more disk space and hook it up.

<comment><USER11> You missed my point: If they give you some more disk space then they have to decrease everyone else's space.

What you're suggesting means buying a new "pie", because they've sliced up the existing pie and allocated all of it, completely. This would mean buying more datacenter space, more servers, more networking equipment. When you want to offer disk space to customers as a product, it has to scale, you can't just plug in a USB HDD every time someone emails to ask for more space.

<comment><USER12> I didn't miss your point. I disagreed directly with your point, because I think you're wrong — probably for Slicehost, and certainly for a sensibly-run company that does what they do.

Aren't they already using a SAN? Aren't they continuously expanding their "pie" as they get more customers and replace superannuated servers? So not USB but SATA: populating the new servers with 500GB disks instead of 250GB, or three disks instead of two. Maybe you know more about how Slicehost operates than I do, and I'm wrong about the above? If so, I'd love to have details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> _[F]or hosting providers that do not a) increase their hardware configurations or b) decrease their price on at least a bi-yearly basis, their profit margins are actually increasing over time._

Not necessarily. What about inflation? It's remarkable that technology continues to become cheaper while our currency is decreasing in value. It just makes me wonder what we'd be paying if we used hard money instead.

</comment><comment><USER14> 1) They're only charging that because people are paying it.

2) What do you need on your Slicehost VPS that you couldn't just dump onto your home storage device?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1) I understand, but unless people raise this issue publicly maybe they won't ever change ;-)

2) I can dump it on my home drive just like i could dump it on S3, but I do a lot of parsing on the files and copying them back and forth when needed is a headache I'd rather avoid. And then there is my front-end server that caches large portions of the website dynamically which I can't move to my home drive</comment></comment>


Blue Cross Blue Shield plans sue CVS for overcharging them for generic drugs - <AUTHOR> https://medcitynews.com/2020/05/blues-plans-sue-cvs-saying-it-overcharged-them-for-generic-drugs/?rf=1 <comment><USER3> Whenever I visit the states and pop into CVS I am frequently amazed at the sticker prices on some of the dugs there. Things that literally cost pennies per tablet in the UK (generic hayfever tablets, pain killers etc) were absurd prices. 20USD for 7 hayfever tablets? 15 USD for 12 ibuprofen tablets? WTF?! _Do not_ forget to get 12 hayfever tablets for £1.80 (~2USD) from a supermarket before your flight otherwise you'll need to spend 45USD (+tax) at the CVS a block from your hotel.

Do you guys actually pay these prices for this stuff, or is it only forgetful travellers who fall for it and end up paying through the nose because they have no other choice?

Surely you won't be claiming for pain killers for a headache etc on your health insurance? (...although at those prices maybe you should??!)

It feels to me that is pretty criminal to charge those prices at retail - <USER2> inflate even more to insurers just seems pretty outrageous.

<comment><USER4> > Do you guys actually pay these prices for this stuff, or is it only > forgetful travellers who fall for it and end up paying through the nose > because they have no other choice?

Usually you can get those cheaper in bulk, like at Costco, or at a pharmacy that your doctor works with, or you can get a discount by showing your insurance card.

But yes, sometimes when desperate, we pay that much too.

We also have these health savings plans where we get a debit card and can buy that stuff with pre-tax money, which is sort of like saving 10-40% depending on your tax bracket.

But yes, it sucks. When I go to other countries I try to stock up. You have better prices and stuff that we can't get here.

<comment><USER5> > health savings plans where we get a debit card and can buy that stuff with > pre-tax money,

These are stupid, and I wish they'd die, for multiple reasons.

First, the list of things that are allowed and not allowed is completely arbitrary and random. Feminine hygiene products are allowed, but baby formula isn't. Wtf why? And now someone's gotta maintain this list of items and enforce it (Wageworks et al), and process claims made manually. So now we've just added another actor in the whole system that can add their own profit margin on top. All so we can save a few bucks in paying taxes.

Second, these aren't available to everyone (just like 401k plans, the other symbol of taxation inequality). It's a benefit that has to be offered by your employer, and there are plenty of shitty employers out there. The people who could most use a tax break on a $10 bottle of aspirin are the least likely to get it.

Third, the use-it-or-lose-it nature of FSA money. And if you lose it, the money goes back to the employer. Again, wtf why? You're basically placing a wager against your expected healthcare expenses every year at open enrollment time. For really no clear benefit. Why can't the "debit card" work like a "credit card" instead, with payments made directly from your paycheck? There's no guessing involved, and no one ever over- or under-contributes.

<comment><USER6> > feminine hygiene products are allowed, but baby formula isn't

One is a healthcare product, the other is a food (nutritional supplement at best).

<comment><USER3> Formula is literally the only thing some babies can eat particularly less than 6 months old. You cant just give them cow milk, or chocolate or bread or whatever. Has to be formula if it cant be breast milk.

Not all parents breast feed their babies for myriad reasons - some by choice, some not by choice.

Formula is quite expensive in the UK - no idea how expensive it is in the states, but a 800g tin of powder might cost about £12/15USD. That makes about 4 litres of milk which might last a 100% formula-fed baby 2-7 days depending on how old/hungry they are. By comparison 4.54L (i.e. 8 imperial pints ... we still seem to sell milk in imperial sized bottles for unknown reasons) of cow milk is £2.18, so formula is roughly 5x or 6x as expensive.

Is £12 for 2-7 days worth of food for your kid expensive? For people on HN probably not, but I do know that the formula in the supermarkets often have security tags on them (along with razors etc) so I am guessing a lot of people cannot easily afford the formula/can't afford to feed their kid literally the only thing they can eat. Sad stuff really - this is why I would expect it to be on these sort of discount schemes.

<comment><USER7> > Formula is literally the only thing some babies can eat particularly less > than 6 months old. You cant just give them cow milk, or chocolate or bread > or whatever. Has to be formula if it cant be breast milk.

I think the ideal compromise for this situation is that if this describes your situation you get a doc to sign off on it and then your FSA/Insurance should cover it as medical expense. Like it wont and it makes little sense for it to be excluded in the first place but I think we could find a compromise that satisfies everyone.

<comment><USER4> I think the point was more that whomever makes the list of acceptable items for the HSA is clearly out of touch and missing important things, and there shouldn't be a person in that role anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hah. When we did IVF, they had me sign up for that CVS plan. It was sold to me as an "insurance program" offered via CVS, and only good at CVS.

It saved me many thousands of dollars, which I assume was charged to people who had insurance that covered IVF drugs (mine did not).

I thought it was a pretty clever workaround on CVS's part.

<comment><USER8> Do you have any details on this? My wife and I are currently looking into IVF and the cost of the drugs alone is staggering.

<comment><USER4> I believe it was this:

[https://www.singlecare.com/prescription-discount- card/cvs](https://www.singlecare.com/prescription-discount-card/cvs)

But it was literally the CVS pharmacist who had me sign up when I went in the first time.

And yes, the cost of drugs are staggering. :( I was super jealous of my Canadian friends, who get one free baby with their national insurance.

I was also jealous of my friend who works at Merck. They make a lot of the drugs, and provide them to their employees for free.

<comment><USER9> > who get one free baby with their national insurance.

I read that the wrong way the first time... ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They also charge me more at the doctor when I have insurance... is it ok to say that you don't have insurance and make a claim later?

<comment><USER11> Many doctors discount their care when providing it to people who don't have insurance to help them afford medical care. It's probably legal to make a claim later, but you're effectively lying to the doctor so you can receive a charitable contribution. It's ok to do it if you don't mind feeling like a welfare fraudster.

<comment><USER12> It's not a charitable contribution; the doctor in this situation is unethically applying differential pricing.

<comment><USER13> So it's unethical to charge less to a person who might not be able to afford the higher price?

I think we have different definitions of the word ethical.

<comment><USER14> It's viewed as unethical to some because when you flip the script, it's: "charge rich people more simply cause they're rich". Which isn't a good argument, but it's what I've heard.

<comment><USER13> But rich people are not charged because they are rich. They are charged because they have insurance. And it is insurance that has led to this bizarre situation where the free market is completely broken and you can't confidently put a price number to a medical product or service.

If almost everyone was paying for their medical care out of their own pocket we would not be in this situation. And there are plenty of other countries where this is the case. In India for example, individual doctors literally have a board with a list of what they charge for various services, and if you visit a hospital, someone at the reception would be happy to help you with these.

You want a general ward? Here's the price. You want a private air-conditioned room with five-star catered meals, here is the price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> When I was between jobs I had about a 2 week period where I was technically without coverage, but the new company reimbursed me once I was on their plan. I went to fill a prescription for a very common generic drug that has been around for decades at the chain pharmacy I always use.

I was expecting to pay the same price I generally did, about $3.00. I was shocked when they charged me $150.00. I can understand the pharmacy needing to charge a bit more to cover costs, but this seemed like highway robbery.

<comment><USER16> The real question here isn't how much you generally pay, but how much _insurance_ generally pays. It was almost certainly less than $150, but it isn't at all unusual for even generic drugs to cost insurance hundreds of dollars, even when you have only a small copay.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As the number of pharmacy companies has declined, there's been a huge creep upwards in the price of generic drugs. Even for non-prescription drugs. Price is no longer even vaguely related to production cost. Look at the price of antacid tablets (which are chalk, calcium carbonate) and cranberry pills (a very cheap product.)

<comment><USER18> Devil's advocate on antacids, I knowingly and willingly pay a premium for Tums Extra Strength Smoothie Flavor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Price discrimination in healthcare is out of control. Simple addition to Medicare regulation that requires any provider (including Pharma resellers) to have a public price and not charge anyone more than they charge Medicare solves a lot of problems.

<comment><USER20> Price transparency and making extreme price discrimination illegal should be the first steps so people can discuss solutions based on hard data.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I thought that the grammar in this headline was all messed up. But it turns out "Blues plans" is a thing.

<comment><USER22> 3rd person present: plans

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've done price comparisons and CVS is hands down the worst price for anything.

The only reason you go to CVS, is if you have 0 other options.

While I blame the various medical cartels for making healthcare unaffordable by bribing (Lobbying) hundreds of millions of dollars to politicians- can the customer be blamed for negligence?

</comment><comment><USER24> Just switched from CVS to Walgreens for this exact reason. They were charging the insurance (and us for the uncovered amount) full prices for generic versions.

And let me just clarify, the prescription bottle had the generic version on the label, our receipt was for the non-generic!

We complained to the CVS pharmacist about this and their response was brazen and they wouldn't budge even when we said we will escalate this to our insurance company. We did escalate it to our insurance company (not Blue Cross Blue Shield), but never heard anything more about it... perhaps more will sue in the weeks to come.

Edit: This was in SoCal, not one of the states mentioned. Also, we weren't part of this plan that they talk about in the article.

</comment><comment><USER25> I had to fail 4 medications WITH insurance and I had BCBS, to get my medication for free, thay was already free through the insurance, that just fucked me up even more mentally than I started.

</comment><comment><USER26> Repeating myself: I thought charging different customers different prices for the exact same thing was wrong. Somehow.

<comment><USER27> Why? Would it be wrong for a restaurant to provide meals for free to those in need?

<comment><USER26> What? Who's giving out free pills?

Anyhoo, is it fair to charge me $10 and you $200 for the exact same burger? I thought there were rules against this. Why don't the laws prohibiting price discrimination apply to pills?

[https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price- discrimination/](https://definitions.uslegal.com/p/price-discrimination/)

I really want to know.

Further, upthread someone said something about prices doctors charge.

I have no problem with that. Of course different doctors have different prices. Rent, servicing debt, skill/merit.

But I have a problem with that doctor (or more likely her hospital or managed healthcare org) charging different prices to different patients.

I know there's some history here (in the USA), and path dependence. But it is conceptually so simple to make the system transparent, fair, accountable.

<comment><USER28> From the article you link:

> Merely charging different prices to different customers is not illegal, when > there is no intent to harm competitors.

So if CVS uses price discrimination to screw-over Walgreens, it's illegal, but if they use it to screw over their customers, it's not (with the expectation that if they screw over their customers, the customers will go to Walgreens).

<comment><USER26> Thanks. That's an embarrassing oversight on my part.

Pharma definitely has done anti-competitive stuff. But I'm not seeing a connection to the customer pricing we're talking about.

Even so, I vaguely remember something about price discrimination, so care has to be taken when doing market segmentation. Or I could just be making it all up.

Thanks again for correcting me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Seems like an obvious business model. Sell OTC drugs at fractions of current prices and still make a large profit...

What is the catch?

</comment><comment><USER30> As a former BCBS employer plan admin...the irony is thick.</comment>


Spotify officially launches a shared-queue feature called Group Session - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/11/spotify-officially-launches-a-shared-queue-feature-called-group-session/ <comment><USER2> Finally. So many college students I know have tried building this but none took off because it really does need to be in the Spotify app.</comment>


LeBron James school that was considered an experiment is showing promise - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/education/lebron-james-school-ohio.html <comment><USER2> This story resonates with me deeply. I grew up in a lower income, single parent household to a family environment plagued with drug addiction and feelings of economic hopelessness. I was on track to drop out by my senior year of high school. My father (who was always in and out of prison) committed suicide my freshman year of high school. I was distraught but blessed. My English teacher at the time noticed what I was going through and got me involved in a program for at-risk kids called AVID [1]. It is because of this organization that I was able to not only graduate from high school but also university and go on to have a successful career in software development.

Our society pays a lot of lip service to youth being the future but we don't actually do much to help them succeed. The person you might call a loser or criminal was once a child who had the opportunity to become a shining example of what our society can produce. These children are being lost at some point along the way. Once they become adults we shame them for their life decisions but what are we actually doing to solve the problem?

When you say, "hey, 90% of these students are outpacing peers in their district based on academic indicators", I say maybe LeBron is onto something. Let's adopt this approach, scale it and study the results.

[1] [https://www.avid.org/](https://www.avid.org/)

<comment><USER3> I grew up similarly. I've seen program after program come into my home town just for the administrators to pack up and leave town 1-2 years in, blaming everyone but themselves. It's very refreshing to see someone who "wants to make the world better" actually doing it rather than paying lip service with the real goal of boosting their ego.

Hope this is legit. Tip my hat to LeBron for being a real hero to the underserved.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for sharing your stories.

It would be nice if such administrators and bureaucrats somehow had some skin in the game. Unfortunately, like you say "paying lip service" looks like it often wins out in America's public schools, and our children and future is what suffers.

<comment><USER5> The people promoting these schools are only out to line their pockets with sweet voucher money by selling ineffective books and teaching materials. The schools are set up to fail from the start because they're just a means to extract profits.

<comment><USER6> It is a lot more complicated than that. There are some people in the system trying to extract money, but they are mostly associated with Pearson and the like. Most of the administrators, coaches, and other non-teacher employees started off in the education field wanting to improve the lives of children, but found themselves trapped in a system that is built of perverse incentives from top to bottom.

It is impossible to change the trajectory of a community in one or two years, but the political powers demand measurable results before the next election. The administrators are trapped: they have risen high enough through the system that they are making more money than they ever could as a teacher, and their personal spending expanded enough so they can't go back without significant personal sacrifice (on top of the sacrifices they already made when choosing to work in education). They realize that goosing test scores isn't good for the students, but they rationalize it by telling themselves that if they can manipulate the test scores enough to get central administration off their back, then they can implement the real changes they want. But nothing short of a meteoric improvement will placate the people high enough in the system to be exposed politically, and everyone in middle management is trapped in a cycle of telling themselves, "We just need to do this distasteful stuff this year, so we can really fix things next year."

I was a high school teacher for 9 years, and literally every single year I had an administrator tell me about the plans they had for how they would fix things in the next school year once the test scores improved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> They're pretty public about their "secret sauce", which is to offer a pretty neat ladder up Maslow's pyramid, especially for the parents.

Any family worried about food / clothes can come into the pantry and take whatever they need. Physiological needs, check. Barbershop available. That's really interesting.

Safety needs: see above, with heavy emphasis on dealing with conflict situations. Celebrate coming to school, make sure it's always a safe place, extra hours and days to keep them off the streets.

Belonging and love: everyone in the school are the "chosen ones", they have a tribe, the teachers are on their side, the parents are involved and accountable.

If you handle the first three levels for a person, hitting self esteem, accomplishment (at a personal level, need not be state's best or world's best) can come much easier, even with average quality of teaching. They're also making the parents baseline role models (they clean, clothed, putting food on the table and looking into their own self improvement) and plastering the environment with a topline role model LeBron James (if he can do it you could at least try as hard as he did).

<comment><USER8> The inclusion of a barbershop is very much an African-American cultural thing - these are traditional male social gathering places in that society. So this is probably not just providing a haircut, but also some things a bit higher up the Maslow hierarchy like that belonging you mentioned.

<comment><USER9> As a white male, the barber shop is one thing I always envied African- Americans. Seems nice to have a place where you can always drop by for some loose banter with the local guys.

<comment><USER10> What a strange stereotype...is this something people get from TV? How many black people do you know that use their barbershop as a place other than to get a haircut?

Black people go to their friend's house or a bar, just like white people do.

<comment><USER11> I would guess that's fiction imitating reality. I'll only generalize about my own race's behavior here, by saying that most people reading this are probably white and therefore less likely to have useful input into your question.

<comment><USER10> On what basis do you say it's imitating reality?

<comment><USER11> I found some more information on this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCbRfoWgmQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wCbRfoWgmQ)

[https://www.ted.com/talks/joseph_ravenell_how_barbershops_ca...](https://www.ted.com/talks/joseph_ravenell_how_barbershops_can_keep_men_healthy)

[https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-empowering- evo...](https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/the-empowering-evolution-of- black-barbershops/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Two major and quite distinctive improvements of the school I noticed from the article:

* Improving parental involvement and the parents' attention to their own education

* Utilizing the hidden power of role models: LeBron James and each kid's parents

Students spend significantly more time at home than at school. Parents interact with each kid one-on-one or in a small group. Thus, they can have much more influence than teachers on the kid's attitude, motivation, and habits regarding education.

If we look at a broader picture, most countries that do well in PISA, an international assessment of academic skills for school students, strongly value education at every level of society starting from parents and family. This includes Vietnam, a relatively poor country which, at rank 22, does better than quite a few Western European ones.

The US, at rank 31, should study this school and expand on good lessons learned from the experiment.

[1] PISA results map [http://factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average- score-of...](http://factsmaps.com/pisa-worldwide-ranking-average-score-of- math-science-reading/)

<comment><USER12> Vietnam's GDP PPP per capita in 2017 is about $6500; the US' is about $60000.

This implies that the US as a nation should have resources to support better education if they are deployed well, despite some discount from Baumol's cost disease.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This a good thing! I am 100% in support of James' endeavor here. However, students doing better when put in a better environment should not be surprising. I was a lower income student who was shipped across town to a majority white school as a anti-segregation program that was brokered with a federal oversight committee. The African Americans in that school were treated quite bad. My first day at school I was labeled "<my first name> Brown" by the kindergarten because there was a student who already had my first name in the class. My last name isn't "Brown" that's my skin color. That was my first minute in school and I'm only 36 years old not 66 years old.

<comment><USER14> If I can ask, how do you feel about the program that bussed you across town, overall? Do you feel you benefited on net despite the exposure to the racism, or would you prefer to have stayed in your neighborhood school if you could do it all again?

<comment><USER13> istjohn, I deeply appreciate your question. I've been sitting here for over an hour trying to answer so I'll just answer simply. Yes, I would rather have gone to a school in my neighborhood. I would have rather been around other African American and LatinX students than to have learned what it is to be neglected and to feel inferior @ 4.5 years old. No question.

Please don't use my response as an argument in support of segregation. That would be purely evil and disgusting.

<comment><USER14> Thank you for sharing your experience. I'm sorry you had to go through that.

I believe the racial segregation in our country is an enormous injustice that gets short shrift in public conversation. It's so pervasive in our society that we don't even see it anymore. It's role in education is particularly pernicious. I live in Columbus, Ohio, which like many northern cities has an underfunded, poorly performing, mostly black and brown school district in its core flanked all around by well-funded, high-performing, mostly white school districts. My son's elementary school last year had 82% students of color and two miles away in another school district was a public elementary with 9% students of color.

I did some research to understand how things came to be like this in my city, and of course, it's the typical story of white flight after Brown v. Board of Education. But what surprised me, a white person, was the historical and continuing ambivalence in the local black community with bussing as a solution to racial inequality in education. And I've seen that ambivalence expressed elsewhere, too. I was told that prior to Brown v. Board there were excellent all-black public schools. Then Brown v. Board triggered white flight, which drained all the resources from the city core, and eventually even middle class black families who could afford to, got out. The answer is not bussing, not integration, I was told by one thought-leader in the local black community, but quality, well-funded community schools.

I struggle to accept that answer because I know the data shows that minority students benefit hugely when their schools are not segregated. Yet I understand why sending kids to schools that aren't in their community and where they may not be welcome is problematic. I wonder if the ideal solution isn't a bussing program that is just as likely to bus a white kid to a black school as a black kid to a white school. But the program would need to be robust enough to prevent or adapt to white flight. Or maybe we should focus our energy on residential economic and racial segregation which, if solved, would also solve the educational segregation issue. I don't know.

In any case, I'd love to hear any thoughts you might have.

<comment><USER13> I agree with you, but I don't have too much more to add. From birth non-blacks (and blacks alike) are classically conditioned by numerous socio-environmental stimuli to believe that blacks are inferior. I believe that all other issues discussed in this thread are based that unfortunate foundation. And that foundation is, of course, based on the tragic history of our country with respect to race relations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I didn't see anything about this in the article, so I ask here in the hopes that someone more knowledgeable can comment: how are they controlling for selection bias? Is there any way to select into or out of this school, or is it purely the standard districting system? Even if it's the latter in many other places it's still possible to move into the area. Do we know to what extent that has been happening?

Edit: Oops, I was tricked by an advert. The article continued to say that the students were admitted by lottery. The only question I'm immediately left with then is whether they had to enter the lottery, or whether it was automatic? And was their admission contingent on their parents' willingness to participate in these extra classes?

[https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/03/29/why-selection-bias- is-t...](https://fredrikdeboer.com/2017/03/29/why-selection-bias-is-the-most- powerful-force-in-education/)

<comment><USER16> There is selection bias for sure; except it works in the opposite way regarding successful outcomes. IPS takes low-performing individuals and puts them in a lottery system.

This differs from a charter school or other alternative schools that skirt responsibility of special needs kids... but it should bear mention that IPS is not without controversy. The lottery system causes a lot of strife in eligible-but-unpicked individuals and also costs the taxpayers a substantial sum; LeBron does not cover 100% of the costs, or even a majority of them.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Promise_School](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Promise_School)

<comment><USER17> > _This differs from a charter school or other alternative schools that skirt > responsibility of special needs kids_

This is illegal in a lot of places, and I doubt it is common.

<comment><USER18> It was very common in my charter high school. For whatever reason they weren't concerned with the drop out rate, so they openly encouraged special needs kids to drop out.

They had previously encouraged them to go to the alternative school, but budget cuts shut that school down.

<comment><USER17> > _For whatever reason they weren 't concerned with the drop out rate_

Maybe this is related to the incentive system (at that time) in your region.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I devote a lot of my time thinking about how to improve education. I love so much of what this school is doing, much of it being things I hadn't considered, since my education had far far different problems than these kids have.

Out of everything in the article, what impressed me the most was the roleplaying with the intervention counselor. What an incredible way to help kids learn how to behave and assimilate into society. I think that role playing everyday situations should be a part of every students education.

<comment><USER20> I also think a bit about improving education.

What are the best things from your thoughts/research someone or society as a whole could do to improve education?

<comment><USER21> Can we publish open source examples of school architectures?

What about some 'near term science fiction', publishing examples of people- powered schooling that could emerge in places. I want to see how we can use cheap computing resources, peripherals and models of human interaction to help schools create themselves.

Nucleos is a company working on bringing education resources to developing world areas: [https://nucleos.com/blog/2017/02/portablecloud-supports-e- le...](https://nucleos.com/blog/2017/02/portablecloud-supports-e-learning-in- zimbabwe)

I hope to do something with educational software abroad, including it with the 3D printing computer labs I hope to set up. They can make about $50-$100 of surfboard fins a day, using about $10 of filament. I'm linking to my site below, it works now but I've not done much to help with formatting issues. I'm just getting the content out and cleaning it up along the way: [https://stormfins.com](https://stormfins.com)

PS In case you're wondering, this post motivated me to set up a new account. My last one was sacrosurf, and prior to that it was toddio. This moniker matches the other .com I have, which I plan to use as a "School of Surfing" concept: thirdsurf.com I want to get surf instruction to happen in an easier and more empowering P2P manner, but I'm focusing on completing enough of the stormfins website first. Any support or assistance it welcome. I've got a B.S. in Computer Engineering from '97-'02 at UCSC, and a fun list of prior gigs and projects including helping get [https://www.beelinereader.com/](https://www.beelinereader.com/) started, and getting T9Space.com's app setup generalized into a browser, helping 100,000s of flip phone internet users have access to the internet like they had a desktop computer to use.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Of course it was going to be a success. Most other approaches that approached intergenerational poverty via the three pronged approach of better child care, housing, and economic opportunity has work to great success.

The school doesn't try to solve all 3 at once, but the approach to child care makes the other much easier to manage for parents.

<comment><USER23> Wonder if such a 3 pronged approach can be applied to integration of immigrants.

<comment><USER8> Worked pretty well in early Israel. Generally it's an interesting study model, in that it saw and continues to see absorption of (Jewish) immigrants as a national mission, not just an unwelcome burden.

It includes what's essentially a full-time salary to study Hebrew for 6 months, subsidized housing for a year, subsidized daycare, job counseling, and assorted miscellaneous benefits. Not always sufficiently funded, but the basic model is endorsed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Nataylia Henry, a fourth grader, missed more than 50 days of school last > year because she said she would rather sleep than face bullies at school. > This year, her overall attendance rate is 80 percent.

Really? You had to switch to percentages instead of saying she missed 36 days a year instead of 50?

</comment><comment><USER25> As a minority, I hope this isn't another "minority schools do well turned scam". Seems like we have these "amazing successes" turned to "scams" every couple of years.

[https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/tm-landry-college- prep...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/30/us/tm-landry-college-prep-black- students.html)

If it is a success, why turn it into a national story? Doesn't that put more unnecessary pressure on these schools and kids to "succeed"? Wouldn't that put more pressure on these schools to cheat if expectations aren't met?

I don't understand why this is a national news story. Do the kids benefit from the extra national pressure? No. Do the schools benefit? No. Am I wrong in thinking only lebron and the nytimes benefits from this story? Why not let these kids and schools succeed quietly? These underprivileged kids have enough hurdles as is, do they really the added burden of national coverage?

<comment><USER3> Because if this truly is a success then we want to spread the concept as far as we can as fast as we can. It can receive national attention and not harm those inside if done right.

<comment><USER25> Agreed. Lets wait to see whether it is truly a success before hyping it. Especially since lebron's school opened in fall of 2018. I say it takes a generation to see if an education system is a sucess, not half a school year. Can we really say a school is a success after a few months?

Besides, I think celebrity and schools aren't what's truly important. Parental employment/financial stability, parental involvement in kids' lives and parental stability ( aka no divorces or single parent family ) are a better solution to kids success in school than a basketball player ( who went straight to the NBA from high school ) and his idea of an ideal school. But maybe I'm just old fashioned in that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I like the concept. I'm not sure their stats check out. Maybe someone more knowledgeable can chime in. The article suggests a lot of the kids here were bottom percentile performers on standardized tests (literal 1th percentile).

I do wonder if the test is valid at scores that poor. Could it be that the bottom percentile is just the kids who guessed randomly and had bad luck, as opposed to, say, the ninth percentile who guessed randomly and had good luck? How likely would it be for a bottom percent student to stay bottom percent with no special schooling? I really just don't have a good sense for what it means to strive for 10th percentile performance on tests like these.

<comment> collective-intl I think there is a major flaw which you are getting at.

If you take the students who performed at the 10th-25th percentile in any school in one year, on average they would do better the next year because of reversion to the mean.

The way to understand it is that the population they chose did so poorly on their test last year, it is likely that they did worse than they usually do. They are more likely to have had an off year.

For example, the NYT article mentions the girl who missed 50 days of school the previous year. It's more likely she won't miss so many days this year. That's reversion to the mean.

IMO, that throws all the results into question, as you would expect them to do better already.

In general, there are no panaceas in education. Any school which is claiming really great results pretty much never holds up. We've had decades of these articles with experts trying to figure out how to achieve better educational outcomes, and very few can be isolated. Even Bill Gates tried for a while.

Anyone who studies this stuff seriously will tell you educational outcomes are mostly based on innate talent.

<comment><USER27> > If you take the students who performed at the 10th-25th percentile in any > school in one year, on average they would do better the next year because of > reversion to the mean.

This is shoddy reasoning that assumes that each school year is an independent trial. In reality, school years build on each other and usually success in the next year requires familiarity with and competence in the previous year's material, so a more reasonable assumption IMO would be that those kids' next year would if fact be closer to a normal distribution with a mean _at_ the 17.5th percentile.

It's certainly arguable that some of the reason for the school's success is that they're selecting students into classrooms in which they're _all_ 10th-25th percentile which lets the teachers zero out the effect of them having fallen behind without the stigma of being "the dumb class" if they were tracked that way inside another school. But if that's the case, isn't that a rather valuable effect?

<comment> collective-intl That's a valid point that someone who fell behind their usual performance may also do just as bad the next year since school material is cumulative. I strongly suspect that this effect is smaller than the reversion to the mean, but you are right we would need to look at data to know for sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm just happy to see a positive article.. I see so much political or tech news, I don't get much on the positive side, generally speaking.

<comment><USER29> I read this regularly to get that :) [https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/the- week-in-good-news](https://www.nytimes.com/spotlight/the-week-in-good-news)

<comment><USER28> Looks like it stalled back in January.. :-(

<comment><USER30> That's like something out of The Onion.

"Newspaper's 'good news' section shuts down, cites lack of good news"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Related HN thread from 8 months ago (602 upvotes/463 comments): [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17661995](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17661995)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sure, but it's nice to see the premise borne out by the early data:

 _The students' scores reflect their performance on the Measures of Academic Progress assessment, a nationally recognized test administered by NWEA, an evaluation association. In reading, where both classes had scored in the lowest, or first, percentile, third graders moved to the ninth percentile, and fourth graders to the 16th. In math, third graders jumped from the lowest percentile to the 18th, while fourth graders moved from the second percentile to the 30th.

The 90 percent of I Promise students who met their goals exceeded the 70 percent of students districtwide, and scored in the 99th growth percentile of the evaluation association's school norms, which the district said showed that students' test scores increased at a higher rate than 99 out of 100 schools nationally._

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's a shame that a private citizen has do this. Reflects poorly on our country that the economically disadvantaged really do not have a choice or a voice.

And these are not people who choose to be poor or incapable. They really don't have any other option.

<comment><USER33> You could also say that it reflects well on our country that a private citizen was able to realize that something needed to be done differently, and then make the change themselves instead of hassling through a decades-long "change the bureaucracy" adventure while competing with seven other equally motivated individuals who also want to change the education system, but in completely different ways...

<comment><USER34> You have touched on the fundamental divide in American society. Do it yourself because you want it done and since you have the resources or the drive, versus wait for someone else to do it or force everyone else to since you lack the resources or the drive.

Even politicians who spend so much time and effort highlighting inequalities in society are able to do so because they had to drive to make themselves to do it. If their manner of achieving things is for good or ill is up for debate, but there is no arguing that they are where they are because they chose to go for it.

A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step...

<comment><USER35> Hard to walk when you're born in concrete shoes, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> This illustrates that parents are the key component in childhood education. A worse than average teacher who teaches kids with involved parents will outperform the best teacher with uninvolved parents.

In addition, LeBron James has a huge amount of credibility built up with the students. I would guess that many of the students feel some sort of connection to him, and do not want to disappoint him.

<comment><USER37> I doubt there was ever much debate that parents are the single most important factor for children.

It's just that, from a policy perspective, it is extremely hard to actually have any impact on that behavior. It's basically social work, a concept for which there is essentially no money at scale in the US.

<comment><USER38> More wealth/economic security, safe environment, conscientious and attentive parents, good community of role models, peer kids with good parents as well = decent students.

In other words - children are reared by their parents, as they always have (!) and their academic achievement is mostly a function of their upbringing. Sure, some kids hate school or are bad at at even with good parents. Some schools are better than others ...

... but if you have 'decent community, decent parents, decent regular public school' then 'the kids will be ok'.

The discussion in some ways should be more about good jobs, stabilizing dangerous neighbourhoods, flushing out gangs, giving troubled kids a place to hang out + role models, making the learning environment safe where kids can focus on learning.

I just don't believe that the solution to education has much to do with 'teacher quality' or 'competitive teaching' or some kind of new-fangled special kind of education, or even exceptional schools.

More controversially I would say that schools aren't even mostly about learning, other than some very basic mathematical, historical and geographic literacy, schools are mostly about socialization, language and communication. Effectively, kids learn how to communicate (in English, but it's more than just spoken written word), how to behave, 'how to learn something' i.e. not the knowledge, but the processing of learning/doing tasks, basic responsibilities and organization. The 'details' of most subjects are simply less important. Nobody cares if someone has memorized every state capital, but we do care that people are ready, engaged, can focus, communicate, accomplish things etc..

<comment><USER39> > The discussion in some ways should be more about good jobs, stabilizing > dangerous neighbourhoods, flushing out gangs, giving troubled kids a place > to hang out + role models, making the learning environment safe where kids > can focus on learning.

I think these issues are direct symptoms of poor education quality, which is itself a symptom of the issues you mention. It's a vicious cycle that perpetuates as the kids become adults and parents who create the negative environment and can't support their kids themselves. It's a long game, but investing in education is probably the "easy" place to start while kids are malleable. Adults are harder to reeducate; good luck flushing out the gangs, what are you going to do with those folks? Do as IPS and provide resources for parents to get training for things like GEDs so they can hopefully get better jobs. Provide after school programs and a safe sub community. It'll take time, but the new generation can hopefully grow up in a better place.

<comment><USER38> I see your point, and I do agree there is to some degree a feedback loop, but I don't think 'bad schools' are a primary driver.

And good point about creating a 'bubble' where kids can learn, you're right, tactical solutions might be apt.

But when the factories disappeared in the 1970's-1990's and the jobs disappeared, a lot of places went to pot.

If there were jobs - kids could bring their own meals, families would be more stable, there'd be less crime, there'd be a foundational social fabric.

Social programs pose all sorts of 'commons' problems ... the best kind of social program is 'a decent job'.

I still can't understand why Google, Facebook and some big banks talk all sorts of 'social progress' crap, but the thing that we need the most: distribution of income - is not on their radar.

I wish Google would open 'service and support' centres in the worst neighbourhoods in America and just give people jobs to do whatever. That would earn my respect.

They can start in East Palo Alto, literally only a few hundred meters from their offices ... I always found the decrepit existence of E. Palo Alto such a stain on the Valley as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Isn't it obvious that funding public schools with _local_ property taxes is what has created this messed up system where your zip code has a disproportionate impact on the quality of your education?

<comment><USER41> Just about every single state has state-level funding for schools that acts to even out those disparities.

Worse yet, spending (per pupil) on its own turns out to not be a very good predictor of quality of education. It doesn't even seem to be a great predictor if you control for parents' SES, from what I can see for various school districts in Boston's suburbs.

Put another way, a number of quite distressed school districts spend more than various "good" school districts, with much worse results. DC public schools are a poster child here, but not the only example by any means. So it's not just a matter of funding levels at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> The stuff that school is doing is really just common sense and the success they are experiencing is both a symptom that what we always known works... still works but also that we do a real shit job at education in this country.

This is not a problem you can fix with technology, the only technology needed is good food every day for the kids and parents (or guardians) that can be involved in their kid's education.

</comment><comment><USER43> I've often wondered about the effectiveness of donations to supplemental after school/summer time tutoring/coaching in under-performing school districts [1][2] versus donations to full time, private charter schools such as this one.

It seems supplemental after school/summer time solutions would build on the existing public school system and fill in the gap between 3pm-6pm and during summer where they are likely to be less supervised. It'd also be more scale- able to more children. I also imagine it also would produce less angst among public school teacher unions as its more supplemental to them versus replacing them.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_Education_Found...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silicon_Valley_Education_Foundation)

[2] [https://svefoundation.org/get-involved/events/annual- dinner/](https://svefoundation.org/get-involved/events/annual-dinner/)

<comment><USER44> This is not a charter school or private school, it is a public school that received additional money on top of its usual funding from Lebron James.

<comment><USER43> Thanks - missed that - I guess I must have skimmed the article too fast. In that case, this is a great example of a very full featured supplemental program versus the replacement program.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> It's great to see this. The only issue I have is how replicable this formula is.

I think you can apply a couple of programs and concepts on a large scale to whole communities, but this is a very expensive school with a lot of resources behind it, not to mention a very powerful celebrity endorser who has a lot to lose if this school fails.

There is a small private school that just opened up in my area (about 4 years old). It has a powerful businessman who is the founder. Class sizes are less than 10 kids with two teachers per class. That's about a 5:1 ratio, most public schools would kill for anything better close to 10:1 with most academic classes are 20-30 students for one teacher.

This small private school also has a lot of amenities, like a ton of tech for the students.

While this is a great school, it's just a place for elites to educate their students.

I applaud everyone in this private school and Lebron's school.

I hope we can use some of their ideas and programs to a larger scale.

</comment><comment><USER46> Let's list every inner city school across America (is there such a list?), list the "promise picks" that can be funded in them, and then have a place benefactors can sign up.

</comment><comment><USER47> Good, his ball team isn't. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER48> Amazing to see a privately funded school do so well, especially one that targets at risk children. I hope the lessons learned here inspire more private investment in education.

<comment><USER49> Or that it brings attention to neglected demographics and inspires greater demand and political will for improved public funding and resource allocation.

Privately funded white knighting should not be the answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Top comments, shock people cant feel good about something because it didnt happen to them. I was hoping for some uplifting commentary but like all other social media sites HN is going down a bad path.

<comment><USER51> The predominant attitude is cynical

<comment><USER50> I think we are on the same page</comment></comment></comment>


ScoutSuite: Multi-cloud security auditing tool - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/nccgroup/ScoutSuite <comment><USER2> another tool in this space, [https://github.com/cloud-custodian/cloud- custodian](https://github.com/cloud-custodian/cloud-custodian)

delta would be less ootb policies (though lots of github repos with examples re awesome custodian lists), and more user defined policy as code (dsl and gitops style) with integration into serverless provider platforms for continuous monitoring, along with remediation support and platform integrations (security hub, google cloud security command center, etc).

other tools in this space on the detect and report side (albeit aws specific) [https://github.com/toniblyx/prowler](https://github.com/toniblyx/prowler) [https://github.com/jonrau1/ElectricEye](https://github.com/jonrau1/ElectricEye)

on the gcp side forseti, [https://github.com/forseti-security/forseti- security](https://github.com/forseti-security/forseti-security)

<comment><USER3> Nice list of tools from prowler author:

[https://github.com/toniblyx/my-arsenal-of-aws-security- tools](https://github.com/toniblyx/my-arsenal-of-aws-security-tools)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> One thing people have to keep in mind when running these kinds of tools is they make _tons_ of API calls. Depending on how you have things set up, use these tools can drastically increase your CloudTrail bill.

Also, they'll often make calls against non-existent resources or run into permissions issues. So it can clutter your CloudTrail with API errors, making actual API errors harder to locate.

<comment><USER5> note - I'm the project's maintainer

You're correct about the API calls & potential CloudTrail costs.

Regarding making calls to non-existent resources that doesn't tend to be an issue. Typically we start by making a call to whatever endpoint lists resources, and then fetch additional information for these resources.

As for permissions the wiki ([https://github.com/nccgroup/ScoutSuite/wiki](https://github.com/nccgroup/ScoutSuite/wiki)) has guidance towards the required privileges (including a minimal policy for AWS - [https://github.com/nccgroup/ScoutSuite/wiki/AWS-Minimal- Priv...](https://github.com/nccgroup/ScoutSuite/wiki/AWS-Minimal-Privileges- Policy))

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am interested in reviews of this tool. Has anyone used it?

<comment> ncc-erik Note: I am a current NCC Group employee.

It does one thing very well: quickly grabbing a snapshot of the security posture of a public cloud account's resources with little fuss. It's an ideal solution as an outsider looking in at someone's account. But, I wouldn't use it as-is for other needs (say, those of in-house security folks) like continuous monitoring. That would be like using a Polaroid camera to create a movie.

<comment><USER5> We also offer a SaaS version ([https://cyberstore.nccgroup.com/our- services/service-details...](https://cyberstore.nccgroup.com/our- services/service-details/16/scout:-public-cloud-account-monitoring)), which includes persistent monitoring as well as support for additional services and rules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> We are still having a ton of trouble getting this tool to work in GovCloud.

The results that it IS able to provide are quite useful, however

<comment><USER5> note - I'm the project's maintainer

For what provider are you having issues? It's been complicated to support GovCloud accounts for AWS/Azure as we don't have access to any accounts. If you'd be so kind as to support us with this then please get in touch via GitHub issues ([https://github.com/nccgroup/ScoutSuite/issues](https://github.com/nccgroup/ScoutSuite/issues)) or directly at firstname.lastname@example.com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> What are the benefits of using this over Amazon Inspector?

<comment><USER9> Perhaps beneficial to companies utilizing multiple clouds wanting 1 tool and 1 process for auditing across clouds

<comment><USER5> note - I'm the project's maintainer

Correct, Scout Suite is inherently multi-cloud and has mature support for AWS/Azure/GCP. This is very useful for organizations that want to leverage a single tool to assess the posture of all their environments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Another great tool to look at is Sysdig [0]. The technical founder has an amazing background in deep low level Linux stuff, and security.

[0]: [https://sysdig.com/](https://sysdig.com/)</comment>


We'll Be Back Soon - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/membercenter/

<comment><USER2> It gets better:

<http://devimages.apple.com/>

        File not found."

</comment><comment><USER3> WWDC? Edit: not wwdc, false alarm.

<comment><USER4> URL says maintenance, although I'm kinda surprised that a company on Apple's scale can't manage rolling restarts to present a zero-planned-downtime face to users/devs.

<comment><USER5> What's the fun in a rolling restart. It's probably Apple strategy to bring down the site and get some speculations up every time this happens.

<comment><USER4> You may have a point. It's not how I would do things but maybe that's why I'm not the boss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> have come back!</comment>


Fire - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fire-message/id754933884

<comment><USER2> Looks similar to FireChat ([https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firechat/id719829352](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/firechat/id719829352)), using mesh network technology (according to news reports, not app description).

While the chat function is maybe more of a tech demo, it could be used in places with bad network coverage or at big events where the network is gone down for whatever reason. Also interesting for geolocated services, because you don't have to send your position to a central entity, so interesting for some privacy concepts.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very cool. Been looking at adding chat discovery into a BLE (iBeacon) app I've working on. Any idea how it discovers other devices and establishes a connection?

</comment><comment><USER4> Cool idea, but the 100 feet line of sight requirement is kind of restrictive. Granted it uses low power BT, I'd still prefer if it was geolocation based.

</comment><comment><USER5> That's interesting, but display name makes more sense than user name if we have a service that does not use a centralized server.

</comment><comment><USER6> You should put more screenshots so we can see what we're downloading.

</comment><comment><USER7> Excuse my wild imagination, but is it a good app to pick up girls/guys in your library or whatever?

<comment><USER8> My initial thoughts too. I can't see any other reason for it's use.</comment></comment>


Trading privacy for survival is another tax on the poor - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90317495/another-tax-on-the-poor-surrendering-privacy-for-survival <comment><USER2> This is like offering a discount on car insurance if you consent to having a GPS tracker installed.[1]

It's voluntary for now, but the industry is hoping people get used to it so it can be made effectively[2] mandatory.

And because people seem caught in race to the bottom competition to give up the most privacy they can, stuff like this may regrettably catch on.

[1][http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/14/scenario-auto- insuranc...](http://www.pewinternet.org/2016/01/14/scenario-auto-insurance- discounts-and-monitoring/)

[2] Effectively mandatory meaning that insurance without a tracker will be like 10x the price.

<comment><USER3> So, in your eyes, where should the privacy line be drawn? Is it OK the insurance company knows the VIN number of your car, the make, the model, the miles, the color, your name, age, address, credit score, credit card information, marital status, how many miles you drive a year, where the car is stored, your claim history, criminal history, etc? If that's all OK, what crosses the line about monitoring driving behavior?

<comment><USER4> > ...what crosses the line about monitoring driving behavior?

First and foremost, it's only ever going to be used against me if it is used. I would basically have to bet I was never in an accident, which, given I've been hit three times while legally stopped in the last 5 years, I'm not willing to do. I suspect for the vast majority of drivers, the monitor is a net cost, not a net savings.

But also, there is not a one-to-one relationship between liability and safety. Insurance companies care about liability first, and if they care about safety, they care about it second. I'd like to see some studies on how these monitors influence driver behavior before even considering getting one installed.

For another, the monitors lack context. It is safer to travel at 75mph in a 65mph zone if traffic is going 75mph and the road (and your vehicle) otherwise supports that speed. (Put lazily without citation: At that speed there is almost no difference to increased speed in terms of serious injury or fatality, but at that speed variance, the likelihood of a crash occuring is higher. Net result: more serious injuries and fatalities driving at the slower speed.) But the monitor will only see you going 10mph over the speed limit.

And then, as a sibling poster mentions, there are the privacy issues. If it monitors your location, it is monitoring far, far more than your driving habits.

<comment><USER5> I've seen it asserted that it's actually safer to drive 55 when everyone else is going 75, despite the conventional wisdom you're quoting here.

So do you have a citation?

<comment><USER6> It's basic physics. Citation not needed.

<comment><USER7> There are a lot more variables involved than simply basic physics, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This seemed like a grab bag of "Here are some bad things about being poor that are vaguely related to privacy" with the only common thread being Professor Gilman's willingness to speak about them. Poverty is brutal, but I'm not convinced that the privacy lens really adds a lot.

I'm also not convinced that privacy problems truly affect the poor more. The government surveillance mentioned here is a big problem. But on the commercial side, companies are a lot more interested in acquiring the personal, financial, and medical data of the rich. And as the article admits, people making higher incomes are more likely to have their information stolen.

A lot of the evidence in this piece amounts to "surveys show that people earning under $40k worry about X more than people earning over $40k." That's a very weak form of evidence.

<comment><USER9> I think the article is quite specific and articulate about the problem: "Employers of low-income workers listen to phone calls, conduct drug tests, monitor closed-circuit television, and require psychometric tests as conditions of employment."

This makes government surveillance (as serious as it is) feel like a distant, abstract issue.

<comment><USER10> This is just complete BS, drug tests are mostly required for mid-to-high paying jobs, not your typical low income job. I've never had to take a drug test for any of the sub $10/hour jobs I've worked, I've had to take a drug test for every single software job I've ever worked. In fact, I have an acquaintance who was talking about quitting weed the other day and how difficult is is. When I asked her what made her quit she said "I'm sick of making only $30,000 a year and any jobs that pay over $30,000 a year are going to require a drug test."

Having your work phone calls monitored is hardly something to get worked up about (you're using your phone for work...do you also get mad when your supervisors monitor your work in person?) and almost certainly not specific to low income employees.

CCTV is literally everywhere, nobody low income works in my building and everyone's monitored with CCTV. Big whoop.

Psychometric tests are very, very uncommon and not at all specific to low income employees, in fact, I'd argue the opposite (I mean... college is basically treated as a psychometric test)

<comment><USER11> i've never heard of any place in tech that drug tested that didn't involve getting a security clearance.

no one's drug testing people making 100k+, but drug tests for low-level jobs are far, far more common than you think.

<comment><USER10> Sure your cool valley startup with a flip-flop wearing CEO isn't going to require a drug test (and probably not a formal background check), but buttoned up corporate America absolutely does as well as government and most companies who does business with government. So basically most non-small-companies outside of California. Employee drug testing got popular in the early-90s, it was even the topic of a Seinfeld joke. Though I hear its becoming less common in the last few years, and some have stopped testing for marijuana.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment- tren...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/careers/employment- trends/2018/05/03/labor-shortage-businesses-mellow-over-hiring-pot- smokers/573710002/)

>There is no definitive data on how many companies conduct drug tests, though the Society for Human Resources Management found in a survey that 57 percent do so. Nor is there any recent data on how many have dropped marijuana from mandatory drug testing.

>After the Drug-Free Workplace Act was enacted in 1988, amid concerns about cocaine use, drug testing spread to most large companies. All Fortune 500 companies now engage in some form of drug testing, according to Barry Sample, a senior director at Quest Diagnostics, one of the largest testing firms.

<comment><USER4> Your citation doesn't really support any of the arguments, since it doesn't address _which_ jobs require drug testing at those Fortune 500 companies.

For example, Walmart is number one on the list. Is it the CEO who is being tested, or the guys unloading the shipping trucks?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Imagine surveillance being turned upside-down. Imagine a company unable to hire workers, because a union demands they first fire the CEO/management that looted company pensions at their previous company, or ran a predatory loan business, or tried to extort others through bogus patents.

The world would be a much different place if corporate was held _personally_ responsible for their actions the same way labor is.

<comment><USER13> The thing is corporations exist precisely to _limit liability_. You don't have to start a corporation - you can run your own business out of your own pocket and accept all the legal liability. However, we make this activity undesirable through policy: (personal income is taxable in a much more punishing way than corporate income, and the legal system is incredibly expensive - the more customers you have, the more you are likely to be exposed to a crazy customer who is going to abuse the system and personally bankrupt you with frivolous lawsuits. Who would want to start a business in that climate?

<comment><USER14> You're talking about legal liability; deogeo sounds like they're talking about social liability.

<comment><USER13> one is free to start a company with those rules in the corporate charter. Heck, I'd even work there, but I'm wouldn't count on my job being around for long.

<comment><USER12> Nor would a company be around for long if it were the only one respecting environmental protections, workplace safety standards, or anti-child-labor laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The ad-based content economy is beyond parody: the first thing I saw when I opened this article about poverty and privacy rights was a full-page, autoplay video ad for Lincoln cars. The whiplash between the content and the presentation was so severe I'm going to have to wear a neck brace.

<comment><USER16> Privacy Badger detected 16 potential trackers, and uBlock stopped requests to 13 out of 30 domains the page tried to connect to. It's not usatoday.com levels of absurdity, but it's getting there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> First thing that comes to mind is the new wave of fintech apps for pay/bill management (like Earnin) that take in your entire bank feed in exchange for spotting you before your next payday...

</comment><comment><USER18> I was thinking about this recently — the path to owning a small business in the 2020s goes through social media. Which means that the founder has to put an uncomfortable amount of their personal life on display in order to "sell" their brand. Anyone "hustling" at 2 or 3 gig jobs has to self-promote via those same platforms.

Basically, the only workers who are allowed total privacy anymore are white- collar middle managers. We don't trust low-level workers and feel the need to keep tabs on them, while executives have been expected to carefully cultivate a squeaky-clean public image for the last 30-ish years.

But it basically comes down to "how much of my privacy to I have to trade for a paycheck?" The answer varies based on income level...

</comment><comment><USER19> If you haven't worked low-end jobs it may be a surprise, but if you are a clerk in certain chain stores, you are searched by a supervisor every time you leave the building (to make sure you aren't stealing anything).

<comment><USER20> Well, honestly that's because a lot of employees in jobs like that _do_ steal stuff ("a lot" meaning enough that it's noticed and is a problem).

Sure, everyone _should_ have the presumption of innocence, but these things aren't just happening out of mean-spiritedness.

<comment><USER21> In some industries or retail sectors, a big part of being successful is preventing/reducing employee theft or employee fraud.

For example, modern POS stations often run several cameras: one pointed at the cash drawer, one pointed at the customer, one or more pointed at the employee, all synced to journals or screen streams.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> You ever watch those HD antenna television shows? We spam the poorest people with some of the nastiest propaganda that exists. Even the shows they frequently play are legitimizing and glamorizing crime.

<comment><USER23> Can you elaborate? As a non-American and non-TV watcher, I always believe DVB-T is a good way to avoid paying to cable TV yet still be able get some basic TV programs like breaking news.

What are the groups that dominate American digital antenna TV station? Who are their backers? What are their political leanings, and what kind of propaganda do they air?

<comment><USER24> I don't know what OP is referring to. Broadcast TV in the US is more or less the same as it always was, just with a lot of extra content on the sub- channels that is mostly reruns of old shows. Nothing subversive in any of it. You don't see the partisan crap that occupies subscription TV in the US. The only notable difference is that certain advertisers don't bother with broadcast so you never see their promotions.

<comment><USER25> > You don't see the partisan crap that occupies subscription TV in the US.

Well, aside from all these stations:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinclair_Broadcast_Group)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is a little off topic w.r.t. the article, but to some extent I like privacy as a currency. Despite the fact that you might make minimum wage and can't realistically afford to pay for most services, Google gives you access to the majority of human knowledge, for free. Nobody forces you to use Google - if you can afford it, you can pay for it with time (i.e. worse results from places like DDG).

Redistributing wealth to ensure fairness is hard, but at least when we use privacy as the currency we all start with some, almost equal, amounts. The downside is that realistically this approach only works when everyone participates - I don't think hybrid "pay or we track you" would work out to be efficient at large scales.

</comment><comment><USER27> "I get valuable government benefits in my mortgage home deduction, childcare tax credits, my employer health benefits aren't taxed," says Gilman. "Those are income transfers just as much as food stamps or welfare but I am not put through intrusive questioning, verification requirements, home visits, or anything like that to get those benefits." This is disingenuous if not flat out fallacious. They certainly are not the same and I continue seeing this type of rhetoric repeated more and more lately.

<comment><USER28> I'm reminded of an observation a friend once made... "Light rail is how middle class people get to work. Bus is how poor people pick up their welfare checks." That's his nutshell parody of the mentality that makes rail projects okay, while buses are still bad.

What makes it "welfare" is that it benefits poor people, not that the money comes from the government. What makes welfare "bad" is that it benefits poor people, not the middle class or the rich.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is probably not something a lot of people will agree with, but my two cents. The issue is autonomy and consent. If people are really owner of their own data they should be able to do whatever they want with it. They should be able to sell it. They should be able to exchange it for services.

You can use WiFi for free. Why should that be frowned upon? It's your choice. We do not live in a nanny state. What should be clear is what kind of transaction you're in. What kind of data is collected. The deal should be transparent.

You can't say that this data is valuable on one hand but forbid people to trade it on the other hand. Definitely not just with an argument based on autonomy.

</comment><comment><USER30> In my opinion (a bit tangential to the article I know)

The privacy thing is a symptom to the massive marketing budgets companies have available to them today. We're covering up the cost of living by redirecting them via advertising agencies who then get to direct the money however they want. I say, block ads. Steal from advertising companies, falsify data as much as possible. This is not the way people should be being paid. While this is a viable mechanism of subsiding the cost of living, no change will occur.

</comment><comment><USER31> This article is very lengthy and detailed, so eventually I gave up on trying to find in it any evidence (in the form of e.g. actual quotes from the SCOTUS decision -- which undoubtedly exist in detail and are publically available) that it isn't a one sided, alarmist emotional appeal. But perhaps I myself am letting emotions get the better of me by assuming the SCOTUS documents all their decisions, when in reality they (more) typically don't(?).

</comment><comment><USER32> I predict that the next hit in the poverty industry will be the gambling businesses and loan sharks getting banking licenses. _...aaand it 's gone!_

<comment><USER33> Some type of regulatory-skirting financial account device that pools everyone's money while the backing organization can gamble with it and extract huge overall fees regardless of whether they succeed at gambling...

Sounds a lot like defined contribution retirement plans, asset managers, mutual funds and hedge funds...

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> > "I can't cross-examine an algorithm."

You should be able to!

</comment><comment><USER35> Meanwhile, Surveillance Valley CEOs like Zuckerberg continue to spin their privacy invasions as altruistic moves to help the poor.</comment>


Android Market update: support for priced applications  - <AUTHOR> http://android-developers.blogspot.com/2009/02/android-market-update-support-for.html

<comment><USER2> I have a feeling: since Android is porting it's software to many hardware manufacturers, it will have long term wide-spread consumer adoption ( ala Microsoft Windows, back in the day ).

Forgive me if this was as obvious as 'water is wet'.

</comment><comment><USER3> But no support for developers outside the US/UK selling apps. Very disappointing :\

My app can't run on an iphone and I'm from Canada, so I can't use Android's priced market. Maybe I'll be able to finally hawk my wares at the BB Store whenever they launch it.

<comment><USER4> You can still sell and distribute your applications through your own channel. There's nothing to stop an Android device owner from downloading and installing an App directly from the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> No support for anything besides Google's official hardware, though. Screw Google and the 'open' Android platform.

<comment><USER4> What do you mean? It's working on the OpenMoko Neo FreeRunner hardware, albeit with some driver difficulties, but Google is perfectly happy to work with them and include drivers in the mainline Android development tree.

Not to mention there is no "official Google hardware." The T-Mobile G1's are produced by HTC, and are simply the first Android platform to hit the market. There are multiple other manufacturers looking at, or already planning devices based on the Android platform.

As for being "open", it's always still a problem of device makers and carriers insisting on digital restrictions of user freedoms, such as not allowing unsigned firmware to boot on the device. But as far as everything else goes, Android is by far the most "open" platform available for consumer grade devices as we know them.

Note that as an owner of a Neo FreeRunner, I don't yet consider it a consumer- ready device; hence the reason I have purchased myself a G1, as it is the next-best alternative until Openmoko, or some other group, can get their acts together and actually release a worthwhile mobile distribution.

<comment><USER5> Yes, I know that Android works on many different platforms. However, the Market is not available for any of them. I contacted Google myself and they said they had no plans to make it available. That makes these ports pretty much useless unless you get the .apks yourself, and most apps will just go for the store.</comment></comment></comment>


Protips for Conference Talks - <AUTHOR> http://craigkerstiens.com/2012/06/19/pro-tips-for-conference-talks/ <comment><USER3> This is a great set of tips. I'll add a few...

1\. If you're just getting started, look out for opportunities to give a lightning talk. These are ideal for beginners - they are only 5 minutes long, which forces you to get straight to the point. It also doesn't matter if you suck, because it will be over quickly - and the audience is likely to be very supportive.

2\. Always, always make sure you've been through your talk SPEAKING OUT LOUD at least once (and preferably way more than once) - I prefer to do this in the privacy of a hotel room or similar. Until you've gone through the talk speaking to an empty room it's very hard to know if it's going to work or not.

3\. Have backups of your slides. I tend to have a Keynote file on my laptop, and a copy of it (and a PDF export of it) on both a USB key and my Dropbox account just in case.

4\. If you're going to attempt live demos, have a backup plan - <USER2> screenshots, or maybe a screencast-style video.

5\. Remember: the audience are on your side. They want you to give a great talk, and they'll ignore any ums and aahs. If you forget what you were going to say next, just pause, breathe and figure it out - what feels like 30 seconds of silence on stage will probably only be 5 seconds of real time, and your audience are unlikely to even notice.

There are some good tips about controlling stress during speaking (including an answer by me) on this Quora thread: [http://www.quora.com/Public- Speaking/Any-advice-on-how-I-can...](http://www.quora.com/Public-Speaking/Any- advice-on-how-I-can-control-my-stress-during-my-presentations)

<comment><USER4> I find your first suggestion interesting: I consider the lightning talk "for advanced speakers only". You have to fit a cohesive point into just five minutes, often in an environment where the slides are being advanced for you. If you make a single mistake, you might throw off all of your timing as you scramble to repair your flow. The slides have to be meticulous, the talk scripted... I only agree to do a lightning talk if I have a ton of time to prepare. However, if you would like me to, right now, give an hour long talk about almost anything related to a computer, in front of a live (not recorded: recorded is harder) audience of almost any size, I'd be happy to oblidge (and the longer the talk, to easier it will feel).

<comment><USER3> It sounds like you're talking about Ignite talks, which are a little different. An Ignite talk is five minutes long, but as you indicated the slides are on a fixed timer (20 seconds per slide). I absolutely agree that this is not a good format for beginners - Ignite talks are tricky even for very experienced speakers.

I was talking about regular lightning talks where you have five minutes but the format is otherwise completely free form - you don't even need slides, you can just talk. Sure, you still have to edit your talk down to fit the available time but that's a great thing for beginners to have to do, and preparing for five minutes is still easier than preparing for an hour (where it's easy to prepare too much or too little material).

<comment><USER4> I brought up the slides automatically advancing in te context of some kinds of lightning talks as an extra problem, not the key one (but was concerned that someone would pounce on it as if it were my openly point :().

Editing a talk down to five minutes is hard because it requires editing at all. In contrast, going off on fun-but-useless tangents to fill up a bunch of time is easy, as is using a bunch of examples or other exposition.

To compare, in the world of essays, it is well known among undergraduates that there are simple tricks to make an essay as long as required. However, it requires actually knowing what you are doing to make an essay that is short but still dense.

So, to now be more explicit: if the slides are not auto-advancing, it does not help the timing problem. If anything, it just lulls people into a false sense of complacency. I have thereby heard Ignite talks described as "convention over configuration" for talks.

The problem is that if you screw up even once, and have to restart a thought or argument, realize your audience needs an extra example to make something clear, or simply forget a point an have to fill it in later, you are screwed.

In an hour long format, there is probably something later on in your talk that you can cut or shorten to make up the time. You often don't even need to do that, as Q&A is often expected to be included in the time, so you have a massive buffer to heal mistakes (in either direction).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have spoken at many conferences. Some of the best advice I can give: do not overload your slides.

Too many new speakers are afraid they will forget something, and cram in all kinds of stuff. If you do that, you'll wind up reading off the slides, and the audience will focus more on the screen than on you.

My general rule of thumb is to never have more than three items on a slide to go through. Also, lots of pictures. That way, if people in the audience aren't super technical, they might not understand the jargon, but they will see a visual version of it.

I also tend to advise against stupid cat photos and things. I know a lot of speakers who put things like that in as a "break" from the material, but it actually ultimately plays to undermine you, as a sort of admission that you're a bore.

Another good trick to know your audience: ask basic questions to gauge the audience. "How many of you are programmers?" "How many of you have worked with Django?" and so on. That can help set the tone for whether you cover intro material or jump into more deep things. It also pulls the audience into the talk and breaks down the third wall issue.

<comment><USER6> I like the do-not-overload your slides advise and noticed tremendous improvements in focus and "aliveness" in my presentation but I was wondering if anyone from a more traditional finance or consulting perspective could weight in on that issue.

For example a friend of mine works on conventional M&A projects - with very crammed Powerpoint slides full of facts and figures. I have seen similarly crammed slides from the big consulting corporations. Now I was arguing for a Tufte approach, i.e. making handouts instead, but he rejected the suggestion as he is only one of the younger team members and the therefore associated problems with breaking the "we have always done it this way" paradigm.

I am still somewhat pondering about this issue and I am not quite sure if having really packed slides can not actually become beneficiary in some occasions - meaning a hitting-them-over-the-head-with-data approach where it is core to produce some "evidence" and "analytical" approaches. I have found a similar mindset among some academics for constructing the viability of their research questions, methods, results in order to succeed in the peer-reviewed process.

I would love to hear some opinions by those working in conventional blue chip companies how they view this slide/presentation issue.

<comment><USER7> You never want to "cram" your slides, but things like numbers and graphs are a good way to reinforce a key point and they go away remembering a percentage or big figure. I may not remember the contents of all your slides, but i'll remember the one that said 80% of software development is maintenance, or something to that effect.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The last talk I gave was the first talk that was recorded and whilst prior to the talk I felt confident that I was a decent public speaker, seeing the talk afterwards on vimeo instantly showed tons of room for improvement.

First time you give a talk, record it and watch it back afterwards. You won't believe how many subconscious mannerisms you display either in your speech or body language that you didn't even know existed.

Also, never ever drink before giving a talk.

</comment><comment><USER9> One thing that always motivates me is thinking about the amount of time the audience is investing in you. If you're speaking to 100 people, that's a solid 100 hour investment. This helps me put the time I need for preparation in perspective. It may seem crazy to spent hours and days to prepare a one hour talk, but it's not really not if you think about it like this.

Some more thoughts I've written on preparing a technical talk, I think complementary to the advice of OP: [http://branchandbound.net/blog/conferences/2012/06/preparing...](http://branchandbound.net/blog/conferences/2012/06/preparing- a-technical-talk/)

</comment><comment><USER10> I agree that getting feedback is very useful - getting critical feedback can be a little harder. I find the best way is for conference organisers to offer a post-session method of feedback on their website. Sometimes people can come away from a session quite happy, but after sleeping on it realise that maybe there were some improvements to be made.

If you're worried about your speaking then recording yourself and watching the playback can also really help. You might realise that what you thought was a normal talking speed was actually really, really fast. When I was a TA my university made it mandatory for us all to peer review tapes of us all giving a short talk.

</comment><comment><USER7> My observations as a talk giver and viewer:

      1. Less is more.
      2. Be able to do the talk without slides. Index cards win.
      3. ALWAYS RECORD YOUR DEMOS.
      4. Don't try to be funny. Just be original.
      5. Don't mention sex or race or religion, unless it's your own, and even then... don't.
      6. If it's a security conference, getting drunk on stage usually helps.
      7. If it's a professional security conference, don't tell the press about the zero-day you're going to announce.
      8. Keep an eye on the time.
      9. Break up the talk with one or two small tangents.
      10. Enjoy yourself. It's your talk!

<comment><USER5> Re: 3, it depends on the kind of demo. Recording a video demo is a great backup, especially if your demo needs internet and the conference has flakey internet. However, if you rely too much on demos, it can give people the impression you don't have faith in your project.

Re: 8, one trick, depending on the size of the audience, is to ask someone to tell you when 20 minutes (or however long) have passed. People are happy to help, and timing like that can help you speed up or slow down your talk if needed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Talk about timing! At 44Con we've just finished round 2 of our CFP acceptance and rejections, so we have this[1] page up for our speakers (although it's not been sent out yet). Hope it's helpful, and if anyone can think of a way to improve it I'd love to hear!

[1] - <http://44con.com/speaker-hints/></comment>