Find out how many users/repos Github has by a simple search - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/search?q=%40a&ref=searchresults&type=Users <comment><USER2> It seems to work with @{any letter}. Can anybody explain to me how GitHub is interpreting this search term?

<comment><USER3> It does not work with @{any letter}. Try @b or @x - they will search for content by user 'b' ([http://github.com/b](http://github.com/b)) and user 'x' ([http://github.com/x](http://github.com/x)).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Sorting by "Least recently joined" is interesting. The GitHub team are all there, naturally, but I'm intrigued what "tater" is about. Yehuda Katz is famously user ID 4 but tater shows up as user 611789 through the API.

Other than that, the first 10 pages or so are a real who's who of the Ruby scene in 2007-2008 :-)

<comment><USER5> Woop. 140th person to join GitHub.

Back then you pretty much had to be invited by a Ruby/Rails person. I got in by submitting a patch to Dr Nic. :)

<comment><USER4> See, I'm not entirely sure about this date ordering stuff.. because I'm around #80 by that method, but if I use the API, I'm #118. Try [http://caius.github.io/github_id/](http://caius.github.io/github_id/) to see what your actual user ID is, as I think it's more truthful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> So how does this work? From the search its cheat sheet:

"@defunkt Get all repositories from the user defunkt."

Seeing as there _is_ a user called "a: ([http://github.com/a](http://github.com/a)) but he doesn't have a single line of code, no repositories and no active issues either; the search breaks somehow and returns the repository, issue and code (LOC?) count of ALL people.

For example trying it with "@b" (or any existing user after the at-sign) does yield the correct results (the respective counts for user b: [http://github.com/b](http://github.com/b)). Trying it with someone with no repositories, code and issues OR a user which does not exist (@thisuserdoesnotexist) results in the same behavior.

<comment><USER6> @a is probably an alias for @all ([https://github.com/search?q=%40all&type=Users&ref=searchresu...](https://github.com/search?q=%40all&type=Users&ref=searchresults)).

[edit 1] @everybody seems to return every user

[edit 2] @everything seems to return ... everything.

[edit 3] @qdfhsdfjsdqjrekle seems to return everything. Ok. It's a bug. :>

<comment><USER3> No, they are specifically searching for content by @{username} - refer to the cheat sheet on the search page. @{non-existent-username-or-user-with-no- activity} triggers this behavior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow. Its good to see Linus takes the occasional day off : [https://github.com/torvalds](https://github.com/torvalds)

<comment><USER8> off topic, but this: [https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/50](https://github.com/torvalds/linux/pull/50)

<comment><USER9> What is this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In case this gets broken anytime soon, I see:

Repositories: 4,236,263

Code: 962,748,183

Issues: 5,952,195

Users: 4,472,663

<comment><USER11> At this time (4:48 AM EST, 2013-10-11), minutes after Hacker News changed the parent comment's timestamp from "1 hour ago" to "2 hours ago", these are the updated values:

Repositories: 4,236,957

Code: 962,598,538

Issues: 5,953,084

Users: 4,473,412

So in a space of time probably equal to either 1.5 hours or 2 hours, the numbers changed by these amounts:

Repositories: +694

Code: -149,645

Issues: +889

Users: +749

<comment><USER12> Repositories: 4,237,352

Code: 962,617,133

Issues: 5,953,624

Users: 4,473,778

<comment><USER13> Repositories: 4,237,870

Code: 962,651,473

Issues: 5,954,482

Users: 4,474,320

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This seems to be valid compared to numbers released in April 2013 [1]. GitHub is growing fast.

[1] [https://github.com/blog/1470-five- years](https://github.com/blog/1470-five-years)

</comment><comment><USER15> This query is incorrect, because it doesn't include private repos and forks. The headlines on this page [https://github.com/search](https://github.com/search) are accurate. As of this comment.

Search more than 4.3M Users

Search more than 8.8M Repositories

Search more than 18.7M Issues

</comment><comment><USER16> BTW [https://github.com/search?q=%40y&type=Users&ref=searchresult...](https://github.com/search?q=%40y&type=Users&ref=searchresults) i.e. '@y' also gives similar results :)

</comment><comment><USER17> Assume this is going to disappear once they wake up in the US...

</comment><comment><USER18> If I search "@z" I get 13 repos. So why exactly do you think that searching "@a" is yielding all repos?

</comment><comment><USER19> You could also get away with a search for created:>2007 Not really sure what the "@" is doing.

</comment><comment><USER20> So now you could scrape the name of every GitHub user and their email if it is public.

<comment><USER20> Oh they rate limit and only allow access to the first 100 pages of results. Well that is that idea out of the window :P You could probably get around 7000 of them max, barely a scratch.

<comment><USER19> It'd take you about 48 days :) When I checked that ID of the most recent user was 5663608. The github API will give you 5000 hits an hour if you authenticate your requests. You'd have a load of "not founds" but working up from 1 to 5663608 would get you every public user (no private accounts or banned / deleted).

5663608 / 5000 = just under 48 days worth of non stop API harrasment... maybe that explains why github keeps going down, someone is already trying this out :P</comment></comment></comment>


Which reading order would you suggest for Asimov's Foundation Series newbie? - <AUTHOR> Publishing order or robot series-prequel-foundation-sequel? <comment><USER2> I would start with the Foundation trilogy first (Foundation, Foundation and Empire, Second Foundation). Foundation for me was a perfect book. I don't remember if I finished the robot series though, and the books looking at Wiki, have a ton of content continuing on the original universe. I mean if I started at episode I of Star Wars I never would have made it to episode IV. One of my favorite things about Asimov in general is that he is overall optimistic about the future, some of his short stories are really good too, a time-traveling Shakespeare one stuck out for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. I am looking forward to the series version of it. Wondering how they'd line in...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Definitely in the order that they were written.

Afterthought sequels and prequels never fit properly into the original sequences.</comment>


Uber CEO Indicted in South Korea Over Its Taxi Service - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-12-24/uber-ceo-indicted-in-south-korea-over-its-taxi-service.html <comment><USER2> > "Uber does not believe it is appropriate for authorities to seek to punish > drivers who are trying to make a living through this service," Uber said in > today's e-mail.

Uber needs to slow down the spin. It might work in metros in the US, but it's not going to work in Seoul.

<comment><USER3> The heavy spin is necessary to preserve the image that Uber represents the drivers. Uber really just provides technical infrastructure and marketing, and rakes off most of the profit. Almost all of that wealth should be flowing back to the drivers who provide Uber's actual service.

The drivers need to unionize and break Uber's back before Uber replaces them all with self-driving cars. It shouldn't be too hard for them to organize, since they all have smartphones and they all end up dissatisfied when Uber cuts their rates.

<comment><USER4> I am perfectly aware that we live in deeply partisan times. Partisan in not just political ideologies but also in ways we see the world and our place in it. At times, it seems all middle ground has vanished. But that discussion is for another time.

Unionizing is a contentious issue not just for the employers but also for the consumers, especially when you look at how unions - in the industries and sectors where they have a stranglehold on affairs - seem to always serve the interests of just the union members and in no particular way improve the experience of the consumers.

As a disinterested observer, I ask this in good faith :

Are there documented cases of industries or even governmental sectors where unionizing - whether in America or abroad, say France - has proved immensely beneficial to the consumers and patrons?

Are they not just self-serving instruments and political vote banks?

I am yet to find a single heavily-unionized entity proving to enhance my experience as a consumer.

<comment><USER5> Unionizing wasn't such a contentious issue when employers were working their employees to death and paying them in credit to be used at the company store.

<comment><USER6> That is incorrect. Unionizing was strongly opposed throughout the industrial revolution. Look up Pinkerton's efforts, the Haymarket incident, many others.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, of course the bosses didn't want it. It hurt them and their profits. But back then, the _people_ wanted it. The difference between then and now is, now when the bosses say "you don't want a union", the workers actually believe them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "worries over the safety of consumers"

Can't consumers decide what their safety requirements are? If they prefer a different service, for safety reasons, can't they just use that service instead?

<comment><USER8> Not really, because of information asymmetry. Users of taxi services, like users of medicine, are vastly less informed about the quality of the service than those that provide it.

Contrary to Uber's propaganda, legislation around taxis is not there, for the most part, to increase the revenue of taxi operators.

<comment><USER9> I don't understand your analogy to medical service. Surely I can assess the quality of taxi service I just received to the highest degree imaginable. And we now have fantastic systems in place to spread this information (e.g. Yelp, Facebook, etc.).

<comment><USER8> You generally want some guarantees before you consume the service.

Most would agree it is suboptimal if the first point you can assess the quality of your taxi service is after being raped and dumped out of town (or waking up deaf because your doctor was an alcoholic, which happened to someone I know; the doctor was of course struck off).

As to whether other systems like Yelp or Facebook are substitutes for the licensing process -- well, that is a reasonable argument to put forward. It's not the usual one we hear on HN though, which is just libertarian free-market- uber-alles ranting. One complaint I would have about using Yelp or Facebook is that they are private companies, and thus not accountable to the public in the way that government licensing services are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The issue goes beyond the technology and law. It's more about the culture of place where Uber operates in. Making a living as a taxi driver in Seoul is different from how it is to do the same in San Francisco. Consumers have different expectations and are wary about different safety issues.

This must be true for each country. I don't think Uber can pervade the entire globe as much as facebook or google. Each place will lag but eventually come up with their own version of Uber that has better understanding of their locale. I think it's different from how people wish to have the same McDonald's experience across the globe. And there is no economy of scale by operating in two very difference places. Consumers in Seoul do not benefit from Uber's operation in San Francisco. Perhaps there is economy of scale in developing the technology, but not in operations.

Uber is the pioneer but is not meant to take over the entire globe.

</comment><comment><USER11> > "[...]from next week will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905) > to people who provide information on Uber's services. "

> "The maximum penalty for Uber's alleged legal violation is a two-year prison > sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won[...]"

Can anyone clarify this for me?

I read it as two years in prison or pay a 20.000$ fine. The difference between two years in prison and 20.000$ seems very large to me. It seems slightly illogical to me if this is the case.

<comment><USER12> There are lots of crimes in the US punishable by a year in prison or a fine of up to $1k. I suspect the fines are leftover from when $1k was significantly more money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> "...will offer rewards of as much as 1 million won ($905)..."

"The maximum penalty for Uber's alleged legal violation is a two-year prison sentence or a fine of as much as 20 million won..."

So the fine would be at most ~$20,000. That seems low compared to 2 years in jail!

<comment><USER14> This kind of asymmetry is usual. "Littering is punishable by up to $500 fine or 6 months in prison." \- that sort of thing I've seen a zillion times.

<comment><USER15> Yup, because if you don't have $500 you're probably one of those homeless criminal types and should be locked up anyway.

I've noticed this too, is this a relic from the times when the dollar amount would have been a lot more proportionate to time served?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> To anyone who knows more about law, is it legally/morally justifiable to hold individual executives liable for company tactics to this extent? Why don't they just ban/fine the company instead?

<comment><USER17> IANAL but (in Ireland) liability usually stops with the company unless the directors are shown to have acted outside company law.

Given that Uber's business model seems to be based on "fuck the law, we'll do what we want" \- in my view is that the management, morally, can't rely on that same legal system to insulate them from punishment.</comment></comment>


Understand JWT in 3 Minutes - <AUTHOR> https://tahazsh.com/understand-jwt-in-3-minutes <comment><USER2> Why not to use JWT in 3 Minutes: [http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2016/06/19/stop-using-jwt- fo...](http://cryto.net/~joepie91/blog/2016/06/19/stop-using-jwt-for-sessions- part-2-why-your-solution-doesnt-work/)

<comment><USER3> Off-topic

Joepie91 once did a small nodejs project for me, that's why I recognized your link.

I'm kinda worried as "not an acquaintance" about his post about depression and that he didn't post anything since 2016.

Anyone know what happened?

<comment><USER4> Hi, no worries, I'm still alive :)

I just haven't updated my blog for quite some time, due to a combination of circumstances. I'll probably start blogging again at some point in the near future.

<comment><USER5> "Reports of my death have been exaggerated." \- Churchill

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > Q: If I have to include this token with every request, where should I store > it?

> A: Typically, you would store it in the localStorage, after the user logs in > and gets the token.

This seems to contradict Auth0's guidance to not store tokens in localStorage since it's vulnerable to XSS: [https://auth0.com/docs/security/store- tokens#don-t-store-tok...](https://auth0.com/docs/security/store-tokens#don-t- store-tokens-in-local-storage)

<comment><USER7> Thanks for the insight! If anyone cares to provide any clue about best practices and how to handle token storage, you are more than welcomed to provide any insight.

<comment><USER8> Here you go: [https://auth0.com/docs/security/store- tokens](https://auth0.com/docs/security/store-tokens)

Gives various suggestions depending on your use case.

<comment><USER9> I've been looking at this for months without getting a clear, noncontroversial answer. Even with this documentation, it is still unclear what to do if you have a SPA on another host than your backend (so you can't use cookies), and you do not want to use server sessions. Using `oidc-client` from the frontend could work, but that bundle size[0] is absolutely insane.

[0]: [https://bundlephobia.com/result?p=oidc- firstname.lastname@example.com](https://firstname.lastname@example.com)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Q: If I tried to use this token after 10 years, would it still work?

> A: Yes, it will be valid forever unless the server specifies an expiration > time when generating it.

The implications of this is beyond calamitous. This is why Disney+ and Fortnite logins were hijacked in the first place. I can harvest all these JWT logins with a good chance of people forgetting to ever logout. Hence this, with one push of a button I can abuse an API endpoint to mass delete everybody or what not. Best part about JWTs? They are unencrypted by default.

For that reason, Just do not use JWTs.

<comment><USER11> What else should we use that is not over-engineered?

<comment><USER12> Cookies have been battle tested and are very secure. Enable http only mode and you can't even access them from JS thus eliminate possibility of take over / token theft.

<comment><USER13> You can store & pass JWTs in cookies, provided they're not huge.

<comment><USER14> But the server must send them.

<comment><USER13> Where else are JWTs coming from? You can't pass the signing key to the client, that defeats the point.

<comment><USER14> It has to come as cookie from the server if you don't want to save it with Javascript.

<comment><USER13> Is there a problem with that? So long as your CORS headers aren't screwed up for your use case, passing JWTs around via cookie headers should be fine, right?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm still not understanding the advantages of JWT over cookies for user facing auth.

I do see use cases for JWT for machine-to-machine auth though.

<comment><USER15> A server can issue a JWT and forget about it. Most cookie auth strategies requires the server to persist the token to confirm validity. Also, a JWT can work across a microservice architecture easily for the same reasons.

<comment><USER16> The biggest problem with JWT is there is no revocation mechanism which IMHO is a non-starter. Introducing revocation mechanisms generally means introducing central state and now you're back to why not just use a session token? Not to mention the numerous issues JWT has had over the years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> And yet he didn't explain how JWT differs from session cookies.

I suppose I'll never learn.

(looks hopefully at the HN crowd)

<comment><USER13> JWT is just some arbitrary JSON data, with a few customary fields, cryptographically signed by whichever system issued it. You send it to the client, which may be a browser or mobile app or whatever, and they send it with each request to any related systems. A system receiving a JWT can verify that the stuff in it was certified as true or accurate by the issuing system, given only the correct keys to check the signature and no further info about the user. One might, for example, put user identity info & user roles (for permissions) in a JWT.

This can be useful for e.g. checking login status at proxy or cache servers without having them connect to a database or ask other systems (so, works very fast), for microservice bullshit, or for systems with lots of access points and unified login (think Google, with Youtube, Gmail, Docs, and so on—I don't think they use them, but that's the sort of situation in which one might)

The main downside is that you can do stupid crap with them like not set an expiration, and you can't really expire tokens prematurely (say, on user role changes or on user deletion) without re-introducing some centralization. Neither are crippling but they do make it less the magic bullet than one might hope.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> One thing missing: the "cryptographic signature" isn't required to be a cryptographic signature by the standard. You need to ensure, by configuration or by library defaults, that the algorithm of 'none' is not allowed, otherwise someone could freely modify and replay the JWT for all time.

[https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7519#section-6.1](https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7519#section-6.1)

</comment><comment><USER19> I've seen lots of tutorials for single page apps/api architectures that specifically store JWT in localstorage, it's endemic.

What I haven't seen though, is guidance on how to deploy SPA web apps using cookies properly (with either jwt or session token in http only cookies)

From what I have found, there are only a few options:

1\. host api at 'api.mydomain.com' and frontend from 'mydomain.com'. You will have to deal with CORS and options requests which can add significant latency for non-simple CORS requests. Not to mention extra configuration with CORS headers.

2\. Serve assets/frontend from the API (ie, rails static assets, Django collect static, etc). Downside is that you have to deploy everything together.

3\. Reverse proxy so that api/frontend are on the same domain, and you can use cookies without CORS. Api lives at 'mydomain.com/api' and frontend at 'mydomain.com`

I am currently doing 3, which if you are using AWS, you can use CloudFront as the reverse proxy by using a separate dristriburion for your api and your Frontend and using behaviors to route traffic by path. In fact, that is what AWS recommends: [https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content- delivery...](https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/networking-and-content- delivery/dynamic-whole-site-delivery-with-amazon-cloudfront/)

So for 3, for example:

You have CloudFront -> Loadbalancer -> EC2 for your api with a path of /api in CloudFront, you can set CloudFront to never cache. You don't pay for bandwidth between EC2 -> CloudFront, you only pay for bandwidth out of CloudFront:

>Outbound data transfer charges from AWS services to CloudFront is $0/GB. The cost coming out of CloudFront is typically half a cent less per GB than data transfer for the same tier and Region

For your frontend, you can host in s3 -> CloudFront with a catch all path for non-api paths (allows client side push state to work in SPA).

CloudFront in this case also is where SSL termination happens. You can also to full end to end ssl if you enable that in the CloudFront and your API can also terminate ssl at the LoadBalancer.

The other benefits to this approach is that you can usually just use the default auth systems for your web apps. You can also create a CNAME for your API loadbalancer to be api.mydomain.com and use that for non-web clients. In the case of Django Rest Framework, there is both cookie and token auth enabled by default.

</comment><comment><USER20> I can't believe it doesn't even define what JWT means... JSON Web Tokens

<comment><USER15> I can't believe it doesn't even define what JSON means... JavaScript Object Notation

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The post never tells you what JWT even stands for. I thought it was the Java Web Toolkit...</comment>


Tracking.js - A modern approach for computer vision on the web - <AUTHOR> http://trackingjs.com/ <comment><USER2> I can't get it to work(it detects my white shirt, the shoulder area as a face, but not my actual face). Is this a repetition of this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DT3tQqgRM)

<comment><USER3> Face detection still being an open problem in computer vision area. While very good algorithms exist, they still fail on some cases or are not fast enough to run in real time. Our implementation is based on Viola-Jones algorithm, one of the most used algorithms for this problem (and also used by OpenCV). This algorithm can be used to track several types of objects just by changing the training data that is used as input. For the face detector, we used training data generated by OpenCV, but we don't know which faces were used to generate it. Perhaps this issue is a matter of changing the training data, or maybe this is a case where the algorithm is not robust enough to handle. We hope we can fix this problem soon, but we still don't know how (suggestions and contributions are appreciated ^.^)

<comment><USER4> "While very good algorithms exist ... or are not fast enough to run in real time."

As a research scientist at a company whose main product is face recognition software I have to disagree with this part of the statement.

<comment><USER5> Are they relevant to this implementation?

What I mean is this is a client-side javascript library, so it is meant to work in the browser on who knows how powerful hardware.

There may be facial recognition libraries that work very well in real time, but how powerful of hardware is required?

And the other big question, are they proprietary algorithms or open-source?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is really cool and is going to help me A LOT with a detection script I was working on for a WebRTC video website.

I was looking for something like this a couple of weeks ago and I decided to use python with Fisherfaces [0]. Now I'm really curious about Viola-Jones and its accuracy via JS...

[0] [https://github.com/bytefish/facerec](https://github.com/bytefish/facerec)

</comment><comment><USER7> It's funny, I look almost _exactly_ like the guy on the left in the "Face (Image)" example, and I have a very good quality webcam, yet it does a really terrible job of detecting my own, live face.

</comment><comment><USER8> Any examples of all-javascript augmented reality using this yet? It seems like this could be done since feature detection is implemented.

<comment><USER3> We are currently working on a pose-estimation algorithm (EPnP) that will use the results we get from feature detection to find a camera pose, so we can make 3D augmentation. It will be very helpful to create augmented reality applications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I am very interested in computer vision libraries. How exactly does this stack up to OpenCV or is that even a fair comparison?

<comment><USER3> tracking.js is a new library that intends to bring the power of computer vision to the Web. OpenCV is far older and is a inspiration for our team regarding the number of available algorithms, robustness and speed. With the increasing power of JavaScript engines, we believe that we can achieve very good results using current state-of-the-art algorithms and low-level optimizations, so real-time CV applications can also be done on the Web. Currently tracking.js don't have as many algorithms as OpenCV, but we are making our best efforts to bring useful algorithms to the library while still keeping the API easy to use and to extend, so we can count on the community to help us to make this project a success.

<comment><USER9> Great. This is actually very relevant to a project I'm working on. It involves porting projecter/camera electronics from open cv over to the web with javascript. So how does this stack up vs jsfeat? Are those comparable at all? I do think your api is more web dev friendly from what it looks like, but I am curious about the capabilities.

<comment><USER3> One of the biggest problems we find on most computer vision libraries is the fact that a lot of knowledge in the area is required to use them properly. We think the complex APIs that are exposed to developers that try to make CV apps can be the reason why we still don't see many apps exploring the potential of CV. So tracking.js was created with the goal of being as powerful as the best CV libraries, but without exposing the inherent complexity of the area to the developers that wish to use it. From what I saw of jsfeat, it looks very powerful, but targeted for people that have some knowledge of CV.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This looks pretty awesome.

I know it's a bit offtopic but on this page

[http://trackingjs.com/examples/face_hello_world.html](http://trackingjs.com/examples/face_hello_world.html)

where can you find such a nice 'chrome browser' graphic? it looks really solid. I want to use it on my website.

<comment><USER6> Just google "flat browser frame" and pick the one you like...</comment></comment>


ProcessWire: CMS with a jQuery inspired content API - <AUTHOR> http://cheatsheet.processwire.com <comment><AUTHOR> More details on the idea and concepts behind the api here:

[https://processwire.com/api/concept/](https://processwire.com/api/concept/)

What I find so nice is that it makes developing JSON based AJAX API:s and traditional "untemplates"* in pure PHP equally easy.

For an AJAX API, just a few ProcessWire API calls and JSON serialisation, and for PHP "untemplates", just drop in your HTML/CSS/JS design and intersperse a few lines of ProcessWire API calls here and there, and off you go.

To me, this is as close you'll come to both the designer and the developers dream, in one simple system.

Sure, you can build technically more performant systems with Node or Go, but I think that is overkill for 90% or more of websites out there, which simply needs flexible content modeling, and flexible design, paired with a flexible API for any corner cases, and integrations with other systems.

* (no need for a template language)

</comment><comment><USER2> ProcessWire is the most natural and intuitive PHP framework and CMF I have ever used! And the development community around it is amazingly friendly and knowledgeable, and always ready to help you learn.

</comment><comment><USER3> processwire is awesome. I made an intranet system with more than 2K users and shines. ever after 1 year in full usage with 2 mobile apps and a website making queries to the system.

</comment><comment><USER4> Any idea why the functions do not return promises?

<comment><USER5> Probably because it is PHP.

<comment><USER6> [https://github.com/reactphp/promise](https://github.com/reactphp/promise)

<comment><USER7> PHP promises? I can't quite put my finger on it, but this makes me feel very strange. As if they're not supposed to exist or something. I hope someone can articulate the reason (if there is one) better than me...</comment></comment></comment></comment>


THQ and the UFC doing slick advertising for their video game - <AUTHOR> http://www.andrewmachado.com/blog/thq-best-buy-and-the-ufc-come-up-with-one-heck-of-a-multi-channel-marketing-campaign/

<comment><USER2> My only complaint about the ads is the quality of the video on ESPN in particular is rather crummy... could cause consumers to think the game footage is poor (which it isnt)

</comment><comment><USER3> The site is messed up on Chrome!</comment>


Tezos Betanet Launch - <AUTHOR> https://tezosfoundation.ch/news/tezos-betanet-launch/ <comment><USER2> Tezos is fairly unique in that it had something working before the ICO rather than just a whitepaper. It took them a while to polish it, but all along, they had something working.

Tezos is also atypical in that since the ICO, it has flown extremely under the radar, rather than selling hype. It hasn't had ERC20 token that you can trade in the absence of the network being live.

The Tezos value proposition is "contracts that should be much harder to screw up" which it attempts with formal verification. Along with that, it has proof of stake, and a built in governance system intended to improve on the Bitcoin style of governance.

</comment><comment><USER3> The more I watch the crypto space, the more I observe that it has developed an inherently misaligned set of incentives. The people who are creating headlines for each new approach are the ones who have already bought in and will benefit most from others being convinced of its value and buying in as well. Just like it took decades for it to be common for personal financial advisors to be fiduciaries, I wonder if there is space for "experts" who commit to not having a stake in any crypto and just commenting on which ones seems to be creating real technological value. I might support a patreon for that. Of course, anonymity on the blockchain would make it hard to "trust" that these "experts" were really unbiased.

P.S. I know crypto is better used to refer to cryptographic technology as a whole, but referring to this area as "cryptocurrency" is insufficient since many are trying to move beyond being currencies, and "blockchain" is insufficient because many are trying alternatives to the basic blockchain introduced by bitcoin.

<comment><USER4> > are the ones who have already bought in and will benefit most from others > being convinced of its value and buying in as well.

Yes. Pyramid scheme. Rather than passively waiting for others to be convinced of it's value, most of the scam coin ICOs actively pay influencers on twitter[1], reddit and telegram and other channels a lot of money to shill / "promote" their sh*t coins...

[1] $105K for McAfee to tweet: [https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/2/17189880/john-mcafee- bitco...](https://www.theverge.com/2018/4/2/17189880/john-mcafee-bitcoin- cryptocurrency-twitter-ico)

Related: If you ever wondered how ICOs get a lot of attention even if they suck here are some hints. => [https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/8g8opf/if_y...](https://www.reddit.com/r/CryptoCurrency/comments/8g8opf/if_you_ever_wondered_how_icos_get_a_lot_of/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The cover story in this month's Wired is about Tezos: [https://www.wired.com/story/tezos-blockchain-love-story- horr...](https://www.wired.com/story/tezos-blockchain-love-story-horror- story/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Does anyone have a TLDR on this? Their website doesn't make it clear what this technology actually is. My best guess so far is that it's a coin & smart contract platform like Ethereum.

<comment><USER7> Web site is totally useless.

Testnet instructions are here: [http://doc.tzalpha.net/introduction/alphanet.html](http://doc.tzalpha.net/introduction/alphanet.html)

Best I can tell: smart contracts like Ethereum, except the protocol has means for amending the protocol itself? So, meta-Ethereum?

This article (Linda Xie) is pretty good: [https://firstname.lastname@example.com/a-beginners-guide-to- tezos-c96...](https://firstname.lastname@example.com/a-beginners-guide-to- tezos-c9618240183f)

Apparently they also already have proof of stake?

<comment><USER8> Thank god. Because the one thing Ethereum was missing was more complexity.

<comment><USER9> At least it uses OCAML and functional code instead of the EVM, for which even the Eth founders themselves can't write secure code.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Attention Economy Is a Malthusian Trap - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/01/is-the-age-of-tech-over/580504/ <comment><USER2> It will be tougher for Amazon to squash grocery stories than it was to squash Sears.

Grocery stores are highly competitive because people go to the grocery store every week. For the grocery store it is a game much like "the iterated prisoner's dilemma". Every week they have a chance to uphold their brand image or make a quick profit. Every week they have a chance to lose big and make you switch to another grocery store.

So they choose to uphold their brand images.

Stores and brands in other areas where transactions are less frequent have more incentive to harvest. For instance, nearly all makers of major appliances have given up on upholding brand image and source their appliances from the same factories in the far east. They break down in a few years but they might not be in business again, or maybe they bought the brand that you're going to try next.

Grocery stores, from ALDI to Wegmans, are excellent in their own way, unlike mall stores.

<comment><USER3> The future of the grocery business is web based ordering and automated delivery to the buyer. Amazon will crush other grocers due to first mover advantage and their massive technology workforce.

<comment><USER4> They only really have first mover advantage in the US, though. In many countries, internet ordering of groceries is pretty old; Tesco started it in the UK and Ireland in _1997_, for instance, and I'm pretty sure there were Minitel-based grocery delivery services in France before that.

The US market probably has special practical problems that European markets don't have (low population density outside about five cities, in particular), but it's hard to see how Amazon will automatically beat the likes of Tesco in this just because they're a tech company.

<comment><USER3> Internet ordering isn't where the real value is, it's in a logistics network from warehouse to consumer that is almost entirely automated.

<comment><USER4> On the warehouse side, the incumbents are doing that. Funnily enough, I was at Amazon's AWS Summit in London a while back, and one of the presenters was a guy who'd worked on some European supermarket's automated warehouse fulfilment stuff, using AWS. Automating delivery to consumer (ie self-driving vehicles) is a long, long way off, and Amazon isn't a particular leader in the field anyway. If it's ever workable, Tesco et al will just license it from Waymo or someone. As will Amazon, probably.

And I think the ordering side is more important than you think. Doing a weekly shop with Amazon's awful website would be a miserable process; Tesco et al are already far ahead, there. I'm sure Amazon can catch up, but the idea that it has first mover advantage (except maybe in the US) is ridiculous. The big supermarkets also already have an extensive pre-existing warehouse system.

<comment><USER3> I doubt they'll be able to compete on costs, on the retail front Amazon Go style stores are certainly the future. Legacy retailers (and grocers) are simply too labor heavy and their large retail footprint will come back to bite them.

Even if last mile delivery has a driver, operational costs will be far lower.

<comment><USER4> My local Tesco (I apologise for all the Tesco references; they seem to have totally taken over my area of Dublin) is a small urban supermarket with eight automated checkouts, and typically one employee on a manual checkout for people who want to buy alcohol and cigarettes, or who refuse to deal with the machines. At peak times maybe two or three employees, but one is normal. Big suburban supermarkets have a bunch of automatic checkouts, plus scanners for shoppers to take with them and self-checkout as they put their purchases in the trolley. Amazon Go type shops may be _slightly_ more labour efficient (if they work) but there's no reason the big chains can't just do that, too.

Weirdly, when I was in San Francisco recently, I went to a Whole Foods (an Amazon owned supermarket). It didn't have automated checkouts at all! I'm unconvinced that Amazon is actually a leader in automated supermarkets.

RE the large real estate footprint, that's usually leased (at least here). As demand for physical supermarkets drops, they can just stop renewing leases.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Tech companies are valued based on future potential and as future becomes present, that potential is replaced by a reality that is often much less grand.

Netflix is a great example. It went from having a large library because the producers were its friends, to entering production itself, and alienating its former partners. Now, they have to offset investment into production with higher subscription fees which in turn reduces future potential. Netflix in 2015 is significantly more disruptive than that of 2019, which is just another HBO, and increasingly will be valued like HBO (Time Warner).

"Tech" here is actually just infrastructure; it's table stakes and not interesting at all.

<comment><USER6> > Netflix is a great example. It went from having a large library because the > producers were its friends, to entering production itself, and alienating > its former partners.

I always thought it's the other way around and Netflix was in a "if life gives you lemons" situation. The content producers in 2010 (or 2005 .. don't know) didn't want to bother with digital, so they just gave it all to Netflix and that's that. Then when time came to renegotiate the existing contracts (let's say in 2015) the situation had changed: Everyone and their dog now knew that digital was great, so half of them didn't want to give Netflix anything anymore. They wanted to be a competitor and Netflix had zero leverage (e.g. Disney), the other half now had a far better understanding of the value of their digital catalogue plus was able to shop around "so, you don't want to pay us our prices? Let us talk with Amazon over here ..".

At some point Netflix had to find a way out of that situation and while "we produce our own content" may have a higher initial cost and is not what the existing audience wanted in the long term it frees Netflix from their dependency on competitors.

<comment><USER5> Producing content does give Netflix independence, but on the flipside it also means they stand alone. Their former partners are now competitors.

<comment><USER7> My understanding of this is different. Streaming services are at the mercy of the prices determined by those who own the content.

If they make lots of money, up go the licence fees.

The decision to create their own content seems like an inevitable consequence of that, and acts as a deflationary force on prices as licenced content has to compete for airtime with content commissioned by the streaming service.

<comment><USER5> Producers are dependent on distributors, and distributors are dependent on producers.

Producers thought they'd improve their position by going into distribution. Distributors (Netflix) thought they'd better themselves by going into production.

Perhaps they would have been better off focusing on either producing or distributing. A distributor improves their bargaining position by growing the audience they can reach. Producer, by making better films that more people want to see.

<comment><USER8> It won't work with Netflix's model. The flat rate pay x and watch as much as you want doesn't work for the producers, the prices they can negotiate for their content are always capped based on the fixed subscription at netflix. Given that it's much more appealing for them to launch their own service and get 100% of a smaller customer base which they can potentially grow in the future.

<comment><USER5> For Netflix, it doesn't work to only show their original productions on their own platform. We will likely see them start to show their films in theaters to maximize revenue, and even offer one-time access for people to watch a film but not sign up for a subscription. What's more, they're probably going to have to turn their series into events by showing new episodes on schedule, once a week. By becoming producers, they are forced to completely abandon their old model, I believe.

<comment><USER9> > We will likely see them start to show their films in theaters to maximize > revenue

Seems unlikely to me. They're doing it on a very limited basis right now, but that's not for revenue; it's to get the movies in the running for awards.

> offer one-time access for people to watch a film but not sign up for a > subscription

Seems unlikely. The number of people who think Netflix is expensive enough to avoid, and don't have friends they can mooch off of or get a group buy with is pretty small.

> they're probably going to have to turn their series into events by showing > new episodes on schedule, once a week.

I'm really curious about this one. I have no idea why they would possibly want to do this.

In network TV land, broadcasters have time slots for shows so they can more efficiently sell advertising slots. Even if Netflix decided to start advertising, they can just tie ads directly to videos being watched.

<comment><USER10> > I'm really curious about this one. I have no idea why they would possibly > want to do this

Traditional tv shows can also get buzz by people chatting and theorizing about them week to week as the episodes trickle out. This isn't really possible with the Netflix binge model.

They can also release faster since episodes trickle out as they are done. Not sure how often this happens vs editing and releasing later.

Whether this type of "buzz" actually is that important from an economic perspective or if it just generates a bunch of noise online and at the water cooler, I don't know. So far Netflix seems content to drop content using the binge model.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "But if Netflix and Walt Disney both use technology to stream video, why is only Netflix trading at infinity-times earnings? And if Tesla and BMW "both use battery technology to power luxury cars," Deluard writes, "why should the former trade at 42 times forward earnings when the latter fetches 5.6 times trailing earnings?" Good question."

Incredibly flawed argument. BMW's earnings come from a huge variety of products and services. Not purely battery-powered electric cars. Tesla's entire business model is producing battery-powered vehicles.

So to compare each company's P/E directly under the assumption that they are both making identical products would be wrong. Instead you would need to somehow isolate the P/E ratio of BMW's battery-powered car business in order to draw a meaningful comparison.

In general, this article is trying to group all of tech into one basket and draw conclusions which apply universally. A company has a high P/E ratio for a very simple reason: investors believe its earnings growth will outpace the market. That will seemingly always be true for companies which are focusing on growth over profit.

<comment><USER12> You are technically correct, but the author still gets the important point right. The premium in valuation between these companies should and will shrink (unless there is a reason to believe that Netflix will kill Disney or that Tesla will be dominating the automotive market at the expense of Fords and Toyotas.

<comment><USER13> The high P/E values for these companies are usually giant signals they are overvalued.

Probably the only company that can legitimately sustain a ridiculous P/E is Amazon, and it's because Amazon is the only large company willing to try weird shit and actually take product risks. I'm not a big fan of Amazon's company culture, but I have to hand it to them that at least they try to do shit and see what works. Most companies beyond a certain size fall victim to in-house risk aversion through manager ranks to such a high degree that all innovative ideas are killed and only incremental product changes are allowed.

<comment><USER14> P/E is a backward focusing metric, stock price is a forward looking metric. So, unless the company is static they don't correlate that well.

Look a BMW's shrinking US / EU sales for the last several years and compare that with Tesla. You don't want to pay a premium for a sinking ship do you?

PS: The stock market may be irrational, but it's rarely dumb.

<comment><USER15> BMW sales do not seem shrinking to me: They boast 35 consecutive quarters of growth [1] and sold more cars year over year, at least in 2014-2017 [2], don't know about 2018, as it's not yet in the statistics.

[1] [https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T028306...](https://www.press.bmwgroup.com/global/article/detail/T0283066EN/35th- consecutive-quarter-of-sales-growth-for-bmw-group?language=en)

[2] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/264342/global-sales- volu...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/264342/global-sales-volume-of- automobiles-of-bmw-group/)

<comment><USER14> Global numbers look fine, US and EU numbers don't.

      US:
      2017	305.685	1,77%
      2016	313.174	1,79%
      2015	346.023	1,98%
      2014	339.738	2,06%

Looks like 2018 numbers are up slightly in the US, though still below 2016 sales.

2018 311.014 1,79%

[http://carsalesbase.com/us-car-sales-data/bmw/](http://carsalesbase.com/us- car-sales-data/bmw/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I find these passages thought-provoking and persuasive. They ring _True_ :

 _> ...Tech died by conquering the world. Netflix is leading a global transition from linear to streaming television. Tesla accelerated an electric awakening among auto companies. But if Netflix and Walt Disney both use technology to stream video, why is only Netflix trading at infinity-times earnings? And if Tesla and BMW "both use battery technology to power luxury cars," Deluard writes, "why should the former trade at 42 times forward earnings when the latter fetches 5.6 times trailing earnings?" Good question._

 _> ...Some of the largest tech companies have exhausted their main markets. Apple and Samsung may have reached the smartphone plateau, as phone sales seem to have peaked. Facebook and Google have grown to dominate digital advertising. But in the U.S., overall ad spending has historically averaged no more than 3 percent of GDP. How do you grow [faster than the economy] in a sector that isn't growing [faster]? That's easy: You don't. There may be a Malthusian trap in the attention economy. Eventually, revenue growth bumps up against the natural limitations of population and waking hours._

 _> ...Tech stocks have fallen, because the media mountain has been scaled. Now the largest tech companies aren't standing at a pinnacle; they're plotting on a plateau. The challenge of owning the entire life cycle of our spending habits—that's the real summit. And it's just up ahead._

The implication for investors is obvious. If "tech" is no longer really a separate fast-growing sector, but rather something that has become pervasive and cannot grow for much longer at a faster rate than the rest of the economy, then "tech" valuation multiples will converge with "non-tech" valuation multiples, and there will no longer be a clear-cut distinction between the two groups.

<comment><USER17> It's a cycle.

Everything begins as tech, and ends as just another part of the economy. Heavy industry was once high-tech: Ford was the biggest tech giant of its day. Even something as basic as steel manufacturing was once novel technology.

Technology is only innovation which has yet to reach ubiquity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm a big fan of the argument that there is significantly less to differentiate companies like TSLA from their traditional competitors. Which is basically the take from the first half of the article (which I think the author is arguing is wrong), but using evidence like P/E change in the last two years is quite frankly bollocks. There has been a big dip in the stock market in the last few months and there's very likely a slow down in China occuring - Apple's stock alone is down 30% from peak.

But moving on to the interesting second half: what this guy is describing - yet somehow not noticing - is a trend towards massive mergers to form monopolies. That's nothing to do with Tech. In fact what this article is suggesting is basically what we're going to do is re-create all these destructive monopolies and rather than protecting consumers like we used to, we're going to just label it 'tech' and bend over for it.

<comment><USER19> I'm not sure I agree - I think workforce is the ultimate differentiator in any case, and the tech companies - over the last decade at least - managed to be seen as the employers of choice. That could really create a strategic advantage, though perhaps not a long-lasting one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This article is using its terms in a specific way. By "tech sector," it sounds like he's talking about large technology companies that have been valued by the market at higher multiples than the older "blue chips," big stable companies.

By Malthusian, he means "large and mature enough to be limited by the size of the market."

The trigger for the thought seems to be that some newer "tech" companies are operationally more similar to traditional blue chips. Tesla is more like BMW and netflix is like hbo.

So, anyway idk....

Tech is valued so highly for a bunch of reasons. But, those aside, there are factors unrelated to sector.

Tesla, netflix and such are new companies. Coca Cola, GM & BMW are old. They run gradualist, conservative starters.

Netflix and Tesla are far more likely to pull a rabbit out of a hat. It's in their culture. The whole company was in the hat 5 minutes ago. Assuming that Tesla and BMW have similar future potential is (perhaps) academic, because they'd never pursue them anyway. Netflix might attempt a pivot to being a game company, if the opportunity was attractive. HBO probably couldn't.

Even IBM is a good example, the one tech company that's old-ish and has a "blue chip" persona. They managed to pivot into consulting. Would coca cola have successfully pivoted into fresh food delivery?

There's a flexibility in tech that doesn't exist elsewhere.

Also, I suspect, the way most large companies are growing is overly risk averse. Tech can't be derisked to that extent, so the companies pursue the higher value, higher risk strategies.

The best example to sum this up is Amazon and their 2nd act Aws twist. You might compare amazon of 2016 to other retailers. Walmart never had the potential to launch an Aws.

When tech is everywhere, the article thinks the tech sector doesn't exist. The opposite is possible too. When everything is tech, the tech sector owns everything.

Ultimately, coca cola is a legacy company.

<comment><USER21> Did you mean "compare Amazon of 2006", that was the year AWS was released.

<comment><USER20> yep :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Tech has been synonymous with growth. That is why it was trading at a premium and that is why high growth tech companies continue to be priced at a premium while non-growth tech companies do not.

As a professional investor, I only care about three things: \- Long-term stabilized return on capital \- Pricing (P/E; EB/EBITDA) \- Long-term growth.

The list of companies that check all of those boxes are extremely small

<comment><USER23> Would you mind sharing the list of these companies?

<comment><USER24> I'm not OP, but Microsoft is one of a handful of stand out tech companies for me. They are paying a decent dividend (almost unheard of in tech) and have a very solid enterprise product lineup that has gained traction, with a huge amount of the market left. Furthermore they have a strong consumer and gaming footprint, and generally are positioned well across their entire portfolio.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is one of those articles that feels like it'd be unthinkable a few years ago - now there's a lot to nod along to like this is almost common knowledge. It's a big deal! This is the "crunch" in the tech sector - expect a fair amount of qualified engineers in the streets competing for work in the next few years. Not out of some downturn, but as investors demand cost cutting instead of investment to get their returns.

The only good news is that the "surviving" companies from old industries will continue to need to grow their tech platforms.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Now it has to gnaw through the harder, crunchier parts of the global > economy. Software eating life sciences? Software eating elderly care? > Software eating household construction? Software eating money? Good luck.

Wow, so much pessimism. Tech has still loong way to make inroads into these sectors, and i don't see anything stopping it. In some cases it is harsh regulation and established interests that prevent people from innovating (e.g. money), but it _is_ happening. "Good luck"? this won't age well. Anyone who thinks that tech is just for "selling ads" is , hm, short-sighted.

It is easy to cherrypick the high tech that has large p/e s such as tesla and netflix, but these are companies that disrupt existing markets, not create new ones. Apple (which does that often) has a tiny p/e. So maybe, it is a good thing that the fangs are being deinvested. Plus 2019 is the airbnb and uber IPO...

</comment><comment><USER27> It's the way of innovation that the new sector if successful grows rapidly and then plateaus when everyone has the new whatever. The web/mobile tech companies are not the first. The early motor car tech boom in the early 1900s looked similar, then the electrical tech boom I think around the 1920s and so on. I imaging the early industrial revolution and textile companies in England went the same way and I guess maybe AI is next? I'm a bit of a skeptic on blockchain being the next big thing.

</comment><comment><USER28> I wonder why the author does not include Cloud services in his analysis. Cloud is just getting started, has massive potential (business IT spending), can be delivered online (duh) and can be shown to be done effectively. Which is why you see lots of big tech co's investing massively there.

To borrow author's words, I believe for the next round, profitable tech companies will be Cloud providers (along with a Mall too), which will justify rich premiums.

<comment><USER29> One could argue cloud services is just a mall for computers (VMs), computing services (managed databases), or computing time (serverless offerings).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I agree that tech companies depending on attention will devalue. However the value of companies is also based on expected future value and the FANG companies are well positioned to profit from advances in AI, new energy technologies, life extension tech, etc., etc. I think there is a lot of profit to be made in emerging tech.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yep, the article is dead on.

</comment><comment><USER31> Malthus was wrong! Spectacularly so. Is the title a joke?

> If technology is everywhere, the tech sector no longer exists

Funny, because tech is everywhere and the tech sector is the biggest it has been in history.

</comment><comment><USER32> Strange title. The connection to Malthus is tenuous at best.

<comment><USER33> Seems pretty straightforward to me. The premise is that tech businessses have exhausted the extant food supply for opportunities and growth and are becoming constrained by hard natural limits. Seems like a spot on metaphor to Malthus.

<comment><USER34> Sounds more like plain old market saturation to me, if you describe it that way.</comment></comment></comment>


Is LinkedIn the New Netscape? - <AUTHOR> http://gluecon.com/2011/?p=702

<comment><USER2> What really killed Netscape was Microsoft — but if you're looking for a real example of the web 1.0 bubble you can look at theGlobe.com (which by the way was a social media website). My guess is that some of these companies will crash and burn, but somewhere in that class could be the next Google.

<comment><USER3> No, that's simply not true. Netscape's strategy was _always_ to make money from its server products, I quote Jim Clark "I'm building printing presses, but first I've got to teach people to read" - that's why they gave away the browser, to build a market for servers.

What killed Netscape is that version 3 of their server was a dog, and everyone switched to Apache or Zeus. I was there.

<comment><USER4> I thought Netscape used to charge for the browser - it was $35 if I recall correctly. Hence, MS was plotting to cut off their 'air supply' by giving away IE, removing NS's source of revenue.

<comment><USER3> They charged people who would want support, it was always free to people who didn't need/want it.

My employer at the time spent 6-figures at a time on Netscape server products, for ourselves and our clients, we must have spent millions with them. Then version 3 came out and we either stuck to 2 or moved off Netscape platform entirely. And that was a big deal, since we had written loads of NSAPI code! But that's what killed Netscape.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Recall, that at the time of the Netscape IPO (1995), Netscape and even the Internet was relatively unknown by most non-technical people, thus the ensuing hype and gold-rush mentality. This time around, the Internet and social media is in the mainstream. Millions of LinkedIn and Facebook users are fully aware of the capabilities and limitations. There is clearly room to grow and LI has some excellent opportunities, but I don't think the same sense of excitement and awe exists around the LinkedIn IPO as there was for Netscape.

<comment><USER6> While "social" is sort of mainstream (in the sense that everyone and their mother is on Facebook), there's hardly any money in it. The vast majority of Internet users spend their time doing three things on the web: Facebook, e-mail, and time wasters like games & YouTube.

So while the userbase is certainly very large, the revenue potential is very limited outside of those core activities.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > My answer is firmly standing on "maybe."

What does it mean to be firmly on "maybe"?

<comment><USER8> Based on my experience of law school, it means that you have excellent potential as a lawyer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The _best_ idea that came out of something like TechCrunch Disrupt is an "X of Y" (AirBnb of cars). A ton of people struggled to come up with Internet companies and that's the best we can do?

To me, that's a clear sign of solutions looking for problems. In other words, "there's gold in them hills".</comment>