If net neutrality dies, will innovation and businesses leave the U.S.? - <AUTHOR> Sorry if the headline sounds like clickbait...but honestly, if (or when) net neutrality dies, does that create some sort of incentive for small businesses (which are based on cheap-ish net availability/access) and start ups to begin looking for a better environment outside the U.S.?  If i were to create a start-up from scratch, would I have better luck, say, creating it in Canada or Berlin for example?  And, if the killing off of net neutrality does in fact create this sort of negative effect - small businesses leaving the nation in droves - what's the point of start ups if incumbent giants have too strong a hold??  Or, am i just over-reacting?<p>Curious to hear thoughts - even if to only settle my pessimism. <comment><USER3> Net Neutrality repeal will have a long tail effect. It will cause the economy to slow as people have less disposable income, it will cause the cost of starting new sites to skyrocket as people choose plans that limit their access. It will make paying municipal bills more expensive. Repealing Net Neutrality is in effect a tax increase on American consumers and businesses, no more no less. The only real question is how far it will move the needle and realistically that depends on how expensive Comcast decides to make it. They have a monopoly and they fully intend to exploit it as far as they can, regardless of the detriment to the internet or consumers. Personally I hope they go full evil right off the bat. Were the American consumer in any way shape or form intelligent or in possession of a spine they wouldn't put up with this, but as it is, we're feeling what it was like when Rome started to decline.

Edit: typo

</comment><comment><USER4> It won't. First of all, I think most are overestimating the effect - <USER2> mentioned, many other countries don't have similar legislation.

It might make broadband more expensive, and it might make some Netflix-style bandwidth-heavy startups more difficult to start.

But, the U.S. has almost a monopoly on Venture Capital, a huge concentration of skilled labor in Silicon Valley, a huge internal market, relatively more lenient regulation and many other advantages.

For most startups, those advantages will outweigh any inconveniences or dangers the new playing field brings. I think it's akin to the danger from IP or whatever... if you're fearing that a big telco will try to shake you down, it means the startup is probably doing well (similar to when a startup is threatened with IP litigation).

<comment><USER5> "First of all, I think most are overestimating the effect - as mentioned, many other countries don't have similar legislation."

Because a USA apple is the same as an EU orange?

That is, do other rules they have make it such that they don't need this rule specifically?

"But, the U.S. has almost a monopoly on Venture Capital, a huge concentration of skilled labor in Silicon Valley, a huge internal market, relatively more lenient regulation and many other advantages."

This relies on your first assertion being true: that little will change.

If bandwidth costs rise dramatically, are folks going to be keen to invest in startups with shortened run-ways?

It's not one startup that's doing well, it's SV culture. It's doing far more than the other sectors of the economy, thus the shake down of the entire network by legacy players (GOP being more heavily funded by elder-statesmen if you will, of Comcast, Koch bros...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm curious if Net Neutrality can be enforced at the State level. That way each state can fight back, and the ones that decide not to will experience enough of a difference that they'll do the same.

</comment><comment><USER7> I view what's happening with net neutrality as what happened to cable television. When I was growing up, I only had access to local shows and then the number of channels grew steadily. Then fast forward to today and you have all theses different packages that you have to pay for in order to access them. It's just another way for companies to continue making money off us.

I think they see how torrents and online streaming sites threaten their revenue and that the Internet can do to them what it's done to advertising (esp. for media).

I'm curious to see what forms of innovation and technology will come out this to try and bypass this. Maybe nothing. Who knows though.

</comment><comment><USER8> Internet globe is very connected, you can move your money anywhere you want, net neutrality will just make it more costly to make business in the US, but if we want US-based good-latency-servers then we will still have to pay for local boxen no matter what the laws. I am not in support of artificial bandwidth throttling and consider the internet to be a utility -- the information stream. Regulate, yes, but create a VIP lane ... why on earth. Once regulations get too privatized in the USA it won't make sense to base your telecom out of the USA any longer.

</comment><comment> polkovnikov-ph Well, we don't know. It might go wrong in many ways, and it's only up to ISPs to figure out how much pressure they can put on users and business. As a rule of thumb I'd expect business to suffer less, because they're more likely to go in court and win, and thus more dangerous.

</comment><comment><USER9> Everyone is following the money, as long as the VC money are concentrated in Silicon Valley, no one is leaving...

</comment><comment><USER10> Yes... but there are plenty of safer homes like Ireland which might suit innovative businesses better.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think the cable guys just awakened the sleeping giant. By making sure they can tighten the screws on Silicon Valley they have spawned out a multitude of startups that will topple them one day. The cable companies make money by making something scarce. They will milk every penny of their investment and give it back to the investors without much reinvesting it back to create cheaper broadband for the masses. Silicon Valley's whole business model is based on cheap access to the internet that's why google Facebook etc is investing so much to connect the third world. I believe they were hedging against net neutrality dying someday. I can't imagine after winning the first battle they took a timeout. The investments in the 3rd world internet may ultimately lead to newer cheaper ways to connect the world. Cabel companies clocks started to run out the day they attacked net neutrality. Let's see how they survive in about 10 years' time.

</comment><comment><USER12> No, net neutrality will leave (some/many?) other countries as well in some form or another.

</comment><comment><USER13> No.

There was no Net Neutrality up until 2015.

Net Neutrality still allows ISPs to sell packages giving you access only to specific websites.

</comment><comment><USER14> I wish it would, but I doubt it.</comment>


Hurt Locker Producers To Sue Thousands of Piraters - <AUTHOR> http://thresq.hollywoodreporter.com/2010/05/hurt-locker-producer-to-sue-pirates.html

<comment><USER2> It's their own fault for being idiots and not actually screening it in cinemas. People who download on bittorrent will almost never pay - they are not your customers. Ignore them.

Your customers will pay, but only if they can. It only screened in a few cities, so it's their own fault for making it impossible for people to pay them.

The movie business is doing really well right now. bittorrent has not had the slightest effect. If your are not making money on a movie it's your own fault - not bittorrent.

<comment><USER3> > It's their own fault for being idiots and not actually screening it in > cinemas

Do you think they really just forgot to screen it?

Or could it instead just be that it's difficult to get broad distribution without a gigantic budget and/or sequel to a safe franchise? Somehow I imagine it was harder for them to get screenings than it was for Iron Man 2.

<comment><USER2> This film was talked about as a prime Oscar candidate for months before the Oscars.

They really can't get distribution for an Oscar film? I doubt that. I think they just miscalculated the timing.

Or they could have sold DVDs _before_ the Oscars. People would have bought them once they won.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> _You cannot make a professional movie in your garage basement using a Mac._

I wonder if a movie shot in 7 days that has made $192 million and had a wide international release counts as "professional": <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal_Activity_(film)>

<comment><USER5> Still, while I liked it very much, I wouldn't want every film to use that same style. It's pretty hard to work without a budget, and in the aggregate, quality will suffer.

<comment><USER4> I suspect if some weird law were passed that said movies could only be made for < $100,000 and had to be sold for $4.99 a pop on iTunes, some very clever and amazing movies would eventually dominate the scene (and our idea of what a "good movie" is would change). Formula 1 racing has sorta thrived on this constant budget and tech limitation process, and yet the cars keep getting faster :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't understand how the person who only happens to be paying the bill to the ISP can be held responsible for anyone using that IP address. If the neighbour's kids come over and hold a LAN gaming party and download a bunch of movies, who broke the law? The guy who let them use his Internet connection?

<comment><USER7> You're welcome to try that argument in court; if you're truly innocent it should work. The alternative sounds like a "get out of jail free" card for copyright infringement (or any other Internet-based crime).

<comment><USER8> I don't understand your "get out of jail free" comment. It's the equivalent of being charged for robbery if someone saw your license plate number on the getaway car. While it seems plausible you could get a search warrant on that basis, unless they have other evidence I don't see how a mere IP possibly could be "beyond reasonable doubt".

<comment><USER9> Not that I'm a lawyer but I believe this will be tried in civil court where the standard of proof is lower than "beyond a reasonable doubt".

<comment><USER10> Just in case anyone is wondering, you need a "preponderance of evidence" in order to win a civil suit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Clearly the WORST news mentioned in this article is that Uwe Boll is still making movies. God help us.

[http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Uwe-Boll-Money-For- Nothi...](http://www.cinemablend.com/features/Uwe-Boll-Money-For- Nothing-209.html)

<comment><USER12> I read a while ago that he's primarily funded by a group of moneyed Germans who need a reliable tax write off. Not sure if it's true or not, but it's entertaining enough to repeat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Because it has worked so well for the music industry.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm confused. They're suing the people who downloaded it when it was leaked five months prior to its official release, or everybody? Tens of thousands is a lot of people to sue.

I hope I wont have to regret running a Tor relay for the past ~year and bridging for China.

<comment><USER15> _I hope I wont have to regret running a Tor relay for the past ~year and bridging for China._

i was subpoenaed and deposed for a civil lawsuit that resulted from a forum post made through my tor exit node. i explained what tor was, that i had no idea who posted it, what was posted, or how to find out who they were. case closed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The movie industry should spend less time on frivolous lawsuits and instead focus on creating a product that people will buy. Piracy is just a convenient scapegoat: it's easier to blame pirates than to admit you did something wrong.

<comment><USER17> In a lot of cases, people already value the product, the issue is with distribution and being able to get their hands on it in a convenient fashion.

There was a recent (albeit not conclusive) study done of 7000 pirates here in Australia which concluded that a majority of people would pay for content if it was made available.

[http://www.news.com.au/technology/download- culture/internet-...](http://www.news.com.au/technology/download- culture/internet-pirates-say-theyd-pay-for-legal-downloads/story- fn58oolp-1225863187697)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Assuming this legal action succeeds, what's to stop it becoming business as usual?

If it does become business as usual, it's highly unlikely that the makers of low-volume films - who seem to be the ones starting it all off - will be the major beneficiaries...

</comment><comment><USER19> The biggest thing I took from this article was in reading the comments: the site auto-refreshes!!! People are typing in a comment and BAM the site reloads and they lose their comment. Talk about a shitty design decision....

</comment><comment><USER20> I have a hard time seeing this being followed through with. Are they going to personally sue 10k people? I would guess that they just want a few hundred people to settle for a couple thousand dollars and call it a day.

<comment><USER21> If they get victory in a test case (IP address + BitTorrent tracker records + hurtlocker.zip = piracy), they can move for summary judgment against other infringers on the same basis.

<comment><USER20> Interesting.</comment></comment></comment>


Crawl | Powerhoof - <AUTHOR> http://www.powerhoof.com/crawl/

<comment><USER2> That's an awesome concept. Games this like get me closer and closer to building a steambox.</comment>


How to win with an online store (hint: don't sell things available on Amazon) - <AUTHOR> http://www.gettingmoreawesome.com/2011/01/how-squishable-wins-online.html

<comment><USER2> "Their product is something that Amazon doesn't sell. It is unique and different."

So surely they're creators of a product _first_ , an online store _second_.

<comment><USER3> Seems to me the product here is the "plush toy experience." It involves buying plush toys while participating in a plush toy community. Even if Amazon isn't selling the plush toys today, presumably it could do it tomorrow, and at cheaper prices. But it will be a lot harder for Amazon to replicate the community, and that is how this site can compete with a 900-lb. gorilla.

<comment><USER4> They are also selling a brand. People buy Sony (I'd say Apple, but then the OS clouds the issue) laptops because they like the brand. Reputation, good configurations, good quality ... you guys know what a good brand should be.

One way to build a brand is to build a web store. You lose Amazon's distribution, payment systems, data-mining, and visibility; but you gain more brand recognition. You could also sell on Amazon, but that will take people away from your site which may mean your brand loses it's uniqueness.

Face it, if you don't have a good brand and you are selling anything that can be made in China, you can't expect any margins. Wallmart and Amazon will sell the same thing cheaper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like Squishables site, and I love stuffed animals, so I really wanted to love my Squishable cow.

But it's kind of an impractical stuffed animal. Hard to hug, takes up a lot of shelf space and falls off a lot. Not quite as cute as I'd hoped. Though I got my mom the giant squishable moose, and she loves it, even though the dogs are terrified of it.

I'm especially a fan of how they make it seem like it's okay for adults to love stuffed animals. So I'd order from them again, if they come out with some less rotund animals.

<comment><USER6> FWIW, I just bought the giant cow beanbag[1] for my seven year old niece. She _loves_ it (sleeps with it, carries it room to room with her).

[1] [http://www.squishable.com/pc/giant_beanbag_cow/Squishable_Wa...](http://www.squishable.com/pc/giant_beanbag_cow/Squishable_Wardrobe/Giant+Squishable+Beanbag+Cow)

<comment><USER5> I hadn't seen that, it looks like they're moving into lots of different types of offerings. I'll have to look around the site some more, since my brothers have started providing me with nephews.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Those photos of people holding their giant panda while pumping gas do not make me feel comfortable or normal about buying a giant stuffed panda.

</comment><comment><USER8> So the point is to make your own brand, sell it on your own site and then when the big A comes calling ----- continue selling to them and on your own site ??? and make a killing? I have been approached by Amazon before about selling my products. They are a distribution channel like anyone else. And they WILL take your product and do it themselves if they think they can profit at it. I personally know a guy that had one of his best niche sellers (but still kind of a commodity) on Amazon get picked up by Amazon themselves. Poof. There went 60% of his sales. So be aware if you have a commodity. If you have a brand name - like these guys - then embrace the Amazon ecosystem and hold on to your hats. You will get lots of orders. Some manufacturers I know say that the big A can be 8-10% of their sales.

<comment><USER9> I've heard the same complaint from a client, adding products to Amazon, and having them taken over.. Definitely a risk to consider when giving a potential competitor all your sales statistics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here's my recipe: 1) own the product or the rights to the product - stay away from commodities 2) sell something with low inventory costs and low shipping costs. Digital goods are the best. 3) sell something in the price point above $50 but below $500. 4) get good at seo and adwords 5) try and get featured in blogs and magazines 6) ??? 7) profit!

</comment><comment><USER11> Squishables has good customer service too. The nose on the hedgehog I bought for my girlfriend torn. I emailed them and they just sent a brand new one (and replied in their absurd but nonetheless amusing cutesy speak they use throughout the site) No need to send back the old one (though I'm sure that's because you can't resale a used stuffed animal anyway but it sure does make things nicer). It was all very pleasant.

</comment><comment><USER12> Does anyone else get an "advertisement" vibe from the dearth of content in the article?

</comment><comment><USER13> "...You probably never heard of them..."

Define "win" :)

<comment><USER14> I believe win for many would be to quit their job and work for themselves instead. You know.. Bunting to get to first instead of going for the grand slam. I can see how you can bunt against Amazon and make it to first. Hitting a grand slam? Not so much.

And selling squishy thingies is optional.

<comment><USER13> I would accept that definition. But I can't tell if the owners of squishable have accomplished that.

<comment><USER15> Considering their clientele is passionate enough to send in video and photos of them doing ridiculous poses with their squishable toys (and adults, no less) shows that they do have a fanbase. The only other places that I know of that has such outwardly passionate users is Threadless, who last I heard they were making around US$40 Million a year selling t-shirts that they didn't even design themselves; and ThinkGeek, which makes about 80 Million selling geegaws and doodads for geeks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Another way would be to do what newegg has done and build a deeper system of filtering than amazon. There is no way I can filter certain components on amazon that are common place on newegg.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm not seeing the win here. I think it's not a very compelling product. The message may be that they are so good at doing the store that they have been able to sell the product despite the significant downsides:

1\. Small market for adult stuffed animals. 2\. Rather high price. 3\. Large variety of product probably drives up costs.

If you can sell ice cubes to Eskimos, that's great for your marketing department, you'd do even better with a better product.

</comment><comment><USER18> I'd rather have 10% of $10 million in sales, than 100% of $500k in sales.

<comment><USER19> Since the product is made in China, I'm inclined to agree with you. Get a few more Chinese factories to produce the item and start selling in volume with retail partners.

If it were a artisan-made item with a limited monthly production output, then going the exclusive (and increasingly higher-priced) route might be the better option.

edit: typo

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> "How to win ... (hint get your unique product on Amazon)"</comment>


Show HN: My weekend hack project, Appload.io, get your app's first 1k users - <AUTHOR> http://appload.io/a/

<comment><USER2> Not a terrible idea probably, but sophisticated users might be put off by the popup signup.

I don't care enough yet about your service to give you my personal information OR to even bother disabling Javascript which I assume defeats the popup.

Let me poke around without signing anything.

<comment><USER3> I simply clicked "I'm already registered" link and the pop-up was gone!

Note: I didn't register.

<comment><USER2> I noticed that later. But the first time I visited, I got really annoyed at the popup, then looked for a red X, didn't see one, and left angry.

Only came back because this is on Hacker News and the meta discussion is interesting. The service itself is dead to me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> When your site uses one of those in-window popups, I immediately hit the back button.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. Is it that you think it is intrusive?

<comment><USER5> Personally I find that kind of experience intrusive. I do like the idea though, but what happens after? Do I get to keep the app? Do I get upgrades to an app? I take it the users who are early adopters are also free testers to some degree.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You my friend, are on to something...

Great idea, nice design, I'll keep poking at it and let you know if I can break anything.

</comment><comment><USER7> Popup seems to be missing a close button, so I can not even see what kind of apps you deem to be "premium". Also the word "premium" lights a red light in my brain that means "scam".

Not saying you are a scammer, just saying what my internal bayesian classifier has learned about "premium".

</comment><comment><USER8> I'm not exactly sure why it's not simply iPhone vs Android. It's not like "HTC" and "Samsung" often have apps that will work on one but not the other. At first I didn't even realize that you did have Android apps, because "Motorola" can be older java-based phones, "Nokia" can be a black and white flip-phone... Not exactly obvious at first glance.

So yeah, just say "iPhone" "iPad" and "Android". Hell, remove the drop-down and make it a logo that you select instead, that should be even easier.

</comment><comment><USER9> Wow, thats really something. The problem that apps face: to gain visibility in the first week.

This solves it. Would love to see an article on the backstory of how the idea struck you.

</comment><comment><USER10> Don't upvote submissions like this. Since when is it OK to collect personal information before I've had a chance to evaluate the site? Flagged.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the comment. I didn't expect people to be so bothered by the popup. I will remove it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I must be missing something. I've tried clicking on "Steamscope", billed as a free download, but it opens iTunes and lists the app as $0.99

</comment><comment><USER12> How do the mechanics of it work? Is it to sort of thing where the app is technically free now but will eventually switch to paid?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes exactly. For iOS this seems to be the only way right now. Would be much cooler if they could implement a couponing system.

Then we could be Groupon for apps (Appoun?) :)

<comment><USER3> Have you tried <http://www.appsumo.com>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Has potential, but like others stated. Remove that popup asap.</comment>


Facebook off to faltering public start - <AUTHOR> http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c7bfd916-a113-11e1-9fbd-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1vFjXMxYl <comment><USER2> You can't read without a subscription or something?

Either way, I read about this somewhere else and I think it's true about the underwriters. I just watched the FB stock go down to 38.00, and then immediately went to 38.01 and a bit more (38.07 right now). It will probably fall under 38 by closing time, unless they can maintain it there by then.

<comment><USER3> Just before close there was a bid at 38.00 for 9.6 million shares. [source: [http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1d&s=FB&l=on&z=l...](http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1d&s=FB&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=&ql=1&c=^GSPC)]

Someone is definitely propping up the stock today.</comment></comment>


Reduced Vitamin K Status as a Modifiable Prognostic Risk Factor in Covid-19 - <AUTHOR> https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202004.0457/v2 <comment><USER2> Their recommendation is that a future trial should test _whether_ this treatment possibility shows any change on infected patients in controlled settings:

"A trial should assess whether increasing MGP and protein S activity by vitamin K administration improves Covid-19 outcomes."

It is unknown if this helps or not - they are simply noting that the data encourages human testing.

As with all Covid preprint science, do _not_ begin taking dietary supplements after reading a preprint headline or conclusion.

<comment><USER3> _do not begin taking dietary supplements after reading a preprint headline or conclusion._

If I wasn't already taking them (adding C and D for good measure), I would start right now. One thing is chloroquine with its risky side effects (and it seems useles after all) and another very different thing is a vitamin supplement that's good for your health anyway.

<comment><USER2> Your advice is unsafe without the context necessary to avoid harming oneself when adding or changing dietary supplementation. While you may understand that context, your flat declaration that "vitamin supplements are good" is plainly wrong without significant disclaimers that you did not include.

Vitamin K, as with other vitamins, can conflict with other medications, and therefore could result in an increased chance of harm or death to someone who takes it because "vitamin supplements are good for your health anyways" without understanding those risks. For example, one list of contraindications from a random Internet result lists:

> ... _antacids, blood thinners, antibiotics, aspirin_ ... _drugs for cancer, > seizures, high cholesterol_ ...

Covid-19 is theorized to disrupt blood clotting in the body, and Vitamin K influences blood clotting in the body, so of course there's something worth studying here. But if the results are that Vitamin K supplementation increases harmful Covid-19 clotting, then more people will die from Covid simply because they took Vitamin K after reading a headline in the news.

<comment><USER3> I'm not giving _advice_ , you are, and in absolute terms. I just told what I'm doing.

And... come on, I'm not a medical publication, or someone writing a label for a prescription drug, but a individual in an online forum taking issue with your previous dismissive comment.

Of course you need to research what you take, of course you need to look for maximum doses. Everyone needs to understand this because vitamins are otc, you can buy them through Amazon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Great. Now my grocery store is going to be sold out of carrots.

<comment><USER5> More like spinach and broccoli.

<comment><USER4> Ah, right. I was confusing Vitamin K with beta-carotine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Notice they refer to comorbidity from ageing and vascular calcification and thus the importance of K2. Good sources are dairy or, if you are vegan, natto! It's a (stinky) K2 MK-7 bomb [1].

PS: the formatting from hell? preprint looks like a web page printed out by internet explorer 5...

[1] - see "Menaquinone Content of Cheese" (includes comparison with natto) [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946231/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5946231/)</comment>


Rules for Radicals  - <AUTHOR> http://www.scribd.com/doc/31554188/10-Rules-for-Radicals

<comment><USER2> This has some really great war stories about getting the government to make its information available online. Very much worth reading.

I do find the scribd interface annoying: put the toolbar at the top of the page, don't try to get all my Facebook information, and no, I don't feel like joining another social network.

Note to scribd: your PDF translator lost two pages out of the middle of this document: I had to download the PDF to read them.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. It feels more like trying to get through to a Rapidshare file than anything.</comment></comment>


ASK: Slack Stats DM vs. Public vs. Private – Whats It Mean? - <AUTHOR> I started doing a bit of analysis on how we are using slack and found that we have the following usage
Total Messages 80% public channels, 4% private channels, 17% DMs
I compared this to a client team we also have access to and noticed they have
Total Messages 12% public channels, 11% private channels, 77% DMs
While I'm sure there are a ton of ways to use and think about using slack , we all took notice that the DM ratio is so high meaning that most of the conversation is private between team members.
Since this is a metric I don't know what to do with I thought I would ask what sort of numbers other people have. <comment><AUTHOR> I sent this same message to SLACK directly and got back an interesting reply.

"Very interesting indeed! While I don't have specific numbers to provide to you, I can say with confidence that the way your team is using Slack is how we intended it to be used. Because one of the benefits of Slack involves being able to access the team's conversations, we recommend keeping conversations in public channels as much as possible."

Still really curious what some of you in the wild are seeing. Thx!</comment>


Ask HN: Clever ways to handle API access but avoid signup? - <AUTHOR> I'm working on an API to make it easier to try/adopt a certain technology.
I want to reduce friction and barriers to try the API. I would like to avoid forcing the developer to sign up to get an API key.
Current ideas is to allow a developer to create there own API key on the first request, treating it like a secret.
However it would be good to have a way to contact the developer via email.
What are clever ways you've seen to reduce friction when trying an API? <comment><USER2> Reducing friction is a good idea but I would argue that asking folks to generate and send you a secret is likely the same amount as them getting an API key that you generate for them. You'll also run into uncertainties in secret key formats that are used by disparate clients.

If you really want to: One alternative would be to generate a random JWT while the developers are on the website and ask them to secure a given JWT by adding their email, doing on boarding that way.

Addendum: In terms of reducing friction, if this is going to be a paid API, I would suggest adding a free tier that allows N requests before you either rate limit or cut off, and send an email to ask for a conversion

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm.. you're right that it might introduce uncertainty about key formats, allowed chars/length etc.

I'd like to avoid JWTs and use the simplicity of "Basic" (username/password)... but borrowing your idea I could generate it clientside on the website? Enter email and immediately display a API key (base64 of email+random secret/guid) that is stored ("activated") when the first API call hits the server.

If you try to call the API with same email but different secret, it's 401.

It's indeed going to have a free tier with throttling. A paid tier with other rate limits and some premium features might come down the road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You could require (or just request, if wanted) a "From" header in the HTTP request, perhaps, if you want to contact the user via email.</comment>


Turkey Extends Purge to Universities, Asking All Deans to Go - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-07-19/turkey-extends-purge-to-universities-asking-all-deans-to-go <comment><USER2> This to me again pushes the question when it's OK to overthrow a democratically elected government. All western governments and even the Turkish opposition came out against the coup because it was "undemocratic". However, I believe there is definitely a line somewhere that a democratically elected government cannot cross without losing legitimacy and making a coup the right thing to do regardless of the remaining popular support. Had Erdogan crossed that line? If so, what was that line? If he didn't cross it what would be that line.

I'm sure we all can agree that there is such s line since we probably all can agree that Hitler crossed it although I'm not sure in his case where exactly that line was either. Maybe when he dismantled the parliament? Maybe earlier?

<comment><USER3> Hitler was democratically elected. If you oppose any coup that's undemocratic, then you necessarily have to oppose the attempted coups against Hitler. Hitler had great support among his people, even after he dismantled Parliament. After all, he was a strong leader for his country, and his people liked that, just like the Turkish people love Erdogan for the same.

As for as crossing a line, because he was democratically elected, there's two lines to cross: 1) when he makes death camps and starts gassing large numbers of his own people (probably minorities like the Kurds, or various secularists), and 2) when he invades some other country.

In WWII, other nations only finally did something after Germany invaded too many countries (they gave him a pass on Poland, saying "we'll have peace in our time!" by appeasing him). They didn't care about the death camps, until after they defeated Germany and then decided to punish them for those. Just like they didn't care about the genocide in Rwanda.

I imagine the situation with Turkey will be much the same.

<comment><USER4> >They didn't care about the death camps, until after they defeated Germany and then decided to punish them for those.

The allies didn't know about the death camps until 1942. They were already at war with Germany in 1942, and they issued a public condemnation of Hitler's attempt to exterminate the Jewish race at the end of that year.

>Hitler was democratically elected.

He wasn't elected, he was appointed Chancellor then used violence and intimidation to rise to power. Only about 1/3 of the population supported the Nazis in the elections before 1933. Later after the Reichstag fire, the government enacted emergency measures limiting left wing opposition parties and arrested many communist leaders. You can't call anything that happened after that a free and open election.

<comment><USER5> The death camps also targeted e.g homosexuals, which the allies were fine with. The allies didn't have any moral objection to the death camps, only against them being used for certain classes of people (e.g. jews).

<comment><USER4> The allies weren't "fine with it". Homosexuals made up a small percentage of the total people in death camps, and the vast majority of the allies weren't even aware of them until the liberation.

Homosexual survivors were treated horribly because homosexuality was still a crime in Germany and most of the Allied countries after WWII. But the western allies weren't "fine" with systematically exterminating homosexuals or any other group--as evidenced by the fact that they ended the practice.

<comment><USER5> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175#Historical_overv...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175#Historical_overview)

The allies discovered a bunch of gays locked up in concentration camps under a 1935 Nazi-enacted law, didn't repel that article similarly to e.g. laws against Jews when WWII ended and supported their re-imprisonment, nor did they make their times in the concentration camps count against their "crimes".

Granted saying they were "fine with it" might be a bit of an exaggeration. But I don't think it's unreasonable in the face of historical evidence to think that the concentration camps would have been treated vastly differently by the allies if the only prisoners were homosexuals, given how the allies treated those prisoners upon their release.

Which I think goes to show that the allied forces didn't have an intrinsic objection to what went on in the concentration camps, they just minded the target audience the Nazis picked.

<comment><USER4> Not legalizing homosexuality isn't the same having no intrinsic objection to exterminating homosexuals.

>they just minded the target audience the Nazis picked

This makes no sense. Most of the allied countries had a long history of antisemitism. If anything, targeting the Jews should have made it less objectionable.

No, I think they objected to killing millions of men, women, and children, using a horrific modern factory style process. No normal human (who wasn't slowly conditioned to accept it) who saw the result of those concentration camp could possibly have no intrinsic objection. The visceral reaction to seeing the bodies and the emaciated survivors would be the same whether the victims were Jewish or homosexual.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Punish the smartest of your population and good luck creating an economy that is built on any form of scientific progress. Utter sadness to watch a man destroy a country so he can consolidate power while destroying that which he wants power over.

</comment><comment><USER7> Atatürk must be turning in his grave. Can any Turks comment on this whole thing?

EDIT: from DominikR, it seems the Turkish government is encouraging others to report online posts of anti-government sentiment. Be careful to post anonymously if you are willing to post from within Turkey.

<comment><USER8> We were first confused about why coup was incredibly terrible. Starting it with a tank on the Istanbul bridge instead of easily picking up Erdogan from the hotel he is staying in a vacation town; Not destroying Erdogan's palace; Doing some symbolic things on prime time hours instead of 2am; Having no direction or aim other than making some show with tanks and airplanes.

Now, it is very clear to everyone that it was a fake coup. So that Erdogan can do his regime change without getting any resistance. Anyone who is against is a coup supporter and will be dumped to tens of thousands of people on the prisons, after getting beaten up by Islamist running around.

One of the significant changes he has made was to make mosques a part of the new regime. Mosques are now doing they have never done since the establishment of republic 90 years ago. The mosques are now constantly making announcement and telling Erdogan's people to "go outside and hunt coup supporters for the love of god".

A civil war has started but we don't know it yet. I hope I am wrong.

<comment><USER2> What happens if there is no civil war? The bad guys win without a civil war?

<comment><USER9> the winners write blurbs in their history books about how they squashed the rebellion of unsophisticated farmers

<comment><USER10> Except in this case the ruling party's base is largely "unsophisticated farmers".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sadly, this could have been avoided 20-15 years ago when Turkey was pretty liberal and aproaching the EU. This has been the biggest mistake of the EU history: letting the right declare it a christian club, and thus losing both a moderate islamic country and a bridge to the middle east.

Erdogan understood long ago that Turkey would never be accepted in the EU (even with big pressure coming from USA and UK) and has used the EU membership as a bargaining chip.

Now the membership option is openly dead, and Erdogan can proceed with his fundamentalist agenda.

Also, having been clearly betrayed by EU and OTAN in this military coup, he really has nothing to worry about anymore. Turkey will be out of NATO soon, and it will become a Russia ally.

What a blunder the west is playing: only 25 years after the URSS collapse, and instead of integrating Russia into the global institucions, the USA decided to proffit the strategic advantage to expand and provoke. We have managed to turn the possibility of true global integration, collaboration and progress into a new cold (actually warm and soon hot) war.

<comment><USER12> What on Earth are you talking about. Let's presume you are right and Turkey wasn't being kept out for things like, oh as another pointed out, an occupation of Turkey and Cyprus, how does blocking them from joining the EU make them less moderate? Does the EU have magic dust that effects religious outcomes?

<comment><USER13> Indeed, Hungary shows the EU's magic dust has little to no ability to induce moderation.

<comment><USER14> Well, we don't know what would have happened if Hungary wasn't a Member State.

<comment><USER13> It doesn't matter, since the topic was whether being a member state ensures moderation.

<comment><USER11> It doesn't, but it can help. Anyway, in case of Hungary, they have already been warned by the EU a couple of times. Time will tell how this evolves, but weakening the project as UK has done will for sure reduce the incentives to return to a more moderate path.

These free-market types, they are really wreaking the world. The 1% capitalism we have reached is putting a death sign in the fundamentalist market ideology, but they are for sure going down with a bang.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _" Democracy is like a tram. You use it to get to you destination, and then you get off"_ \- Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

The West was seriously duped by this guy. I remember The Economist's self- deluded/deceitful decade-long, apologetic editorial line, never letting a mention of the islamist AKP go unqualified with the adjective "mildly" (read: "market friendly"), and it is ironic that one of the most effective Brexit camp scare tactics was Turkish EU accession, when it was Britain under Blair and Cameron who were the most vociferous advocates of the policy in the first place.

The fix is in. This "coup" is a transparent manipulation by Erdogan so that he might grab absolute power. Who knows what havoc he will now wreak in the region, and in Europe, with it.

<comment><USER16> He made GDP go up.

The West has also spent the past decade and a half fawning over the genius of the Chinese Communist Party and the PLA for the same reason. Look into their glorious human rights record, or the level of inequality there for that matter. Makes the USA look like an egalitarian utopia.

Dubai is another one. Look at those skyscrapers! What a dynamic economy! Never mind the slave labor and the caste system.

I'd throw Singapore in too. They're nowhere near as bad as the PLA or Dubai in practice but they are essentially totalitarian at heart. But the numbers look good and the streets are clean so it's okay.

Side note:

One thing that's disillusioned me about libertarianism is that the past 30-ish years of history seem to have proven that capitalism and economic health are _absolutely_ compatible with totalitarianism. IMHO the Randian notion that the two are at odds and that a dynamic economy requires freedom and justice has been empirically proven wrong. Slave states work. GDP goes up. What's not to like?

<comment><USER17> >Slave states work. GDP goes up. What's not to like?

They work when they're sitting on a mountain of oil, or Singapore's equivalent: a shipping bottleneck. Sort-of, at some point corruption becomes intolerable, or the oil runs out (or becomes too cheap to pay for the oppression).

That said, the Singapore comparison may be a little far-fetched, they resemble the West far more than the totalitarian Middle East states.

<comment><USER18> Pretty sure Singapore gives the death penalty to drug dealers. Maybe even drug users, but I do know at some point the minimum punishment for any drug dealing was death.

<comment><USER19> You're going to have to provide a _lot_ more than that one example to show me that Singapore is a "totalitarian" state. Just recently the entire State of Louisiana's "Justice" system was shown to be in cahoots with the private prison industry, for example. And judging by the "Making a Murderer" documentary, our entire judicial process resembles a totalitarian police state circus _much_ more than any other developed nation. Singapore is a "totalitarian" state? Fine, by your standards, the US is a 2nd rate Banana Republic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It is clear to me that the West wanted Erdogan gone (for good reasons) although I'm not insinuating that the US had any part in the failed coup.

But after these extensive purges it will be basically impossible to remove the elite that rose with Erdogan for the next decades, of that much I'm sure.

History has shown again and again that purges are a cruel but still extremely effective tool. After this there will be no opposition left.

I even expect that Turkey will leave NATO within the next years and get closer to Russia/China/Iran.

</comment><comment><USER21> Asking?

Also, I didn't know about this, but I guess I should be prepared for even more of it:

> President Recep Tayyip Erdogan clashed with academics earlier this year, > when more than 1,000 of them signed a petition calling for peace in the > southeast and criticizing the government's handling of the state's long- > running battle with its Kurdish population centered there. Many ended up on > trial, while others lost their jobs.

<comment><USER22> "Plomo o plata" is still technically a choice you're "asking" someone to make, and I don't get the sense that protection against coercion is a big thing right now for old Recep.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The only upside of Turkey overtly collapsing is that nobody will be able to pretend anymore there are real examples of functioning Muslim democracies.

Pretty sad, given what it used to be.

<comment><USER11> This is a catastrophe! If muslims do not make it into the modern era, what are the alternatives?

We can not build walls between blocks, so perpetual war is the only answer.

Losing Turkey is even worse than losing the UK - and both are probably connected: Turkey is abusing a weakened EU.

Collaboration and compromise is falling apart: welcome to BoJo's future, where everything is a trade and people have no rights.

<comment><USER14> I think the loss of civil liberties in Poland are worse than any kind of Brexit in a sense. Though both signal a fucked up populace. Just as submitting to a supernatural being that so far provided 0 bit of its existence.

Eventually things will have to give. Navigating our increasingly global, complex, many-faceted, and all in all stranger world requires firm roots in rationality, of course, only if one wants to really get somewhere not just hide from the hard problems of life.

So far, it seems, we have billions of people very much reluctant to face this reality. Fighting tooth and nail against every kind of revelation, instead butchering reality to make it fit to their worldview.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is a particularly bad sign, and one that seems to support the worst fears about the future of Turkey. Ousting judges and other powerful figures in the government and military makes a certain ruthless sense, but intellectual purges seem to always be the ultimate canary in the social coalmine.

<comment><USER24> Working on reintroducing the death penalty is another.

Its saddening to see how the large secular part of the population that has no desire to live in an Islamic state has little recourse but to keep quiet and hope nobody points a finger in their direction.

<comment><USER16> ... or leave.

The USA and Europe should welcome them. The American Century was in many ways built on brain drain from totalitarian regimes. When Germany went insane we got quite a bit of the cream of the crop of German intellectuals including many of history's greatest physicists, the Bauhaus School of design, etc.

<comment><USER25> > ... or leave.

You're assuming a country that broken won't also prevent emigration, _and_ that everyone who wants to leave has the means to leave.

<comment><USER10> > won't also prevent emigration

Preventing emigration is rare for non-Soviet-descended governments, even the most authoritarian ones. Most governments are pretty happy when dissidents leave.

> has the means to leave

Not everyone, but as the Syrian and Afghan refugees that were formerly pouring out of Turkey illustrate, if you are in decent health, have 2 feet and have a way of acquiring sustenance along your way, you don't need much means to leave. Most people are kept back by attachments to community and property, not a lack of means.

<comment><USER26> > and have a way of acquiring sustenance along your way

Aye, there's the rub...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Viktor Orbán's Hungarian dream! In his case he doesn't even have a majority, simply a plurality. But it was enough to purge the press and neuter the judiciary.

And if you haven't read it, this is a timely read: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It_Can%27t_Happen_Here)

</comment><comment><USER28> Imagine to sit in such a parliament, and the vote for the reintroduction of the death penalty comes up. Do you vote for it? If you don't vote for it- you surely get on El presidents list. If you vote for it, you might get on that list... later. Imagine one would send out a fake "purge" list with nearly everyone in parliament on it. Robespierre rule ended that way.

Thus the Madman, enters his final stage.

</comment><comment><USER29> Soon, it will be known that Galatasaray was behind the coup too.

</comment><comment> sa-mao This entire thread and the common trends in western media makes me think that Turkey will be soon destroyed, and will be joining other failed countries. Clearly not by raw force since this military coup failed to achieve his goals. I will always be amazed how the west manage to slaughter third world countries and still has political support from the people.

<comment><USER30> Your last sentence has an implied assumption that 'third world countries' have no independent agency, that their success or failure is derived primarily from 'the West'.

Isn't it possible that the more direct cause of success or failure are the circumstances and choices made by the people within these countries?

<comment> sa-mao What you are saying is definitely true. People in third world countries made over the past many bad decisions, and I think that is mostly due to the lack of education, and an absence of honorable ruling class. But still the west is playing a big role in that matter too. those countries are still maintaining bad influence over their colonies or areas of interest. Draining at the same time human and financial wealth crucial for these countries to rise as decent nations. Mallence give an interesting talk on that matter [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pvNp9gHjfk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pvNp9gHjfk)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Pol Pot also didn't like the intellectuals. In general, the intelligentsia is always troublesome for Despots. They're usually one of the first groups to be purged.

Turkey is firmly bent on following Iran's lead.

Ladies and Gentlemen - Ayatollah Supreme Leader Sultan Erdogan I, The Glorious, The Ever-Wise, Founder of the Modern Islamic Republic of Turkey!

</comment><comment><USER21> How is this story so popular yet already fallen off the front page after 2 hours?

<comment><USER31> Any time comments outnumber upvotes, a "flamewar" detector is triggered, and the discussion drops off the front page.

<comment><USER21> Seems potentially useful in some cases but overall obvious as to how it would garner false positives. Basically limits things to 1 comment per person who upvoted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Erdoğan has been pushing primary education in Turkey to become more Islamic. Is this part of that?

Turkey may be headed down the Islamic rathole. No country with an Islamic education system is very successful, because Islamic education doesn't teach useful skills. Some of the oil states survive by bringing in outsiders to do the work, but that only lasts until the oil runs out. Then they become failed states like Egypt and Syria.

<comment><USER33> > Islamic education doesn't teach useful skills.

I can't speak to the quality (or lack thereof) of Islamic education. But I feel this generally holds true for any _fundamentalist religion_ -based education.

<comment><USER34> Jesuit education manages to be good.

<comment><USER33> I qualified my post with "fundamentalist" for that reason. Catholic schools (in the US) tend to be far from fundamentalist. They still have a religious component, but my experience has been that they generally refrain from introducing that into their science and history classes to any great extent.

<comment><USER3> Catholicism, for all its many faults, is not a fundamentalist religion. There's no conflict between their theology and the scientific method, evolution, etc. It's various Protestant sects that are fundamentalist and deny evolution, think dinosaurs were on Noah's Ark, etc.

<comment><USER35> ... is not ANY LONGER a fundamentalist religion ...

it's almost like it takes a 1000 years, give or take, for a religion to blow off its steam and become reasonably peaceful.

<comment><USER3> I don't think Catholicism could ever have been called a fundamentalist religion. It isn't completely based on one holy book (the Bible), it's _always_ integrated other sources and teachings, such as the bit about Popes being infallible when making certain proclamations. As such, it's always evolving as a religion. Even more, Catholicism has always taken the stance that the Bible isn't something to be read and interpreted by regular people, and that only Church authorities can really interpret it correctly, which is why they always kept Masses in Latin and never translated the Bible to other languages. This was one of the issues in the Protestant Reformation, and why the King James Bible was such an important book at the time: it was the first time commoners were able to read it in their own language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> In the name of the general welfare, to protect the people's security, to achieve full equality and total stability, it is decreed for the duration of the national emergency that:

Point One. All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail. The penalty shall be determined by the Unification Board, such Board to be appointed by the Bureau of Economic Planning and National Resources. All persons reaching the age of twenty-one shall report to the Unification Board, which shall assign them to where, in its opinion, their services will best serve the interests of the nation.

Point Two. All industrial, commercial, manufacturing and business establishments of any nature whatsoever shall henceforth remain in operation, and the owners of such establishments shall not quit nor leave nor retire, nor close, sell or transfer their business, under penalty of the nationalization of their establishment and of any and all of their property.

Point Three. All patents and copyrights, pertaining to any devices, inventions, formulas, processes and works of any nature whatsoever, shall be turned over to the nation as a patriotic emergency gift by means of Gift Certificates to be signed voluntarily by the owners of all such patents and copyrights. The Unification Board shall then license the use of such patents and copyrights to all applicants, equally and without discrimination, for the purpose of eliminating monopolistic practices, discarding obsolete products and making the best available to the whole nation. No trademarks, brand names or copyrighted titles shall be used. Every formerly patented product shall be known by a new name and sold by all manufacturers under the same name, such name to be selected by the Unification Board. All private trademarks and brand names are hereby abolished.

Point Four. No new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever, not now on the market, shall be produced, invented, manufactured or sold after the date of this directive. The Office of Patents and Copyrights is hereby suspended.

<comment><USER6> This would work. I don't understand why people shrug away these types of ideas.

EDIT: This was an ironic statement meant to reference Atlas Shrugged. I'm sure most people caught it, but its definitely interesting to see how primed up people are to voice an opinion. Its a good thing, if you take your time to understand what the other person has said. I believe is this a great representation of what is currently happening on both the left and right. People go straight for their opinions and demonize others without taking the brief moment to listen and think.

<comment><USER37> > All workers, wage earners and employees of any kind whatsoever shall > henceforth be attached to their jobs and shall not leave nor be dismissed > nor change employment, under penalty of a term in jail.

So if you're a doctor but actually discover one day you'd much rather be a musician and actually you eventually hate being a doctor, you just have to suck it up?

Sounds like Point Four needs to be extended far beyond "no new devices, inventions, products, or goods of any nature whatsoever" to include "no new ideas, thoughts, emotions, or any cognitive state of any nature whatsoever" to get the kind of static state they're seeking.

<comment><USER38> Also, how do you operate the world's largest prisons without hiring additional wardens and guards?

 _So if you 're a doctor but actually discover one day you'd much rather be a musician and actually you eventually hate being a doctor,_ but you do not suck it up, be a musician, and you may need to learn to keep yourself in prison.

I started with wardens, but the whole ecosystem would cause a chain reaction that would just cause extreme disorder.

I keep thinking and more ridiculous scenarios pop-up in my mind but I don't want to ruin the potentially fun game of finding them for everyone else.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Vigilante Manifesto - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@CrimeNoMore/vigilante-manifesto-e665696a4ebb#.82wc9fo30 <comment><USER2> The lens of a camera cannot lie, but video editing can.

In the spirit of trying new ideas, I think this is definitely an interesting one. I think it will be interesting to see how the public responds to this.

That said, I see a couple of things happening: 1) Most people will not care about this, nor use it. Human apathy is pretty powerful, and I don't mean that in a bad way. I think the majority of us are happy going about our own lives, and don't really want to upset that order. If a crime is happening, I don't think a lot of people will react to it, especially like in the video.

2) A small percentage of people will react, but that's probably not what you want in a situation like this. In emergency response, the number one thing they drill into you is to ensure the area is safe and secure. Paramedics will not render aid to a person if it means they could be harmed themselves. It's useless to have the paramedic injured as well as the victim(s).

LEO and emergency personnel are trained to respond to these situations, and are paid to put their lives on the line. Adding other citizens to the mix is dangerous and irresponsible. I understand that Vigilante is only encouraging people to record what's happening, but even that act is dangerously provocative.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting idea, and I likely have outlined the same kneejerk reaction that most would have to this, and I could very well be wrong. I think this type of app would work best in larger situations like at protests or more open public spaces. Situations like those in the video probably won't happen often, and probably would have the issues I brought up. But then, how is Vigilante different from folks just posting videos on FB Live, Twitter/Periscope, etc.?

<comment><USER3> > LEO and emergency personnel are trained to respond to these situations, and > are paid to put their lives on the line.

The keyword here is paid. We need more market forces in policing. It needs to be easier to fire bad actors and promote the good ones.

<comment><USER4> Actually, training is a pretty important word there too...

We can debate about the quality of current training standards for certain case types, but on balance, I think it's hard to dispute that many situations need the expertise of trained first responders (paid or unpaid). More people on scene doesn't always make things better. Without thinking about the specific problems this is meant to solve and working to enable solutions, this app can be just as dangerously bad as it tries to be good.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We released a blog post and video to explain more about the vision behind the app: [https://medium.com/@CrimeNoMore/vigilante- manifesto-e665696a...](https://medium.com/@CrimeNoMore/vigilante- manifesto-e665696a4ebb)

<comment><USER6> Your claim about 2015 murder rates seems to be fear-mongering, from where I stand. The murder rate nationally is at a 51 year low, even with the 2015 uptick[1].

What exactly is the aim here? Your question "Could we restore trust between law enforcement and community" doesn't seem to be answered in the post, and the implication that your app could do this seems dubious.

Is you aim to get people to flock to 911 calls and film them? That seems like what the post is driving at, but never directly says.

[1][https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year- low](https://mises.org/blog/fbi-us-homicide-rate-51-year-low)

<comment><USER5> We debated whether to leave those statistics in, even though we're citing major sources. You can look at these statistics from different angles.

Our main point is that there is still a real and often growing problem with violent crime, especially in the communities we're working with. Many people still feel very unsafe and are looking for solutions.

We've gotten a lot of positive feedback both from police and civilians. People are excited to see a tech company trying to help, and they have told us they feel safer when others are recording the scene in a peaceful and unbiased way. During our beta tests we had users help deter crime, break up fights, and support their neighbors.

<comment><USER6> >Our main point is that there is still a real and often growing problem with violent crime

That's just it though, the data do not support this claim. The general trend is decreasing crime. In fact the sole source you cite says:

>Many crime experts warn against reading too much into recent statistics. In fact, murder rates remained largely unchanged in 70 cities, and decreased significantly in five. "Even if the uptick continues in some cities, I doubt the pattern will become universal," Dr. Sampson said.

And sure, you have some positive feedback, great. But how often has your app been misused? How "concerned citizens" mistaken an innocent person as having been involved in a crime? What about the privacy of victims of crimes? How do you store your data? How do you ensure privacy? Do you give data to law enforcement? Without warrants? Do you disclose any of this data? What do you do to protect extra sensitive data like domestic abuse, and sexual assaults?

Why should we trust you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One time I was at the park with my three kids and all the sudden every parent at the playground grabbed their kids, rushed to the parking lot, and got the hell out of there.

I had no idea what was going on. So we kept skateboarding.

Next thing I know cop cars are zipping in and out of the neighborhood, dozens of police are running around jumping fences, and there's a helicopter circling overhead.

Our car was parked in the center of the chaos, so we stayed on the far side of the park and watched.

Would have loved to have an app like this that day. Still never got to the bottom of what was actually going on. Or figured out how all those other parents were privy to the situation before I was.

<comment><USER8> I think a lot of people have experienced situations where they'd like to know (or at least have the option to know) what is happening around them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's absolutely unfathomable to me that someone thought this was a good idea. If I'm calling 911, it's because I need professional emergency services.

Can someone name even one scenario where some random person off the street intervening is more likely to harm than to help when intervening in a situation based on this app?

<comment><USER10> I can't verify this, but I was told that the lead investor is Peter Thiel / Founders Fund. Seems believable, since it's consistent with his investment thesis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> No possibility of controversy here. Especially with a name like that. Wow.

</comment><comment><USER12> Music plays when I open the app for the first time, despite my ringer being off.

It certainly looks like a cool idea, although it says my area isn't covered yet.

<comment><USER13> annnd you're dead, thanks Vigilante! Maybe they'll push respawns in the next update

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apple really needs to get a different URL for the app store. My first thought was "what dumbass at Apple thought that would be a good idea?"

Then I saw it was a non-Apple app.

<comment><USER15> No, apple didn't write it, but I am surprised it made it to the app store at all. This seems like it is ripe for abuse -- get instant updates on where the police are heading next!

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sketch Factor[1] is that you?

[1]: [http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-to-do- when-y...](http://www.newyorker.com/business/currency/what-to-do-when-your- app-is-racist)

</comment><comment><USER17> Are there a lot of people who have the time and flexibility of schedules to go chasing down 911 calls in their neighborhood?

I'm not heartless, I certainly open the front door and take a gander if I hear my dog barking or a loud noise out front, but beyond that, I'm not sure I'd just leave my family in the house with no plan other than to videotape what could be a violent criminal in the heat of the moment.

Also, what relationship does this company have with a user once that user gets shot in the chest for running around and videotaping an armed robbery with their flashlight beaconing their position and activity to the criminal?

What about when someone calls in a sexual assault - are there protections for their privacy?

<comment><USER18> > What about when someone calls in a sexual assault - are there protections > for their privacy?

How do you think the company gets the 911 calls? You should focus your privacy concerns upstream.

> I'm not sure I'd just leave my family in the house with no plan other than > to videotape what could be a violent criminal in the heat of the moment.

Right, but so what? Someone else might, or might be able to from their window. And if not, you weren't going to anyways.

> Also, what relationship does this company have with a user once that user > gets shot in the chest

What relationship does Google have to a movie-viewer who doesn't like the movies playing in the cinema that they asked Maps to direct them to?

> for running around and videotaping an armed robbery with their flashlight > beaconing their position and activity to the criminal?

You can choose to move _away_ from the alerts, you know... The app doesn't compel you, it only informs you.

I can see many non-violent but interventionary tactics people could use. A pastor could use it, and respond to the 'Children harassing an old man' call the website uses as an example. Not immediately, as if they could stop any ongoing violence, but later to try to find the perpetrators and reach out to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I had no idea dessert bars were so dangerous.</comment>


How Safe Is Allowing Remote Access to Omron PLCs via the Internet? (2009) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://echannel.omron247.com/marcom/pdfcatal.nsf/0/7CC1E9D8D2A1C3BF862573760063920C/$file/InternetAccessToPLC_whitePaper_en_200910.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> "When a router is forwarding a TCP or UDP port to an Omron PLC, the traffic is being delivered to a non Windows based operating system. This makes the PLC impenetrable to standard hacking methods."

<comment><USER2> Imagine two survivors standing on the big walls surrounding a destroyed Troy.

A: "This can't happen again. We've instructed the entire guard to not let anyone pass through the gates if they are bringing giant, horse-shaped statues with them."

B: "Hmm. And if they bring giant, ox-shaped statues?"

A: "Nah, what are the odds someone would try _that_?"</comment></comment>


Question - <AUTHOR> Hi there. Can I ask questions about python and django on your site ? <comment><USER2> Yes</comment>


Was I Right to Pull the Plug on a Nazi Website? - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/was-i-right-to-pull-the-plug-on-a-nazi-website-1503440771 <comment><AUTHOR> And for those who will inevitably ask: [http://archive.is/Tpfzn](http://archive.is/Tpfzn)

</comment><comment><USER2> Doesn't this make them tacitly in approval of all their existing customers?</comment>


Franken calls for net neutrality for Google, Twitter and Facebook - <AUTHOR> http://thehill.com/policy/technology/359499-franken-condemns-tech-calls-for-net-neutrality-for-google-twitter-and <comment><USER2> Glad he is speaking up about this. Unfortunately the business model of the companies mentioned depends on their showing you what they think will keep you engaged. They necessarily have to curate what you see.</comment>


Formerly homeless woman now makes $100,000 a year - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/formerly-homeless-woman-now-makes-100000-a-year-writing-for-demand-media-like-examinercom-2010-11

<comment><USER2> Here is a direct link to the original article: <http://adage.com/digital/article?article_id=147099></comment>


YouTube's top 1,000 channels average $23K each month in ad revenue - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/infographic-youtubes-top-1-000-channels-reveal-emerging-power-of-social-video.php <comment><USER2> The channels follow a power law. I got the number of views from here (<http://socialblade.com/youtube/top/5000>) and plotted them: <http://i.imgur.com/X6nEL.png>

If the $23k average for the top 1k is correct, then only the top 250 or so actually make $23k a month or more. At that line are some pretty big channels, like Husky Starcraft and big bands like Kesha and Muse. In which case, this doesn't seem like a lot of money.

<comment><USER3> I charted the LOG(video views) here:

<http://i.imgur.com/WubeX.png>

What's really interesting is that LOG(LOG(video views)) looks pretty much the same:

<http://i.imgur.com/NnSrA.png>

So I'm not sure what law the distribution follows, but the top players get a TON more money than the rest. The top 211 players make more than the rest 4789.

EDIT:

It also means that the top player _universalmusicgroup_ makes $485,707/month, and the 1000th player _playboy_ makes only $7,880/month (assuming payouts are proportional to the views, which isn't perfectly correct)

Here's the table:

          universalmusicgroup    $485,707
          machinima              $261,804
          JustinBieberVEVO       $206,638
          RihannaVEVO            $198,898
          expertvillage          $182,052
          LadyGagaVEVO           $160,885
          AtlanticVideos         $147,373
          EminemVEVO             $145,593
          RayWilliamJohnson      $141,569
          IGNentertainment       $139,634
          failblog               $134,727
          UltraRecords           $134,724
          muyap                  $126,330
          smosh                  $124,425
          shakiraVEVO            $122,633
          hollywoodrecords       $121,395
          FueledByRamen          $113,681
          beyonceVEVO            $109,576
          barelypolitical        $104,784
          collegehumor           $103,772

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm glad to see more attention paid to this. The idea of the "youtube celebrity" has been around a while, but to my mind that's less interesting than the idea of people making a living off of youtube. And the fascinating thing is just how many people are now gainfully employed making youtube content. This is a phenomenon that has crept up rather rapidly and hasn't received very much attention in traditional media channels or even in business channels. I find it odd that traditional television networks and movie studios have basically been trying their hardest to pretend that youtube doesn't exist, or that it is merely a repository of funny cat videos.

There's a real revolution in video entertainment going on right now. And youtube is still growing at a phenomenal rate. The recent example of the explosive popularity of the Gangnam Style music video is a perfect case in point. It's not just "viral", it's a cultural phenomenon, and it's taking place on youtube whereas in the past you'd expect people to be exposed to popular music videos through television.

If I were in the traditional TV business I would be all over this. I'd be snapping up talent off youtube and I'd be setting up deals and producing content for the internet, etc. But it looks like this is still a case of two separate worlds. I suspect the "oh shit" moment will come when a more traditional format TV show or movie published on youtube becomes wildly successful, and it's really only a matter of time until that happens.

</comment><comment><USER5> In a hits based industry the 'average' isn't very interesting. What's the variance across those top 1000 channels?

I'm really curious to see some more data here, I have a feeling that the disparity is severe.

<comment><USER6> Long tail risks makes avg/var/standard distribution stuff useless. Best measure here would be the median income (50th percentile - or the 50th person out of 100).

Same thing with wealth distribution and taxes - averages are pointless since 1 rich guy + 99 poor guys will have an average of ~1/100 the rich guy (which is still a lot of money) - even though the poor guys have $0 in assets (usually negative equity because of debt).

The median of that distribution would be $0 - hence providing a better representation of actual probabilistic income/taxes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> What is the distribution like among the top 1000 channels? Presumably the top of the top 1000 channels far outproduce the bottom, just like the top 1000 far outproduce the rest of youtube. Given such a distribution, what are the top few channels earning? 100,000 a month? 1,000,000 a month? Even more?

Other interesting questions: How much of that is profit? Relatedly, does it cost a prohibitive amount to have a highly successful youtube channel? Does amount spent on production each month correlate with amount earned, or do consumers care much more about the content than the production quality?

What is the median income of the top 1000 channels? What's the overall median income of active youtube partners? What's the median income of channels produced (primarily) by a single person?

Some of these questions should be answerable by looking at available stats, like views for the top couple of channels versus the lower end of the top 1000. (Are the actual channels in the top 1000, preferable ranked, available somewhere?) I'll see if I can answer any more of them in the morning...

<comment><USER8> There are literal kids (teenagers) making 6 figures a month from their Youtube channels with absolute 0 production costs. The best example would be a guy called Pewdiepie[1], he makes gaming videos and does something like 5 million views per day (which is probably around $10k revenue assuming he has a good deal...). He isn't alone, there's quite a few others approaching his level of success.

Something a lot of people seem to forget too is for every video they put out their old videos still get views. It's like investments, the money they make compounds over time because for every new video that's more and more views. So as their viewership grows, so does their previous video views and so do their potential views for the future. Even if someone "only" does 10,000,000 views from _new_ videos in a month they can still be doing substantial revenue from old videos. This is how some of the bigger channels work, they produce incredibly popular videos every couple of months and fill the time with smaller videos.

A good example of that would be Captain Sparklez [2], a guy that makes video game music and commentaries, his music videos can do anywhere from 10 million to 70 million views and he then produces game play commentaries between his bigger hits.

[1] <http://www.youtube.com/pewdiepie> [2] [http://www.youtube.com/user/CaptainSparklez/videos?sort=p...](http://www.youtube.com/user/CaptainSparklez/videos?sort=p&flow=grid&view=0)

<comment><USER9> There is also the fact that this is only ad revenue. I would wager that people with good marketing skills make much more from side gigs than from direct ad revenue.

<comment><USER10> From what I've noticed on many of the top YouTube channels I subscribe to, many have merch to sell and other side projects that earn them a little more money.

Not to mention that several producers have multiple channels, where they use the success of a single channel to make their subsequent channels just as successful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Trying to make sense of a power law distribution using average of the head is an interesting crutch, but a fairly crude one.

What are other ways to intuitively understand power law distributions? Where are the raw data for this one?

</comment><comment><USER12> 11.3 Billion Views (by top 1000 channels) 23 Million Ad revenue (by top 1000 channels)

2$ ECPM.

</comment><comment><USER13> Nice headline but in HN you need to talk in median terms - people here aren't that stupid

</comment><comment><USER14> That's odd. I recall several channel owners claiming million dollar revenues, eg. Jason Njorku from irokotv claimed 1m in annual revenue on this channel for Nigerian movies:

<http://www.youtube.com/user/NollywoodLove>

The TechCrunch article with the claim:

[http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/14/you-think-hollywood-is- roug...](http://techcrunch.com/2011/05/14/you-think-hollywood-is-rough- welcome-to-the-chaos-excitement-and-danger-of-nollywood)

RWJ claims here that he earns over a million dollars a year purely on Adsense:

[http://willvideoforfood.com/2011/04/01/ray-william- johnson-i...](http://willvideoforfood.com/2011/04/01/ray-william-johnson-is- youtubes-first-millionaire-creator/)

So who's fooling who?

<comment><USER15> The article talks about monthly revenue. And even if the average was in the middle (ignoring the "power law" mentioned above) then you would have a lot of channels making over $83k which equals over 1m annually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What strikes me is how little money is being made here. $2 CPM rates will not support the production quality we all expect in our entertainment. The dream of the internet supporting a large creative class self publishing is still far off.

</comment><comment><USER17> What matters is the median, not the average. Advertising analysts have their own special circle in marketing hell.

</comment><comment><USER18> Well, what I do not understand is the 2$ eCPM, that is thrown in in the comments.

If the average 23k$ hold true for the Top 1000 and if the 2$ eCPM holds true, why did the 5.000th channel make an estimated 57,371.70$? (28685850 AdViews * 2$ eCPM / 1000)

What am I getting wrong here?

Edit: The numbers are totals... OK, I get it. ;-)

</comment><comment><USER19> Unfortunately, this invites people to turn the signal to noise ratio to crap.

Case in point: [http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/reply-girls- yogscast-m...](http://www.dailydot.com/entertainment/reply-girls-yogscast- meganspeaks/)

</comment><comment><USER20> I recently got an email from youtube suggesting that I monetize my channel as they'd noticed that one of my videos was becoming quite popular. It's had about 500 (five hundred) views after 4 years! How much would I make?

<comment><USER21> Some YouTube partners I know get paid per 500 views so if you got another 500 you'd make a few dollars.

<comment><USER20> I'm amazed that such low numbers could be worth anything more than a few cent

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> that's a massive range; just in top 1000 sites make millions!</comment>


The 2012 Non-Retina MacBook Pro Is Still the Best Laptop Apple Sells - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-2012-non-retina-macbook-pro-is-still-the-best-laptop-apple-sells <comment><USER2> I think high-res ("retina") screens are an interesting line.

Some people cannot perceive the difference. What I think is interesting is that others _think_ they can't see any difference, but in fact they can, if you actually test them (we did this at work a couple years ago). But they don't care at all.

And then others (like me) cannot stand to use a low-res screen. It works but it's like driving a car with a filthy windshield covered in grime and birdshit.

<comment><USER3> just curious, do you use the retina screen in the default display scaling or do you change it to have more real estate? i can't fathom the thought that in the default settings, the macbook air have larger real estate than the rmbp.

<comment><USER2> No, on the MBP (15" in my case; I would use a 17" if they still made that) I have to use scaling. Otherwise, as you imply, it's basically like having a super-sharp 12" screen (or something).

I use it at the max

That doesn't look quite as good, but it is still incomparably better than a low-res screen.

But I mostly use a 27" 5K desktop monitor (a Dell UP2715K, which I believe uses the same panel as the high-res 27" iMac). This is fucking the best. I used to have a pair of 24" 4K monitors, which seemed good at the time, but this is massively better.

It looks a lot better than the "retina" 15" MBP, so I think that goes to show that we still need even more pixel density before the diminishing returns really start kicking in...

At the same time, though, I am 41, and my eyesight has noticeably deteriorated (though not so much that they will give me glasses). It might be that the youth of today really need an 8K or higher resolution at 27".

But even my old-ass eyes can tell you that a 4K 27" monitor sucks. 4K is only good up to about 21" and then you start to again see the pixels. 5K really is a major step up, even though the cable is forked at the ends so it can have 2 mini-DP connectors...

<comment><USER3> yep. shame about them axing the 17 inch one.

wow 5k have significant differences from 4k? maybe i should try that. but again, the forked dp cables means current (mobile at least) graphical power is still sorely lacking. and i'm still waiting for the 5k to be more available and being more affordable.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I thought I had the sweet setup with my old 4K monitors. I tried a 27" 4K but 4K just isn't enough, so I returned it for a pair of 24" 4K monitors.

Intuitively, I expected 5K at 27" to be roughly the same as 4K at 24". But, nope. It's _dramatically_ better than 4K at 24". I had them side by side in a 3-monitor setup for a time, but within about 30 seconds I though, _ugh, I can 't even stand to LOOK at these barbaric 4Ks ever again!_ and I unloaded them on craigslist.

But don't take my word for it; every Apple store has a 5K 27" iMac on display.

It doesn't actually look crisper to my eye than a "retina" MacBook Pro -- the huge difference, though, is that the 17" 5K panel is awesome at its native resolution. On the MBP you definitely need to use the "scaling" feature, which while much better than the sad old low-res generations of displays, nevertheless does add some fuzziness.

5K at 27" is the best thing readily available today, and I am not sure it needs to get much better than this (if at all) for the resolution of my eyeballs.

Spending $1500 for a computer monitor does kind of suck though, so yeah there's that, still... :-/

<comment><USER3> Since the 5k iMacs went in my local stores, I always fiddle with them and be amazed at the oh-so-sharp and huge real estate to play with. I just replaced my ruined mba to a 13" rmbp and the difference is so worth it, but still, as you said, i need to use the scaling feature. I think there is a way to use the retina display on it's native res, but the text will be so unbearably small.

Yeah. The cost is still prohibitively expensive to have a desktop-sized display. I mean, FHD took years to be the standard (although i prefer 16:10). We'll have 8k computer displays released before 5k becomes the standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You can't upgrade the CPU.

> An extra $150 gets you a 2.9 GHz dual core Intel i7 processor, which puts it > on par with many of Apple's newer (and more expensive) laptops.

The integrated GPU has improved dramatically, power consumption has improved, performance has improved in the latest generation i7s. A little disingenuous to say performance is on par.

The i7 they're referring to:

[http://ark.intel.com/products/64893/Intel- Core-i7-3520M-Proc...](http://ark.intel.com/products/64893/Intel- Core-i7-3520M-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz)

This is the expected CPU in this year's rumored MBP (point remains for the current generation MBs):

[http://ark.intel.com/products/91167/Intel- Core-i7-6567U-Proc...](http://ark.intel.com/products/91167/Intel- Core-i7-6567U-Processor-4M-Cache-up-to-3_60-GHz)

<comment><USER5> I have this 2012 Macbook Pro, with the i7. It's been my everyday machine for the last 4 years.

 _The integrated GPU has improved dramatically, power consumption has improved, performance has improved in the latest generation i7s._

None of that matters. My computer is very rarely running flat out, and I'd venture the same is true 99% of the time for 99% of the people who own them.

There's no need for a faster GPU for most people. There's no need for improved performance if the computer is idle most of the time. E.g. right now my computer is drawing 8.73 Watts. Much of that is going to the display. That's pretty darn good, overall.

 _A little disingenuous to say performance is on par._

It's very much on par, given the way 99% of people use their laptops.

I don't know why you linked to those two ARK documents. Sure the newer chip has slightly better specs. But is the difference, in real life, between Max Memory Bandwidth of 25.6 GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s anything to be concerned about? Not for most people.

Same with the GPU. It doesn't matter that the old one is HD Graphics 4000 and the new one is Iris™ Graphics 550. Screen redraws are almost instantaneous with either. Maybe if I played the latest games I might care, but then I'd probably be using Windows for that anyway.

<comment><USER4> > None of that matters. My computer is very rarely running flat out, and I'd > venture _the same is true 99% of the time for 99% of the people who own > them_.

> It's very much on par, given the way _99% of people use their laptops_.

> But is the difference, in real life, between Max Memory Bandwidth of 25.6 > GB/s vs 34.1 GB/s anything to be concerned about? _Not for most people_.

Emphasis mine. Can you cite a source for the above?

I linked the CPU specs because it shows the difference between what you're buying. The author stated "i7" like all i7s are the same. They're not.

The GPU is important outside of games because the display on new Macbook Pros are retina displays. What the advances in the integrated GPUs and lower power consumption leads to is the latest generation MBPrs can power a screen much higher resolution than the 2012 MBP, but still have the same performance profile (battery life, responsiveness).

To use your argument: The current generation MBPrs come with good enough specs for storage and RAM for _99% of users_. No one needs to upgrade pass 16GB of RAM since it's _good enough for most people_ or a 512GB SSD, especially when storage is being pushed to the cloud. You get a better display, better battery life, in a smaller form factor that weights less. For _most people_ the trade off between that and the ability to open up your laptop to stick in new hardware is worthwhile.

<comment><USER5> _Emphasis mine. Can you cite a source for the above?_

When I say something like "I'd venture ..." then my "source" is simply my opinion. Nothing more rigorous than that.

 _You get a better display, better battery life, in a smaller form factor that weights less_

Yes, together that list of items can make for a compelling upgrade. But (IMO!) CPU and GPU performance improvements are less important than the other stuff you mention.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Usually I don't care about these predictive tech articles: "oh what would this company do next?!" But this somehow seems important because as consumers as individuals and as companies we want to promote the right technology for our future. Buying into another generation of one line of technology can really skew where you'll end up if you wouldn't have known you would be even further off mark in the following generation...

</comment><comment><USER7> Whaaaaat? The only thing I miss about the 2012 one is my 17-inch screen. Bring back my 17-inch Macbook Pro and I am happy.</comment>


There seems to be a major routing issue in CA right now, at least Fremont/linode - <AUTHOR>

Status page wasn't updated yet, but lots of sites are down in Fremont, CA, at least those hosted on Linode. I suspect this affects a whole lot more than that though - the entire data center is probably affected. <comment><USER2> Munin is great for visualizing these sorts of things. From mine:

<http://awesomescreenshot.com/025b5a3c5>

Interesting that traffic didn't die entirely there.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Linode IRC is not sure what's going on yet, and the status page at <http://status.linode.com/> hasn't been updated yet.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Looks like it's back now. HE.net is to blame for the downtime.</comment>


Introduction to networkd, network managment from systemd - <AUTHOR> https://coreos.com/blog/intro-to-systemd-networkd/ <comment><USER2> Here I should mention my NCD programming language[1], originally developed for programming network configurations. Contrasted to networkd, it is an imperative programming language with a twist (backtracking) that makes it practical for this purpose.

Strictly speaking it can't be directly compared to networkd, which has a declarative configuration - until someone implements such a declarative config system with NCD. The goal of NCD is to allow hackers to _program_ their network config however they want, not just in ways foreseen and implemented by their declarative config system.

NCD can already react to many kinds of events, including the basic network stuff (interface appeared/disappeared, cable plugged in/out), input devices (via evdev) as well as an IPC protocol which works with structured data (for GUIs and CLI control).

[1] [https://code.google.com/p/badvpn/wiki/NCD](https://code.google.com/p/badvpn/wiki/NCD)

<comment><USER3> that looks cool. but it also looks like it would be kinda complicated to make a point for it.

aside from the fact that it's kinda complicated(for the end user), which would mean that your network daemon would probably run on top of it.

it also seems like it would in theory give a lot of attack surface. what is your opinion on the latter?

<comment><USER2> This was not designed for end users, it was designed for programmers who want to implement their very specific network configuration requirements - in a language well suited for the task where dynamic configurations are easy to implement properly. One could implement an end-user solution using my language - the language is certainly powerful enough. But I don't have any plans to do that myself, writing scripts is good enough for me.

Attack surface? Not really. The parts of NCD which are exposed are basically:

\- Integrated DHCP client (runs in the same process, as root). This is really just DOS attacks with a flood of DHCP packets, but the design ensures this may at most result in high CPU usage as well as DHCP not working, not in NCD stopping doing other things. But if the attacker can DHCP flood you he can also do worse damage with ARP poisoning. I don't believe I have arbitrary code execution bugs in NCD, especially not in the DHCP code. I'm a very careful programmer ;)

\- IPC interface (request_server). The most questionable part here is probably the Lemon parser parsing NCDValues. Things like: ["key1":"val1", "key2":{"elem1", "elem2", "elem3"}].

Then there's also the security bugs the programmer writing NCD code does. Like, if he accepts an IP address obtained from a DHCP server without doing any sort of checks (in particular if overlaps with localhost / private network / VPN).

But basically, I don't think "possible security bugs" is a valid argument against any new technology. NCD is not inherently more vulnerable than any other system for network configuration.

<comment><USER3> >But basically, I don't think "possible security bugs" is a valid argument against any new technology. NCD is not inherently more vulnerable than any other system for network configuration.

it wasn't so much a case against "new technology", but rather a case against: "here's a full scripting language that runs as root, oh and btw it can print and run arbitrary commands"

to me it seems like ncd is almost too capable for non hacking / network debugging purposes. a subset would be good i guess.

Also root sounds bad. At least in linux you can always restrict it to things like CAP_NET_ADMIN, but i'm not exactly a linux security wiz, so i'm sure there's better things.

<comment><USER2> I was just saying that NCD is not particularly exposed to attacks in the first place. Yes, the DHCP needs to be moved outside, but everything else is pretty much a non-issue. The IPC that NCD can do (if you use it) is no more exposed than D-Bus is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I wonder if Arch Linux will pick this up. They jumped head first into systemd a while back, but have also rolled out their own network config program, netctl. I think it'll be interesting to see whether they stick with that or switch to networkd.

<comment><USER5> Netctl is alrady the third implementation of networking scripts I'm aware of. The last one (netcfg) still seems to be working just fine. It's not an overly elaborate set of scripts for networking configuration, that already integrates well with systemd.

All these things tell me that it will probably not take long until Arch takes to take advantage of network configuration in systemd.

But then, for more complex, and more dynamic environments, people have used NetworkManager. If it will replace NM, which is a much more substantial piece of code covering a lot of the more complicated setups (VPNs, cellular, a lot of user-interaction), I don't dare to speculate about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "Hey Michael, systemd is going to handle networking!" His response: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31g0YE61PLQ)

</comment><comment><USER7> My question is why this daemon needs to be included in systemd.git. It appears to be a separate service which could easily live in its own project, to live or die on its own merits.

<comment><USER8> We (the systemd developers) want systemd to provide the basic building blocks from which you can build an operating system. Networking is definitely one of these, so we want to include it by default.

However, you are of course free to use an alternative network management solution, and at least in the beginning we expect most people to stick with what they have. Distributions could easily ship networkd as a separate package, if they so chose.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Is there any official development or user mailing list? I am trying to set both static IPv4 and IPv6 addresses, but I am able to set only the address, not their respective default routes. BTW, I am using Arch Linux ARM and systemd 210 just kicked into repositories today.</comment>