Ask HN: What impact are you having on the world? - <AUTHOR> What impact are you having on the world? How are you making it a better place? How are you making it a worse place? <comment><USER2> None whatsoever.

Just like the overwhelming majority of people, including the ones that think they are making a dent by 'inventing' apps that'll be obsolete and forgotten within a few years, at most a few decades.

I embrace the futility and absurdity that is a job. It pays the rent and that's good enough for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I barely made it through college, and worked in factories and warehouses during/after school. Because of my bad grades, I thought manual labor jobs were the only ones I could do.

I later worked overseas (in Guyana). I've seen many bright young people worldwide forced into doing work that crushes their spirits, because they either never had access to educational opportunities, or they struggled with rigid educational systems.

Education is one of the few ways to reduce systemic economic inequality, but it's getting harder to get a cheap, high quality education over time.

I'm building Dataquest, which to start is teaching data science online at low cost. Dataquest teaches skills in depth, so students really understand the concepts and can apply them with projects (vs most syntax focused online learning). We've had students get jobs at companies like SpaceX and Amazon.

I hope the positive impact I'm having is in some small way helping people achieve things they never believed they could.

<comment><USER4> > but it's getting harder to get a cheap, high quality education over time.

That sounds very surprising to me. To me at least it seems it's getting easier, at an accelerating rate. With resources such as libgen, scihub, mit ocw, a great number of moocs, the amount of content is only growing (most stuff gets archived). Most top universities have publicly accessible course data and resources.

Also, internet access is growing, internet devices are getting cheaper, high speed broadband is also becoming the default.

So I wonder, why would you say it's getting harder to get a cheap high quality education? I'd say you can do it for free, just look at the mit challenge.

Surely, the only obstacle is the constant stream of distractions.

<comment><USER5> To me, you are describing knowledge & understanding. An "education", as I understand it, is a validated completion of a curriculum from a known, accredited institution. Also, an " education" is no guarantee of access to, nor achievement of, success. Merely a minimal requirement for consideration.

<comment><USER6> Education != schooling. It's a mistake to assume that you can only be "educated" in an institution.

A person can educating themselves, simply by reading, and never have set foot in a classroom and still gain AMAZING skills.

That's my $.02 :)

<comment><USER5> Noted, and you may be correct. I always presumed an "education" involved a structured framework of learning. As an autodidact of sorts w/ merely an undergrad degree I have had many citations from prospective employers & clients as to my "sparse" education. I am often dismissed without ever having an opportunity to demonstrate my abilities b/c I lack expensive degrees & certs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My first instinct is to say I recycle, I buy my electricity from green providers, I reuse, buy second hand, work from home, eat veggie regularly etc. I do all of these things, but they are grossly outweighed by me simply existing. No matter how green I live, I still consume and produce waste, and so do my children.

How I make the world better: I collect litter at the beach and in parks and dispose of it properly. I also encourage my kids to do this. The positive effect on the environment is probably still outweighed by my consumption, but I can say that there is less trash on the beaches around where I live because of me. It's not much but its something.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is something that's hard to measure and quantify.

That said, you may be trying to make an impact on someone and never get to see the fruit of it in your lifetime. Those kind words of encouragement, that smile, that mentoring session... they could seem like they're of no effect, and falling on deaf ears.

You never know. It might be days/months/years down the road, and that person recalls their interaction with you, and something take root in their life, and change happens.

If you're trying to make an impact, and you're only satisfied by what you see right now in front you, you may be sorely disappointed.

@nougatine - you say "none whatsoever". I beg to differ, friend. You may be having a _tremendous_ impact, and may never get to see it.

I would encourage any of you who happen to read this, to take a long view, and act with that in mind. It's totally possible for you to have a HUGE impact on someone and never get to see it.

Hopefully, this will temper our interactions with people.

</comment><comment><USER8> About 5,000 smokers quit smoking and 10,000 heavy sleepers have gotten control of their sleeping habits through our wearable device, Pavlok: [http://pavlok.com](http://pavlok.com)

<comment><USER9> Awesome! I remember seeing the Shark Tank episode, nice to see that you didn't let them stop you.

Quick question: how does the device know when to shock you?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some small things:

\- Growing my own vegetables. During the summer, half of my meals are home- grown, and I store the ones I can for the fall/winter as well. And I give away a lot for free to friends/relatives.

\- I quit eating meat, after realising the impact the meat industry has on everything from animals rights (most important) to pollution, water consumption etc.

\- I try to bring more consciousness on this on people, trying not to be a pain but planting some seeds in their mind.

<comment><USER11> It's sad if growing vegetables was a positive impact because people stopped growing their own food a long time ago under the assumption that doing everything else was more productive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Less worse: Consuming fewer unnecessary resources than I have in the past

Worse: Continuing to consume unnecessary resources

Better: ... I'll get back to you

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm in the rat race for better grades and projects leading to better jobs. I feel like I'm living just for myself, my parents and maybe 2 children down the line. That seems kind of selfish and boring though, to spend all your waking time to keep 4-5 people happy who would probably be happy anyway. I wish I had a mentor or a vision to motivate me to maybe work for climate change or inequality.

</comment><comment><USER14> i aim for neither, i dont want to be remembered for any specific action good or bad (this is partly the reason i will never have children)

</comment><comment><USER15> Just like everyone else: The ripples of my influence outward into my networks. Better and worse don't apply. There's no relative position, we're all going the same place.

</comment><comment><USER16> Donating money to charity, for causes such as feeding the hungry or providing malaria bed nets. Against Malaria Foundation is cool, they've shown that for roughly $3,000 you can save a human life. That's pretty wild.

</comment><comment><USER17> Worse: I eat a lot of animals.

Better: I'm creating a better language for humans.

<comment><USER18> We've been hearing about it since _forever_.

<comment><USER17> Indeed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wish I had more impact. There are a lot of big problems I'd love to solve but nobody is requesting my help to tackle them.

<comment><USER19> "It has long since come to my attention that people of accomplishment rarely sat back and let things happen to them. They went out and happened to things."

\- Elinor Smith

<comment><USER11> I mean there is no stepping stone. I feel like I'm the only one who wants to make a difference, in a world where everyone is focused on selling fashion and cosmetics for quick money.

There are big problems - e.g. energy, AI (AGI), destructive culture, corruption, education in developing countries.

The big problems are terrifying to fix. They're not something that can be changed solo. It needs critical momentum. Unfortunately, outside of a few big cities, there is little momentum going towards the important things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I have no impact and I do not want to have any impact whatsoever... as they say, the road to hell is paved with good intentions

</comment><comment><USER21> Over the past decade I've worked a lot on shedding light on corporate funded politicians and legislation and how that affects the working class.

One of the toughest parts of that is getting folks to understand how the gains in productivity are being taken from them by corporate owners that fund the Democrat and Republican Parties.

I've also worked pretty hard on getting us (the US) out of those mid-east wars with very little effect.

I live in a very rural conservative area and most of my neighbors are great folks but they tend to get a lot of tilted information on TV and the internet. Because I am able to point out these issues in a bi-partisan way they tend to listen and read what I share more than they would a "Libtard" (a term I hear often).

Since 2002 I've also made inexpensive software for small businesses and provide support for it. It's pretty easy to use so I don't get many requests for support. I'm working a new version of that software now.

I've shared a few concepts I've developed. A few years ago I made a lightweight backpacking tent made out of an "SOL Blanket" and showed how a small campfire would warm it up to +80º F in below freezing temps. I didn't invent that concept. "Bushcrafters" did. I just refined it and demonstrated and promoted a more practical way of using it. In the years since I've seen other similar designs come out, some that are made to be used for the homeless and in emergencies.

The thing about this kind of work is that it is usually impossible to measure the reach, but not so to see the effect if you are patient. My theory is if you can shed light on something true and good that light will spread, and seeking credit for how far is vanity.

If a concept is good it's better to get it out in the open than guard it like a secret if you cannot make the general use of the concept a reality. It's better because you will still get to benefit from it coming into existence.

A small example of this is years ago I took a cap off of a dishwashing soap bottle and put it on a disposable water bottle I bought on the way to a bike trail. When I got home I told my wife I was going to make it so I could buy these in the store because at that time no company was doing that. I looked up a company that made bottles and caps and told them what I wanted and it wasn't long before I could buy water and Gatorade with those caps in the store. My wife still thinks I "should have made a million dollars" and tells that story a lot but I know that was never the case. I don't think that made the world a better place, but it demonstrates how one can deliberately change how things are done by shedding some light on an idea.

</comment><comment><USER22> Trying to be the best father and role model that I can.

</comment><comment><USER23> This carbon footprint.</comment>


Office Walls = Dry-Erase Board - <AUTHOR> http://www.rustoleum.com/CBGProduct.asp?pid=128&sid=241140 <comment><AUTHOR> My local home depot has it as $21.50 for 50 sq ft.

A more expensive version can be purchased through Behance: [http://www.creativesoutfitter.com/Products/IdeaPaint/16?utm_...](http://www.creativesoutfitter.com/Products/IdeaPaint/16?utm_source=Triggermail&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Idea%20Paint) ($200 for 50 sq ft.)

</comment><comment><USER2> A better idea is to use 4'x8' white melamine coated masonite. Glue or screw it to the walls. It also works great as a table top with fine tip dry erase markers.

</comment><comment><USER3> I once bought a can of it to create a home made dry-erase board and it didn't work that well... Smears remained, and you can't clean it of the way you clean of a regular whiteboard.

In addition, the paint I had wasn't magnetic, which is a drawback as well, but there is magnetic paint, so you would have to think about two layers...

</comment><comment><USER4> We have this at our office. It works reasonably well. A picture of the wall in use (from a party): <http://www.flickr.com/photos/ojbyrne/3221346015/>

As Louise's comment suggests, it's a little more difficult to erase.

</comment><comment><USER5> Nice hack, but, if renting, the landlord may not appreciate this part:

""" FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS:

Q: Can the Dry Erase coating be used over a previous Dry Erase surface?

A: Not over an aged surface. Since this product dries to a very hard and glossy surface, the previous coating must be thoroughly sanded to remove the gloss """

</comment><comment><USER6> You can buy 8x4 white panelboard at Lowes or Home Depot for about $15 a panel. The surface can get burned off if you use some caustic cleaners but it's cheap to replace.

[http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&prod...](http://www.lowes.com/lowes/lkn?action=productDetail&productId=16605-46498-300)

</comment><comment><USER7> See also the advice on Cool Tools:

<http://www.kk.org/cooltools/archives/000679.php>

I'm thinking of just using melamine on a wall. I might consider upgrading to Ceramisteel when I win the lottery, though. That stuff sounds amazing.

</comment><comment><USER8> if bored, try this on your dry-erase boards <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_tYPY0vVBA>

</comment><comment><USER9> This stuff is never very smooth and never looks very clean.

I would recommend calling a glazier and mounting a sheet of tempered glass on the wall with small stainless standoffs. See [http://picasaweb.google.com/spolsky/FogCreekSNewOffice#52853...](http://picasaweb.google.com/spolsky/FogCreekSNewOffice#5285319604805018674) for a picture. Looks great, not expensive, and cleans easily without ever leaving permanent smudges

<comment><USER10> Can you give an idea of how not expensive it is ? :)</comment></comment>


SpaceX headed to the ISS tomorrow - mkr-hn http://www.nasa.gov/exploration/commercial/cargo/spacex_update_staticfiring.html <comment><AUTHOR> I can't wait! SpaceX is the most amazing company right now. They're work is the exact opposite of the trivial-to-start social networking apps, the tedium of online advertising.

 _They want to send people to Mars_. And they're launching to the ISS tomorrow, the most expensive object ever built by humanity. They have the world's trust. They have the world's best engineers. And they have some intense ambition and lots of money. So awesome.

I had a phone interview for a software position there just a few days ago (didn't get it) and it was the most thrilling experience I'd had, like, ever. I have to work hard and study more so I can try again in a couple months.

Best of luck SpaceX.

<comment><USER2> I would love to work there but they only recruit U.S. citizens and although I was contacted by them last year, it ended up going nowhere when I mentioned this "small" detail.

Can you elaborate on your phone interview?

<comment><USER3> This potentially has to do with regulations in the US over access to rocket technology. I knew a Canadian who worked at Lockheed ~10 years ago who had to be shuffled off a certain project due to objections from the US State Department.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'll add my voice to the chorus of folks gushing about how awesome this is, but here's a list of reason on just WHY this is so awesome.

Straight off the top, this is only the third launch of the Falcon 9. This rocket alone represents a dramatic disruption of the entire orbital launch industry, offering to make launch of both humans and cargo cheaper than it's ever been by an incredibly wide margin. If this rocket proves to be a reliable workhorse and proves that the existing cost structure is workable then it will both dramatically lower the cost of access to space and drive billions of dollars of revenue to SpaceX.

Second, this represents a significant advance in being able to deliver supplies to ISS, largely replacing a vehicle that is vastly more expensive than the Dragon Cargo. And finally putting American spaceflight back in the game of ISS resupply post-Shuttle.

Third, the Dragon Cargo shares an enormous amount of heritage with the manned Dragon capsule in development. As they prove out elements of the vehicle design in unmanned ISS resupply missions they are effectively proving out the manned version as well. The manned Dragon capsule will represent a huge leap for the US space program, catapulting us back into having the capability to send crew into orbit and to the ISS.

Fourth, given the costs of Falcon/Dragon flights they should be enormously disruptive to manned spaceflight, representing a vastly cheaper way to put humans in orbit even than the Russian Soyuz. That will likely translate into far more people beingable to go into orbit and the development of a sustained orbital tourism industry on an impressive scale which will fuel further innovation and drive down cost of access to space even more.

Finally, all of this is being done by a private company working toward its own ends rather than a company on a strict government contract. This represents a new paradigm for launch vehicles and for manned spaceflight, potentially transforming the nature of the entire endeavor into something that is self- sustaining regardless of government enthusiasm for spaceflight.

In short, this represents nothing less than fundamentally rebooting the entire space program going all the way back to Sputnik, and it could quite readily represent the opening up of spaceflight for commercial applications, space science and exploration, and for manned exploration and colonization to a degree that will make the scifi dreamers of our past look like forecasters.

<comment><USER5> Can you give some numbers for some of the "vast" cost difference we're talking about (even if they're ballpark figures)?

<comment><USER4> First, let's take the Shuttle off the table, which is no longer in service and was by far the most expensive launch vehicle in extensive service in history.

Right now, the price of a Falcon 9 launch is around $50mil, this translates to $4.8/g to LEO or $16.7/g to GTO (which is where most satellites go). This compares very favorably to the price of other western launchers (Atlas V: $18/g, Ariane 5: $21/g, Delta IV: $19.5/g to GTO and around $11-$14/g to LEO) and is very competitive compared to Russian launchers (Soyuz 2: $16.7/g, Proton M: $18.2/g to GTO or $6.4/g and $4.8/g to LEO respectively).

However, keep in mind that these are _prices_ , which include a healthy profit margin for SpaceX, and it's no coincidence that they have priced themselves right at the level of the otherwise cheapest launch vehicles in the world (since that maximizes their profit margin). Also keep in mind that as SpaceX's operations and manufacturing become more streamlined, as they amortize the fixed development costs for the Falcon 9 (which won't take long since the costs are a small multiple of the per flight revenue), as flight rate increases, and as competitive pressure to lower their profit margin increases they will be able to offer launches for considerably less than they are today, at lower prices than the Soyuz or Proton, for example.

However, this is just the beginning, as SpaceX has several development efforts in progress. The Falcon Heavy, for example, represents an incremental evolution of the Falcon 9 design, using 3 1st stage cores (instead of just one) and using a new cross-feed system to improve performance. The thing about the Falcon Heavy is that it uses slightly less than 3x as much hardware at about 2x the cost of a Falcon 9 launch but it will be able to deliver 5x the payload. This will translate into prices around $6.6/g to GTO and $2.4/g to LEO, at the high end ($4.2/g and $1.5/g at the low end). Nobody else in the world can come close to those numbers.

Also, they are working on a fully reusable version of the Falcon 9 which will reduce costs by at least a factor of 5 conservatively and perhaps as much as a factor of 100.

The maiden flight for the Falcon Heavy is slated to be next year. And they have already begun development on the core systems for the reusable Falcon (here's the 1st stage landing gear they've built for one of the test vehicles: <http://s3.amazonaws.com/imgly_production/4311966/large.jpg>).

<comment><USER6> Are we sure about this healthy profit? Is it possible they're just using this to try and beta their vehicle at lower cost?

<comment><USER7> There's no freemium model when you're building rocket ships.

<comment><USER6> Think dumping, not freemium.

<comment><USER8> Dumping requires lots of money. Dumping on the backyard of large defense contractors is suicidal.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In short, they will be launching 1200 pounds of supplies, remotely doing a bunch of maneuvers designed to prove to NASA that they can get around safely in space, and if those go OK, docking with the ISS.

This is so much cooler than a facebook IPO, I must say -- commercial US robot rocket ISS reloading. Come on!!

<comment><USER10> of course it's cooler than FB IPO. on one side, we have a bunch of guys selling ads. on the other, the stars.

<comment><USER11> Man, I've missed that attitude. My childhood was in the 80s, when the dream was still only in its early phases of being strangled by the monstrosity that the whole NASA system has become. We could use a bit of optimism about the future.

May history show this as the beginning of the second space age.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I get caught up in the romantics of this.

We could be explorers again like Magellan or Shackleton, this time charting the vast, infinitude of the stars. We could see planets and moons that are but specks in a telescope. It has been so easy, over the last few years, to become jaded with politics and our society and the minutia of technology. SpaceX gets me excited about "the future (of our species)" which hasn't happened in a long time.

<comment><USER13> Doesn't it bother you that you won't be the one doing the exploring? I'm insanely envious of these people and sometimes I wish manned spaceflight would end. Standing on the Moon sounds like the most amazing experience I can imagine and it pains me that I won't ever get there and even if I would, I would just be the umpteenth tourist, littering up the place.

<comment><USER12> I would absolutely love to stand on the surface of Mars or see Alpha Centauri with my own eyes, but I also know that such things are outside of my grasp. Poets and philosophers make for lousy explorers. It is enough for me that we, as a species, are reaching upward. It is enough for me that we, as a people, are overcoming chains that were not even imagined by our ancestors -- tasks so difficult, so alien that they would only describe it as touching the face of god. This is about more than the whimsical realized dream of an individual; it is the progression of the entire species.

This is how human beings are made great.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The SpaceX website has a pdf with mission details. Here is the table of contents:

3 Mission Highlights 4 Mission Overview 6 Dragon Recovery Operations 7 Mission Objectives 9 Mission Timeline 11 Dragon Cargo Manifest 13 NASA Slides – Mission Profile, Rendezvous, Maneuvers, Re-Entry and Recovery 15 Overview of the International Space Station 17 Overview of NASA's COTS Program 19 SpaceX Company Overview 21 SpaceX Leadership – Musk & Shotwell Bios 23 SpaceX Launch Manifest - A list of upcoming missions 25 SpaceX Facilities 27 Dragon Overview 29 Falcon 9 Overview 31 45th Space Wing Fact Sheet

<http://www.spacex.com/downloads/COTS-2-Press-Kit-5-14-12.pdf>

</comment><comment><USER15> Keep in mind, this is still just a test. If they get off the pad without exploding that's awesome, getting to orbit is super awesome, and actually reaching the ISS is simply amazing.

</comment><comment><USER16> Just to make it clear, it's just the launch tomorrow - they won't be attempting to dock until Tuesday (mission day 4), after (hopefully) they've passed all the manoeuvring tests.

</comment><comment><USER17> I'm impressed that NASA is allowing this. Can you imagine what it would be like to be the guy who has to sign off on that decision? Even if you have every confidence, imagining what would happen if things went wrong?

<comment><USER18> By the time it's anywhere near the station, it'll be moving at a pretty small speed relative to the ISS. The station's going to manually grab and pull in the spacecraft to avoid any automated docking "oopsies". Beyond those, the risk is pretty squarely in SpaceX's court.

<comment><USER17> I'm imagining something like a thruster getting stuck on at a distance where it's far enough to build up some speed but close enough to have a decent chance of hitting. I know the relative speeds aren't high, but the ISS isn't exactly heavily armored either. I doubt it would take much of a speed difference in a collision to do some real damage.

I'm sure the odds of anything like that going wrong are extremely low, but not zero, and so I admire the fortitude it would take to give a "yes" decision to this even so.

<comment><USER11> While that window is non-zero, it is also very, very small.

<comment><USER17> I'm sure. It's just that the urge to CYA for a unique $100 billion object has got to be huge.

<comment><USER19> Overseeing the dawn of a new era of human spaceflight? Cutting through the mountain of technical hurdles and bureaucratic processes to get this actually done?

Fuck CYA. There is no CYA here. There is success, and there is failure. As it should be.

<comment><USER17> I fully approve of what they're doing, I'm just somewhat surprised that old, stodgy, NASA was able to get past their ingrained CYA instincts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> SpaceX is definitely cheaper to NASA. But it is not really cheap considering space programs like that of India (ISRO). For example PSLV used for Chandrayaan-1 costs $17m per flight. A little outsourcing won't hurt NASA here.

</comment><comment> mkr-hn There's a live discussion on the launch here: <http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/nasatv/edu_flash.html>

<comment><USER21> Watching this live discussion is fascinating. There's a teacher who teaches 7 and 8 year olds asking how their love for Legos and video games could translate into a career in space exploration.

A career in space exploration. That's real today.

Just imagine how much more real it will be when those 7 and 8 year olds are all grown up.

Amazing!

<comment><USER22> I run the computer lab at an elementary school, and I make sure to tell all my classes that if they are willing to work hard for it, they could move to Mars at some point during their lives.

At the rate SpaceX is going, the students I have now are going to witness an incredible amount of major advancements in space travel and related technologies. I try to make sure they all know this, and some are already coming into the computer lab during break to talk about space exploration, careers in space, etc. These are just 5th graders! It makes me almost as excited to see their interest as I am to about missions like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Shaping up to be a momentous weekend for tech!

</comment><comment><USER24> I hope it will be featured live on NASA TV.

<comment><USER25> There will also be live streaming on the SpaceX website. They've invested in better video streaming infrastructure since the COTS1 launch, so hopefully this will stand up to demand. Everything worked well during the static-fire test a couple of weeks ago -- which is obviously less popular than the actual launch, but still drew in a fair few viewers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My only complain about this is that it will not have the Pan-Am logo on its side when it docks with the ISS.

It would be sooooo cool.

</comment><comment><USER26> I know I'm not adding real value to the conversation by saying this, but I've still got to say it for the record:

This is amazing! Really impressive how much progress this startup is making in just a few short years.

</comment><comment><USER27> What is an instantaneous launch window?

<comment><USER28> It means the launch has to happen at that exact moment, otherwise the path of the spacecraft in orbit will be too far away from the space station for a rendezvous to be possible.

From what I heard, they have multiple such launch windows, each about an hour and a half apart (each corresponding to an orbit of the earth by the ISS)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is so exciting! I hope it succeeds. How cool would it be to put a man on mars in a few decades?

Captain's log, star date 1312.4

<comment><USER12> Or woman.

Hmm. Actually, and woman. Gender neutrality powers, activate!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is there any mobile messaging app that requires no phone number? - <AUTHOR>

I've found plenty of mobile messaging apps (LINE, Viber, WhatsApp) but they all require a phone number. Are there any that just have a username? <comment><USER2> Google Messenger? (Although Google accounts try really hard to get your phone number, I don't know that it's ever required).

Anything XMPP based.. you could just use any old XMPP server and client.</comment>


Facebook delivers ultimate humiliation to Google - <AUTHOR> http://valleywag.com/tech/feuds/facebook-delivers-ultimate-humiliation-to-google-294789.php <comment><USER2> I wouldn't call 15-11 "humilation."

Well, unless I felt like being a tool.

<comment><USER3> "Ultimate humiliation" is a play on words, not a substantive comment on the score.

<comment><USER2> I certainly did not mean to imply there was anything substantive about that article ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Humiliation is a harsh word... both sides have brilliant engineers, and both understand that cooperation is better for everybody than competition. Could this be a new stepping stone in our economic realization. I remember Steve Jobs once said that he doesn't care about Apple being the market leader, that he only cares about making good products. Google seems to be following that philosophy, also. Being #1 is a by-product of doing great things. If you obsess with profits for the sake of obsessing with profits, you end up where Microsoft or the telecom industry is...

</comment><comment><USER5> In related news, Google removes facebook.com from their index.</comment>


Fireworks safety with remote detonation by SMS - <AUTHOR> https://www.hackster.io/rosshettel/sms-based-fireworks-detonator-a7ab27 <comment><USER2> An indication of the sad state of our society when one of the most immediate questions to come to mind when I see this is going to be "How many government watchlists does visiting this link put me on?"

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Not sure if I should be sharing this but in the right hands it might save a hand or finger LOL.

<comment><USER3> Hahaha</comment></comment>


Cryptocurrencies fundings monthly/yearly (Graph and table) - <AUTHOR> http://researchly.leobosankic.com/industry-insights <comment><AUTHOR> A side project I am working on; aggregating data about cryptocurrencies; industry insights such as fundings or industries, and token-specific information such as type (platform, protocol…), team, competition, network….

This is my first attempt at visualization (using Chart.js & WordPress)</comment>


Ask YC: what happens when the business fails? - <AUTHOR>

I know it isn't guaranteed. However, the odds of failing is greater than succeeding. So what typically happens when the business fails? How do things settle for the founders usually? <comment><USER2> In my experience a lot of drinking and a few weeks of "dark time."

Sometimes it is issues between the founders that tears the company apart. Think "bad breakup" or "nasty divorce" and let your imagination run with it.</comment>


Signal-blocking wallpaper stops Wi-Fi stealing - <AUTHOR> http://whatsnext.blogs.cnn.com/2012/07/18/signal-blocking-wallpaper-stops-wi-fi-stealing-and-comes-in-a-snowflake-pattern/

<comment><USER2> Everyone is missing the point of this product. It's not to stop wifi stealing - that's the marketing department badly trying to make the product easier to sell and the blog being lazy.

The reason you'd buy this is to keep the radio spectrum within your room yours. Like someone else said - this would open up more channels to you and prevent the guy downstairs running a microwave or buying a cordless phone from screwing with your signal.

<comment><USER3> No, the reason for this is security -- keeping your radio networks internal. Even with crypto on your main links, you never know when someone will set up an ad-hoc wireless, hotspot, etc., potentially bridging a secure network to the world.

Obviously you'd want to know dB shielding figures at various freqs, which you're unlikely to get from a crappy mass market article.

This kind of wallpaper is already commonly available. Also door seals, window treatments, etc.

It would be kind of worthless for normal, residential use (or even a regular office) since it would likely kill cellular bands (any badly installed wallpaper to screen 2.4GHz will hit 1.9GHz I'm sure). Plus, expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> CNN's blog editors should be ashamed at having allowed this paragraph: "The metapaper also advertises itself as a healthy alternative, since it claims to reduce a person's exposure to electromagnetic waves. Scientists behind the product point to studies that say the overuse of wireless technology could cause harmful heath effects."

<comment><USER5> That's pretty typical CNN. Here are Anderson Cooper and Dr Sanjay Gupta explaining that their thin plastic suits are going to stop gamma radiation and even masks that 'filter out' gamma rays 'circulating in the air': [http://blog.jgc.org/2011/03/cnn-sounding-authorative- while-t...](http://blog.jgc.org/2011/03/cnn-sounding-authorative-while- talking.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "The metapaper also advertises itself as a healthy alternative, since it claims to reduce a person's exposure to electromagnetic waves. Scientists behind the product point to studies that say the overuse of wireless technology could cause harmful heath effects."

Umm..

<comment><USER7> I'm ready to bet dollars to pennies that in a few years, this will be their primary market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If someone is causing substantial harm to you by stealing your WiFi then sue them.

If its just some dumb kid guessed your 'password' or aircracked it, the upgrade to a better WPA.

If you're being trolled by a leet hacker, then you've got bigger problems.

But please don't buy into that BS.

</comment><comment><USER9> How much less does this cost, in terms of both time and money, compared to _setting a password_ on your access point?

Oh, it costs _more_.

Brilliant!

<comment><USER10> Your conclusion is a result of a very poorly written title and lede. The greatest value of this product for your average consumer is not that it keeps your signal inside your home, but that it keeps other signals out.

Anyone living in areas of high population density can tell you how difficult it is to find an uncluttered slice of 2.4 GHz spectrum. It's next to impossible in places like Manhattan. I don't know just how effective this wallpaper is, but if it attenuates outside signals by even 50%, it would be a huge benefit.

EDIT: Another side benefit for businesses (even small ones) is control over what networks are available inside your office. Many businesses are in office complexes where WiFi signals overlap in to adjacent suites. I can't tell you how many times I've been to offices where users are connected to a neighbor's wide-open Wi-Fi network because they were ignorant of what network they should connect to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does it block cell phones?

3G and 4G have similar frequencies to wi-fi.

<comment><USER12> It's hard to imagine that it doesn't block cell phones. To get cell coverage you would need a micro-cell inside the apartment. Enabling encryption on the WiFi seems easier to me :-)

<comment><USER13> Retail stores will use this to prevent "showrooming" - where a person goes to a store and looks at something, then buys it from Amazon with their phone.

Ok, so people will still buy from Amazon, but they'll have to leave Best Buy first.

<comment><USER14> Isn't it illegal to jam cell phone reception deliberately ?

<comment><USER15> It's illegal to jam cell phone reception by transmitting on frequencies that are allocated to the cell carrier. I doubt it's illegal to passively prevent radio waves from entering your own property.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Finally, a chic replacement for tinfoil hats!

</comment><comment><USER17> Probably more useful in the role of attenuating other people's wifi APs and upping your own's s/n ratio, or even opening up entire channels for you.

</comment><comment><USER18> Given the frequencies, I think it would make a nice security layer around microwave ovens, too :)

</comment><comment><USER19> Does this also mean that your wifi is bouncing around in your house / Is that even safe?

<comment><USER13> It does anyway / yes it is

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> What I want to know is, will it protect my computer from an EMP?;)

</comment><comment><USER21> If this blocks ordinary voice telephone calls as well, what legal issues will it have with regard to emergency calls?

</comment><comment><USER22> Don't most modems have a setting where you can turn off broadcasting the WiFi network name? That would stop people stealing it, as they can't even see that it's there in the list of available networks.

<comment><USER23> This myth needs to die. The moment any client associates with an access point that is not broadcasting its SSID, that SSID becomes visible to anyone nearby with access point monitoring software. By definition, a client must broadcast probe requests in order to continue the association with the AP and those broadcasts are easily received.</comment></comment>


Scala is becoming popular fast - <AUTHOR> http://www.scala-lang.org/node/10923

<comment><USER2> Has anyone written anything significant on Android in Scala? I've got an app in the market and I was considering using Scala for additional development. You never really learn a technology well until you've built something real with it.</comment>


Json-Parse: Java JSON parser, smaller and faster than Jackson - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/mitchhentges/json-parse <comment><AUTHOR> I created this because I was frustrated with FasterXML's Jackson being over 1MB. It's a big dependency for Android apps, and has quite the performance hit.

Json-Parse should nicely solve the same problem, with a simple API, low overhead, and a nifty efficiency bonus.</comment>


Show HN: Beat video game addiction - <AUTHOR> http://gamequitters.com <comment><USER2> Filled out the quiz for shits and giggles, last step: "What is your email so we can send you your results".

Holy dark UI patterns Batman.

<comment><USER3> Is there a way to report a link for dark patterns? If not, why isn't there? Exploiting someone's fears/addicition is a deplorable way to build an email spam list.

<comment><USER4> You can send the link to @darkpatterns on Twitter [1].

They run the "Dark Patterns" website which is quite famous.

[1] [https://twitter.com/darkpatterns](https://twitter.com/darkpatterns)

[2] [https://darkpatterns.org/](https://darkpatterns.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Some of the questions seem a bit silly to me, and not really indicative of anything negative.

      >"Have you lost interests in, or reduced participation in other recreational activities (hobbies, meetings with friends) due to gaming?"

Of course becoming engaged in one hobby (gaming) would cause you to become less engaged in other hobbies you may have. I don't see why this is bad.

      >"Do you game to escape from or forget about personal problems, or to relieve uncomfortable feelings such as guilt, anxiety, helplessness or depression? *"

Yup, that's kinda what hobbies are for (partially). Imagine replacing gaming with say - cooking, or watching old westerns - does the scenario presented in the question still seem sinister to you?

<comment><AUTHOR> A single yes to one question isn't necessarily indicative of a problem - it's the combination (for the DSM proposed criteria it's 5 or more of 9) that creates the pattern and may show a problem. These questions are from the Gentile Scale of Internet Gaming Disorder (published in the APA) with a few adjustments based on other research (such as King's paper on Tolerance.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This reminds me a bit of the scammy motivational speakers that get people to buy their plans and go to their events. On one hand theres some value in there, some people really change their life. On the other hand the end of the tunnel for the speakers is money. With both of these things in mind it's hard to know is this something I need and how much do I need it since the other party is monetarily motivated for me to need it. It's possible it starts out with the goal of helping people but I'm always worried about if or when it starts to cross that line. Maybe I'm being out of line, interested in thoughts.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's certainly a valid concern and something I think is always worth being in the discussion. Personally the way we've navigated this is making sure you don't (need) any of the paid programs to succeed - all of the help and more is available either for free on youtube or with peer support on the forums. The paid programs are only a curated version of the content with a few bonuses like extra worksheets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> As a former 'video game addict' myself, I can't overstate how important I think this project is.

I never used Game Quitters myself, but I wish I had. I wish that I had found Game Quitters when I was younger, as Video Games were essentially the only thing I was living for. Video Games prevented me from getting outside and experiencing the world when I needed it most - when I was a deeply unhealthy kid who couldn't walk and who had been hospitalised and away from people his own age for a few years. Some things, like social interaction, I still struggle with today, and I wonder if that would have been the case if I quit video games.

I'm lucky that my path in life moved me away from Video Games, but I know others aren't so lucky. This is why I think the world needs Game Quitters to raise awareness of these issues.

I met Cam two months ago, and just by my interactions with him, I realised that even after a year since I last played a video game, it still has a big effect on my lifestyle and thought patterns. I've found Cam's Game Quitters YouTube channel helpful in indentifying those problems.

I think it says a lot that when I wanted to learn web development, the first thing I made was from a video game. And even now, I still find myself watching videos and streams of gaming from time to time, and Cam's work has helped me to realise my actions are having a negative impact on my life.

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazing to hear your story bro. Thanks for sharing it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The first time I ever played WoW was during the TBC expansion, the only thing is... this first experience happened from an account I had hacked at the time.

And the encounter was fairly short, maybe a few hours. I remember going to the Black Temple raid with a random group and also spending time in the area where the Sunwell raid was. Looking back, it's quite surreal to think that this little 'chance' encounter planted a seed that made me fall in love with the game.

But a few years down the line I knew I had to cut ties with the game, as I would sometimes go on a binge playing spree and not stop for many months. I say interesting because the game has been turned into an absolute garbage-can that I never want to touch again.

Playstyle became lifeless, classes got obliterated, and there are more cosmetic features being added than there are actual class improvements.

I'm kinda relieved that this is the case but I feel for the players who have literally invested their lives into their characters. Getting out of that cycle is really hard.

Fortunately, I never collected any psychologically-valuable items and simply played the game for the 'action' aspect of it.

<comment><AUTHOR> WoW was really tough for me to break away from - it was pretty much a 'second life'.

Was there anything particular that helped you quit when you decided to?

<comment><USER7> Yes, WoW is a tough one to leave behind. Hindsight, the game is a psychological rollercoaster, with high downs and even higher ups.

I think for the most part -- other than the game turning into crap -- it was the feeling of degradation, and I think this comes with age. And it helped that during my breaks from the game I actually got to live life, and have meaningful experiences that further fueled my decision.*

*: I don't like the word decision here as it implies forms of hatred/anger, which I don't believe is the case in my situation. Since it happened naturally, I don't have feelings of guilt or regret.

<comment><USER8> I don't think decision implies hostility. It's possible and maybe even healthier to take a Marie Kondo / Ariana Grande approach to things like this. Thank Warcraft for the good times, but now you're moving on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! I am a former video game addict who searched for help online and found none. When I shared my story in a blog post I heard from thousands of others asking for help, and decided to create a community for all of us to support each other: Game Quitters.

We have hundreds of resources, inspiring stories, free tools to find new hobbies, and community support. 99% of the website is free with a few reasonable paid programs with structured step-by-step guides and additional bonuses.

Happy to answer any questions you may have. :)

<comment><USER9> I flagged this post because the last entry of the quiz requires users to enter their email to receive results. Please don't do that.

<comment><USER10> "HN Guideline: Please don't complain that a submission is inappropriate. If a story is spam or off-topic, flag it. Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead. If you flag something, please don't also comment that you did."

According to HN guideline, you shouldn't comment about flagging a submission.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I sold my windows machine and just use Macs exclusively.

<comment><USER12> I did this exact thing, and went Mac only for fifteen years!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How do you consider accessibility in your projects? - <AUTHOR>

Developers: Whether you're creating something for the web or just a traditional desktop application, do you consider accessibility and if so, how?  I'm asking as a screen reader user, but considerations made to increase access for people with other/additional disabilities count as well. <comment><USER2> Honestly, I usually don't. It's extra work for not a whole lot of benefit, at least not for a startup. That said, Khan Academy released a great accessibility tool [http://khan.github.io/tota11y/](http://khan.github.io/tota11y/) which I'm excited to try out.</comment>


The United Nations Report on American Poverty Is Just Plain Wrong - <AUTHOR> https://fee.org/articles/the-united-nations-report-on-american-poverty-is-just-plain-wrong//amp <comment><USER2> The United States has always had deep poverty relative to what it probably should be.

US culture is weird. We value long, hard work as well as fortunes made overnight in dubious, speculative fields. Combined, this leads to a significant percentage of the population working hard, expecting their reward to come, not bothered by current circumstances. Obviously there are religious overtones here, like something out of the Middle Ages that kept the serfs in line.

If you look at accounts of the Depression, such as Stud Terkel's excellent "Hard Times" oral history, people remark about how passive America seemed, how in the face of grinding poverty, the rebellions and revolutions the intellectuals all forecasted never came to past.

<comment><USER3> 100% agree. The US is effectively a "two-speed" or maybe even "three-speed" nation, where the top tier (business owners and white collar workers) is never really hard up for anything, the middle tier is living ok but is precariously employed, and everyone else is effectively living in some kind of consumerist Somalia.

It's like living in Fallout 3, but the Walmart is still well stocked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The UN better be careful about biting the hand that feeds it.</comment>


Ask HN: Apps or software to help with weight loss? What worked for you? - <AUTHOR> I'm way over what I'd like to weigh, and I'm going to go on a diet (again). The last time I successfully did so (several years ago), I loosely followed something called the Hacker's Diet (https://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/), and (most importantly) subscribed to a controlled-calories food delivery service. For software, I filled an Excel spreadsheet (I now see they have an online software version ).
I'm not going to subscribe to the controlled diet service (too expensive), so I'm going to need to calculate calories in what I eat, and measure my weight.
So, what are any web or Android apps you've tried or recommend to help with this? Weight trackers? Food / menu managers? Calorie counters? <comment><USER2> The best calorie tracker app I found during my research is FatSecret[1]. It's completely free, and has great UI/UX in my opinion. The calorie database is pretty comprehensive, and it's quite easy to add your own entry. There is also a web version[2] in case you want to update your progress on desktop.

Good luck!

[1]: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fatsecret....](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.fatsecret.android)

[2]: [https://www.fatsecret.com/](https://www.fatsecret.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks ! I'll try it out :)</comment></comment>


Bitcoin Fits into Lebanon's Banking Crisis - <AUTHOR> https://www.coindesk.com/how-bitcoin-fits-into-lebanons-banking-crisis <comment><AUTHOR> When they have a fractured bank system plus a very weak currency, it opens the door for new opportunities. If Bitcoin is the best I don't know, but it is always called first.</comment>


Show HN: A Live Chat UI Using Glimmer.js - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/rajasegar/glimmer-live-chat <comment><USER2> > This README outlines the details of collaborating on this Glimmer > application. A short introduction of this app could easily go here.

Could be a good idea to describe the project. I get that it is a chat UI, but I went straight for the README file and got essentially nothing.</comment>


Found Functions - <AUTHOR> http://www.nikkigraziano.com/foundfunctions/index.html

<comment><USER2> Many of the functions aren't the greatest fits, but this is still very cool.</comment>


Facebook CTO Bret Taylor's Biggest Mistake? Buying Servers - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/cloud/2011/02/facebook-cto-bret-taylors-bigg.php?utm_source=ReadWriteCloud&utm_medium=rwchomepage&utm_campaign=ReadWriteCloud_posts&utm_content=Facebook%20CTO%20Bret%20Taylors%20Biggest%20Mistake?%20Buying%20Servers <comment><USER2> Absolutely. Until you have a minimum viable product, there is no point shelling out money on hardware or inventing languages or writing your own data-store.

Latest case in point being Asana Whig started out writing it's own language but wisely decided it's better to ship first.</comment>


The Mysterious Case of the Vanishing Genius (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/articles/201205/the-mysterious-case-the-vanishing-genius <comment><USER2> Add "(2012)"? See [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margie_Profet#Disappearance_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margie_Profet#Disappearance_and_discovery)

</comment><comment><USER3> She was found See [http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/missing-biologist- surfa...](http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/05/missing-biologist-surfaces- reunites-with-family.html) The last info about her (in the first link the letter is incomplete) [http://weeklyscientist.blogspot.com/2016/06/margie- profets-u...](http://weeklyscientist.blogspot.com/2016/06/margie-profets- unfinished-symphony.html)</comment>


Profitable Until Deemed Illegal - <AUTHOR> http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001196.html <comment><USER2> What they're doing is most probably not illegal. What they are doing is leveraging a lot of little things to make themselves good cash.

Let's be very clear - they use auctions. This is not a lottery. At the end of the day, the high bidder "wins" and pays the amount of the high bid to win the auction. Then Swoopo adds the (.75 * number of bids placed) to that figure. It's not inconceivable that that sum is less than MSRP.

At the end of the day, you can ensure that you win by placing the last (and highest) bid. Because there's certainty of winning - it's not random - it's not a lottery, and as such, doesn't need to be state-sponsored (as is the case with lotteries in most jurisdictions).

What's fascinating about that is that very few retailers use auctions to sell goods that they own/control/are obligated to ship. Auctions historically have only really been done by venues - eBay doesn't sell their own goods on the site; neither does eBid; and neither did Yahoo Auctions or Amazon Auctions (remember those?).

So Swoopo reinforces online marketplace psychology and eBay-style dynamics by having auctions. This is even though Swoopo is the retailer and has to ship the good (whether Swoopo's dropshipping or not is irrelevant; they still make sure the high bidder gets the item or its nearest equivalent).

On Dawdle, we initially launched with a structure that eliminates the "sniping" problem that you have with eBay. We had a structure where you could name your own price and any seller that had what you wanted could sell to you. However, your offer was blind to the seller and the seller's minimum price was blind to the buyer. It was very similar to the Priceline model, except that on Dawdle, the selling price was limited to the amount of the next highest offer + a bid increment. So when the listing ended, the price that the item sold for was the 2nd highest amount + bid increment. (On Priceline, whatever the offer is is the selling price; we wanted to give the impression to the buyer that they were getting a deal as they were paying less than what they had offered.)

I bring this up only to show the difference between having a different kind of auction structure (like Dawdle did, and we retain in a limited fashion with our StandingOffer technology) and what Swoopo is doing. All Swoopo is doing is charging people to bid, setting the bid increment, and being a retailer disgused as a venue.

The question is, can this last? Given the limited amount of differences between Swoopo and eBay, my guess is probably. They'll have a branding issue if people keep attacking them, but at the end of the day, it's transparent.

<comment><USER3> Its not an auction if bidding costs money regardless if you win or not. Its more of a raffle.

<comment><USER4> "Its not an auction if bidding costs money regardless if you win or not. Its more of a raffle."

Show me the law that says this and I might begin to believe that you have a point here ... but right now I do not. I don't know much about auction laws, but I've never heard of it being illegal to charge for participation, and if it is in fact illegal then there must be someone online who has complained about it or files a case somewhere ...

<comment><USER5> Demonstrate how it is different from a raffle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So I have a personal experience with this idea. I was living in Finland for the past year and a half, and came across this same idea with a site called fiksuhuuto.fi. I didn't have any moral opposition to the idea, because I believe that its no different than any other sort of lottery or game of chance. Adults should have the right to risk their money for the possibility of reward.

I was working remotely for a company at the time, so gave them 2 months notice and started developing, with the intention of launching a similar company in Canada in 6 months time. I had another Canadian partner, and started looking into all facets of the idea. The site development went fairly straight forward and allowed me the chance to return to web development after 5 years of Mac and Windows application development.

We had contacted the best law firm we could find with experience in gaming and intellectual property. After spending a fairly large sum of money to get a risk assessment, it was clear that the idea was definitely illegal. Because many people were paying for the chance to win a product, it was online gaming and illegal in Canada. We had a few options, none of which were very reassuring.

I am rambling now, but I just wanted to mention that I paid nearly $10K to have this looked into by lawyers, quit my job to implement it, and moved back to Canada from Finland to go ahead with the project. I am stunned that this is being done in the US, and am no going to be surprised at all when it goes bad for them. If it doesn't, then I made the wrong bet of calling it quits.

On a side note, if anyone wants to buy a nearly completed site with the same idea as this, feel free to contact me.

<comment><USER6> I realised that my email wasn't in my hacker news account, so if you want to email, its markelhinney at gmail dot com.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow. This is both genius, and despicable. It's amazing what kind of profit they drive, yet it seems like they're really taking advantage of people with gambling addictions, or poor money management skills.

<comment><USER8> Isn't that what most businesses do?

<comment><USER9> An annoying attitude. I spend 2 dollars on a box of crackers. Here's the rough process:

1\. Farmer takes out a loan at Wells Fargo.

2\. Loan clears, Farmer buys seed, etc.

3\. Farmer grows 2000 acres of wheat.

4\. Summer passes, farmer harvests wheat, and it travels 1000 miles to be processed.

5\. Nabisco (Altria) buys wheat for a pre-agreed price (determined months ago by the Chicago futures exchange--a bunch of speculators who took risk on themselves so Nabisco and Joe Farmer could get to business.)

6\. Nabisco puts the wheat (plus 10 other commodities) into its industrial mixers, ovens, packaging machines, fleet, etc, until it winds up at Walmart.

7\. Walmart (which did 1001 separate things in order to make the deal go down) puts a $2.00 electronic price on the crackers.

8\. I show up, put some plastic through a device, some digital numbers go through 2 thousand miles of wire to 5 different financial institutions, and then I get a box of crackers. Game over.

I've participated in 500 billion dollars worth of business without even realizing it, getting a day's worth of calories for a tiny percentage of my daily income. That's "evil" somehow?

<comment><USER8> Where exactly did I say anything about evil? The goal of business is to fleece its customers of their money. Some do it in nicer ways than others but they all do it, poor money management skills on the customers part is always good for business. Our entire consumer economy is based on that fact; we spend all of our excess money rather than saving it like we should.

<comment><USER10> How do you explain machine tools?

<comment><USER8> I don't follow, can you rephrase the question?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's actually humorous to me how many people here are expressing firm opinions about whether or not this is legal despite the fact that they clearly have no understanding of the complexities of gaming law in the United States. This is why I always tell people "ask a lawyer". Non-lawyers think they know far more than they really do.

As someone whose startup has spent huge amounts of time and money on online gaming legal advice, my guess is that this is legal in at least 44 states, and possibly the other 6 as well. It's certainly not gambling, since there appears to be no random selection of the winner, but it may fall under the sweepstakes header. It may merely be an auction (legally, though maybe not morally).

<comment><USER2> Yeah, it's been a while since I've boned up on my online gaming/online poker stuff, but I would consider myself an expert on marketplace dynamics and structures (as we invented our own structure for Dawdle.com). This meets all the requirements of an auction site, and by a country mile.

<comment><USER11> Are auctions universally legal?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't see the difference between this and playing the slots in Vegas. In both cases the house has the advantage; in both cases more is paid for the final prize than what it's worth; in both cases the winner likely gets a good deal on the prize and the losers lose their investment.

<comment><USER11> There's nothing random involved in this, whereas there is with slot machines. Legally that makes a world of difference.

<comment><USER13> Someone who can see the slot machine's internals and understands how it works will be able to predict the outcome, so in that sense it's not "truly" random. The reason it's still legally random is that it's as good as random from the point of view of the player. Same applies here. No?

<comment><USER11> No. This auction system is no more random than chess. In chess, your opponent can just blunder and give you a win. Bobby Fisher once lost to a newspaper reporter. But just as in chess, this auction system determines a result based solely on the actions of the participant. There is no roll of a die, turn of a card, or reading of a number from an RNG. Legally you need something like that to be considered gambling.

You're right of course that slot machines aren't truly random in the sense that they use a pseudo random number generator. I don't think they have any hardware in them that reads thermal noise or anything like that. But that's sufficiently close to the roll of a die to qualify.

Philosophically I tend to agree with you since I believe the universe is deterministic, and nothing is truly random. But I'm pretty sure that legally this would not be gambling or sweepstakes in at least most states.

<comment><USER13> So if the outcome of the slot machine is determined by the outcomes of other slot machines in the casino, then the slot machine ceases to be a game of chance?

It seems to me that if you define randomness in any way besides "involves no skill, or almost no skill", but instead by explicitly describing the mechanism of "randomness", then all sorts of loopholes open up.

In any case, big kudos to these guys for coming up with it. My day was completely ruined by envy.

<comment><USER11> Each slot machine has its own independent RNG. Even if they shared one, it's still an RNG. Many forms of gambling involve skill. For instance, I can achieve a higher return (though still negative) at a craps table than your average Vegas gambler because I know which bets pay the best odds. That doesn't make them any less gambling.

How much skill vs. chance constitutes gambling varies from state to state. But no state would define a system in which there is no random element as gambling. If the outcome is 100% the result of the actions of the "betters" it's clearly a game of skill. (If it's based on the actions of third party humans and contests, it's usually illegal, such as betting on sports or elections).

Interestingly, in many states instant bingo machines are legal games of skill due to that very reason. They look and feel just like a slot machine, but the payouts are predetermined, just like a box of instant bingo cards, so there's no element of chance, even though the person playing them has no idea what the next payout will be. States have been/are closing that loophole fast.

<comment><USER11> On a related note, I've been interviewed a number of times about poker and am always asked whether it's a game of chance or skill. I always tell them both, which people just don't want to accept as an answer. I don't know why people think all games are one or the other.

Sure, some games you can be +EV, some you can't without cheating, but that doesn't mean it's binary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Pardon my ignorance...

Why does the author call this website illegal? I'm not sure what laws they are violating.

<comment><USER15> It will likely be called a raffle because buying the "tickets" costs money and you will very likely get nothing for it.

In almost all states in the USA, raffles are illegal as part of the private lottery statutes. In practice, enforcement agents usually look the other way for small non-profit raffles like the kind held in church basements for pies and such.

They are _extremely_ unlikely to look the other way in this case!

<comment><USER4> "It will likely be called a raffle because buying the "tickets" costs money and you will very likely get nothing for it."

It is NOT a raffle because a raffle winner is selected 100% by chance whereas at swoopo the winner is the person who bids the highest price -- and bidding the highest price is not based on chance.

<comment><USER11> Right, it's clearly not a raffle or a lottery. It's an auction. I don't think it would violate the sweepstakes laws of any state, though there are 6 I wouldn't push it in if I were running it.

<comment><USER4> Matt, you seem to know more about the legal framework than most other posters here. Which 6 states would you avoid? I have an important reason for asking since I'm working on a startup that uses a similar system -- very different in some respects, but certainly similar enough in others that your insights are valuable to me. You can email me privately if you prefer, my email is owkaye at gmail dot com.

<comment><USER11> Arizona, Iowa, Louisiana, Maryland, Montana, and Vermont all have very restrictive gaming/sweepstakes laws. You'll notice nobody who does fantasy sports or skill games for money (cbssportsline.com, worldwinner.com, etc.) allows customers from those states.

I'm really not sure if this auction system would qualify. I would really check with a lawyer versed in online gaming and sweepstakes if I were doing something like this. If you need, I can recommend the firm that almost every American who runs a casino or poker site uses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Good article, but the author is a little rusty on his behavioral economics. The anomaly he refers to is not the endowment effect but the sunk cost fallacy:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunk_cost#Loss_aversion_and_the_sunk_cost_fallacy)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endowment_effect>

<comment><USER17> It's both. You're told you own the item, then suddenly that you don't own it any more.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Entertainment Shopping" is their slogan. I wonder if that's going to be their legal defense. "You're paying for the entertainment..not the item"

<comment><USER19> Sounds like gambling...

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I can't believe this company is offering a scenario where you pay an upfront cost to try to get something for less than it usually sells for.

I haven't seen anybody get away with that since _basically every retail outlet in America charged an upfront cost -- time and inconvenience -- for the chance to buy stuff at a discount, on Black Friday_. Unprecedented.

I have no idea why measuring certain things in dollars rather than hours or oranges or whatever else throws people off so. If this business freaks you out, and regular retail stores don't, you haven't been thinking hard enough about the latter.

<comment><USER21> I agree 100%. this is essentially a sucker tax. why does everyone spend so much time worrying about suckers? Oh right, because we all subsidize suckers with taxpayer dollars in socialism. poor people are good at wasting money, that's why they're poor. giving them the money of non-suckers fixes NOTHING.

<comment><USER22> That's a great argument that I haven't heard before. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Just did some napkin math for this site (please bare with me, there are a few assumptions based off the figures I could actually find)

They say they have 50k users, and in 2008 their revenue was $28.3 million USD (from wikipedia).

Theres also a comment on a related Crunchgear article from the "CEO of the company" (linked at the end), which states he is shipping about $1.5 million (presumably) USD in value of goods each month which totals $18 mil for the year.

So thats around $10.3 mil a year profit (roughly) making around $26 per user.

Although, I'm wondering how many of their users are actual active users.

so they're making about $26 per user (roughly)

[http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/09/24/swoopo-entertainment- sh...](http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/09/24/swoopo-entertainment-shopping-or- scam/)

EDIT - actually on quick reflection, I wonder if the value the CEO stated was retail or wholesale value of the goods (I expect retail) and if the value listed on Wikipedia is correct (which it might not be) then that number may be higher.

These also don't take into account their advertising budget, but I wouldn't think they'd spend close to $10 mil a year in advertising.

These guys are definitely making a tidy profit thats for sure.

</comment><comment><USER24> I was contacted last week by a headhunter for this company. At first I was very uncomfortable about their business plan. But I talked to them and they seemed on the legit side of the law, at least over here in Germany. To sum it up: pure Faustian brilliance. I guess they're still looking for devs, so if you want an inside look, get yourself invited to an interview.

</comment><comment><USER25> I was in a game theory class and we were learning about auctions. Just don't ask me how much I paid for his $5 bill in his "all-pay" auction - it would have been evil if it didn't go to charity. (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All- pay_auction>)

<comment><USER26> I've always thought this would make a great game show.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> There are tons of sites with this concept, or at least the variant of "least unique bid wins". The most evil part is how they manage to get so much media attention, now even our beloved Coding Horror has been reeled in.

</comment><comment><USER28> It's a really well-written and well-researched article.... been a while since I've been this impressed by a Coding Horror article's fleshing out the details and stuff! :)

Very interesting read... and ingenious idea.

</comment><comment><USER29> Very evil, but I'd _love_ to see the data that comes out of it.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've always been fascinated with the game theory, math, and psychology behind these schemes. There's a bunch of variations of the auction model that can guarantee or nearly guarantee a profit. One of the more popular auction models is to make the winner the person with the lowest unique bid, but it costs to place bids.

<comment><USER31> The lowest bid game is equivalent to simply giving it to the last person who bid isn't it?

<comment><USER6> Actually, no. In those games, its the lowest unique bid. check out <http://www.bidster.com/> . This way, if more than one person choose the lowest bid, then those cancel eachother out, and the next lowest, but non- duplicated bid wins. There's a large number of these sites out there actually, but none-the-less a very profitable business. Might be less of a lottery though, because one could claim its a game of skill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This is _awesome_. They must be raking it in.

<comment><USER33> Here somebody who claims to be the CEO of Swoopo tells:

 _"We are currently shipping items totaling about $1.5 million to our winners every month."_

[http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/09/24/swoopo-entertainment- sh...](http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/09/24/swoopo-entertainment-shopping-or- scam/)

(Sorry for no permalink to comment, couldn't find one)

Also Wikipedia entry on Swoopo has unsourced revenue 20 million Euro in 2008.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swoopo>

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> This is like running a casino. People that play _know_ the odds are against them. They still play. It's about the fun/excitment, the possibility that YOU could beat the odds.

trading the stock market has negative expectancy as well, if you count in trading costs (against just owning the index like the S&P 500 or the MSCI world, with almost no trading costs) Is running the NYSE immoral?

</comment><comment><USER35> They are passing some of their earnings on to Google in the form of advertising buys. I just saw an ad for them in my Gmail account.

So one step that could be taken would be for Google to ban them from their advertising network. Would Google do this? I don't know, but the answer would be revealing.

</comment><comment><USER11> This won't last long. Eventually people will realize they'll have more fun buying the iPod and playing craps instead.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is online gambling. Isn't that already legally problematic?

</comment><comment><USER37> Sounds very similar to pyramid reward schemes to me.

<comment><USER38> Well... Both rely on their customers being complete fools...

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I wonder if there's a correlation between using Swoopo and winning one of these awards:

<http://www.darwinawards.com/>

</comment><comment><USER40> Reminds me of the old party game, Dollar Auction. Bidding's in 10-cent increments, and the prize is $1. The twist is that the top _two_ bidders pay their bids, but only #1 gets the prize.

Bidding will go far past $1 because, even though it's a loss to pay $1.10 for $1, the 90-cent bidder would rather lose 10 cents than 90. I've heard of bidding going up into the $20 range.

<comment><USER41> Wow. I need to play poker with those people.

<comment><USER42> After hearing about the outcome of this game you'd think that you'd have to be an idiot to get sucked in, but you'd be mistaken. We once did a dollar auction in an auditorium at Canada/USA Mathcamp -- not exactly a dimwitted group -- and bidding went up to $5.

<comment><USER40> Canada/USA Mathcamp: What year?

<comment><USER42> 2002 and 2003.

<comment><USER40> Cool. I was 1998 (Toronto) and '99 (Seattle).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> What's despicable about offering a service people want to use?

Isn't this just like offering poker games and other gambling, or selling beer (you pay for something that harms your health, and the only saving grace is that people enjoy it)?

<comment><USER30> Nothing is inherently despicable about the model. What is despicable is that it is advertised as an auction site, not a gambling game. Also, a lot of these sites (there are many like it) don't have very much transparency, and it would be easy for them to not award a prize at all while still collecting the bidding fees.

<comment><USER4> "What is despicable is that it is advertised as an auction site, not a gambling game."

If the winner becomes the winner because he bid the highest price, then it's an auction. Since when are auctions considered to be games? Sure, it's an auction in which bidders must pay to bid, but are there laws that ban the charging of fees for participation in an auction?</comment></comment></comment>


Scientists Edit a Dangerous Mutation in Human Embryos - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/science/gene-editing-human-embryos.html <comment><USER2> > _They injected a synthetic healthy DNA sequence into the fertilized egg, > expecting that the male genome would copy that sequence into the cut portion > ... Instead, the male gene copied the healthy sequence from the female gene. > The authors don't know why it happened._

This seems like the most remarkable part of this entire article. It sounds like a huge discovery. There's a lot of ethical concerns that can be laid aside if the embryo is simply replacing genes from the other parent. That's still just a healthy baby, not a "designer" baby.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand, being completely unfamiliar with genetic imprinting as we are, we have no idea what the effects that this kind of single-gender inheritance may be.

<comment><USER4> Isn't this called crossing over and a common thing in gametes?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> >and is sure to renew ethical concerns that some might try to design babies with certain traits, like greater intelligence or athleticism.

If America doesn't do it, China will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the US standing toe- to-toe laughable. If China doesn't, Russia will.

I want genetic engineering because it's logical that as humans learn to exert control over their environment, it's inevitable that we also learn to control our own evolution. Rejecting this seems like tying our hands behind our backs unnecessarily. But I get that huge swathes of the population reject it for religious reasons or what have you. I argue that the "arms race" argument could work well to sway these people, and then before we can send super- soldiers into battle, our much more intelligent children will realize total species improvement is a better investment than squabbling over arbitrary borders, and carry on the race without these disputes.

<comment><USER6> I like how you portray the US to have a higher moral standard for this subject matter. I wonder if there's a Chinese guy who read the article and said:

If China doesn't do it, USA will, and in a generation will be swollen with a population so much more fit as to make the question of the Chinese standing toe-to-toe laughable. If USA doesn't, Russia will.

Maybe it is time to start thinking about an international agreement to limit unethical genetic engineering. A "Paris Accord" for "Genetic Engineering" if you will...

<comment><USER7> It's not moral standards we have, it is ridiculously parochial notions of purity and natural-is-better attitudes. If we fail to free our children from stupidity and ill health, we are the moral imbeciles. If Asian nations increase health, IQ, and happiness through genetic selection and engineering, this will speak of higher moral sophistication. We have right-wing religious conservatives on one side and on the left a sort of Lysenkoism that pertains to all mental traits. I fear this will prevent us from implementing this technology.

<comment><USER8> If you outlaw genetic engineering, only outlaws will be genetically engineered. Then they'll take over the world.

<comment><USER9> That's a paradox since a genetically improved species would abhor violence. They would have no ability to take over the world. They would become subservient like the Eloi in The Time Machine.

<comment><USER10> > a genetically improved species would abhor violence.

On the other hand, humans are the apex predator of the known universe, the output of 4.5 billion years of evolution driven by relentless, unceasing violence. It's not clear that a genetically improved species would abhor violence.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is really exciting news.

However, a big challenge that makes this work extremely difficult to bring to fruition is that you have to let an embryo develop fully to figure out to determine if the therapy actually produces a healthy human. At which point the consequences of failed experiments become increasingly difficult to work with for obvious ethical and moral reasons.

<comment><USER12> They did let them grow for 5 days which should have provided some data. Though what I don't get is why were they destroyed after 5 days? If it's considered ethical to allow abortions for periods up to 20+ weeks, then it should be considered ethical for science as well.

<comment><USER13> The practical reason is it's not clear how long they would survive. These embryos are in a petri dish, unless they were to implant them in a women's uterus I'm not sure how long they would be able to develop.

You might be able to develop them longer than five days, but then you hit the ethical issues. The entire moral argument for abortions is based on bodily autonomy of women, and that those rights trump the rights of an unborn fetus. But for raising a fetus in an artificial environment there is no body autonomy argument.

Another issue is murkier, and is based on the circumstances. Generally abortions are used by women who did not intend to get pregnant as a last resort form of birth control. When you're performing abortions for scientific purposes it's different, and there are different ethical standards to consider.

<comment><USER14> I think i would put the same importance on the well-being of a women and scientific progress.

One shouldn't trump the other.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> There's a huge difference between eliminating known mutations and somehow engineering for enhanced positive traits. The latter requires knowledge that we simply don't have.

Even if we did obtain it, it doesn't follow that Jo Slow would be worse off. We're all of us already better off living in a world with smart people in it. We're _obviously_ better off living in a world with _healthier_ people in it (reduced healthcare costs)

Futhermore it doesn't make sense to be personally jealous of smart people. It seems that being smart can be a significant burden; you're an outsider at best or you veer into mental disorder at worst. Only rarely do smart people flower into creative geniuses, the kind of people who contribute to progress. Most people use their smarts to be more normal than the norm...

<comment><USER16> Healthier people don't reduce costs, they just delay them.

<comment><USER17> What? Maybe if you only count the costs of someone on their deathbed. Someone who requires Care their whole life definitively costs more than someone who doesn't

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The particular fix done in this study prevents hypertrophic cardiomyopathy, a genetic disorder that I have.

I cannot explain how weird it feels to read front page headlines that scientists have "fixed" me, that its a huge breakthrough that scientists will be able to remove part of what makes me ME from future generations.

I'm all for it, of course. HCM, most frequently diagnosed in people by their sudden death, is bad. But at a personal level, this feels unnerving.

<comment><USER19> Now imagine when we can "cure" things like autism, nonstandard genders, race, etc.

A lot of tolerance is predicated on things being out of our hands, practically. That goes away if we can change them.

<comment><USER20> I can't claim to represent the last two, but I would gladly trade a great deal less tolerance of autistic people for no one to ever be born with autism ever again, even if I didn't personally benefit at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I can't wait until this technology matures and I can fly in to a clinic somewhere in the world to have this work completed so my future children will never have to suffer from debilitating diseases.

</comment><comment><USER22> Baby Designer... DNA Architect... Genes Coder... they will sound very good in Linkedin.

<comment><USER23> "Led the effort to clean up the genetic debt introduced by previous teams and refactored for efficiency. Offspring eats less and no longer randomly shits everywhere."

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've often wondered about Cystic Fibrosis and DNA editing. For people with two copies of the variant gene, they get the disease. But there are indications that having one copy of it can bring benefits ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heterozygote_advantage)).

So what if the optimum for humans is to have both variants? It would seem appropriate to move the newer CF gene variant to a different place on the chromosome so that doesn't need to displace the original gene. I imagine nature may eventually figure this out, but embryonic DNA editing could bring it about sooner. Of course this is speculative on my part and people would obviously debate taking such action even if the science really suggests it's a good idea.

</comment><comment><USER25> It would be nice if we could figure out a way to encode knowledge in the genotype (serialization) to be extracted by the phenotype (deserialization). Injecting Wikipedia into an embryo...

</comment><comment><USER26> I think it's unethical for us to not pursue gene editing. Why bring children into this world with greater susceptibilities to disease? Also, if people want to go a step further and alter traits like appearance and athletic ability that should be their choice. It is their genetic material.

<comment><USER14> The issue I think is one of accessibility and availablity. If you're poor, and can't afford this, you are literally priced out of the gene pool. There has to be regulation to make sure that the tech is not out of reach of the poor.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> One step closer to the 'master race', I guess my decendants will end up as pets, slaves or killed off.

</comment><comment><USER28> Good! For too long, we've been hampered by the limitations of a human nature evolved millions of years ago for a very different environment. All previous attempts at changing human nature have failed. Activism does not work. Grand social movements do not work. Policing language does not work. We now have a chance to succeed in improving ourselves using tools that actually work.

<comment><USER29> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_(Firefly)#Origin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaver_\(Firefly\)#Origin)

<comment><USER30> Fallacy of Fictional Evidence.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > She doubts a flood of couples will have "edited children."

And one person's gut check should be ok, right?

</comment><comment><USER32> A lot of people will be talking about ethics. But I'm thinking more along the lines of economics.

Rich people having expensive gene edited kids. They're stronger, smarter, more driven, and healthier than your kids. They are better looking. They'll be more advanced than kids their age. They'll have all sorts of built in advantages.

The social and economic gap will widen. Opportunities come easier to the people who look great, are crazy smart, and are driven to attain them. So the rich kids become richer and more powerful.

It's one thing to get a head start in life because your parents give you money. It's a much bigger advantage when your parents can also afford to give you built in physical and mental advantages far beyond other people.

Imagine being the kid who realizes he's slower than his classmates because his parents are poor, and that it's too late to ever change that.

<comment><USER20> I don't see any alternative here. You could theoretically make the gene- editing a standard benefit paid for by the government, but the US at least can't even agree on how to provide basic healthcare, so it's unlikely we would agree on this. You could outlaw gene-editing, but as long as it's medically possible some people will still do it, and at best you get the same result at a slower rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> As someone with a genetic disease that involves my spine disintegrating and my heart basically being a time bomb, I have a really hard time seeing a problem with this.

Limit it to diseases and genetic anomalies so it doesn't become a race thing and voila. Why would getting rid of things like my disease be a bad thing?</comment>


Stop Using the Occam's Razor Principle - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/stop-using-the-occams-razor-principle-7281d143f9e6 <comment><USER2> Occam's Razor makes us legitimately suspicious of Dark Matter, in amounts radically exceeding known matter, as an explanation for galactic rotation anomalies.

The effect is that we demand a great deal of supporting evidence, which has been accumulating, incrementally, although the particle needed to clinch matters has not yet been identified. Still, without DM, we would need some other way to account for the anomalous rotation and the other oddities since identified and attributed to DM.</comment>


The case for bringing Swift to the Server - <AUTHOR> http://www.infoq.com/presentations/swift-server <comment><AUTHOR> This was recorded at QConLondon in March 2016 and IBM's engineers are talking about how they are working on the Linux port of Swift, as well as the docker technology behind the Swift web repl at [https://swiftlang.ng.bluemix.net](https://swiftlang.ng.bluemix.net)

Disclaimer: I hosted the Modern Native Languages track and invited these guys to speak at the conference.</comment>


Hostile takeover of Open Source Project TWiki - <AUTHOR> http://blog.wikiring.com/Blog/BlogEntry28 <comment><USER2> What a stupid idea. The value of open source projects isn't in their code, but in their developers. The code, being GPL, can be picked up by anyone with few restrictions; on the other hand, the developers cannot be copied.

Its not even as if he could make a proprietary fork of the project; being GPL, such a thing is impossible unless you purge all code contributed by all other developers who refuse to go along with such a license.

<comment><USER3> Also given that there are competing, comparable, open source/commercial wiki projects (a mindtouch cofounder commented on the article), the developers do have other places to go...

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Where's the benefit in this? I could understand it more if TWiki were a consumer-facing thing like Firefox with a huge codebase and a large developer community. Or did TWiki get big recently?

</comment><comment><USER5> if you release open source you should _never_ complain if somebody users your code, as long as the use is legally compatible with the license.

</comment><comment><USER3> The article sites Wilson Sonsini as an investor in Twiki.net, but they're actually a law firm. I'm confused.

</comment><comment><USER6> the blog post doesn't make it clear that Peter Thoeny started the open source project.

however, I also know well how the TWiki community works and wouldn't have expected that the original founder would act like this. TWiki in practice was owned by the community (much alike Debian)</comment>


If you outlaw encryption, only outlaws will have encryption - <AUTHOR> https://www.adamsmith.org/blog/if-you-outlaw-encryption-only-outlaws-will-have-encryption <comment><USER2> Well one way to test for backdoors is to do fake plotting and watch for a response

<comment><USER3> As in trying to get the FBI knocking on you door? Parallel construction dictates they'll never confess how or what they truly broke.

<comment><USER2> > As in trying to get the FBI knocking on you door?

Yes, to put it bluntly. Then you can blow the whistle on them because there's no way in hell they could have known were it not for them intercepting the plot. Maybe it won't hold up in court, but it's an interesting idea.

<comment><USER3> A very interesting idea indeed. I wonder if there exists a metaphorical whistle that can be heard when they whisk you away to Guantanamo bay. I mean to say I cannot believe that they would even allow such a thing to go to court. The war on crypto has gotten my tin hat on.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Towards AI-Complete Question Answering, Using Deep Learning - <AUTHOR> http://arxiv.org/abs/1502.05698v1

<comment><USER2> Looks like the FB lab opened access to the tasks database for training. Also, when did Mikolov move leave Google for Facebook?</comment>


Florida man jailed for failing to unlock his phone - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/florida-man-jailed-for-failing-to-unlock-his-phone-1827600878 <comment><USER2> [https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3da793/fbi- arrest...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/3da793/fbi-arrests-nsa- contractor-on-suspicion-of-leaking-hacking-tools)

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xdxg9/fbi- hackin...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/7xdxg9/fbi-hacking- investigations-classified-remote-operations-unit)

[https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/?#EXAMPLES](https://wikileaks.org/ciav7p1/?#EXAMPLES)

You do not have the right to privacy on your phone. If you would like to make a difference, please visit [http://www.decidethefuture.org/](http://www.decidethefuture.org/) and see what your local representative is doing.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _The police got a search warrant for the devices, claiming that they contain > evidence of "Possession of Cannabis Less Than 20 grams" and "Possession of > Drug Paraphernalia"—both of which Montanez already admitted to, which makes > it unclear why the cops still want to search the phone to prove the > charges._

This really doesn't pass the smell test. I'm glad to this case moving forward.

</comment><comment><USER4> Has anyone tried a screen lock data wipe app? Put in the special pin or pattern on the lock screen and it deletes sensitive files. You can easily restore from the cloud later.

<comment><USER5> Congratulations. You just willfully destroyed evidence pertaining to an investigation. Enjoy your obstruction of justice charges. Also enjoy the spoliation inference the prosecutor can now use against you.

<comment><USER6> How could they prove intent? Fudge the code twice then the third time wipe it and play dumb.

<comment><USER5> The court need only point to the fact you downloaded an app specifically meant to wipe your phone via an "oh crap" code.

I mean, I get LE and the justice system is given a lot of crap for being behind the times, but cmon now. This is slam dunk tier legal argumentation here.

I'm not even a lawyer and I'm pretty sure I could convince a judge on that point. If they issue a warrant for something, and you do something to what the warrant was issued for, you tampered with evidence. This is heavily frowned upon. Especially in the middle of a court room, right in front of a judge.

If you want to send a message via civil disobedience, all power to you.Just understand, you're still going to have to deal with the consequences.

I don't like it any more hand anyone else here, bit until you can sell a legislature on changing a bunch of this, in court is the absolute LAST place you want to make a stand on it. Judges are going to go with the least amount of reinterpretation to keep the system and Law Enforcement trucking.

Law is made by legislatures. It's just the way it is.

<comment><USER7> > the fact you downloaded an app specifically meant to wipe your phone via an > "oh crap" code.

Are we now assuming PKI is fundamentally broken or that one were dumb enough to download an apk from a plain http site?

I'm not going to address the rest of the comment as I don't feel like it, but they'd have to know in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If he says he doesn't remember his passcode, won't six months in jail pretty much guarantee that he will never remember it?

I forget my passwords all the time if I don't use them frequently. It's like muscle memory, so even after two weeks of vacation I struggle to remember them. Six months of not using it in a high stress environment would definitely cause me to forget it.

</comment><comment><USER9> At least phones do not enforce a password with special requirements

</comment><comment><USER10> "Florida man"... Has Gizmodo changed into the Onion or Reddit now?

<comment><USER11> Does anyone remember Fark? :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> I still check it daily!</comment></comment></comment>