Ask HN: Future of Facebook? - <AUTHOR>

Will Facebook continue to go unchallenged and dominate the web? Or will a bold startup disrupt their plans? Or a different scenario? What do you all think? <comment><USER2> Diaspora's an interesting contender, though I doubt it can beat facebook's mom/grandma-friendly ease of use. Facebook is pretty smart, mind you, but they do need to pick up the pace on mobile (maybe, they'll buy Loopt as they should anyways).

It would be very funny to see the next big startup beating facebook using facebook's Open Source tools. I mean, to scale that high, you would be silly not to. After all, Diaspora's betting on MongoDB (wonder why they didn't go with Cassandra, hmm? :-p)

As about the future, facebook will continue to make the web facebookable, the "Like" is only the beginning. I wouldn't be surprised if facebook integrated loopt to make real places "Like"able and have check in's as a core feature. facebook sign-in will continue to have more impact and it's likely that facebook may even dominate commenting using a Disqus like approach.

</comment><comment><USER3> I give FB about two, maybe three, years.

It's hard to imagine tectonic shifts, but they happen in technology pretty often. And we have all the ingredients for a shift. The only thing left that's needed is a well-played challenger, and we'll get several by year's end.

<comment><AUTHOR> I fully agree. Facebook is tied to Microsoft and Yahoo, two sinking ships in the consumer psyche, birds of a feather flock together. I wonder if Apple will ever see the need to parter with a social platform...

<comment><USER4> I've always wondered if apple would ever do that. How they'd stay exist post- jobs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think that Facebook will sink. However, since it's spread itself so thin over so many different areas I think that some startups might come in a become bigger players. It's kind of like Myspace. Facebook did a good job destroying their > 18 demographic, but it still has a strong following amongst teenagers (source: many younger cousins)</comment>


Funding Comparison of TinySeed Indie and Earnest - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/swlh/alternative-funding-calculus-a-quant-comparison-of-tiny-indie-and-earnest-8d61d35d5ad5 <comment><AUTHOR> I also liked the detailed analysis of the initial Earnest proposal [1]

[1] [https://medium.com/swlh/the-cost-of-raising-earnest-a- review...](https://medium.com/swlh/the-cost-of-raising-earnest-a-review-of- earnest-capitals-shared-earnings-agreement-seal-2cf68c099ddc)</comment>


How recreational marijuana in California left chemists in the dark - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/12/22/16808964/california-weed-laws-legal-prop-64-safe-labs <comment><USER2> > _"It's not like people are dying from pesticides in cannabis... "_

It's entirely possible that many people are dying from carcinogenic pesticides in cannabis. Similar to the way people die from impure cocaine, heroin, etc. Igniting and inhaling petroleum products is not going to be found to be healthy.

The secondary affects of drugs being illegal and unregulated is one of the great sins of the War on Drugs.

Commercial cannabis should be highly regulated. Look to startups and technology to bring the price of pure organic ganja down over a short few years.

<comment><USER3> > "Look to startups and technology to bring the price of pure organic ganja > down over a short few years."

In general I'd prefer small businesses rather than startups with dreams of going very large dominate in spaces like this.

As is it's already fairly expensive for new players to get a legal foothold. Regulating it to the point that it requires the type of capital that startup people can get raise is gonna shut out a lot of people.

<comment><USER4> Fortunately, as many college students will tell you, weed is very easy to grow. As long as commercial licenses are easily available, I think small, locally owned, organic, etc. outfits will be able to coexist with any potential "Starbucks for Weed".

<comment><USER5> Legal recreational weed should be as easy as craft beer.

<comment><USER6> Easier. All you need is a hole in the ground, some compost, and the sun.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> the regulations for pesticide in Oregon is so strict, baby food would fail. Tomatoes and grapes would fail with 10x above level. Some pesticides have no known toxicity or health concerns were straight up banned. The lab companies were able to lobby for sampling rate that ends up taking a huge percentage of the profit. On top of that, they are corrupted, crooked and rumors of taking bribe for failed tests. Even using certified products you can fail. They had to change the approved list to "guide list" so you don't know what to use. Toxic pesticides in baby food is OK in Oregon, but not in the marijuana.

<comment><USER8> The contrast with tobacco and alcohol (both legal) is ironic.

It's also amusing to imagine trying to get something like tea approved under this kind of regulatory regime - fluoride, heavy metals, questions about China pollution, addictive with many known deaths from abuse of the deadly stimulant drug in it (caffeine), unknown potentially synergistic interactions between its psychoactive substances (caffeine+theanine), a risk to dental health, regularly adulterated with other substances, potentially contaminated with coliform or botulinum, and typically consumed in a manner with known health risks and elevated oral cancer classified by IARC as a probable carcinogen (boiling hot water). I wonder how many ordinary things would be de jure or de facto banned these days if they were not grandfathered in.

<comment><USER9> > known death from abuse of the deadly stimulant drug in it (caffeine)

Can you name 1 (one) example of tea (or coffee) induced death?

<comment><USER10> It is feasible to brew enough strong tea, and drink it, to cause cardiac arrest in a susceptible individual.

It's extremely unlikely someone would do that, and there's probable enough bitters in tea, especially green tea, to cause the average person to vomit before they ingested too much caffeine from tea.

But what green wrote is true and correct: [https://www.caffeineinformer.com/a-real-life-death-by- caffei...](https://www.caffeineinformer.com/a-real-life-death-by-caffeine)

<comment><USER11> So it seems these were mainly suicides, and it's about as relevant as blaming water for people intentionally drowning themselves.

Worth noting that e.g.the doses listed under energy drinks on that page are well within ranges that have been used in various studies of impact of caffeine on athletic ability. If those levels are dangerous to some it seems likely to require a pre-existing heart problem as there seems to be exceedingly little evidence that those levels are risky to the general population.

To reach levels toxic to most people with tea you'd likely end up concentrating it so much you'd end up eating a slurry with a spoon...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just as different psychological effects ensue from cannabis products when eaten vs smoked, the health effects of eating vs smoking various pesticides present on cannabis products are likely to differ.

While some testing and monitoring of health effects of various pesticides when they're eaten from food has been done, we really don't know what effects those same pesticides will have when they get in to the human body through smoking. The smoking route of administration could potentially be much worse for some of them.

Elsewhere in the thread someone mentioned the possibility of growing marijuana organically. Well, organic pesticides aren't necessarily better for you than inorganic ones. Their effects really have to be studied on a case-by-case basis. Simply using organic pesticides isn't going to magically save you. Going pesticide-free might, but then, well, you have to deal with pests.

<comment><USER13> Pesticides are not the only solution to deal with pests, it's maybe the easiest to understand but is also the worst human made solution. Nature has solved this a problem long time ago through diversity of plants, insects, and animals.

</comment></comment><comment> brian-armstrong At a federal level, I wonder if cannabis will first move down to Schedule II or lower, or if it'll just skip straight to legalized/decriminalized, whenever that happens

<comment><USER14> It's quite a challenge to the states rights people who are also pro drug war when half the states have legalized it.

<comment><USER15> [https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/1227...](https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house- bill/1227?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22tom+garrett%22%5D%7D&r=2)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can't people grow their own in California?

Isn't being able to inject your self with some marinara reefers the point of legalization?

<comment><USER16> > inject your self with some marinara reefers

Wow, that gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "hitting the sauce"!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So pesticides are allowed on food consumed by kids with no label or warning, and no testing required yet they're not allowed on a product meant to be incinerated and inhaled and used as a recreational drug by adults? Okaaaaayyyy....

<comment><USER5> By inhaling it, it's absorbed directly into your bloodstream, through the lungs.

<comment><USER18> I'd like to see a 50-year longitudinal study on the effects of different common chemcals over previously untested lengths of time.

Actually, it'd be nice to see more 50-year studies on the effect of anything on anything.

<comment><USER5> They're probably tainted by some industry lobby. Look at the sugar industry which has hidden the link between sugar and cancer for 50 years. More like a 50 year cover up, than a 50 year study.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The world's losers are revolting, and Brexit is only the beginning - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/06/27/the-losers-have-revolted-and-brexit-is-only-the-beginning/ <comment><USER2> I have not read beyond the head line(which is revolting), and I can guess the contents. This is new low for Washington Post, BREXIT has 72% turn-out and 4-point spread win. If you are going to bash UK, the so-called most favored ally in Europe as loser, then congrats.

Washington Post rank and file are certainly not winners, but they are doing a excellent job for the agenda of their Overlord.</comment>


Ask: Website categories? - <AUTHOR> Blogs
News
News Aggregator
Social Network
Dating site
Marketplace
Ecommerce Store
Saas - CRM
Saas - Analytics
Forum
Search Engine
Directory
Archive <comment><USER2> You may want to reframe your category based on use. This would solve the "what's the difference between news & a blog" and "is a forum just an old social network?" problems

You could use categories like:

Content Generation – One-Way – Text (blogs and things)

Content Generation – One-Way – Mixed Media (archive.org)

Content Generation – Interactive – Graphic (Instagram and Flickr)

Content Generation – Interactive – Text (forum, twitter, facebook, chat, wiki)

Products & Services – One-Way – Corporate (like a big company's homepage. Sells, but isn't a store)

Products & Services – One-Way – Single Vendor (web store with single vendor)

Products & Services – One-Way – Digital Consumption (Netflix, hulu)

Products & Services – Interactive – Marketplace (craigslist, ebay, dating sites)

Web Infrastructure – One-Way – Search & Retrieval (search engines, research databases)

Web Infrastructure – Interactive – APIs

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Image Gallery

Chat

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Social Bookmarking

Q/A</comment>


Wapedia - Wiki: Hashlife, super fast Conway Life implementation - <AUTHOR> http://wapedia.mobi/en/Hashlife <comment><AUTHOR> I've been playing around with this all morning and afternoon now, if you don't plan to get hooked please ignore this posting :)

If you should ignore this warning then please check out the 'hexadecimal' file under 'Hashing-Examples' in Golly.

</comment><comment><USER2> Previously mentioned in Doctor Dobb's: <http://www.ddj.com/hpc-high- performance-computing/184406478>

</comment><comment><USER3> The original HashLife paper:

<http://www.scribd.com/doc/5998925/hashlife>

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't understand the algorithm. How can you cache any particular area, wouldn't other areas potentially affect it?

<comment><AUTHOR> Life patterns are changed at most at 'the speed of light' because the influence of a cell only reaches only to the next cell.

What amazes me most about this is the enormous speed increase over other implementations, which usually center around nifty bit packing routines.

Algorithms that give you billions of times speedup over others are a rare find, the 'fresh approach' paid off in a big way here. It's also interesting that he uses functional programming techniques to achieve this, even if initially it seems like you're actually losing performance.</comment></comment>


Using aluminum to overcome capacity challenges in submarine cable systems - <AUTHOR> https://code.fb.com/connectivity/aluminum-conductor/ <comment><USER2> Let me see if I get this straight.

Aluminum is a worse conductor than copper, but if you use aluminum you can use more of it, because it is cheaper, and thus support more energy throughput, right?

<comment><USER3> "As a conductor, aluminum allows for a much lower cable voltage drop, which allows for a higher number of FPS per cable." Also, its cheaper</comment></comment>


It's Remarkably Easy to Lock a Pilot Out of the Cockpit - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/03/remarkably-easy-lock-pilot-cockpit/

<comment><USER2> Amid all the talk of how the door locking system should or should not be modified (eg always rotating another person into the cockpit or whatever), I'm astonished that there's no discussion of having a backup radio system on the plane. One of the saddest things about this whole incident is the idea of the senior pilot futilely banging on the door with no way to get in, and no way to even communicate his predicament to the ground.

Allowing ground takeover of a plane in distress would bring numerous problems of its own and is probably not feasible to implement in the immediate future, but adding an extra radio would be technologically trivial, the protocols would be easy to implement, and it would allow witnesses to (apparent) crimes of this sort to pass information that might save lives or at least give investigators a head start instead of a 3 day delay.

<comment><USER3> I think it's not a priority simply because it makes no difference. I mean, if you had some Disney-style ability to 'go back' and change one thing, it'd be the 48-hour delay in forming an initial conclusion?

Personally, I think it'd be much more productive to address the culture that leads to this - it is incredibly difficult for pilots to seek help for mental health issues. It's "career suicide", and puts them in a position where medical professionals are their enemy.

Worrying about the particular trivialities of this incident really doesn't get us anywhere - remembering that any tool put in place to help the "good guy" is also available for use by the "bad guy". Ensuring "good crew" can rush the flight deck helps in the case that it's the "bad crew" flying - but also allows for "bad crew" to rush the flight deck while "good crew" are flying. You can't win this one.

<comment><USER4> > it is incredibly difficult for pilots to seek help for mental health issues. > It's "career suicide", and puts them in a position where medical > professionals are their enemy

Exactly. Except that not so much the medical professionals, but the employers are the enemy. In the meantime, evidence was found in the pilot's appartment which shows that he was in treatment for a mental illness and was certified unfit for work on that day by his doctor. And his employer did not have a clue about all that... (German reference e.g. [http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/a-1025956.html](http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/a-1025956.html) )</comment></comment></comment>


Why not to do a local + online startup (and what to do instead) - <AUTHOR> http://www.crashdev.com/2012/01/top-three-reasons-not-to-do-local.html

<comment><USER2> I was at a comics store (Chicago Comics) yesterday when a pair of startup guys came in to pitch what sounded like a loyalty program. (I didn't catch the name, but they said something about users getting points called "pixels", if anybody recognizes it.) The owner politely but firmly brushed them off saying that he'd heard from a dozen similar startups and he was just going to wait a few years to see which survived and became worthwhile.

So there's a fourth reason: there's enough of these startups that small business owners are sick of you.

<comment><USER3> It's not just startups, either. In many markets, you've also got embedded competition from newspapers, radio, TV, and local magazines. And, of course, there's the national players like Groupon, Living Social, Google... The market is very likely disproportionately crowded for the amount of money you could feasibly extract from SMBs.

<comment><USER4> Local businesses in the US alone spend around $100 billion/year in advertising. I think you're underestimating the size of the market and how many companies it could support.

Small businesses often don't have the expertise to analyze things like ROI so often end up spending large amounts of money inefficiently (that restaurant with a 2 column 10-inch ad in the local newspaper typically pays around $80 per customer gained), there's a huge opportunity in this space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This analysis is painfully similar to the last (start-up?) company for which I worked.

A huge chunk of my time in client acquisition was first dedicated to education. Things like impressions, clicks, CTR, and god forbid CPM are all jargon to most small business owners. Further, the concepts of geo-targeting or limiting delivery rates while possibly advantageous just make this first step a problem of too many choices. They wanted to be able to open the site (like opening a newspaper) and know they would see their ad and pay a fixed amount.

The second problem was then the same that we consistently see on Hacker News about pricing. Because it is a digital medium, shop owners expect the price to be much cheaper than that brick called the yellow pages.

Looking back, I can't blame the SmB owners for their resistance to give me their money. If I owned a small business, I would much rather use the money to help fund some community event or provide discounts to loyal customers. I personally believe that SmB owners are better served avoiding most traditional advertising and instead creating ways to better interact on a personal level with their community/city.

The only exception I can think of are artists. It would be really beautiful if all the medium rectangles and half-pages were tasteful ads for galleries. If that were the case, I would definitely turn off Adblock again.

<comment><USER6> The education component is where the disruption comes in. We have a solid business selling phone calls. Our sales pitch is "we make your phone ring and you really never have to worry about it."

SMB's get it and we don't need to educate them at all.

<comment><USER7> How long have you guys been up and running?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is so wrong it's hard to know where to begin. I work for a very successful local company in Switzerland - have written about it before here - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2053665>

The problem with local + is not local, it's us - us geeks. We don't understand it. We expect it to play out like the rest of the Internet - grow community, B2C, performanced based etc and we're wrong. And we're not listening...

Some of the fundamentals of local + are;

\- don't waste an SMEs time. You really want to tell, say, a hair dresser they should spend a morning a week managing their ad campaigns (or similar) instead of cutting hair?

\- be on the ground with a sales force - 75% of SMEs aren't interested in the logic of why yours in the best idea ever; they'd rather talk to someone they like and hear a sales pitch they can relate to

\- bring genuine value - i.e. help them generate leads - stop trying to screw money out of them - I'd argue Groupon are an offender here

To the idea there's no money to be made, I can only smile.

I could write loads more on this topic but already started that here <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2053665>

Ultimately SMEs are those that need the Internet's help the most and are also those we're failing the most and IMO we're the ones to blame.

</comment><comment><USER9> I never understood the appeal of doing a local online startup. The conversion rates are not much bigger in local, and your visitors are scattered all across the USA. So suppose you got a 1% conversion rate, and 1 million uniques. That's pretty good: 10,000 buyers. At 1% conversion rate and 100 uniques in 1 city, you're down to just 1 buyer. That stinks. But it doesn't scale because no local advertiser is gonna get excited over 1 buyer.

</comment><comment><USER10> This analysis is spot-on. Especially when it comes to getting small businesses on-board. Groupon, one of the champions of local, spends massive amounts on educating and selling local businesses on the value of daily deals.

</comment><comment><USER11> Salesforce is charging my company 1000 euros per month per sale person for what appears to be a rather simple crm. SAP is charging hundreds of thousands of euros for an ERP that is anyway too complex for small businesses.

Maybe it is me, but I believe the real problem is that start ups don't take the time to understand the businesses they want to disrupt. They like to discuss about scalability, nosql, complex software stuff, but guess what, probably a simple application in mysql that does know the business is worth 1000 times more.

And just to give a practical example about my point, look at how much discussion has generated a rather simple problem on linkedin: <http://tinyurl.com/89ocf8x>.

</comment><comment><USER12> Stores are a marriage of a logistics business and a marketing business. The split is about 75%/25%. That marketing component is ripe for disruption that directly connects the original sellers (brand, manufacturers, authors) to their end users (consumers, readers).

Letting the stores control the decisions about how that connection gets made is not in the entrepreneur's best interest. Making that connection efficient by using your great idea is not in their best interest. That's disruption for you.

The winners will figure out how to separate the logistics of local availability from mobile/local marketing.

</comment><comment><USER13> This strikes me as terrible advice. Local remains wide open for new ideas. Some of the very brightest current startups are local-driven (eg groupon, square). Local is far from "done". Entrepreneurs who can crack the local nut will be rewarded handsomely.

<comment><USER14> Please do share some of these "new" ideas. The only ones I've seen are Groupon clones and each seems to get worse than the next. (Not to mention SMB's hate Groupon after using it.)

<comment><USER13> Off the top of my head: Ness, TinyReviews, FourSquare, Stampt, Perkville, Giftly, MotionLoft, Savored, Gobble, Farmigo, Rewardli, Prism Skylabs, Zaarly, Local Hero, Red Beacon, SeatMe, ZeroCater.

<comment><USER14> Sadly, I don't think any of them are popular with the general public; even big names like foursquare and possibly Zaarly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Of course, if this is true and all the local startups fail (which is likely), we're headed for another 2000-era dotcom bust.

<comment><USER16> Not necessarily.

There needs to be real innovation on business model, but there are local services from 2000 era that are BETTER suited to today than then.

Kozmo.com is my prime example.

There is need for a local delivery site where you can find affordable delivery of anything in your area. They need to employ all the bike messengers and others, adopt the task rabbit scale of service and branch out to delivery, errands etc.. on an affordable scale.

I flew to NYC with one of the founders of Kosmo back then and expressed how much I loved the service and wished I could use maps (something like google maps which didnt exist) to be able to view various stuff near me; "Show me all indian restaurants within 1 mile" etc..

He didnt think that there was any value in such granular searching.

Anyway - I still want these services, but I think this nation needs a rude awakening on how much shit should cost.

<comment><USER12> Please explain your last sentence.

<comment><USER16> >...Anyway - I still want these services, but I think this nation needs a rude awakening on how much shit should cost.

What I mean is that I think that everything is overpriced.

While the market seems to support current costs - I also think that costs are out of balance with value. For example, when I look for freelancers both programmers and designers - it appears that every single freelancer believes their value to be ~$200K per year, i.e. they are all asking for $100 per hour or more.

While I think that there are a lot of talented designers and programmers/developers out there, I am skeptical that EVERY one of them is worth 200K.

I also think that a lot of menial tasks seem to be overpriced.

Most task rabbits seem to want $20+ per hour, I just dont think that errands and what-not really are valued at $20 per hour, even though everyone seems to want to be paid that.

I think this is a symptom of everything being too expensive, from food to services.

<comment><USER12> I think the task rabbit price drops when the density of task rabbits is high enough in a locale to make the marginal cost drop. If I am right you should see this happen for certain tasks that don't make people deviate much from their ordinary course. Data gathering while shopping, for example, should be cheaper than delivering furniture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> A very interesting and timely article coming right at the time when I am reevaluating the launch functionality for my Asian "yelp-like" startup what2do.asia and after just having a series of meetings with seed/vc investors.

The interesting thing is that the Asian local search market has never really been cracked, it is highly fragmented and travel patterns and local search needs are very different. Anyway thanks for posting this and sharing, it has provided some great insights.

</comment><comment><USER18> Local is a fine place to start as long as it is universal in scope and has scalable reach: Facebook started local.

</comment><comment><USER19> The only successful startups/companies serving local businesses are those that focus on verticals; for example see what Zocdoc is doing.</comment>


AFNetworking - A delightful iOS and OS X networking framework - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/AFNetworking/AFNetworking <comment><USER2> This has been around for quite a while now and is definitely one of the most popular networking framework for Cocoa. Before that it was ASI which was delegate based (AF is block based). Compare to ASI, AF is a lot more modern (also being actively maintained is a nice plus). Definitely my network framework of choice if I have to start an iOS project myself.</comment>


Announcing Oracle Cloud Free Tier - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.oracle.com/oracle-database/freedom-to-build-announcing-oracle-cloud-free-tier-with-new-always-free-services-and-always-free-oracle-autonomous-database <comment><AUTHOR> Databases:

Your choice of Autonomous Transaction Processing or Autonomous Data Warehouse. 2 databases total, each with 1 OCPU and 20 GB storage.

Compute:

2 virtual machines with 1/8 OCPU and 1 GB memory each.

Storage:

2 Block Volumes, 100 GB total. 10 GB Object Storage. 10 GB Archive Storage.

Additional Services:

Load Balancer, 1 instance, 10 Mbps bandwidth. Monitoring, 500 million ingestion datapoints, 1 billion retrieval datapoints. Notifications, 1 million delivery options per month, 1,000 emails sent per month. Outbound Data Transfer, 10 TB per month.

[https://www.oracle.com/cloud/free/#always- free](https://www.oracle.com/cloud/free/#always-free)</comment>


Ask HN: What are the most paid jobs in Software? - <AUTHOR> Let's say you want to make as much money as you can as a Software Developer working for a company. Which job/company should you apply for?<p>PS: $200K/year is low <comment><USER2> Pay is based on the business value you deliver. That's more true the higher up the pay scale you go. No one is paid a lot just for knowing a language or working at the right company. If you want a big paycheck concentrate on identifying and solving business problems.

If you are talking about getting rich from equity you have to get lucky as a founder or early employee of a company that makes it big. If that was easy we'd all be rich.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hear CEO of a software company pays pretty well.

More to the point, I was pretty intrigued at the difference in pay rate for golang programmers vs php programmers.

<comment><USER2> That differential accounts for Go programmers usually having significant experience with C, C++, PHP, etc. A newb is still a newb no matter what language they learned first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > $200k/year is low

On what planet?</comment>


'Ant Simulator' Cancelled After Devs Blow Crowdfunding Money - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2016/02/01/ant-simulator-cancelled-after-devs-blow-kickstarter-funds-on-booze-and-strippers/#3ae6433c3e6d <comment><USER2> To onerous to post on Forbes, but it wasn't the "Devs" that blew the money.

<comment><USER3> details? Money blown is taxable income, the IRS will come sniffing...

<comment><USER4> as I understand it, it was not the dev but his partners (who were not the develeopers on the project) who blew the cash. The backgorund is that the developer partnered with 2 guys (brothers IIRC) who helped set up crowdfunding, it was the crowdfunding cash that was blown on hookers and blackjack!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you fix small bugs of your team members or strictly delegate? - <AUTHOR> After commit, you see a incorrect NOT operator placement. Do you fix it or raise a bug on that team member? <comment><USER2> Send a PR to that team member with a fix to ensure they know what you've done and agree with the fix.</comment>


Tesla shorts threaten to cause car accidents to discredit Tesla - <AUTHOR> https://electrek.co/2019/04/20/tesla-shorts-threaten-accidents-restraining-order/ <comment><USER2> Headline is misleading. 2 random Twitter users made jokes that skabooshka should help with the FSD test by creating random events for the car to react to, it wasn't a serious suggestion. People say crazy things on Twitter.

<comment><USER3> Except someone actually tried to cause an accident. Employees had to call the police and Tesla was granted a restraining order against him. This wasn't just "jokes on twitter"</comment></comment>


Australian 'Satoshi' filing hundreds of Bitcoin patents - <AUTHOR> http://theage.com.au/technology/technology-news/australian-bitcoin-founder-craig-wright-filing-for-hundreds-of-patents-related-to-blockchain-20160621-gpo6lk.html <comment><USER2> The clearest evidence yet that he's not the real creator of bitcoin.

<comment><USER3> Did you see him at work in that picture?

[http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/assets/edillus/ohag01_3813_04.jpg](http://cdn.lrb.co.uk/assets/edillus/ohag01_3813_04.jpg)

The minute I saw that I was like: Yeah, No.</comment></comment>


AMD's answer to relevance questions leaks with prices - <AUTHOR> 16 threads for about 500 bucks. Quad cores for 150. And if the leaks are to be trusted it will trade blows with intel in performance. <comment><AUTHOR> [http://techreport.com/news/31427/rumor-full-ryzen-spec- and-p...](http://techreport.com/news/31427/rumor-full-ryzen-spec-and-price- list-leaks)

Url</comment>


Tech shuttles now travel as far as out as the Central Valley - <AUTHOR> https://www.protocol.com/silicon-valley-tech-shuttles <comment><USER2> "Now"?

I had a friend who bought a home in Manteca. Another moved to Ripon. Both worked in Sunnyvale 5 days a week.

They decided to form a vanpool. One drove to work, the other homeward. They soon filled the vanpool with paying passengers that more than paid their commute costs.

This was in _1986_.</comment>


Announce: Haskell 2010 - <AUTHOR> http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell/2009-November/021750.html

<comment><USER2> This is mostly codifying things that are already widely implemented. (Of course, in Haskell-land "implemented in GHC" counts as "widely implemented"...)

Here's a brief list of what's changed (note: this includes the already-widely- implemented stuff) ...

Fix an annoyance in the language syntax that meant that (e.g.) an if/then/else construct inside a "do" needed to be indented in a weird way.

Allow module names to contain ".", providing an obvious way to make a hierarchy of modules.

Allow _data_ declarations with no constructors. Apparently this is useful when engaging in various sorts of compile-time type system magic, where you have types that are used only for that magic and not because you ever expect to use a value of that type.

A grammar cleanup related to infix operators.

Add a standardized foreign function interface.

Another grammar cleanup: Haskell to-end-of-line comments begin with "--" unless that's part of a legal lexeme; it happens that colons are treated specially in the grammar, which mean that you couldn't make a symbol "--:--" because the "--" would always be parsed as beginning a comment. Not any more.

Guards in a pattern-match can now include their own pattern-matches; the guard fails if the pattern-match fails, otherwise it succeeds and the appropriate binding takes place.

Type inference is a bit more flexible (note: in practice most implementations behaved the more-flexible way already).

Document expected behaviour of the LANGUAGE pragma so it can be used portably to specify what language extensions your code needs.

Remove n+k patterns, which were always controversial.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe in 2010 GHC will start working on Snow Leopard. Fingers crossed.

<comment><USER4> It does work, it just doesn't compile to 64-bit.

GHC doesn't have an awful lot of people working on it, certainly compared to something like GCC. There is no maintainer for x86_64 on OS X; essentially, those of us without the skill to resolve the issues are just hoping that someone steps up.

This Trac ticket has more details; you can see from the length of the CC list how much interest there is in resolving this. Unfortunately, interest doesn't directly translate into a fix.

<http://hackage.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/2965>

<comment><USER5> If it can't install off macports, it's broken to most people.

SBCL is in the same position. I can (and did) compile/install it manually - but that doesn't change the fact that it's "broken."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Amazing how small the set of accepted changes is given the amount of extensions GHC has. But, I'm happy that a decision has been reached and Haskell as a language is 'officially' moving forward again.

</comment><comment><USER7> IMO, the biggest thing missing from Haskell is a fast Mutable Map (like Python's).

The current workaround is to use a tree structure with O(log N) lookup time, which is obviously not good.

Yes, I know such a data structure isn't pure, but there are other Mutable objects which are implemented and available.

Perhaps someone should just write a wrapper to a good standalone C/C++ implementation and make it available on Hackage. Would be a huge help.

<comment><USER8> > the biggest thing missing from Haskell is a fast Mutable Map (like Python's)

Data.HashTable is part of the core library and has improved a lot over the last few years.

<comment><USER8> Hmm, I tried with GHC 6.10 and the python dicts are still faster. I'm told that the judy array on hackage is the way to go for mutable maps but I haven't tried it personally.</comment></comment></comment>


Language that compiles to VimL - <AUTHOR> http://www.github.com/luke-gru/riml

<comment><AUTHOR> Author here, let me know what you think, if you have any ideas, feature suggestions, derisive or sarcastic remarks, etc...</comment>


Capitalizing on hurricanes Irma and Harvey: $6,785 for an economy seat - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2017/09/07/capitalizing-on-hurricanes-irma-and-harvey-6785-for-an-economy-seat/?deferJs=true&outputType=default-article&utm_term=.5f61ee42a5f3 <comment><USER3> Price gouging incentivizes creative and extreme tactics to increase the supply of a scarce good. And even when supply is inherently fixed, it at the very least gives you a clean way (even if it's not necessarily fair or good) to figure out who gets the last 10 bottles of water.

But, if we're selling bottled water at $99 per crate, I can do all sorts of crazy things to bring in water. I can convince my friends to take a week of their vacation to help me figure out how to get an extra 10,000 crates of water to the disaster area for a cool million bucks. And then we've got a fat budget to rent boats, off-road vehicles, even helicopters to bring in crates of water. At $99 per crate, I can think of a lot of absurd supply chain tactics that are actually economical with that kind of revenue.

If you create a law that bans me from selling water for $99, I'm not going to be able to do any of that. Not only am I no longer incentivized to drop everything and spend a week organizing a water supply chain, even if I was incentivized I don't have the kind of budget I need to get water bottles into a city that's underwater.

If people are willing to pay that much for gas, water, plane tickets, it means they really need it, and that you can do some funky and extreme things to increase the supply while still being fully profitable.

<comment><USER4> While I don't disagree with your analysis, I think it misses something important.

There are people - living, breathing people - who are experiencing trauma and danger and who are starving and thirsty.

We could choose to spend our own money on gasoline to drive down and distribute water. We do not need to seek compensation for everything we do. We can choose to lose money to help people who are in need. And I think charging $99 for a crate of clean water is adding insult to injury to people who have lost their livelihood.

The calculus of your argument is correct but it lacks empathy.

<comment><USER5> Raising prices economizes scarce resources. It ensures that one family doesn't buy all the water in the store for themselves, and that there is more for others. If it's an emergency then the high price is worth it. If the price is too high to be bought, the seller can't sell anything. The price finds an equilibrium which is useful, not harmful. If you want to help, send the victims money afterwards.

<comment><USER6> >If the price is too high to be bought, the seller can't sell anything.

This is the trick in your sentence. We're talking about aggregate demand and aggregate supply but at the individual level there is certainly the possibility that the price is too high for someone to buy.

Here's the problem, economic utility cannot be a moral guide in this situation, look at this example:

(1) Water is normal price but with a limit per customer or lottery.

(2) Water is very expensive and the richest person or people in town buy a lot and hoard it.

#2 generates a lot more economic utility, but we can all agree that it's not an optimal situation here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the picture of the shopper with hundreds of bottles of water illustrates the problem nicely.

In a disaster, demand changes. If you artificially keep prices from increasing, you'll have shortages. And likely those shortages are due to customers buying a ton of product and just selling it on the side at a higher price.

<comment><USER8> > And likely those shortages are due to customers buying a ton of product and > just selling it on the side at a higher price.

So have a max per person? Economic theory is nice and all, but limiting disaster supplies to wealthy people is not an acceptable answer.

<comment><USER9> Well, economic theory would ordinarily indicate that supply would increase to meet demand. That is, if a plane ticket starts costing $6500 for an economy seat, more people will enter the airline industry, and the prices will fall. And in the case of more elastically supplied goods (e.g. water) during a disaster, that's probably correct. But airplane seats are fairly inelastic. So, I think that's the tension we're seeing here. I'm not sure what the solution is though. The reason for the high price is fundamental: there are a limited number of seats available. You'd better believe every available seat will get sold to someone, and they have to be allocated somehow.

<comment><USER10> > they have to be allocated somehow

There's a proven algorithm to allocate scarce resources without price-gouging.

That algorithm is called "first-come-first-served-with-quantity-limits".

<comment><USER11> This is the best algorithm to emerge a black market. Then you can have both first-come-first-served AND price gouging!

<comment><USER12> Given the existing laws, stores engaging in price gouging essentially are a black market. You don't stop trying to manage a disaster just because there's no perfect solution.

<comment><USER11> No, that's simply 'market'. It becomes black only when you outlaw it in an attempt to enforce perceived fairness† but not backing the supply side.

[†] we can argue long and hard about morality of "first to grab wins" vs "deepest pockets win", but let's agree in most societies neither is seen as a virtue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> At the end of the day this is a failing of the government (both State and Federal).

We have a Federal oil reserve. The government bears the cost of storing it (and in turn all taxpayers bear a small cost) so that when something happens and we need oil, we have it.

The state of Florida should have a bottled water and canned goods reserve. They (and their taxpayers) should bear the cost of storing those goods so they are available for a disaster.

Then there wouldn't be price gouging.

You could do the same with planes. They could store planes for times of emergency, or they could repurpose military transports or at the very least they could let the airlines set demand based prices and then subsidize people's purchases based on income and need, so that the airlines are incentivized to send more planes, but everyone can still get out.

If you believe that the government is the ultimate collective risk pool then it makes sense for it to act like one.

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm in South Florida and facing this trying to book flights out (getting stuck on I-95 with a two year old won't work for us).

The airlines have adjusted their rates (it seems) but you can only find tickets if someone cancels.

I used the Chrome Puppeteer API to check Delta once per minute and grabbed tickets for $130 per passenger.

</comment><comment><USER15> There is also the increased cost of getting this merchandise to an area that is in shortage. If the roads are in disrepair, or there is flooding, it's gonna cost more to stock it. I have a feeling that not all increased prices are gouging... a lot of it is just that people don't want to have to pay more when crisis strikes. But preparedness counts in a situation like this. Waiting until the day before landfall to go and stock up is just plain idiotic. People need to think and plan ahead. If things cost more when you do it - <USER2> probably just waited too damn long to get your supplies.

</comment><comment><USER16> Why does everyone making these analysis ignore the context and the choices leading up to the moment in question?

Hurricanes are not stealthy, there are multiple day's warning before they make any kind of landfall. One person gave up something in the days prior to the hurricane so that they could have sufficient supplies to last out the event. Another person didn't make the same choice, and now it's being deemed unfair and unjust that the second person has to do without or pay a premium for their decision.

</comment><comment><USER17> If price-increases are allowed during severe shortages, then people would make a business of "pre-stocking" disaster-prone areas so that there is enough to satisfy this increased demand (at even reasonable prices, not extreme ones). Sounds like a perfectly reasonable business model.

But pre-stocking, specifically the long-term storage of supplies (as most preppers will probably note), is costly. At that point, it's not price gauging, just simply the cost that that person/business spent trying to store the supplies in preparation for the natural disaster. Heck, it might even be something that certain businesses can can incorporate into their existing warehousing/storage facilities. But that won't happen unless they're allowed to charge normal rates during normal periods, and increased ones during shortages. Because they'll simply go out of business, being the shop that sells the "priciest" fuel and water.

But, to be honest, this really should be the responsibility of the government (while it claims to protect us). Price-gauging would then not even be an issue, because the government should be pre-stocking disaster-prone areas already. I think that's who I'll reserve my moral indignation for, and not the price-"gaugers".

</comment><comment><USER18> The assumption that a cart with that much water must be for a single family is annoying etc. It could just as easily been a shelter stocking up.

<comment><USER19> I really hope that shelters aren't sending people out to buy water by the case at retail prices.

Like, the state emergency management should be selling it to them by the pallet at wholesale and delivering it.

(Florida devotes lots of resources to these problems; they are providing fuel tankers with police escorts to gas stations...)

<comment><USER18> Logistics is hard. You can get it right 499/500 and still end up with someone going to the local office supply store etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> You can't fix this. You either have a free economy or you don't. What you need to ensure is that there is at least a few airlines and they are not cooperating to manipulate prices.

Now you say: But there is the case of "natural disasters". So what? There are ordinary people going through disasters everyday, not necessarily natural. Should we go out of our way to accommodate them.

Most importantly, if you accommodate enough people during natural disaster, you no longer have this supply/demand imbalance. Bam, problem solved.

Also consider the following: Capitalism kills the lower end who can't sustain itself. Socialism, so far, kills the whole system because the whole system can't sustain itself. Pick which one.

<comment><USER12> This is just deification of capitalism and conflating decency in the face of a life threatening situation with "socialism". Others have already answered the question of what to do, but I'll repeat. Don't raise prices and let the goods sell FIFO with reasonable limits on quantities. Raising prices during a disaster does absolutely nothing to increase supply.

<comment><USER20> So you are just picking a different population. How is that more efficient than the free market other than making you feel good and compassionate.

<comment><USER12> I believe in my case, the population would be people who can make it to the store - unchanged from what it was before the store started limiting quantities.

I'm having a hard time not getting snarky here because, to be honest, you don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

<comment><USER20> > I'm having a hard time not getting snarky here because, to be honest, you > don't seem to be arguing in good faith.

Really? Not in good faith? I'm neither a shareholder of these airlines, neither live in the US, and recently most of my income is not related to the US. I'm just stating my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Another reason "gouging" has good side effects (including incentivizing companies to rush more flights down there ASAP, driving down "gouging" prices) is that it helps stop hoarding of scarce resources:

[http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/news/economy/gas- shortages-f...](http://money.cnn.com/2017/09/07/news/economy/gas-shortages- florida-irma/index.html)

^-- Here, Floridians aren't "gouged" for gas, so they stock up on more than they need "just in case", leaving the pumps empty and leaving companies with little incentive to rush their workers down w/ more gas.

I mean, do _you_ want to drive a gas truck to Florida right now?

</comment><comment><USER22> I see people advocating the implementation of quantity controls as a means to control hoarding as if those words had some intrinsic magical merit. Think about it carefully for a moment and you will realise there is no actual way for a single monopolistic store (let alone competitive stores, plural) to fairly ration something in who supply.

Is the rule one per person? What if I go back to the store N times? What if I have kids or aged parents that cannot come to the store themselves?

What if I buy a few per store?

Is it even fair to preclude these courses of action?

</comment><comment><USER23> The flight prices increases makes it look like someone (neglectfully?) forgot to disable the supply/demand price modification algorithm...

<comment><USER24> I don't know why they would disable it, or why it would be neglectful for them not to, _from a business perspective_. As long as they are charging the same prices for the same supply/demand ratio that they normally would, then it's not considered gouging (I don't know if they are or not). Granted, it would be nice for them to disable it so that people can get affordable flights, but they are a business after all is said and done, and I have no doubt they'll fill all their seats regardless of the prices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> In regards to the airlines, is most of the price setting automated? Or is it a manual process?

<comment><USER26> A mixture of both. There are immense applications calculating fares based on a ton of factors (estimated demand, seasonality, competitor prices, and much much more) but analysts can tweak and modify markets manually as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> And yet, JetBlue capped their rates out of Florida at $99.00. Not sure if they fly out of South Florida or not, but that is certainly a wonderful gesture on their part.

</comment><comment><USER28> There are sound, morally justifiable reasons for allowing the prices of goods and services to be set by market conditions, even during times of crisis and severe shortages. But it's a waste of time to try to explain them to someone who exhibits the same knee-jerk response as this article.

<comment><USER29> Okay, what's one? How do you defend price gouging water and airline seats during an emergency?

<comment><USER30> I don't see how it's defensible...

Let's say airline X jacks rates during a crisis. The "free market" reaction would be that people would be outraged by airline X, and would then during the crisis and in the future not use them - thereby hurting their business/brand. A competitor, airline Y who didn't jack rates would then get current & future business based on their noble actions during the crisis. The free market would solve the problem by itself ... right?

Except wait... the people in the current crisis, aren't helped at all. And of course, there's no guarantee that airline Y doesn't jack rates during the next crisis.

Anyone else have a reasonable counter-argument?

Edit: Meant for my reply to be for rhapsodic - sorry.

<comment><USER31> > I don't see how it's defensible...

I'm trying to answer for the sake of debating - not necessarily my point of view.

First, regardless of how much the airline charges, there will be a fixed number of people that will get a seat.

Now, suppose the price is kept low, like $99. Maybe some people that don't want the seat that much will get it. They may have other options and wouldn't pay $200 for the seat, but think $99 is ok. Conversely, some people who value the seat much more (to the point they would pay $4000 for it) may not be able to get it. So you can argue that the seats will be attributed randomly, which is worse than basing the allocation on who wants the seats the most (well, then there's the issue that $5000 is peanuts for some people, and a lot for others, not sure how to answer to that).

Also, with the seats getting so expensive, the airlines may try to sell extra seats (re-routing planes for instance).

Finally, this happens all the time in different contexts. People go to all sorts of trouble because they don't have access to the best lawyers, doctors or can't afford their medication. It's not really an argument but if we are consistent, we shouldn't be shocked by one and not the other.

<comment><USER29> It seems like the ideal solution scales the price increase to an individual's income. A flat $200 increase does not impose the same burden on everyone, and only helps out company profits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think that as a society, we have learned that a market works best if it is free.

If we think there should be cheaper flights, then that is a service that we should provide via means of the government.

<comment><USER33> America has _never_ had a free market. This is doubly true for airlines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> If you're not prepared you will pay somehow.</comment>


NYPD Officers Claim "Consensual" Sex with Teenage Detainee - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/iron-ladies/nypd-officers-claim-consensual-sex-with-teenage-detainee-c51afdae4bb9 <comment><USER2> Wow! That's horrible! I can't believe that anyone thinks that could be legit even if it is not explicitly against the law.

How about bribery? How about improper use of the vehicle?</comment>


Women are struggling to find men who make as much money as they do - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2019/09/25/women-are-struggling-to-find-men-who-make-as-much-money-as-they-do/ <comment><USER2> The article talks at length about guys who are struggling or generally worse off than women but it makes no mention of the guys who have given up. I wonder how much that plays a role? The Japanese media have tales for years about Hikikomori [1] but the phenomenon certainly isn't unique to Japan.

It's one thing to call someone lazy, it's quite another to try to understand why they live the way they do. Personally, I don't believe in laziness as a real concept, at least not over the long term.

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

<comment><USER3> I make good money (being a reasonably able software dev), and though physically attracted to women, am not interested in them, and haven't been for over a decade now. I was somewhat successful in my youth, but certainly no cassanova.

I find chasing and/or engaging in romantic relationships with women costs me far more than I estimate their worth at (the relationship, not the women themselves). And I'm not just talking money. I'm talking time, freedom, responsibility, cognitive cycles, etc. I think my time is best spent elsewhere on hobbies or video games or mindless entertainment or work.

<comment><USER4> I presume you've heard of the [https://www.mgtow.com](https://www.mgtow.com) community/movement?

<comment><USER3> Sure, but I don't identify with it. I haven't really been hurt past, you know, hey I like this girl and she doesn't like me boo hoo.

Just don't find the pursuit or the time dedications or the impact on my life worth it.

<comment><USER5> It's not, unless you want to start a family. Then the whole vetting process disguised as "dating" is kind of important with significant life-changing returns.

Personally I decided I didn't want kids decades ago, it drastically changed the distribution of priorities. I, like you, simply can't be bothered with dating now. It's just not worth the time and effort, risk of STDs, risk of pregnancy, risk of crazy, drama, etc.

Having said that however, there is something to be said for having a reliable partner in old age when hospital visits and navigating the healthcare system becomes a regular activity. It's problematic to be alone in a hospital, for a variety of reasons.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Alternative title: Women really don't want to date men who make less than them.

Maybe we should look at the women who are okay with doing so and wonder why others aren't like these women.

<comment><USER7> This is one of those comments that's on every mans mind but no one wants to be the one that says it

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My opinion: Heterosexual women default to seeking _good providers_ because if pregnancy happens, whether planned or not, that can make it impossible to sustain a hard charging career for the woman.

Pregnancy can be debilitating. Women are more likely than men to take time off work to care for the new baby. Breastfeeding is done by women.

These are practical issues that make it hard to not feel on some deep level like you really need a man who is capable of earning enough money to support you, him and a child if things do not go according to plan. If she is play the primary breadwinner role, gets pregnant and things go sideways, then what?

(Opinion of a woman. N=1, though.)

<comment><USER9> I think my comment is going to be pointless, but... As a male, I would love to take time off work to care for the baby. Only after a minimum 6 months of breastfeeding, ideally 2 years with appropriate complementary feeding, of course. That said, if we can afford it, I would love to be there at all times. :P These years matter so much for the child's development. Plus, it is not like I would not be there for them when I am off work, but yeah.

<comment><USER8> It's a simple statement of fact that women tend to take more time off than men for such things. It is in no way a suggestion that this is what men or women actually _want._

I think a lot of it is driven by practical considerations. Taking any time off work can undermine your earning capacity, so if you have a primary breadwinner in the family, it gets hard to make that choice.

I would love to help foster a world where this worked differently. But, for now, this is generally how it works for most people.

<comment><USER9> > It's a simple statement of fact that women tend to take more time off than > men for such things. It is in no way a suggestion that this is what men or > women actually want.

I was not at all disagreeing or making a comment regarding that. I just merely expressed my wants, hence why I started with stating that it is going to be a pointless comment. :)

<comment><USER8> Eh, not arguing either. Just trying to be clear and trying to say "I would love to help create a world in which you could do that."

<comment><USER9> No worries, and thank you for that! I hope you succeed, I (and I am sure a lot of other people!) would really love that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wish someone would make a definitive meta study where they take the median wage for a country and poll women there if they require a higher income from potential partners before considering marriage.

From what I have seen those poll numbers tend to stay the same regardless of the median income in any given country, which implies that practical aspects is simply an rationale to explain an already made decision. If practical reasons was the primary cause we would expect to see a higher poll numbers in low income countries and a significant lower poll number in countries with high median income and strong well fare system. With free medical care, guarantied housing and food, the risks are reduced and thus preventative measures like only seeking good providers should be of relative lower importance.

</comment><comment><USER11> The actual study: [https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12603](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/jomf.12603)

Really the most suprissing part is that a large portion of unmarried men, age 25-45, make <$25,000 a year.

<comment><USER12> > Really the most suprissing part is that a large portion of unmarried men, > age 25-45, make <$25,000 a year.

Swap cause and effect and it's no longer surprising. Men who don't make a lot of money have a hard time getting married.

That's been that way since the dawn of humanity, and should not surprise anyone.

<comment> blaser-waffle We generally had wars and famines and plagues to deal with them, though.

Also heard a statistic that the average guy is less likely to graduate from HS and University than a women of similar age/class/race/etc. Degrees directly correlate to $$$, and ladies are doing a better job of getting them, though they still tend to choose non-STEM degrees and roles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The problem is that women who make a good amount of money cannot always land a man who is financially successful.

A 30 year old man with a good career and assets will try to date the 23 year old who looks like a fitness model. That's not to say women who make money cannot look like fitness models. There are just few of them because time is a limited resource.

The other part is that men are not on a certain timeline. A man can could spend his 30s and 20s casually dating, then get married at 45 and have kids. Whereas women try to get married before 30, so then she can have a kid or two before it's too late. Sure 35 year old women can get pregnant, but it's common to have miscarriages at that age.

<comment><USER14> > A 30 year old man with a good career and assets will try to date the 23 year > old who looks like a fitness model.

These men sound very shallow

<comment><USER15> What you call shallow, other people with abundant dating options might call utility maximization.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Women marry up or across on the social ladder. Men marry across or down on the social ladder.

<comment><USER17> Does it also follow that all women are going for the top 20% of men? Or is this debunked

<comment><USER18> Actually, this is false. IIRC, it seems that most women on OkCupid considered 80% of men under-average, but still messaged them. Which is strange to say the least.

<comment> blaser-waffle These guys may be not the most attractive but 1) they may be all that is out there, 2) ladies are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt ("maybe he just has bad pictures?"), and 3) maybe that's all they think they can get. Nothing crazy or irrational about it.

When it's 2am and the bar is closing you hit on who you think you can go home with, not the absolute hottest person in the bar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > "Now it's the case that more highly educated women are marrying down," says > Lichter. "Men have to get with the program."

This....is unlikely to happen. Men will simply exit the dating market faster than women will tolerate that they have to settle (similar to a cooling housing market where buyers go elsewhere because sellers aren't motivated).

EDIT: User "rblion" explains why in this thread very well: "I think this is a bigger problem than just economics, it's a cultural one too. You have a entire generation of boys/teens/men who either grew up with or are growing up with an endless amount of entertainment (games, movies, shows, music, porn, drugs), the consequences of outsourcing and automation, and the rise of feminism/PC- culture. All at one time, of course many are giving up or just opting out."

If you can barely hold onto the socioeconomic ladder already, are you going to be a masochist and try to meet your partner's (likely high) expectations as well? Probably not.

<comment><USER9> > Men have to get with the program.

Sigh... but it was a problem when men did. Damned if you do, damned if you do not. Am I alone in finding this ridiculous?

<comment><USER20> Its the opinion of one author, I wouldn't generalize it across all of society.

<comment><USER9> Fair point. I hope this will not "catch on". It does not make it less ridiculous though. :P

<comment><USER17> Is the alternative to just oppress women so that they can't compete with men and raise the bar?

<comment><USER9> No? Why would you say that?

<comment><USER17> I was pointing to the absurdity of

> Sigh... but it was a problem when men did.

so take it as the opposite of the way you did, I'm not good at text sarcasm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Solution is to move to a tech hub

<comment><USER22> "Man Jose" for instance (named because the male to female ratio is one of the highest)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I've not once had a woman ask me how much I make or what I do for a living.

<comment><USER12> > or what I do for a living.

For real? It's never come up ever? Do you tend not to date for long?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> There was a monologue on exact same subject by Tucker Carlson, may be half a year ago or more, and it was somewhat US-centric.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7OS2o-mMg0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7OS2o-mMg0)

It has been thoroughly laughed at, though, by hosts of 'the View', for example

[https://abcnews.go.com/theview/video/tucker-carlson- suggests...](https://abcnews.go.com/theview/video/tucker-carlson-suggests- high-earning-women-causing-drop-60147896)

</comment><comment><USER12> Doesn't this just mean that the men who make decent money already found spouses?

And presumably those men aren't interested in women who spend a lot of time working, since they have that covered.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think it's safe to say ~80% of the women are attracted to ~20% of the men (physically fit, financially solvent, pleasant personality).

<comment><USER5> I don't see why you'd say that about just women, something like that is probably going on for both sexes.

Fortunately reality kicks in and people generally learn to swing their own weight, it's sort of part of becoming an adult.

<comment><AUTHOR> Because that's what the article is talking about...

Relax. Breathe.

Yes, it's probably true vice versa too like many things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I couldn't find the full article but I did find some figures. Interesting that this is the first time I've read about hypergamy being mentioned in an academic context, I didn't realize it was an actual term used to describe people looking to marry "better" than themselves.

<comment><USER17> It expresses more as repulsion to someone perceived to be in a lower social/economic status than you and an attraction so someone who seems to be in a better status than you. It's most likely not majorly conscious.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> 32 years old and all i ever heard or seen was established men get brought down Financially,Spiritually,Emotionally and intellectually by bad marriages or relationships. Some men i guess dont even try to raise the bar and just coast through life.

</comment><comment><USER26> According to this I need to be: Atleast 6'3 Know to cook Six figure salary

</comment><comment><USER4> These women struggle simply because they compete with much younger and more attractive women who are perfectly content with old, wealthy and unattractive men who aren't even looking for monogamous relationships.

Perhaps it's wiser for them to find a spouse at a younger age, before they make a lot of money.

<comment><USER19> While not PC, this is somewhat accurate (women competing with younger cohorts overall) based on data.

> In it, researchers studied the "desirability" of male and female users, > based on how many messages nearly 200,000 users, all of whom were seeking > opposite-sex partners, got over one month on a "popular, free online-dating > service" — and if those sending the messages were desirable based on the > same criteria.

> The researchers determined that while men's sexual desirability peaks at age > 50, women's starts high at 18 and falls from there.

> "The age gradient for women definitely surprised us — both in terms of the > fact that it steadily declined from the time women were 18 to the time they > were 65, and also how steep it was," said Elizabeth Bruch, an associate > professor of sociology at the University of Michigan and an author of the > study. [1] [2]

> A woman's desirability peaks at 21, which, ironically enough is the age that > men just begin their "prime," i.e. become more desirable than average. > Following that dotted line out, you can see that a woman of 31 is already > "past her prime," while a man doesn't become so until 36. As we mentioned > above, after age 26, a man has more potential matches than his female > counterparts, which is a drastic reversal of the proportion in young > adulthood, when women are much more sought-after. Because men's dating > preferences skew so young, and women's are age-equitable, men peak later, > and have a longer plateau of desirability, than women. [3]

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps- online-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/15/style/dating-apps-online-men- women-age.html)

[2] [https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/8/eaap981...](https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/4/8/eaap9815.full.pdf)

[3] [https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-case-for-an-older- woman-99d8...](https://theblog.okcupid.com/the-case-for-an-older- woman-99d8cabacdf5)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Perhaps this correlates with the shift to getting married later in life as well?

</comment><comment><USER28> In these women's world dating is like Top Trumps but they bring along an unofficial card set for themselves where their attributes are far higher than reality and the cards the other player (the man) gets are all scored lower than the official set.

The woman in the photo probably thinks of herself as an 8.5, is probably a 7 with makeup and a 6 without. Every man has to be an 8.5 even if she says 7 and above is fine but she'd call him a 6 just so he knows how lucky he is to be dating her as she's an 8.5

It's the dating world equivalent of CDO selling lol.

Once upon a time a guy got away who was probably right for her but she thought she was deserving of better. Probably after buying some expensive shoes because as we all know $1500 shoes make a woman who is a 7 turn into an 8 in men's eyes.

Articles like this are a good reminder to do something nice for our partners who aren't money obsessed self important fantasists. The idea of going back to the dating market and having to bend over backwards for that type of woman is mind sharpener alright.</comment>


Chennai is experiencing the worst floods in a century. Help if you Can - <AUTHOR> http://google.org/crisisresponse/2015-chennai-flooding <comment><AUTHOR> Chennai is experiencing one of the worse floods in over a century. Over 260 people have died and the crisis management team is on full swing. But, its a city of over 10 million people. Help anyway if you can. I used the [https://milaap.org/campaigns/chennaifloods](https://milaap.org/campaigns/chennaifloods) to make a donation.</comment>


Node.js 8.10 runtime now available in AWS Lambda - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/de/blogs/compute/node-js-8-10-runtime-now-available-in-aws-lambda/ <comment><USER2> That must include http, util libraries. This is fantastic news and simplifies dependencies greatly.</comment>


Show HN: MrMarkov (Markov Text Generator as an API) - <AUTHOR>

http://mrmarkov.herokuapp.com/text
Hi all, this is a personal project I've been working on for two weeks or so. I was interested in Markov Chains, and came across their use to generate text, and also wanted to learn how to create an API. So, I combined the two to make an API that generates random text based on text you submit to it.
To generate your own text with this, just submit a POST request to the above URL with the original text you want to use as the base text to generate new text. For example (using Requests from Python):
import requests
payload = {'original_text':'''This is a test. This is only a test. This is my test.'''}
requests.post("http://mrmarkov.herokuapp.com/text",data=payload)
Longer pieces of text, such as paragraphs from Shakespeare or Wikipedia generate more realistic sentences.
The response will have a field called "sentence", which will contain the generated text. Try it out! Let me know what you think! <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all! I changed the return field's name to 'generated_text' for clarity! I can't edit the original post, sorry for the confusion.</comment>


Debian Won Linux Journal's Readers' Choice Award for Best Linux Distribution - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxjournal.com/content/best-linux-distribution <comment><USER2> "nearly 10,000 readers voted"

When I'm in a room full of linux users, maybe 5% are Debian users, I'm going to guess the poll was pumped up...

<comment><USER3> I'm guessing type of Linux users that gather in rooms is different than the type that fill out online polls.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Thats not news! thats facts!

news is 'man bites dog' -if they'd voted _alpine_ as the best linux distribution that would be news (I don't use it. I use debian. I do wonder what the impact of docker will be on the actual kernel-invariant deployments because at the core, UNIX is about a kernel as much as userspace, but distro is mostly about userspace)</comment>


BMG abused the law by issuing a takedown request of a Romney YouTube ad - <AUTHOR> http://thedc.com/OWJiJm

<comment><USER2> I like how people turn this into a conspiracy against Romney.

I don't believe that it is; its just the normal madness on YouTube, where they ban, delete, restrict and plaster with ads anything resembling something in their huge database of copyrighted stuff.

Where they create smoke barriers using strong words around "DMCA", but when you want to make a counter claim, there was never any claim and YouTube did this all by themselves.

</comment><comment><USER3> Regardless of the politics, the ridiculous lengths that BMG and the other labels are willing to go to in order to take down content that clearly falls under fair use simply boggles my mind.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just to play devil's advocate, there is no such thing as "clearly falling under fair use." Fair use is always arguable and it's up to a federal judge to make that finding.

</comment><comment><USER5> Using a song to parody something besides the song isn't fair use. If the song is used to parody the song itself or the artist, yes, but not to parody something completely unrelated. If that were the case, rappers could parody a police commissioner in a song which also happens to have samples George Clinton, and claim that because they were parodying the police commissioner the George Clinton sample is perfectly legit. Fair use just doesn't work like that.

<comment><USER6> While you're correct that it's not a parody, parody is not the only form of fair use. From 17 USC § 107[1] "...purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright....".

1- <http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/107>

<comment><USER5> Was this video critiquing, commenting on, reporting news about, teaching or researching the song? No. It still doesn't qualify as fair use.

<comment><USER6> A work need not target the original in order to be considered fair use, you have to apply test all the §107 factors. As Justice Souter put it in Campbell vs. Acuff-Rose Music[1]:

"By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, the new work's minimal distribution in the market, the small extent to which it borrows from an original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use, as may satire with lesser justification for the borrowing than would otherwise be required."

Given that it seems fairly unlikely that there's a chance of consumers preferring this video to the original version of the song, the noncommercial use, and the length of the clip, I'd say it's got a pretty strong shot at being fair use.

1-<http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/92-1292.ZO.html#FN14>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You would think, just as a self preservation mechanism, some manager would have thought that they should alter their automatic takedown process to avoid taking down politician videos. Right now, not a big deal, but come late September or November, this process will get a lot of attention if it keeps doing this. I would bet that attention will not go well for BMG.

</comment><comment><USER8> I hope this continues, and I hope it gets worse. That way the politicians get to see how stupid the process really is, and to see that the big content companies aren't their friends.

</comment><comment><USER9> Auto-playing video, beware.

</comment><comment><USER10> I don't like Romney (nor Obama) but taking down political ads because of alleged (not proven in Court) copyright infringement is ridiculous.</comment>


Unix on a PDP-11 emulator on the Game Boy Advance (2004) - <AUTHOR> http://www.kernelthread.com/publications/gbaunix/ <comment><USER2> See also DSLinux [1].

The DS had a vibrant homebrew scene. With the help of a flashcard plus DSLinux, DSOrganize [2], MoonShell [3], and other "apps", my handheld was like a proto-smartphone before smartphones were a thing. It could even browse the web, in the presence of a WEP-compatible network.

[1] [http://www.dslinux.org/](http://www.dslinux.org/)

[2] [https://dragonminded.com/ndsdev/dsorganize/](https://dragonminded.com/ndsdev/dsorganize/)

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

<comment><USER3> Before smartphones were a thing or before Apple made them more of a mass- market product?

I remember drooling over Nokia phones in that time period that were quite a bit more powerful than a DS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A more accurate title would be Unix on a PDP-11 emulator running on the GBA.

<comment><USER5> Ok let's add that.</comment></comment>


Open-source Workflowy clone - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/abhshkdz/HackFlowy

<comment><USER2> While you can always go look at Workflowy itself, a demo of your app would be good.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah I'll set one up very soon. Thanks!

<comment><USER3> thank you very much. I was looking for an OSS-version of this great outliner tool.

<comment><AUTHOR> Welcome. Cheers!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


AT&T: landline phone service must die; only question is when - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/telecom/news/2009/12/att-landline-phone-service-must-die-only-question-is-when.ars

<comment><USER2> So does this mean AT&T will provide better cell coverage? As someone who builds data transfer tools for handheld products, there are people who cannot use GSM/GPRS solutions because they don't have coverage at their homes. Accommodating POTS modems is painful at times, but it means a larger majority of our users can actually transfer data when necessary.

<comment><USER3> That's very much my thought. Even though I live in an urban area, I get sketchy cell coverage in most of my house. If I want to have a reliable conversation on my cell phone, I can't leave my living room.

Moreover, I appreciate having the competition in internet access methods. Since I don't have a TV, it's cheaper for me to have DSL than a cable modem. If DSL service goes away, I would have no choice.

Maybe landlines will truly be obsolete at some point, but we're not there yet.

<comment><USER4> Not only is cell coverage incomplete, but DSL reach is very limited compared to POTS <http://www.dslreports.com/faq/4676> (I cannot get DSL and I'm only three miles from my CO - apparently they don't support longer distance versions of DSL). There are _vast swaths_ of the US that are not served by cable. The remaining option would be satellite, which is expensive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think we can rely on mobile services for emergency uses yet.

I'd much rather depend on a copper wire to a central office with a multi-day battery backup system than on both a flakey cell phone and a flakey cell tower that will both quickly lose power.

<comment><USER6> While your cell phone battery might be weak, why do you think that your wireless network doesn't have battery backups on all critical infrastructure? Uptime is just as big of a deal for wireless networks as it is for wired networks.

<comment><USER5> But what's the use of a robust cell tower infrastructure if my cell batteries run out?

Only if I think ahead and have alternative charging methods for my cell phone (e.g., car charging, assuming my gas supply doesn't run out) does this make any sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> What does this do to DSL? My local provider told me they could provide a dry line so I could have DSL without dialtone, but I've heard a lot of local telcos can't do this.

In any case, AT&T needs to improve their service before this happens. I live out in the country and I can drop a cell signal (AT&T is my provider!) by simply walking across my living room. Cellular service is spotty at best in many locations on my small property.

<comment><USER8> DSL is being replaced by FTTP--all the major phone companies are switching to fiber. Verizon has FiOS, AT&T has U-Verse and Qwest has what they are calling "fiber optic" DSL but which isn't really DSL.

It will take a while, but fiber is the future.

<comment><USER9> Fiber is most definitely not the immediate future, I live in a semi-rural part of my state and dsl is available (though it is relatively slow and costs close to 50 dollars). I would be lucky to get 2Mbit internet in the next 10 years.

Laying fiber is expensive, fixing and branching old phone lines... not so much.

<comment><USER10> Last I checked, it was profitable to replace mid sized bundles of copper wire with fiber and sell the copper. I don't think it works with a single strand, but it's less expensive to roll out above ground fiber than you might think.

<comment><USER9> Most of the people around here have underground power and phone lines with the land that their homes are on being from 4 to 20 acres.

<comment><USER10> Yes, digging up the ground is expensive but I was responding to: _I live in a semi-rural part of my state_ and that's less expensive than you might think.

PS: I live in a 22 story high rise and we don't have FIOS because the building management made some deal with comcast, but that's a side issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm not comfortable with this. If something's going to die, than let it die, but don't get the government involved, legislating it's death.

AT&T has every right, I suppose, to attempt to maximize their profit by trying to get the FCC to use the power of government to change the playing field. I would hope the FCC isn't foolish enough to agree to it, however.

Unfortunately, government likes power. The FCC, having recently orchestrated the death of analog television, is probably feeling a bit cocky, that they have the duty to kill all the old technologies. The two cases are different though.

Analog television was not something that people's lives depended upon. It also was very obviously taking up bandwidth that was in finite supply. These things are not true for POTS. It's time will certainly come, but we're trying to move too quickly, for no reason, on the very flimsy premise that "more people could get broadband faster",

<comment><USER12> You have it backwards. The government is _preventing_ POTS from dying.

AT&T wants the government to relax the rules so POTS can die or not die based on market forces.

<comment><USER4> The cynic in me says AT&T wants to do DSL/fiber to the high density, high value markets and get out from under the requirement to also provide POTS to the low density, low profitability rural markets, currently subsidized by the high value markets.

See: <http://www.fcc.gov/wcb/tapd/universal_service/>

* Advance the availability of such services to all consumers, including those in low income, rural, insular, and high cost areas at rates that are reasonably comparable to those charged in urban areas

So, if AT&T drops POTS, what are they going to do to cover rural areas that cannot be covered by copper based DSL and are unlikely to be covered by fiber due to cost?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting how AT&T is saying we need to kill landlines... mayhaps they have a side-goal of getting more people onto their (expensive, like all other options) cell networks?

I have no landline, but until we get nearly 100% cell coverage (far from it, currently), better networks, and better _prices_ , no killing landlines. Oh, and significantly better upload rates on DSL, as VoIP will eat it up.

</comment><comment><USER14> "AT&T says it's time for POTS to die, and it wants the Federal Communications Commission to schedule its funeral."

And then what will I do with my fax and answering machines?

<comment><USER15> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5orss3fAEU>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I am surprised that a company would like to phase out a product which is still giving it some revenue. I am no expert but even after cutting the maintenance cost and other invisible overheads, Ma Bell's networks are still giving profit to AT&T.

<comment><USER17> VOIP margines must be high enough that urging such a move is even more profitable. It's likely, as mentioned in the article, the AT&T will push for legislative changes to improve their market position and control.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> what the FCC should do is tell them...ok you no longer have to maintain the lines.

But you can't remove them either, let the cables atrophy and die, but until they do, let the people have free phone service.</comment>


Don't be yet another Kim Jong-Il of the business world - <AUTHOR> http://stakeventures.com/articles/2008/09/11/dont-be-yet-another-kim-jong-il-of-the-business-world

<comment><USER2> _I work rearry hard and make up great prans

But nobody ristens, no one understands

Seems like no one takes me serirousry

And so I'm ronery_

(I tried to resist...)

<comment><USER3> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDBcGzHAt5Q&feature=relat...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDBcGzHAt5Q&feature=related)</comment></comment>


The crash of the global flower trade - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-flower-industry-crash/ <comment><USER2> As an aside, I've worked at Flora Holland, the company (a cooperative owned by a hundred and then some growers) that orchestrates a lot of the logistics; the clip in the article with the carts is a small part of their transit halls. They start in the early morning with the flowers and plants coming out of cold storage and auction them off early on; before midday, the halls are quiet and empty again, hundreds if not thousands of trucks full of carts and containers having been filled and sent off by then. Each and every day.

Besides the actual shipping of plants etc, one of their major logistical challenges is managing the hundreds of thousands of iron carts (pallet sized) and millions of plastic containers (where they put the actual flowers in), those all have codes and deposits to manage, and every day they have to calculate how many they need. (same with how many temps they need, they can vary the amount of people they employ by hundreds if not thousands per day. Highest amounts are around valentine's day and mother's day).

Software-wise it's also interesting. I can't mention much about their current day development, but one factoid is for example the auction hall itself. It's a Dutch auction (see wikipedia), so response times is crucial. It turns out that the exact position you're sitting in that hall already has an effect on the response time and whether you win or lose an auction. They tried to put it on the internet as well so the buyers could do it from home, but they couldn't solve the latency problem (at least not to the satisfaction of the buyers).

Nowadays though, less and less is sold via the auction, and less and less actually passes through the main venue; there's a lot more orders in advance (like shops ordering roses a year in advance for valentine's day), and there's a lot more direct grower-to-customer traffic.

<comment><USER3> Why does latency matter? In a dutch auction, latency shouldn't matter _at all_. You can take bids in advance up to a deadline, or you can do multiple rounds of bidding.

Google ran their IPO as a Dutch auction, and latency didn't matter.

<comment><USER4> From Wikipedia, these markets use the "clock" variant, with the first bidder winning:

 _"Most commonly, it means an auction in which the auctioneer begins with a high asking price in the case of selling, and lowers it until some participant accepts the price, or it reaches a predetermined reserve price. This has also been called a clock auction or open-outcry descending-price auction. This type of auction shows the advantage of speed since a sale never requires more than one bid. It is strategically similar to a first-price sealed-bid auction."_

IPOs are more like the sealed-bid variant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's a tough market because there's really no inventory. At least some produce can be kept in storage for a little while. When the flowers are ready they either need to be sold or they go bad.

Then of course all the "regulars" have stopped buying. In big cities like NYC the big office buildings usually all have fresh flowers deferred weekly for the lobby but that's all stopped. Weddings, galas and other events are all canceled.

</comment><comment><USER6> [https://archive.md/0inYa](https://archive.md/0inYa)

</comment><comment><USER7> Basic economics, when times goed bad, you skip the things you want and focus on the things you need.

<comment><USER8> It's not really economics (yet), even if peopled needed flowers they can't get them because the store is closed.

The basic economics comes next.

<comment><USER9> > even if peopled needed flowers they can't get them because the store is > closed

If people needed them, the store wouldn't be closed as being a non-essential business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Anyone know where we can buy some bulk, cheap flowers here in the Netherlands now?

</comment><comment><USER11> Meanwhile in South Africa there are food issues... Why not plant vegetables instead of flowers?

Also to note: workers get $70/mo, while all other middle-men involved get more.

<comment><USER12> I would assume that the market is self correcting.

If there was shortage of food, it's price would be up and farmers would plant food crops.

<comment><USER13> There isn't a shortage of food. Farmers growing food are essential and doing what they did before. There are logistical issues. Restaurants order food differently than grocery stores so some supply chains are overfull while others are empty. Both are looking to the other for help but the setup makes it in efficient

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's easier to make stories about businesses than people, but I really think we need more people stories now.

Rather than the flower trade having a downturn, what about all the people that planned weddings? A delayed wedding is apparently hardly a disaster, but what does it mean if nobody can get married for a half a year, what happens?

<comment><USER15> Not much?

I think in most jurisdictions it's possible to get legally married, just not be celebrated in the traditional way.

So wedding celebrations have been delayed by 6 months or a year, well so what?

It's such a small thing to focus on and worry about when almost the whole global economy has been put on pause. There's almost nothing that hasn't been affected, the inability to immediately celebrate in a traditional over-the-top way is of such a minor consequence in comparison.

<comment><USER16> So what about all the weddings workers that cannot pay their mortgages now?

<comment><USER15> I'm not saying there's no effect I'm saying that weddings aren't special in that regard.

That's just as easily (or not!) answered the same as:

> So what about all the workers that cannot pay their mortgages now?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Cut flower export sounds like climate travesty; they are not essential, they are fragile (requiring energy-intensive cold chain logistics and air-freight) and after all that effort... they have a shelf-life of a week.

If there is an industry that should be strictly localized, it's this one.

<comment><USER8> The argument I regularly hear is that there would be more energy spent heating local greenhouses than flying the flowers.

<comment><USER18> It's possible to run a greenhouse with green energy. It's not possible to do that with jet airplanes.

<comment><USER19> Or maybe we could reexamine the need for cut flowers out of season?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ofcourse _Bloom_berg is reporting about this :)

<comment><USER21> For those not getting the pun: 'bloem' (pronounced 'bloom') is the Dutch word for flower ;)

<comment><USER22> It's a pun even without knowing any dutch, because, you know, flowers..bloom.

<comment><USER20> mic drop, bloom

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The repercussions of the global economic depression we are entering are going to be long lasting and it's not going to in any way bounce back in a few months or even a few years. A lot of industries are going to completely collapse.

<comment><USER24> And a lot of new industries will arise. They already do.

<comment><USER25> Out of curiosity, can you mention a few you consider are raising?

<comment><USER24> E-commerce is booming, courier services are hiring, small mom and pop local retail is quickly embracing internet orders. In my country we are introducing parcelmats at scale and preparing for 'foodmats' or 'fridgemats'.

In general replacing cheap labor with automatisation to avoid human contact will be a thing. Retail, restaurants will look more like in Japan.

Local tourism seems like a sure bet as people probably won't trust claims there is no virus in places like Bali or Thailand. No to mention there will be no cheap flights for years to come.

All the WFH will be a huge opportunity for real-estate and construction very soon as people will start leaving dense urban areas.

Some countries in EU will reform farming and bring strategic production back home which will be huge kick to economy. And there will be unlimited funding for that a'la Marshall plan and Eisenhover era.

Local restaurants, florists, barbers, waiters - collateral damage.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple's Tim Cook Delivers Blistering Speech on Encryption, Privacy - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2015/06/02/apples-tim-cook-delivers-blistering-speech-on-encryption-privacy/

<comment><USER2> Doesn't Apple collect searches [1] ? Aren't they planning a Google Now like service[2] ?

[1][http://apple.slashdot.org/story/14/10/20/003257/if-youre- con...](http://apple.slashdot.org/story/14/10/20/003257/if-youre-connected- apple-collects-your-data)

[2][http://www.imore.com/apple-said-be-taking-google-now- upcomin...](http://www.imore.com/apple-said-be-taking-google-now-upcoming- service-codenamed-proactive)

<comment><USER3> Correct. As cynical as it sounds, you cannot and should not trust what a corporation tells you. Even if what they've said is sprinkled with half- truths.

They're not out to save you or protect you, they're out to make money off you. They'll position themselves however they can to gain the trust of your dollar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I have relatively high levels of trust for Apple, Mozilla, and Microsoft. I think that their business models stress relative privacy and they would be foolish to give up that competitive advantage.

I am a huge fan of Google services, but I use them carefully: I use fastmail for primary email, not gmail; I use Chrome for all interactions with Google properties; I use Firefox for all normal web browsing with tight restrictions, including deleting all cookies each time I quit Firefox.

One area where Apple is a little weak is in web services, but they are improving. If they combined the best features of Office 365, Dropbox, and quality search without hoovering up user information then they would be very compelling to me.

</comment><comment><USER5> While I think there will be plenty of eye-rolling at the obvious digs at Google, I'm pleased to see such strong push-back against the government arguments for weakening or punching holes in encryption.</comment>