Ask HN: An app to organize business-cards ? - <AUTHOR>

Hello everyone,
Since starting to work on my business, I come in contact with many different professionals (engineers, lawyers, accountants etc). And I am slowly drowning in business-cards with hand written notes on them.
What applications/methods do you use to keep track of important people, their phones and comments you have on them ?
[Not everyone are on LinkedIn etc, and not every senior partner of a law firm will add you there, even if they are willing to take a phone call from you. So it needs be a one-way method].
Thanks for your time <comment><USER2> My boss has a miniature scanner designed for business cards. It only accepts fairly small (business-card sized!) stock, but can scan both sides simultaneously and has some combined OCR/Management software which will try and extract the information and automatically populate the contact fields. It'll keep reasonably hi-res scans of the card around as well, in case you later find the OCR wasn't quite right.

I'm pretty sure it can integrate with other contact databases, or at least export to CSV or something similar.

I'm not sure if it's exactly the same company, but [http://www.cardscan.com/products/core_contact_mgmt/personal/...](http://www.cardscan.com/products/core_contact_mgmt/personal/index.asp) looks quite similar, but more recent hardware.

[No personal involvement/astroturfing, I was just impressed by how well it worked]

<comment><USER2> back in the office, and it turns out it's actually <http://worldcard.penpowerinc.com/worldcard-office.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Have you considered Evernote? You can input text or take photos. Then tag them all to keep it organized.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would prefer a more formal way to ensure order. For instance, dedicated field for name, phone, email.

And the ability to cross-reference this information with linkedin and other entries

(e.g. all contacts I have in law firm X)

<comment><USER4> I second the Evernote suggestion..

Search in handwritten or scanned notes works surprisingly well, and tagging features make organization of business cards simple..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I use Outlook with Business Contact Manager. It was a pain to get it set up just like I wanted it, but now i am glad I did. I discard hardcopies of business cards and just manually put the info into Outlook along with any notes I want to make.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't believe there is no web2.0 app doing this.

Just can't seem to be able to find one.

<comment><USER6> I found this on Google. No idea if it's any good, but it might do what you're looking for:

<https://www.shoeboxed.com/a/why-shoeboxed.htm></comment></comment></comment>


TypeScript Tricks: Type Guards - <AUTHOR> https://www.matthewgerstman.com/ts-tricks-type-guards/ <comment><USER2> Discriminated unions [1] are what you're looking for here. Contrary to what the article claims, the functions shown are _not_ 100% type safe, because if you define the following:

        interface NotActuallyWizard extends Person {
            type: PersonType.Wizard;
            otherStuff: string;
        }

and then write:

        const JohnSmith: NotActuallyWizard = {
            type: PersonType.Wizard,
            name: 'John Smith',
            otherStuff: 'whatever',
        };

        getSpellsForPerson(JohnSmith);

it will pass the type checker (isWizard returns true because it doesn't take into account the possibility that _another_ interface may have a 'type' property of PersonType.Wizard) but the code will fail at runtime.

Instead, you should define the interfaces as follows:

        interface PersonBase {
            name: string;
        }

        interface Wizard extends PersonBase {
            type: 'Wizard';
            spells: string[];
        }

        interface Muggle extends PersonBase {
            type: 'Muggle';
            dursley: boolean;
        }

        type Person = Wizard | Muggle;

then replace the type guards with:

        if (person.type !== 'Wizard') {

and

        if (person.type !== 'Muggle') {

This will report an error for getSpellsForPerson(JohnSmith) because the compiler knows that (1) the only possibilities for Person are Wizard and Muggle, (2) both have type properties (3) the type properties have distinct literal values, and therefore (4) a Person with a type property of 'Wizard' has must have a spells property and a Person with a type property of 'Muggle' must have a dursley property.

As explained in [1], you can also take advantage of these with switch statements, and the compiler will do an exhaustiveness check so you catch any cases where you add a new type but forget to update one of your switches.

[1] [https://basarat.gitbooks.io/typescript/docs/types/discrimina...](https://basarat.gitbooks.io/typescript/docs/types/discriminated- unions.html)

<comment><USER3> The problem is not the use of type guards, but rather the author's implementation of them. The entire point of type guards is to narrow a variable's type within a block- e.g. to avoid accessing undefined members.

If we rewrite isWizard() to check for the existence of the `spells` variable, your counterexample will fail the type guard and JohnSmith will be exposed as the NotActuallyWizard he really is.

<comment><USER4> Almost as if Typescript is so complicated that getting your types "correct" is nearly impossible, especially when you add in the high variability in the quality of provided types on DefinitelyTyped [1].

[1] [https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped](https://github.com/DefinitelyTyped/DefinitelyTyped)

<comment><USER5> I don't really agree with this take. The point is that TypeScript allows you to type standard JavaScript idioms. The whole "type equals string" thing is a standard JavaScript idiom. Are discriminated unions better? Yes. But we are where we are and JavaScript is complicated.

<comment><USER4> There are lots of better languages that compile to JS and don't let you make mistakes in the same way the two grand parents do. Just saying JS is complicated to make typed is completely true and not a good reason to use TS; it doesn't excuse the fact that I spend all this time doing a Typescript dance and still wonder if my Types have weird flaws.

I would encourage people to consider Reason or Dart or Elm or even plain old ES6 before they decide Typescript solves their problem.

<comment><USER6> If anyone gives these other compile-to-js languages a look, I would add ClojureScript to that list, especially if doing React work. The re-frame framework is great, and the cljs ecosystem is a joy imo. You won't get the kind of type system these other langs provide, but there's some interesting stuff going on with spec.

<comment><USER4> Agree strongly ClojureScript - shame it has a terrible name which probably means it won't gain the popularity it deserves. I've also heard good things about PureScript.

<comment><USER6> I haven't been able to put my finger on why cljs isn't more popular, especially given all of the great stuff David Nolen did in the early days of React and the ease of use of figwheel and some other cool things in the ecosystem.

I always just assumed it was too big a syntactical hurdle for lots of teams. I.e., I suspect a lot of individuals appreciate it, but it's hard to choose cljs from the business side of things because it looks so foreign to many. That's a shame!

Haven't looked into PureScript yet. I'll add it to the list!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Be careful though, as they are not type safe in the sense the compiler completely trusts the type guard is implemented correctly.

In other words, TypeScript has no problem with this:

        function isNumber(a: any): a is number {
            return typeof a === 'string';
        }

Type guards are usually simple functions, but I've gotten them wrong before and only found out with a runtime exception.

<comment><USER8> Yes, I really wish that simple arrow functions were inferred for that reason. I've implemented a proof-of-concept[1], but I don't see it being added to the compiler any time soon. It's a shame because it would make a lot of my code more robust.

[1]: [https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/10734#issueco...](https://github.com/Microsoft/TypeScript/issues/10734#issuecomment-351570480)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Type guards are a useful construct, especially when dealing with data from an API that could come in a variety of shapes.

However, if you have control over the data shape, in general, it's nicer to take advantage of discriminated unions as you'll get more automatic typesafe compiler support. If you're not familiar with the construct in TypeScript, the docs give a nice example of them[0].

[0]: [https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/advanced- types....](https://www.typescriptlang.org/docs/handbook/advanced- types.html#discriminated-unions)

</comment><comment><USER10> Just to clarify when this is useful - for example, it's great when you receive a typeless JSON object from the outside world, and want to assert its "type" based on structural typing.

If it's not an external object (e.g. created in TypeScript with new), you can just you instanceof / typeof of course.

To be more precise, instanceof, typeof etc are also sort of automatic type guards in TypeScript, and the example in the post is more of a manual type guard (e.g. if you get something from the outside world, without type information, and want to rely on its structure to assert its type)

More on this:

[https://basarat.gitbooks.io/typescript/docs/types/typeGuard....](https://basarat.gitbooks.io/typescript/docs/types/typeGuard.html)

</comment><comment><USER11> While I understand the purpose of TypeScript's type erasure, I kinda wish there was an opt-in type reification so that type guards could be automatically created. I don't really like how they rely on the user to get runtime type assertions correct. But I guess then there'd have to be a TS runtime of sorts.

<comment><USER12> Agree. It would be awesome if TypeScript had some optional run-type information, maybe in the form of a decorator function

        @rtti
        function moo(foo: string): number {
            …
        }

=>

        function moo(foo: string): number {
            …
        }
        moo.__type = {
            parameters: [{name: "foo", type: "string"}]
            returnType: "number"
        }

or something like that.

<comment><USER13> It does: [http://blog.wolksoftware.com/decorators-metadata- reflection-...](http://blog.wolksoftware.com/decorators-metadata-reflection- in-typescript-from-novice-to-expert-part-4)

<comment><USER14> It's very basic, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I get why this kind of things would be necessary (e.g. calling TypeScript from JS), but man, if it isn't ugly and confusing.

Also, the language should proably offer to generate these guards (and the requisite reified type information) for you on demand.

</comment><comment><USER16> The two things miss in TypeScript coming from C#:

Pattern matching:

        if (thing is Person person)
        {
            var name = person.Name
        }

Safe navigation operator:

        var countryName = person.Address?.Country ?? "Unknown";

Type guards are a pain to deal with.

<comment><USER17> Lack of the safe navigation operator is a real PITA. You can replace "??" with "||" (more or less), but no solution exists for "?." and I don't know how I lived without it before.

<comment><USER18> Luckily, we'll probably get it sooner or later [1]. There are also a bunch of typesafe getter function utility libraries that are better than nothing [2-3].

[1] [https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional- chaining](https://github.com/tc39/proposal-optional-chaining)

[2] [https://github.com/pimterry/typesafe- get](https://github.com/pimterry/typesafe-get)

[3] [https://github.com/yayoc/optional- chain](https://github.com/yayoc/optional-chain)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Type guards also allow you to use Array.prototype.filter to modify the type of an array ie

      const maybePets: Array<Pet | undefined> = [...]
      const pets: Array<Pet> = maybePets.filter((v: Pet | undefined): v is Pet => v != undefined)

Will compile without errors.

</comment><comment><USER20> I wrote a very similar article about how to deal with having different sets of prop types this way[0]. I was pretty disappointed that TypeScript wasn't able to infer a lot of this information, and that it doesn't let you access props from one of the possible types if it's not available on others in the union.

[0]: [https://medium.com/@wbobeirne/mutually-exclusive-react- propt...](https://medium.com/@wbobeirne/mutually-exclusive-react-proptypes- with-typescript-97cfd2ebc6a0)

</comment><comment><USER21> I created something similar in my PHP typechecker, powered by annotations: [https://getpsalm.org/r/d882a4bb45](https://getpsalm.org/r/d882a4bb45)

</comment><comment><USER22> Wait a second. How does the following even compile:

        function getSpellsForPerson(person: Person) {
          if (!isWizard(person)) {
            return [];
          }
          return person.spells;
        }

You can't return `person.spells` without type casting:

        return (<Wizard>person).spells;

or by accessing the field with array syntax:

        return person["spells"];

The latter one obviously discards type safety.

<comment><USER23> It's because the compiler uses the peculiar return type annotation on isWizard() to infer information about the argument and propagate it along one half of the control flow graph based on the result of isWizard().

It sees that the code `person.spells` is guarded by a truthful return from isWizard, and it trusts the annotation that person is Wizard as a result.

<comment><USER22> That's absolutely bonkers. What's the use case here? Also does that mean the following:

      console.log(person.spells); // <-- compilation error
      if (!isWizard(person)) {
        return[];
      }
      return person.spells; // <-- this is fine

<comment><USER24> Typescripts goal is to allow using existing JavaScript idioms while gaining the advantages of static type checking.

I don't think it's too bonkers for the type of a variable to change within the same scope, as long as there's some clear delineation. In rust you can redeclare a variable with the same name but different type:

        let x: i32 = 99;
        println!("{}", x);
        let x: &str = "shadows";
        println!("{}", x);

Kotlin does something very similar to typescript for null checks: [https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/null- safety.html](https://kotlinlang.org/docs/reference/null-safety.html)

I don't know what's so crazy about a variable's type changing within the same scope except that languages from before 2010 mostly didn't allow that.

<comment><USER25> To be clear, this doesn't change the type in Rust. It creates a new variable with the same name. Very different thing!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Having to write these manually seems a bit … boilerplate-y. Why do we need the PersonType enum rather than just depend on the peoples' types? Why do we need functions to get spells for a person; why not just access the property directly on wizards? Why would you ever want to return an empty array of spells for a muggle rather than just return nothing?

Was it all just to illustrate the point? Because illustrating with unnecessarily complicated code is … unnecessarily complicated, I'd have thought.

I don't know TS well enough to rewrite this, but here's my attempt is Swift at the sample code, but cleaner. I'm sure this is all possible in TS, based on my few usages of it:

In Swift:

      protocol Person {
        let name: String
      }

      protocol Muggle: Person {
        let isDursley: Bool
      }

      protocol Wizard: Person {
        let spells: [Spell]
      }

      protocol Slytherin: Wizard {
        let darkArts: [DarkArt]
      }

      protocol Ravenclaw: Wizard {
        let extraKnowledge: [KnowledgeItem]
      }

      protocol Hufflepuff: Wizard {
        let badgerFriends: [Badger]
      }

      protocol Gryffindor: Wizard {
        let loyalTo: [PersonName]
      }

      let people = [
        Gryffindor(name: "Hermione Granger", spells: ["Petrificus Totalus"], loyalTo: ["Ron Weasley"]),
        Gryffindor(name: "Ron Weasley", spells: ["Wingardium Leviosa"], loyalTo: ["Hermione Granger", "Harry Potter"]),
        Gryffindor(name: "Harry Potter", spells: ["Expelliarmus", "Expecto Patronum", "Imperio"], loyalTo: ["Albus Dumbledore"]),
        Slytherin(name: "Draco Malfoy", spells: ["Serpensortia"], darkArts: ["Cruciatus", "Avada Kedavra"]),
        Hufflepuff(name: "Cedric Diggory", spells: ["Transfiguration"], badgerFriends: ["Wayne"]),
        Ravenclaw(name: "Luna Lovegood", spells: ["Expecto Patronum"], extraKnowledge: []),
        Muggle(name: "Dudley Dursley", isDursley: true),
        Muggle(name: "Prime Minister", isDursley: false)
      ]

      let slytherins = people.filter { $0 is Slytherin } // count is 1
      let ravenclaws = people.filter { $0 is Ravenclaw } // count is 1
      let hufflepuff = people.filter { $0 is Hufflepuff } // count is 1
      let gryffindors = people.filter { $0 is Gryffindor } // count is 3

      let muggleNames = people.filter { $0 is Muggle }.map { $0.name }

      let extraInformation: [[Any]] = people.map { person in
        if let slytherin = person as? Slytherin {
          return slytherin.darkArts
        } else if let ravenclaw = person as? Ravenclaw {
          return ravenclaw.extraKnowledge
        } else if let hufflepuff = person as? Hufflepuff {
          return hufflepuff.badgerFriends
        } else if let gryffindor = person as? Gryffindor {
          return gryffindor.loyalTo
        } else if let muggle = person as? Muggle {
          return muggle.isDursley
        }
      }

Didn't have to write any of those accessors, mutators, or futz around with any more type checking than absolutely necessary. I'm sure basically the same is possible in TypeScript, too.

<comment><USER27> Because of type erasure. The compiler removes all type information, and these checks are actually to support a common _JavaScript_ paradigm (doing manual, run time checks).

Often found in code checking function argument types to determine which version of a "polymorphic" function was called, e.g. jQuery's $.post.

TypeScript is all about annotating existing JavaScript code, so they strive to support the full JavaScript vernacular.

[http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.post/](http://api.jquery.com/jQuery.post/)

<comment><USER26> Ah, so TS types are basically only available at compile time? Does that make the "standard" way to do things to have both TypeScript types AND some alternative form of type information in object prototypes/classes for runtime use? That seems a bit redundant to my ignorant eyes, complicating what was already a complicated dance.

<comment><USER17> You cannot deal with Javascript without a "complicated dance". I like JS, and TS even more, but facts are facts.

<comment><USER28> The intermediate programmer likes to write smart and complicated code, but after a while you will go back to basics, and start to appreciate simplicity and convenience, and write code similar to a beginner, but without the bugs and inefficiencies (including your own time).

<comment><USER17> I didn't mean it was to be liked. I meant that I like it in spite of the unnecessary complexity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Vanilla JavaScript:

        function getSpells(person) {
            if(person.type != "Wizard") throw new Error("person.type=" + person.type + " is not Wizard");
        }</comment>


Schneier On Security: The Trouble With Airport Profiling - <AUTHOR> http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/05/the_trouble_wit.html

<comment> B-Con The most important argument he mentioned against profiling, IMO, is that attackers can change to evade profiles.

In the case of terrorism, there are about 1 billion Muslims and only about 300 million Middle Easterners. It's trivial for radical Muslims to recruit non- Middle Easterners, and they do. Profiling on Middle Easterners sets you up to only catch 1/3 of the potential attackers at best, and that assumes they don't pick their recruits to not look suspicious.

The type of thinking that thinks that profiling is effective in this type of case is generally rooted in the naive security approach of treating _malicious adversaries_ as _random accidents_. Most people are better at defending against tornadoes than hijackers. Tornadoes are random and dumb, they just pop up here and there and don't adapt to your defenses so defending against them is a 1-step process. Malicious adversaries, however, make the game multi-step. We reveal our defenses, they probe them and adapt to them. We then have to probe and adapt to those as well. And so on. You have to constantly out-think the attacker who is trying to out-think you.

Having had many conversations on the topic of airport security with random people here and there, it would seem that most people's threat model assumes that terrorists, inside and outside airports, make their plans barely a day in advance with little to no knowledge of the defense system, stand helplessly by making no active attempts to thwart the defenses, have little to no creativity or originality, and are kind of dumb. In all honesty, that's the attacker that most people seem to have in mind.

Those kind of people do exist, but they've always existed an law enforcement is long since accustomed to dealing with it. They aren't the threat. It's the smart, probing, adaptable, well-funded attackers who we always have to think about.

All that said, to be fair, some degree of profiling _can_ be advantageous under two conditions: when the target has actually a known non-uniform distribution that can be exploited (not the case for airport security), and only if the profiling is kept secret. When the attacker evades a profiling system, it's because they a) know a profiling system exists, and b) knows how the profiling system works. (Sometimes knowing (a) is itself a strong hint at (b).) If both are kept secret, the attacker may not be able to adapt. But the TSA couldn't keep it a secret, they have way too many employees that could leak information (intentionally or accidentally) and all their screening decisions are public, so an attacker would quickly learn the pattern anyway.

</comment><comment><USER2> We should be stopping possible terrorist attacks before they get to the airport, not after.

</comment><comment><USER3> Lets suppose there are going to be 10 events in the next 5 years where passengers try to take down airplanes from the interior. Also suppose there are going to be 800 million people per year boarding planes. Any system that identifies the 10 people among the (800 million * 5) will have to have "ten nines" worth of accuracy: 99.99999999% in order for the system to have any value. These systems do not exist, and almost provibly cannot exist. We are back to square one: brute force, check each passenger for every possible threat.</comment>


The Police Data Accessibility Project - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Police-Data-Accessibility-Project/Police-Data-Accessibility-Project <comment><USER2> I find these projects potentially dangerous and for people who have been arrested in a state where the case is dismissed but they cannot expunge because of the type of charge.

I was falsely arrested under the belief of arson. It happened when I was in my early 20s. The charges were dismissed and my expensive lawyer said it was the best deal to end it all. There wasn't even a fire and a cop that made the arrest had no reason to assume I was trying to start a fire. In any case, I still have to wait a few years to even expunge it.

Well, when going through university I was bullied & ostracized for a period of time and eventually found out someone had googled my name. They could see the arrest on some website and just the type of charge it was.

<comment><USER3> This sounds similar to the "right to be forgotten" concept in EU law where citizens can complain to Google to have their records removed from the search engine, but there is no way to delete all data about the incident.

I don't want to trivialize the pain a wrongful arrest ad bullying caused, but I think the solution to the underlying problem is more sunlight, not less. Without being able to see how many wrongful/unfruitful arrests happened at the hands of your arresting officer and DA, power might go unchecked for longer and grow more corrupt.

<comment><USER2> Oh my life was ruined at the time and I had to leave for another university. So I like to think you're not trivializing it. Happened in the USA and so no way to have the right to be forgotten. I ended up changing my name.

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry it happened to you and I'm frequently ashamed of our legal system. It's obviously not perfect, but sometimes it feel like the people who work in it don't have the capability to improve it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Someone told me the other day that they had investigated the Minneapolis police blotter, after the reporting that the majority of people arrested were from out of state. That investigation turned up that the blotter didn't agree, and shortly after it was revealed the police issued an apology.

Denver made a similar report, but have not made their arrest records public, for some reason...

<comment><USER5> Is there a link to this or is the some one that told you, like, totes trustworthy?

<comment><USER3> A number of news organizations (local Fox affiliate, CNN, CBS[1]) verified with the county jail intake database that the first statements of the mayors were inaccurate. Both mayors retracted when contradictory evidence was presented by media.

[1] [https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minnesota-officials-say-most- pe...](https://www.cbsnews.com/news/minnesota-officials-say-most-people-who- acted-violently-at-protests-are-not-state-residents/)

<comment><USER5> Awesome! Thank you. I think we're all a little skeptical of things that easily fit the narrative we want to be true(or not). Having a source helps a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> There's a project/movement forming to gather police data and make it accessible. They are working on scrapers and filing FOIA requests for the information.

They are calling for volunteers and need technical folks like us.

[https://www.reddit.com/r/DataPolice/wiki/how_to_contribute](https://www.reddit.com/r/DataPolice/wiki/how_to_contribute)

<comment><USER6> yup, this is the same group/movement

</comment></comment><comment> noman-land There was a similar project posted here just earlier today.

Show HN: Citizen Police Data Project – Police allegation data made accessible - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23374345](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23374345)

</comment><comment><USER7> I work for a company that provides software and hardware for police agencies across America.

I have been trying to think of ways to help. Some thoughts:

1\. Publicly track the FOIA status of video evidence at a given agency

2\. Verify the authenticity of videos floating around on the internet

3\. Create a way for citizens to verify the identities of officers in an area who use our technology

4\. Put out a public portal on the capabilities of body cameras by agency: what exactly they record, how and when officers can disable them, and more

<comment><USER8> Wow, that's interesting. You are not at all afraid that your customers will find out and choose another vendor which is not so keen on keeping them accountable?

Or are you going after mayors (or whatever) more set on reform?

<comment><USER9> It wouldn't be a concern if these protests lead to a public mandate at the federal level to require all precincts to adhere to these capabilities by end of 2021.

In other words, the old way is being deprecated, and you cops need to upgrade to v2 or game over.

Need some intelligent leadership to pull this off, but it seems we lack this. We have sincere people that are providing emotional leadership, but I'm seeing very little in the realm of pragmatic and competent leadership.

No draft bills, or even a consensus list of demands by leading figures with forward thinking initiatives yet. Not good, we're on the cusp of letting another actionable moment blow past us again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'm pessimistic that any real headway can be made in this area. I suspect that many local PDs purposefully obfuscate or refrain from tracking data that could be used against their efforts to maintain their existing culture; and that even in the cases of reform-minded leaders coming to power, there are interests both below and orthogonal to, and sometimes even above, them that are not on the same page[1].

Worst of all, an incomplete attempt to compile statistics that purports to be a comprehensive overview can be just as destructive as doing nothing at all. One notes how often white supremacists, racist, Neo-Nazis, and internet trolls bring up FBI arrest statistics, which rely on local LEO reporting and certainly, at the very least, reflect the known role implicit bias based on race plays in arrest rates.

[1][https://theintercept.com/2020/05/29/george-floyd- minneapolis...](https://theintercept.com/2020/05/29/george-floyd-minneapolis- police-reform/) Semi-related: [https://www.propublica.org/article/why-america- fails-at-gath...](https://www.propublica.org/article/why-america-fails-at- gathering-hate-crime-statistics)

</comment><comment><USER9> I like the spirit of this. I felt like software tech didn't have too much of a place during the Pandemic to have an outsized impact, but here we totally do. Let's get this data, let's make tools to explore it, correlate it, and broadcast it.

</comment><comment><USER11> I submitted a FOIA request last year for all parking citations issued in San Francisco. The data was truly extraordinary and showed clearly how simple street sweeping citations could lead to a car being towed, auctioned, and the owner (whose name/license plate is publicly listed if they overpaid or paid a citation twice [1]) losing their business and eventually moving elsewhere. I decided against publishing my research out of fear of encroaching on the privacy of those involved.

One story that comes to mind is the license plate HPPYPPS, a plumber whose company Happy Pipes provided service around SF. He was subject to numerous citations on the order of $1k a month. When his van was towed, he likely did not have the funds to retrieve it, and it was subsequently auctioned. He now does business under the same name, but in Utah. It is interesting to think of how much tax revenue the city actually lost by fining a small business out of existence, which was likely much greater than the total punitive fines levied against him.

In the process of looking up companies that owned vehicles, S1 filings, and high-end cars that seem to accrue tens of thousands of dollars of fines every year, I grew exhausted and demoralized by the project and it has sat on my back burner for a year now. If anyone is interested in taking this up while respecting the privacy of those involved, let me know how to contact you and I'll share my data.

1\. [https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- docume...](https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/reports-and- documents/2017/11/escheatment_posting_oct_2017.pdf)

<comment><USER12> The unfortunate reality is that parking tickets are just a cost of doing business in any dense city. When you have appointments to keep you simply can't circle the block until a parking space opens up. But that means businesses have to charge customers enough to cover the ticket cost, and then actually pay the tickets rather than letting them accumulate.

<comment><USER11> As someone who has probably lost a day of each year roaming San Francisco looking for parking, I wholeheartedly agree with you that punitive measures are the only way to keep people from occupying limited parking spaces beyond certain limits. However, my qualm is with arbitrary citations like street sweeping, missing front license plates (some cars only have one on the back), and numerous other petty citations that the average tech worker has no problem paying off, while leaving the hospitality worker or small business owner in a state of bankruptcy after a single unlucky sequence of events.

<comment><USER8> Just another way the poor pay a higher "tax" percentage wise compared to more affluent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not sure the goal of this project but collecting criminal arrest information and making it public is not going to help anyone who's been wrongfully arrested, or anyone who's had their charge expunged. I'm fairly sure that storing and exposing this data improperly without respect to subsequent court actions is in violation of the law.

<comment><USER3> > is in violation of the law

It's not clear to me that this is true for all data about an arrest/charge.

Courts have upheld that arrest mugshots and fingerprints taken at jail intake time both can be retained by the law enforcement system even if the arrested person is exonerated (acquitted, charged dropped, etc).

<comment><USER13> Each jurisdiction differs on this dramatically. But the law enforcement system is quite different from some random GitHub repo.

<comment><USER14> I unaware of any legal authority one could use to remove public information from GitHub, even after expungement of the public record itself. These are not works covered under copyright that a DMCA takedown notice would apply to.

You're still correct that datasets such as these might need to be globally distributed, instead of hosted with a single commercial provider.

<comment><USER13> Criminal records are owned by the jurisdiction which served the case. These are governed by state and federal laws. You are also subject to severe defamation lawsuits and anyone contributing to this repo can be held personally culpable. This is not about copyright.

EDIT I'm not going to do your legal homework for you, but this is South Carolina, for example. As stated above, each of the 50 United States has various laws and regulations with regards to arrest and criminal records. Violate those laws at your own risk, but if a lawyer is not being involved in this project on an ongoing basis, I highly recommend anyone to avoid: [https://www.scjustice.org/criminal-records-come-back- haunt-e...](https://www.scjustice.org/criminal-records-come-back-haunt- expungements-third-party-background-reports/)

That's just about respecting expungement (30 day notice must takedown). If you improperly record or transcode the data from the scrape and that results in someone being attributed to something that the record never showed, you are subject to full weight of defamation lawsuits. If you unwittingly expose someone's private information that is involved in witness protection, for example, you can be subject to legal and civil penalties: [https://www.gsa.gov/reference/gsa-privacy-program/rules- and-...](https://www.gsa.gov/reference/gsa-privacy-program/rules-and-policies- protecting-pii-privacy-act)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Expect Github/Microsoft to crumble at the first, inevitable, court order to censor this material. This is derogatory data about members of among the most politically and legally powerful groups in the country. It's great to post this data there, but hopefully as only one node in a well distributed network of many clones.

</comment><comment><USER16> Okay, so some PROBABLY BAD THINGS about this project. I'm 100% convinced that this group is an astroturfing project, but I don't know to what end.

1\. This group believes that police officer names should be redacted from all police documents. They also think that Court case IDs should be redacted because it might be PII.

2\. The owner of the group is accepting police officers into their ranks, and suggestions of inviting FBI agents and police commanders have been taken seriously. When I tried to point out that this was a bad idea, I was told I was "gaslighting" the group.

3\. They have no legal representation. The closest they have (as of yesterday) is a legal researcher. This researcher is very green.

4\. The creator of the group is a marketing expert who is a co-owner of a marketing company named frac.tl that specializes in making things go viral using emotional issues. While that in itself _might not_ be a bad thing, it should make trusting this movement a bit more difficult.

5\. The blog post that 'started' this had three different author names, and was recently changed two weeks ago. The 'current author' has told me that this is because the website editor was changed twice. Again, not something bad in itself, but combine it with everything..

6\. The blog post that started this all is on lawsuit.org, which is owned by frac.tl. Instead of representing themselves as owners of frac.tl, the creators of this group represent themselves as lawsuit.org.

7\. The owner of the group has given admin permissions to the group to people that she's never met. They have full rights to do whatever they want, including kick/ban/view email addresses.

FWIW, in the past 6mo, I've been heavily involved in police accountability work. Still new to it, but the folks that I've talked to who do this work more than I agree that this is a suspicious group.

If you want to support projects like this, _please_ donate to your local police accountability groups instead!

Will post links in a bit.

<comment><USER17> Copy and pasting from a related reply within the group:

``` 1) There's been no decision on redactions. We're still standing up proj mgmt tools after 1000 members in 4 days, much less "this will be in it, this will be in it"

2) Someone else, not the owner, was largely advocating for police inclusion b/c of the impact of the data. Again, no decision made here about "no cops/yes cops"

3) Law professor is the legal lead, with about a team of 5+ researchers (mix of law students, etc.)

4) True. Marketing = bad, is that the point?

5) True. The author explained it to the T, there wasn't much there there.

6) Creator of the group is with frac.tl, the rest of the 'leadership team' has zero to do with it.

7) So what's the deal.... too centralized around the creator's professional group, or too dispersed management to people away from people that aren't in her group. ```

<comment><USER16> 1: _Your scraper must be anonymizing data that it gathers, removing identifiable information to prevent disclosure of names of arresting officers or cited citizens._ [https://github.com/Police-Data-Accessibility- Project/Police-...](https://github.com/Police-Data-Accessibility- Project/Police-Data-Accessibility-Project/blob/master/CONTRIBUTING.md)

5: It's still an SEO tactic that should raise flags. Here are the names of the past posters if anyone wants to dig:

Matt Meadows: [https://web.archive.org/web/20191118214540/https://lawsuit.o...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191118214540/https://lawsuit.org/keeping- cops-accountable/)

Kristen: [https://web.archive.org/web/20200527213804/https://lawsuit.o...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200527213804/https://lawsuit.org/keeping- cops-accountable/)

Ryan: [https://web.archive.org/web/20200518181855/https://lawsuit.o...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200518181855/https://lawsuit.org/keeping- cops-accountable/)

<comment><USER17> That was built by a volunteer within the Slack on ~Day 2 as to give devs a target to start coding towards. It was paired with many public calls/disclaimers that no official words on the mission or final product would come before the next week once (1) was complete and input from the group was heard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder if [https://usafacts.org/](https://usafacts.org/) could get involved with this project?</comment>


The Greatest Paper Map of the US, Made by a Guy in Oregon (2012) - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2012/01/the_best_american_wall_map_david_imus_the_essential_geography_of_the_united_states_of_america_.html <comment><USER2> When this came out, back in 2012, there was a decent amount of discussion about it here [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3416426](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3416426) .

As I recall, this Slate article drew a lot of attention to the map, and garnered many sales for the years of work that went into making the map.

</comment><comment><USER3> I admire the work that went into the Imus map, but looking at the example images in the article, I actually think I prefer the NatGeo map.

My eyeballs seem to have an easier time resolving the place names, and figuring out what they refer to. I think its because NatGeo let the baselines for the text bend, while Imus insists they're all flat, making them looked "stacked"

(I actually compared the maps and decided which one looked better before reading the caption saying which was which, and was surprised the one I prefered was the one NatGeo one.)

</comment><comment><USER4> He should build a map rendering template for Open Street Maps!

<comment><USER5> Yes, that would be awesome however I think the main reason this one took the prize was the sheer amount of "curated", "human" touches that were not present in other automated maps. That said, perhaps somebody could throw this against an image processing / learning API and extend that to a rendering template? :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where can I buy it

[https://imusgeographics.com/](https://imusgeographics.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Meta: Why is the HN title different than the title of the article? The HN title added unnecessary ambiguity.</comment>


Amir D. Aczel, author of 'Fermat's Last Theorem', has died - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/entertainment/books/amir-d-aczel-author-of-fermats-last-theorem-and-other-best-sellers-dies/2015/12/12/4e4b88aa-9de0-11e5-bce4-708fe33e3288_story.html <comment><USER2> For those feeling confused: this is not the only book called _Fermat 's Last Theorem_.

• Harold Edwards, _Fermat 's Last Theorem_, 1977

• Simon Singh, _Fermat 's Last Theorem_, 1997

(There may be others.)

<comment><USER3> I was confused by this because I couldn't remember Simon Singh's name but recalled him as the author of the "Fermat's Last Theorem" that I'm familiar with lol.

Thanks for clearing this up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> RIP. He wrote Entanglement, one of the best books on the subject and highly recommend. Entanglement tells the astounding story of the scientists who set out to complete Einstein's work. With accesible language and a highly entertaining tone, Amir Aczel shows us a world where the improbable—from unbreakable codes to teleportation—becomes possible.

</comment><comment><USER5> "x(n) + y(n) could never equal z(n) if "n" was greater than 2"

Wasn't it x^n + y^n != z^n for n greater than 2?

<comment><USER6> Yes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love his books. If you have any interest in math or its history, you will be rewarded by picking up one of his books.

</comment><comment><USER8> The Mystery of the Aleph is one of my favorite books. Great math with a sprinkle of crazy on top.</comment>


The Disturbing Secret Behind the World's Most Expensive Coffee (2016) - <AUTHOR> https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2016/04/160429-kopi-luwak-captive-civet-coffee-Indonesia/ <comment><USER2> People care more about this because the animals involved are cute and fluffy, but this is pretty much just regular factory farming. (Which itself is a hellish indictment of humanity, of course.)

<comment><USER3> This is true and we've been trained to not think about our common, normalized farming realities here. That applies not just to meat & dairy but to the mass production & harvest of fruits and vegetables as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Just as a PSA - I develop food and beverage products (both premium and mass market) with Analytical Flavor Systems (a predictive platform for flavor);

no one in the industry - not a single person who knows anything about coffee - would recommend civet coffee. Its a marketing gimmick of the worst kind. Its destructive, a-historical, and does not result in a better product.

Any random "3rd wave" coffee is better, and if you want a fruity-fermented profile, just look for a "natural process" or "honey processed" coffee.

<comment><USER5> Do you have suggestions for premium coffee brands for regular coffee drinkers like myself? The most I've had is Starbucks and I find it pretty good, but I'm not averse to kicking it up a notch.

<comment><USER6> Oh, wow. There are _so_ many brands out there, from small boutique roasting shops to medium-sized commercial roasters who produce vastly superior product to Starbucks. Nearly any roaster who roasts to order will be better than Starbucks.

I use a local one called Specialty Java because they're decent, less expensive, and the shipping is a low courier fee, or even free for will-call. I can recommend them if you are not used to the 3rd-wave ultra-light roasts. Most of their stuff is medium roast, and nothing is burnt like the majority of Starbucks beans.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think the disturbing thing here is, being in Indiana, I can't do a damn thing about it. I've never had the chance to buy it, would not have bought it to begin with, and not even seen it on the market.

But this article makes me feel bad and emotionally drains me, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it.

<comment><USER8> i wish HN have more ways for me to tag and hide posts. i get the "intellectual curiosity" part of off-topic posts but we got reddit for that.

<comment><USER9> any subreddits you'd recommend where intelligent conversation can be found?

<comment><USER10> Any one that's new enough to have less than [insert critical mass number here, varies by topic] comments.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Wait until they discover how milk is made...

<comment><USER12> From mother Almonds of course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I tried a cup in Bali, and couldn't tell any difference. It's just coffee. I think it's just a gimmick with a fake value add.

<comment><USER14> To be fair low-acidity coffee might not taste much different but it shouldn't wreck your stomach like most coffee does.

With that being said I believe you can just grow low-acidity strains.

<comment><USER15> Compared to tap water, sea water is alkaline. Some folks prefer to add a pinch of salt to their coffee. Choosing sea salt in this context results in less acidic coffee.

<comment><USER16> Adding salt to water does not result in any chemical reactions, so the salt will not alter the pH level of water or the resulting coffee brew in any way. Most people just add milk/cream to alter the pH to neutralize acidity, but if you want to keep it black you need to use baking soda, not salt. Just a pinch, you don't need much.

<comment><USER15> Perhaps you are thinking of "salt" as just NaCl. Sea Salt contains more minerals than just that - Magnesium being a prominent one. Magnesium is alkaline, and therefore, coffee with Sea Salt added is more alkaline than just regular coffee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Clickbait 2016 title, it's almost vintage. (This, of course, is/was not at all a secret, even 4 years ago)

</comment><comment><USER18> There's a paywall. Could only see the first sentence about Civet feces

<comment><USER19> "[...] as civet coffee has gained popularity, and with Indonesia growing as a tourist destination where visitors want to see and interact with wildlife, more wild civets are being confined to cages on coffee plantations. In part, this is for coffee production, but it's also so money can be made from civet- ogling tourists.

Civet dung, studded with partially digested coffee beans, used to be collected from the wild. Increasingly, civets are instead kept in cramped, unsanitary cages on coffee plantations."

That's the gist of it</comment></comment>


Exterminate the Parasites: Mark Cuban's radical plan to save old media.  - <AUTHOR> http://www.newsweek.com/id/214832/output/print

<comment><USER2> I and two others are working on a third solution to this, one that we think can meet everyone's needs.

News consumers now expect to be able to customize their news. Why sit and read a newspaper, full of items that someone else picked for you, when you can read a news feed that you've tailored specifically to your interests?

News publishers are now looking for ways to get their news directly to the consumer, cutting out the freeloaders along the ways. They're starting to die off and hit serious financial problems, and they're eager for a solution.

News producers are looking for a way to be a well-paid journalist without having to restrict themselves to a single publication. Blogging has become more lucrative for a lot of people than if they had become a columnist, even a syndicated one.

At the same time, news consumers also don't want to be stuck with the stuff that news producers think is important, filtered through the news publishers and their biases.

And finally, advertisers are starting to get uncomfortable. I was among the first to predict the dot-com bust, back when people thought I was crazy; I was among the first to predict the housing bust, back when the realtors I knew all thought I was crazy; I think the advertising market is next. It's already starting to get shaky; I think in the next two years, the bottom is going to fall out of advertising.

The indicators are all there: it's a heavily saturated market, it isn't innovating well, audiences are developing not just software-based filters but mental ones as well. The advantage to running a full-page ad in a magazine was a guaranteed audience, and if you made it compelling enough, and glossy enough, you could get someone to look at it for a moment before they turned to the next page. As print media starts to stumble, if you're an advertiser, now you're looking at having to push smaller ads to lots of different outlets, and none of them can do much to guarantee an audience for you.

And, I think we can assume that subscription models aren't going to scale well. In a way, you can think of the recording industry's model as a subscription-based one -- in that they expect people to pay for access to content on an ongoing basis -- and look at how that's gone for them. The more pressure they put on the consumers, the more clever solutions the consumers come up with to distribute the content for free.

I have an aunt who started a beautiful magazine for the central coast and three different friends who have worked in various parts of the news industry. I'm not just pulling these things out of my ass; I've heard about the industry problems from people who are working in the industry.

But, I think we found the right lever that can balance all of this out again. We've already submitted our app for YCW10, software is currently under heavy development, and we're still polishing some edges on the business model. Can't wait to see what happens.

<comment><USER3> I wish you luck, honestly. But I disagree with most of the premises you outline.

 _Why sit and read a newspaper, full of items that someone else picked for you, when you can read a news feed that you've tailored specifically to your interests?_

Because the New York Times has a better handle on what's going on in the world today than I do? I want to be informed about what's going on out there, and every day at least once I read something interesting in the Times that didn't meet some pre-defined "interest" of mine.

 _News producers are looking for a way to be a well-paid journalist without having to restrict themselves to a single publication._

Really? I think most staffers are happy not to be free-lancers.

 _"In a way, you can think of the recording industry's model as a subscription-based one -- in that they expect people to pay for access to content on an ongoing basis -- and look at how that's gone for them."_

Huh? How is the recording industry's model even remotely like a subscription one? Are you still in the "Columbia House Record & Tape Club" or something?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The relationship between old media and aggregators isn't so much parasitic as it is symbiotic. They both need each other. Aggregators need stories and old media needs an audience for their articles. I've discovered a few old media sites through HN and Reddit that I now read regularly. If old media closes off their funnel of new readers where will they get their audience from?

<comment><USER5> There's a big difference between the two sites you listed and the type that Cuban listed and is referring to.

Hacker News and Reddit both link directly to the actual source material and only show a title and a short description of the post.

The Drudge Report doesn't do it as badly, but Newser actually rips off most/entire article on their site leaving no reason to go to the actual material.

The only one benefiting from that relationship is Newser.

<comment><USER6> Cuban's advocating blocking links from aggregators. He may mention newser but the strategy would 'work' again HN as well.

This extremism seems silly - the sites could do click-through ads which generate revenue for any deep links, also a few lines code - and growing number of sites do this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love how he puts 'copying' and 'linking' on the same level of 'bad'. You don't want me to link to your stories? Please take a class of Internet 101 - most sites would kill to have that many free links.

<comment><USER6> A double 'Bingo' to the parent!

There's legal recourse against sites taking more than fair use. And fair use generates hits on your site. And if you can't monetize the hits on their site, well, you'll be replaced by someone who can.

Uh, and lot of the dying old media were just dumber parasites - a local newpaper twenty years was three lame local stories plus condensed AP and NYTimes feeds. I don't feel sorry to see that go...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Radical? We've been hearing the AP rail about this stuff for years. Newsweek and Mark Cuban need to read a little news before they claim something is new.

</comment><comment><USER9> Someone once said that most companies die by commiting sucide, not getting killed by the competition.

Well, Mark Cuban's proposal is a crazy way to commit sucide. Imagine thousand of companies of which employ tons of people in between going under, just like that.

<comment><USER10> I wouldn't be so certain this is committing suicide. It could be argued that providing all content for free is committing suicide as well.

<comment><USER9> As far as I know, newspaper make most of its money from advertising, not from charging subscribers.

<comment><USER10> Honestly, I have no idea where most of newspaper revenues come from, but so far it seems most (all?) of the major ones are failing to make enough money by selling online ads. It's not a matter of theory or opinion, it's something that's been tested for about 8-9 years now, and just doesn't seem to work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes sir. Internet advertising is a booming business. Every pageview is sold weeks in advance, right ? Not quite. The issue is the value of a referred pageview. Today, its not worth much, if anything. The conversion value is approaching zero.

Compare the conversion value of that pageview to the value of diminishing the position of aggregators and its an easy choice.

The net has a business problem of unlimited news site inventory. So traffic from aggregators isnt worth squat. So why put up with them leveraging your intellectual capital ?

not worth it

<comment><USER12> "The conversion value is approaching zero" -- I think advertisers, some at least, have forgotten how advertising can work. They've been lead to believe by some that because they can track everyone's response to a campaign that it always makes sense to do so.

It's not likely that I'm going to see a banner advert on a page and immediately click on the link and respond to it. It interrupts whatever I'm actually doing - i.e. reading the content. But I might well remember having seen the advert later, and that might change my future plans.

(Here's an idea for free - make it easy for me to find the adverts I've already been shown. When I'm reading a physical newspaper or magazine I can flick back to the advert, or riffle through to find it again. Unless an advertiser is doing saturation advertising across an entire ad network one day, it's hard for me to do the same online.)

<comment><USER11> you may be right. But it doesnt change the reality that the destination site gets nearly zero benefit from the referral.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> He misses the point: the value of a news item is going down because of the advent of Internet and the rise of Internet journalists.

While they may not be of the caliber of a typical print journalist, that may be a supply-demand thing. Meaning if all newspapers blocked news aggregator, there is a high chance that there will be new folks producing newspaper- quality content who'd be happy to get the aggregator traffic.

</comment><comment><USER14> How would they even enforce it?

Most of these motherfuckers are just republishing AP stories anyway.

<comment><USER15> Referer blocking.

<comment><USER16> Which means people who want to use their favorite aggregator sites would just have to set their browser to not send referers. And the old media sites lose a little bit of analytics.

<comment><USER11> How many people do you know that even know they can do this, let alone know how to do it. Let alone would go through the process of it. Let alone would understand the ramifications for other site interactions.

non event. You and 17 other people might do this.

<comment><USER16> Presumably the aggregation sites would have instructions in big red letters at the top of every page.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's just that there are many who want to have as many readers as they can get, because they earn their money in other ways (like Joel On Software selling his bug tracker). So they would be thankful about any incoming link.

Maybe some "old media" articles are a tiny bit better, maybe not. Maybe many of the "old media" articles are actually also just advertisements in disguise (because they subtly hype some company's product). Overall I think they are not that much better that I would actively seek them out. Nobody links to them, I don't read them.

</comment><comment><USER18> Of course, not all old media entities are dying. See for example, NPR and the Norwegian Shibsted media group, which is making profits, both from newspapers _and_ online new sites. (Of course, the fact that they started up online in 1995 or so may have something to do with it)

</comment><comment><USER19> We see this model in television today. The aggregators will become channels where customers subscribe to them or see ads and the aggregators pay the content producers for the rights to display the content on the sites.</comment>


Recursive song by Udacity Professor Michael Littman  - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmLTzeuB_h8

<comment><USER2> The most recursive thing about it is the pain in my ears.</comment>


Sturgeon seeks Brussels talks to protect Scotland's EU membership - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/sturgeon-seeks-urgent-brussels-talks-to-protect-scotlands-eu-membership <comment><USER2> The EU membership will most likely come with a change of currency, which means leaving the BoE for the ECB. Given the ECB's track record and it's inability to do what a central bank ought to do - protect banks from bank runs, devalue, etc. - I believe that it's suicidal. The QE was was a joke.

Surplus recycling is nowhere to be found in the European Union, vis-a-vis Germany Scotland will have deficit, hence it's doomed in the long run to become like Greece.

The way the EU manages the economy, it's stupid for any deficit country to come in and compared to Germany, everybody will be in huge deficit in the long run. At that point you depend on the Bundesbank to over-value and the German government to raise salaries. None of this will happen, at that point you'll have a country on it's knees depending on a foreign institution (the ECB) who is controlled by a foreign nation which has it's own interests to protect.

I'm sorry for GB. I'm sorry that a nation had to go through this, but their best bet is to stick together.

EDIT: The first thing that the German gov did after Brexit says a long shot about how Germany envisions Europe: They summoned the 6 (or 7) countries that created the European Union. But the EU has 27 members now.

Do you really want to be part of a union who doesn't give a damn about you and give your monetary policy to that union?

About 16 years ago, at her last speech, M. Thatcher in a rare moment of enlightenment said about the EUR: _He who control the interest rates controls the Economy and he who controls the economy controls the politics in Europe_

She was spot on.

<comment><USER3> The EU project is a political one (encompassing things like currency, fiscal and social union), and not just a single market like the most liberal English right winger want it to be. The referendum is a plebiscite for this politic, even though it seems that part of the electorate has been conned into voting to leave.

<comment><USER2> I have a romantic view of referendums: I don't believe that decision taken via referendum can be _wrong_. It's the quintessence of democracy and I ultimately believe in democracy, which means I believe that the majority votes as best as the can.

IMHO you're misunderstanding: Listening _BBC Radio 5_ the last couple of days I can say that lack of transparency, austerity promotion and the way countries like Greece (primarily), Ireland and Portugal were treated in 2014 and 2015 by the EU played a major role in turning voters to Brexit.

<comment><USER3> Having seen first hand the British media (both English and Scottish) coverage of the debate surrounding the EU referendum, I can confidently say that part of the British electorate has been mislead to think all blame are on the EU institution. There is also the antiquated notion of Nation-State that does not apply to the UK as Northern Ireland and Scotland have voted to remain and are now seeing their future outside the EU against their will.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is exactly how secession should work. Clearly the Scots and the English and Welsh have different opinions on being part of the EU. It is tyrannical for either group to force their preference on the others.

So let Scotland secede and join the EU. Problem solved, human freedom and happiness maximized.

See 'Secession: The Reasonable Option Everyone Resists' by Tom Woods:

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

<comment><USER5> It would be more fair to hold a referendum in England whether it should be united with Scotland. Would be more productive for Scotland's independence.

<comment><USER6> I know of a lot of British people who do not want Scotland to be part of the UK. They get more funding per head, their own government and then complain they are unfairly treated.

<comment><USER7> Unfairly treated? You mean like being dragged out of a union against our political will?

<comment><USER8> Personally, I think you do deserve a second referendum. The remain/leave map shows a clear border. Northumberland votes out. North of that, its all remain.

The biggest thing to me is that many in the leave camp used very similar arguments against the leave camp in the Scottish indy ref.

That and the EU/better together camp said Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU if they left and should therefore stay.

Note: from Manchester. Voted remain. Don't see the SNP as the national threat they're portrayed to be.

<comment><USER6> " _Personally, I think you do deserve a second referendum. The remain /leave map shows a clear border. Northumberland votes out. North of that, its all remain._"

It's tough luck. You can't threaten to quit every time things don't work out for you.

" _The biggest thing to me is that many in the leave camp used very similar arguments against the leave camp in the Scottish indy ref._ "

I don't think anybody envisioned we would actually leave.

" _That and the EU /better together camp said Scotland wouldn't be part of the EU if they left and should therefore stay._"

It's not entirely clear that Scotland will be able to join the EU anyway. There's a long waiting list and large payment required.

" _Note: from Manchester. Voted remain. Don 't see the SNP as the national threat they're portrayed to be._"

I also voted remain. I'm not afraid of the threat of Scotland to the rest of the UK, I'm afraid of Scotland's threat to itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> An important part of the campaign against the independence was that they would be out of the EU, isn't?

The irony is really big here

<comment><USER10> Quite the case. One of the key reasons that the Scottish referendum in 2014 was not won was because of uncertainty about continued EU membership and the currency that the country would use.

To make that decision and less than two years later be dragged out of the EU anyway has pissed off a bunch of people. Lots of noise coming from former 'no' voters and media about how they feel misled. And now that Scotland has resoundingly - 24% margin! - voters to remain in the EU, it seems there is a bit of a mandate.

I am not enjoying the atmosphere here at the moment. This whole thing has been a colossal fuckup which has permanently damaged the UK.

<comment><USER11> > This whole thing has been a colossal fuckup which has permanently damaged > the UK.

For me that's the biggest take away from it; half of the scots voters said they wanted out of that union, which usually means "we don't feel that country represents us properly". Now, that's not irreparable and you have a perfect, even stronger example in recent times with Quebec and Canada. The solution was "simple"; listen to them and go their way, if only a little. Show them that you care about them being in. Laugh all you want about the French labels everywhere in Canada but they're basically Canada saying "ok Quebec, we need you, let's stay together".

With that Brexit vote, the UK has thrown away one of the biggest thing scots were sure about; they wanted to be in the EU. Even if they manage to not lose them through independence, it has been marked in the sand that England decides and Scotland follows, even if they really don't want to.

(I mean 68% for remain ? I'm not sure any other EU country would get that at the moment, maybe Germany)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Well, now I need to get Scottish citizenship when they get around to being independent to get around the EU since a British passport isn't going to do it any more.

</comment><comment><USER13> Scotland, Northern Ireland and London wish to remain in the EU; non-London England and Wales wish to leave. The U.K. is already in the EU. Structurally, the simplest solution would be for non-City of London England* and Wales to secede from the UK, thereby allowing Scotland, Northern Ireland and the City to inherit the UK's EU membership. (Naturally, this won't happen because politics.)

* Why the City of London versus Greater London? The City exists as a special legal entity in British law. Given how Parliament derives its right to rule from the Crown and the City has a special arrangement with the Crown, the City would find it technically easier to withdraw from England (while remaining in the UK) than Greater London.

</comment><comment><USER14> There is a huge problem that the EU and IndyRef questions are mutually dependent and cannot be fairly resolved by asking independent questions in sequence. I believe the nuance of the situation requires multiple questions to be asked at the same time.

Given we have already had IndyRef1 and EU1 the defaults are that Scotland is part of the UK and that there will be a Brexit. There is something wrong about repeating referendums until an irreversible result occurs. I believe Indyref2 would be fairer as two questions:

1\. "If Brexit, should Scotland be a separate country?" for Scots

2\. "Should we still Brexit if there would be a Scexit?" for the whole UK to vote.

If the answers are "yes and no", then we get status quo.

<comment><USER15> Scotland leaving the UK was a reasonably foreseeable result of Brexit, so voters in England and Wales should have asked themselves question 2 when they voted on Thursday.

Britain, as a whole, voting for leaving the EU wasn't foreseen at the time of the Scottish independence referendum, so voters in that wouldn't have asked themselves question 1.

So the Scottish government should at this stage try to negotiate a Danish- style deal (Scotland stays in EU _and_ UK). If they are successful, there would be no immediate need for another independence referendum. Otherwise, they should get the best EU membership terms they can for Scotland, and hold another independence referendum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The UK has granted independence to more countries than any other, they know how to do it well, and how to have a good relation with the new nation.

<comment><USER17> Lots of those countries had to get it through violence.

<comment><USER18> Most of those countries did come under, and were maintained under, British rule because of violence.

But I don't think it's accurate to say that lots of them had to be violent to get their independence. The British largely gave that politically.

<comment><USER17> Here are some polities that had to use violence to achieve independence from Britain: US India Pakistan Kenya Egypt Burma Sri Lanka Malaysia

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Link is a feed. Here is the article:

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/sturgeon- see...](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/25/sturgeon-seeks-urgent- brussels-talks-to-protect-scotlands-eu-membership)

<comment><USER20> Thanks, we updated the submission link.</comment></comment>


A Look at the Elon Musk-backed Future of Life Institute - <AUTHOR> http://bostinno.streetwise.co/2015/01/15/elon-musk-future-of-life-institute-artificial-intelligence-research-could-be-crucial/

<comment><USER2> >Now, Musk is serving on the scientific advisory board at the Future of Life Institute and has also donated $10 million to the organization, for a global research program aimed at keeping AI beneficial for humanity.

I'm sure the two had _nothing_ to do with each other :)</comment>


Apple has a secret team working on internet satellites - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-12-20/apple-has-top-secret-team-working-on-internet-satellites <comment><USER2> This could be a game changer:

1) No more carriers. They get a consistent, high margin monthly revenue stream, can have one worldwide SKU and can let illegal imports take care of situations where there has been the potential for bans e.g. patents or Russia.

2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them dictate where the industry goes.

3) Further ties customers to Apple in a world where its getting harder to differentiate on hardware features alone. Instead they can differentiate on the network e.g. no more roaming charges and offer unique bundles e.g. ATV+ with Apple Internet. And good luck with smaller players being able to launch their own satellite.

4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc.

5) Apple owns the total experience. It's just you and Apple.

<comment><USER3> > 1) No more carriers.

This doesn't really work. If you've looked at some of the calculations for SpaceX's constellation (probably the highest bandwidth one proposed so far), it is completely insufficient for even medium sized cities.

There is also a question of what sort of antenna the phones will use to connect with the satellites. My understanding is that modern sat phones are pretty low bandwidth and aren't really the sleak and slim design we've come to expect from Apple.

> can let illegal imports take care of situations where there is the potential > for bans e.g. patents or Russia.

Probably not possible either. They're going to need plenty of base stations, which are easy to ban with court order.

> 2) No more dealing with Qualcomm and 5/6G standards bodies and having them > dictate where the industry goes.

We'll see. If the problem is with patents instead of technical ability then this will be easier than I expect.

> 4) No more dealing with foreign governments blocking websites, demanding > apps be installed, intercepting traffic and by extension far less jailing > and killing of dissidents, minorities, journalists etc.

Again, they're going to need base stations. The parts of the world that regularly do that stuff are usually pretty poor, which means pretty low iPhone penetration.

If Apple can pull this off, it'd be great for them. I'm not very optimistic.

<comment><USER4> I don't think you need base stations, given atomic clocks shared between the network and possibly on some of the client devices, the client devices could form a large phased array receiver and then mesh the data between the ground based mesh.

Base stations help, but aren't required.

<comment><USER5> If I understand you correctly, you're suggesting that the phones form a mesh on the ground to distribute the data that needs transmission to and from the satellite. And that the mesh network of devices also synchronize their radios to act as one gigantic phased array (or in chunks) to communicate with the satellites.

That's a fantastically crazy idea, in a good way

<comment><USER6> Every Tesla solar roof thats got fiber could become a base station. Sort of like Tor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Not super surprised (because traditional media is bad at specialist topics-- looks like they googled large conventional satellite makers and talked to a self-described expert, who unfortunately didn't provide a ton of context), but there was no mention of the obvious company/competitor that has demonstrated the technology in question: [https://spacenews.com/ubiquitilink-has- raised-12-million-for...](https://spacenews.com/ubiquitilink-has- raised-12-million-for-communications-constellation/)

Ubiquitilink (now called just Lynk) demonstrated the ability to communicate with _existing_ , _unmodified_ cellphones from orbit (the prototype was a secondary payload on the Cygnus spacecraft, which had resupplied the International Space Station). This is a remarkable feat and puts the technology in a completely different camp than it was when large LEO constellations like Iridium were tried beforehand. Iridium failed to acquire enough customers before going bankrupt in part because they required an expensive and clunky handset. Being able to use _existing_ GSM and LTE phones without bulky antennas (and in spite of the latency being beyond what GSM/LTE usually tolerates) is a breakthrough.

[https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky- ubiquiti...](https://www.spaceitbridge.com/cell-tower-in-the-sky-ubiquitilink- is-now-lynk-hiring.htm)

They plan to start with SMS texting (can use very cheap satellites and don't require very many of them) and then voice/data later on. (Plan is to partner with existing providers to allow global texting anywhere on the planet.)

The second prototype is a satellite launched on a SpaceX Dragon to the International Space Station that will be assembled by astronauts: [https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/11550878931631...](https://mobile.twitter.com/NexGenSpace/status/1155087893163118592)

It's a complete gamechanger (possibly even bigger than SpaceX's Starlink). Doubtless Apple realizes this potential and wants their own in to this. It's a legitimate way for Apple to use their huge amount of cash to legitimately grow their revenue significantly. And Apple has the advantage that they can make modifications to the phones (or tablets or watches or notebooks, etc) themselves. Apple can also afford multi-billion-dollar investments that take many years to come to fruition, something Iridium (and Globalstar and others) couldn't at that time.

<comment><USER8> I'm not sure how much of a gamechanger it will be to only be able to send SMS, and probably at a fairly high price point.

It's perhaps a big deal if you're a Yak farmer in remote Sibera and don't normally have any kind of coverage at all, but most people have some sort of cell coverage that provides at least SMS.

The comment that the bulky handset killed Iridium is only part of the picture. The bigger issue is that terrestrial cell antennas went up faster than Motorola expected, and by the time the system was online its primary use case had already largely vanished, especially among the kind of people who could afford the extremely high fees for the service. In the end the market niche closed down to government people in extremely remote locations who don't already have some sort of satellite connection.

<comment><USER7> They're not limited to SMS; that's just the minimum viable product. They can do voice and data as well with the same technology. It also should be a lot easier and cheaper for Lynk to deploy than it was for Iridium, since launch costs have gone down significantly (while reliability is higher) and they use extremely small, cheap satellites (at least initially). They are planning on providing a fill-in-the-gaps service and are partnering with existing terrestrial service providers... Providers, at least with the next-generation version, won't have to provide cell towers (in places where there isn't otherwise enough demand to justify the large installation and upkeep costs) purely for gaining complete coverage. This is the sort of thing Iridium was never capable of.

It should be pointed out that Iridium (post-bankruptcy) became profitable and has recently finished launching their entire second-generation constellation (on Falcon 9). Their subscriber base continues to grow.

<comment><USER8> I'm not so sure. One of the reasons cell phones work at all is that they are relatively close to the antenna. This service requires to antennas to be at least 100 miles away and doesn't have any provision to improve the gain on the client side. SMS may be roughly the limit of what they can provide in the available bandwidth. The inverse square law is a harsh mistress.

<comment><USER7> There's always the option of increased gain on the serving side as well (both transmitting and receiving). 5G and related technologies allow beam steering which may improve gain (and selectivity) on the client side, and it's possible Apple may be working this angle on their side for whatever they're working on.

In sparsely populated areas where the service could be valuable, I think they can get away with a lot more (as far as frequency usage) than they could for mobile in dense areas. So I think it could indeed be useful.

<comment><USER9> It will not work. Their use case is low data rate applications. It's one of those case where you pick 2 among high number of users, high bandwidth, and low gain user terminals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 12 people is not a lot of engineers, considering all the work that needs to be done on both the modem and satellite side.

Unless they actually go public and file some FCC paperwork soon to actually get spectrum, I doubt that this is actually going to happen in the next 5 years, it seems like more of an exploratory effort.

I also imagine that this would be brutal for battery life.

<comment><USER11> A dozen people could be enough to coordinate the purchase of the companies and engineers required to pull it off. It's not like Apple invents everything in- house.

That said, 12 people is clearly an indication that this project is still in the napkins-and-whiteboards stage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> My speculation: this ties into thier ultra wideband location technology: a killer feature would be the ability to LoJack and kill any device globally. As well as find anything with a UWB sticker attached. Not to mention you can provision phones and computers without carrier activation.

<comment><USER13> UWB has very short distance, inherent to the technology. it would be unrelated to this.

<comment><USER12> That is the case today because of regulation. I'm implying that phones and iPads and laptops etc. could be turned into UWB-locating relay stations which report nearby UWB beacons directly to Apple via satellite even if they are "offline"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Very smart. Even if Apple only take a small bite out of carriers it is still a huge amount of money. They could end up being Netflix to Verizon and AT&Ts blockbuster.

</comment><comment><USER15> Anyone else remember Apple's secret team working on self driving cars?

<comment><USER16> It does have the appearance of this type of project. You have to assume they at least need to go through the exercise to ensure that there's not some technology combined w/ out of the box thinking that could upend the status quo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> When there is power, fibre connectivity and property rights it is better and cheaper to stick radio kit on a mast. When these things are not so - then a satellite is a useful alternative.

I think 99% of the global market for comms is less than 1000m from places where there is or will be shortly power, fibre and property rights.

<comment><USER11> _I think 99% of the global market for comms is less than 1000m from places where there is or will be shortly power, fibre and property rights._

I'd say that is a tremendous overestimation. Even in the United States, the wireless carriers only advertise that they cover 95% of "Americans." Not "America," which is a vastly larger space.

And we all know that 95% is, itself, a gross exaggeration.

<comment><USER17> The USA is a really bad example - there could be a lot more fibre and phone signal than there is - if the market were "better" arranged.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Apple has secret teams working on all manner of things, and not necessarily only in the US.

<comment><USER19> Honestly, with the size of their cash pile, I wouldn't be surprised if they were secretly preparing to pivot into space exploration or something. Assume SpaceX will have the primary transport side of things out to Mars covered with Starship, and start designing space habitats or preparing for a Mars colony.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What is Apple's relationship with Musk?

I really feel Spacex need a good partner for their net.

<comment><USER11> Maybe Apple just buys SpaceX's satellite internet system when it's deployed, and SpaceX goes on to build more constellations for more companies, pivoting to being purely a space transportation company, and not an internet company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> If this project can be launched in 5 years, I will be very surprised. Remember Apple car; this project once had hundreds of engineers over multi-years but eventually got scrapped.

Meanwhile, given the secretive culture in Apple, I wonder if this "leak" is a calculated one. It can be from either top-executives or internal politics though.

</comment><comment><USER11> Well, Wall Street wanted Apple to put out more services. This is pretty much the ultimate tech service.

But I don't think this will free everyone from mobile carriers, as we would hope. At least if you don't live in a tent. Those of us who live and work in skyscrapers will still need cellular and/or WiFi connections.

</comment><comment><USER21> There is a much higher possibility of Apple having their own Satellites for Mapping Data, Imagery, Extreme accurate location positioning than whatever Bloomberg or the 102 comment on HN is dreaming of.

</comment><comment><USER22> [http://archive.md/Gfn6t](http://archive.md/Gfn6t)

</comment><comment><USER23> With Apple, I would be worried that it could become an Intranet.

</comment><comment><USER24> Not anymore. :-)

</comment><comment><USER25> Satellite internet is too slow to do much. It reminds me of the dial up days.

</comment><comment><USER26> Your description of the individual missed out, chief caller-outer of _pedo guys_ who has a penchant for legally smoking a spliff or tweeting under other influences, whilst eschewing world dominance. However, I am ambivalent, not only because the person has not yet been exposed as doing 'things' which might be considered deeply unsavoury ─ even by the lax standards or sexual mores that define people in this class. But he continues to make some progress, in the vein of unreasonable people having the will to bend the world around them, rather than being pliable to it. This is not an endorsement nor does it express my consent or brings me joy to say it, but _somebody_ has to do it, so the others can follow.

</comment><comment><USER27> Are all tech companies just copying Elon now?

<comment><USER2> You do know that Elon didn't invent nor is the first company to have internet satellites.

They are actually pretty common.

<comment><USER28> Low earth orbit peer-to-peer low cost internet is very different from what the old guard in this "space" is up to. And it is in that sense that they are copying Elon. (edit: I thought Facebook was first to announce this, but apparently it was indeed first inspired by SpaceX).

<comment><USER29> Take a look at what Teledesic was planning in the late 90s. Elon's a great guy, but nothing I see about Starlink is innovative over what they were working on over 20 years ago.

<comment><USER30> This is something I see people misunderstand time and time again; "innovation" isn't just inventing an entirely new novel product.

Musk is not about innovation in terms of entirely new products. As other posters have commented, rockets, electric cars, and Internet satellites have all been done before.

Where he seems to be special is having the vision to see opportunities to develop or scale existing products much further than incumbents, and having the confidence/chutzpah/bloody-mindedness to pull it off.

However, through the development required to meet his challenging goals, his teams often need to innovate significantly - this innovation is often exceptional.

And of course, what makes a large-scale global Internet satellite service viable is actually the ability to reuse launch rockets - one of his other major innovations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I'm looking forward to Space Grey(tm) internet satellites.

</comment><comment><USER32> Didn't you guys get fined for reporting bs recently? I'm gonna just give it a few more weeks before taking this seriously :p

</comment><comment><USER33> Why is everyone working on internet satellites? There's no way this is profitable, and people using competitors' solutions still means they can access the internet.

Maybe it's easier than starting a regular ISP (to vacuum up data)?

<comment><USER34> Well, Iridium Communications is profitable

[https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/06/iridium- communicat...](https://www.fool.com/investing/2018/08/06/iridium- communications-new-satellites-are-already.aspx)

<comment><USER35> The link you sent says they're not profitable. They had their best quarter, and it was still a loss.

<comment><USER34> You are correct.

I looked at this statement.

"On an adjusted basis, Iridium said its operational profit rose 20% from a year ago to $78.7 million."

Rookie mistake. I knew better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> It fits Apple overall thinking of enabling maximum privacy and ownership by the users. But it will be a walled garden again.

Imagine all iPhones forming one network. The privacy, space based, will be awesome. But there will be one exit node to the public Internet. In future, as a website owner I will need a license from Apple, they will review my web page and want a cut of all transactions.

In summary: no thanks. That is privacy but not freedom.

<comment><USER37> Nothing to suggest that Apple is not in favour of net neutrality.

> "We work hard to build great products, and what consumers do with those > tools is up to them — not Apple, and not broadband providers," Cynthia > Hogan, VP of public policy at Apple, said in a comment filed to the FCC.

Yes, Apple regulate their App Store, they control what goes on and they have a licensing fee. That's also why the App Store is not like the Play Store. Apps are generally of a higher quality and better designed. They keep a tight lock on what is on that store. But that's for a specific purpose.

There's nothing to suggest that they would plan to do the same in the browser.

<comment><USER36> And what will make you think the same reason will not be applied to web pages. It makes absolutely sense to me.

<comment><USER37> You'll have to explain how it makes sense to you, because it doesn't to me.

If they were going to do it they could do it already. They don't need to be their own ISP for iDevices to block content. They control the browser and the OS: they can block content just off the device.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> It will go online 15 years after Starlink with users will claiming it is revolutionary. Apple will sell the sleek chrome plated antennae for 3000 dollars, but it will only work when you plug it into your network using a 900 dollar proprietary Ethernet standard which will be depricrated after four years.</comment>