Fed should pay every American, let hedge funds and billionaires 'get wiped out' - <AUTHOR> https://www.marketwatch.com/story/fed-should-pay-every-american-more-let-hedge-funds-and-billionaires-get-wiped-out-says-social-capital-ceo-2020-04-09 <comment><USER2> > But Palihapitiya argued that rather giving workers relatively small $1,200 > checks, the U.S. would be better off giving everyone larger payments > directly, and skip businesses entirely.

> "It would be better for the Fed to have given half a million to every man, > woman and child in the United States," he said.

Yes, we can definitely spend _checks notes_ 150 trillion dollars on that. How do people keep making the exact same arithmetic mistake? And why are we expected to listen to people who can't do simple arithmetic?

> Palihapitiya's argument, basically, is: Let those businesses fail, but > without layoffs, and let the rich stakeholders absorb the pain.

> When a business typically fails, Palihapitiya said, "it does not fire their > employees," instead going though a bankruptcy process that often preserves > pensions, and employees end up owning more of the company in the end.

Sometimes bankruptcy works out the way he's describing. Sometimes the assets get sold for scrap and the workers are all out of a job. I'm less sanguine than this guy is that letting a whole bunch of companies fail all at once would be a windfall for workers (not to mention everyone else.)

Mind you, I do think that equity holders should be taking a big hit. (That's what equity holders are for.) I just think the details would be a lot messier than he's imagining.

<comment><USER3> He made the same mistake on the "Pomp" podcast the other day too. He was saying we send 50k to every person in the USA for the stimulus.

Well, no. 2 trillion divided by by 327 million is $6,116 dollars. So yeah maybe we should divide the 2 trillion up between the people but he got a decimal point wrong.

Personally it seems more effective to send most of the money to hospitals and medical organizations because people wouldn't necessarily be able to use stimulus money for anything now anyway.

Seems like it makes sense to prop up businesses since you can't build a business overnight and most people would not be able to start one easily.

I like some of his arguments but basically give them any real thought and this guy is just trying to get attention by saying shocking things.

<comment><USER4> People aren't going to be buying stuff with this. They will be paying rent, other bills, and debts, because a lot of people have been laid off already with more layoffs coming every week. These people are going to be in a world of hurt without any intervention; 4 in 10 americans can't come up with $400.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> He's spot on. Equity risk is for people who want risk. Even risks they hadn't thought of like a virus shutting down the economy.

Corporate bankruptcy is a reasonable way to redistribute claims, and we should use it. Not even every business in trouble will go under, a lot will simply be bought by someone wanting to take over the risk at a sensible price. No jobs need to be lost.

I'm all in favour of bailing out real people though.

<comment><USER2> He's spot on that equity risk should actually have downside. But the idea that a whole bunch of massive corporations can fail and no jobs would be lost seems like a real stretch to me. In fact, it's strange to think that a company _wouldn 't_ have fewer employees coming out of bankruptcy if one of the causes was being overextended.

<comment><USER6> Counterpoint, companies will learn not to overextend and we won't have to worry about job loss or bailouts the next time this happens

<comment><USER7> Companies can't "learn not to overextend" for things this rare. If they spend a bunch of resources making sure they can weather sufficiently infrequent storms, they'll be out competed in the shorter term by companies that refuse to.

If we need companies to prepare for this kind of thing, we need to somehow test their readiness more frequently.

<comment><USER8> Companies should just plan on failing, and everyone moves on to the next thing. Not everything has to last for ever.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, my point was just that "make them hurt so they learn" doesn't really make sense here. There may be plenty of reasons to allow companies to fail, in particular instances or in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I get that it's a clickbait headline, but he doesn't seem to be making any coherent point.

Somehow billionaires, debt holders, etc will get wiped out, companies will go bankrupt and protect their employee pensions (what are those?), and then they will reemerge being partially owned by their employees.

> ""It would be better for the Fed to have given half a million to every man, > woman and child in the United States," he said."

What now? A $165 Trillion bailout?

<comment><USER10> The number is off, but it doesn't matter. I think he was being hyperbolical, but we can consider the idea of bailout to people vs bailout to corporations anyway.

Give each family 60k, and you cover them for a year at the same cost of the bailout that actually occurred.

In that scenario....

Groceries get bought. Bills get paid. Essential businesses make money, which means they get compensated for being useful. That's a good thing.

Elderly employees who don't feel comfortable working, can quit their jobs.

We have grown so accustomed to rampant corporate feudalism that it almost feels un-American to question the collapse of companies that are not essential to the health and well-being of our citizens or our government. It feels wrong to allow the financial losses of a billionaire who knowingly bought a risk asset, only because we have been told for years that normal people need billionaires to create our jobs for us.

Let them take it in the face for once. Risks have a downside factor. We shouldn't eliminate that just because rich people want to maintain their riches.

<comment><USER11> I will go even further.

Why not give everyone a UBI and let things shift towards strengthening necessities all the time? People who make less money have a higher Marginal Propensity to Consume necessities. That would correctly distribute what's needed in society by actual level of need. It would also automatically adjust to shortages etc.

I think as entrepreneurs we can all say that investors put in $$ when they see demand for your products and services, and not because they got a tax break!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> To paraphrase...

Planes, employees, and marketing power, for example, all outlive the bankruptcy.

A bankruptcy wipes out speculators and what should be sophisticated investors. They can take it, and this is what they signed up for.

The company that emergence from bankruptcy does so without the debt it had heading in.

<comment><USER13> Wouldn't 401k's and pensions also get wiped out?

<comment><USER14> You can hack around that with policy. Think of SIPC insurance: in the event something crazy goes on with your brokerage, they step in and provide cash value of the equities at the time the insurable event took place.

I've provided the below link as an example; ignore the limits, they would not be adhered to for my example due to extraordinary circumstances.

Disclaimer: Huge fan of Chamath coming out and telling it how it is on CNBC.

[https://www.sipc.org/for-investors/what-sipc- protects](https://www.sipc.org/for-investors/what-sipc-protects)

<comment><USER9> So the government will step in and protect the upper 20%? That's the plan?

<comment><USER14> I think it's reasonable to protect retirement assets if means tested, yes.

It'd be an entirely different story if pensions hadn't been gutted and everyone tossed to the wolves with 401ks over the last 40 years.

If you want to wipe out retirement assets and top it up with social security instead, again means tested, that'd be a reasonable approach. But you can't tell folks their only option is 401ks and to be diligent savers, and then burn them to the ground out of moral hazard.

The goal is to wipe out investors to whom hundreds of millions of dollars means nothing to their quality of life.

<comment><USER9> So if I've been working 40 years, have a strong 401k, and am doing fine now I should get my savings wiped out?

You're arguing all sides now. I didn't propose a policy that would greatly harm retirement savings, you did. You proposed protecting 401ks with government backing. I stated that doing so would be a boon to the top 20% at the expense of everyone else.

<comment><USER14> It seems I might not be communicating my thoughts on the topic coherently. My apologies! I felt that I have, but I think I'll have to come back with a blog post instead of ad hoc thread comments. I appreciate the rebuttals for helping me refine my arguments!

EDIT: /u/HarryHirsch's comment here [1] explains succinctly what I intended to explain but did so poorly.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835580](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22835580) ("You could nationalize the pension system. Considering the fact that on average the 401(k) balance is a few tens of thousands and that there is a retirement catastrophe coming, that wouldn't be the bad idea. The downside is that the stock market would be affected negatively since demand for stock would drop.")

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Let's be honest, a billionaire getting "wiped out" means they will just be really rich compared to normal folks. Doesn't seem like a terrible thing.

However, what normal folks will go through, that is truly scary.

</comment><comment><USER16> Title differs from source. Original title: "Fed should pay every American more, let hedge funds and billionaires 'get wiped out,' says Social Capital CEO"

</comment><comment><USER17> The phrase is:

"Privatize the profits, socialize the losses"

As workers, we get the downside, but not the upside. We are peasants like all of those in times past. Only difference is standard of living is higher now, so we should be so happy to get the scraps.

</comment><comment><USER18> Too many large American companies have no buffer because they've been distributing all their cash to shareholders as dividends and stock buybacks, all the while using credit to fund operations. When a rare risk materializes, sales suddenly stop and lenders get antsy, these companies find themselves in trouble.

Their primary recourse should be to ask shareholders for money — that's where the cash was drained over the years, after all. If these businesses are so great, shouldn't shareholders be happy to buy newly issued stock at these prices? Yet I don't see anyone doing stock offerings. That seems like a sign that the whole thing is a house of cards: nobody actually has liquidity until Fed injects it into the system.

Interestingly, there are two very different kind of companies that have been hoarding cash through the years. There's the SV giants (FAMAA collectively held $570 billion at the end of 2019), and then there are extremely conservative Japanese industrial companies. Some of these have enough cash to operate for decades with zero revenue.

</comment><comment><USER19> The Fed should give every American $1 million and every other country should follow suit and turn all their citizens into USD-equivalent millionaires. That would create an exciting competitive economy!

Think about the excitement of everyone having 1 million dollars and trying to figure out what they want to invest in!

<comment><USER20> I'll assume this is a joke but just for clarity, but that would be a total cash give-out by the government of this many dollars:

        327,000,000,000,000

Notice all the zeroes in there. It's important that we as a species learn to take all those zeroes into account.

<comment><USER19> I was kind of joking around. That said, I don't think it would create as much inflation as it may seem. A carton of milk would still cost about the same maybe only 2x the price?

I think most of the money would end up in stocks, gambling, speculative investments, luxury goods and real estate (especially in big cities) so that's where the inflation would show up... Which is fine. So long as the cost of basic commodities don't explode, then we can afford it as a society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Funny I did an "Ask HN" asking HNs opinion about this 14 days ago, it immediately got 19 upvotes/20 comments and then was flagged off the front page.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22699520](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22699520)

<comment><USER22> Got a lot more than that this time before being flagged.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> It's a somewhat noble sentiment, but an absolutely _terrible_ idea in practice.

Letting large businesses (airlines etc.) go bankrupt isn't just a disaster for the rich -- it's a disaster for retirees who hold a majority of savings in equities (index funds etc.), as they've been told is the responsible thing to do.

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater -- or grandma out with the billionaires.

We want to reduce inequality? _Great_. But do it in a _targeted_ way, through taxation that takes into account people's income and overall wealth. Not in a blunt-instrument way that harms middle-class savers along with hedge funds.

And _not_ through letting a host of major corporations go bankrupt through zero fault of their management/board.

(Remember, it's not like an airline can buy insurance against a months-long pandemic, nor are public companies supposed to retain unnecessary cash in times of profit -- the IRS virtually requires them to distribute it to shareholders either through dividends or buybacks.)

EDIT (in response to comments): OK, I exaggerated a little -- retirees shouldn't be holding a _majority_ of savings in stock. But since one common rule of thumb is to hold a percentage in equities that is 100 minus your age, a 70-year-old still has 30% in equities. And your 50-year-old saving up for retirement has half. The main point still stands: normal middle-class folks hold equities as a significant part of their savings. It's not just billionaires who own equities.

<comment><USER24> No retiree should hold a majority of their savings in equities

<comment><USER25> All depends on your spending flexibility, time horizon, etc. If you can comfortably drop to half of your steady state spending for a couple of years, or if you do something like a CD ladder, it can make sense to have >50% of your retirement assets in stock.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you want to see a true windfall for hedge funds and billionaires let every business in America fail simultaneously and see the sharpest and best positioned in finance scoop up assets in the BK process for pennies on the dollar. Distressed operators like Apollo etc... could only dream for a shot like that.

</comment><comment><USER27> I would prefer my retirement savings are not wiped out.

<comment><USER22> This is an important point, and we need to realize that it's not just the rich guys (e.g., most of you) that will be hurt--most holders of retirement savings accounts are _not_ rich.

I've personally had my net worth zeroed (in a bad divorce). The effects are quite life-changing, and I think many would not survive it. If nothing else, you begin to wonder why--if it can all be so easily lost--you should bother to work at all.

I do think the government "stay alive" payments are critical, and it looks like a lot more will be needed. But this is a very complex problem, and I distrust anyone who waves it away with a "simple" solution.

<comment><USER8> Rather than making every American a wannabe financier, we should actually have a real safety net.</comment></comment></comment>


The Rewriting of David Foster Wallace - <AUTHOR> http://www.vulture.com/2015/06/rewriting-of-david-foster-wallace.html <comment><USER2> _A large part of Wallace's appeal, for me anyway, was that you could always tell that he was kind of an asshole, ever on the verge of being cruel, and not just to himself. Banishing contempt entirely may be a good way to live, but it's another kind of death for writing. Which is one reason it's worth remembering, as the image of Wallace as slacker saint and liberal sage hardens into Hemingwayesque concrete, that he was a Reagan voter and a Perot supporter; a jealous guy who once contemplated buying a gun to knock off a woman's husband; and a person who put to paper both the notion that the "good thing" about 9 /11 was that it brought Americans together, and that "AIDS's gift to us lies in its loud reminder that there's nothing casual about sex at all." Wallace never wanted that piece republished in a collection — in fact, he wanted it forgotten. He'd probably be the last person to argue for his own sainthood._

This is the DFW that always has jumped out starkly clear to me from the pages, ever since I hit on the "Yours Truly" chapters in IJ. People who try to spin him as some trans-human wise sage of universalism seem to me like the people who see Jesus in toast.

He was an excellent writer, and he hit numerous home runs ("How Tracy Austin Broke My Heart" resonates with me particularly). However, I still think he would've been better if he developed less bland stances than his "apolitical but vaguely pro-status quo" fare. His romanticizing of the goodness of "Middle America", as in "The View from Ms. Thompson's" (about 9/11), is probably him at his worst.

<comment><USER3> I had a similar experience. People had really pumped him up for me, and yet essay after essay left me either cold or disgusted. As someone who has struggled with lifelong depression, I still didn't recognize anything familiar in his description of watching hours of television a day, and I couldn't agree less with his moralizing attacks on irony. And his piece on prescriptivism vs. descriptivism is basically nonsense.

But it was the 9/11 essay that made me give up on him. Not just its stunning lack of insight as to what America's reaction to the attacks was and would lead to, although that was bad enough. But there's this point where he mentions that the people he was staying with didn't know where various buildings in NY were in relation to the Twin Towers; he explicitly describes his hosts' ignorance of the layout of the NYC financial district as a sign of their parochialism and isolation. What amazes me is that the eternally self- reflective Wallace apparently never considered that the vast majority of Americans, parochial and cosmopolitan alike, never have had any reason to know anything about the layout of the NYC financial district. In that moment the parochial viewpoint was _his_.

DFW was a fine stylist and made the occasional apt observation, but the man doesn't even begin to live up to the myth. The best thing I can say about him is that he would have been the first to admit that, too.

<comment><USER4> The Midwestern-NYC ignorance was a minor part of a minor work, but have you ventured into his fiction? Despite the caricature/myth he's turned into, you don't get to that point without delivering the goods, and Infinite Jest certainly did.

Stylistically it's an achievement, but moreover it had some pretty concrete and incredibly relevant things to say about modern life's alienation and addictions and the need for raw, earnest, emotional connections with other people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _In a 2011 New Yorker essay, Franzen named Wallace's relationship to his own fame as the central battle of his adult life. He also gave voice to more than one "interpretation" of Wallace's death that most journalists have been careful to avoid and many others probably found unseemly, that Wallace "had died of boredom and in despair about his future novels"; that his suicide "took the person away from us," his loved ones, "and made him into a very public legend"; and that he had therefore, in hanging himself, "chosen the adulation of strangers over the love of the people closest to him." Franzen said it might well have been "suicide as career move" — the "Kurt Cobain route."_

Based on firsthand accounts of what Wallace suffered, this seems like an irresponsible account of his death to run unqualified --- though it fits with the rest of the one-note cynicism that runs through the article.

Wallace had a life-long struggle with clinical depression, and was hospitalized in his 20s. He was for years on a regimen of Nardil, a third-line medication for treatment-resistant depression. The major depressive episode that preceded his suicide appears to have been triggered by an effort to wean himself off the drug.

Mental illness is a real thing. Just as Steve Jobs cancer didn't make him a martyr to tech and Keith Haring's AIDS didn't make him a martyr to art, succumbing to clinical depression doesn't make Wallace "Kurt Cobain" or his death a "career move".

The whole article bugs me, with its shrill hipsterism, a literary version of Courtney Love's "REM's important work was done before they signed to IRS". On a limb: I think the article itself is doing the same thing it accuses the world of doing by rewriting any sincerity out of the stuff people like about Wallace's writing. This despite the fact that in addition to being by all accounts kind of a dick, Wallace was also apparently just a "treacly" kind of dude, as the essays he wrote in Normal, IL indicate.

<comment><USER6> Maybe it's just me -- and I never met the man -- but I've never had someone convince me they understood what it's like to be terminally depressed as completely as the writing of DFW. It boggles my mind that someone could miss or misbelieve that.

The way that "This is Water" speech/pamphlet is brought up in particular horrifies me. Hindsight granted, it's always read to me as someone who, stuck in a deep, dark hole for so long, has given up on finding a way out. Blaming himself for being there in the first place. Standing so _close_ to an answer, but unable to see it. And we know how the story ends.

It's a feeling I know well, and I'm routinely shocked how people without (I assume) first-hand experience with depression can completely ignore the darkness there, and see something banal or even encouraging.

<comment><USER5> I don't love the Kenyan College address as much as a lot of people do, but the idea that it's treacle, or a depressive's accounting of the tribulations of going to a grocery store (and one wonders: how can it be both?) seems like horseshit. To me, it seems like a pretty straightforward recapitulation of the ideas behind cognitive behavioral therapy, which Wallace probably had more than a passing familiarity with.

<comment><USER6> To answer your rhetorical: It can be both because depression makes boring things terrifying in a way non-depressed people find boring again. _shrug_

Anyway, I don't want to go too deeply into this, so I'll just say you're actually not far off from what I'm saying. What saddens me about "This is Water" is the fact that it's _so close_ to something that might have been really helpful to him. He's talking about these daily experiences, and noticing how he's feeling. He feels _bad_. That's good; feeling bad helps.

And what he thinks next is... You have a choice of how to feel. Think about everyone who feels even worse. You can decide what you care about. Don't think of an elephant.

That isn't CBT, nor anything therapeutic-- that's depression, at its most pernicious and deadly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm not a fan of the tone of this article, at least the first half or so. Its got something of a "if you hadn't read Infinite Jest before Wallace died then you aren't a true fan" vibe to it.

Is it really such a terrible thing that people who hadn't heard about DFW while he was alive are seeing and enjoying his This Is Water speech? I think it does a good job of describing how easy it is to fall into a pattern of letting the world around you control how you feel on a minute-to-minute basis. Yeah he ties the whole idea up too neatly, but it's a commencement speech not a long form essay.

Sure, there are probably plenty of people out there putting DFW up on a "tortured artist too brilliant for this world" pedestal. But I think the author isn't giving people enough credit to assume that is the only reason for his recent popular appeal. Maybe people stumbled upon the This Is Water video, watched it, and it inspired them to think a bit differently about their own thought process and feelings.

You don't need to have consumed everything an artist has produced to be inspired by one of them.

</comment><comment><USER8> Here's an amazing commencement speech by David. Definitely worth a listen. [https://soundcloud.com/cloudroutine/this-is-water-david- fost...](https://soundcloud.com/cloudroutine/this-is-water-david-foster)

<comment><USER9> Did you even read the article before posting that?

<comment><USER10> My stomach sank at reading the GP comment, to have missed the exact point the article was making. (I almost wonder if it was intentional?)

But then somehow it is so appropriate to DFW that an article about him becoming a caricature of a writer and bemoaning that speech in particular produced that particular comment, a sort of circular irony or something that I almost imagine he'd appreciate.

<comment><USER11> Actually kind of a meta-parody about the idea that no one's actually read IJ.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Auxetic Materials: Hook's Law - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/10/auxetic-materials?fsrc=scn/tw/te/bl/Hookslaw

<comment><USER2> >And a less obvious application is in an easy-to-clean filter: stretch this filter and its pores grow, allowing stuff stuck in them to be flushed through when the filter is washed.

That doesn't make sense to me. If the auxetic threads making up the filter expand, then the negative space between them will shrink, so you'll get smaller pores, not larger ones.

<comment><USER3> The threads themselves don't expand, its that they re-arrange themselves so the material is larger in total volume, but the voids within the material are also larger. The solid material itself, of course, must be conserved. Think of a sponge: normally if you stretch it the pores get smaller. Auxetic materials can be engineered so the pores get larger, but the amount of sponge stays the same.

<comment><USER2> Ah, that makes sense.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to make the most of a slow job? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
I'm in my late 20s and I've been doing web development, back end mostly, for a couple of years.
I just moved back home to Virginia, where I've just started a new job at a university. I'm worried because it seems like a little bit of a backwater.
For example, there's no version control, and no bug tracking system (all requests made via email). I was told this was because it's such a small operation -- only two of us writing code. My boss doesn't seem to be resistant to those practices, but they're not implemented yet. The applications being built typically have very few users (maybe only a hundred or so). It's all ColdFusion, which I don't know much about. The pay isn't great but it's enough to live on and save a little.
There are some upsides. One is that I think I'll have a lot of free time and choice in how I spend it.
Later, I might be able to take advantage of steeply discounted tuition at the university. I don't have a CS degree and this one would be pretty cheap as they go.
How can I make the most out of a situation like this? Should I be looking for a more sophisticated workplace now, rather than sink time into this one? Should I hang on for the sake of the tuition? Or just loaf around drinking coffee and reading HN?
Also please let me know if I've left things out, I've tried to be brief.
Thanks! <comment><USER2> Honestly, I would recommend looking for another job. I was in a similar position recently and took advantage while I could, but it really starts to get the best of you. Also, considering we're in a development renaissance right now, why would you want to miss out on the possibility of advancing your skill-set and doing something interesting?

It sucks to change jobs but trust your gut.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'm afraid changing jobs is the answer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It sounds like you have a less demanding job, thus allowing you to choose your own adventure. Don't loaf around. This is a gift.

My suggestion:

1\. Learn the existing CF system, with full knowledge that CF is not a "marketable skill". (Even though there are a ton of legacy systems written in CF out there.)

2\. Institute the process changes (source control, bug tracking, testing, etc) yourself, just to learn them and experience the problems in implementing them.

3\. Use the free time to build a complete replacement for the existing system in a currently marketable stack (Node / Javascript, Elixir, Clojure / Clojurescript, .Net, etc).

4\. Socialize / network with other developers at meetups and conferences.

5\. Start the CS degree (and possibly explore options for transferring).

Extra Credit: Start a side business as a web dev consultant or, even better, a product. The education market is full of niches that can be better filled, and you have a front row seat.

</comment><comment><USER4> What do you want? What are your end goals? It's hard to answer this without knowing that.

For example, if you want to work for a SV startup, I'd move out there asap, as the skills they want are decaying right now.

Or, if you wanted to teach CS, or even IT, at the college level, you should take classes and get a MS or PhD in CS.

Or, if you want to do webdev and support for local companies and ColdFusion interests you, you could learn the ins and outs of ColdFusion, learn project management and estimation, and set up some of the basics of the Joel Test ( [http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html](http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000043.html) ) for your current job, and learn a ton.

<comment><AUTHOR> Unfortunately I just moved _back_ from the SV area, my wife didn't like being so far from family. A startup sounds interesting though. I'm still pretty vague on what I want -- I've only worked (as a developer) for one other company. I guess the standard advice is to do a lot of side projects to find out what's interesting, but I've had a hard time motivating myself to write code outside of work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> ColdFusion is kind of a dead language at this point, but there are still many legacy products build in CF that need to be maintained. With CF developers in short supply, you could carve out a valuable niche for yourself if you want to deep end on the language.

Getting a CS degree on the cheap seems like the big pro here and would help you down the line. Even though its possible to get a developer job without a CS degree, it certainly helps. Many companies screen out anybody without a CS degree altogether.

If you have a lot of downtime you might be able to pick up some consulting work as well and broaden your exposure to some other technologies.

</comment><comment><USER6> If you're interested in getting a CS degree now might be the right time.

CF isn't the most popular language but you could gain skills setting up version control and a testing/deployment system.

A ticket system would be nice as well.

I would recommend giving startups for the rest of us a listen and see if creating your own products or apps is a good fit for you to start working toward now.

It's nice being close to family and picking up a discounted degree is a plus too. It might be a nice job to relax in, get a degree and start building your own products/SaaS app.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER7> Whatever you do, do not let yourself become too idle. It will make the days drag on, and at the end of the day it will feel like you wasted the day.

You should at least use version control for what you are working on. Even if it is just a local Git repo (that you keep backed up, of course). Same with ticketing, either pick up one of the open source ticketing systems just for your own sanity, or take time to create your own ticketing system if there is that much slack time.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, these are all good points!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Try to improve the situation. Software development is all about team work, and skills and experience in developing the development are appreciated. If you can tell in your CV that I made this and that improvement, I would consider it a great plus. CS degree also sounds like a good idea (I'm in Finland, don't know about scene there).

If it does not work out, you can always look for a new place.

</comment><comment><USER9> Make yourself as valuable as you can. Learn ColdFusion, be humble, suggest using other alternative technologies, and perhaps most importantly: show initiative! It will get you very far, even if you're only there for a short period of time.

If I were you I'd start out by attending some interesting classes and if possible sign up for them.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I just want to say thanks for the advice & support in this thread -- I'm meeting with my boss next week and will hopefully get started on implementing these improvements.

</comment><comment><USER10> How quickly could you acquire the degree? 4 semesters? Is the department going to grow any time soon? Certain commuter schools in nova seem to get bigger all the time.

<comment><AUTHOR> I think 4 semesters is a good estimate. I get the impression that department won't grow quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I recommend this talk by Zed Shaw. I consider it a classic and worth the time to watch:

[http://vimeo.com/2723800](http://vimeo.com/2723800)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll check it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'll just say you are in a very good position for now to advance your skills to the max.

Your in a place that needs some renovation and your the chosen one to do it.

1st Phase: Doing an survey on what can be implemented to improve the work environment. From what you have listed the first thing I would recommend is setting up Git on your machines to implement modern version control. Then setup a testing, staging and testing environment. You can then setup an integration server and run ColdFusion tests in the staging environment before you deploy your code to production. This will add development, automated continuous code integration and source control management to your resume.

2nd Phase: Setup a ticket system for all requests for bugs, features, etc. to be funneled through to decrease email support.

3rd Phase: Build analytics into the system, first start out with setting up monitoring for the web and database servers. If you only have one web server create a new server to put the database on to enhance security. Have the database server only accessible internally. Then duplicate the same to your staging and testing environments. This will help increase security of the overall infrastructure if this is not done already. For you this will allow you to add designed secure muli-tiered server infrastructure, infrastructure monitoring and analytics.

4th Phase: I am not sure if you are able to change what your running as a server side language from Cold Fusion if not I recommend that you master Coldfusion, also not sure what version of Coldfusion you are running but if it is the enterprise edition there is a nice bit for you to learn.

If you are able to change the language I would recommend doing a survey to see what features you currently have in the site and then choose a language that you can migrate the system too and get industry certifications to help you become more marketable.

If you choose Java you can get certified in Java SE, Java EE, 11g,12c, etc. use this until you get all the way up to expert level for each cert if possible. If you do not see this as a route due too the required class costs you can choose an alternative from a highly demanded programming language or framework like Ruby, Ruby on Rails, Python, Django, C#, ASP.NET MVC, NodeJS, Go, Closure, ClosureScript, Scala, Dart, etc. Then setup the frontend in AngularJS and create a WebAPI to interface with the website.

5th Phase: After you have a strong site setup you can use the API to interface with mobile applications you create for iOS and Android to add both to your resume. I

This should help you add some meat to your resume and if your going to be working somewhere for 8 hours a day you might as well make it work for you and get your experience and certifications. Check with your manager, admissions and HR to see if there are any opportunities for you to get a B.S. in Computer Science fully paid. You might even be able to move up the ranks over time to higher positions within the company or start your own consulting company.

I am also sure you probably see a nice bit of variation of people at work. Get to know them go out to eat from time to time. They might be a very good contact or business associate for you in the future. You could become friends with the next Mark Zuckerberg or become the next Mark Zuckerberg and might need some college buddies to help you get things started up.

Once you have done what you feel has fulfilled you there it will then be time to spread your wings and fly to a new job. If you can get the B.S. in Computer Science degree that would be nice but don't let that hold you back.</comment>


Google Docs add support for .DOCX and .XLSX - <AUTHOR> http://googledocs.blogspot.com/2009/06/file-formats-keep-on-coming-announcing.html

<comment><USER2> This screenshot should scare some people at Redmond [http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RAq5KuHSLq0/SiQFoMkuQ8I/AAAAAAAAAT...](http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_RAq5KuHSLq0/SiQFoMkuQ8I/AAAAAAAAATM/WvFCW3dVw18/s400/docx_image.jpg)

But, it still does not export files in DOCX format (only DOC, PDF, HTML & RTF)

<comment><USER3> I've used google docs quite a few times and what looks like normal formatting in docs comes out trash going to msoffice so their exporting still has a long way to go before exporting docx.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pushing the web forward can only be a motive of joy.

Kudos!</comment>


PG's On Lisp in Japanese: less than $40 printed in 2007 - On Lisp in English: out of print $300+  - <AUTHOR> http://www.amazon.co.jp/o/ASIN/4274066371

<comment><USER2> Damn.. PG, if the book is NLA and there is that much demand, why not print more?</comment>


DigitalOcean doubles all plan memory for free, and provides more plan options - <AUTHOR> https://www.digitalocean.com/pricing/#tab-droplets? <comment><USER2> Better link: [https://blog.digitalocean.com/new-droplet- plans/](https://blog.digitalocean.com/new-droplet-plans/)

</comment><comment><USER3> Why does 5 vs 10 dollar boxes get you double everything but CPU. There are all sorts of pricing inconsistencies.

Comparing the 5 dollar to the most expensive using all 5 dollar instances you get:

960 GB more storage

160 more "vCPUs"

180 TB more network bandwidth

Memory is the only thing that actually scales logically. Very annoying IMO. I like DO otherwise. I think it fits in nicely between GCP/AWS/Azure and other lower cost providers having object store and block storage and a good UI/responsiveness.

<comment><USER4> You cannot always scale a piece of software horizontally to multiple servers (think running Postgres), so your only real option for more performance is more resources on a single box. You pay a premium for that.

<comment><USER3> Sure but there is no cost basis for the non-linear increase. If anything it should be slightly less expensive for them. If you look at GCP/OVH/AWS their pricing are all roughly linear.

<comment><USER5> It's probably a pricing strategy to make more money of those running higher demand stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the ease and concept of digital ocean, but for some reason my billing for $5 droplets always charged $5 a month per droplet and then some seemingly random smaller amounts of money here and there during a month.

I never could figure out the plan, mainly because I thought it was just $5 a month period

<comment><USER7> Scheduled backups and ad hoc snapshots can both add small amounts to the monthly bill, if you use them. I haven't ever had enough variance to feel too upset - the difference between a $5/mo. server and a $6/mo. one doesn't really impact their value proposition for me (and I like to keep at least one known- good snapshot around...).

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This brings a lot of their plans in line with Linode and Vultr, but the new plans that allow flexibility between memory and CPU are quite interesting.

</comment><comment><USER9> Will they automatically double memory on existing droplets or do we need to recreate them from scratch?

<comment><USER10> Per their comments: either issue a resize to an existing droplet or create a new droplet to take advantage of the new tiers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does anyone know why this was flagged when submitted a few days ago?

<comment><USER12> No idea, I wanted to know to. Someone said Techcrunch was simply advertising for DO.

<comment><USER13> I feel that this similar article is an advertisement.

In the other hn post comments...a lot of people brought up Vultr as a great alternative and competitor to DO...those comments may be lost now..</comment></comment></comment>


Recursively Similar Googe Image Search - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2012/01/14/what-happens-if-you-ask-google.html

<comment><USER2> portions nsfw</comment>


Node.js Stream Playground - <AUTHOR> http://ejohn.org/blog/node-js-stream-playground/ <comment><USER2> Wow. nodestreams.com is great. It's really helpful to see the results of different chained combinations instantly. Thanks for making this John.

</comment><comment><USER3> Those who enjoyed this and streams2+ in general may find useful this library we've made to use objectMode streams in the browser. [http://github.com/Livefyre/stream](http://github.com/Livefyre/stream) There are quite a few tests if you want to get a feel for how streams work: [https://github.com/Livefyre/stream/blob/master/tests/spec/re...](https://github.com/Livefyre/stream/blob/master/tests/spec/readable.js)

For a concrete implementation, check out our SDK. We use streams to abstract away the details of paging out Content from our APIs. There is an example in the README. [https://github.com/Livefyre/streamhub- sdk](https://github.com/Livefyre/streamhub-sdk)

These streams power the bottom 5 apps you see here: [http://apps.livefyre.com/](http://apps.livefyre.com/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Anybody know how to dynamically zip things on the fly? Like if you want to generate a download for a user that has files and folders... how can you do this fast and in one go? Currently I have to literally write to disk, then zip it, and only then can I finally send a response. Any help?

<comment><AUTHOR> Absolutely! Poking around I found one module that could do it - I'm sure there are more (and better ones, too): [https://github.com/wellawaretech/node- zipstream](https://github.com/wellawaretech/node-zipstream)

In the example there you would .pipe() out to an HTTP response rather than a file, presumably.

<comment><USER4> Sweet, thanks. I think I had found this a while ago but lost it, looks great!

...holy smokes, John Resig just replied to me. Thanks so much for jQuery, it has changed my life and is what made me become a programmer. (I now do client work for 20<20Thiel Fellows, and my startup has been in WSJ - none of which would have been the case if I hadn't started programming with jQuery!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My only complaint about Resig's blogging is that he doesn't do it enough! It's rare that I read one of his posts and don't come away having learned a lot.

Not as much to learn today, but with the really neat tool I can certainly learn from it, so I can't complain.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great tool. However, since this is an extremely obvious example, I have to attempt once again to point out that textual programming languages are far from ideal representations in many problem domains. The inability or refusal of programmers to accept visual and interactive tools is the main thing holding back software development. I think the main reasons are related to false outdated beliefs about the nature of programming and a fear of being labeled as a novice, since interactive graphical tools are always categorized as being for novices. [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/461796/dataflow- programmi...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/461796/dataflow-programming- languages) [http://noflojs.org/](http://noflojs.org/)

<comment><USER7> The problem with every visual programming language that I've ever tried is not that it's aimed at novices and I'm afraid of being labelled that way. It's that there's a whole wealth of tools for dealing with text based programming that just can't be used with visual programming languages without a huge amount of effort (if at all). Visual programming languages don't work well with revision control; they usually don't have diffing and merging tools. They don't work well with grep.

They tend to have a fairly low information density on the screen. When looking at a simple program that all fits on a single screen, that's fine. But when working with an actually real world code base, when I don't understand exactly what it's doing, I need to be able to see as much on screen as possible at once to keep it all in context, while browsing through to figure out how all of the pieces link together. All of the empty space taken up in a visual language makes it a lot harder to get as much information on the screen at a time.

And the programs can frequently be quite hard to follow. Tracing all of the wires between different nodes, figuring out what's stacked on what.

There's a reason that despite the very obvious circuit diagrams you could represent electronics with, hardware engineers for integrated circuits don't use a visual tool for laying out their hardware, they use Verilog or VHDL, only compiling it down to the actual netlist and laying it out at the very end.

I have never seen a visual programming language that I would say could scale to anything beyond a few basic demos, which could just as easily be accomplished in a page of code.

<comment><USER8> Xilinx actually has (had?) a visual designer tool for their FPGAs in their IDE, allowing you to connect signals between blocks and do other stuff. It didn't work well and made for unmanageable designs. I've heard similar things about complex LabView programs becoming unmaintainable spaghetti code, although I don't know if that's actually true or not (never used it myself).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> another useful resource for getting familiar with streams: [https://github.com/whatwg/streams](https://github.com/whatwg/streams)

</comment><comment><USER10> I started looking into Streams 2 days ago and _boom_ this headline greets me on hacker news today. Thanks a bunch Mr Resig.</comment>


Y Combinator Looks for Outliers - <AUTHOR> http://ginzametrics.com/y-combinator-looks-for-outliers.html <comment><USER2> I find this "where you went to school" concept to be the most contentious aspect of YC selection. I'd be interested to see some numbers on how many YC founders are from the "top-tier" schools vs. other places. Maybe that should be the next data point for YCPages.info; I certainly don't want to run the numbers myself.

I wouldn't say I'm embarrassed by where I went to school, but I certainly don't like to tell anyone about it.

<comment><USER3> _I find this "where you went to school" concept to be the most contentious aspect of YC selection._

It shouldn't be contentious because it doesn't matter. It's nothing like as important as the answer to the "most impressive thing you've built or achieved" question. When I'm reading through applications, the school a founder went to barely registers. I'm more interested in whether they've clearly explained what they're doing and whether they seem determined enough to pull it off.

<comment><USER4> Given the increasing number of applications you have to look at, wouldn't it make sense to omit questions whose answers barely register?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It is also worth mentioning that Techstars, besides 500 startups, is also a good program. Don't kid yourself though: they are all as picky (if not more) as YC. And as rmorrison said[1]: _If you think you need YC to succeed, then you won't (and shouldn't) be accepted_

[1][http://blog.rmorrison.org/advice-for-yc-applicants-on-the- fe...](http://blog.rmorrison.org/advice-for-yc-applicants-on-the-fence?c=1)

<comment><USER6> 'If you think you need YC to succeed, then you won't (and shouldn't) be accepted'. This is very well put. I think to improve the chances of successfully creating something, keeping these in mind may help: 1\. You should not believe that your circumstances are different even when it really is. Otherwise it becomes an excuse while the converse will help you push the limits. 2\. You try to create something not because you want to be well-known or rich but rather you want to improve something (for yourself, etc.) or you believe there is no other better way to spend you time. You'll be less disappointed and more driven.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would love to know how you supported 2 kids on a YC budget? Thats the biggest reason I don't apply. I have one kid on the way and must without a doubt provide for that kid.

<comment><USER8> My co-founder had two kids -- he moved his family into a cheap rental in Nebraska while we did YC out here. He ate into his savings. We put stuff on credit cards. We had to be hyperfocused on early revenue. It was stressful as hell for him (and no picnic for me, either), but it worked out in the end.

The thing is, we were so driven to build a company that we had to find a way to make it work. At that point I couldn't imagine working for someone else (and neither could he) so we were willing to make big bets.

(Incidentally, with the StartFund money, things should be much easier for YC Founders who have families.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Great write-up. Small edits:

So, the point is, sometimes it's going to suck and sometimes it's going to be awesome

edited: So, the point is, _this second_ it's going to suck and _the next second_ it's going to be awesome

They want to know who else is in and will often drag entrepreneurs along for weeks waiting to make a decision, simply because they are waiting for everybody else.

edited: They want to know who else is in and will often drag entrepreneurs along for _months_ waiting to make a decision, simply because they are waiting for everybody else.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks.:-) Was in a rush before a meeting. Will update later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> _It doesn't even matter if you don't have a co-founder._

Any additional thoughts on this? "You really, really, really should get a co- founder" seems to be the standard response, but I'd really, really like to hear that it isn't an accept-or-reject issue.

<comment><AUTHOR> The point is that it's not _the_ thing that matters.

In the interview, if you hear that you didn't get in and the fact that you're single a founder is one of the reasons, then there is empirically another, additional reason because there are single founders in every batch.

<comment><USER10> Glad to hear that, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> as i tend to see it: life is half chance. you toss a coin, it comes out heads half the time, tails the other half. all you can do is enjoy what you're doing and know you'll have a terrific story at the end.

</comment><comment><USER6> The gist of this article seems to be you should not worry, just apply, which I kind of agree. If you are having second thoughts, here is a slight nudge. Even if you fail, I believe each time you apply for some funding, filling in the application forms pushes you to think more and challenges your ideas, which inevitable leads to improvement or even discovery of new areas to work on.

</comment><comment><USER12> Great article, it helped a lot!

</comment><comment><USER13> Great advice, thanks for posting. Good to know they consider sole-founders. I know its rare and probably getting more rare considering the talent pool of applicants out there.</comment>


Saying farewell to Pixate - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pixate.com/post/151340396973/winding-down-pixate <comment><USER2> The part that galls me about this is not the shutdown – such is life in a world of cheap acquisitions and expensive maintenance – but the communication around it. For months, as Pixate went without updates, the Pixate team would placate the occasional "is Pixate being abandoned?" threads in the support community with vague reassurances that they were "working on something great."

And so it turns out that regardless of whatever this great thing is, there will be no continuity between Pixate and it, and anyone who relied on Pixate's cloud features will have to find something else in the meantime.

Personally, as I currently have an entire team using Pixate Cloud in the field, and now have less than a month to find, test, implement, and train an alternative, I can't say this experience has left me with much faith in whatever Google comes up with to replace it.

<comment><USER3> That's what you get for relying on a cloud solution...

<comment><USER4> As fair as this statement is to make, it doesn't make it suck any less. It's a sad state of affairs where this is commonplace enough.

The Cloud was supposed to FIX the problem of mobile computing, not exasperate it.

<comment><USER5> *exacerbate

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > We joined Google just over a year ago to continue our mission...

Well, that explains it.

<comment><USER7> It's good to know that their Incredible Journey will continue within the halls of Hooli…oops, Google!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Less than 30 days notice to get your data out, not ok.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is there a list maintained of acqi-hired-shutdown projects by large companies.

<comment><USER10> There's "Our Incredible Journey (putting the _ack!_ in acquihire)".

[https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com](https://ourincrediblejourney.tumblr.com)

<comment><USER11> Alternatively there's [http://wevebeenacquired.tumblr.com/](http://wevebeenacquired.tumblr.com/), although OIJ is much more frequently updated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Read this as "Pixel is no more" and thought I was about to read some super dramatic rant about Google's phone.

I think that signals I should get back to work.

<comment><USER13> And I read also read it as 'Pixel is no more' and went "Wait, what, Raspberry Pi just released that as their new desktop."

Off to call my eye-guy, may be time for new glasses. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Kinda excited by this acqui-hire for once.

Google seems intent on building a good design tool, I hope that we will finally have a design tool for the adaptative UI era.

<comment><USER15> Let us hope. But what ends up happening in a big company is that their is tighter coupling between concerns, which locally looks like interference. At the very least it increases the resistance to iteration, and diffuses focus. Psychologically, I think it's also extremely difficult to go from being self- directed to manager-directed. That can build a lot of resentment that comes out in funny ways, like quitting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Given that the desktop version (Pixate Studio) is based on Atom, will it stop working after they shutdown?

<comment><USER17> Nope, Studio will continue to work.

<comment><USER16> Ah, that's better than another recent tool company that was aquihired/shutdown - WagonHQ, which was also Atom based, but downloaded the core of the app when you started it up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Pixate Studio will no longer be available for public download. If you still > need a copy, grab one here for OS X and Windows.

That seems like an odd choice.

</comment><comment><USER19> Never heard of them. It's a shame this isn't a standalone application, actually looks pretty awesome to use.

</comment><comment><USER20> Was it wireframing software?

<comment><USER21> Front end mobile prototyping - high fidelity & animatable

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Never heard of them. But their product looks very slick.

<comment><USER23> I've yet to have ever heard of any of the companies in the daily "this startup is shuttering its service" posts. The spectrum of reactions always amuses me.

<comment><USER24> Often I get the feeling I'm watching a discussion about roster tweaks in minor league baseball. VC is an industry unto itself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Hold up, lemme put on my shocked face... :|</comment>


Chronicle Will Make You Question the Need for Blockchain Technology - <AUTHOR> https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/07/chronicle-will-make-you-question-need-for-blockchain-technology <comment><USER2> You may (and obviously do) disagree, but there is no universe in which I would use a security-essential product built with PHP.

It has to do with the lack of static types, the "flexible" (i.e. lax) syntax, silent errors, and type coercion. But, even more than that, it has to do with the practices of PHP's maintainers. I suspect HHVM is better, but I can't say for sure.

Just one man's opinion, of course.

<comment><AUTHOR> > It has to do with the lack of static types

We're using PHP 7, with declare(strict_types=1) everywhere.

> the "flexible" (i.e. lax) syntax, silent errors, and type coercion

We use return types with strict_types=1, and throw exceptions if something is going wrong rather than proceeding with invalid state. If something was going to return a falsy value where e.g. a string was expected, PHP will throw a TypeError instead. [https://3v4l.org/8VR05](https://3v4l.org/8VR05)

> But, even more than that, it has to do with the practices of PHP's > maintainers. I suspect HHVM is better, but I can't say for sure.

The release manager for PHP 7.2 is a former HHVM dev, who is very much about correctness and maintainability.

It sounds like your opinion of PHP is based on circa 5.3 and earlier, but a lot has improved in 7.0 and newer. I'd definitely recommend giving newer code a second look.

[http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/php7/](http://www.hongkiat.com/blog/php7/)

[https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/02/cryptographically- secure-...](https://paragonie.com/blog/2017/02/cryptographically-secure-php- development)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> With apologies to [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643488](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14643488)</comment>


PDF book - Art of Ware - IT startup survival guide - <AUTHOR> http://and-still-i-persist.com/?p=267 <comment><AUTHOR> A reinterpretation of Sun Tzu's The Art of War ... BTW: Does anybody know where can I buy the english translation of the Art of War book in pdf?

<comment><USER2> It's on Project Gutenberg, for free.</comment></comment>


Ask HN:Why do you all use macbooks - <AUTHOR>

So I've been watching a lot of webcasts, talks, etc and I'm wondering why seemingly everyone uses Macbooks.
I've been ankle deep in linux for about 5 years. I phrase it that way mostly because I know I'm nowhere near a 'kernel guy', and I really haven't taken time to look at linux inside and out from even a software perspective. But, I'm fascinated with how many people use macbooks instead of laptops loaded with nix.
I'm guessing because it's been (up until recently) the only mass produced nix system commercially available? Or is it reliability? Or is it just people being trendy? Or is OSX the greatest operating system ever invented?
PS - My intent is not to start a flamewar here, just want to know why you use a Mac, if you do.
[EDIT] - Thanks for the responses everyone -- if you could also weigh in on Ultrabooks (I'm eyeing ASUS's Zenbook/Macbook) if you happen to have experience in both -- I'm toying with the idea of buying a new laptop)
Semi-Full Disclosure - I work for a company that has a stake in ultrabooks -- but I promise (if those are even worth anything on the internet), I'm asking for myself, not on behalf of any corporation/pr company/etc. <comment><USER2> I have a Macbook Air and a Zenbook Prime. I also have an iPad Mini and a Nexus 7 and like to be familiar with all of the major OSes.

1) The Macbook Air's trackpad + keyboard just works for me. I've tried other ultrabooks, but always end up with accidental clicks and zooms or the keyboard is a little off. The Zenbook Prime is solid and looks nice, but I don't use it as much due to the trackpad and keyboard (and this is a newer Zenbook that supposedly addressed those issues). It's nice not needing a trackball or mouse.

2) The 1440x900 resolution of the Air is fine for me. The Zenbook has 1920x1080, but I don't find that resolution very usable on a 13 inch screen. And I dislike the other cheap laptops that have 1366 x 768 or 1200 x 800.

3) I like OS X, a nice terminal, Photoshop, and a simple editor. I like being able to work on native iPhone projects. I'm not going to buy a machine with Windows 8. I run Parallels and spin up a Windows or Linux VM when needed. Very easy to slide my fingers to the right and be in Windows or Linux.

<comment><AUTHOR> Aaand there's the unicorn I was looking for. Thanks for the input.

1) You prefer the Air's trackpad+keyboard? Or is it more lack of use on the Zenbook's side?

2)I did notice this after sitting through some videos/spec sheets -- the increased resolution seems like it would be a plus when connecting to an external monitor especially, however.

3)How is gaming working out for you? Do you do that at all much?

<comment><USER3> The resolution spec on laptops is just for the built in screen. If you plug it into an external monitor you use the resolution of the external monitor.

So the resolution of the laptop does not limit external monitors.

<comment><AUTHOR> what I meant was that if the hardware put together expecting to push that many pixels with good performance, it's more likely it won't skip a beat pushing to something bigger?

<comment><USER4> fwiw I use a macbook pro retina and push to a 30" dell monitor (2560x1600) and a 24" monitor (1920x1200) at the same time. it probably can't run games at max res but it does great for movies, Netflix, coding, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> as far as form factor, I'm eyeing an air, but that's reassuring to hear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I switched to a Macbook Air a few months ago after using Linux for about a year. It's just a really nice computer. It's not some big ideological decision. I had some money saved up and I was tired of using Arch. It is a damn nice experience. Using it is really easy and enjoyable, and I still get the benefits of having a unix based system.

<comment><AUTHOR> Oh ok, I get that (I also used Arch for a bit, I wanted to put that in original post, but it got too long).

So basically build quality, the general UI, and unix-based.

<comment><USER6> Yeah, it's really hard to find a better package than the macbook pro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I own (and love) an 11" Macbook Air.

Best quality ultrabook hardware on the market (at least when bought my MBA, thing may have changed recently), everything works out of the box (compared to installing Linux), their trackpad is the only trackpad that actually works. These are the big points.

Two smaller points is that they have a more significant retail presence than any other laptop manufacturer, meaning that I can see and try all their laptops before buying it and the they are the only laptop manufacturer that are happy to sell me a laptop with a US keyboard layout outside of the US at no extra cost.

As for OS X, I'm honestly not a huge fan. Sure it works and gets the job done, but I bought the MBA despite rather than because of OS X.

</comment><comment><USER8> I am using an Asus Ultrabook. I did not have any trackpad problems using the default windows 7 installation. Asus provides software that reduces the trackpad sensitivity when you are typing. However I switched over to using Gentoo. I have not configured the track pad and it is very sensitive at the moment. However I have not found that a big annoyance.

I used a mac once. But being an emacs user I do not like the change of the ctrl key. However I have to say the keyboard feels nice to type on. I do not get why people like the trackpad on it. I do not find it anything special, however after saying that I am a user who tries to use the trackpad as little as possible so my opinion is just my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER9> [http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/tech-fun/wp- cont...](http://main.makeuseoflimited.netdna-cdn.com/tech-fun/wp- content/uploads/2012/09/applestore.gif?54b313)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Wanted to add this to the main post, but I guess a comment will do -

Does the lack of repairability/augmentation of Macs not bother you?

A friend of mine who I just remembered has a Zenbook said he literally took off the back plate (maybe 6-8 screws), and everything was right there for the upgrading/moving/modifying. Though I don't own one, I know enough about the macbook air to know that is not the case (unless something has drastically changed).

And I don't make this point for no reason -- the friend I mentioned doubled his RAM trivially, upgraded HDDs, etc, so this is a real thing that might be important

<comment><USER10> Upgrading my MacBook Pro's RAM and HDD was extremely easy. Apple even provides guides on how to do it.

<comment><USER11> You can upgrade the RAM and HDD on the standard MacBook Pro.

MacBook Pro w/ Retina and MacBook Air is a different story though, the components are soldered in.

<comment><USER12> The flash disk on the MBP w/ Retina and MBA is not soldered in. It's a little gumstick module held in with one Torx 5 screw. (The RAM is soldered to the logic board.) They have changed the connector each for rev, though, so I wouldn't plan on upgrading it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's just an incredible laptop. After being a Dell user all my life, I recently upgraded to a Retina 15" and I couldn't be happier. It's just an incredible user experience all round and you can see the amount of effort and consideration is put into every part of it's design to suit you. The example I always go with is the lid. It's designed to lift seamlessly up without any friction or movement from the base and it does exactly that. It's the little things that really make this laptop perfect.

<comment><AUTHOR> Coming from a family that is/was heavily subscribed to making purchases from Dell, I get "being a Dell user".

I see how little things like the lid would do it, that's something I've never thought about, but have definitely been annoyed with (lifting the lid and having the whole computer move)...

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a Macbook Air. It's my first Apple laptop (I used PCs exclusively from 1993-2008).

It's been a wonderful machine. The battery life is phenomenal, it's fast, it's surprisingly powerful, and it's "air" light. The trackpad is second to none. Everything just works. I've never had to install a driver.

Given Apple's involvement in the recent spying scandals, though, this is also my last Apple product. I am selling my computer and buying something else for Debian or Arch.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting -- I just came off a website that was calling them "paperweights" (This of course was a hardcore gaming website, so 700W power supplies everywhere).

And it's interesting to see how the recent spying scandals are actually affecting real people... I honestly have been kinda fed up with hearing about it in the news. I don't feel like government spying is anything new, I sort of almost take it as a cost of central government

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Battery life, it's light, the trackpad is so good you won't need a mouse (though I do miss it sometimes). I also don't worry about viruses--although Macs can get infected if you're really careless about the sites you visit and things you download, but I am. Always been a Windows user, even Ubuntu for a brief period, switched just August last year and I'm never coming back. Ubuntu is the only other OS I'd like to use, but my Mac is pretty good already.

<comment><AUTHOR> "trackpad is so good you won't need a mouse" \- This is the most drastic claim made to date in this thread... It must really be something. I've had a love affair with Logitech for the last 10 years of my life at least.

As far as virus impregnability, I think it's just a market share thing, why write for less-used nix platforms (which often have more informed users on average)?

<comment><USER7> Every other laptop I've ever owned, I always carried a mouse. Not so with my Macbook Air.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was a PC guy since 1985. I never considered switching to a Mac until they switched to Intel chips in 2006. At the time I was lugging around a heavy Acer laptop. The plastic latches had broken within 1 month of use.

I tried a friend's Macbook Pro. I couldn't believe how light it was, and the quality of the case + the display. I was sold. I bought one in 2007 and I've been using Macbooks ever since. Just a really well made machine.

</comment><comment><USER17> If the company will give me a mac, I install a bunch of GNU stuff and use it. Anything else I wipe and put Ubuntu on it (for workstation OS).

<comment><USER18> If you find yourself in this position ever, do yourself a favor and try to avoid this immediate "jump to make it as close to Linux as possible". I know several people who've had this opinion (being hardcore Linux users) and of those, a few have moved over to OS X (one kicking and screaming, no less). The rush to "just make it look like Linux" is unneeded and probably counterproductive.

OS X is a terrible Linux machine, but it's an outstanding BSD machine. Rather than try to force it into what you know, give yourself a short time to get comfortable with the Linmux->BSD shift and you'll find very little need to beat OS X into submission.

<comment><USER17> Um no. It is a horribly out of date BSD machine. And I don't run X11r6 on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Linus's reasons for using a Macbook: [http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/19/an- interview-with-millenium...](http://techcrunch.com/2012/04/19/an-interview- with-millenium-technology-prize-finalist-linus-torvalds/)

</comment><comment><USER20> OS X plays really nicely with the largely Unix based scientific computing stuff I do (R, Python and the like) that exist alongside nicely polished commercial programs for everyday in-and-out stuff.

Mix that with excellent quality hardware, and you've got a loyal Macbook Pro user.

<comment><USER21> This sums it up well. Some other quick points:

1\. Great power management and battery. 2\. Nicely made Mac apps (TextWrangler/BBEdit/Transmit). 3\. Tight integration of iCloud ecosystem. 4\. Seamless backups. 5\. Interest in Objective-C development.

I can't find the link but a well-known Linux developer switched to a MacBook because Linux didn't play well on his laptops. Poor power management, audio stops working, wifi doesn't work, etc.

If I had to get a PC laptop, it would be a Thinkpad T-series with Ubuntu, though I'm not sure how good driver support is.

Aside from great hardware engineering, their software ecosystem is their most secret weapon: Cocoa/Objective-C.

<comment><USER22> _a well-known Linux developer switched to a MacBook because Linux didn 't play well on his laptops_

You mean well known linux inventor Linus Torvalds?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I only run ubuntu on my macbook. I see it as best of both worlds.

<comment><AUTHOR> this.

I thought of this, and then thought... Is that ridiculous? If it's already running __nix, is there a need?

<comment><USER23> Thou it wasn't my initial reason, this whole PRISM thing makes me happy I don't use OSX.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> > _how many people use macbooks instead of laptops loaded with nix._

Minor nitpick: OS X is certified as UNIX, and has been for many years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Valid nitpick, I saw this on the wiki page, they are indeed up to spec

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Because it's a nice piece of hardware?

I really enjoy it and they all last long. I use both Linux and OSX.

</comment><comment><USER26> I develop ios apps. I need mac os.

There are many user experience issues in linux.

</comment><comment> bra-ket it has a unix terminal built-in

</comment><comment><USER27> I use one because sometimes I need to do iOS development.

<comment><AUTHOR> So this is one point I probably should have noted in the post, this is definitely one very compelling reason.

I've recently considered purchasing a NUC (Intel powered mini pc) and putting OSX on it for this very reason

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Only for work. That's what everyone seems to use around Silly Valley now so I just go with the flow. I tried at Groupon to use Linux for a bit and gave it up.

<comment><AUTHOR> "silly valley" \- That's not a bad name.

I problem I have found with using linux at work is interactivity with various VPN software...

<comment><USER28> Oh man, that's definitely one thing Apple got right. The little "VPN" icon "just works" once you set it up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I go with OS choices.

With a Macbook and bootcamp, you can run OSX and Windows 7.

If I can't run OSX, that's a big problem.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why not run OSX on a Win7 computer(just curious)? Of course the official support bootcamp gives you is great.

Are you a really big fan of OSX? I'm assuming you prefer it so much that you prioritize it, and plus/minus windows

<comment><USER11> You can't do it (easily). I think there are also hardware compatibilities to watch out and the effort (of setting it up and maintaining the 'hackintosh') just isn't worth it.

[Edited for typo]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Because it's a fad. It's stylish, trendy and cool ... minimalistic and such.</comment>


Codec 2 700C - <AUTHOR> http://www.rowetel.com/?p=5373 <comment><USER2> Given Adobe demonstrated technology to convert text into somebodies voice based upon a few samples and make that person sound like they can say whatever you want to type. Are we not eventually going to use that approach for the optimum voice compression and just send text which is converted into voice. Given most phone conversations are with people already spoken to then that would certainly be a solution for low-bandwidth voice comms, or at least an approach more viable today than previously.

But low bandwidth voice comm research is useful on many levels, one aspect is that it tends to push latency down and in some area's that gets more and more important.

<comment><AUTHOR> Got a link to that research? Sounds like doing key verification over the phone just became a bad idea.

<comment><USER2> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJksour9Ifw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJksour9Ifw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very cool achievement! IIUC, the author was targeting a digital replacement for analog SSB voice comms.

I don't expect to see widespread adoption in other areas though, such as cellular phones and similar. To my ears, I doubt the codec will compete with common voice intelligibility metrics, such as Diagnostic Rhyme Test [1] or PESQ [2].

However, it may be an improvement over SSB voice intelligibility!

[1] [http://www.dynastat.com/Speech%20Intelligibility.htm](http://www.dynastat.com/Speech%20Intelligibility.htm)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PESQ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PESQ)

<comment><USER4> Keep in mind that 700 b/s is an _extremely_ low bitrate.

I worked on Opus, which bottoms out at around 6000 b/s. A typical IP+UDP+RTP packet has 40 bytes of headers, which with 40 ms frames is 8000 b/s of overhead. Cell networks will use header compression to reduce that, but even so. 8000 b/s is almost eleven and a half 700C codec2 streams.

codec2 is just in another league. It's seriously impressive work.

<comment><USER5> I think the old Crichton novel, Congo, mentioned using a very low bitrate codec over a digital satellite link. So maybe something already exists off the shelf that one could try over amateur radio.

<comment><USER6> AFAIK there aren't any commercial codecs with such low bit rates, as there simply isn't the demand. The minimum bit rate of GSM-AMR is 4.75kbps. Some military codecs designed for use over HF are in the same ballpark as Codec2 - STANAG 4479 operates at 800bps. There is some academic research on voice codecs below 500bps.

<comment><USER7> Fun fact: export of very low bitrate (<2400 bps) codecs has been restricted under the same munitions restrictions as crypto (And also when open source presumably subject to the same court outcomes in the US).

<comment><USER8> Gotta talk to those subs somehow, those ultra long wavelength Comms aren't exactly high bandwidth. (I'm just making this up but it feels plausible, at least a few decades ago)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hugged to death. Cached version: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.rowetel.com/%3Fp%3D5373&num=1&prmd=ivn&strip=1&vwsrc=0)

</comment><comment><USER10> It sounds a bit like 80s-style speech synthesis:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV3pYZZ2jEw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sV3pYZZ2jEw)

(This example is the Dr. Sbaitso demo that shipped with Sound Blaster 1.0/1.5 or so and onwards.)

</comment><comment><USER11> It'd be awesome if this could be coded and decoded in javascript in realtime so you could do extremely low bandwidth podcasts (1,3 megabyte per half an hour) and play them in a browser or send them by e-mail. With HCCB color coding (Microsoft Tag) you could back that up on an A4 and send it by mail!

<comment><USER12> It is even better; the 'b' is 'bits', not 'bytes'.

700 bits/sec = 700 * 60 * 60 / 8 bytes/hour = 315,000 bytes/hour, or slightly under 308 kilobytes per hour/154 kilobytes for that 30 minute podcast.

<comment><USER11> Wow, yes! And someone is actually offering codec2 audio files: [https://lowbitnet.wordpress.com/audio- books/](https://lowbitnet.wordpress.com/audio-books/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The website is at 700b/sec too, it seems...</comment>


Show HN: MoonWeather - <AUTHOR> http://moonweather.me

<comment><AUTHOR> Before all the comments come flying in (or not, but just in case), here are some answers to questions some may have:

This is my very first iOS app. I found it useful and so did enough people I worked with that I decided to charge a buck for it...

\- The point is to check out the idea and design and give some feedback, I don't expect anyone to buy, this is not my way of making a buck off HN.

\- For those who are interested in playing with it, I do have a few extra promo codes I can give out. Just send me a message.</comment>


Australian senate passes controversial anti-piracy, website-blocking laws - <AUTHOR> http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/australian-senate-passes-controversial-antipiracy-websiteblocking-laws-20150622-ghuorh.html <comment><USER2> From what I hear from afar about Australian politics is that the Australian government can essentially do whatever it wants, unrestricted by minor details like a constitution, citizens or international law.

Surveillance, website blocking ... And not to forget the new definition of "asylum", where refugees are kept against their will in camps, "unfit for human habitation". One former government psychiatrist called it "torture". Including, of course, children.

But the system works reasonably well. I mean, why flee to Australia from political persecution, when Australian refugee camps are worse than most cases of political persecution?

<comment><USER3> Since this is presently the top comment, as an Australian, I felt the need to comment.

First thing to understand is that the Australian constitution is more about the formation and rights of the Government and less about personal rights as many Americans come to expect from their own. Australia is very strict about its obligations to its constitution, and issues like the roll-out of a single Goods and Service Tax (the GST) and the Tasmanian Dam Case which both had issues regarding the separation of powers and were heavily debated.

Nothing in the Australian constitution or any foreign treaty Australian is a signature of prevents Australia from passing this law. The Constitution of Australia grants the Federal government power to legislate in this matter. The law was passed with votes in the house from both of the major parties.

To be fair, your mention of Australia's refugee obligations and how it has handles it now and in the past is of no concern to this matter. There is very little reason to discuss that issue (even though it is worthy of being discussed) other than to paint the Australian Government as more villainous than an Australian might fairly say.

<comment><USER2> Well, the right to asylum, as well as human rights in general has been ratified by Australia and it's even part of the constitution.

I brought the asylum issue up because I find this a much more extreme and urgent example of a human rights issue than to restrict free speech to a very low degree.

<comment><USER4> Wait until you're not allowed to talk about an important issue, then you'll realise just how important freedom of speech is.

Here in Australia, we're already restricted from discussing certain aspects of voluntary euthanasia because it upsets the fundies.

<comment><USER2> Still, being allowed full access to porn does not seem as urgent to me as preventing thousands of children being physically and mentally harmed willfully by a supposedly democratic and elected government. So is torturing adult refugees to deter others from coming, but maybe the well documented harm to the children wakes people up more, than "just" mistreating some adult Muslims...

I fully agree, that free speech in general is very important, though.

<comment><USER4> How about forcing adults to die in horrible, dehumanising agony because the Powers That Be don't want you finding about safe, painless voluntary euthanasia techniques?

<comment><USER5> We have the slightly the same problem in the United States. We can talk about it, but we don't have a way to end life medically when that time comes, with the exception of Oregon, and one other state? I can't blame it all on politicians.

In American, it seems like many of us think modern medicine will cure most disease, or we fall victim to rhetoric like "death squads".

The reality is when that time comes, and modern medicine gives gives up; we are sent home to die. Oh yes, a bureaucratic nonprofit steps in and finally the aganoizing patient is given opioids, and benzodiazepines. The problem is the Palliative Care is hit, or miss. The doctor never seems to come around and read adjust medication levels, and the nurses--well they try.

My father died of liver cancer. He had a tumor the size of a football in his abdomen(by the way, he had a tumor for at least 15 years. I don't know when it turned cancerous, but all professionals overlooked the bulge in his upper right quadrant. Not one professional palpated his abdomen--I guess they don't do that anymore? And he had good insurance?

Well, finally one doctor promised to save his life, but reneged after further review, the hospital then sent him home. He was miserable all summer. The medications never quite took away the pain. It didn't help that the Hospice doctors weren't increasing dosages.(I looked at the dose of morphine, and I was tempted to buy smack off the streets, but he was just too conservative to break the law. My greedy, manipulative sister played around with his medication so she could talk him into giving her more wealth.(She is already extremely wealthy). The nurses, when told, looked the other way. My retched sister told the nurses, 'I want him to spend quality time with his grandkids'. My father couldn't stand kids, and barely put up with his own.

My father gradually went from 190 lbs to 65 lbs, and was beyond miserably for weeks. His last words to me were, "Son when will it end?"

He went into a semi coma and eventually died. He was blue. He would wake up from bad dreams and scream. He was in hell!

Sorry to unload, but we need to know just how terrible death can be. There's nothing sacred, natural, or peaceful about it. We need a passionate way to end life when that day comes.

I don't go a day without thinking about my father's agony. My father was a mean, nasty person, but they pain he went through was so disturbing; I can't get the horrid ordeal out of my life. It's been nine years, and I'm still not over it.

Maybe, this is not the time to talk about this problem? I got sidetracked by a comment before me--sorry.

<comment><USER4> It's never the wrong time to talk about this problem, and I'm sorry for your loss and pain.

My wife's father died a similar way, as did my grandfather. It pisses me off to a great degree that, as a society, we aren't willing to discuss the matter of dying with dignity. It's not like it's a new idea - the Roman Stoics did.

In many ways, our society seems infantilised in comparison.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> With these laws passed it will be a matter of weeks before the first cases of rights holders wanting websites blocked begin to appear, meanwhile there have already been statements by various right wing groups of wanting to expand the use of these new laws to cover other things they find objectionable such as pornography, violence etc. which will without doubt have a significant effect on free speech.

<comment><USER6> Source for that bit about "statements already made about blocking porn"? Surely no politician would be stupid enough to ever think blocking porn is a good idea.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fred Nile - Head of the Australian Christian Lobby. The wording of the new laws is so open that purpose creep is almost intended.

<comment><USER7> Just a nit, but Nile isn't the head of the ACL, which is a lobby group - he is the head of the Christian Democratic Party.

<comment><AUTHOR> Quite right, They seem to be almost interchangeable these days

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Just for those reading, the bill introduces an injunction power for the Courts to order ISP's to block access to foreign sites.

The important note here is that the blocking isn't done by the Government, as you might expect by those concerned about censorship, but through individual hearings to hear the impact and whether blocking the site would be a proportionate response in the circumstances (blocking an entire VPN provider might be disproportionate response for example)

Also it applies to foreign-hosted sites only, since running a hosting provider in Australian is already tenuous given we do not have anything similar to the US' safe-harbour provision. If you ran a torrenting site in Australia, there are already other laws which you can be tried under well before your site is blocked.

A explanatory memorandum was issued which has a lot of insight to the effects of the law. Check for the ID "legislation/ems/r5446_ems_1599ec23-c036-4dee-9562-a8a2e4d3d6fe".

<comment><AUTHOR> At this point it is aimed 'entirely' at minimising access to copyrighted materials, but as is mentioned elsewhere, the text of the bill is written so vaguely that it is almost designed to ensure future scope creep. Not to mention the habit of the current Aus government to disregard pesky courts because 'They might not do what we want'[0]

[0] [http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political- news/courts...](http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/courts- might-let-suspected-terrorists-off-says-tony-abbott-20150619-ghs1il.html)

<comment><USER8> We had a similar situation here in Germany, first they wanted to make an internet filter against child pornography, then they decided to add some filters for piracy...

And then the politicians got voted out.

<comment><USER9> That won't work here in Australia as the two major parties are, for all intents and purposes, identical. They both voted for all these recent draconian bills. We _could_ vote for the third party, who stands against all these things. But generally we are too smug and stupid to do something like that.

If you knew Australians (remember, we have compulsory voting) you would know that there is no hope in the ballot box. The sheer size of the bogan [1] voting block will make sure that any election will go to whichever party cracks down hardest on dole bludgers/boat people/sex workers/terrorists/dual citizens/Internet pirates/etc.

At the end of the day, as they say, we get the government we deserve.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Mandatory data retention, website blocking... Things are defintely headed the wrong way in Oz

</comment><comment><USER11> [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pirate_radio](https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Pirate_radio)

<comment><USER11> jump to second paragraph starting. "Radio "piracy" began with the advent of regulations of the public airwaves..."

I guess eventually everyone in Oz will be only allowed to visit abc.com.au and then be programmed to blame poor people or immigrants for everything

<comment><USER12> It's [http://abc.net.au](http://abc.net.au), and they are actually one of the best news organisations in the country (constantly having their budget cut by the party that is currently in Government because it's 'too left wing' or not 'on Team Australia' because they have often reported the truth about the Government...).

With this current Government, it's actually the Murdoch papers that look like propoganda straight from the politician's spin doctors. Especially Sydney's Daily Telegraph.

<comment><USER11> not much about this subject on their site. apart from this link to a radio dude... [http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2015/06/23/4260478.htm](http://www.abc.net.au/local/audio/2015/06/23/4260478.htm)

I guess a slant against government is required by a government owned media agency to appear non biased?. altho I imagine they can't be any worse than channel 7

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Here's the text of the bill (under Schedule 1): [http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w...](http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fbills%2Fr5446_aspassed%2F0000%22;rec=0)

Basically "the primary purpose of the online location [must be] to infringe, or to facilitate the infringement of, copyright," which gets around things like "we only host torrent magnet links" while shielding search engines, general discussion forums, and the like.

It's a reasonably well-drafted law (by the standards of such things) and relies on the judiciary (which is more than it sounds like considering our immigration minister, a former drug cop, wants extra-judicial power to remove citizenship), but falls down on technical merit.

</comment><comment><USER14> How does website blocking work with https as the dns queries are encrypted. The only thing they could block is the ip but that could be shared with 'innocent' sites.

I may have a fatal misunderstanding in my understanding in how a browser accesses a website...

<comment><USER15> Heres the punchline: you don't have a fatal misunderstanding. The policy makers do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So are pretty much all of Amazon EC2 going to be blocked? Or all the DDoS mitigation services?

</comment><comment><USER17> Meh...offshore VPS with Squid3. And that's just the easy way of getting around anything - it astounds me that the government seems to think everyone is as shortsighted as they are.

<comment><USER3> The Government is expected to include VPN's used explicitly for evasion of anti-piracy measures in this law. The Government even tried debating the definition of VPN, since that's obviously where a lot of people are headed with this recent change. Not to mention, VPN's are essential for Australian business and the Government can't blanket ban everything since A. its hard to even define what a VPN is, and B. even harder to capture and block that traffic.

<comment><USER18> To these legislators (and their backers) this is not a tricky question. They will (eventually) (attempt to) simply block all foreign VPN providers via DNS or IP and furthermore make using one illegal for private use. This will not affect BigCorp because they would be using VPN to connect to their own servers which would not be on the block list.

<comment><USER8> And that's when you rent the 4$/year VPS from 1und1.de and use it as SOCKS proxy

<comment><USER18> In the eyes of the administrator managing the block list (not sure what judicial oversight is planned but going on the UK's approach it will be minimal or non-existent) this would look like a dodgy foreign company and it would simply go on the block list....

<comment><USER19> What about ssh proxy to Amazon EC2? Don't think they can block that unless they want to shut down half the Australian tech industry...

<comment><USER18> You lost them at ssh... For now...

<comment><USER8> You know that 1und1.de is a huge hosting provider in mainland europe? And that the SOCKS proxy I suggested would run through SSH?

It's literally the same suggestion as using EC2, just with a cheaper example

<comment><USER18> How many major Australian companies use 1und1.de cloud services?

EDIT Of these how many have the clout to have the block lifted when it happens?

EDIT For the record I think that these laws are utterly stupid and totally unenforceable. (I say this as someone that pays for their content.) However, the legislators will not be put off by mere technical impossibility.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I think a lot of people are going to start using tor.

<comment><USER18> Unfortunately this sort of braindead legislation seems to be a global trend. Where will the exit nodes be in 10 years time?

<comment><USER20> Exit nodes as we know them now may not exist, but the pressure that is being placed on this technology is going to caused newer better ideas to pop up.

Australians like stealing content. Nature finds a way!

<comment><USER21> Australians have until very recently had no easy and convenient access to content like comparable first world countries have had. We have seen the USA and other countries get all of these services offered to them but they've always skipped us by, leaving us to one hugely expensive provider.

<comment><USER15> They will even pay above the going rate in those other regions (VPN + exchange rate + currency fees).

Only to have the content providers come back with "No, we don't want you're money." I think this is changing now though as Netflix et al. become available, though I'd expect their libraries to still be relatively anaemic compared to the overseas counterparts.

<comment><USER18> Netflix are at least on record as saying that they want content to be global. However, they are also on record as saying that in principle using a vpn to access US Netflix is piracy (but that they don't think it is important). I am however curious what happens when some copyright troll decides to subpoena them for their records on who might be connecting from known vpns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Metadata? They need to understand the concept first!

</comment><comment><USER23> Well at least our Attorney General understands the concept of metadata.

Oh, wait.

[http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life- news/george-...](http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/digital-life-news/george- brandis-in-car-crash-interview-over-controversial-data-retention- regime-20140806-101849.html)

[Edit: transcribed from about 1:40]

Brandis: "What the security agencies want to be retained is the electronic address of the website, that the web user..."

Interviewer: "So it does tell you the website?"

"Well it tells you the address of the website"

"That's the website, isn't it? It tells you what website you've been to?"

"Well when you visit a website, people browse from one thing to the next, and that browsing history won't be retained, or there won't be any capacity to access that."

"Excuse my confusion here, but if you are retaining the web address, you are retaining the web site, aren't you?"

"Well, the ... every website has an electronic address, right?"

"And that's recorded?"

"When a connection is made between one computer terminal and a web address, that fact, and the time of the connection, and the duration of the connection, is what we mean by 'metadata' in that context."

"But that is telling you where I've been on the web."

"Well it ... it ... it records what electronic web address has been accessed."

"I don't see the difference between that and what websites you've visited?"

"When you go to a website, commonly, you will go from one web page to another, from one link to another in that website. That's not what we're interested in."

<comment><USER24> is that a show of ignorance, or a politician avoiding a potentially damaging sound bite?

I'm not familiar with Australian politics, but in the politics I am familiar with I would be more apt to accuse someone of deception than ignorance.

The politician in the video seems to be purposely ignorant in such a way that drives a stake between the folks watching, posing the question "Well, _IS_ there a difference between addresses and web sites? Maybe the man knows something the reporter doesn't!".

Check out practically any Dick Cheney interview to see that tactic used ad nauseum.

<comment><USER13> That is the sound of a very smart man who is very out of his depth and has not been properly backgrounded in a fairly technical policy.</comment></comment></comment>