Sierra Leone government denies the role of blockchain in its recent election - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/19/sierra-leone-government-denies-the-role-of-blockchain-in-its-recent-election/ <comment><USER2> Well, good, because I couldn't fathom why anyone would want to run an election using blockchain.

Paper ballots with automated scanners is a solved problem. It works, it's cheap, and it's virtually tamper-proof. (Tampering with the result will require physical access by many people: if you allow that possibility you're basically conceding that you cannot trust the government to run the election properly, and using any technology won't save you.)

In other words, paper ballots is a boring, unsexy technology whose only benefit is that it works. No wonder people aren't excited.

<comment><USER3> What? I agree it works, but it's pretty insecure. Paper ballots can just be swapped out for other paper ballots. With a public blockchain (or something like it) you could always look up your vote and by nature it cannot be changed. The vote count could be tallied instantly as well and recounts are unnecessary.

Blockchains can't ensure no false votes are cast for deceased or unwilling participants, but it honestly would be better than paper in many ways. I am not advocating people use some third party token to do this. That I believe would be unnecessary. Am I missing something though? I don't understand the overwhelming hatred any blockchain related tech gets on HN. This is one area where I think it could provide real value.

<comment><USER2> > With a public blockchain (or something like it) you could always look up > your vote and by nature it cannot be changed.

So all you have to do is to set up a fake website advertising "Look up if your vote is counted as it should be", let people type in their credentials, and you now know exactly how millions of people have voted.

Paper ballots work because it's dead simple. Your ballot goes into a box, multiple eyeballs from multiple parties continuously watch the box, and then the box is opened and everything in it is counted, with no way to connect each ballot to individual voters. That you cannot "look up your vote" later is not a bug: it's a feature.

<comment><USER4> Look up zero-knowledge proofs. Solves this problem. Blockchain is the only legitimate way to carry out voting, imo.

<comment><USER5> zero knowledge proofs fail to address this concern:

> all you have to do is to set up a fake website advertising "Look up if your > vote is counted as it should be", let people type in their credentials, and > you now know exactly how millions of people have voted.

this is a social engineering problem, not a cryptography problem. said social engineering would be much harder to implement with paper ballots than a system that's available over the internet.

further, your reply does not address this concern:

> That you cannot "look up your vote" later is not a bug: it's a feature.

i should not be able to verifiably let another party know how i voted. to use your own rhetorical device, i'd suggest you look up vote selling and voter coercion.

>>>> Paper ballots with automated scanners is a solved problem. It works, it's cheap, and it's virtually tamper-proof. (Tampering with the result will require physical access by many people: if you allow that possibility you're basically conceding that you cannot trust the government to run the election properly, and using any technology won't save you.)

>>>> In other words, paper ballots is a boring, unsexy technology whose only benefit is that it works. No wonder people aren't excited.

> Blockchain is the only legitimate way to carry out voting, imo.

you'll have to forgive me if i'm still unconvinced.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The original story wasn't very clear how blockchain was involved. It seems very likely now with the NEC denying the claims that it was a bunch of hype.

>"Agora's results for the two districts they tallied differed considerably from the official results, according to an analysis of the two sets of statistics carried out by RFI,"

>Was Agora simply attempting a PR stunt in support of its upcoming token sale.

almost certainly

<comment><USER7> > The original story wasn't very clear how blockchain was involved.

Didn't stop the ridiculously titled _" Sierra Leone just ran the first blockchain-based election"_[1] from being shared and strongly upvoted here on HN.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16622245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16622245)

<comment><USER8> You're linking to _this_ thread; I think you mean to link to this one, which has 500+ upvotes: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598210](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598210)

<comment><USER7> Thanks, my mistake (and apparently too late to edit my original comment).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I have yet to see how blockchain is supposed to solve problems with elections that can't be solved with good process. And if process isn't fixed, I don't see how blockchain alone will get around the process shortcomings.

Elections are no different than any other info security problem. Multiple checks at multiple locations in the process. Blockchain is not magic pixie dust that makes info security issues go away.

<comment><USER10> > I have yet to see how blockchain is supposed to solve problems with > elections that can't be solved with good process. And if process isn't > fixed, I don't see how blockchain alone will get around the process > shortcomings.

Blockchains provide a verifiably immutable log. This is the exact primitive you want for elections - tamper-proof logging. It is genuinely a good technological solution to the problems of election legitimacy and validation. That isn't a defense of this article, or of any of the current blockchain/election projects, but in principle, the idea makes sense.

<comment><USER11> That's honestly the smallest part of election validation. How do you know everything was recorded to the log correctly or at all? In other words, the actual "election" part where you verify voters and collect results, which has nothing to do with blockchain. But even if that is all done right, how is the blockchain itself being run? Blockchain data is only as trustworthy as the systems doing the verification. A centralized blockchain is no more trustworthy than a centralized database of any kind. And a distributed blockchain has its own attack vectors. Rubbing blockchain on it is not a security solution.

<comment><USER3> If I am given a voterID, let's say an address from which I cast my vote. I can look at my vote on the chain to ensure it was cast correctly forever from that point forward. The node software would ideally be open source and publicly available. A full node could be run at each voting site, and potentially by citizens themselves even. You could run one to make the voting process even more secure.

A decentralized blockchain is far more trustworthy than a centralized database in this scenario. Say Russia controls the centralized voting database, they can just edit whatever value they want to say "Putin" and call it a day. It's not public. No one can verify their vote. It's under the control of one party. The entire point of decentralization is to ensure there is public consensus among multiple parties.

There are other discussions about how to allow or incentivize citizens to run nodes, mitigate lost or stolen IDs/private keys, prevent against spam attacks, etc...but it sounds like you aren't even open to discussing those because you equate the word "blockchain" with "snake oil".

<comment><USER12> > I can look at my vote on the chain

And now you've told everyone exactly how millions of citizens voted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Beware of Blockchain stories with unsubstantiated facts. The original story had many red flags, not the least of which being the use of the future tense in a quote by Gammar.

 _"Anonymized votes /ballots are being recorded on Agora's blockchain, which will be publicly available for any interested party to review, count and validate," said Gammar._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598210](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16598210)

The space is littered with claims like this that turn out to be nonsense. Don't trust, verify.

</comment><comment><USER14> Quite a different story from what the Agora team were telling:

[https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/83v7x9/these_resul...](https://np.reddit.com/r/ethereum/comments/83v7x9/these_results_represent_the_first_time_a/dvl5f1y/)

<comment><USER8> Here's a more relevant response, in which they comment on someone's submission of this article that disputes the use of blockchain in Sierra Leone:

[http://en.rfi.fr/africa/20180319-sierra-leones-electoral- com...](http://en.rfi.fr/africa/20180319-sierra-leones-electoral-commission- distances-itself-use-blockchain-during-polls)

[https://np.reddit.com/r/agora/comments/85k6cx/sierra_leones_...](https://np.reddit.com/r/agora/comments/85k6cx/sierra_leones_electoral_commission_distances/)

Agora makes zero attempt to rebut the claims with evidence, and instead, attack the source:

> _Through research we have found that username "Tamba Lamin", who is the main > source of this article, is from a competing service. You can do your own > research into his position by Googling the username and "election". We do > our part to not incite witch-hunts or dox users so please do not either but > he used his real name on our channels and we have no other way to reference > it._

The article by Tamba Lamin is just one of more than a dozen articles listed in the cited post that argue against Agora. This is not a great response from the Agora team (posted below for posterity):

 _Hi /u/custom1made, we welcome both positive and negative feedback on our company so we can continue to learn, earn trust, and grow.

Our continued success will attract many unsavory characters that will attack us - we must remain professional, honest, and composed - and hope to foster a community that agrees to that mantra.

We are very much hoping you will do your part in helping us stay strong so we can focus on our mission to bring transparent Democracy to the world.

Through research we have found that username "Tamba Lamin", who is the main source of this article, is from a competing service. You can do your own research into his position by Googling the username and "election". We do our part to not incite witch-hunts or dox users so please do not either but he used his real name on our channels and we have no other way to reference it.

Although his motives may have been questionable, he brought up important topics. We had an internal meeting about our stance on sensational subject titles, filters in place, and how we will handle incorrect information from third-party news organizations. Our intent is to set and keep the record straight.

As stated in our pinned posts and in all of our Reddit posts, we do not verify the accuracy of third-party news reports. Thank you._

<comment><USER15> Companies which double down on lying PR by personally attacking people correcting it (not even accurately apparently, given no evidence to suggest Tamba Lamin has any connection with French media reporting quotes from election officials) should not be _anywhere_ near election counting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If it's the case that Sierra Leone did not use blockchain for any part of its election, I think TechCrunch needs to own up to its reporting, which seems very thinly sourced:

[https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/14/sierra-leone-just-ran- the-...](https://techcrunch.com/2018/03/14/sierra-leone-just-ran-the-first- blockchain-based-election/)

In fact, it seems completely sourced to "Leonardo Gammar of Agora", "Agora" being a company that is trying to sell its "blockchain-based digital voting solution" [0] and thus has every incentive to hype the usage of their product. The TC reporter apparently made no attempt to contact anyone who actually works in Sierra Leone's government/elections, or anyone who actually lives there.

[0] [https://agora.vote/#about](https://agora.vote/#about)

edit: looks like the reporter has just decided to reach out to authorities:

[https://twitter.com/johnbiggs/status/975841632661786624](https://twitter.com/johnbiggs/status/975841632661786624)

[https://twitter.com/johnbiggs/status/975814093994151938](https://twitter.com/johnbiggs/status/975814093994151938)

Quartz also wrote about Sierra Leone's alleged use of blockchain, and like TC, solely sources it to Agora: [https://qz.com/1227050/sierra-leone-elections- powered-by-blo...](https://qz.com/1227050/sierra-leone-elections-powered-by- blockchain/)

It does link to this page though, from Agora:

[https://agora.vote/sierraleone2018/](https://agora.vote/sierraleone2018/)

It is possible that Agora was accredited as an independent observer of results. But it's problematic that they use their Sierra Leone results page to advertise their services, which don't seem to have been used as described:

> _Agora is a Swiss foundation providing decentralized digital voting systems > based on the blockchain technology. Agora's solution will enable secure and > remote voting from digital devices, as well as allow each voter to verify > his or her untampered vote in the final count._

When you go to Agora's "results" page, all you get is an aggregated tally of votes. I don't see a ledger of any kind:

[https://agora.vote/sierraleone2018/results](https://agora.vote/sierraleone2018/results)

</comment><comment><USER16> [https://youtu.be/ZDnShu5V99s?t=22m46s](https://youtu.be/ZDnShu5V99s?t=22m46s) is a good lecture about the cryptography of electronic voting.

</comment><comment><USER17> Sierra Leone missed an opportunity here to embrace the hype and declare itself "The Crypto Jungle".

</comment><comment><USER18> Hard to believe unverified hype or outright deception is involved in something relating to blockchain technology.

<comment><USER19> Luckily, I have the answer: a blockchain which records overhyped blockchains. This technology will make it possible to create an immutable, universal record that will exclude all falsehood.

ICO imminent. Act now and receive a 20% bonus on your next overpromise.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Good, because blockchain for elections is a TERRIBLE idea.

A large state can hack election results just by having millions of computers perform blockchain proof-of-work on false election data.

<comment><USER21> That's not true at all. The worst the state can do is to deny votes to be written in the blockchain by mining empty blocks. But no matter how much computing power it has, the state can't write false votes, thanks to public key cryptography. If transactions where cheaper, voting on a public blockchain like Bitcoin would be a great thing. That's not the case today, but I'm pretty sure it will be in the coming years.

<comment><USER22> That's not correct. The worst that can happen is falsifying votes before they're written to the blockchain. And there's nobody who will check the "blockchain" for his vote, because people want to vote and get over with it.</comment></comment></comment>


WHO says it no longer uses 'pandemic' category, but virus still emergency - <AUTHOR> https://uk.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-who/who-says-no-longer-uses-pandemic-category-but-virus-still-emergency-idUKKCN20I0N8 <comment><USER2> Remember that the WHO has no real power, its a coordination body at the best. Its not like the US CDC which can impose restrictions and rules in the US. The WHO can't go into a country without that country's approval. They rely on that country giving out information. So in another words, the WHO must convince the country in question that its in their best interest to cooperate with the WHO.

One CBC article says it the best:

 _The WHO doesn 't have the authority to tell Xi Jingping what to do, let alone take over the fight on the ground. All it can do is engage in what is known as disease diplomacy, and try to convince China that its interests and the world's concerns are completely aligned.

"In some ways the SARS outbreak taught the WHO that you have to have the country that is most affected — the epicentre of the outbreak — on its side. It can't risk alienating the Chinese," says Lee. "I'm sure they know that they're not getting full co-operation, but they're still trying to encourage that."_

[https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/china-coronavirus-cover-up- cl...](https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/china-coronavirus-cover-up- claims-1.5471946)

<comment><USER3> The No.1 contributor to WHO budget is US tax payer, and the leadership of WHO was begging countries like US not to close flight routes to China in the midst of rapidly spreading disease.

For any observer casual or otherwise it is evident WHO leadership is more worried about being on the good side of China than the health of the world.

<comment><USER4> It's been over 100 years since the world has had a pandemic. It is frankly entirely predictable that we don't really know what to do when one happens, and that we'll collectively be generally complacent until it is on where ever our doorstep happens to be.

I'm not one with a high opinion of global governance anyhow, but even if it was competent it would be incompetent, because the _competent_ thing to do for so long has been to assume "not going to be a pandemic". There isn't really a solution to these sorts of fat-tail outcomes; you can't spend trillions planning for them all the time because even if you do, your funding will be cut, but then when the time comes, you won't be prepared.

<comment><USER5> "It is frankly entirely predictable that we don't really know what to do when one happens, and that we'll collectively be generally complacent until it is on where ever our doorstep happens to be."

Maybe your average Joe wouldn't know what to do, but if the leaders of the organization which is supposed to globally manage such situations don't really know what do to, then they should all be replaced. That's literally their job.

<comment><USER4> Ironically, I think that's exactly backwards. Average Joes actually have a chance of getting this right. Institutions are the ones that essentially can't, because if they treated pandemics correctly in the past several decades, they'd be defunded for wasting money on the fat tail events that could have happened, but didn't, so clearly, they don't need that money.

You're thinking in terms of people; you need to think in terms of organizations, which are in some ways just people writ large, but in other very important ways, are _not_ just people writ large. It would be completely plausible and understandable that the majority of _individuals_ in the WHO or CDC are aware of some truly bad thing in progress even as the _organization_ is telling everyone not to worry and just stay calm at all costs. It's hard to grok, but it's the way it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this virus is getting sincerely underestimated in our echo chamber, and it's only because the reported cases in the US have been low. If Italy has multiple quarantine zones, think about how many travelers are coming back from Italy who are probably infected but don't even know it yet. I hope I'm wrong.

<comment><USER7> I don't believe it is, the virus can be quarantined efficiently if the country is responsive to the outbreaks. Vietnam had early outbreaks, quarantined areas via a ring system, and the country has contained the virus very well.

This is a country that is poorer than South Korea, Japan, or Italy and shares a border with China.

<comment><USER8> I'm not trying to fear-monger here, so please don't read that as my intent.

Are you sure though? An "outbreak" is detected by someone having symptoms, by which time they've infected others. If you're an in area with lots of travelers, by the time you have an outbreak, it's already moved on.

I'm watching South Korea - they have plenty of travel, a good population, and an effective government. If they can contain it, that's a good sign, if not, likely a portent of what the western world can expect if carriers become more numerous. So far too early to say, but that's where I'm looking. (And I'm no expert at all, so if anyone has reasons that I'm looking in the wrong place as a bellweather, please share).

My real issue is the lack of good info. We've gotten an R0, but I've not heard anyone express confidence in the results of infection (another commenter suggested 20% require respiratory assistance, but is that of flat infected or of those that are detected as infected in part BECAUSE their symptoms are serious?)

<comment><USER9> > another commenter suggested 20% require respiratory assistance, but is that > of flat infected or of those that are detected as infected in part BECAUSE > their symptoms are serious?

The latter. Unfortunately we don't know what fraction of cases are detected, but it's believed to be around 10%.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting in this context is to look at the postmortem of the previous pandemic in 2009, the number of cases initially confirmed and the final tally over the same period once all the facts were in.

The relevant wikipedia bit:

"A flu follow-up study done in September 2010, found that "the risk of most serious complications was not elevated in adults or children."[31] In a 5 August 2011 PLoS ONE article, researchers estimated that the 2009 H1N1 global infection rate was 11% to 21%, lower than what was previously expected.[32] However, by 2012, research showed that as many as 579,000 people could have been killed by the disease, as only those fatalities confirmed by laboratory testing were included in the original number, and meant that many of those without access to health facilities went uncounted. The majority of these deaths occurred in Africa and Southeast Asia. Experts, including the WHO, have agreed that an estimated 284,500 people were killed by the disease, much higher than the initial death toll."

From:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2009_flu_pandemic)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It is going to be a "pandemic" regardless of what we do short of sealing off all travel for a long time. It does not kill a vast majority of the people it infects unlike Ebola so there will always be a large pool of carriers and the time it remains in circulation will be much longer. So if anything this is being underhyped. It is going to spread everywhere eventually.

<comment><USER11> There are already vaccine prototypes in the lab. The hope is we can delay the spread long enough that they can get out of the lab and into mass production. Next years flu shot could contain this as well if all goes perfect. If we can just hold back until then we are okay. That is a big if though.

<comment><USER12> That is at least 12-18 months away

<comment><USER11> That is why I used works like "hope" and "big if". If everything goes perfect it can happen. It only needs one of the early attempts to turn out to work, do great in early testing and be easy to manufacture. Easy to manufacture depends on scale - if the virus turns out to be spreading fast it will be easier to manufacture because a lot of resources will be put into building the ability to make whatever turns out to work.

Safety becomes less important in the worst cases too. If you have a 1% chance of going blind from the vaccine, or a 20% chance of death, a vaccine that would normally fail tests looks good. (20% chance of death of course means the virus mutates to both spread faster and kill more people - generally unlikely)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> With China's rise this is our weird new future. Western institutions are trying their best to not offend China, so we end up with very muddled news releases.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone here think it's a bad idea to travel internationally at this time? I have a trip from US to UK planned in 2 weeks...

<comment><USER9> In my opinion: The risk is still acceptably low if you're a young, healthy person, but only if you're able to self-quarantine after the travel and avoid contact with anyone beyond the age of fifty or who has respiratory problems for the first month afterwards.

Follow guidelines, but use common sense. If we're in a situation where it's too risky for certain groups to travel, then it's also risky for travelers to interact with them.

Also keep in mind that, depending on the situation at the time and they length of your trip, you might not be able to return. Make sure nothing terrible will happen in that situation.

<comment><USER14> I am a young and relatively healthy person.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What I don't understand, why are actual tests for the virus being done so reluctantly?

I'm german and followed the media coverage and initial panic a few weeks ago when the first case appeared in germany. There was a rush of people who wanted to get themselves tested - but got turned down with the info that only persons who are already suspect (show symptoms AND just got back from china) were eligible for testing.

Now we're realizing that infection paths cannot be tracked anymore and there is very likely a huge number of unknown infected persons.

If you got a virus that is both asymptomatic and infectious for 14 days, wouldn't you want to test as many people you can, as early as possible?

</comment><comment><USER16> So basically "we officially deprecated the designation pandemic and call it an alphabet soup, but it's what we used to call a pandemic".

That makes it so much clearer. I mean are they trying to help people understand things or not?

</comment><comment><USER17> Wonder what will happen with the Olympic games. Even a simple delay would be huge.

<comment><USER18> Corona family viruses are flu season events. The deadly regular flu is a well known member.

The hope is that come spring-summer it will wane off and provide enough time for a vaccine to be developed.

So healthy young athletes should be good to go for the summer.

<comment><USER19> I think the concern is the large crowds of ordinary people using trains, airplanes, hotels, restaurants and event venues, not the athletes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Will the summer heat reduce the spread and transmission of the virus? This is a theory being floated by many of my friends and family in India. Wondering if its true.

<comment><USER21> On the flip side - the cold tends to keep people indoors and away from others. The warm weather tends to make people go outside and interact with others.

<comment><USER22> On the other hand people interacting indoors are closer to each other and breath the same air and handle the same things more than people outdoors.</comment></comment></comment>


Just landed at SFO: What you should do first - <AUTHOR> http://danielodio.com/community/just-landed-at-sfo-what-you-should-do-first

<comment><USER2> 0\. visit noisebridge [edit]

1\. stay a few nights at the green tortoise

2\. take BART to Shattuck station in Berkeley, walk up to Telegraph ave and get a slice of pizza at Blondies

3\. dance at a club until it closes, go to house after party until 6am, then go to the End Up

4\. have lunch at The Good Earth in Palo Alto

5\. go to Fry's

6\. visit the Exploritorium in Golden Gate Park

7\. buy a zine at Bound Together - anarchist collective bookstore in the Haight</comment>


Angels open door to cash: Y Combinator gives young tech entrepreneurs their wings - <AUTHOR> http://sanfrancisco.bizjournals.com/sanfrancisco/stories/2009/03/16/story1.html

<comment><USER2> "This article is for Paid Print Subscribers ONLY." ?</comment>


The Dark Reality Behind America's Greatest Thrift Store Empire - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@aliceminium/the-dark-reality-behind-americas-greatest-thrift-store-empire-183967087a1e <comment><USER2> It's an interesting story, though also tragic and frightening. I probably would've lead with reason five. It seems to me that abusing holes, in employee safety laws for disabled people, is one of the worse evils they commit.

I wonder how much of this goes around. Recently it was revealed that a local restaurant in Aarhus, Denmark, that put disabled and mentally ill to work on a type of welfare program where the municipality pays part of the wage for people who can't work full hours, was also abusing their employees for profit. And that just another story in a long line of these.

<comment><USER3> O very interesting. At the particular store I worked there was a teenage "volunteer" working due to legally mandated community service.

<comment><USER4> Well generally one can choose where to put their community service hours. I knew someone when growing up who had to do community service and choose to do so at the local animal shelter. Although, I have heard of judges also specifying where. So they could have "voluntarily" chose good will instead of some where else. However, community service is not voluntarily done, and t must be completed. However, definitely not what one commonly thinks about word "volunteer".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Another fun charity fact: Locks of Love doesn't donate most of the hair it receives to people that need hair. It removes the hair not suitable for wigs, then sends it to a wig manufacturer, who then rejects half of that hair donated. About 80% of the hair LoL receives never makes it into a wig. It sells another good chunk of the hair for profit to fund its operations. Much of the money they make goes to overhead and executive pay. And apparently, up to $6 million in hair donations goes unaccounted every year.

People who want to donate hair would do well to research charities that will take their particular type of hair, and take less for profit.

<comment><USER6> Do you have a citation for this I could keep handy for reference? Grossly inefficient non-profits to the point of malfeasance is one of my pet peeves.

<comment><USER7> The Wikipedia page [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locks_of_Love#Criticisms](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locks_of_Love#Criticisms) cites their tax forms as saying they have 35% efficiency

<comment><USER8> That's a weird calculation there. The research grant to Columbia is in addition to their other activities and isn't any kind of representation of their efficiency.

I guess if they are only providing 194 wigs and hairpieces it isn't surprising that they are engaging in other activities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Salvation Army is similarly exploitive. I knew a manager of one of their facilities and had a tour that was (probably unintentionally) eye-opening. For example, he talked about how any clothes they didn't sell in a certain amount of time were sent to their "ragging operation," made into bales, and then shipped to Africa.

The only difference from Goodwill as described here is that the population being exploited are addicts and ex-cons rather than mostly disabled folks. I want to like these organizations, I even think they started out with the right intentions, but greed takes over and ruins them.

<comment><USER10> I'm not certain what's changed over the years but I used to love going into Salvation Army or Goodwill and browsing their stuff because you never knew what cool thing you might find. Nowadays, they all seem to carry the same picked-over stuff.

I think part of it may be that they have also noticed the cool items and moved them to an online marketplace where they can get more cash for them.

<comment><USER11> With the rise of the Internet and ecommerce, there's now hoards of people buying all the good stuff to resell on Amazon, eBay, Craigslist, Facebook, etc. Many professional resellers go to charity shops daily.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Many good points, and not paying the legally set minimum wage seems like it's breaking the law (or at least skirting it). But I don't see how "Goodwill has actively fought against legislative proposals to raise the minimum wage" is inherently "Dark" \- it might be self serving, but it's possible that it could also lead to layoffs and store closures. Whether or not that's actually the case seems like something that people of, ahem, good will can reasonably debate without labeling each other "dark" or "evil."

<comment><USER13> I agree that fighting the minimum wage is not "dark". If two able-minded parties voluntarily agree on a wage, then no one should be able to tell them what the correct wage should be. The minimum wage may prevent a lower-skilled worker from getting a job, because an employer would only pay a higher wage to a higher-skilled worker.

<comment><USER14> _If two able-minded parties voluntarily agree on a wage, then no one should be able to tell them what the correct wage should be._

That opens up the door for so much exploitation that it boggles the mind someone could truly believe that.

Do you support the repeal of minimum wage laws? What about workplace safety laws? Laws that limit the number of hours demanded by the employer?

Incredible.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Better to shop in locally-run stores, even if they're "for profit". Because their profits, what with competition and the burden of paying full minimum wage, are likely not even enough to replace the carpeting before it turns the color of the parking lot.

<comment><USER5> I shop at a local store called _Philly Aids Thrift_ ([http://phillyaidsthrift.com/](http://phillyaidsthrift.com/)) whose proceeds are donated to HIV/AIDS-serving institutions in Philadelphia. Other big metropolises probably have other donation-oriented stores, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> The most irksome reason that got left off this list is that some types of high value items simply never make it to store shelves.

Instead of sharing good deals with the community, they put these items up on eBay for the highest bidder.

Sure, it's their right to decide how they want to do things, but it's a bit deceptive since they try to get people to donate on the premise that you are giving back to your community. Yeah, you are giving, but very indirectly, and your best items may never be seen by anyone in your community.

Taking away the best nuggets leaves the store inventories mediocre at best, yet they still ride on the perception that you can find treasures there. You still can, but they've made it much less likely.

<comment><USER17> Do they use eBay, too? I thought it was [https://www.shopgoodwill.com/](https://www.shopgoodwill.com/).

<comment><USER16> They used to... I don't know, maybe it's changed. But that site looks like eBay under the hood, whitelabeled maybe?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How long until Goodwill goes brankrupt and the death of Goodwill is blamed on millennials?

</comment><comment><USER19> Where should I be taking my lightly used, but no longer desired clothes? I try to clear out my closet once a year or so and eliminate anything that doesn't fit, doesn't reflect my current workplace dress, or isn't ever worn. I don't buy a lot of clothes, but there are still generally several shirts/pants/jackets (both outwear and dress) and shoes that I wish to pass on to someone.

I had thought My annual Goodwill drops were the best way to do that. What are the alternatives, especially that can contribute to my underserved neighbors?

<comment><USER11> Homeless shelters sometimes accept clothing, my homeless shelter actually runs a charity shop. Local charity shops are an option, but we don't know if they are run better.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Regarding the tag line:

[https://goodwillsp.wordpress.com/donate-to- goodwill/](https://goodwillsp.wordpress.com/donate-to-goodwill/)

Seems there are variations based on region.

</comment><comment><USER20> Can I add #11? If you have large bulky items like furniture that you want to get rid of, everyone tells you to call Goodwill. When you call, they ask you your location and they says they don't have pickup there, but they give you another number to call. That number then refers you to a third company which will then charge you to haul away your "trash." Turns out the middle-man is a broker that is kicking money back to Goodwill for the referrals.

</comment><comment><USER21> How do they purportedly pay less than minimum wage? Because they're a nonprofit? I feel like I'm missing something.

<comment><USER22> [https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/14c/](https://webapps.dol.gov/elaws/whd/flsa/14c/)

"This Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Section 14(c)... authorizes employers, after receiving a certificate from the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) Wage and Hour Division (WHD), to pay special minimum wages - wages less than the Federal minimum wage - to workers who have disabilities for the work being performed."

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> If this crap is true that's horrible. They should be paying people _better_ than min wage. Wtf.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm pretty annoyed by the mix of actual issues and misleading statistics in this article, so here are some thoughts on all of the items.

>1\. Less than one eighth of the company's profit goes towards its charity work.

There are a few issues with this section.

"The company" in question is a specific Goodwill - Goodwill Omaha. Extrapolating from one operation to the entire network of Goodwills is a bit extreme.

The bigger issue comes from definitions - profit, charitable work, administration.

Charitable work: if the only thing Goodwill did was run a chain of stores that facilitated reuse, I would argue that this is a net good to the world. However none of the money that is spent on running these stores counts as charitable work, because it's not written into Goodwill's mission.

Administrative costs: on this topic, let me quote the linked article. "While Goodwill Omaha runs job training and assistance programs that serve thousands annually, nearly all of those activities have been funded by government grants and contract". These government grants and contracts don't fall out of thin air, they require a staff to apply for, measure, track, report back on, etc. Another way of saying Goodwill spends $2.5MM on administrative costs is to say Goodwill spends $2.5MM to raise $?MM from the government to spend on programs.

CEO compensation: The stated example of ~$1MM for the CEO of Goodwill Omaha is on the high end, but still within the norm for the CEO of an organization that runs 17 retail stores and a large jobs training program with an annual revenue of >$30MM.

Not to say that there aren't red flags: "The organization [Goodwill Omaha] includes a number of highly placed staff members who are related to the CEO or board members or their own supervisors."

>2\. Your donated items get shipped out to neo-imperialist buyers that threaten developing industry in third world countries.

Having lived in poverty in a developing nation, this wasn't a bad thing. There was no local cheap local clothes industry - it had already been decimated by cheap Chinese imports.

You might say: but bitcurious, wouldn't high quality clothes at that same price undermine the Chinese importers? Yes, but what's the difference between an importer of cheap clothes vs an importer of donated clothes? They need the same amount of labor.

You might say: but bitcurious, wouldn't access to high quality goods at a cheap price undermine the potential for locally made high quality goods at a higher price? Perhaps, but speaking from experience, there was a lot of stigma associated with shopping at a second hand clothing store, so anyone who could afford to buy high quality goods was already doing so, if only to avoid that stigma.

The undermining local industry argument is incredible relevant for industries that exist - farming, energy, etc. For clothes? I'm don't buy it.

>3\. Goodwill has actively fought against legislative proposals to raise the minimum wage.

Probably fucked up, definitely so if true. I'd love to see a citation.

>4\. Goodwill seized on an archaic 1938 law to justify paying workers as little as 22 cents an hour.

Pretty fucked up, but seems to be an accounting issue. "According to Labor Department documents dug up by NBC, Goodwill has paid workers in Pennsylvania as little as 22 cents, 38 cents and 41 cents an hour." Per Forbes/Goodwill: "(Goodwill says those ultra-low-wage figures are distorted because sometimes workers run into emotional or physical issues, don't finish their shifts, and then wait for a parent or caregiver to arrive; in those cases Goodwill must still count the total amount of time the worker stays on the job, which translates to an abnormally low hourly wage.)"

So they got paid for the time they worked, but the hourly wage was calculated based on the time spent on premises.

Looks like it's not typical: "The average hourly wage for the roughly 7,000 Goodwill employees who are paid under the FLSA provision is $7.47, says Goodwill. And that's just 5%-7% of the organization's workforce. An additional 25,000 disabled workers make an average annualized salary of $29,000, it says." per Forbes[0]

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/07/30/does- good...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2013/07/30/does-goodwill- industries-exploit-disabled-workers/)

>5\. Many people with disabilities have actually died from injuries borne of Goodwill's unsafe workplace safety practices.

Huge issue, should really be the entire article.

>6\. Employees that criticize Goodwill's practices end up getting fired, threatened, and publicly defamed by the company.

Fucked up, but it's the same issue as #5.Goodwill blames the employee in question for the death. Cal-OSHA disagreed and fined the ~$100k.

>7\. Employees are subject to strict, unrealistic performance quotas, and their wages are docked if they're not fast enough.

This is specific to people with disabilities. The alternative is that they simply don't get hired. This is a larger problem than goodwill - it's the lack of a good social safety net.

>9\. Goodwill's legal status as a charity wins grants and tax subsidies, manifesting in hugely lucrative quantities of profit for executives that are not evenly distributed among the people they are intended to benefit.

More on Goodwill Omaha, and then a bit about national compensation. I spoke about Goodwill Omaha above, so here's the national part: $53.7MM total executive compensation vs. a national revenue of >$3Bn. Not crazy.

>10\. Perhaps most of all, it is troubling to promote your business as a charitable institution, project a false image of your workplace practices, and abuse the public's trust.

Being a charitable organization is a tax status.

<comment><USER25> Just to respond to your first comment - government contracts normally contain margins for admin (which don't need to be justified by actual cost), most organisations will use these to cover part of the writing process. Equally, mutually they will have explicit scope top indicate admin hours, etc, and any tender for public funding would plan (& declare at the end) more than actually needed for the performance or project.

In other words: grants/government contracts don't fall from the sky, but in any half competent organization it's easy to come out positive, even when you consider cost & time for tendering, unsuccessful tenders, cancelled projects, etc. Don't believe for a second that goodwill or any other org is putting up money to perform contracts/services at no gain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> O and the sales culture regarding donations is quite distasteful.

</comment><comment><USER3> Glad to hear this come out. Worked at a Goodwill store for a summer. Involved lots of heavy lifting of furniture, strict managers, insane scheduling rationale, and auschwitzean like propaganda regarding the power of work.

<comment><USER26> _> auschwitzean_

Do you mean "arbeit macht frei" [1] or "work will set you free"?

Were you prevented from leaving?

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

<comment><USER3> No not all. It's why I said auschwitzean like.

O there is the corporate tag line. I think it goes improving lives through the power of work. I'll get a source on that

<comment><USER27> I've seen this line on their billboards around town, "the power and dignity of work."

[http://www.goodwill.org/blog/advocate/the-power-of- work/](http://www.goodwill.org/blog/advocate/the-power-of-work/)

<comment><USER28> That protestant work ethic has a long tradition in the US. It has informed debates from slavery to obamacare. It is a great way to motivate a population to work. It biult much of early America when a lack of labour was a limiting factor on growth. But wherever labour is plentiful, or non-voluntary, such ideas quickly lead to abuse. Owners start thinking that they do the employees a favour just by allowing them in the factory door.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't get the feeling the author has a deep understanding of economics.

Point 2 - She says she hates companies who make clothes exploiting cheap labor overseas, but then selling them cheap clothes is also bad? How is this Goodwill's fault? Should Goodwill not auction their clothes and send them straight to the landfill instead? (No, she's mad if they get sent to the landfill, too.) If Country X wants to protect their emerging clothes industry they can tax/tariff, but it's a strange argument that consumers in Country X are too happy with the clothes they're getting from Goodwill's auctions and they need to be harmed so local businesses can charge them more. (Also, am I supposed to know what a "neo-imperialist buyer" is?)

Point 3 - Author complains about Goodwill fighting the minimum wage because they have $3.8 billion in revenues. With 100,000 employees that's only $38,000 in revenue per employee per year. You could round up and say employees on average are bringing in roughly $20/hr in revenues. After paying for operating costs (buildings, land, trucks, electricity, gas, insurance, etc.) will there really be a minimum of $15/hr left for every single employee?

Point 4 - Author complains that Goodwill pays disable persons under minimum wage, one even made $3.27 for 24 hours of work. If you click through you see that worker was paid that because in 24 hours of work they were able to put 327 articles of clothing on hangers at a penny per hanger. That's obviously a sad situation but it's clear Goodwill wasn't exploiting them.

Point 5 - author says Goodwill doesn't provide safe working conditions for disabled employees. The linked article (from socialistworker.com?!?) makes it look like the unsafe conditions exist without regard to the worker's ability level. Still, this is the first real issue brought up.

Point 6 - Not great, but lots of companies fire employees for bringing them bad press.

Point 7 - "Performance Quotas" and Point 8 - "Corporate Responsibility" This is where it becomes clear the author wants impossible things, literally impossible. She says "...it is a company's job to accommodate all employees' needs, fairly compensate them for their labor, and give them the same tasks and work conditions as an able-bodied co-worker." I'm not sure what she thinks "fair compensation" for slowly putting t-shirts on hangers is but it's hard to justify $10/hr. Disabled people are by definition not capable of completing the same tasks as others, you can't give them the same tasks as others, if you could they wouldn't be disabled.

Point 9 - Executive Compensation. The age-old argument. If you want competent people to run your business with $4 billion in revenues, they're going to be expensive. How expensive? Who knows, but the fact that Goodwill is still in business means they're probably paying for decent leadership at least from a business perspective.

Point 10- ...The author closes with "Corporate abuse of employees has become a feature of modern capitalism, but doing so under the guise of charity? That's something especially concerning about that." This, along with the link to an openly socialist website, makes me wonder what the author's been reading. She seems to be blaming capitalism for harsh realities of the world we live in, like disabled people not being able to work as productively as non-disabled people. Or free trade hurting some businesses and helping others. Or the fact that you have to make a distinction between an employee and a charity case.

</comment><comment><USER30> This isn't terribly fair.

Spending 12.5% of profits on charity seems pretty laudable to me. The article complains about $57.3 million in bonuses, but the linked article neither gives that figure nor provides a timespan. Half a million per year — a number from a different linked article — for CEO compensation seems pretty fair for a national ogranisation.

Agreed that shipping stuff to third-world nations is bad for their industries, but what's the alternative? The article _also_ complains that Goodwill throws out garbage.

The complaints about the wage paid to the disabled are misplaced, I think. I don't believe anyone can seriously write, 'Disabled people aren't inherently less productive employees,' as does a linked Huffington Post article. It seems pretty reasonable that the choice is between low-paying jobs for the disabled or no jobs at all. Likewise, I think 'people with disabilities are not a burden' could only be written by someone who's never dealt with the mentally disabled.

The complaint about unsafe work places lacks context. Any workplace is potentially dangerous (even we office workers must worry about electrocution!). The key unanswered question is how does Goodwill compare to other organisations? If they're worse, that's bad — but if they're not, then what exactly is the problem?

The complaint about performance quotas could be turned around: perhaps those explicit expectations are necessary in order to provide jobs to low-IQ workers.

The concern about tax subsidies applies to _every_ charity. Note that this campaign appears in part to have originated at the Socialist Worker, which would like to see the State take responsibility for all charitable endeavours — all under the expert guidance of the well-compensated, empensioned civil service. That's merely trading one set of well-compensated managers for another.

<comment><USER31> I have a mental disability. I also have a PhD and a well paid academic job. Disabled people really aren't inherently less productive; it depends on the job, the individual, and (critically) the attitude of the place they work.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: what's the next booming industry or technology field? - <AUTHOR>

What will the next booming industry or technology field be? I'm looking for a new area where technology can solve real problems for people, and which will require problem-solving skills. Where do you think great innovation will happen in the next few years? <comment><USER2> This sounds terrible, but when industries really boom (in the US at least), it's largely because I-bankers have figured out how to chop up and sell unprofitable businesses to people at home watching CNBC.

See, for instance, internet entrepreneurship, 1997-2001, construction, 2005-2008.

That being said, I say Green/Energy.

</comment><comment><USER3> Energy

Green/Eco

Mobile/Location

Combine all three and you've probably got a hit on your hands...

<comment><USER4> Mmm combining this. Something that generates green energy at home or any other location.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.greenpacks.org/2010/07/19/green-battery-shake- it-...](http://www.greenpacks.org/2010/07/19/green-battery-shake-it-to- generate-energy-with-vibration/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Just two random thoughts.

* Data mining, data analysis, predictive analysis, etc. applied to absolutely everything.

* Health care management and all of the related sciences/technologies.

</comment><comment><USER7> Bioinformatics Synthetic Biology Genomics

If you're got a a good handle of biology, statistics, and computer science you should be set.</comment>


How America made its children crazy - <AUTHOR> http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/NA31Dj01.html

<comment><USER2> "Now we know that computers don't help children learn"

I should have stopped reading there. We "know" nothing of the sort, and indeed this is an absurd claim on its face. I learn stuff using Google every day that would've taken hours of library research or hundreds of dollars worth of books in the past, if the information were even available. Now, sure, there have been plenty of ill-advised and poorly-implemented school technology programs, but that's not an indictment of "computers" per se. If you gave kids books without teaching them how to read, they wouldn't learn much, but that wouldn't be the book's fault.

"in the mainstream view of the academic psychologists, the brain is another pancreas, except that its function is to secrete thoughts as opposed to insulin"

Total crap.

<comment><USER3> There's a difference between acquiring information (googling) and learning how to learn (how to apply oneself diligently and creatively)

<comment><USER2> Ah, but he said "learn", not "learn how to learn". Also, I would argue that learning how to use computers is a vital component of learning how to learn, not only for acquiring information, but for making sense of the information once you have it (think models, spreadsheets, graphs, databases, outlining tools...).

<comment><USER3> The original article is about learning how to learn. You don't need a computer to learn how to learn and computers can actually be counterproductive. Young children need to manipulate their bodies and objects in real 3D space. Doing the same thing on a computer is not helpful.

<comment><USER4> I think you are being a bit too harsh here. Sure, we can't use computers to completely replace reality, but they can be very useful when used wisely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Tim-Boss I closed this webpage as soon as a stupid minute long video advert for "airwick" started playing and I found the buttons to pause or mute didn't work!

Overzealous intrusive adverts really turn me off...

(Yes I know should be using adblock plus etc., on friends computer right now!)</comment>


Guide to Super Angels - Who they are and what they invest in - <AUTHOR> http://www.chubbybrain.com/blog/2010/09/a-guide-to-super-angel-investors-who-are-they-what-do-they-invest-in/

<comment><USER2> This point has been made before, but I think it's time to stop calling any angel investor a super angel. The line between angel and VC is already quite small. Do we need a tinier margin between?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for reading.

Yes - we tend to agree. But it seems that the term "super angel" has entered the vernacular to some extent although even its definition remains a bit nebulous.

Mark Suster had a post where he mentioned if you have a fund, you're a VC, and if you invest your own money, you're an angel. That's a nice clean demarcation between the two in our opinion as well. Maybe we'll coalesce on a nice clean definition in the near future.

That said, if you are an angel investor, super angel is much better branding :)

<comment><USER3> I think that at the very least, a super angel needs a halo, tights and a cape.

<comment><USER4> Well if we're going to start coming up with different grades of angel, we can at least use the thousands of years' worth of existing terms. The level above "Angel" is "Archangel".

Then it's Principalities, Powers, Virtues, Dominations, Thrones, Cherubim and finally Seraphim (the exact order can vary, but I'm going with Dante).

That should provide enough fuel for angel-on-angel one-upmanship for now. (If not, we can move on to the Jewish angelology, which includes four additional ranks above Seraphim.)</comment></comment></comment></comment>