What happens when you find out a year of college costs $71,000 - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/get-there/wp/2015/03/27/what-happens-when-you-find-out-a-year-of-college-costs-71000/?hpid=z5

<comment><USER2> > To be clear, it is not going to cost Mirza $71,000 to go to NYU. That figure > is just a really detailed sticker price that doesn't include financial aid > discounts, like the $24,000 scholarship she received from the school. Mirza > said her family had already prepared to take out a $10,000 loan to cover > some of the difference, but whether she can pay the bill is not the point > she says.

This was buried in the 5th paragraph. When reporters quote statistics about the rising cost of tuition they usually refer to sticker price rather than prices that students actually pay. Makes for better headlines I suppose.

Not sure if the source is biased but:

On average, net tuition and fees for private nonprofit four-year institutions are lower in inflation-adjusted dollars in 2013-14 than they were a decade earlier — $12,460 versus $13,600. However, average net price has increased from $11,550 in 2011-12 to an estimated $12,460 in 2013-14.[0]

[0] [https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college-...](https://trends.collegeboard.org/sites/default/files/college- pricing-2013-full-report-140108.pdf)

<comment><USER3> That's exactly the question I'd. My impression was that most people enrolling at top 100 or so colleges don't pay much of tuition out of the pocket because they get funded via combination of financial aid, loan and campus jobs. Is the situation totally different at middle-of-the-pack colleges? Average student loan in US is about $25K and that seems fairly manageable[1]. I believe high sticker price is just a way to do tiered pricing by universities so that rich people pays the max possible amount. There are lot of parents actually doing double jobs so they do 509 college funds and I always question them why you really need it?

1 - [http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/24/the- average...](http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/01/24/the-average- american-owes-this-much-in-student-loa.aspx)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd love more up to date data on if a University degree at these private universities pays for itself, and if it does how long does that take.

I can find some information, but most of it is really old, and pre-dates a lot of the increase we've seen in the cost of education, in particular at private Universities.

It seems like pay isn't keeping pace with the cost of education, so you have to wonder if some of these degrees will literally never pay for themselves, or will take near retirement to break even.

I'd love to see the US government release a web-site which lists the total cost of each University's tuition over 4 years including required books for the courses (easily an extra $1K/year at many) and any other required fees (e.g. you MUST live on-campus the first year). It might open student's eyes up to what they're REALLY getting themselves into.

<comment><USER5> I'd venture that it would totally depend on what degree you got as well. Some are much more likely to get you a decent paying job, like engineering or medicine.

Usually those jobs have a university degree as a requirement for employment as well, so you're kind of stuck with going to university.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> "As for Mirza, she is still determined to head to her dream school this fall."

So to answer the title's clickbait question, the answer to what happens is that they go to the school and pay the tuition and go into debt. Because it's a "dream school."

</comment><comment><USER7> Just north of the border, even as an international student she could get a Canadian education worth every bit as much, but costing only a fraction.

Especially if youre not already in the US, why you would travel there to pay so much for so little baffles me.

</comment><comment><USER8> Walk off and find a different school.

Or not, apparently.

</comment><comment><USER9> And how many of her teachers will be adjuncts?</comment>


Ask HN: What math course should I take? - <AUTHOR> I would like to learn more foundational mathematics. I am a business professional who also knows some software development. My goal is ultimately to have a more nuanced understanding of statistics, economic theory, and principles that will help me better understand the sciences. The last math class I took was in high school (13 years ago) and was probably geometry.
I'd like to determine where to start and, if possible, what list of online (preferably free) courses I should look into taking.
Any feedback would be much appreciated. <comment><USER2> Try Terence Tao's book Analysis I, start at chapter 2 if you forgot trig. Defines naturals, integers, rationals and reals from scratch teaching you how a proof works at the same time. When you get to the calculus chapters watch Gilbert Strang videos with the book if you want extra insight but Tao's book is clear enough without needing secondary resources. There's a free sample of the first few chapters and the excellent appendix on basics of math logic [https://math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf](https://math.unm.edu/~crisp/courses/math401/tao.pdf)

All those proofs in probability and stats/linear algebra classes will make sense after imo

</comment><comment><USER3> Definitely start with Khan academy for pretty much everything up to calculus (or even including it). Then Linear algebra—as usual, I highly recommend Boyd's text: [https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/vmls/](https://web.stanford.edu/~boyd/vmls/) as it's very approachable and practical, and then going on to statistics and probability.

You'll need linear algebra and probability to formalize most concepts in economic theory among many other fields, but both are incredibly practical and will be useful throughout.

</comment><comment><USER4> Basic probability will really grow your understanding of a lot of things. I would follow that with a standard statistics class. I am surprised as a 'business professional' you did not have these. For economics I really enjoyed macro economics. Mirco econ I did not hate, but macro was almost fun. But definitely AFTER probability.

</comment><comment><USER5> Like the others said you want to know basic linear algebra and probability. Another thing very helpful in general is mathematical analysis. From elementary real analysis up through measure theory and Lebesgue integral, at least. From here a lot of advanced math will open up to you: for example, big- boi probability theory and statistics.

Here below is an intro to how math people think (FREE):

* Book of Proof by Hammack: [https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/](https://www.people.vcu.edu/~rhammack/BookOfProof/)

For intro linal and probability, try

* Introduction to Probability by Bertsekas, Tsitsiklis: [https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Probability-2nd-Dimitri-...](https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Probability-2nd-Dimitri-Bertsekas/dp/188652923X/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=probability&qid=1586266939&sr=8-2)

* Linear Algebra by Kuldeep Singh: [https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Step-Kuldeep-Singh-ebo...](https://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Step-Kuldeep-Singh-ebook/dp/B016WNBNGI/ref=sr_1_4?dchild=1&keywords=linear+algebra&qid=1586267015&sr=8-4)

Both (clear and easy to read) books above are on l#ibgen, I believe. Also, there's a free online course based on Bertsekas'/Tsitsiklis' book on edx if I recall correctly.

I prefer textbooks to online stuff when it comes to math (especially analysis). The many elementary analysis books that I know (and like) are print-only.

Although, you could probably do the following one after the other:

For pre-analysis, try

* From Calculus to Analysis by Schinazi: [https://www.google.com/books/edition/From_Calculus_to_Analys...](https://www.google.com/books/edition/From_Calculus_to_Analysis/VybcUbhGvjsC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover)

For modern analysis, try

* Measure, Integration and Real Analysis by Axler: [https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-33...](https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2F978-3-030-33143-6.pdf)

The one by Schinazi is on l#ibgen and the one by Axler is available free.</comment>


Japanese Declare Crisis at Level of Chernobyl - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703841904576256742249147126.html <comment><USER2> No, they don't. The scale only goes to 7. Fukushima is now at "level 7", but doesn't mean that the crisis is "at the level of Chernobyl".</comment>


The Voting Technology We Really Need? Paper - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2017/05/the-voting-technology-we-really-need-paper/524820/?single_page=true <comment><AUTHOR> Having a verifiable voting artifact that participates in an observable and verifiable tally protocol really should be addressed at the level of the Constitution now that it has proven so open to interpretation at the State level. According to the article, 14 states still have purely electronic voting systems with no artifact whatsoever.</comment>


A Little Duplex Skepticism - <AUTHOR> https://daringfireball.net/linked/2018/05/11/duplex-skepticism <comment><USER2> "[...] but the fact that all they did — as far as I've seen — was play a recording just seems off. It feels like a con."

Oh come on Gruber, it was a tech demo.

"How is what they showed, and the way they showed it, distinguishable from a fraud? The more I think about it, the more strange this "demo" seems."

Denialism of somebody who made a company part of his identity.

<comment><USER3> > _Oh come on Gruber, it was a tech demo._

Yup. Isn't playing prerecorded presentations standard operating procedure, to minimize risk of angering the demo gods? Doing a live demo is a really strong show of confidence.

Besides, tech demos are carefully crafted and not a honest evaluation of technology anyway.

<comment><USER4> A live demo in this case would have involved a very unpredictable human on the other end of the line that had not given consent to be recorded or release the recording.

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't that issue apply to every single time Duplex is used?

<comment><USER4> Yes, although recorded and publicly broadcast is a lot worse.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is free trial or a limited free version better? - <AUTHOR>

I have a SaaS (let's people extract data from pdfs and video files) that offer a 14 day trial. The trial is severely limited, the amount of job one can complete in this period is slow on purpose. I have some customers complaining that it's too slow and give up entirely. But I explain that this is the trial, you are sharing resources with other people.
Should I have a free plan instead with the same limited features? (slow and shared rate of job completion)?
Or should my trial plan have limits removed? Let them use it to the full extent for 14 days. My worry is that somebody will get their money's worth in 14 days and choose not to buy afterwards. Should I include 'demo evaluation' messages in the data they extract?
My rationale is to make it slow and limited until they decide to upgrade. But this might or might not be happening? <comment><USER2> A free trial should help a potential customer decide whether or not the product is a right fit for his need.

So if you offer a slow, limited version is it helping your potential customer to do so? No, by making things difficult you're just manufacturing frustration.

From the other comments, it seems visitors need only a couple of hours to evaluate it. So why not make it a free trial available only for 1 day or for 3 uses?

Your fear("my worry is that somebody will get their money's worth in 14 days and choose not to buy afterwards) implies to me that you're not sure how your product fits in the user day-to-day workflow. If users would use it for 14 days and leave, the problem is not in the free trial, it is in failing to provide value and engage users.

So how can you change your product/free trial to engage users, getting them to realize value of your product, and creating habits for them to come back to your product?

I wrote an article recently into designing free trials, it might be of interest to you: [http://www.saasfoundry.io/blog/design-saas-free- trial/](http://www.saasfoundry.io/blog/design-saas-free-trial/)

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER3> I am not clear what your output is. If it was a PDF then you could add "Produced using a free trial by XXX, get your free trial here", or something along those lines. Then if they want that statement removed that is the upgrade. But this way it makes your product still look better in that the performance is timely etc.

Another option, limit the trial to 3, 5, 7 days, but let it be full extent.

If your output is csv or some raw data this adding a text message is pretty useless. Maybe you could instead limit the output to only the first page or first 3 pages, this way again it shows the full power and speed but limits the output to help entice an upgrade.

Just a few other points, with SaaS there are always people that will get what they need out of a free trial and never sign up, or they will intentionally sign up for a month and then cancel. I know I have done it and will do that in the future if I need to. So a certain amount of this type of churn is normal and expected. Maybe you also want to evaluate the numbers too. Lastly, if the people complaining aren't yet customers and are a small number of overall prospects then maybe this really isn't an issue and is just noise. Not all comments require a change.

</comment><comment><USER4> If you are offering a trial, let it be the best experience for your potential customers. A simple way of ensuring they do not abuse the free trial is to take credit card upfront (or setup a paypal subscription to start charging them 14 days later)

You could also have the trial based on how many files they can process instead of how long they have access. If it takes only one file for a potential customer to have the aha moment, enforce a "one file" trial. If it takes three, let it be three.

From what you've said, your service lets people extract data from files. Unless your customers have an ongoing need to process files, it might make sense to test a different pricing strategy instead of a SaaS one. This may also help you differentiate from your competitors who I presume have SaaS plans as well.

Also, if you can post a link to your service, maybe HN can give you better advice.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why does the trial have to be 14 days? It sounds like you can get the value from your product in 7 days, perhaps less. Free trials are the period you have to convince them to hand over their cash, if that happens within the first minutes of using the software - get it then!

I would not advise offering a free version, they will be a drain on your support resources and you'll end up hating them. Or at least, I did :) - it is a lot easier to deal with an annoying user knowing they are paying your bills.

<comment><AUTHOR> good point. well, the people that bought seem to make their decision very quick. less than a day sometimes within an hour of testing it out and seeing that it works. I actually don't know why I am allowing 14-days maybe because competitor does the same thing.

<comment><USER5> It seems like you have proven that 24 hours would be more than enough. I would change it to:

"For a limited time, use * free for 24 hours", then inside the product, push hard from them to pay, have a countdown somewhere very visible for when their license expires.

it sounds annoying but I think it will increase your conversions tenfold.

<comment><AUTHOR> another idea was maybe make the data extracted into an image so they can't copy and paste it freely.

The spreadsheet would be just images of text.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The trial version is a product. If you make it suck, then you are spending your time and creative energy making a product that sucks.

</comment><comment><USER7> People will always complain. We have people asking us for 100k transactions for a 'quick trial'.</comment>


Judge Alsup knows how to play a bluff - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2012/06/oracle-v-google <comment><AUTHOR> I had clerked for a federal judge who applied "old school" philosophy to the handling of civil disputes - that is, let the parties have maximum scope within the rules of civil procedure by which to fashion and try their cases, with the judge doing minimal supervision as needed just to keep them in bounds. This minimalist approach led inevitably to very lax supervision of the case but this was not regarded as something bad but rather as the method of case handling for which the U.S. court system had been designed. The broad idea was that, under the U.S. constitutional system, every party presumptively had the right to bring every conceivable claim affecting his interests before a jury of his peers for final determination. Of course, this philosophy fit within the nature of the jury system itself, by which parties could only elect a jury trial in cases "triable by jury" as prescribed by the U.S. Constitution and the implementing rules of civil procedure. If claims were triable by jury, and if a party elected to have them tried by a jury, this right had to be preserved at all costs and it was regarded as inappropriate for a judge to be too aggressive in attempting to screen and bounce claims at any part of the pretrial stage or to use too much authority at the trial itself to limit the scope of assertable claims. Judges from this school of thought typically had been trial lawyers themselves, often having honed their skills in a context (e.g., personal injury) where legal technicalities mattered less than the big issue of how a jury might find the facts at a trial.

The minimalist philosophy had worked well in a day when claims were few and limited in a typical civil case. In the modern commercial era, though, and especially in the federal courts, this approach of letting the parties run wild leads to many problems of case management and opens up the door to abuse for aggressive litigants who throw power and money around freely as a means of enlarging the settlement value of their cases. Thus, the judge for whom I had clerked (who, by the way, was a superb and much respected judge in his own right, having been many years ago the Chief Judge of the Northern District of California, the same district in which Judge Alsup sits), would have some 400 active civil cases on average at any given time while those who applied active case management were typically down in the low 200's. Parties would have _huge_ delays in having a trial date assigned to their cases because so many others were in line before them. And trials themselves could run for weeks and months just because no check was placed on the lawyers throwing out everything they could to see what might stick in front of a jury.

Judge Alsup, in contrast, applied very strong case management skills to this case: (1) he forced Oracle to pick its strongest patent claims and to forego the rest (in theory, he had no power to do this but he effectively managed it by telling Oracle that, if it did not trim its claims, he just might exercise his powers to stay the entire litigation until the whole lot of them got full patent reexaminations before the USPTO); (2) he gave the parties very strict time limits within which to put on their evidence; (3) he set out strict rules for discovery and then enforced them; (4) he was ultra-aggressive in knocking out wild expert claims by which Oracle had sought to inflate its alleged damages into the billions and put Oracle's expert through multiple cycles that amounted to telling him, "OK, now come back with something credible before I will let it into evidence in my court;" and (5) he brilliantly handled the tricky copyright issue relating to APIs and "structure, sequence, and organization," which, being a very knotty legal issue in light of Ninth Circuit precedents, he allowed to go before the jury on the assumption that it could find infringement on the issue even as he reserved the ultimate authority to decide the issue regardless of what the jury concluded (the article here calls this a "feint" but, in reality, it is just smart case management in giving the court of appeals the full range of options on what to do with the case if it ultimately reversed his ruling).

The case management aspects are the "under the hood" part of the case. Very few observers besides the insiders focus on it. It was, however, vital to the ultimate outcome. Just imagine if Oracle would have gone to trial with dozens of claims and if they all got tossed to the jury for ultimate determination, including the ultimate decision on whether APIs were copyrightable. That methodology - which could respectably have been applied to this case by a federal judge - would have given Oracle an open ticket to abuse and game the system and would _significantly_ have enlarged its prospects for success in sticking a gun into the side of Google. The biggest downside, though, for the rest of us would have been in the resulting uncertainty on how such claims would be resolved in the future. Imagine how the developer community would fare in a lottery system where every API-related claim imaginable were tossed to a jury with prospects for a crap-shoot outcome. If that is a horrific thought, then you have one more thing for which to thank Judge Alsup. Smart case management, a smart judge, and a superb outcome. Be thankful this landed the way it did. It could easily have been very different.

<comment><USER3> I had the impression that, with recent budget cuts and the like, such active case management was becoming a matter of necessity, lest the courts be completely overwhelmed. In your view, is that correct?

That is, of course, not to take anything away from Judge Alsup, who did a commendable job with this case. I've never seen a judge take so many expert witnesses to task like that, especially the on in Oracle's motion for JMOL.

<comment><AUTHOR> In the federal courts, I think it is more a matter of philosophy than of economic necessity. Unlike state courts, federal courts use the single-judge calendar system, meaning that any given case is assigned to one judge for all purposes from beginning to end. This means that a judge who is proactive in managing cases will reap direct rewards in keeping his docket under control. In addition, federal judges sit for life and cannot be removed except for grounds justifying impeachment. They thus has _enormous_ power and some run their courts almost like little fiefdoms (or at least it seems that way!). When they want to twist arms, the parties have little choice but to comply, even as they might buck and kick in the process. In any case, when high- powered lawyers and their litigant clients come into federal court and try to muscle the court and the other parties, the judge has a basic choice: do I let this go on unchecked or do I set a tone by which I control things. Eventually, the judges realized that they had to be aggressive in setting the right tone and this in time became the norm with many of them. It definitely ties in with the idea of not letting the courts be completely overwhelmed but it is not budget-driven as such but rather is motivated by necessities of reining in cases (and lawyers and parties) that would otherwise run wild to the detriment of the judge and his docket. Today, federal judges will vary on how much they use such power to curtail abuse and to promote aggressive management but the trend is very much, as you say, toward proactive management.

<comment><USER3> Fascinating, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As someone who has had some contact - both second- and first-hand - with the court system (albeit not the American one), this is extremely heartening.

Most people can't imagine how ass-backwards some judges' decisions can be. It's refreshing to see one that not only makes sense, but is also thoroughly researched and backed up by a good knowledge of the facts and intricacies of the subject at hand.

Unfortunately, it's likely this is due to the high profile of the case and the deep pockets of the litigants. Don't expect the judge in your case to be nearly as invested and well-versed.

<comment><USER5> I like to read judges decisions occasionally and I've always been impressed - I haven't always agreed, but they are always well written and well reasoned.

Maybe it's a bit of selection bias in my choice of decisions to read (typically the cases that are on the news), but I suspect most judges are extremely smart and very good at what they do.

If you (plural you) don't read them, you should - they are not written for lawyers (aside from a tiny bit of jargon that is easy to lookup - <USER2> Latin words). Typically before deciding any law the Judge will include an introduction with an explanation of how the law is structured, and it's clear that that's not written for lawyers (who would be expected to know this already), but for the general public.

<comment><USER6> Suggested reading -- Joanne Siegel et al v. Time Warner Inc

[http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district- courts/californ...](http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district- courts/california/cacdce/2:2004cv08776/166872/174)

Includes the history of Superman creation (with pictures) and some discussion of his superpowers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Oracle lost face on this one. They now look like reactionaries who tried to sue progress and lost. This paragraph stands out "Is Oracle moving away from competitive product marketing to a more defensive Intellectual Property litigation strategy?"

Welcome to Deadendville, Oracle: population you & other patent trolls!

</comment><comment><USER8> Judge William Haskell Alsup, I salute you. I'm outside the US and have been steadily losing faith in it's legal system because of the rampant patent trolling and idiotic laws, but it is very refreshing to see someone take the time and effort to finely hone a decision like this. Very nicely done.

<comment><USER5> BTW, I hope you are aware of the massive selection bias you have going on. You are only reading about the decisions you disagree with because the forums you choose to read are those you agree with. (And because the decisions no one agrees with will be featured on the news.)

If you read _all_ \- or at least a random sampling, of decisions you will reach a different conclusion.

<comment><USER9> Whilst I concur that all of us exhibit both selection and confirmation biases, it's unfair to the parent poster to assert that his/her dissatisfaction is primarily due to these factors.

For example, I too am an outside observer who quite deliberately reads both the left-wing and the right-wing media. My perspective chimes with the parent, viz. that the US constitutional model of law, starting with the novelty of "a list of things you're allowed to do" (vs most nations' "blank slate + a list of things you must do or must not do"), and combined with a tripartite governance model that separates the executive from the legislature (thus allowing both to duck accountabilities) has been an interesting experiment but ultimately produced such a colossal proliferation of impenetrable ancillary legislation, powers, regulations and case law - far beyond the ability of any citizen to grasp - that it can only, at this point, be deemed a failure and not to be repeated, or at any rate not on this scale.

And so I breathe a huge sigh of relief that the legal jurisdiction under which I operate is one that can be approached and engaged with individually, even absent a small personal army of motion-waving attorneys; one in which the selection of judge is not, as it has been here, such a part of the lottery of outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think Oracle got into this fight partly due to Ellison's friendship with SJ. It's surprising how many lawsuits can come out of one man's hatred for Android.

<comment><USER11> Hold your surprise until your guesses are backed by evidence.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I was bit surprised that Oracle didn't call for mistrial because the Judge knew stuff.

<comment><USER13> Imagine if judge selection worked like jury selection. Yikes.

<comment><USER14> Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't a jury have to be agreed upon by both prosecution and defense? I assume that at least one side would be fighting for people who knew something.

<comment><USER15> They don't want people who know stuff on the jury. They want people they think they can manipulate.

<comment><USER16> Sadly, this is true. Here's Groklaw's report on the jury selection of this case[1]. Note how both sides manage to get rid of anyone that's got any experience with IP, Patents or Programming, including a woman who happens to work for Oracle and a Patent Attorney. They then get into more detailed questioning, including asking if anyone owns a cellphone with internet access.

[1] [http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120416085550...](http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20120416085550303)

<comment><USER17> It's completely sensical to eliminate a woman who works for Oracle from the jury in a case in which Oracle is a plaintiff. It also makes sense to eliminate the patent attorney. The judge in the case decides the law and explains it to the jury--we don't want a patent attorney incorporating his preconceptions of the law into his judgment. It also makes sense to eliminate people with Android phones (they might root for their side--you know how people get with their fanboyism).

<comment><USER18> That is not the grounds on which the patent attorney was excused -- there is no justification for excusing someone whose personal experience bears upon the subjects brought up at trial. (In other words, you cannot excuse such a juror "for cause" as you could the Oracle employee.) The key worry is that the patent attorney may bring up his knowledge in deliberations with other jurors.

As for the Android users...Android users are not as enamored with Google as iPhone users are with Apple, so that consideration would be laughed out of court.

<comment><USER17> > That is not the grounds on which the patent attorney was excused > The key > worry is that the patent attorney may bring up his knowledge in > deliberations with other jurors.

That's exactly why the patent attorney was excused. A juror is not supposed to bring his view of the law into deliberations. The jury is supposed to get its view of the law from the judge.

> As for the Android users...Android users are not as enamored with Google as > iPhone users are with Apple, so that consideration would be laughed out of > court.

Who knows what the relative brand-loyalty of Android versus Apple users is. The point is that it is entirely legitimate to remove a juror that might have reason to root for one side over the other.

<comment><USER18> That's not how jury selection actually works in this country. Personal experience in a relevant field is generally not a justification for removing a juror _for cause._ A product preference is not a justification for removing a juror for cause.

You can of course use one of your peremptory challenges (i.e, no justification required) on such jurors, but you only get a handful of those (1-6, depending on the jurisdiction).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Could someone re-explain this to me? I just don't get it. I don't know anything about law. Especially:

> Were his ultimate ruling that the general "structure, sequence and > organisation" is not protectable to be reversed on appeal, the higher court > might simply reinstate his jury's verdict. This gives the appeals court more > alternatives as it need not worry about an expensive retrial.

<comment><USER20> the jury decided on some details _assuming_ the law supports oracle. the judge decided the law did not support oracle. but if the judge's decision is reversed then the jury decision can be used without needing to go through the process of a whole new jury trial.

<comment><USER21> There's still the matter of whether it was Fair Use, which the Jury was hung on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It would be fantastic to see this judge presiding over a lot more patent issue cases.

</comment><comment><USER23> I will probably get down voted for small mindedness,but i cant help noticing that in addition to having "Haskell" as a middle name,he has a B.S in Mathematics.

</comment><comment><USER24> Judge Alsup is probably only a handful of judges in the world who have the knowledge to preside over cases like these. It's sad to think the nunmber of cases like this that have resulted in the wrong outcome all because the judge and or jury didn't fully understand the case enough to make a logical decision.

The ending line in the article made my day: "As a programmer, Judge Alsup clearly knows how important it is to avoid bugs."

</comment><comment> angry-hacker I wonder what is the judge Aslup's knowledge or programming languages etc?

<comment><USER25> His middle name is Haskell. (Really!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I must say that I am very impressed with this judge, even without knowing the details of each party's issues.

</comment><comment><USER27> This is like asking a chef if your propusion engine is built correctly. An absolutely terrible state of the court system. Instead of glorifying this judge, i want to know how the judicial system is ready to tackle other cases from the same realm because any technical person would have thrown this case out in seconds.

<comment><USER28> Your "technical person" is incompetent in the same way in which you are accusing the courts: He or she knows nothing about the law. No legal person would throw out a case as you suggest.

This is what courts do. They hear cases. They don't make rash assumptions and jump to conclusions. If you were falsely accused of a crime and "everybody knew" you did it, you would want the same from the courts.

What the courts do not do is to gain expertise in every field in which they may have to rule. It may take a lifetime of practice to gain the expertise to be able to make the arguments to defend a position, but understanding those arguments is comparatively easy. The risk is that the court may only have half the story. It may not have the experience to see that a valid argument is trumped by some other concern, and rule incorrectly. This is the advantage of the adversarial system that we have. If one side makes a weak argument, the other can counter it. The legal experts of the court need only decide if those arguments are valid in the context of current law, and the jury decides if the assumptions are true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> Alsup has just showed us how to liberate any digital file we want. Here's an API: if the input to f is <some binary string which is a .mov file of Disney's "Snow white and the seven dwarfs"> then return the date and time. Otherwise, the return value is undefined. Free Willy!

</comment><comment><USER30> ( _potentially more interesting edit below, set off with_ \----)

1\. general explanation

Guys, the key to understanding this article (in which the point was not mentioned very explicitly) is that in at least the American court system, jurors find facts, and the judge finds law. These two things are distinct. ("what happened"; "what is the legal implication.") Technically, Jurors don't need to know any law at all. Practically though, they need to know enough to decide how finely to slice the fact.

in other words, on some abstract level the jury doesn't even have to know what the law says; they only have to decide what happened. Practically though, for example in first, second, etc, degree murders, it's not enough information for the judge to hear "Yes, he killed the guy." The judge really needs to know the facts more precisely, i.e. compared with some definitions/demarcations the judge provides. (And which the jury frequently asks for clarifications on, so that they can report on their findings of what happened in terms of those definitions.)

This is also why sentencing is always done by the judge, not the jury: only the judge knows the law, the jury can only find facts.

it's also why "jury nulification" is kind of a hack of the system. If the jury doesn't like a marijuana ban, they can "nullify" by finding that despite the video tape of the guy smoking a joint, which is now in front of them, they find that the guy did not smoke pot. This supposedly circumvents a judge's ability to apply the law for it, since the jury says they find it didn't happen (wasn't proven.)

This is likewise kind of a "hack" in that the judge, knowing that the law is his to interpret, just told the jury the implication up-front, similarly as if they had heard that sentence after their verdict. But then he did not pass that sentence (actually make that interpretation of law).

This would be like telling the jury that if a bystander knowingly let you die (you're watching the case from the heavens - the bystander is on trial), that's manslaughter by negligence. The jury finds that the bystander was, in fact, guilty of negligent manslaughter for the reason of failing to rescue when he could and was in no danger.

Then the judge finds (which was his plan all along) that in the US there is 0 duty to rescue in this situation and the bystander is completely innocent of any negligence for not rescuing you, which he had no duty to do.

This way, according to the article, if another court disagrees with this interpretation of law, they already have the jury's findings and can just overturn the judge's interpretation.

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----

EDIT.

2\. an interesting theory of the past few weeks' news.

I just thought of an interesting additional theory. The article says that both the Prosecution and Defense were OK with this approach. (Presumably, the prosecution, because that's what they were suing for in the first place, and the defense, because it thought the law was on its side and could appeal on those grounds if the judge actually sentenced per his request for the jury to assume). Now you remember how the jury was hung on whether it was 'fair use'? Given that neither defense nor prosecution tried to argue with the law, perhaps one or more members of the jury simply saw that this was a case of using copyright like a patent is normally to be used for - even though the judge told them to assume that it was copyright infringement if it happened in this case - and thought that it was therefore unfair and inappropriate. Even the defense didn't argue the point that it was not actually copyright infringement (we just found out why) so maybe one or more members of the jury said to themselves: Well, we are told to assume that this - mimicking work- alike functionality - is copyright infringement. But unless there's a patent, we just don't think it is! So, it HAS to be fair use.

If there were even a couple of jurors who were perplexed why the defense wasn't arguing that the work-alike functionality constituted copyright infringement, they might have been the ones who helped hang on whether this is fair use. The jury was perplexed, because they were given a definition of the law that is wrong!

It does show the danger of a judge taking this approach. (e.g. in my example in point 1, if a single juror knows that there's no duty to rescue in general, then maybe the jury will get hung on whether the 'negligent manslaughter' was in fact 'in self defense.' This is an ABSURD thing to actually get hung up on - but they are doing so (maybe, according to this theory of mine) because of the wrong reading of the law that they were given.)

So, with this interpretation, the past few weeks of this case are: "Jury finds bystander guilty of homocide for not helping! Jury still hung on whether homicide was in self-defense. (later..i.e. today.) Judge reveals that he told the jury to assume, in making their finding, that failing to rescue when this would pose no risk to the rescuer constituted negligent homocide, and that both the defense (sure of the actual law or grounds for appeal if this is the actual finding of law by the judge in the end) and prosecution went along with this.

If this theory is correct, it gives a VERY different reading to the way the jury acted and found. In fact, it paints them as downright reasonable, within the constraints of their (manipulative, hypothetical) instructions.</comment>


The entropy force: a new direction for gravity - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20527443.800-the-entropy-force-a-new-direction-for-gravity.html?full=true

<comment><USER2> I have a question for physics savvy hackers.

Can you point me to some description about how it is possible that anything has ever fallen into some black hole despite infinite time dilatation and space compression at event horizon?

Sorry for departing from topic of the article but I thought about it much and have doubts about holographic principle being valid if event horizons don't grow, so I wanted to make sure that they do.

<comment><USER3> Actually, according to this article (linked by the main thread here), they _do_ grow in size, relative to their contents.

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our- world...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be- a-giant-hologram.html?full=true)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article reads like made up techno-jargon to me. Anyone with real knowledge in this area have any more insight?

<comment><USER3> Note: I'm not a physics major, much less in any exotic physics. I've just been reading stuff like this for a long time, it interests me. Expect errors, but I typically find later evidence means I'm at least nearly correct in understanding the concepts. And please, anyone correct me where I'm wrong, I'd be interested in correcting my own misconceptions.

First, an information theory primer (for you or others who don't know):

What it seems to be saying is based partially off information theory's view of the universe, where _everything_ is merely information. This has the nice quality of simplifying a LOT of things. That apple, up in the tree? Information. That apple, falling? A change in information. That charged capacitor storing a 1? Information. Even an electron changing energy levels around an atom is a change in information. The key part is that, because of thermodynamics, any change in information can _only_ maintain or increase the entropy of a system.

The alternative, more classical view is to see information and matter as separate, or even ignore information, but the same rules apply in an enormous amount of situations, and quantum mechanics casts doubt on the nature of matter anyway.

So, motion, energy, matter, everything is information, and _information_ cannot be created or destroyed (see how nicely it plays with Einstein?). This touches on one of the problems for information theory, in that black holes seem to be a net loss, not merely a change. Info goes in, and it never comes out, in any form (hawking radiation doesn't appear to reveal anything about what's in the black hole), and the black hole can vanish, taking all the info with it. There are loads of was to resolve this, but the one important one here seems to be coming from a link in the article [1], essentially saying that, in the same way a hologram stores 3D info in a 2D (ish) material (in information theory, it's actually 2D), the black hole displays all the information about what's inside it (3D matter) via the event horizon (a 2D boundary) as a holographic surface, thus it's not "lost" when it vanishes.

I don't fully understand holographic principles, so I just won't touch on how that directly applies to this idea. The important thing here is that, with the above, they seem to be saying that gravity can be viewed as a change in information, and thus maintaining or increasing entropy. As entropy cannot decrease, some changes in that information are more likely (somehow, the article doesn't touch on it), with mutual attraction being the most. This all happens on a 2D holographic surface, which is _displayed_ as our 3D world. The linked article covers it a bit better.

I can't even begin to guess at the math involved, but it seems to be fairly consistent with a lot of other theories, as well as internally consistent. It could also explain why gravity is so frickin' hard to accurately account for, if mutual attraction is merely most _likely_. (we don't have a working equation, just ones that are "close". Newton was amazing for the time, Einstein refined it further to a huge degree, but we still can't truly accurately predict it)

[1] [http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our- world...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be- a-giant-hologram.html?full=true)

<comment><USER5> FWIW, the black hole hologram thing is best understood in the context of an idea that has been around for quite a while: the "Anti de Sitter / Conformal Field Theory correspondence". Basically, the world we think we live in _feels like_ a CFT-world with 3+1 dimensions: local particles producing local forces as they travel through local space. But the correspondence shows that some CFT-worlds are each mathematically paired with one equivalent AdS-world. The corresponding AdS-world for us would be a 2+1 surface (something that looks a lot like a black hole) with a specific set of rules describing the interactions of the ripples on the surface. In some sense, one could imagine the CFT-world as a holographic projection from the flat AdS-world "film".

IIRC, AdS/CFT actually turned out to have a practical application a year or two back... something to do with superconductor physics I believe. So, in a sense, it's as "real" as anything mathematical is real. Whether or not it's relevant to our interpretation of reality is an open question.

Oh, except for two other tidbits that came from a completely different direction in physics.

First, The entropy of a black hole is predicted to scale with the surface area of the event horizon. General Relativity predicts that, once a black hole has formed, the volume of the event horizon grows with the square root of the mass that falls into it (because gravity falls off with 1/r^2), instead of the usual cube root of mass expected for physical object volumes.

Second, physicists have good reasons to believe that black holes are maximum entropy objects -- at minimum that's true in the thermodynamic sense of "entropy", because energy that falls into black holes cannot be used to perform work. (But information entropy is almost certainly equivalent to thermodynamic entropy anyway, so you can safely extend that conclusion to maximum information entropy if you like.)

(Side note: technically you _can_ extract work from a black hole... if it's spinning. The "ergosphere" of a spinning black hole extends past the event horizon. As you extract work from the ergosphere, you siphon angular momentum from the black hole and shrink the ergosphere.)

Now, combine these two tidbits about black holes, and one concludes that the maximum entropy for a region of space should grow with the surface area of the region, rather than the volume. Doubling the radius multiplies the maximum entropy by 4, rather than the intuitive 8. There _might_ be a flaw somewhere in this reasoning -- it's mooshing together relativistic physics and classical physics in a way that's not implicitly correct. But it presents a striking parallel with the AdS/CFT thing, which lends it some credence, and a lot of very smart people have gone looking for flaws in the idea and come up empty- handed.

If you combine all this together, you reach the possibility that the universe might be (in some sense) a CFT space mathematically equivalent to AdS ripples in the event horizon of a stupendously large black hole. This paper pushes that idea further, and the short summary is that the paper attempts to derive gravity within our CFT universe almost purely as a consequence of the Second Law of Thermodynamics operating on the AdS black hole ripples. However, the author might have just found a nice little piece of circular reasoning where he injected an unwarranted assumption, so it's not a done deal.</comment></comment></comment>


Coliving in the Bay: The Commune, LLC - <AUTHOR> http://www.venturedlife.com/episode-one-season-one

<comment><USER2> This is really frustrating. "venturedlife.com" links are now less trustworthy to me, because as far as I can tell, there is no direct route to the content that was supposed to be shared via link.

"Please use the password we sent to your email when you followed us and you will be able to access this episode." Cool. So I just sign up real quickly, and will have the password? Nope. No password sent. Just a confirmation email. Clicking through that confirmation, I'm able to access some content (not the content linked to here), but only the one about the Food Pantry in the Bronx. Which I'm sure is interesting, but isn't what I clicked through to read. And I'm still being urged to add my email, with a banner and "Sign up to read" button, unable to access any other content (none of which is about coliving in the bay, as far as I can tell).

Having watched the quick "about us" video: you're right, design matters. And the most important design is for the content (at least your free/viral content) to be available.

<comment><USER3> I'm also in this boat - as a former co-oper, I'm quite interested in reading about "Coliving in the Bay" \- but I haven't been able to figure out how even after giving them an email address.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for pointing this out, we seem to have had a glitch with our automation. We have unlocked all the pages for the time being as we determine the problem and sincerely apologize for the inconvenience.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Privacy Policies Suck - <AUTHOR> http://www.iubenda.com/blog/2011/09/06/a-new-generation-of-privacy-policies/

<comment><USER2> The article is assuming that the ToS and privacy statement is meant to be informative. It's not.

If you give people a good overview of what you are doing with their data, a significant portion will get pissed off. If you bore them with legalese, 99.9% of them will just sign, rather than wade through the terms.

It's broken, but it's broken by design.

<comment><AUTHOR> Look a the Facebook's example shown in the post. Facebook could have replaced that popup with a text broth, but it didn't, and this payed. The main privacy policy of Facebook is another example. They redesigned it with the help of TRUSTe, when they realized all that people want is to keep control of what they share (and my opinion is cleared in the article). Furthermore, TRUSTe bases its business on the assumption that well written privacy policies increase conversions, because when people have to provide their credit card (an example), they get scared by a broth-like privacy policy.

Also think about Creative Commons: many people use it and many people rely on it when needing to know how to share content. The world is a better place with Creative Commons, and I think it will be a better place with simpler Privacy Policies and TOS :)

<comment><USER3> The Facebook popup is quite nice, but I can see two ways in which it could be improved (from a cursory observation - I don't really use Facebook much any more).

Firstly, "[...] and any other information I've shared with anyone" could quite easily result in people accidentally permitting access to data they didn't mean to. In contrast to it being viewed by anyone, there is a good chance that data will be stored elsewhere and stashed, regardless of whether the user later notices and removes it.

Having some mechanism to fully disclose what your "any other information" is, from that popup, might help people to notice accidentally shared data sooner, and prevent them sharing it with people who are storing it. The UI might take a little work, but afaik they've already got "view my profile as $foo" abilities, but that's tied to the account privacy settings pages, and not directly accessible from this sort of popup.

Secondly, and maybe not nearly as practically, but it'd be nice to see actually optional disclosure settings for apps like this. Android has a similar problem with its apps, it tells you what (coarse-grained) permissions it requires, but you only get a choice of all or nothing.

Granted, it doesn't make much sense to install your GPS-map application without giving it access to your GPS data, but in the Facebook realm, there can definitely be data or services which you want to consider optional.

There's probably even a business model in charging users (more) if they wish to disclose less about themselves, making them less attractive from your advertising revenue. The major problems I can foresee are (a) microtransactions, and (b) actually making your user aware you're effectively selling their personal details in exchange for providing them with whatever service.

<comment><AUTHOR> The tradeoff sounds scaring: \- Extremely accurate Privacy Policies nobody read; \- Simplified Privacy Policies everybody read, but missing something.

Facebook has probably reasons for not including too much detail on that page, but Facebook also uses users' data like nobody else. For the average website this problem is much simpler, even for the average SaaS startup which is not a social network (or a simple one like Quora). Probably that kind of website can really have a privacy policy covering every personal data use within a simplified popup, without missing relevant information.

The Facebook's popup surely has issues, but I still love it since it's something people read, and it helps people take better choices. This is what, to me, is really important of Privacy Policies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> As long as we have a sue-happy society, companies will use privacy policies to limit liability. That means they will continue to be documents with more text than most of us are likely to read. Icons and diagrams won't work without the text behind them. However, I do agree that just because a document has legal significance does not mean it needs to be full of legalese. We tried to keep our privacy policy as short and light as possible and write it in plain language. <http://nodeping.com/PrivacyPolicy>

<comment><AUTHOR> There's probably still need of a legalese document behind, but we are working on cutting that part too :P Even with the need of having a strictly law- compliant page, having a first page which is simple and readable at a glance is always a good idea. Consider that we are seriously working on bringing that model to the mass (read end of the article :) )

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Yes. Just yes.

I recently wrote a privacy policy for my new startup; I think it complies with all but two of those guidelines (lightbox and standardised). Any feedback would be appreciated: <https://theescortcompanion.com/privacy/>

<comment><USER5> I hope you're not thinking of charging for privacy policies though. I have an deep aversion to paying for something I can write in twenty minutes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Most people don't know what to put on a privacy policy, and we built a service with lawyers behind, assuring compliance and top quality service. Since yours is of course a good point, consider that our product will be very cheap, and I'd seriously pay a cheap price instad of spending those 20 minutes. Also consider that your privacy policy currently lacks the parties involved, and it's not "completely compliant". Our goal is to save your time on this side, for a reasonable price and giving something very polished in change :)

What do you think?

<comment><USER5> Point taken - I can't see myself using such a service personally, but my startup's not at a stage where my twenty minutes is worth that much. :)

You're right about the parties involved - I also forgot to mention our location/jurisdiction. Thanks for the feedback!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Would like to see some notion of how long data is retained. Period of time, til account deletion, forever, etc.

I agree with 'broken by design' in many cases, but first step is at least having a non-broken design.

</comment><comment><USER7> Looked at facebook just now, and sure enough there in the footer (if you're fast enough to click on it before the infinite scroll kicks in) they have this <http://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy>, which reaffirms my suspicion that using only what the author suggests probably isn't quite as safe legally.

That said, I definitely agree that putting a simpler layer on top of it so non-lawyers can get the gist of your policy quickly is a great idea - now item 1,000,001 on my startup's to-do list!

<comment><AUTHOR> The best part is that we are making it automatic, just check our main website, our goal is to help website owners to get rid of the hassle of writing a privacy policy :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'd be happier to use Iubenda if its beta-access system didn't make me feel so violated, by requiring me to literally share it on every social media I can in multiple ways.

<comment><AUTHOR> You are not required to do it. Only if you want early access :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Does the machine readable P3P format have any use still?

<comment><AUTHOR> I think that it's too complex to work on a scale. Maybe our service will embed it in the future, maybe we'll rethink a new standard (since p3p is a bit outdated) :)

<comment><USER9> Privacy policies have not changed that much. I agree that P3P does not provide a scale of privacy, but that seems by design, since privacy, and the things described in privacy policies, don't map to a linear scale.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Simple. Just don't have one. Nobody reads them anyway.

<comment><AUTHOR> So far, nobody tried. I think that Creative Commons can teach a lesson :)</comment></comment>


The return of the $70 video game has been a long time coming - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/the-return-of-the-70-video-game-has-been-a-long-time-coming/ <comment><USER3> This "article" was written and published at the same time across many different publications. Ars, IGN, and more published this PR piece in full: [https://icrowdnewswire.com/2020/07/10/the-return-of- the-70-v...](https://icrowdnewswire.com/2020/07/10/the-return-of-the-70-video- game-has-been-a-long-time-coming/). Search for this title in DDG and you'll find many results.

The question is, who paid to publish the press release? Pushing a press release through a PR firm that would get you wide coverage like this ain't free, and it doesn't happen on its own.

I haven't seen anybody asking that question or pointing out the conflict of interest.

<comment><USER4> The `icrowdnewswire.com` link says it is written by "Kyle Orland"

> Kyle Orland is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, writing primarily > about the business, tech, and culture behind video games.

I couldn't find the IGN mirror of the article, but I did find this article which points in the other direction:

[https://www.ign.com/articles/why-70-ps5-and-xbox-series-x- ga...](https://www.ign.com/articles/why-70-ps5-and-xbox-series-x-games-make- sensebut-the-timing-couldnt-be-worse)

I think this is more a result of NBA2k's decision to charge $10 more for PS5 Xbox Series X titles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Disclaimer - the $70 and $60 price points refer to AAA games and game developers, not indy games, which often run closer to $20-$40.

So with that disclaimer, any time someone (like the author) says that games have never been cheaper at the $60 price point, I like to point out that the AAA game developers have never turned higher profits than they are right now. Activision Blizzard is reporting over 4 billion (yes, 'B' billion) dollars in _profits_.

> It's time

If this author really thinks that a price hike of _the minimum game experience they're selling_ is going to stop any of the predatory behaviors, they're being incredibly naive. AAA game developers don't just want your money, they want as much of your money that they can squeeze out of you.

Fifa - the only game confirmed at this new price point so far - <USER2> particularly bad about this, with individual players occasionally spending tens of thousands of dollars on this game.

<comment><USER6> > I like to point out that the AAA game developers have never turned higher > profits than they are right now. Activision Blizzard is reporting over 4 > billion (yes, 'B' billion) dollars in profits.

In 2019 ATVI made $1.5B profit on $6.5B revenue, down YoY from the previous year. During the same year Google made $34B on $161B of revenue, up YoY from 2018. Apple similarly had a gross margin of about 38% on $89B of revenue.

Relative to companies that actually _are_ making profits hand over fist, I find it hard to muster any outrage toward labor-intensive entertainment businesses.

<comment><USER5> I was looking at the gross profit figures, since we're explicitly talking about the cost of making video games - not marketing or executive/corporate costs. > Activision Blizzard annual gross profit for 2019 was $4.395B

But, even with "only" $1.5B profit they're doing pretty amazing - that's just shy of a 25% profit/revenue split. That's better than Google, which I'm sure you realized.

And if billions of dollars of _profit_ isn't "hand over fist" money, I don't know what is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> As a greybeard, I think paying $70 for a video game is crazy.

Then I have to remember that in 1982 I paid $50 for a copy of Atari 2600 Pac- Man. That's $135 today.

So maybe I should shut the hell up.

<comment><USER8> For fun:

Federal minimum wage in 1982(2020 dollars): $3.25 ($9.11)

Federal minimum wage in 2020: $7.25

So that copy of Pac-Man was 15.38 hours of minimum wage labor in 1982, a $70 game today is 9.65 hours of labor. Minimum wage is slightly lower today than it was in 1982, but video game production has apparently become significantly cheaper.

<comment><USER9> Production costs have increased by several orders of magnitude. Just look at the credits of a modern game vs something like those 80s Activision titles that were developed by a single person.

A larger video game market has created economies of scale that make larger development budgets viable.

<comment><USER8> Ah yeah, you're right for these AAA games, it is economies of scale that have made it cheaper, not lower production costs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to see market size considered here too.

Games cost a fixed amount to develop regardless of how many copies you sell. How many copies did developers sell 20 years ago compared to today? If you sell 2X the copies, the game can cost half as much and yet the profit would stay roughly the same.

<comment><USER11> Marginal cost has gone way down as well as there is often no physical copy (and no physical store, etc...)

<comment><USER12> Yet Steam still takes 30%, it's not all fun and roses.

<comment><USER13> Getting 70% from digital is still superior to the 55% you'd get at retail.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I remember paying $60 (or $70?) for Ultima VII in 1992 which would be at least $110 today. But there's no chance I'd pay $70 for a digital download today. The market has changed a lot!

<comment><USER15> Can't digital download a map printed onto a piece of fabric tho :D

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> "I'm sorry, honey, but those games cost up to and including $70." —Marge Simpson, 1995

</comment><comment><USER17> I used to play on consoles, typically would have 2-3 of them each generation and buy up the biggest AAA titles. God I can't imagine how much money I spent during those years. These days I spend most of my gaming on the PC, where I don't feel this constant urge to keep up. The games are reasonably priced and there's plenty of free-to-play options that actually end up being the more fun games anyways. If I feel like spending money on in game items I will, but generally I spend a small fraction of what I used to. There's no way I'm spending $70 on a video game unless it's something I see myself playing for years on end. Think Elder Scrolls. Suspect the vast majority of games don't fit into this category though.

</comment><comment><USER18> If you wait just a few months after release you can almost always get pristine copies of xbox one and PS4 physical disc-based games for a lot less on eBay. I think I paid $19 for Assassin's Creed Odyssey including shipping.

<comment><USER19> Or at GameStop. Despite that, criticizing GameStop and wishing it would go out of business seems to be a favorite hobby of many HN'ers

<comment><USER18> I think it's the gap between the buy and sell prices that offends people. Bring in a pristine copy of a six month old AAA PS4 game and get offered $6.50 for it, they'll sell it for $28.99. That and the pushy sign up for membership sales tactics their management forces the retail floor workers to hassle customers about.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Simulators, for one, are very complex and take a lot of time to master, and buying them for that much (or more) money is well worth it. It is like buying a $200 math or physics textbook: you'd spend so much time and effort studying it that the price would not seem to matter in comparison. (Not sure about other kinds of games; vendor's focus on the DLC might be the biggest problem there.)

<comment><USER21> > It is like buying a $200 math or physics textbook

Well that's bonkers in the first place.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think that video the game price is going to change for me. I have a large backlog of yet-to-be-played games from bundles, sales, etc.

I usually buy games below $20, many below $10. If it takes the AAA title a few years to get there, then this is fine. It gives them time to remove the nastiest bugs and combine all the extensions into a Game of the Year edition.

</comment><comment><USER23> Inflation.

</comment><comment><USER24> Anything but micro transactions and subscriptions. Can we stop dumbing down games too?

<comment><USER25> > Anything but micro transactions and subscriptions.

Are you implying that hiking up the base-price of a game will stop companies from wanting post-sale monetisation? That seems optimistic :P</comment></comment>


Firing Well - <AUTHOR> http://www.mondaynote.com/2015/05/17/firing-well/ <comment><USER2> > _To ease the pain of the breakup, my standard interview routine includes a > segment on Why and How I'll Fire You._

> " _... But repeated lapses of judgment or a habitually disruptive attitude > can't be tolerated, and we will have to part company. In plain English, I > will fire you. "_

I'm not saying that setting expectations up front is a bad thing, but I've never had the topic of firing brought up -- ever -- in any of the many interviews I've had over my career.

And therefore, if this were brought up without my asking about their firing policies, the thought that would go through my mind would be along the lines of:

"Wow, this company must have to deal with this quite a bit in order for it to be covered like this during an interview setting. Either this place causes people's attitudes to take a major turn for the worse, or they do a terrible job at filtering out bad attitudes during the interview process."

Or...

"Was there something on my resume or something that I said during the interview that may have triggered this?"

Again, transparency is a good thing. And if I'm already asking about their firing policies during an interview, then maybe this is a good way to approach it.

But hearing it come up -- and like this -- during an interview without solicitation just reeks of a toxic environment.

<comment><USER3> > Wow, this company must have to deal with this quite a bit in order for it to > be covered like this during an interview setting.

Or, their hiring managers are very experienced and are basing this on decades of industry experience over many different managerial positions. They have learned the best practices for employee retention and dismissal over time, so they know to mention this now.

<comment><USER4> We can live in your hypothetical Or world, or we can live in the real world where most sane people would interpret a segment like this as:

"Red flag, red flag, their CEO is a complete nightmare, run away, run away".

<comment><USER5> >Or World

I like that phrase. I'll be using that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I read this not a general purpose guide to hiring and firing, but as a guide to hiring and firing _executives_. This is consistent with the author's background. Note references to board approval, walking over to someone's office, generous settlement packages, etc.

In this context the advice rings true to my ear. Less so for hiring and firing across all levels of an organization.

<comment><USER7> It's sad that there's this (reasonable, in many cases) assumption here that you have to be an executive to get treated decently (office instead of shitty cube or open-plan space, career support and severance upon termination).

I mean, I wouldn't advocate a generous severance for someone who just stops showing up, or who punches a co-worker in the face. You can cold-fire them. Programmers who do their jobs in good faith, on the other hand, belong in the "treat him well even if we don't need him" status bucket.

<comment><USER8> There's a quiet but significant portion of non-executive professionals that get reasonably generous separation packages. One must consider that content people do not usually make noise (and in fact, in this circumstance, are often legally forbidden from disclosing any details related to the separation).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> TL:DR - Sounds like it is a fearful place to work and puts all ownership on the employee and nothing on the person doing the fire with no checks or balances. Just a clear cut you disappoint me and I will fire you quickly and even pay you off instead of you suing me.

Having had to fire people this read like a lead balloon. I have fired several people and the hardest one was the first time, but after it was over it felt good for everyone in the business.

This is really managing by fear. The manager might say "It won't be a surprise for you or me implies that this is a non-verbal understanding. Well a lot of people get paranoid when it comes to job security and might have had a bad experience so anything and everything means they are on the verge of losing their job. If I was a worker on his team I would shutter any time I saw my boss walk into my office and say may I sit down. Seems very much a scare tactic. My company when we fire someone there has been several steps taken and it is dignified. (Unless you did something illegal or unethical, than it is quick and clean with an escort out the building.) You go through a written warning. You than have a performance progresses plan written by the employee and the manager together. You may have the manager sit in your work space for a few times to make sure that the person understands their roles in action and make sure that it just isn't a lack of knowledge or training. If it is our business culture we will get a co-worker to partner up with the person to help them find their place (Or see that it might not be for them and that is okay for both parties).

There doesn't seem to be a check and balance between his decision to fire and the action. As a manager I just didn't see the person's positive side since they had a trait I couldn't stand (perception of them being lazy or a bully to their co-workers) and I almost fired people which months and years later proved I was wrong in assuming they deserved to be fired. This also saves the work place from being a homogeneous Big Boys Club.

PERSONAL Opinion : Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional position and not some low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them not being smart enough or the ability to improve. I find that it normally is the fault of the employer for why the relationship didn't work out due to a manger or even the negative culture of the company.

<comment><USER10> > Sounds like it is a fearful place to work and puts all ownership on the > employee and nothing on the person doing the fire with no checks or > balances. Just a clear cut you disappoint me and I will fire you quickly and > even pay you off instead of you suing me.

If you were paying me hundreds of thousands—or more—of dollars a year, then that's kinda how it works: I execute well, or you sever the relationship.

> Professionals (I am assuming this is a professional position and not some > low hourly wage job) normally don't get fired for them not being smart > enough or the ability to improve.

I don't understand this at all. Why would an insufficiently-smart professional's employer keep him around—as window dressing? If one's not smart enough for the position, and doesn't have the ability to improve, then who would continue to employ one.

<comment><USER11> "keep him around"

Its an underemployment issue. To get this CRUD web app position you need to be a top 1% rock star having passed compiler theory, database design, automata theory, linear algebra and diff eqs at an ivy league or HR won't even let your resume thru to the 8 hour whiteboard interview. The tiny microscopic subset of the population who get past that, are profoundly underemployed and will not have much of an issue with the raw brain horsepower requirement.

Its like demanding PE licensed PHD civil engineers, and actually getting them, to work as landscaping manual laborers, and then being worried they might not be smart enough to start the lawnmower. Its just not going to be an issue (edited: "in tech" "on coasts").

<comment><USER9> I believe 99% of the time people are fired for things other than the tasks of performing their duties mentally and physically. Usually it happens to be the other non-job description items that get people fired and they happen to make an error that any other person wouldn't get fired for.

I call it my "Good Will Dollar Theory." You get to save "Good Will Dollars" when you do good things for others and the company. You lose "Good Will Dollars" when you have a lapse in judgment or execution. When you are out of "Good Will Dollars" you get fired. Everyone has starts with a different amount of "Good Will Dollars" and they are often unfairly distributed to people that sometimes don't even deserve them.

<comment><USER12> Don't forget that they tend to expire, too. Even if you banked up a huge amount of GW$ last year, they're not gonna save you this year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This post is an attempt to apply rationality to a situation which is highly emotional and therefore irrational. The author's description of how he fires demonstrates a complete lack of empathy in a situation in which the person being fire needs it. It's like breaking up or getting a divorce, it's going to be ugly no matter what you do, the best thing you can do, even if you are firing, is to accept the situation is bad, and that you do need to try to connect with the person on some level.

<comment><USER14> I did not read this as a lack of empathy. He even addresses your concerns because he emphasizes that the firing process would come after multiple failures of execution or judgement, not a single instance. And he says that a single failure can be a time for a frank discussion where conflicts are outed, addressed, and resolved for good.

I have (unfairly, I believed) been on the receiving end of the normal "Well your performance isn't great, you need to change your attitude before I trigger a PIP", then a PIP...I would rather have had it the way this article describes. Expectations are made clear, opportunities are given for correction, and a gentle-but-firm push out the door is saved for when things are broken.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, if anything I think this is a more empathetic approach. While consulting, I've seen companies that are afraid of firing, or even talking about firing, because they want to be "nice". That's obviously bad for the organization, as problem people make messes and drive good employees away.

But it's also bad for the people who eventually get fired. Once the situation has soured, going in every day to face hostile or angry people and wondering if it will be your last day is a terrible experience. I've seen it warp troubled people further.

Personally, the thing I'd add to this is to try to help people find something better. Often the problem isn't "fundamentally bad human" it's "human/position mismatch". Firing someone doesn't have to feel like a funeral.

<comment><USER14> I think for most professionals, the issue is indeed "human/position mismatch". I've been in that mismatch, and trying to make it work despite myself was one of the hardest things I've ever done. One day I had to decide to move on. Then things got better, after some very painful life changes.

I would have respected management far more if they had said "You're just not a good fit here, but you will be somewhere else, and we wish you the best of luck. Let's help you find something better." Does anyone do that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Yes, I know: California Law forbids giving bad references by phone. But we > know the routine: To slam a candidate, all I have to say on the phone is > "According to California Law, all I'm allowed to do is to confirm Job Title > and Employment Dates". The prospective employer promptly hangs up, fully > warned.

My understanding from multiple people is that this is the _only_ thing they will say when asked for a reference. I really hope that doesn't mean that CA companies pass over folks unfairly.

<comment><USER16> California law doesn't say that at all.

<comment><USER17> But the Yishan Wong Reddit AMA fiasco showed that it does need to be fixed.

<comment><USER16> Did I miss something there? What needs to be fixed?

<comment><USER17> [http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2igkke/reddit_ceo_ca...](http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/2igkke/reddit_ceo_calls_out_former_reddit_employee_as_to/cl2ditf?context=3)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Very different perspective. The performance review caught me off guard in how emotionless and even apathetic it seemed. Basically- "you're doing fine. you could be doing better in these areas, but I don't care if you try to make these improvements". How can you challenge your employees with reviews like this?

<comment><USER19> Though the edges of the language are softened to make it easier to swallow, I think the message is very clear. If your boss "suggests" some changes, he/she means make some changes.

<comment><USER18> Usually I agree, a "suggestion" from a boss is more like a directive. But in this case, he is being very explicit and literal. The whole point he is making with reviews and firings like this is to be very direct and emotionless. So I truly believe he means it when he says "because you're doing fine as things are, feel free to ignore my remarks."

<comment><USER11> My personal observations of "fine as things are" would imply the odds of promotion/advancement are much higher if you do XYZ or you can forget promotion or advancement if you'd prefer, which is fine with us.

In a pyramid structure with a possibly 1:8 ratio, or higher, that means no matter what else is going on, at least 7 of 8 can never advance beyond their current level, no matter their wants or abilities, so if someone volunteers to be one of the 7 who are prevented from advancing that's a VERY happy coincidence. There's at least one of several awkward conversation we can avoid after the interviews for the higher up position, guaranteed six or less is better than having to deliver seven disappointments. Or eight, if company policy is to never promote from within.

With the general rise of job-hopping and the death of promotion from within, it doesn't really matter anymore. "If you wanted your bosses job, you'd work on X, Y, and Z, but we aren't firing your boss anytime soon and if we did we'd hire someone from ABC company, or your bosses bosses golf partner or frat buddy anyway rather than promoting from within, so it doesn't really matter".

Also see the rise of internet job sites, if you want a promotion and your company doesn't promote, then you look at job postings and discussions for competitors and talk to recruiters and headhunters. Its not the era of newspaper classifieds anymore where corporate HR pays by the word or column inch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This may seem draconian, but...

\- I've been in places which have tossed people out with 2 weeks notice.

\- I've been in places where people have been stiffed their earned bonuses.

\- I've been in places where people haven't been let back to their desks.

This beats all of them, especially if the comp is generous. It is very hard to change a manager's mind. If they're convinced it's time to go, better to encourage the move and be generous. (To stiff the employee implies a hiring decision, which was the manager's fault to begin with.)

The one caveat is some top firms allow people to spend the next few months with an office to encourage another employer to hire them away.

</comment><comment><USER21> As most other people have mentioned bringing up firing during an interview is a poor way to set expectations (especially in the manner described). Using the gimmick of seeing how a prospective hire responds to being told "Why and How I'll Fire You" is reductionist and shows a disturbing lack empathy, that I would probably navigate away from as a prospect once a got a whiff of what this company was cooking.

Sure, this probably works for this founder. And it actually helps them get people who they'd work well with. But as a general practice, its strikes me as a pretty clumsy and arrogant way of approaching a fellow human being to work with you.

As an aside, its things like this that I feel, contribute to the monoculture of white males in Tech, because I could see women and minorities who are already fearful that they wouldn't fit into a tech workplace being even more fearful after hearing this kind of talk from someone they're thinking of working for.

Can you imagine the kind of stress a minority would be under in a place like this, struggling to make connections and find people to help them navigate the process ... failing ... and having their performance impacted then remembering that the head of the company said

"I'll tell you that the decision was made after thoughtful deliberation, and it won't be reconsidered. I won't suffer you the indignity of Why"

And wondering if its even wise to seek help from Above, because it could be taken the wrong way and they could be shown the door suddenly?

phew. Hopefully this doesn't gain traction with future startup founders. We have institutionalized processes for firing people for a reason.

</comment><comment><USER22> > _you walk into the individual's office, close the door..._

I wonder how this works in open spaces -- which, regrettably, seem to be the norm nowadays...

<comment><USER18> Open spaces are awkward when neither you or your boss have an office. Anytime you or a coworker get pulled into a meeting room by management, it's very noticeable.

<comment><USER23> Getting into the habit of pulling someone into a meeting room any time you have a conversation that'll last more than a few minutes regardless of whether or not it needs to be private mitigates this and helps cut down on distractions.

<comment><USER24> Assuming a) you can get the people in your office to actually do that and b) your office has enough meeting rooms to make that happen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I was going to comment how that would not be legal in most countries with decent labor protection laws, but between the lines is some cynical advise on how to circumvent that and screw your employees out of their rights.

Charming.

(Also, doubt if that's legal outside France, or will remain legal in France and/or the EU for long.)

<comment><USER26> Well, at least it seems to be a fair way to do it. He says to give minimum 6 month of severance package and to give a good reference if everything went well. The thing is even in other situations someone suing his employer is never going to get a good reference out of them so I don't see how he is advising to screw the employees more than others.

I also agree with him based on experience that more often than not Performance Improvement Plans do not work and create stress and further issues on the company culture and on the coworkers.

Also based on the other linked article, he focuses more on Attitude and Judgement Failures and doesn't believe in Stack Ranking which is something I agree with.

By the way, he does mention that he implemented that too in Beos in California...

<comment><USER25> No that's not a fair way to do it if you take info account the fact that the employee has to sign away not just their rights to sue, but their right to full unemployment benefits.

He's not actually _firing_ people, he's pressuring and bribing them into resigning voluntarily.

It's basically a nasty way of breaking the social contract of the employer - employee relationship, shifting what should be the entrepreneurial risk of the employer to the employee, without any upside for the latter.

I take back what I said about the legality however: it's fully legal and very common in the EU, it just isn't _firing_ people.

I've seen it used in practice. There's nothing nice about it, and almost always the result of bad hiring. Only employees that wanted to get out anyway or are easily intimidated go along with it. And it can seriously bite you in the ass if the employee tells you to shove it and forces you to take it to court instead. (Because they don't really need to sue, any firing after that conversation will be illegal.)

<comment><USER27> > No that's not a fair way to do it if you take info account the fact that the > employee has to sign away not just their rights to sue, but their right to > full unemployment benefits.

That's going to depend heavily on the jurisdiction. Where I am (Massachusetts), you cannot receive unemployment insurance for the same weeks covered by a severance package (which seems reasonable; I can't get unemployment for weeks in which I'm being paid a salary either...), _unless_ that severance package requires the employee to sign a release of claims against the employer. If it does, then you can receive unemployment income for the same weeks covered by severance.

In every case I can think of, here in MA, employees terminated under such an arrangement have right to full employment benefits. I'm sure that will vary in other places to some degree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I wouldn't mind at all this being applied to me. Multi-month severance? Brutal honesty? Not wasting two months in a demoralizing process? It's far better for my liking than the drawn-out "piecemeal firing".

The one caveat I want to add is that this should only be applied to the senior positions, not to junior ones. A junior, by definition, is relying on the management to guide his efforts, he is not expected to be managing himself, therefore he should get a fair warning and offered a process to improve. A senior, on the other hand, is expected to manage himself, including soliciting and addressing feedback on his own performance and attitude. Therefore a firing should not be a surprise to him, and if it is, that means the person wasn't pulling his "senior" weight to start with.

</comment><comment><USER29> > Your performance meets or exceeds requirements. You get to keep your job.

The second sentence seems arrogant and unnecessary, especially in the context of a meets-or-exceeds review. It seems to say the same thing as "I've decided not to fire you at this moment." What's the benefit to either the manager or employee of bringing up the possibility of the employee being fired in such a circumstance?

<comment><USER30> I think (hope) that was a writing flourish.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Could someone explain why I would want to sign an "agreement not to sue" contract while being fired? It seems like I would need to take some time to evaluate the situation externally, rather than just agreeing immediately. Asking me to sign that while in the process of being fired is making an awkward situation even more awkward. Perhaps I'm not looking at this correctly?

<comment><USER32> There's usually money attached. So you can risk a drawn out trial with all kinds of expenses, or just take some cash up front.

<comment><USER31> To both you and exelius, got it. Missed the part about there being a cash incentive not to sue. I thought it was just agreeing with no incentive on your part.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This assumes that reasons exist to fire someone like "Attitude or Judgement failures" (whatever that exactly means). Last time I was fired because someone didn't like my visage. I guess many layoffs apart from economic crises fall into this category.

<comment><USER8> >Last time I was fired because someone didn't like my visage.

To be frank, unless you're grossly incompetent, this is how all firings work. If your bosses have an all-around positive impression of you, they'll excuse any lapses in appearance or decorum, and if they don't, they won't.

As a rational employee, your single biggest job duty is to win the popularity contest. Make sure anyone and everyone likes you and has very positive, warm, and fuzzy feelings about you, especially people in power. You will never get stable above-market compensation or advance the corporate ladder without doing this. In a corporate context, performing your actual job description should comprise 20-30% of your effort and being popular should be 70-80%. Your "paper" job is almost insignificant as it relates to corporate advancement -- your real job is to run an effective campaign and develop a cult of personality.

I make this comment after having been excused in part for "sitting wrong" \-- the boss decided he didn't like my posture (after he decided he didn't like me anymore) and that this was so substantial he needed to demote and/or fire me.

<comment><USER33> > _As a rational employee, your single biggest job duty is to win the > popularity contest._

That's my impression, too. Not everyone is a talented actor like Robert De Niro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> It would be a serious negative signal for me if I were considering a job somewhere and they started putting a lot of emphasis on this. Firing should be a rare occurrence. It's important to do it right when you need to do it, but firing doesn't and shouldn't happen often enough to need such pride of place. But, I can see that if you're dealing with a candidate for an executive position it's a different situation.

</comment><comment><USER35> It sounds like potential employees need to start asking for employer references. Of course, many of us are. Make sure you know what you are getting into. If this person actually does as well as he claims with firing, perhaps that employee will leave a good reference for him as well.

</comment><comment><USER7> I agree with the spirit of what's being said here, but there are parts that are problematic. For example, explaining that someone won't get a good reference if he sues is almost certainly illegal (extortion). Of course, any reasonable person would know not to use a company that one is suing as a reference. You'd do better to say, "I'm not using them as a reference because I'm suing them" (since it's already a matter of public record) than to use them. Still, saying, "you shouldn't sue us because <retaliation>" is on the wrong side of the law.

That said, I agree that PIPs are the worst. They're a way for scummy managers in scummy companies to... well, the common explanation is that they're a lawsuit shield, but that's not really true because it's actually harder to run a lawsuit-proof PIP than to just fire someone. The real purpose of the PIP is less documented and more insidious.

Companies don't actually fear lawsuits that much. They're a black-swan risk, but less than 1% of people fired will ever litigate. They're much more worried about disparagement and impaired relationships. You write a generous severance and give a good reference (which you should, in most cases) when things don't work out because, if you do things right, the odds are good that the person's career will go unimpeded, and this pays off for you because they're likely to feel good about that episode in their careers and say good things about you in the future.

The purpose of a generous severance and positive reference is to make the fired employee feel good about the company, preventing any sort of moral indignation. The purpose of a PIP is to make the employee feel bad about himself (under a parallel theory that a humiliated employee will feel weak, not morally superior, and therefore not disparage or litigate). It has almost no legal value, because wrongful PIPs are just as common as wrongful terminations. Its purpose is to shame the employee into silence. Of course, it often doesn't work, but that's a discussion for another time.

PIPs (which, considering morale, are far more expensive than severance payments) are also a common way for HR offices to claim they "saved money" on severance payments when they're actually externalizing the costs to the manager, who has to conduct a kangaroo court, and the team, which has to deal with an already-fired employee coming into work for 2 months.

<comment><USER36> I once had a wrongful PIP subjected to me, because I lost the Game of Office Politics.

The day my boss handed it to me, I began sending my resume out. Over the next few weeks, I heard back from one company I applied to, and we had a phone interview follwed by an in-person interview. The day the PIP ended, I got a formal offer from that company, and I put in my notice.

I had issues with management for a long time, and I'd been contemplating quitting for a while. The PIP served to light a fire under my ass and make me realize I needed to get out of there ASAP.

Oddly enough, now that I no longer work there, I'm totally willing to be friends with my now ex-boss: we used to get along really well, but he doesn't know how to handle stress, and he was shoved into a management position with no experience in handling people. He was the company's first technical hire, he got that position because he's a brilliant engineer, and the founders somehow thought that made him qualified to be the Director of Software.</comment></comment>


Patent covering Reactive Extensions? - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/patents?id=4lvrAQAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=observable+inassignee:microsoft&hl=en&sa=X&ei=yo-mT4uuKbH9iQKM48HTAg&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=observable%20inassignee%3Amicrosoft&f=false

<comment><AUTHOR> And also this second patent: [http://www.google.com/patents?id=8ZzbAQAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&...](http://www.google.com/patents?id=8ZzbAQAAEBAJ&pg=PA1&dq=observable+inassignee:microsoft&hl=en&sa=X&ei=gJGmT76eM4rkiALgj5TjAg&ved=0CDoQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=observable%20inassignee%3Amicrosoft&f=false)

I've been curious why not more folks are using RxJS (especially after yesterday's post about ReactiveCocoa - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3929446>).</comment>


Java creator James Gosling joins ocean robot maker Liquid Robotics - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/30/java-creator-james-gosling-joins-ocean-robot-maker-liquid-robotics/

<comment><USER2> Interesting, since he just joined google 5 months ago... <http://news.cnet.com/8301-30685_3-20047787-264.html>

I wonder if this is in any way related with the ongoing android litigation snafu.

<comment><USER3> The article mentions his concerns about Oracle's legal battle with Google, and the use of Sun's patents for that matter. It doesn't mention Android in any way.

<comment><USER2> Yeah the article talks about the things he said after he left Oracle but before he joined Google, but is pretty light on the specifics (the "ongoing legal battle" mentioned is the Android patent snafu).

</comment></comment></comment><comment> St-Clock I'm really glad for James Gosling. It is always sad when you see these brains wandering around and not knowing what to do with their skills.

</comment><comment><USER4> Sounds like an awesome project to work on. Curious whether Java will make it into the tech stack.. The careers page mentions _"A broad range of software development in C, C++ and C#"_

</comment><comment><USER5> The founder of Liquid Robotics gave a Stanford EE380 talk in 2009.

The abstract is at <http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/Abstracts/091028.html>

There's a link to the video at <http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee380/ay0910.html> .

</comment><comment><USER6> His own blog post: <http://nighthacks.com/roller/jag/entry/i_ve_moved_again>

</comment><comment><USER7> Java + super-intelligent octopuses + underwater robots... what could go wrong?

(Sorry guys, couldn't resist.)

<comment><USER8> octopuses are going to build blue boxes to hack into underwater enterprise servers to talk to their friends half an ocean floor away ....</comment></comment>