Ballmer: Microsoft Will Move Jobs Offshore If Taxes Rise - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=ah5YH8sw_VzI <comment><USER2> From what I know:

So, you have Microsoft, based in the US with operations in other countries as well. Microsoft's Ireland branch sees profits of $1B and pays the Irish government the tax on the profits it generated. Microsoft's US branch sees profits of $5B and pays the US the tax on that $5B. Now, if Microsoft wants to bring that $1B from Ireland back into the US, it must also pay the US government tax on that $1B (it's already paid the Irish government there). But, if they don't bring that money back and rather reinvest it overseas, they don't have to pay tax on that $1B profit made by the Ireland branch. President Obama wants to make them pay tax on that $1B no matter what - so that they have to pay taxes to both the Irish and US governments.

No other country has a system like this. So, if you're a British company and you have an American arm, and you make $5B in British profits and $1B in American profits, you can bring that $1B back to Britain (after paying the US government tax on that $1B) without having to pay the British government tax on it. This is how the world works - as a company, you have to pay tax on the profit you create within a country. Except in the US where you have to pay taxes on the profits you make in the country _and_ any profits you bring back from abroad, but you're allowed to defer the taxes as long as you don't bring the money back.

One of the bad side-effects of this is that it means that American companies would rather reinvest their money overseas than bring it back since they would be doubly taxed if they brought it back. And it's important to note that "socialist" countries in Europe don't see this as "tax dodging" and don't tax companies on foreign profits (probably in the hopes that they bring the money back and reinvest within the country).

So, for companies with overseas operations, this is essentially a 35% increase in taxes on foreign profits (which are already taxed in the foreign jurisdiction at whatever that country's rate is).

I really don't think this is an issue of being pro or anti socialism. I favor better government services, but you can't just doubly tax companies on profits which have already been taxed by another country on profits not created in your country. It would make it impossible to run a multi-national firm from the US.

Does that sound right?

EDIT: There is one caveat here. Right now, companies sometimes fudge where they created the profits. As the article points out, Microsoft develops Windows in the US and then has its Ireland branch sell it in Europe. The Ireland branch shouldn't be getting those Windows copies for free and the Ireland branch (from an accounting perspective) should be paying the American branch a royalty. Microsoft's pre-tax profits would be the same in that case, but where some were realized would be different with more realized in America. And the IRS actually does prosecute cases (they recently settled with another software firm that they accused of this). That's really the problem here is that American firms are attempting to claim that some of their profits are from foreign arms that were actually created in America (since America has one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world - higher than socialist Europe). Anyway, it's late and I should be asleep.

EDIT 2: Personal and Corporate Income Taxes of different countries - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.sv...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Income_Taxes_By_Country.svg). As you see, Ireland has very low corporate taxes and the US is second only to Japan. So Microsoft would rather its Irish branch see much higher profits than its American branch. Personal taxes might not be high in the US, but corporate taxes are.

EDIT 3: Basically, I think it's unreasonable to expect a company to pay taxes both to the country that they're operating in and to the country they're headquartered in on the same profits. Taxes are good, but having to pay twice just means that you can't have companies that cross borders. That said, we should crack down on companies that are mis-categorizing where they profits are being created.

FINAL EDIT: _But much of that complexity is caused by the divergence between America's system of taxing its firms (and citizens) on their worldwide income and the territorial system used by most other countries._ [http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm...](http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13611669) An Economist article on the issue.

<comment><USER3> Companies should pay tax in their home country on the profits of overseas subsidiaries, but they should be allowed to offset the taxes paid in the countries the subsidiaries are located in. So if your home country tax rate is 30% and you have a fully owned subsidiary in a country that has a 10% tax rate, for every $100 in profits the subsidiary makes you pay $10 where it is located, and $20 at home.

Remember the overseas subsidiary's profits are shown in the consolidated accounts, which shows that they do belong (in part if there are minority shareholders) belong to the parent company.

<comment><USER4> _"Companies should pay tax in their home country on the profits of overseas subsidiaries."_

That creates an incentive for companies to move their headquarters to the most low-tax, business-friendly country. Moreover, companies already benefit society by employing the majority of people. I don't see any moral reason why they should pay taxes at all, and I don't see what companies owe to the countries they're located in.

What you may regard as tax cheat, I regard as acting on one's self interest.

<comment><USER5> It could be argued that the company depends on the society to provide people to work for them, and so should pay their part of the money required to create those workers (school, healthcare, pensions, etc).

<comment><USER4> It could also be argued that people needing work are everywhere and, hence, are an abundant resource. If people working at companies already pay tax, why should companies pay tax too? Companies provide work, society provides workers. If society fails to provide qualified workers, companies move to where they can find qualified workers, thus creating an incentive for societies to educate people.

<comment><USER5> Why should the workers pay tax, it's the company that's making the profit..?

<comment><USER6> It's the people who need education and health care, not the companies. Taxes on companies should be used to pay for the costs of ensuring a business- friendly environment, such as enforcing the letter of the law, property rights, regulation, etc.

The rich could pay a higher sales tax instead of a higher income tax. You want a Ferrari? 50% tax on it! You want an airplane? Pay tax again.

In the system we have there are so many loopholes that the rich will always afford good lawyers and accountant and get away with it anyways, so we could stop spending money on stupid IRS workers, reduce the size of government, and streamline the taxation process.

Just my 0.02 USD...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have mixed feelings, in that I'm Irish and I'm not so in favor of high corporation taxes, but rather higher capital gains taxes on profits realized through share ownership (trying to balance fiscal &social responsibility with enabling business).

but taxes are ultimately a philosophical issue to which there is no correct answer. Although This will likely not make a big difference to anything in the long run, it shows Ballmer to have a political tin ear. This is not a good time for a rich CEO of a rich company which accounts for a lot of H1-Bs to be complaining about the pain of paying taxes. Average joe and Jane have little interest in the niceties of economics or technology, and will read this as 'Evil megacorp blackmails government and hires only cheap foreigners, also Vista sux'.

MS is the 800lb gorilla of the software world, but the US government is the 800lb gorilla of the, er, world. Playing standard Ballmer hardball at a time of skyrocketing unemployment is a bit like the car bosses a few months ago taking private jets to ask DC for more money to build cars nobody wants to or can afford buy. Good reason or not, it's wildly insensitive to the political mood.

<comment><USER8> There is a correct answer - taxes are involuntary confiscated from people hence they are evil; Unfortunately, they're the best solution to funding the government so we have to make do, but never forget pointing a gun at someone to make them do what you want is never a gray area.

<comment><USER9> _taxes are involuntary confiscated from people hence they are evil_

I disagree. In a Democracy, taxes are part of the social contract that we as citizens have with the government and fellow citizens of the country where we hold our citizenship. We submit to a level of taxation that is agreed upon by our representatives in government. We have also agreed upon as a nation that people should be uniformly subjected to some taxation. We generally agree that receiving all the government's goods and services and not paying taxes is illegal. It's only extreme forms of this type of behavior that is generally punishable by imprisonment.

We receive goods and services that the publicly elected government decides to provide. You drive on roads that are paid for by taxes. You receive protection from crime, recovery in times of disaster, and you interact with corporations whose dealings are regulated by our taxes.

You use pieces of paper that has pictures of former statesmen printed on them to trade for other goods and services. Commerce would not be possible without that government backed paper. We would be reduced to barter without it. The value of that paper is guaranteed by the government and the taxes that we pay.

If you are unhappy with the level of services that your taxation is providing, you are free to live in a different country, where as an expatriate, the first $80,000 of your income is not subject to income tax, because you receive less services from your government.

You're also entitled to vote for representatives that align more carefully with your values. That right to vote is supported by the taxes you pay.

Call that system evil if you will. I think it actually works pretty well.

<comment><USER8> The social contract theory of democracy was I believe appropriately dispelled in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia. This theory may have held up while there was still the frontier, but since there isn't available land for people who opt to settle it is really quite a weak argument.

We are forced by law to accept these pieces "green and gray ink" to settle all debts regardless of what the debt is really in -- you cannot make contracts in gold, and expect them to be enforced. Commerce is most definitely possible without that paper, in fact in California in the early 1900s you were blackballed if you used Dollars instead of gold.

"In California, as in other states, the paper was legal tender and was receivable for public dues; nor was there any distrust or hostility toward the federal government. But there was a strong feeling ... in favor of gold and against paper ... Every debtor had the legal right to pay off his debts in depreciated paper. But if he did so, he was a marked man (the creditor was likely to post him publicly in the newspapers) and he was virtually boycotted. Throughout this period paper was not used in California. The people of the state conducted their transactions in gold, while all the rest of the United States used convertible paper." [ref1]

I am unhappy with the level of services and taxes, but instead of leaving I hope to change and improve it. Just because someone disagrees doesn't mean they are forced to leave.

ref1: Frank W. Taussig, Principles of Economics, 2nd Ed. (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1916) I, 312. Also see J.K. Upton, Money in Politics, 2nd Ed. (Boston: Lothrop Publishing Company, 1895) pp. 69 ff.

<comment><USER9> _The social contract theory of democracy was I believe appropriately dispelled in Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia._

I'm sure if you have libertarian, minimalist government leanings, then Nozick's work dispelled the social contract theory of democracy quite nicely. I don't find citing an unknown authority to "disprove" my arguments very helpful. It's a corollary argument to "proof by grad student".

I'm certainly not interested in arguing the benefits of alternate currencies, gold standards or fiat money here. I'm simply pointing out that we all recieve a lot of benifits from the taxes you pay, despite your unhappiness with the system.

And, I wasn't suggesting that you leave the country, I was pointing out that if you are unhappy with the system, you have options. Another option, is that you are free to participate in our tax supported democracy to change it by voting of participating politically.

Either way, you're not going to be forced to do either of those options at gunpoint. You do have that freedom. I grew up in Central America in the 80's. The term "being forced to do something at gunpoint" has different connotations for me than it must for you.

We'll have to agree to disagree.

<comment><USER10> > I grew up in Central America in the 80's. The term "being forced to do > something at gunpoint" has different connotations for me than it must for > you.

Try not paying your taxes and see how different it actually is. (Granted, our jails may be slightly better and the police are less likely to simply shoot you if you obey their orders.)

Yes, getting to vote is different from not getting to vote. We're talking about what happens to folks who disagree with the result, regardless of how it came about.

<comment><USER9> _Granted, our jails may be slightly better and the police are less likely to simply shoot you if you obey their orders._

Or, being held at gunpoint to be sure that your paper work is in order (has happened to me).

Being held at gunpoint to be robbed by "freedom fighters" that the US gave weapons to while transporting a van load of elementary school supplies . (Happened to my brother)

Being help at gunpoint in the middle of a church service in rural/lawless countryside by an intoxicated gentleman who was upset by the religious tracts that were handed out by people in our group. (Happened to my father and I)

And, I can guarantee you that our jails are much, much better than what you would find in most countries of Central America and our police are much, much more honest.

My chances of getting arrested by police officers here might be pretty good if I willfully refused to pay taxes for years. But, that would be my choice, and I certainly know the risks that would entail. And, worst case scenario, I might spend some time in a minimum security prison.

It seems that your opinion of our government is rather low, and that's understandable, but these are dramatically different scenarios.

<comment><USER10> The question was whether taxes are taken at the point of a gun and whether one can opt out of the "social contract" without govt threatening and using force.

Yes, different places have different "social contracts", which results in police using force in different situations. Those differences don't mean that "social contracts" are voluntary in some places and not in others - they're all imposed by force.

Yes, the circumstances in which police will point guns at you vary.

That doesn't address

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> That's fairly vague statement for a group of people that thrive on facts. What kind of jobs? Programming jobs? New jobs?

How much would taxes have to rise? 0.0001%? Or is there some room for negotiations? What if the US raised taxes more on companies that offshored jobs?

This seems like basic politicing at its best. Big companies are going to start playing taxes chicken with big government. By making blanket, vague statements like these, they hope to shape the conversation amongst politicians. There's a real conflict of interest when these guys start telling the government what's good for business.

<comment><USER12> I think it's quite reasonable for businessmen to tell politicain about consequnece of their plans.

The alternaitve is to stay silent and let ineffective ideas strangle business (and impoverish society) and/or act on it, moving their business elsewhere.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Of course all taxes go to help the poor and needy and to make the world a better place, and not toward things like wars, corporate welfare, pork, etc.

</comment><comment><USER14> Raise your hand if you didn't see this coming. I mean, really, it's not difficult to see that when you raise taxes (by closing loopholes or otherwise), people simply shift resources away from your country to compensate.

<comment><USER15> yeah, I'd like MS to move in China permanently. let see how many copy of windows they will sell there.

<comment><USER10> Balmer's point is that MS can make more money by making Windows in China and selling it in the US and other places than he can by making it in Seattle and selling it in the US and other places.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Taken from the TG-119 which Bloomberg referenced:

 _In other words, companies would only be able to take a deduction on their U.S. taxes for foreign expenses when they also pay taxes on their foreign profits in the United States._

This makes sense. The proposal isn't forcing a company to pay extra taxes. It simply places tax incentives on layaway until the company pays its foreign taxes.

The question is: do foreign taxes count as expenses? They ought to.

<http://www.treas.gov/press/releases/tg119.htm>

<comment><USER12> Expences are deductibe form income, whereas typcial foreign tax credit is substracted from the domsectic tax itself. I bet it's the latest, as is the case for the personal income tax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's hard to read this as anything but "Touch my money and the workers get it in the neck."

Ballmer never was the subtle one. Getting into a public pissing match with a president who has shown a certain willingness to take decisive action in matters relating to ensuring that the money keeps moving, may not be the wisest move.

<comment><USER4> What will Obama do? Kill Microsoft in response? Ballmer has to serve the Microsoft shareholders, not the American people. Obama has to serve the American people, not the shareholders.

Let us face it, the president and other members of government are, in many ways, a bunch of puppets. They shape the policies and create the incentives, but they can't force business to do what they want. Unless we turn into a totalitarian state.

<comment><USER17> How much money does the federal government drive to Microsoft?

If they really got into it Obama could make a very public push for "Greater Opennness and transparency in government through the use of Open Source Software", it wouldn't have to be aimed at Microsoft, but it would kind of suck to be concerned about Microsoft's share price that week.

And if Microsoft whined about it he could just point to the fact that they've decided not to be an American company anymore.

Not that it's going to get that far, Ballmer is just bluffing.

<comment><USER4> _"How much money does the federal government drive to Microsoft?" If they really got into it Obama could make a very public push for "Greater Opennness and transparency in government through the use of Open Source Software"._

Good point. The government does have a lot of leverage on that. But, seriously, why doesn't the government go open-source, thus saving billions to the taxpayers, and why doesn't MS move a lot of its developers overseas? Taxpayers would win, MS would probably save tons of money and partially compensate for the lost revenue.

I have never worked at Microsoft, but I have a bunch of friends working there. None of them are U.S. citizens. Many of them are Indian, and half of what they make at MS in the U.S. would buy them an upper middle class lifestyle in Bangalore, allow them to be closer to family, to enjoy a high social status (developers have no status in the U.S.), and they could even hire maids to take care of their children and cook for them.

From an economic point of view, it would make sense to move towards greater efficiency, wouldn't it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> patrickg-zill My suggestion: the US should create a class of corporate trusts similar to the "canroys" that Canada has.

Under this setup, as long as a certain high percentage of the profits are distributed to the shareholders each year, the corporate taxes are non- existent or very low.

In this case, Microsoft would not pay much US taxes, but the individual investors would be the ones paying tax on the dividends received. End of problem.

</comment><comment><USER18> Basic Economic theory tells us that increasing taxes will hinder business development. The question is just would you rather give up the business (and its quantifiable value) for the increase in tax revenue.

The Ireland issue is really interesting to me. Many companies (Accenture, Warner Chilcott) are moving their incorporation from Bermuda to Ireland. The U.S. can bully around the little island states, but Ireland is much more of a bargaining force.

In my view, this is in the same vain as Delaware Corporations, just to the extreme.

<comment><USER3> Economic theory says no such thing. It is true that investment might reduce if taxes are raised if ceteris paribus, but as tax rises either increase revenue or reduce national debt, they are never ceteris paribus.

Imagine we had very low taxes, but the state did not build roads (so transport costs went up), provided only minimal policing (so companies would have to spend more on their own security people) etc., it is far from obvious that it would be good for business in general.

Ireland is increasingly annoying not just the US, but other EU countries, and many others. It is also subject to EU law, and its economy us currently very weak, making more dependent on the rest of the EU.

Incidentally, Warner Chillcot was originally a Northern Irish business (Galen) that changed its name to that of an American company it bought.

<comment><USER19> Here in California, we have very high taxes, and the state does not build roads, and provides only minimal policing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Poor Steve.</comment>


Evidence of Dark Matter Found in Minnesota mine - <AUTHOR> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/73847/title/Signs_of_dark_matter_from_Minnesota_mine

<comment><USER2> I find it interesting how the theorist says "The finding does not constitute a discovery of dark matter", the journalist titled the article "Signs of dark matter from Minnesota mine", and then to_jon posted this on Hacker News as "Evidence of Dark Matter Found in Minnesota mine".

<comment><USER3> Humm, sounds like evidence of link-bait darkening HN.</comment></comment>


The U.S. is the Most Overworked Developed Nation in the World - <AUTHOR> http://20somethingfinance.com/american-hours-worked-productivity-vacation/ <comment><USER2> This article is pretty crappy.

Misleading stats: _..."in 1960, only 20 percent of mothers worked. Today, 70 percent of American children live in households where all adults are employed."_

"All adults"? That's a nice way of obscuring the fact that we have a lot more single parent households (with 100% of the adults working) than we did in 1960.

 _One way to look at that is that it should only take one-quarter the work hours, or 11 hours per week, to afford the same standard of living as a worker in 1950 (or our standard of living should be 4 times higher). Is that the case? Obviously not._

I'm not sure why it is so obvious. 80% of the poor don't work at all (another 10% work only part time) and they enjoy a standard of living similar to the average 1950's American. For example, as of 1950, only 75% of the US had a flush toilet. Today (and even as far back as 1980) >99% did.

[http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fuZGrQqyd9QJ:w...](http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:fuZGrQqyd9QJ:www.census.gov/apsd/www/statbrief/sb95_9.pdf+indoor+plumbing+1950+usa&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgWgD4J1TSjrFebCwZX5tuY6G1ARvizkLhGyclPfIR6dag1cG4LeDEIaT5DJwgmoGtaQTuMQ3k9PmYxlZ9XJXrMQHHXnPnYwN64RSOodAbrr8yzJ7w0DaR4ERd2c2PqcEyDfP8Z&sig=AHIEtbSiu12SP12LYDhTfU- GEsc-X-Vuug)

<comment><USER3> There's also the "graph on average paid vacation time in industrialized countries:" which is actually mandated vacation. I'd be very interested in seeing the 'average' graph to compare.

Original source of the graph (afaik): [http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2007-05-no- vacati...](http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/2007-05-no-vacation- nation.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment> DanI-S Nothing has hurt quality of life for the average person in this country more than the mindless pursuit of "freedom from government regulation". In reality, all it means is our lifestyle is regulated by industry rather than our elected representatives.

The article ends with the statement that "Sometimes you just need to draw a line in the sand and say "enough is enough"." That's all well and good, but who can do that without the law on their side? Not many people can afford to be fired.

<comment><USER4> > "freedom from government regulation"

Or the average person is easily brainwashed by propaganda and can be easily manipulated to vote against their own interests.

I like how "death panels" became a favorite PR slogan during the healthcare debate, while the same people don't realize their employers and the insurance companies are already functioning as the effectively the same "death panels".

There is also another element to it: everyone seems to be wondering how come we are "coming out of the recession", profits are up, and yet the unemployment is so high !? The economists are just baffled and writing long essays discussing this phenomenon. To me it seems that Americans are seeing their co- workers laid off, they have their health insurance tied with their employment, they have large mortgages that they cannot afford (yes, it is their fault for taking on those depts), large credit card bills, no savings -- these are not people who will protest and demand more vacation time and higher pay. They will be working 60 hour weeks doing the work of their laid off co-workers, trying not to be next. If they lose their job, most will end up losing their home and health insurance for their children.

I understand this probably doesn't affect the average HN-ers, who are running successful startups, or would have 2 job offers the minute they walk out of their work place. But unfortunately that is not true for most Americans.

<comment><USER5> It's somewhat true that insurance coverage can determine what treatment someone will get. But, one always has the (perhaps theoretical) option of switching insurance companies or paying for treatment out of one's own pocket. When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears.

You seem for government regulation yet mention high unemployment, health insurance tied to employment, large mortgage debt, large credit card debt, and no savings. All of these problems are caused or worsened by government.

Government tax rules make it more expensive and complex to hire. Government minimum wage requirements make it outright illegal to profitably hire the lowest-skilled workers. Government unemployment benefits provide workers with incentives not to find a job.

Employers did not normally offer health insurance until government tax rules encouraged them to do so by not subjecting health insurance benefits to the normal income tax. Government is responsible for making it more expensive for a worker to purchase insurance himself rather than through his employer.

Large mortgages are encouraged by special tax treatment for mortgage interest and by tax breaks associated with home ownership.

Government's inflationary monetary policy and its prohibition/discouragement on citizen's use of other money encourage people into debt and discourage saving. In an era when everyone seems to be in debt, interest rates should be very high, encouraging savers. Yet interest rates are at or near all time lows.

Would that more people would vote against government regulation. Unfortunately, most seem to have been brainwashed by government propaganda.

<comment> DanI-S "When the government is your one and only insurer, that option disappears."

This is never likely to be the case. In the UK, the state provides a high standard of free universal healthcare in the form of the NHS. There is also a huge network of private hospitals and clinics that you can pay for in cash or using insurance. Many employers offer private health insurance as a benefit.

<comment><USER5> Hilliarycare (President Clinton's healthcare proposal) failed in part because it would have given the government too much control over healthcare decisions. As described at [http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual- prerog...](http://covertrationingblog.com/restraining-individual- prerogatives/hillary-started-it-limiting-individual-prerogatives-part-2):

"In any case, after making this broad promise in favor of individual liberty, Hillarycare went on to limit individual liberties. It attempted to do this in the Fraud and Abuse section of the proposed law, which sought to dry up most of private medical practice, and criminalize the rest. It provided for strict governmental controls over the fees that could be charged by fee-for-service doctors or private practitioners. And if the feds decided that a private doctor's fees were too high, they could charge him/her with bribe-taking, a serious federal crime under the new law. Indeed, Hillarycare attempted to make illegal most of the ways patients could go outside the approved system to get "extra" healthcare. Criminal penalties could accrue to both the doctor and patient. According to Paul Craig Roberts, writing in the Washington Times in December, 1993, "Mr. Clinton's plan turns normal patient advocacy into a federal criminal offense. For example, a doctor who wants an earlier date for surgery for a needful patient can be accused of using wrongful influence and accepting a bribe and sentenced, along with the patient, to 15 years in prison."

According to the source above, Obamacare is modeled on Hillarycare, except that it's less organized and twice as long (2700 pages vs 1368 pages.)

The reason why people object to government interference in the marketplace is because government involvement necessarily implies coercion, otherwise whatever government is doing could be done privately. If you have a scheme to provide affordable healthcare that is a "win" to all parties involved, you're welcome to do it privately, without relying on coercion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Coming from the uk, whilst I'd love to work for a US based tech company something that would strongly make me reconsider is the terrible lack of paid vacation. 20 days is the minimum here - many (including me) get 25 and that allows for some proper breaks: a weeks skiing, two weeks for a long vacation, a long stretch off at Christmas and still enough for the odd day here and there. I'd be lucky to get half of that in the US, a big disincentive.

<comment><USER2> Funny - I'm in the US, and I get a comparable amount of vacation.

If you want vacation, negotiate for it. Your pay might be lowered commensurately, but there is no free lunch. Why would you care if other people choose money over time?

<comment><USER6> See Barrkel's post below <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2022642> \- it's not something you can always negotiate. I don't care if others choose money over time - I'm saying many just don't have that choice.

<comment><USER2> You can always negotiate for it - that doesn't mean the other person is obligated to give it to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love The Onion's take on our work-life imbalance:

[http://www.theonion.com/articles/wild-unattached-twenties- sp...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/wild-unattached-twenties-spent-at- work,1254/)

</comment><comment><USER8> > According to the ILO, "Americans work 137 more hours per year than Japanese > workers [...]"

I find this very hard to believe. Could it be that unpaid overtime work was not always declared?

<comment><USER9> Yes. Look around, people shun 9-5-ers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I haven't met anyone who thinks US has any decent work/balance. The reality is that US is a great place to make money and lots of it. Then you spend it on the beaches of Brazil or Thailand.

</comment><comment><USER11> The search for highest profits / lowest costs is a race to the bottom. Regulations, whether they be for child labor, working conditions, or product safety, determine where that bottom is located.

<comment><USER12> The bottom right now are starving children in many parts of Asia and Africa, and homeless people shivering outside. But that's not the case for most people being discussed here. If we want to take parental leave, then save a little while you're working so you can live on the savings when you need to. I am as guilty as anyone else, but we can't deny the reality. The US is also very high in per capita resource consumption, and we don't need the government, or a small private cartel telling us how much to work and how to spend our money. Yes, there are problems, but I don't think regulation is going to solve them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I agree. We need a limit on the number of hours someone can work in a week.

Of course, startups would be exempt, right?

Right?

</comment><comment><USER14> I had to chuckle when I read the title. I'm at the office on a Sunday.

<comment><USER15> Same here, I imagine other industries are this way, but software (or maybe let's say clumsy giant enterprise software) benefits a lot from one person working 60 hours rather than 2 working 30 since so much of the effort is actually keeping the cruft and procedures in your head, which is a fixed cost. Clients want to meet with your development lead, who you also need to be doing actually development; and if meetings take up 20 hours a week, 60 hours is actually 4 times as many working hours as 30 not just double.

Not to say it isn't a little bit of a sad state of affairs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> You're only overworked if you do activities each day at work that don't strengthen you. If you're doing stuff you love why would you want to go home and try to find a hobby or something else to do in the rest of your time that you also enjoy as much?

This is why you see many people "lost" in retirement. Not because they didn't have hobbies but because those hobbies were never as fun to them as what they were able to do at work.

<comment><USER17> Great thinking. Where do I find the job that pays me to sleep in until lunchtime and then spend the rest of the day drinking?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Different study says Australian's work longest hours

[http://www.careerfaqs.com.au/employment- news/719/Australians...](http://www.careerfaqs.com.au/employment- news/719/Australians-work-longest-hours)

</comment><comment><USER19> Note that the source study driving this blog post is from a left think tank, the Center for American Progress. Their policy goals can be fairly characterized as adopting in the U.S. more European-style employment regulations on wages, benefits, leave, and termination.

There's some evidence Americans are working fewer hours; for example figure 1 on p. 9 of this survey shows a slight decline in hours worked from 1975-2003:

<http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1233842>

When considering such issues, the important question to ask is: do you want people to be forced to work fewer hours (as in some other countries), or simply to have the option?

Because if you want to maximize your leisure time, you can make certain career and consumption choices to do so. For example, if you wanted to live with only the amenities people had in the 1970s or 1950s, you could choose to work significantly less than 40 hours a week in the 2010s.

</comment><comment><USER20> Oh hooray, another left-wing political rant on the front page. It's been a few hours since the last one.

<comment><USER17> Why do you cast fewer working hours as left-wing? Being able to have a good life without having to work yourself to death doesn't sound left-wing to me; it sounds sensible and surely should be a dream of the right-wing?

If you think not being a wage-slave is left-wing, I think you've been fooled by the people who need you to work yourself to death so they can take it easy.

Edit: Which is me. Forget I mentioned it :)

<comment><USER21> The reason it is a left wing article is that it complains about the lack of government regulations over private agreements between willing partners.

<comment><USER22> I tried to negotiate more holiday time (25 days rather than 10 days) when I was planning to move to the US. They wouldn't budge; but they were willing to employ me as a remote worker living in London, UK, rather than locally in CA. (I didn't move, in part because of this, even though I had a H-1B visa at a time they were handed out by lottery.) So now, I get the extra holidays (but less pay), as well as having frequent transatlantic flights to get up to date with the US folks.

Why was that? Could it possibly be because the willing partners in that private agreement aren't as free to choose the terms of their agreement as you seem to think they are? The extra holidays aren't just a line item in the contract, with appropriately reduced pay etc. They are perceived to cause jealousy problems, for one thing. They're also structured as a status perk for long-term employees ("earn a whole extra day for every year of service!" they said).

The issue is even bigger for someone contemplating emigrating to the US, because longer holidays increase the cost effectiveness of transatlantic trip home. Only having 10 days holiday effectively means saying (relatively) permanent goodbye to all your friends and relatives if you also want to have e.g. a Christmas holiday and a summer break.

<comment><USER23> If I was going to guess: They didn't want you in the office with 2.5x the vacation of the rest of their workers. By stashing you in London, if anyone took issue, they just point out that it's customary.

<comment><USER24> barrkel says that himself in his comment, "They are perceived to cause jealousy problems, for one thing."</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


European Union needs China like Internet Firewall says a EU policy paper - <AUTHOR> https://androidrookies.com/european-union-needs-china-like-internet-firewall-says-a-eu-policy-paper/ <comment><USER2> This article is mostly based on this quote:

> 5.1. European Cloud / European Internet

> The EU should include an action plan for a digital cloud – a European > Internet – in the DSA. This European Cloud would foster a European digital > ecosystem based on data and innovation. It would drive competition and set > standards. Foreign web services could become part of such a digital > ecosystem but must adhere to the rules and standards of the EU – such as > democratic values, data protection, data accessibility, transparency and > user friendliness.

> Technologically, it would require a top-level infrastructure, high-speed 5G > or a 6G data network and a firewall. Setting up such a network would promote > many European companies and therefore boost business and drive innovation.

> Like the Chinese firewall, this European internet would block off services > that condone or support unlawful conduct from third party countries.

Source: [https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/6487...](https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/648784/IPOL_STU\(2020\)648784_EN.pdf)

Maybe the link could be changed to that, as I suspect the tone and style of that website is offputting for many people.

</comment><comment><USER3> I have already predicted that all the large markets (North America, Europe, China and India) will essentially close themselves off because they want to become self-sufficient in all aspects, including internet platforms.

Only North America and Europe will allow (limited) access to each other's markets because of the historical ties.</comment>


India's Nuclear Scientists Keep Dying Mysteriously - <AUTHOR> http://www.vice.com/read/why-are-indian-authorities-ignoring-the-deaths-of-nuclear-scientists <comment><USER2> Logically, either they are: 1) Being killed off by agents representing the interests of other countries - likely aided by Indian politicians.

or

2) Being killed by India's own agents because they are suspected of leaking sensitive data and information.

<comment><USER3> Could it also be they are dying of radiation poisoning?

Barry Eisler writes (fiction) about a contract killer who makes deaths look like natural causes. (www.barryeisler.com)

<comment><USER4> One of the reports mentioned their dead bodies being found left on railroad tracks. That... doesn't sound like radiation poisoning to me.

<comment><USER3> They were dead first though. I thought of that as disposing of the evidence to make it look like suicide.

<comment><USER4> It depends on how you get poisoned, but unless you suffer straight up burned to death (i.e. nuclear bomb), it seems that most of them result in slow deaths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The Indian Strategic Command is led by a 3 Star General [1] so the position mentioned in the article that the police failed to find anything is load of BS. This type of stuff is taken care of by Intelligence agencies, and if there was anything extraordinary here, the repercussions must have reached this side of the border, i.e., Pakistan.

In fact, I find this whole mentioning of Pakistan twice in the article offensive. If there was even a whiff of Pakistani intelligence work here, the whole world would have erupted.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Nuclear_Command](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Nuclear_Command)

<comment><USER6> Actually, Pakistan is mentioned once in the context of being a possible suspect, as are the USA and China. The other mention is to state that only the Pakistani media initially took an interest in the death of one scientist, which is hardly some kind of negative accusation.

<comment><USER7> To add to this, it would not be in India's best interest to publicize any security issue within its nuclear complex.

Especially if that information would inflame a nuclear neighbor, with which there is already confrontational history.

I am also not sure how mentioning a competing nation that has been in direct dispute with the target nation is offensive, specifically in the context of listing nations that may have interest in the issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Sadly such things go largely unreported or unnoticed in India. The country is bleeding and we are caught up in a first-aid circus. I think the social & financial gap in India is playing havoc on its future. We simply can't reach a consensus on fundamental day-to-day problems.

<comment><USER9> How is a response which is basically "such things" just happen in India any more insightful than the police response?

<comment><USER8> I'm not trivializing anything. But it's hard to get past basics like lack of water/electricity, soaring food prices, safety on roads etc. before you have time to help out others.

Your response just proves what I said about not being able to reach consensus on the real problems. Nitpicking isn't a solution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very interesting.

Coincidentally, I randomly spent about two hours Saturday morning reading about the Indian nuclear program. Did you know the Indian program went 24 years between the first test in 1974 and the second test in 1998? It was due to a shift in priorities during the late 70s and early 80s, as well as the formation of the Nuclear Supplier's Group which put increased restrictions on the exportation of nuclear technologies. Anyways, I was under the impression that everyone in the nuclear club sans North Korea/Israel/Pakistan just went about testing a whole bunch of designs for the fun of it after the first test. In total, India has tested only 6 detonations.

</comment><comment><USER11> Not surprised with the police response. In India, that kind of apathy is routine and 'expected' of each and every governmental organization.

Surprising would have been hard-hitting investigations and solved cases.

</comment><comment><USER12> I am created Shiva, the Destroyer; death, the shatterer of worlds. The dead night tiger made whole by the Master of Sinanju.

<comment><USER13> I, for one, appreciate the Oppenheimer reference.

<comment><USER14> Here's a great description of just how that quote fit on multiple levels: [http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/pnrgd/wanted_to_share_m...](http://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/comments/pnrgd/wanted_to_share_my_dice_with_rpg/c3r052e)

It's much more than Oppenheimer simply realizing he created a massively destructive weapon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> is it just me or is this more of an insight into India's feelings about their nascent role as a superpower. In the article I count 3 deaths in 4 years and one attempted kidnapping. That makes for a long weekend in some towns in the world and does not seem like it would be statistically significant in an "industry" that employs ~ 200 000 people

So why is this news and why on HN? I suspect because it's tapping into something in Indian society - the fear of _them,_ the Men in Black, secret power structures running underneath the democratic institutions. it seems to be part of a malease with our institutions globally - they just don't fit or react as we would expect them to. I cannot tell if this is more or similar in india so would be interested in comments

Of course it could be the men in black ...

number of people in India nuclear industry: guesstimate from scaling up British nuclear group at selafield - 13,000 for one site. The npcil site is not helpful.

edit: tidied up

<comment><USER16> > _number of people in India nuclear industry: guesstimate from scaling up > British nuclear group at selafield - 13,000 for one site._

13,000 people -- including janitors, accountants, secretaries, guards and officials, not 13,000 nuclear scientists.

And those are not "3 deaths", are 3 very suspect deaths will all the external appereances of targeted murder.

<comment><USER15> But "suspicious" deaths occur within any grouping of people. And this is just a conspiracy theory in search of some facts.

sorry, in a world of 7 billion people I cannot buy into a conspiracy based on anecdote.

<comment><USER16> > _But "suspicious" deaths occur within any grouping of people._

Not really. Where did you get that idea? Not many suspicious deaths in these here parts for example.

> _sorry, in a world of 7 billion people I cannot buy into a conspiracy based > on anecdote._

The microcosm of Indian nuclear engineers is not "7 billion people".

And anecdotes is another name for facts. This is not a statistical study.

Even one mysteriously murdered scientist is enough to draw suspicion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Sounds like a non-state player has decided to solve some business problems by hiring local contract killers. Could be rich Chinese, Russians, Americans. Anyone who has a ton of cash and industrial interests that are best served by no nuclear proliferation.

</comment><comment><USER18> In India any problem is generally assumed to be caused by a "foreign hand". Even if it is no rain for long periods, politicians will claim "foreign hands" are involved.

</comment><comment><USER19> Really tragic for those who lost their loved ones. All these incidents sound like a plot of a bollywood movie.

</comment><comment><USER20> The writer's overuse of bold text really tarnishes his credibility.

<comment><USER21> It's a style of writing that is supposed to make texts easier and more interesting to read. I don't see any correlation between the quality of journalism and the use of bold text.

Edit: Also, they're links. As pointed out by someone else.

One shouldn't be so fast to question an author's credibility, especially if one is only a random nick on an unrelated site making unsupported statements.</comment></comment>


English Sports Car: C2.com - <AUTHOR> http://c2.com/sportscar.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is a just a short funny story about the domain name c2.com and a certain English sports car. I don't know much about Ward Cunningham, but there are lots of funny (and insightful) anecdotes on his website.</comment>


Gazel - A Redis-like data store for the browser, backed by IndexedDB - <AUTHOR> http://gazeljs.org/

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm the author. This was meant to be hosted on a GitHub Page, but it is several hours behind in page building, so I threw the site on a VPS. Beta quality, but all tests pass.</comment>


Ansible playbooks for installing OpenVPN, IPsec, Tor, etc. on popular clouds - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/jlund/streisand <comment><USER2> Streisand is a good idea, but I don't believe users want 500 services running on their VPN gateway. Most of these protocols require a specific client, like OpenVPN. This is a 'kitchen sink' collection.

TrailOfBits released their ansible scripts for StrongS/WAN, which has sensible secure defaults (IPSec using AES-GCM only). They are calling the project algo.

[https://github.com/trailofbits/algo](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo)

<comment><USER3> For anyone about to try out algo – I assume it's great if you are using AWS or DigitalOcean, but if you're self hosting, or have an unsupported VPS, I've had nothing but trouble getting it up and running. I am most certainly to blame, but just a heads up.

<comment><USER4> Not to toot my own horn, but here's a blog post I just wrote on some issues I ran into setting up Algo on a pre-existing Vultr server. It might help.

[http://modulolotus.net/posts/2016-03-28-setting-up- algo/](http://modulolotus.net/posts/2016-03-28-setting-up-algo/)

<comment><USER3> Excellent I'm embarrassed that I didn't ask if anyone had done this and wrote up their results.

From what I was experiencing, I bet it was either the root privileges, or the SSH connection errors. Thanks a ton.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Ironic that a project to do automated installation of packages on a remote machine has two pages of manual installation instructions for prerequisites on the command machine, before it can be run.

<comment><USER6> For this reason, amongst others, I've made a simple Bash script to install StrongSwan: [https://github.com/jawj/IKEv2-setup](https://github.com/jawj/IKEv2-setup)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It almost seems ironic to me to run a personal privacy-protecting server in a cloud VM. If you assume that the "agencies" have access to the "clouds," whether directly through backdoors or through moles, don't you have to assume that they could crawl VMs, detect ones like this that are virtually identical, and automatically install rootkits in them? Or just monitor them by reading memory through the hypervisor? How would you even know if the hypervisor were compromised?

<comment><USER8> This is more likely a response to the recent reversal of FCC privacy rules.

This may not defend against state actors, but will against nosy ISPs.

<comment><USER9> What about the cloud providers' ISPs?

<comment><USER8> Backbone providers provide services to businesses. If one of them was caught monitoring traffic, their reputation would be destroyed.

<comment><USER10> That's why they go the extra length not to be caught. Even if they wanted to alert a user that he's monitored, wouldn't national security letter come with a gag order forbidding this ?

<comment><USER8> We're talking ISPs here, not state actors. If an individual catches the full attention of the NSA, there's not all that much they can do to defend their privacy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's a similar playbook more focused around self-hosting common services like email, calendars, contacts in addition to a VPN: [https://github.com/sovereign/sovereign](https://github.com/sovereign/sovereign)

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't know Ansible very well... is it possible to install only a subset (namely, the vpn service you plan to actually use)? It seems like a large attack service to have every VPN software possible running on the machine.

<comment><USER13> Yes. It depends on how well organized the Playbook is, but this one is nice. As long as they kept their dependencies clean edit:

[https://github.com/jlund/streisand/blob/master/playbooks/str...](https://github.com/jlund/streisand/blob/master/playbooks/streisand.yml)

Comment out any roles you don't want with a # at the beginning of the line, YAML is very picky about syntax.

comment edit: Think of roles in ansible like building blocks or common chores you can apply to any server. It might be nice to not have so much stuff by default, but this tool isn't meant for complete technical novices, so it is expected (in my opinion) that you go in and prune anything out you don't want/need. What is nice is that you have lots of options and if you ever need to add a role you can just uncomment it and re-run the playbook.

<comment><USER14> I think you'd typically want to use tags [0] for controlling which portions of an ansible playbook run, for a one-off set of tasks like this. This one in particular isn't set up to work that way though.

[0] [http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/playbooks_tags.html](http://docs.ansible.com/ansible/playbooks_tags.html)

<comment><USER15> This one is organized around roles instead (and role dependencies).

<comment><USER16> You can tag entire roles themselves.

Lately I've been using this as a way to quickly apply selective config. It feels 'hacked-on', but it works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This reminds me of Caislean ([https://equalit.ie/portfolio/caislean/](https://equalit.ie/portfolio/caislean/)

</comment><comment><USER18> I'm using algo ([https://github.com/trailofbits/algo](https://github.com/trailofbits/algo)) on an AWS instance, easy to set up and provides configuration across devices. Did find my iPhone struggling to use data sometimes when connecting to the VPN over the cell network. Can always disable that feature though.

</comment><comment><USER19> Say if I wanted to set something up like this for my friends, family and myself to use. Which would be the best and most feature rich for multi user?

I would love the option to not log ANY of the traffic or DNS requests my friends/family initiate.

<comment><USER20> Streisand is multi user. Supports five by default if I recall, possibly more

<comment><USER21> Depends. The OpenVPN role will generate five clients, however the server is configured to allow certificate re-use, effectively unlimited (for OpenVPN at least).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Streisand is a very, very good idea -- unfortunately it simply doesn't work at present. I've tried using it on AWS and Google Cloud and neither option works whether I run it natively on Ansible under OSX or on Ansible under Vagrant.

It is very cleanly implemented implemented though -- nicely implemented playbooks (I write Ansible professionally so I can actually say that).

Going to try algo today.</comment>


Ask HN: With all the turmoil around Facebook, is there a gap in the market? - <AUTHOR> I was wondering if there's space now for a website/app that can let you upload your photos and get URLs with a hash that you can then share with your friends. What do you guys think? <comment><USER2> How does it get paid for?</comment>


404 Found - <AUTHOR> https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/404-Found <comment><USER2> I wrote some scrapers for a customer a few years back. After about a month I got a call that my scraper flagged a certain URL as unreachable, but the URL did work in a browser.

As it turned out: the webserver returned a 500 for every file, but still served it. So the website rendered flawless in a browser.

I still wonder if it was just a badly configured webserver or if the owner did this on purpose to prevents scrapers and search engines.

<comment><USER3> I wrote a simple Firefox extension mostly for personal use that finds bookmarks that point to unreachable pages.

After publishing it on addons.mozilla.org, I almost immediately got messages that it marked reachable websites as expired.

So instead of just checking the HTTP status code for 404, I now also check if the page content contains strings like "404" or "not found". If it doesn't contain those I mark the bookmark as maybe expired.

<comment><USER4> How do you deal with languages other than English? I guess one might generate a very unlikely url and then take that response as 'not found'. Still wouldnt work sometimes.

<comment><USER5> i guess it works like that: \- 404 status with "not found" or "404" \- surely not found \- 404 status without above - "maybe" not found \- not-404 status - bookmark is fine :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> With respect to Ted, there's virtually nothing of content in this post... I'm confused. 404 SEO issues are nothing new, and "friendly" 404 browser intercepts have been discussed much more coherently elsewhere. I don't at all mind discussions bringing up something other people might already know, but this doesn't really delve into anything and merely mentions the existence of this issue. A comment from OP (or anyone upvoting this) explaining what they found interesting here would be helpful.

<comment><USER7> It seems like Firefox is trying to be helpful. They show the content for a dead project ("Support the sites you love, avoid the ads you hate ..." ) with a header explaining that "This study is no longer active. Thank you for your participation." That's arguably much better than an enigmatic 404 error.

<comment><USER8> > with a header explaining that "This study is no longer active. Thank you for > your participation."

I think that header is way too easy to miss, because it occupies the same space as the usual pointless cookie or "sign up"-type banners that many websites show. I certainly didn't see it at first.

I suspect that the author of the linked blog post did not see that message either, since they describe that page being a 404 as "probably a bug".

<comment><USER9> I saw the banner and was equally confused - a 404 seems like the wrong abstraction layer for that content, just intuitively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is a potential use case for 410 Gone: there used to be content, but not anymore, and it is unlikely to reappear in the future, so you can cache this response and not bother trying to fetch it again. Of course, 410 is only appropriate if you can be fairly sure that you don't want to reuse the URI in the future.

<comment><USER11> Interesting idea. It would also need to be the case that the content has no moved either so a 302 is not appropriate.

I don't necessarily agree that you should be certain not to reuse the URI. Why do you think that should be the case?

<comment><USER10> It depends, really, but I seem to recall that at least some browsers ignore cache headers on 410 responses and always cache them "forever", which is arguably allowed by the spec.

As a cautionary example, I once was trying to be fancy and used 410 to denote the expiration of a session-bound resource (actually an API endpoint). That would have been fine had the resource URI been unique across sessions… but it wasn't, so after one session expiration some browsers naturally assumed that the endpoint URI isn't going to come back even after starting a new session. Should have used 404 or 403 instead.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Years ago I had a problem serving downloads with PHP. IIRC it worked just fine on Opera (Presto-based) and was showing blank page on Firefox.

The problem was serving 404 Not Found status with `Content-Disposition: attachment` and actual contents of the file. Opera hadn't had a problem with that, Firefox was confused.

If you would like to test your browser behavior, here is replicated behaviour of what i've done in the past: [http://o7o.pl/down404.php](http://o7o.pl/down404.php)

My results:

\- Chromium-based browsers (tested on Chrome, Vivaldi, Opera Developer) shows generic Chromium error with `ERR_INVALID_RESPONSE` code.

\- Firefox displays own page about resource not being found

\- Edge (not Chromish) removes the url (if opened in new tab) and shows infinite loader in the tab favicon or just restores previous url (if going to the url from another page)

\- Old Presto-based Opera (newest from 12.x) just downloads the file

\- wget just returns 404 error

\- Internet Explorer 11 shows own "page cannot be found" page

Can anyone test it on Safari on Mac?

I wonder which should be the correct behavior? Personally I am satisfied with just downloading the file ignoring 404 status.

<comment><USER12> \- Safari shows a blank page, downloads it as a file, and auto-displays the content in TextEdit

<comment><USER5> > auto-displays the content in TextEdit

wow, that's kind of "brave" thing to do for a file marked as `application/binary` mime type. it has `.txt` extension however as filename

of course I have no idea how TextEdit behaves with big binary files, but such apps on Windows/Linux can't handle it well (usually hangs forever/for a long time)

<comment><USER13> MacOS/Safari has an option to automatically open "safe" files, like text files and other media.

<comment><USER14> PDFs and ZIPs are also considered as safe despite the format being very complex and huge chances there's an exploitable bug in there.

That's one of the very first things I disable on any Mac.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Would be neat if there was a 404-blocker extension to take over the 404 "bling space."

For example, in Firefox the extension could replace 404 bling content with randomly chosen little nostalgic animations and concept art based on the history of the web. It could just ship with a small collection of such stuff without much of a footprint so there's no network hit.

Then

<comment><USER16> Replace all 404 errors with 404 Party

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvwwzV6ruGc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qvwwzV6ruGc)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> You missed the chance to set the response code of the post to 404 instead of 200, I was very disappointed.

</comment><comment><USER5> the website is down :) here's a copy: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yli5sn...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:yli5sny2_k0J:https://flak.tedunangst.com/post/404-Found+&cd=1&hl=pl&ct=clnk&gl=pl) (click on text version link if it cannot load anyway)

</comment><comment><USER18> Maybe it's 404, because: "This study is no longer active. Thank you for your participation."

<comment><USER5> as article stated - there is a difference between opening that link with and without trailing slash.

without it - it serves exactly the same page with 200 OK (and redirects you to slash url but with javascript, not with Location header)

So i guess there is just a little server misconfiguration mixed with javascript application taking the opposite way of thinking about urls than the server

<comment><USER18> Ah, ok. Trailing slash can be a source of "fun" in webserver configurations, yes.</comment></comment></comment>


Front Ahead Design (FAD) Methodology - <AUTHOR> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/FrontAhead-Design.aspx

<comment><USER2> I get the AF08 bit, but what's wrong with designing the front end first? I know that many clients presume that if it's in the front end, it's done, but most clients are also most concerned with ease of use. It can be perfect on the backend, but if the front end is trash? It will never be used!

In software where there are few end users, getting the front end done first is not a bad idea. If they can see untenable pieces, it can be changed as fundamental assumptions are challenged.

<comment><USER3> I agree that prototyping the front end is good starting point and a great way to build end-user confidence. I think what the article is lampooning is a project that develops the user interface to the exclusion of everything else. Many specification flaws only come to light when developing the back end -- which may, in turn, require changes to the already-complete front end, wasting time.

In general, the article makes fun of methodologies by picking a handful of software design approaches and pushing them to absurd extremes, hoping that the rest just falls into place. It's slightly amusing (and entirely consistent with other methodologies) that some of FAD's approaches may actually be helpful when applied rationally in appropriate situations.</comment></comment>


Primary Model Predicts Trump Victory - <AUTHOR> http://primarymodel.com/2016-forecast-full/ <comment><USER2> My sanity check alarms started going off here:

> For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly > predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections > since it was introduced in 1996 ... Also note that for all elections from > 1912 to 2012 the Primary Model picks the winner, albeit retroactively, every > time except in 1960.

It can't be true that this model correctly predicts both the election winner and the popular vote winner, since Bush won one and lost the other in 2000.

I am extremely skeptical of this model, partly because I find the idea that voters pay attention to the primaries, but not to anything that happens later, very implausible. But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem. There are tons of degrees of freedom, not just in the model weights but in the choice of which primaries to consider.

The authors picked NH in previous elections, and this year fairly arbitrarily decided to include SC as well. It's no surprise that you can make good retroactive predictions when you have many effective model parameters to play with.

<comment><USER3> > But much more importantly, it has a huge overfitting problem.

Exactly. I was thinking about how easy it would be to create a model that accurately predicted the last 100 years' election results that would likely fall flat on its face in the next.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My theory, many people are actually voting for Trump, for whatever reason it may be, but they will not tell others. Polls, friends, community, etc. It seems many communities, including SV, have tried to ostracize those with opposing viewpoints. Trump's strength is built on that, whether an individual will be public about it or not. I read somewhere (sorry no source) that this election has seen the fewest bumped stickers/yard signs in recent history.

Edit: Remember, this is HN, not Reddit, keep it civil. And also keep in mind, odds are pretty low you will change anybody's view at this point, especially over comments ;)

<comment><USER5> Look into the "shy tory factor". [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shy_Tory_Factor)

People are more likely to lie about their voting intentions when the media create a climate of moral stigma around their candidate. I am sure this is going to happen in the uk too. The Democrats have run the wrong campaign.

<comment><USER4> Ahh, exactly. I think this kind of thing is quite dangerous. When people become afraid to say what they think and/or get berated when they do, it's a very dangerous climate. For any side. All of the sudden people start to believe something they actually don't believe in because of this stigma. The current state of the media is the worst. Do I know how to fix it....I wish. We live in a world of headlines...And it's too easy to put almost any information you want to appeal to your viewer base, despite how inaccurate it may be. Tough problem.

I saw a great "life pro tip" recently: If the News it telling you how to feel, it's not news. Always remember that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't think any model has accounted for how personally distasteful Trump is. Regardless of his politics (which I find abhorrent as well, but that's another matter), there are a lot of Republicans who refuse to support him simply because he has shown himself to be unqualified to lead ANYTHING.

Even if you're an ardent Trump supporter, you have to admit that Hillary showed how easily manipulated he is in the 3 debates. She just poked at his soft spots and tried to get a reaction, and it worked.

None of this is about electing Hillary; it's entirely about keeping a petulant child out of the most powerful job in the country. Is she in bed with special interests? Definitely. Was she trying to avoid FOIA documentation requirements with a private e-mail server? Of course she was. Are the American people sick of elitist political dynasties like the Clintons and Bushes? Absolutely. These things are all true of most politicians.

But in contrast to Trump, Hillary is an adult. I trust Hillary to be able to put aside her ego and do what's right for the country. I don't feel the same about Trump; and I don't want to get involved in World War 3 because some world leader made a comment about Trump's hair.

The GOP should have won this election handily -- but they've painted themselves into an untenable platform that simultaneously is built on racism and diversity. No candidate could form a cohesive vision out of the nonsensical platform they put forward (limited government + legislating morality; business-friendly + anti-immigration; guns should be legal but not drugs; etc.) so they ended up with a nonsensical candidate and a disaster of a party. The party is so fractured over Trump that even if the GOP can retain a majority in the house and senate, the Democrats will likely be able to find enough Republicans to break ranks to get legislation passed.

But this election isn't about politics. It's about whether we are angry enough at the whole system to burn it all down. This should serve as a wake-up call that over 40% of the country thinks things are so bad that they're willing to elect a would-be dictator.

<comment><USER7> > a would-be dictator.

Why that choice of word?

<comment><USER6> Because he has shown time and again that he thinks the rules do not -- and should not -- apply to him. A candidate running on a law-and-order platform who thinks he is above the law is essentially the textbook version of a dictator.

<comment><USER8> "he has shown time and again"

It should be very easy to list examples, then. I found the most stunning thing about the debate topics was everything Trump was being accused of was at most shady but legal, and everything Hillary was being accused of would send anyone but a Clinton to prison.

The IRS is happy with his taxes therefore he must be a crook. His lawyers followed every bankruptcy law and the judge agreed he did nothing wrong therefore he must be a crook. The amount of money he paid in taxes is legal but Hillary thinks any tax rate below 100% is morally wrong therefore he's a crook. He should have known that in a decade he'd be running for president and made sure that a subcontractor of a subcontractor of a general contractor bought USA steel instead of perfectly legal Chinese steel therefore he's a crook. A billionaire supposedly molests a dozen women for as long as Bill Clinton has been in the news for doing worse, but they all forgot about the tremendous billionaire payday for decades until three weeks before the election, all at the same time, huh, what are the odds of that, I'm sure it must all be true? Oh and he might have used a naughty (but legal!) word a couple times in his life.

Luckily we have an incredibly sanctimonious holier than thou candidate who despises half the country she supposedly wants to lead, is above campaign finance law, above confidential documents law, is a child rapist enabler both in home life and professionally as an attorney, her death count in the middle east must be a million or so, but "Hillary" so that makes it acceptable and magically somehow she's not above the law nor a dictator nor a madwoman because she's a globalist elite pawn. Clearly she is on the opposite of a law and order platform, we agree there. If she were a law and order candidate, to be self consistent she'd have to put herself and her husband in prison...

So where's this "time and again"? An unpaid parking ticket, perhaps? An overdue library book? Anything at all?

<comment><USER6> > thou candidate who despises half the country she supposedly wants to lead,

Show me a candidate on either side who hasn't made these kinds of statements. This is more a symptom of our partisan divide than any one candidate.

> is above campaign finance law

You can't run for president without bending the campaign finance rules. Again, not ideal, but if we want to fix campaign finance let's fix it legislatively. Neither side wants to deal with it, so it never happened.

> above confidential documents law,

Again, she did no worse than any of the previous GOP administrations. Not saying we shouldn't hold her to a higher standard, but nothing she did here is truly shocking.

> is a child rapist enabler both in home life and professionally as an > attorney

Ok, WHOA. I don't think either of these happened. You can't count professional work as a defense attorney because the lawyer is there to ensure that her client receives a fair trial. It's in everyone's best interests for her to mount a competent defense because it should clarify reasonable doubt. Just because she may have defended a child rapist doesn't mean she supports him -- she was an agent of the court playing a role in a system that ensures everyone has the right to a fair trial.

Bill may be a horndog, but that's beside the point. It's not his wife's fault; nor is it any of your business how they handle their marital problems. And I don't recall any allegations of him ever assaulting anyone underage...

> her death count in the middle east must be a million or so

Ok, just stop. Even if you were to blame Hillary for every combat-related death in the middle east and north Africa during and after her tenure as Secretary of State, they don't even add up to more than 500,000. Exclude Syria (you can only criticize Hillary for inaction here - and what exactly do we have to gain getting involved in a proxy war between Saudi Arabia, Iran and Russia?) and Libya (not gonna touch it with all the hate from the Benghazi witch hunt where no wrongdoing was found after a few rounds of congressional investigations, but needless to say you're giving Hillary way too much credit if you blame the entire situation in Libya on her) you don't even get to 10,000. Yes, the refugee crisis is real, but there's not much we can do about it from the US. The EU has to figure that one out on their own, unfortunately.

Honestly, the world is in an unprecedented period of peace right now. Major global conflicts are relatively low-burn affairs where the death count is measured in thousands per year rather than millions. Our goal should be to keep it that way, not go and start the next big war or escalate a smaller one.

<comment><USER9> >And I don't recall any allegations of him ever assaulting anyone underage...

Please google "Lolita Express" (one link here [1]). His friend, Jeff Epstein, who organized these trips is a _convicted_ pedophile.

In 2014, another young woman filed a lawsuit claiming that Epstein used her as a sex slave for his powerful friends—and that she'd been at parties on his private island with former President Clinton.

[http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill- clinton...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/14/bill-clinton- ditched-secret-service-on-multiple-lo/)

<comment><USER10> Epstein, Trump's-formerly-acknowledged longtime friend who he now denies knowing, is also the alleged facilitator in the case in which Trump is accused of repeatedly and forcible raping a young teen.

So, I'm not sure reports that Bill Clinton may have been present at an Epstein party is exactly a damning indictment of how Hillary Clinton is somehow getting away with things worse than what Trump is accused of.

<comment><USER6> It's all unsubstantiated, honestly. I don't believe any of the rumors on either side, because both sides have a huge incentive to lie and insinuate bad things about the other. It's dirty politics 101, and the Clintons invented it (say what you want about them; but they are masters of dirty politics -- which you have to be to become president).

I judge them based on what they've said; and Hillary has offered up some good ideas and a whole lot of rhetoric while Trump has spouted inconsistent positions, many of which are frightening to me. Furthermore, when you do even a cursory bit of research on their statements, it becomes clear that Trump either doesn't know the truth or simply doesn't care. Add to that the ease with which Clinton manipulated him in the debates (she goaded him into a fight which plays well to his 30% base, but makes him look very unpresidential to the rest of the voter base). If Clinton could manipulate him so skillfully, how would he react to provocation elsewhere on the international stage?

Regardless of Trump's politics (which I happen to disagree with), he as a person has shown that he is unfit to hold public office at any level. He seems to have little regard for ethics and fair play -- his idea of "fair" is when everything goes in his favor, and everyone is conspiring against him when it doesn't. He is little more than a con-man reality TV star, while Clinton has lived a life of public service.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "The Primary Model relies on presidential primaries as a predictor of the vote in the general election. For the record, the Primary Model, with slight modifications, has correctly predicted the winner of the popular vote in all five presidential elections since it was introduced in 1996. In recent elections the forecast has been issued as early as January of the election year."

If I'm reading it correctly this isn't a new prediction; this is a new article about the Primary Model's existing prediction dating from March 7 of this year.

</comment><comment><USER12> If Trump had been a normal candidate, he would have beat Clinton. No tawdry sex scandals, crazy public fights with Ms Universe, gold star parents, leading members of his own party. If he had raised money on the same scale as Romney or established a ground game and analytics like Clinton. Based solely on primary data, yes, he probably would win.

</comment><comment><USER13> Wait wait wait... "for elections since 1952 only the New Hampshire Primary has been used to measure primary performance."

How is that legit at all? I could probably pick another state and show no correlation, or even show that primary winners are general election losers. Especially if i can change which states are used half way through...

<comment><USER14> I'm guessing it has something to do with it being the second primary (and thus heavily watched as well as very influential)

<comment><USER15> It's the first primary. It's in our state constitution.

<comment><USER14> Whoops, misread Google. :) I bet that's why then; it's "untarnished" by previous primaries.

<comment><USER16> Well it's still influenced by the Iowa caucus, which they ignore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So he took a whole bunch of data, and found coefficients which correctly determine 5 data points?

Um, okay.

</comment><comment><USER18> Andrew Tanenbaum (creator of MINIX) and historian Christopher Bates comment on this:

[http://www.electoral- vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#i...](http://www.electoral- vote.com/evp2016/Pres/Maps/Oct23.html#item-11)

</comment><comment><USER19> Would love to see Nate Silver discuss this.

<comment><USER20> Not specifically about this prediction, but he touched on the uncertainty factor in the latest Model Talk podcast episode: [http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-uncertainty- is-...](http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/how-much-uncertainty-is-left- about-the-election/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Reading those predictions with a history of getting it right, always reminds me of the Simpsons episode with Professor Pigskin: [http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Pigskin](http://simpsons.wikia.com/wiki/Professor_Pigskin)

</comment><comment><USER22> Honestly, I want to see calamity. I want a tied electoral college. I want the election to be thrown into utter chaos. Why? Because it will actually throw a monkey wrench into what has been the worst election, with the worst candidates, in the history of this nation.

<comment><USER23> A tied electoral college wouldn't "throw the election into utter chaos" at all. It just means that the President would be picked by the House of Representatives.

This has actually happened twice before.

<comment><USER24> Which would - barring a spectacular twist - mean a Trump presidency and disaster for millions.

<comment><USER23> The decision would be made by the new House, whose composition is anyone's guess.

Even assuming the balance doesn't change, the Republicans have a majority of only about 30 seats. Are you willing to bet that 30 representatives can't be flipped, given the...lukewarm support Trump has received from the Republican establishment? I wouldn't be. I mean, not even the Speaker of the House endorses Trump.

In any case, the point is that an Electoral College tie wouldn't mean "chaos". There's a clear procedure for handling it. There are even further backup procedures in case the House is unable to reach a decision.

<comment><USER24> Ryan hasn't as yet specifically unendorsed Trump.

And 20-30 GOPs flipping to vote against the Republican nominee for President would count as a "spectacular twist', I think.

> There's a clear procedure for handling it.

Indeed there is!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>