Why "just use Adblock" should never be a professional answer - codepo8-hn http://christianheilmann.com/2014/02/02/why-just-use-adblock-should-never-be-a-professional-answer/

<comment><AUTHOR> There are so many problems with ads that I cannot in good conscience offer any other advice than "block 'em all."

• Ad networks can be, and are, used as a malware distribution vector. No one is vetting all the ads. Not the publishers, not the networks.

• They slow everything down. AdBlock and Ghostery make web browsing faster. Not to mention waiting 30s to watch a youtube video, or worse yet to realize that you didn't actually want to watch it.

• Ads are cognitive pollution. It's possible that mass marketing largely doesn't work, but I'm wary of assuming that "ads don't work on me." What if they do? As a matter of hygiene, it's better to avoid them. No, I don't avert my eyes away from billboards (ironic next gen Google Glass application) but I do skip TV commercials.

• Even if they don't work, they're at least distracting from stuff viewers actually care about.

<comment><USER2> > They slow everything down. AdBlock and Ghostery make web browsing faster. > Not to mention waiting 30s to watch a youtube video, or worse yet to realize > that you didn't actually want to watch it.

Understandable, but um, if you didn't have those ads, you wouldn't have YouTube. Oh pay for it? Who's gonna pay to watch stupid videos online? Nobody.

Ads are important. Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit regularly.

<comment><USER3> > Without them, you'll be paying a membership fee to every site you visit > regularly.

I, for one, would be happy to. I'd honestly pay a monthly fee to watch Youtube. I don't use it only for cat videos, I also use it to find new music from artists I've never heard of, watch recordings of concerts I've been to just to relive the moments and so on.

If Youtube would let me _pay_ to make those ads go away, I'd do so without thinking twice. In the absence of the said option, though, yes, I block their ads.

<comment><USER2> Judging by the huge bitchfest by users complaining because they have to pay $5 a month for Xbox Live Gold just to pay $9 a month to watch Netflix on it, people won't want to pay for their internet connection, and membership fee to the hundreds of sites on line.

Yeah the internet would be better, because nobody but the people who can afford to pay for it would be on... You'd have to have a full time job just to pay the fees to your handful of favorite sites you visit.

<comment><USER4> You'd not be paying for every site you want to watch. Only those that are most important to you. Also, not everybody using the site would be paying.

If content is supposed to be available to paying and non-paying users, then maybe (in the case of youtube)the payout to content creators would be determined by the upvotes of the paying customers only.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Oh, look, this again.

> "ads are what makes the current internet work."

No, they're not. The Internet was designed as a tool for enabling communication, not money-making. Without ads, a lot of the blog spam that exists today would go away and the Internet would be better off for it.

<comment><USER6> Yes and a lot of very talented people would not be able to focus on doing what they currently do full time (and love to do) as they'll have to worry about making money.

OR

As a content consumer, you'll have to pay for the content directly which is currently available for free.

Yes, I know everyone hates ads and I'll probably get downvoted here too but - You should punish publishers who serve malware, popups, JS & other bad stuff BUT you don't punish ALL the publishers - many of them don't do that and are just fine.

<comment><USER7> The web was great back when people wrote and published for the love. The web would undoubtedly survive a transition back to such a state.

<comment><USER8> And that's when hosting was much more expensive.

Patreon is another good example of how to survive if there are a decent number of people who genuinely like what you do. See Cara Ellison and Zoe Quinn, for example. It won't make you rich, but that's very much the point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Even if every ad was "well behaved" I'd still block each and every one of them. The privacy implications of being constantly tracked in order to sell me bullshit are too creepy.

Frankly, if your business depends on ads, you should think about a different business model, because the NSA spying thing is partly your fault. There are many things that I already pay for on the web, and many more that I would happily pay for if they offered me an ad and tracking-free experience

<comment><USER10> I don't consider trackers "well behaved". My reasons for adblock: 1\. Security. I don't mind static image ads because the security implications are minor. But running third party code without accountability is scary. (1) 2\. Performance. Loading images from a dozen different domains means many dns resolutions. 3\. Privacy. This is just creepy, networks watching every page I go to.

There is nothing in advertising that requires all of that. I'm perfectly fine with static locally hosted ads. But the whole industry is based around something else. I continue to use adblock plus despite their "Acceptable Ads" program because I consider it reasonable in requirements.(2) I think there's a lot more room for compromise in allowing ads but no extension makes it easy to address my concerns.

Citations: 1\. [https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN22569.html?impressions=true](https://help.yahoo.com/kb/SLN22569.html?impressions=true) 2\. [https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable- ads](https://adblockplus.org/en/acceptable-ads)

<comment><USER9> But ABP considers Google ads to be "acceptable". I do not. Google is one of the creepiest companies on the internet to date, and I'd prefer to disappear off their radar entirely

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> So many comments on this thread parrot the notion that people will just pay for the things that they love, but the math there rarely, if ever, ads up. The fact of the matter is that outside a few exceptions advertising makes more money than charging to use a product or relying on donations. And revenue is necessary not only for servers, but for man hours and ability of the creators to concentrate. No one can pretend that Google would make as much money through any other means of monetization. And people don't often work for free.

There's also value in lowering the barriers to entry, and allowing all people to use or access a program. Say, for example, Google cost $20/month. Would I pay for it? Absolutely. But a lot of my friends wouldn't. My grandma would use yahoo or bing instead. And some of the value that is gained in Google's ubiquity (which is actually quite a lot) goes away. Google would make less money. We might not have gmail, or google docs/drive. Or a self-driving car. Or Google Fiber. Etc. etc. etc.

I'm reminded of the notion of App.net. Sometimes critical mass is inherently valuable, if not part of the core functionality of the product. App.net was originally a pay-to-use Twitter, that a lot of smart people started to use. But it wasn't enough for me to ever find value in it. Twitter was better and free. I'll let them throw ads at me every now and then - it's a great utility and platform. There's no way I would consciously pay enough to use everything that I use online.

It's also easy to say that "No one clicks on ads" or "I never click on ads." Even "I'd be happy to pay for the sites I use." But not everyone using those sites feels that way, so your price would likely be astronomical, or the site would collapse under its own weight. A "pay to not see ads" model might work, but a "pay to use the site" likely wouldn't.

One look at Revenue numbers of Facebook, Twitter, Google, or the recipes site my little sister built (it makes her $150/day) says differently. I admittedly click on ads at tims, especially retargeted ads. Even if you don't, someone does. And they drive sales, otherwise people wouldn't use them.

So consider yourself opted out if you like, but don't pretend like they don't make sense.

<comment><USER12> > It's also easy to say that "No one clicks on ads" or "I never click on ads."

I would add that the majority of ads in the world are brand advertising -- driving awareness and consideration and not targeting a direct response. If you're planning to watch the Super Bowl today, the Olympics later today, or just about any pro/college sport, it's been largely paid for by ads. Not to mention just about any TV show, news program, newspaper, or magazine. No one immediately runs out to Target when they see a detergent ad, but next time they're in Target or shopping at Amazon (and after receiving many more impressions), the familiarity grants it extra consideration.

Most people are familiar with keyword ads, but not as much with brand ads. There's no need to click -- advertisers pay for impressions, and sites get paid for impressions. A little less than half of Internet ads is from brand/display advertising -- about $22bn in the US alone. But globally there are hundreds of billions more from TV, radio, print, and outdoor that could potentially shift online.

[http://www.itamarnovick.com/why-facebook-would-be- worth-200b...](http://www.itamarnovick.com/why-facebook-would-be- worth-200b-in-just-a-few-years/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't agree with the conclusion that adblocking is leading to Upworthy style pap articles... Those are engineered for a social media world, to cut through short timelines and attention spans. The ad content is largely unchanged from any other low quality media source. Just like all the low quality how-to pages that were/are churned out to catch long-tail searches when _that_ was the easier meat.

In a few years trends will change, habits will change, and a new paradigm will emerge to attract eyeballs. But here's the thing: the content stratification feared in this post has _long_ since happened. It's the reality of the web, has been for some time, and it's certainly not killing anything that hasn't had the bejeezes kicked out of it by other forces already.

<comment><USER14> You make an interesting point about the evolution of advertising online... It makes me think of the situation with the recording industry and record sales/pirating.

It seems to me the advertisers are just 'screaming and yelling' that their old business model isn't working anymore and trying as hard as they can not to innovate or 'keep up with the times'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It is not my responsibility to save your business model.

It may well be that many sites will shut down without ads. That does not obligate me to look at the ads; it only obligates me not to whine when a site I liked shuts down from lack of ad revenue.

</comment><comment><USER16> This kind of butthurt posts pop up regularly since browser customisations became popular. The main objection is almost always towards users' freedom of choice of software to view web content. It is frightening them that some users with technical ability and will share a solution with others who lack those, often with no strings attached and free of charge, thus preventing people whose livelihoods depend on advertisements to easily dictate how anyone must consume their content. They want to limit my software choices. They want to regulate existing software. They want to decide what I get to see on the screen. Yet when they face resistance, they bring up bullshit arguments such as their content is central to the existence of the internet against all the evidence on the contrary all the while building their businesses on the software built by people who have been succesfully upholding principles such as freedom and decentralisation. No amount of sugar coating will make their arguments pallatable for purveyors of software for freedom and choice thus their feeble attemps will continue. Only way for them to win is to eliminate general purpose computing which is already struggling to some degree in the hands of our oh so totally not evil that icame darlings. If you have read this far, there is a high chance you already know how to navigate marketing bullshit and you don't need my advice anyway.

I will continue to block, and suggest anyone who listens the same, every shit someone else want me to see or run against my wishes for the health of my profession if for nothing else.

</comment><comment><USER17> Here is the thing, I don't mind ads - but I do mind pages loading 10+ files of javascript when I am attempting to read an article.

I browse with noscript enabled, and for the most part the web is a much faster and a much, much safer place ([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haum9UpIQzU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Haum9UpIQzU)).

I am still amazed when I try to read a simple blog article and am greeted with a blank white page, it turns me right off the site and I go spend my time elsewhere.

I will happily shell out money for content that I like.

</comment><comment><USER18> Whatever buddy. Make something of value and people will pay you for it. Or make useless amusements, and depend on ad revenue.

<comment><USER19> There are ways to get the best of both worlds. XKCD is free and ad-free (and a useless amusement, as are most things people want to pay money for).

<comment><USER20> xkcd had developed enough of a following that its author can make money by selling xkcd-branded merchandise ([http://store.xkcd.com](http://store.xkcd.com)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The insight here, which the writer doesn't get to, is the incredible economic inefficiency all of this implies.

Ineffective ads outnumber good ads by at least an order of magnitude, conservatively. By good I mean "delivering economic value", which might take the form of clickthroughs or general brand awareness.

If we consider clicked ads, or those that eventually result in a purchase, to be good ones, then the rest are a waste.

That waste should be understood as a degradation of the publisher's product. We go to great lengths to get the typography and design just so – and then allow an economically worthless ad to degrade it.

The opportunity is to improve ads by an order of magnitude. This isn't a question of eking out slightly better targeting. It means not showing an ad at all, most of the time.

Though the evidence to date is not in my favor, I have to believe that the current state of web advertising is waiting for the bottom to fall out, like print media in the last decade.

</comment><comment><USER22> Can block, will block. I will advise people to block where possible as well. Why?

The Internet experience is universally shit when there are adverts. The 2% exception to the rule isn't a valid discussion point. Neither is the people delivering content and surrounding it with shit.

My children battling through adverts galore and pushing apps on them using dirty ad network tricks on their iPads is a fine example. Browsing on the devices is fucking horrible to the point they only want to use a desktop with an adblocker. Their school has adblockers. The local library has adblockers. Everyone I know has adblockers.

The model is over. No turd polish or new strategy will help. Advertisers ruined it.

I'd rather go back to gopher and dialups than saw a new paradigm appear.

</comment><comment><USER23> The only ads that have ever been useful to me, even once, in my entire life, were google search ads. Contextual ads presented to me when I am already looking for something.

Coincidentally, in 2014, those are the only ads I don't block. I really cannot imagine there is any advertisement I would ever value while reading about something else.

</comment><comment><USER24> Irony - this developer, who seems to have a good understanding of ethics and web best practices, on a post about advert blocking, has a link at the bottom of their sidebar:

 _" Essay shark - paper writing service!"_

This is labelled in the source as an ad. Comparing DNS and IP records suggest it is very unlikely they are related services. Chris also actively lists what they work on,which does not include Essayshark.

Essayshark do, however, appear to have an affiliate scheme. This raises interesting questions given the topic of the article.

<comment> codepo8-hn This is one of the ads I have on my blog that came through an ad affiliate program. So yes, I have ads on my blog, which is my right as a content creator. You can, of course see this as a conspiracy or something evil. :)

<comment><USER24> I don't view it as a conspiracy, only a very strange thing to observe, for a number of reasons:

1\. The only thing which clearly marks this as an ad is the comment just above it in the HTML. Which is strange for two reasons...

2\. The lack of nofollow strongly suggests this isn't just an affiliate link, but a 'paid link exchange'. Of course, you could just be profiting from the affiliation alone, but I'm sure you are aware as an experience web designer that most search engines tend to frown on this sort of thing.

3\. By not clearly marking the element as an advert, you are effectively using one of the same tactics that the "most aggressive and horrible ads" use. Yes, plain text is small font is utter love, thank you for that, but given you've just written a blog post about ad blockers, I'm guessing you must have also carefully considered this

4\. You outright talk about "dark interaction patterns" \- not labelling adverts clearly is one of them ;)

5\. A core theme in your post is "think about what appears on your page and how it affects your design". I see no obvious topical connection, and if anything, essay writing services exist for quite the opposite reason typically.

Yes, I'm over-analysing this, and yes, I fully support your attempts to gain a little more income. To be honest, the biggest issue I have is the nature of the link - having many friends working in academia, and being white hat typically myself, I have serious ethical issues with essay writing services, and I do think the juxtaposition of that link with your article is rather strange.

<comment> codepo8-hn You are totally right, I have moved the blog from my old domain wait- till-i.com to my name about a year ago and realised in November that all my ads got killed that way (see how I game that system) :)

This was the first to come in, and I felt rather torn about it. It was needed to get one in to get the affiliate program (which changed owners in between, another thing that is kind of fishy) kickstarted again.

The good bit about these is that all they want is a link. No JS, no Flash, nothing, which is why I considered them in the first place anyway.

Utterly fair points though, so here's a fat header above them and a nofollow on the link.

<comment><USER24> Your openness and taking of action are very much good things, thank you! :D

<comment> codepo8-hn Frankly, I just messed this up as my job takes 120% of my time and I hardly ever have a good connection to mess with the internals of the blog. I'd rather write :)

<comment><USER24> You and me both, you and me both....

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> So you adblockers who think the internet should go back to 1994, never use Google? I think the article is spot on. Advertising does and has always supported media distribution technologies since we had media distribution. Today that technology is the web and mobile web, and it is a distributed technology. Either micropaymetns with a bitcoin like tech will be embedded in the browser for you to be ad free, or view ads will be a future choice. Dodging the means people use to generate revenue - is just naive.

<comment><USER26> With the way Google has been acting over the last, oh, 5 years or so? Yeah, I try to avoid google for the most part.

I'm firmly in the camp of "You (the server) provide the content. I (my computer) decide which pieces of that content to display. You get no say in what my computer does or does not do." So yes, I block ads. I block javascript. I block flash. I override your CSS. I pick and choose which elements to display. I'm perfectly fine with doing without your content if you make it too inconvenient, because 99% of the time, I don't really need that content anyway, and the other 1%, well, the same content can be found elsewhere.

The the thing that younger people do not understand: I've lived in a pre- internet, pre-cellphone, and for the most part, a pre-personal-computer, world. I know what it's like. I know it's not the end of the world to go back to that. As a result, there's a lot of stuff I'm not willing to put up with.

<comment><USER27> This. Anyway, we are not the target of these messages to legitimize the status quo of the ads business (or, even worse, that want to expand the influence on regulatory matters). We are too old, well past the point where ads may have had a significant impact on our choices, and where media could change radically our point of view. In other words, we are irrelevant to them and we can continue happily blocking everything, but younger people needs to be brainwashed to keep the current model and to mold the internet into its final form.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I admit that I've had useful ads related to databases and hosting. But most of the time, the ads have been too obscene.

I almost feel like puking when I use a public computer. Google has made it better with textual ads, but they still serve those flash ones the literally flash and try to entice the same kinds of things mobile games often cater to.

There's also the past where the computers that had kids that would click on these ads would end up infested. Overall, the web ad industry has made some really dumb mistakes in the past.

</comment><comment><USER29> Ad networks - if you have shown a heavy flash banner 10 times in a row and I haven't click on it, please get the hint and stop pushing it, I won't click it on the 11th time. Today I'm talking about a blue banner with a developer with his saliva dripping on his desk.

</comment><comment><USER30> Honestly, Adblock is the world we live in. You can cry and complain that people shouldnt use it, but the fact of the matter is that we will. Unless you plan on somehow forcing this technology out of existence, the solution isnt to not use adblock. The solution is to come up with a better way. If I knew what that way was, I'd be a multi-millionaire at least, but I dont. My main point is that crying or complaining about it isnt going to solve the problem.

</comment><comment><USER31> Is there seriously a business right here which works thanks to ads ? I mean, do you really know people clicking on these ads ? For me, everything here is just working because people want to pay you so you put ads on your website... But this money, at the end, does not come from money generated from ads, but from... business angels and VCs money !

</comment><comment><USER32> well Ads are what keeping the internet alive in a very generic sense. The free services we enjoy like google, youtube, twitter, online new sites, are free because of the ads. Blocking them all is like discouraging people to actually produce good content, for eg youtube video creators get a share of money earned by youtube through ads on the video's page, what do you think happens when you watch the video by blocking all the ads? It doesnt affect youtube that much but it makes alot of difference for the creator.

</comment><comment><USER33> Outside of a handful of HN curmudgeons, I don't see it too much.

</comment><comment><USER34> don't just use Adblock... use Adblock Edge ;)</comment>


Ask HN: Hourly rates? (iOS) - <AUTHOR>

Hey HN,
I'm a college student who just got hired to do some iOS consulting and they need my hourly rate. I've only ever done fixed cost stuff. I'm fairly competent with the iOS SDK but obviously on the "in" side of experienced. What should I charge?
THANKS! <comment><USER2> $85-$150/hr

$50 if you're desperate but don't let anyone else know

</comment><comment><USER3> Twice the rate you would make working at a full-time job.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Really looking for a number though...

<comment><USER3> Since I do not know your skill level, location, and other variables its hard to say exactly. Thats why I suggested comparing to what you could earn if you were to take a full-time job in your area, at your experience level.

Also you said you have worked on fixed price projects before. If you know the scope of the work, and you can estimate what it will take you to get it done, you could charge 1.5x what you think it would take for you to do it fixed price then brake that down into an hourly rate. The extra .5 for changes, and miscalculations on both yours and clients side.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I run a boutique consultancy primarily focussed on mobile apps(iOS, Android and Blackberry) and we currently charge $100/hr. I have a feeling that we undercharge, but so far our numbers are working out, so not complaining.

</comment><comment><USER5> There are some very experienced shops out there charging about $120/hr. Given your (in)experience, adjust accordingly.

</comment><comment><USER6> In London, talented students from good unis are getting 300-500 pounds ($500-750) per day for iOS work.</comment>


Is Rails Still Popular in 2018? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@yoelblum_45935/is-rails-still-popular-in-2018-d17f3b062b18 <comment><USER2> A bug problem I see with the methodology here is that _new_ SO questions aren't good measures of use - SO is very aggressive about duplicate questions, and for anything as popular as Rails the common questions have already been asked.

Anecdotally, my company uses Rails for new client projects all the time, so I don't think it has fallen as far as the author claims.

</comment><comment><USER3> As someone who has done real work in a LOT of languages over the past 20 years, and has settled on Rails as my tool of choice for the past 10 years or so (when some requirement doesn't preclude it), what's the alternative? I really like ActiveRecord, how migrations are handled, the frightenly-expansive gem ecosystem, and how it allows for any front-end goodies you care to code. It's not like Rails has sat still either. I struggle to keep up with the new developments, and I'm making new apps with it every year. As a complete framework, what is Rails' competition?

<comment><USER4> One of the competitors in this area is Meteor[0]. I haven't used Django in many years, but that might also qualify

[0]: [https://www.meteor.com/](https://www.meteor.com/)

<comment><USER5> Not OP, but I think he means frameworks using Ruby though, because I'm also in the same boat as him.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's lots of mature, successful sites using Rails. I'm a devops engineer for one, and although it's a magnet for technical debt, this firm has done a pretty good job of keeping it from getting out of hand.

<comment><USER7> why do you think it's a magnet for technical debt?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Yes. Many people dislike it for reasons of tech coolness. But it's a perfectly nice framework for quick app development. And the community support is amazing as well. The testing tools are good too.

</comment><comment><USER9> So basically Rails is not as popular as it was before, but it seems to have influenced other successful frameworks.

<comment><USER7> yeah absolutely but the author doesn't discuss why there was such a decline.

I'd think that part of the reason is people realised that Ruby is slow, and sometimes it matters.

<comment><USER10> Sure. But the man-hours required to build an app without the gems you would get for free on Rails is substantial; you would only want to do this if the app in question _really_ calls for speed.

From time to time I get seduced by the romantic idea of building a simple JSON-spitting Go/C#/Java backend for an app, but then I realize that I would have to hand-code an enormous amount of functionality that I would get for free with Rails.

<comment><USER7> I don't know enough about rails to comment further, but aside from the fact it's from Microsoft, i'd think that maybe ASP.NET Web API would be a reasonable choice for simple REST Services? (downside is it only really deploys on Windows Server)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How to explain to cost of technical labor to a non-technical investor - <AUTHOR> Hmmm so where do I start...
I am in an interesting position. I run a tech firm in southern AZ, we're developing some pretty incredible stuff and we're funded. We received an initial seed investment that with my current burn rate will allow me to continue development for another 5 months (we've been grinding away since may) in order to scale, hire on a few more full time developers, and assure said developers that they want to continue working at my company I need follow on capital; which my current investor has already agreed to fund. All of this is great and there really are worse problems to have but here is my problem.
I cant make him understand the high labor cost associated with technical development. My current projections outline my COL at close to 80% of my total projected expenses, which, once you account for the actual requested capital it is still stupid lean. Any tips on communicating effectively what it costs to hire, and maintain quality developers and engineers?
Thanks, -CA <comment><USER2> Obviously, the details matter and there are few here so I guess I can only make a generalized statement...

Think really hard about the "standards" you have set and ask yourself if they are necessary. Depending on what phase of development and release your product is at, maybe you can get by with a whole lot more ducktape than you think. Is it maybe worth to accumulate some technical debt in order to release faster? Do you need that fancy micro services architecture or could you get by with one monolithic service in the beginning?

Does all your development have to be done by top notch developers? There are features and aspects of your product which are a competitive advantage and there are just as many things which are just plumbing. Can less experienced, cheaper or outsourced resources work on the plumbing?

All these choices and standards you have set in your mind about what your product must be have an associated cost to them. As an engineer you want to build the best possible solution using the most "correct" approach your engineering ego strives for. I doubt any of that matters to your end user who can't see any of it...as long as it works.

So, if you are in the seed funding stage, maybe you should consider every single nasty ugly horrific shortcut to release something that works just to stay alive.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is why investors with domain experience are often advantageous. I'll add that underfunding makes it more likely you'll be giving up additional equity in a future round, and spend more energy fund raising. If the terms are troublesome, talking to another investor may be worth the trouble. A larger round could be split between the original and new investors.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER4> Does he not know the average salaries of developers in your area? Any recruiter will corroborate that.

Or does he think you should hire developers from lower cost of living areas?

Or is he surprised that labor is a high percentage of total expenses? In that case, you need only explain why the other expenses are so cheap (hosting, etc. isn't expensive with a small customer base).

canteburry may also have a point, a lot of people don't hire at level. Or they hire hard core computer scientists when application developers would be better.

</comment><comment><USER5> Show him salaries for similar jobs, and say, "this is what the market is for people who are talented at this, and it's probably only going to go up. You get what you pay for, just like you would if you hired an oil field engineer, or a civil engineer for building a bridge."

Qualify your initial estimates as having been initial, and ask if he wants more accurate revisions of them, based on current market prices and a need forflexibility if there are issues or problems that lead to overruns. Then overestimate, and use savvy business skills to "save" the difference, if possible.</comment>


Zero Day Exploits Rarely Discovered by More Than One Group, Study Finds - <AUTHOR> https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/zero-day-exploits-rarely-discovered-by-more-than-one-group-study-finds <comment><USER2> The sobering conclusion we can draw, is that there are helluva lot more vulnerabilities where those came from that no-one's discovered.

</comment><comment><USER3> > _The researchers don 't say who provided the data—only that it came from a > vulnerability research group_

Gold-standard science right here.

<comment><USER2> The time to snark about a preliminary study is when you have something better in hand.</comment></comment>


Show HN: bursts.pw, completely wild and unmoderated realtime web chat - <AUTHOR> http://www.bursts.pw/

<comment><USER2> Really like the idea - I thought of something similar a while back, kind of like that someone else thought it was a good idea

</comment><comment><USER3> Would be nice to see the source code.

</comment><comment><USER4> somebody's gonna get v&...</comment>


Ask HN: what do you use for mobile connection when abroad? - <AUTHOR>

When you are out of your primary country of residence, what do you do for the ubiquitous data link in your pocket?
Are you satisfied just by voice? prepaid card? enable roaming and pay big bucks? or just see who's calling? buy a plan overseas because you go there too frequently? limit yourself to wifi at the hotel?
regardless of the country you usually go to, what do you do? <comment><USER2> Data is very difficult and hard to give a universal answer that is meaningful. I use a GSM-based phone so I have options with prepaid sim cards and the like but usually try my best to plan times around known wifi access. This helps too because my Android phone has wifi calling enabled which seamlessly routes my usual U.S.-based mobile number to a voip connection over the local wifi AP.

</comment><comment><USER3> Get a local prepaid SIM, and divert my home mobile number (via VoIP trunking) to the new number.</comment>


Ask HN: Help me to find Hackernews alternative for Economics - <AUTHOR> Everybody who is on Hackernews knows already what hackernews is for.<p>For Science and Math, I found the community on Brilliant.org pretty enthusiastic and passionate. But as I am highly interested in Economics and Psychology I want a community where people are discussing Economics in daily life and also some community based on psychology and something. I am not completely sure of psychology what I am asking for. But if you guys can relate to what i am asking help me pointing to good resources. <comment><USER2> Not necessarily a Hackernews alternative, but possibly Stackoverflow work- alike: ResearchGate has multiple forums for Economics.

Behavioural Economics is here: [https://www.researchgate.net/topic/Behavioural- Economics](https://www.researchgate.net/topic/Behavioural-Economics)

There are more forums here: [https://www.researchgate.net/topics](https://www.researchgate.net/topics)

</comment><comment><USER3> ejmr is the anon job board/shitposting for economists

heavier on the shitposting though.</comment>


"I made an app that orders delivery to a random location, and ubers you there" - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/chromakode/status/731942777131425792 <comment><USER2> Be sure to read down the Twitter stream as the creator documents its maiden voyage to a gas station.

Maybe someone can make a partner app that buys you an outfit of random items and tees up a random date. Then live stream each meet up.

<comment><USER3> Do you have any ideas on a website that allows you to buy an outfit with an api?

<comment><USER3> I found it. Zinc.io allows you to buy an outfit through amazon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> From the headline, I thought it was for credit card fraud! Order valuable, fenceable goods with a stolen credit card, and then use Uber to make sure you're at the random location when the goods arrive.

<comment><USER5> Maybe this is useful after all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> That was one of the best twitter streams I have ever read! definitely one of the worst ideas ever conceived!

</comment><comment><USER7> It's a Tor exit node for you and your food.

<comment><USER8> Nice, next update splits the trajectory between different ubers so the government "can't" track you, lol

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Now, the true measure of the latest bubble will be how long it takes for this person gets an unsolicited offer...

<comment><USER10> Looks like he already did...

<comment><USER11> Proof??

<comment><USER12> All I found was this [https://mobile.twitter.com/dougdescombaz/status/731980903459...](https://mobile.twitter.com/dougdescombaz/status/731980903459606528) in the linked thread

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The world has needed this.

</comment><comment><USER14> Ironically, if you add some social element to it, you will probably get more long-term users than apps like "Yo" did.

Probably need to filter locations so that you don't end up outside a prison and you could also pick the food joint based on the nearest restaurant that delivers to the random picnic area.

Stupidhackathon not withstanding, this idea isn't bad at all.

</comment><comment><USER15> Randomness is always awesome. More apps/products should inject some.

</comment><comment><USER16> What API does this use for delivery? Postmates?

<comment><USER17> Couldn't find an API I liked so I automated EAT24 with a Chrome extension

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Picnic source code : [https://github.com/chromakode/picnic](https://github.com/chromakode/picnic)

<comment><USER19> Whoops. Dude left his Google API key in the source: [https://github.com/chromakode/picnic/blob/master/utils.js#L1](https://github.com/chromakode/picnic/blob/master/utils.js#L1)

<comment><USER17> Thanks for the heads up. This is a key marked for use on the client side in web browsers, so I didn't consider it necessary to remove: [https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/6158862?hl=en#creati...](https://support.google.com/cloud/answer/6158862?hl=en#creating- browser-api-keys)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> At least it's not just "orders delivery to a random location". Oh the amount of trolling that would lead to.

</comment><comment><USER21> That's a really great, terrible idea.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Twitter liveblogged thread documenting outcome. Not me.

<comment><USER22> are you the "redcap" rob taylor?

<comment><AUTHOR> no - and just googled him and he is much smarter than me :)</comment></comment></comment>


Meet the Spy Chief Leading Us Into Cyberwar - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/general-keith-alexander-cyberwar/ <comment><USER2> Do any of the representatives passing these inflated budgets have any idea what their five billion dollars is buying? I have to imagine that all of our elected officials hear about our "cybertroops" supplying "cyber-fire support" enacting "cyber-kinetic attacks" and they might as well be hearing about stealth bombers without knowing what radar, explosions, or airplanes are.

Are there some kind of Congressional training sessions where basic information about computers is disseminated and explained, or is it all really just a bunch of hand-waving for all the individuals involved? I assume the latter, but I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

<comment><USER3> From watching the C-SPAN video that was on the front page of HN, I take from it that different senators and congressman have different levels of understanding. Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Lousiana), for example, had pretty much no idea what was going on ".gov is a coke bottle" ".com is the room surrounding the coke bottle." (paraphrasing).

While Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) had a better idea of what was going on "How did we get from the reasonable grounds, relevant authorized investigations, statement of facts, to all phone records, all locations, all the time." (@ time 1:22:05)

<comment><USER4> > Senator Mary Landrieu (D-Lousiana), for example, had pretty much no idea > what was going on ".gov is a coke bottle" ".com is the room surrounding the > coke bottle." (paraphrasing).

I saw that too. She was completely dumbfounded, and apparently just defaulted to the attitude, "well, I don't understand what the hell is going on, and I trust you guys are doing a good job, so... good job!"

It's terrifying. We need more computer-literate people in Congress, because the current crop are dinosaurs.

<comment><USER5> > We need more computer-literate people in Congress, because the current crop > are dinosaurs.

In NL, one of the most important things Bits of Freedom (Dutch equiv of the EFF) does, is writing reports and summaries explaining just what all this computer stuff means, what the consequences are, that politicians can use and read to be informed. Afaik, they word them in a decidedly non-partisan manner, so they can be used by left and right, conservative and progressive all the same.

Now you might have seen the posts about surveillance in NL being at least as bad or worse, they're all true, but I've also seen politicians change their minds about things because of these reports. And not just the leftist or progressive ones, either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the Threat Level articles that Wired produces, but if I see the word "cyber" one more time, I am going to go nuts.

<comment><USER5> cybernuts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I just don't understand how the NSA can even have the technical capacity to store all of this data. If their total operating budget is a few billion dollars, that doesn't even really come close to buying enough disk to store what some claim they are storing (all network traffic, social data, images, emails, voice, etc).

<comment><USER8> Where are you getting that budget? Supposedly, the new Bluffdale facility alone will cost at least $2B. Do we have any way of knowing what their real budget is?

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

<comment><USER9> That money will likely be split over multiple years, if I'm remembering my Federal Acquisition Rules training correctly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> He probably has so much dirt on the politicians that they have to do his bidding.

<comment><USER11> Spy kings at the point of large inflections in power and technology always do. See: J Edgar Hoover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had this strange thought occur half way through the article.

The US government is storing, analysing and recording all internal electronic transmissions so that US civilians can be protected from external aggressors. Doesn't that then provide a hypothetical aggressor a simplified target. If they can access these data hubs then havent they hit the motherload?

I wonder how secure the governments facilities are in retrospect.

Furthermore, doesn't this make the task of detecting or hunting non-state aggressors that much harder now that they know all electronic transmissions are recorded (and thus forcing them into an electronic darkness where they can't be spied upon).

I think PRISM and all these internal external spying facilities are inevitable but the ramifications of their public knowledge are going to be interesting.

Edit: Im also surprised by the complete lack of interest by the general US population. Maybe because HN readers are educated and technical they understand the implications but you would think there would be some kind of public uproar over this, especially considering the myths that Americans are brought up upon (freedom from tyranny etc.)

<comment><USER13> >Furthermore, doesn't this make the task of detecting or hunting non-state aggressors that much harder now that they know all electronic transmissions are recorded (and thus forcing them into an electronic darkness where they can't be spied upon). >I think PRISM and all these internal external spying facilities are inevitable but the ramifications of their public knowledge are going to be interesting.

I think an adversary with any chance of succeeding already assumed this sort of program was in place. I don't think this revelation will force any adversaries into electronic darkness--I imagine any actual capable adversaries were already there. That's one of the most ridiculous parts of these programs to me.

>Im also surprised by the complete lack of interest by the general US population.

I think there will be some major objection and noise from Americans about this. I just don't think there's a full realization of what's going on yet. Many people are just a single debunking of "nothing to hide, nothing to worry about" away from being upset about this. And a lot of people are passionately doing just that.

<comment><USER9> There is a certain beauty to the PRISM idea though. You're right that a capable adversary will already have been avoiding U.S. nets for obvious reasons.

But if you're going to recruit new soldiers, bomb-makers, suicide bombers, etc., you eventually have to go to where the people themselves are. So _someone_ in the terrorist group will have to dip their toes into those dangerous waters.

If a cell is smart that one person will be the only one who does so, but that is still one link into the overall terrorist network, if the NSA can find it, and that can help lead to IP tracking, which can lead to drone surveillance, which can lead to a boots-on-ground raid to grab the computer (and maybe even the recruiter), and go from there.

Obviously the hypothetical "capable adversary" can be resistant to a lot of tracking techniques, but that doesn't mean you give up. They may very well make a mistake eventually and then you've got them.

The NSA's precursor once even cracked part of a one-time pad because the Soviets reused individual pages from their one-time pad codebooks. Breaking the parts of the code they did took lots of time but by 1946 revealed the existence of Soviet spies in many high-level organizations, including the Manhattan Project, which was a pretty significant coup of its own for U.S. counter-intel.

And all that by pursuing an enemy using theoretically unbreakable crypto...

<comment><USER13> That's true--the Prism program really could have the positive effect of making recruiting harder. That's definitely the most sensible argument I've heard for it.

It's interesting that the program being useful in that way doesn't require the program to be secret...

<comment><USER9> Well, secrecy had its uses too. People might have assumed about Facebook and Google being susceptible to FISA warrants (not to mention PRISM), but I'd never even _heard_ of PalTalk until this.

Either way though the cat is out of the bag so there can be no further national security interest from a lack of transparency around that program.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Fear mongering at its best. "Cyber-kinetic attacks", give me a break

<comment><USER15> We'll get them with "mind bullets" (that's telekinesis, Kyle!)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think it's every bit as likely that the NSA will be responsible for instigating and elevating (arms race) the very cyber war they claim the private sector won't be able to defend itself against (eg Stuxnet, and I'd hate to know what they've been up to since). Self-fulfilling prophecy.

<comment><USER16> It really sounds a lot like the run-up to World War I. Kings and militaries running around gearing up and thumping their chests, polarizing their populations, with only the dimmest understanding of the utter hell which they were about to unleash upon themselves.

Thankfully, we people are awake now and can put a limit on the foolishness before it gets too late. But this is why a free and open internet is so important.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can I make PadMapper.com better? - <AUTHOR>

Hi everyone. Ever since a miserable experience trying to find a place to live in Manhattan a couple of months ago, I've been working on and off on something to help people find a place to live. It's similar to housingmaps, but it fixes some of the issues I had with it when apartment hunting. I was hoping to get some feedback as to what I could do to make it better. I've got a lot more that I plan to do, but I was hoping to figure out if there were any current usability/discoverability/performance issues.
A couple of the harder to discover features:
-Currently, in New York and San Francisco, if you zoom in far enough, you can see points of interest from Yelp (anything rated 4 stars and above).
-Also in NYC, you can filter by morning commute time to an address via subway. This can yield some surprising results.
Thanks very much, and I'm all ears. www.padmapper.com <comment><AUTHOR> And, to get a comment on the board: Some of the features I'm planning on adding, once I figure out an unobtrusive and usable way to do them: a favorites list, neighborhood crime rate overlay, probably a more details page with a list of nearby businesses and some other things, and full text search filter on the listings. Driving commute time filter is also a possibility, but only after I expand the subway commute filter coverage to more cities.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And a link: <http://www.padmapper.com></comment>


Ask HN: E-commerce for non-technical users? - <AUTHOR> What platforms and projects would you recommend for non-technical small and medium business owners  that would like to move their shop online? <comment><USER2> Shopify</comment>


How Google Can Predict Elections - <AUTHOR> http://pierrevalade.com/post/11321719563/how-google-predicted-the-french-socialist-party

<comment><USER2> This sounds like one of those phenomenons that suffers when too many people find out about it.

The more it's written about, tested, and the more people in the disgruntled minority (or majority) with what appears to be the statistics on a given Monday --- the less accurate this'll likely be on Tuesday... rest of the time.

<comment><USER3> Reminds me of Asimov's "psychohistory". He conceived of a science capable predicting future events with probabilities but two of its foundational principles are that 1) the population sample is sufficiently large 2) the population is unaware that they are being observed or unaware of the variables/mechanisms used to predict their future.

Part of what made his writing interesting was that this science was very believable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Those google numbers are 30-day averages, so it's possible to get plenty more than 100%. Looks like coincidence.

In the US now we have:

        michele bachmann 14
        herman cain      36
        mitt romney      11
        ron paul         34
        rick perry       33

All that said, I will be watching Insights and Trends now to see how it pans out. It might be coincidence, but it's potentially very interesting coincidence.

</comment><comment><USER5> I tried it for the GOP presidential primary.

      mitt romney	   11
      rick perry	   33
      herman cain	   36
      michele bachmann 14
      ron paul	   34

So I guess it's Cain or Perry with Romney not standing a chance?

Also:

      perry	73
      obama	67

      romney  9
      obama	 72

In MA:

      scott brown        0
      elizabeth warren  31

<comment><USER6> Seems like selection bias to me. Voters who search for candidates are a subset of all voters. Plenty of voters (probably a shocking majority) watch the commercials and that's the extent of their research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Google is getting thought samples from the brains of a billion people. Whether this particular method is valid or not, I expect they can make such predictions, and more. Flu trends, elections, real estate by region, box- office openings, popular conflict ("why are Tutsis so..."), traffic, stock prices in some cases ("xbox red light", "how to buy krispy kreme stock")...

</comment><comment><USER8> Seems to be a coincidence for me.

If you do it only for Hollande and Aubry, now. The results are the same... Aubry 29 Hollande 39, difficult to prdict a second turn with more than 30% not turning up.

We'll see next sunday if it's a coincidence or no.

<comment><USER9> It's very much a coincidence; amongst the "top searches" for "hollande", "la hollande" comes third.

"la hollande" is the country Netherlands, and has absolutely nothing to do with the man of the same name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The results are so close it is almost scary. It does make sense that the most popular candidate will get the most searches.

</comment><comment><USER11> And pollsters just had their job made easier, until people figure out how to play it.

</comment><comment><USER12> Yes, how?</comment>


Fake mission to Mars leaves astronauts spaced out - <AUTHOR> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/jan/07/fake-mission-mars-astronauts-spaced-out

<comment><USER2> I don't understand the problem. In space, particularly in a situation where there isn't much to do, why _should_ schedules stick to an arbitrary 24 hour repetition cycle? If everybody's sleeping about 1/3 of the time, why is it important that their cycles line up precisely?

edit: On the surface of the actual planet, of course there are constraints on what is possible and any joint missions need to be synchronized, but it's also easy to simulate a degree of the normal daytime forcing cycle.

</comment><comment><USER3> Asking the crew to live on mars time and using standard techniques for shift workers (bright lights and blackout curtains) to help this seems like the obvious approach. Certainly it seems scientifically irresponsible to say the effects "would likely have been much worse had the subjects been required to live on a 24.65-hour day" without testing it.</comment>