An insider's story of the global attack on climate science - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/2014/01/an-insiders-story-of-the-global-attack-on-climate-science/ <comment><USER2> The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years. Climate change is quite possibly the one and only story of the 21st century. What could be more deserving of our attention? And yet I've noticed that such news stories get a rather cool reception on HN, possibly because it doesn't fit the Whiggish philosophy that tends to prevail round here.

My opinion: the future will be worse. Don't have kids.

<comment><USER3> _The best science says that climate change is probably going to make a large fraction of the world practically uninhabitable in less than a hundred years_

The best climate science is still crap.

We can note some upward trends, but we still haven't created very good models that predict where things are going or how quickly. We still don't know how strong of an effect CO2 has to our climate vs solar activity and natural variability. It's been rather telling that IPCC has had to adjust its predictions significantly over the last decade because they haven't matched up with reality.

Let's all step away from the hype, politics, and hollywood portrayals to figure out what's really going on.

Personally, I find it very grounding to go back to Judith Curry's blog every once in a while to see what a reasonable skeptic is observing in all the political noise around the science.

[http://judithcurry.com/](http://judithcurry.com/)

<comment><USER4> Did you choose to take Judith Curry's word for it over the mainstream of the scientific community because of your expertise, or because she conveniently says things that align with your pre-existing opinions?

Blogs are always a less-than-ideal medium for picking out scientific truth, but compare Judith Curry's blog (which is barely better than Watts Up With That) with, say, RealClimate:

[http://www.realclimate.org/](http://www.realclimate.org/)

The differences in scientific focus is immediately evident. Judith Curry myopically focuses on lazy "debunkings," yelling at her imagined enemies, and hyping up her own public appearances; RealClimate focuses on new scientific papers, what's going on at conferences, and a much smaller proportion of "ethics" and "meta" questions.

<comment><USER3> _Did you choose to take Judith Curry 's word_

It's telling that you twisted what I said in that way. I don't take her word any more than I take Mann's word. I read a variety of sources and try to reason about them to create my own world view.

Since I don't have an oil well in my backyard, I don't really have a dog in the fight besides my general interest in the "success" of our society.

I really don't spend enough brain cells to understand the issues as well as the climate scientists, but I am good/have relevant experience in two important ways.

1\. I've worked with simulation enough to know that they aren't worth crap if they don't have a track record for predicting reality. Climate models have had no appreciable success at predicting long range climate. As much as you may want to, you can't put the cart before the horse. The validity of the model has to be proved before they can be trusted. Before that happens, you're using religious thinking and trying to label those who don't agree with you heretics.

2\. I'm good at spotting bullshit politics masked as scientific authority. I've found the IPCC, Mann, et al. to be extremely political in their approach to Science. They trash people who don't agree with them and they don't just admit it when they and their models are significantly wrong.

<comment><USER4> "Bullshit politics"

"crap"

Keep it civil.

You clearly privilege Judith Curry's work over the rest of the scientific community; and even if you gave them equal billing, that'd be inappropriate, simply because she's significantly outnumbered. And her skepticism is always expressed in political forums, never scientific ones, which further takes away from how much scientific credibility she has, at least when it comes to her AGW denialism.

2) is, naturally, an argument from "climate science is bunk because climate scientists are evil because crusso is an expert at saying climate scientists are evil," which is unfortunately a common logical error.

<comment><USER3> _Keep it civil._

Seems like you're trying to augment your argument by asserting some sort of language dominance. Do you find that helps with other people?

 _You clearly privilege Judith Curry 's work over the rest of the scientific community_

Her work? Partially. I prefer her calm approach to Science that demands evidence and remains skeptical vs the all-too-often politically-driven one I see at the IPCC. That said, I read realclimate about as often as I read Curry's blog.

 _she 's significantly outnumbered_

Yeah, I'm significantly outnumbered by Miley Cyrus fans too. What of it?

 _crusso is an expert at saying climate scientists are evil_

At the end of the day, we can't all understand everything. Lacking models that reflect reality, this is all just guesswork - so I'd prefer to rely on my understanding of what makes good Science.

<comment><USER4> _Seems like you 're trying to augment your argument _

Yes, it is. When someone's getting emotional about a topic, particularly a scientific one, it's useful to point it out, to rhetorically place yourself on the side of scientific, rational debate. You do the same thing one line down when you emphasize how much you prefer her "calm approach to Science."

 _Her work_

Which work? Is it her scientific papers you respect, or her publicizing the evils of other scientists?

 _outnumbered by Miley Cyrus fans too_

Miley Cyrus is great. But are you comparing the entirety of the climate science community to fans of a particular pop singer, when it comes to judging scientific credibility?

<comment><USER3> _entirety of the climate science community_

That's the point, though, isn't it? It's not the entirety of the climate Science community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The title is a little misleading. The story is from one of the scientists targeted in the attack, not an insider from the attacking side (which would be very interesting indeed).

Decent article, but not exactly surprising given what I've already read about on some of the attacks on climate science here in the U.S.

<comment><USER6> I didn't find it misleading at all. It's from exactly the viewpoint that I assumed after reading the title...

<comment><USER7> I parsed it wrong the first time as well. I was only confused until I got to "In 1981, as part of my PhD work," at which point all was clear.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm glad to see this finally being acknowledged and the funding behind these attacks being called out. In fifty years, when economies are collapsing due to rising sea levels and all the upheaval caused thereby, will we finally look back (as we did with smoking propaganda) and realize what influence malicious greed can effect over ignorance?

<comment><USER9> Or in 50 years when things are the same will we finally look back and realize what influence greed and stupidity can effect over people that reason things through rather than accepting everything printed?

Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling.

<comment><USER10> _Remember - 40 years ago it was Global Cooling._

This is a red herring, used to hand-wave away the serious, broad, deep, and highly credible body of evidence that points to significant human-caused global warming.

So-called "global cooling" was a fairly marginal conjecture that was floated in the 1970s but never taken very seriously by most climate scientists. Already by 1970, most climate research focused on warming, not cooling.

<comment><USER11> using five adjectives in a row, LOL

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This has really become more of a religious argument than a science argument. Some people will never be convinced man made climate change is real. Others will never be convinced it isn't. The rest of the people don't care.

<comment><USER13> It would be a clear science argument if there weren't groups that are very motivated (money, power) to misdirect the public by making "doubts" for their own gains, as the article clearly illustrates.

There is a practical scientific consensus that the current global warming is real and caused by the human activity. The illusion of "maybe yes maybe no" (quasi-religious doubts) can come only from the media who give the equal attention to the one doubter and to the group of almost all world's scientist.

In the internet speak, the deniers are successfully trolling the public.

<comment><USER14> I'm not unsympathetic to the exasperation of scientists concerning that their work is being dismissed by people who don't have the expertise to evaluate it, but all this talk about a "consensus" is where they shoot themselves in the foot. Science doesn't advance by "consensus". And using that as the defense is just a different type of faith (faith in the omniscience of the group).

Prior to the 80's the 'consensus' was that stomach ulcers are caused by stress and spicy foods. Two lone Australian medical researchers thought a bacterium was the causal agent, and so one of them actually swallowed a petri dish to prove his point.

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

<comment><USER15> The talk of "consensus" emerged because previously there was a concerted effort from vested interests to make the public believe that climate change was a controversial issue amongst the scientific community. This severely muddied the waters of public opinion. So it's important to continue the message of scientific consensus.

The scientific consensus is our best model for reality. That isn't about having faith in any group, it's about having faith in the scientific process. Your example of stomach ulcers only supports that point. Once new evidence was found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into the scientific consensus (so it remained the best model for reality).

<comment><USER14> > Once new evidence was found, the new explanation was quickly adopted into > the scientific consensus (so it remained the best model for reality).

The problem with a direct comparison in this case, that we ought to accept the consensus and be as dismissive about anthropogenic climate change skeptics as we are about someone who still claims that the Sun revolves around the Earth, is that in the case of stomach ulcers, the result is easily testable and reproducible. Much harder for something as complex as the climate. Additionally, this issue is laden with political consequences on both sides so it's hard to accept objectivity _on either side_ (very difficult for someone to obtain a grant inside the academic mainstream to study something that is contrary to accepted opinion, and very difficult for someone to obtain a grant from industry to study something that is in line with accepted opinion. not to mention the potential effects for fossil fuel and alternative energy companies)

<comment><USER13> Your insinuations aren't true at all. The scientist do the science, nobody can claim that politics had any influence of any relevant scientific results: all of them were independently rechecked many times over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Global warming is one of those tough issues for me. I guess you could call me a skeptic, but I try very hard to be a thoughtful skeptic.

What makes the whole conversation unproductive is there appears to be two sides: one which argues there is no problem and we must do nothing, and the other side says that the problem is going to end the world as we know it and we must change our entire way of living and make it our number one priority.

For me, there is a progression of questions that I must answer before I can sign on to the latter's assertions., And they look something like this:

1\. Is the world warming? I think it most certainly is, but I would also note that it appears that the warming trend has halted for the past 10 to 20 years. From what I can gather, scientists have reasons why that might be the case but have not explained it.

2\. Is the warming man-made? To a large degree, I believe that it is. However, there are a lot of things that we don't understand about climate (solar cycles, effects of water vapor, ocean CO2 sequestration, etc.) If I had to put a number on it, I would say 50 to 60% man-made.

3\. Can we do anything about it? This is where I begin to separate from the global warming crowd. Theoretically, we can certainly do something about it, but having worked in government I just don't see any practical way that we can reduce greenhouse emissions to such an extent that it's going to make a great difference. Further, china and India are ramping up their CO2 emissions, and there's nothing that the developed countries can do about it. Finally, I have ethical objections to telling developed countries that they have to use less energy which will inevitably result in more lives lost due to starvation or simply just malnutrition and poverty.

4\. Should we do anything about it? I believe this is a cost-benefit analysis. And I haven't done the analysis myself, but sometimes I question whether spending the enormous amounts of money today is worth putting off an uncertain disaster tomorrow when we have actual problems today that we could be working on instead. We have millions of people every year dying from malnutrition, poor water supplies, malaria, HIV/AIDS, etc. Why not save those actual lives instead of spending the money saving hypothetical lives in 100 years. And indeed, won't we be more suited to save those lines in 100 years than we are right now, meaning that the mitigation effort could be a lot cheaper?

<comment><USER17> > What makes the whole conversation unproductive is there appears to be two > sides: one which argues there is no problem and we must do nothing, and the > other side says that the problem is going to end the world as we know it and > we must change our entire way of living and make it our number one priority.

This is called a false dichotomy. There are an entire range of viewpoints on this; you've just chosen two extremes to work from.

Some public people have been trying to clarify that the world won't end, it will just be a far more miserable place to live. Fortunately, we have the smog problem in Beijing to point to as a very easy example of what to expect from population centers that don't make efforts to control pollution.

Further, there aren't just the effects of warming to consider, but lots of other environmental concerns too, like overfished oceans and oil spill disasters.

Earth won't end. Earth will get along just fine without us.

> Is the world warming? I think it most certainly is, but I would also note > that it appears that the warming trend has halted for the past 10 to 20 > years.

It hasn't. There was a "missing heat" problem, that has since been largely resolved by finding quite a bit of warming in the deep ocean. IIRC that study is still pending further research, but seems solid. If it's true, then that's a fairly bad sign, since ocean temperature is a lagging indicator -- i.e., it'll continue to stay warm long after the atmosphere has begun to cool.

[http://phys.org/news/2013-07-decade-unprecedented-deep- ocean...](http://phys.org/news/2013-07-decade-unprecedented-deep-ocean.html), "Past decade saw unprecedented warming in the deep ocean"

> Is the warming man-made? To a large degree, I believe that it is. However, > there are a lot of things that we don't understand about climate (solar > cycles, effects of water vapor, ocean CO2 sequestration, etc.)

And, of course, the thermodynamics of the increasing numbers of UFOs and spectral spirits.

Seriously, though, the problem here is that, first, those factors have been looked at (although I'll agree that they could benefit from further study -- but so could everything) and they have been found not to be influential, and second, there's no evidence to think in the first place that they should be influential. That is, climate change denialists are running from rebuttal to rebuttal as each one is disproven, despite the overwhelming evidence that scientists _do_ already know what the causes of warming are over the last few centuries.

For example: [http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213](http://www.ed.ac.uk/news/2013/sun-221213), "Sun not a key driver of climate change"; [http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/](http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/), "Climate change: How do we know?"; [http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php](http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php), "Global Warming & Climate Change Myths" (answers 174 common climate change denialist myths).

> If I had to put a number on it, I would say 50 to 60% man-made.

This is a made-up number. It is meaningless.

> Can we do anything about it?

Absolutely. Lots of people have been doing things about it. For example, U.S. energy consumption has leveled off over the last decade, despite an explosion in personal electronics, thanks to increases in efficiency in everything from cars to energy production to the devices themselves.

And every little bit helps.

> This is where I begin to separate from the global warming crowd.

Er, with all due respect, you separated from the global warming crowd quite a while back in your comment.

> Theoretically, we can certainly do something about it, but having worked in > government I just don't see any practical way that we can reduce greenhouse > emissions to such an extent that it's going to make a great difference.

"I can't make a really big difference, so I won't make a difference at all."

California added more residential solar in 2013 than in all previous years -- _combined_. Is that not a difference? Countries around the world have been building out renewable energy. Germany is now 25% renewable in energy production; Sweden has become so efficient at converting trash into energy that they're now importing trash from other countries.

Certainly, not being able to make some impossibly large positive difference in emissions isn't an excuse for continuing to make the problem worse, which is what denialists want.

> Further, china and India are ramping up their CO2 emissions, and there's > nothing that the developed countries can do about it.

"My neighbor doesn't maintain his yard, so I shouldn't bother to maintain mine."

As the rest of the world continues to move forward in improved environmental technology, there will be increased incentives for China and India to do so too. There will be more political pressure, but the technology will also improve and become cheaper, as it has been for decades. At some point, it will simply make economic and political sense for India, China, and other countries to adopt better environmental technologies.

> Finally, I have ethical objections to telling developed countries that they > have to use less energy which will inevitably result in more lives lost due > to starvation or simply just malnutrition and poverty.

This is ... a very silly thing to say.

Nobody's calling for energy or food reductions that will reduce populations. On the contrary, continuing to improve energy technology, as well as agriculture and education and medicine, will _increase_ the life expectancy for a population, and, based on all available metrics so far, as people live longer, better educated, healthier lives, they naturally choose to have fewer babies.

What do you think the life expectancy is for the residents of all of the squatters' villages in the Pacific islands that have been destroyed by hurricanes and other storms?

Are you really advocating for continuing the use of old, wasteful technology which, as a side effect, increases the likelihood of devastating storm seasons, because it's better for poor people?

> Should we do anything about it? I believe this is a cost-benefit analysis. > And I haven't done the analysis myself, but sometimes I question whether > spending the enormous amounts of money today is worth putting off an > uncertain disaster tomorrow when we have actual problems today that we could > be working on instead.

Alright, look, you're not questioning anything. You're daydreaming. We live in an age of unprecedented access to information. When I was little, we had encyclopedias and public libraries; if I wanted to learn about a subject, I had to put in a lot more effort than is necessary today.

You could choose to spend just a few minutes here and there _actually_ questioning all of this, and you could learn something and then you could have all of the benefits of a slightly more informed opinion, rather than just repeating the political talking points you've heard elsewhere.

And, by the way, climate is an actual problem that we do have today.

> We have millions of people every year dying from malnutrition

...and the technology to feed them, were it not for all of the navel-gazers wondering whether or not we _should_...

> ...poor water supplies...

...I've personally raised funds to send a hydrologist to Uganda...

> ...malaria...

...Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation...

> ...HIV/AIDS...

...tremendous amounts of ongoing research, to the extent that there now exist very low impact, long-term, cost-effective treatments for HIV/AIDS...

> ...etc.

So why do you believe that any of these things has to stop while we build more solar plants or work on further increasing vehicle efficiencies?

> Why not save those actual lives instead of spending the money saving > hypothetical lives in 100 years.

Are you talking hypothetically, or practically? Is this a choice that you, personally, actually have to make, ever?

Why don't you visit [https://watsi.org/fund- treatments](https://watsi.org/fund-treatments) (a YC non-profit), and make a difference in an actual life there, and then come back and opine a little bit more about whether or not we should entirely abandon environmental R&D?

> And indeed, won't we be more suited to save those lines in 100 years than we > are right now, meaning that the mitigation effort could be a lot cheaper?

I fully expect that, 100 years from now, people will be having the exact same conversations, in some form or another, that they've been having for the last thousand years: "really, what use is it to do anything at all, if we have to choose between doing one thing or doing another thing?"

<comment><USER16> I think you've missed the point that I was making, so I'm a little puzzled as to why you're spending all the time to do a line by line takedown. My main point is that I think any money that we are thinking about spending to mitigate global warming now could probably be better used solving world hunger or malaria or something. I don't KNOW that for a fact, and I'm open to arguments one way or the other. Just, to me, real people dying today is just more urgent than hypothetical people dying in the future.

<comment><USER17> I was just responding to the things you said.

If that's your main point, I already replied to it. Efforts are already underway by governments, scientists, companies, non-profits, foundations, and even somewhat poor individuals like myself to resolve the other issues facing people around the world.

Why do you believe that money spent on environmental technology is slowing the progress in other areas? Do you really think that if countries would just stop building wind power for a few years, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation would cure malaria more quickly?

Even if that were true, aren't there, I dunno, dozens of other sources of funding that would make more sense to borrow from?

The thing is, your objection here is a really common one, and it always takes the same form: don't spend money on environmental technology, it would be better spent doing ( _anything at all other than environmental technology_ ) instead. But nobody ever justifies it. Nobody ever bothers to figure out what the relative impacts on human life of environmental technology vs., say, increased funding for malaria research are.

The Dust Bowl disaster in the 1930s was directly caused by human activity. It displaced hundreds of thousands of people (or millions, depending on how you count) and contributed to starvation conditions in large parts of the country. It caused dust pneumonia, which killed people ([http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcri...](http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/transcript/dustbowl- transcript/)).

A single typhoon in the Phillipines last year killed thousands and left millions more homeless ([http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/08/us/typhoon-haiyan-one- month/](http://www.cnn.com/2013/12/08/us/typhoon-haiyan-one-month/)).

The pollution in Beijing might be taking as much as 16 years off of the average resident's life span there ([http://www.businessinsider.com/beijing- air-quality-hits-life...](http://www.businessinsider.com/beijing-air-quality- hits-life-expectancy-2014-1)).

Drought, extreme weather (both hot and cold), tropical storms, hurricanes, typhoons, tornadoes, bad air quality -- these things are not _hypothetically_ affecting people. While we can't altogether stop these disasters any time in the near future, we can start doing things now to make them less severe.

Real people have been dying for, at least, close to a hundred years because of human impacts on the environment.

<comment><USER16> Well, after searching, it appears there is a book that does exactly this. I'm going to read it, and then maybe I will have a better idea of what the relative cost benefits are.

[https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/fiona/thank- you?ie=UTF8&a=...](https://www.amazon.com/gp/digital/fiona/thank- you?ie=UTF8&a=A9F39MHJ0I7K9&action=&asin=B00DGY4D78&badDebtOrders=&cor=US&eoi=A1Z09KSRPAY4C3&giftSentNow=&homeMarketplaceId=ATVPDKIKX0DER&isExtendedMarketplace=&o=D01-8225960-4150420&offerListingID=7nq2hFqXdBGBPldjNPnMV4oDkPyvmJuRF%252FLJlvHOjcrB%252FaAeeU7vaTzlhAkmQouTxpB5sWdVcMNcnHiRhiiLqGgnyO1jGzsdO7dSmpTNjAuZONmxR3aWvjdaJ3ZwcSShanoj3UBp2Ou1AD0ZR6%252FuEls8pdVy6oE0&originSessionId=&paymentInstrumentType=&rateQuoteID=&selectedPriceName=)

<comment><USER17> Link's busted.

<comment><USER16> "How to Spend $75 Billion to Make the World a Better Place" \- I'm about halfway through, but according to this Copenhagen consensus group, which appears to be made up of Nobel prize-winning scientists, the ROI for global warming mitigation is negative (using the same methodology they applied to the other items they were considering).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I thought that picture of an advert from the 'Heartland institute' near the bottom of the page was a hilarious albeit overdone joke.

"I still believe in global warming. Do you?" \- Ted Kaczynski, The Unabomber

So I assumed it was a joke, and such transparent and patronising adverts could never have been dreamed up. However it does look like that was a planned advert, luckily the campaign was canned. I'm still kind of amazed!

</comment><comment><USER19> I'd take the climate scientists more seriously if they could offer a comprehensive theory on ice ages. As far as I can tell, over the past 250 years the best they've been able to come up with is 'multi-factor', which of course means they have candidates, but no winner.

That, for me, would be some real science -- not politically charged, not funding-driven, not in the pocket of a lobby or an industry and frankly fascinating. It kills me that there is this fatuous back and forth when the most interesting question of the the planets climate goes effectively unanswered.

</comment><comment><USER20> Don't both sides claim this kind of thing has happened to them? So again, who do we believe?

</comment><comment><USER21> Do climate scientists have #skininthegame?</comment>


Do you use Yahoo Pipes? If not, you should. - <AUTHOR> http://www.searchenginejournal.com/twitter-rss-yahoo-pipes/11803/

<comment><USER2> I have several Yahoo Pipes running which take various RSS feeds and replace the blurbs with the full article text ([http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=b26addb2e01415dbf...](http://pipes.yahoo.com/pipes/pipe.info?_id=b26addb2e01415dbf4443b33af6934c8) ). As a programmer I found it quite frustrating to use; very limiting (as with all "visual programming" interfaces) and somewhat buggy. However, it does get the job done and it's free.

I actually much preferred AppJet for this sort of work, as it could execute arbitrary Javascript and make arbitrary HTTP requests with cookies, etc. I wrote an RSS feed munger that logged into my WSJ account to download full articles with AppJet. I was really disappointed when AppJet was discontinued.

<comment><USER3> YQl can execute server side JS now, give it a shot.

<comment><USER2> Sweet! That must be new since the last time I looked at YQL. Looks very promising. Hopefully YQL lasts longer than AppJet did...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> YQL (the Pipes sister product) is more programmer friendly, and also free. Give YQL a go if the Pipes visual UI doesn't work for you (and it has lots of yummy server side JS goodness too).

<comment><USER5> Link: <http://developer.yahoo.com/yql/console>

Requires Yahoo ID to use the demo console, but YQL doesn't need that when you make the web service calls.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I wanted to share an article I wrote on Yahoo Pipes because of the value it provides.

If you read Hacker News, I am willing to bet you read at least 10 other publications.

Yahoo Pipes will allow you to mashup RSS feeds with the ability to filter the noise.

Yahoo Pipes was probably the single greatest tool I have found for filtering content in the last 6 months.

</comment><comment><USER6> I've used it some, it is what I think of generally when I think of OOP that what is going on is visually like Pipes, or other visual languages like vvvv, or Lily, etc... here's a pipe I made for the buses in and around Columbus, OH <http://pipes.yahoo.com/th0ma5/cota1>

</comment><comment><USER7> I wrote a pipe for Hacker News RSS (so that the main link would go to the comments page rather than the original site). It worked perfectly when it worked. And then would spend weeks not updating, or saying that the gateway wasn't found, or some other bizarre error that was beyond my control.

At which point I gave up.

</comment><comment><USER8> Is it wise to use Yahoo! Pipes for anything crucial in your app? (considering they've turned search over to MS and have been the subject of acquisition rumors)

Has Yahoo! committed to keeping it running long term?

<comment><USER9> Good question. I use Pipes at the moment, it is very useful and an integral part of some of my apps. It would mess me up majorly if they changed this, 2 or 3 weeks work. Lets hope they give us plenty of warning.

Also, I find the docs for pipes rubbish, lots of references to old versions.</comment></comment>


Larry Page's tips for the entrepreneur (~5 min video) - <AUTHOR> http://edcorner.stanford.edu/authorMaterialInfo.html?mid=1076 <comment><USER2> I'm a programmer, so it's pretty rare for me to disdain someone for being a nerd, but, geez-o-man, there's nothing like Larry Page in action.

Oh, have you seen his girlfriend:

http://static.flickr.com/47/112343641_e3af8465d9.jpg

</comment><comment><USER3> It was a marginal presentation (nothing to the magnitude of inspirational). You might wish to change the title to "Google cofounder's tips for entrepreneurs": That is likely to gain more traction :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> python_kiss: I don't really know that inspiration is the main yardstick by which I would judge the value of this video. I like your title better, but I can't retroactively change the title. This video has been referenced by Marc Hedlund (Wesabe founder, previously Oreilly's entrepreneur in residence) as containing valuable suggestions for entrepreneurs:

http://radar.oreilly.com/archives/2007/03/jedi_build_thei.html

</comment><comment><USER4> I think that all of those videos are great.</comment>


Show HN: Master iOS Design Course - <AUTHOR> https://www.drawar.com/ios/course/design

<comment><AUTHOR> I created an iOS design course because I noticed that a lot of iOS tutorials simply do not do a decent job of covering the actual design of an iOS app or design at all. Instead of just writing a book I wanted to do something that would be more interactive and could include videos, animated gifs, and eventually section discussions.

I also hate info products where I pay upfront only to find out I didn't get the value that I thought I would so I made this course pay what you value. You can go through the course without any restrictions and if you find any value in it, you can pay. Pretty simple.

Anyways, I still have a lot of work to do on it, but it was time to finally get it out in the open. I hope you enjoy it and find some value in it and if you have any feedback I would love to hear it (new videos are being made since I say "um" way too much).

<comment><USER2> I really like your approach here. I think for beginning (and intermediate) app developers, after learning some language syntax, design is one of the hardest things to overcome. I skimmed through the first section and will certainly be diving into it more this weekend (and watching some videos).

One nitpick is the description text accompanying the section titles in the syllabus. Reading the paragraphs of white text over the images make me strain my eyes to read or have me scrolling so the text falls over a dark part of the image which makes it rather busy and distracting to read.

Thanks for this resource!</comment></comment>


ATT dumps Kevin Mitnick - <AUTHOR> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/08/19/att_dumps_kevin_mitnick/

<comment><USER2> "In recent years, he's committed the password to memory and has deliberately not shared it with anyone or kept it stored on a computer."

Isn't that what everyone is supposed to do with their passwords?

</comment><comment><USER3> Wouldn't such a customer be worth gold? A single user that constantly get's attacked by hackers would provide a great opportunity to detect and fix security holes. If a hacker get's through, it is just one person's account compromised. But each detected attack could prevent attacks on other accounts.

I think some other telco should pay Mitnick to become their customer. How else could you attract so many hacker brains and make them work on finding security flaws in your system?

<comment><USER4> _A single user that constantly gets attacked by hackers would provide a great opportunity to detect and fix security holes._

Assuming that they want to fix the holes, which AT&T probably doesn't. They may be using the "infinite bugs" model, in which fixing one bug does not improve security because there are always other bugs the attackers can find.

<comment><USER3> Brilliant - an infinite number of bugs might confuse hackers so much that they don't know where to start and just give up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> So AT&T is basically admitting their approach to security is "security through obscurity"?

As long as you're not a high profile celebrity you _should_ be ok because not one wants to own you...

<comment><USER6> Security through obscurity gets a bad rap. You rely on the "obscurity" of your password.

The main issue is relying on false obscurity, both in systems (your program rot-13s your password) and in passwords (you pick an easy to guess password).

There's no real security failing if you rely on obscurity that isn't exactly a password, so long as you can accurately assess the real obscurity, e.g. port knocking. If, let's say (and this is probably false) AT&T has a billing system where sending 100 specific, not-easily-guessable bytes allows you to get private data, that's no worse than a password, even if the reason that it works is a bug - unless the source code is available to the attacker.

Of course, AT&T's problem here isn't obscurity, it's that they don't want to invest enough for real security at all. Which could be reasonable from a business perspective.

<comment><USER7> "You rely on the "obscurity" of your password."

Not really. Your password may be obscure (although it should probably be as random as you can get), but the key exchange protocols and encryption algorithms should be wide open. There's a reason why secret keys are called "secret" -- they should be the only thing you have to keep secret. If his hosting provider and wireless company can't keep his accounts secure, that's their problem, not his.

<comment><USER6> Reading my comment over, I realize that I wasn't so clear.

There are two almost unrelated issues:

AT&T has poor security - agreed.

Security through obscurity is a universal evil - not so fast. Quick example - you have ciphertext where you don't know the key vs. the same ciphertext where you don't know the key AND you don't know the algorithm. The latter is more secure, because it's harder to brute force.

The reason security through obscurity is usually bad is because it causes people to make poor assumptions - "He'll never guess I encrypted it with rot-15 instead of rot-13," but for a given _secure_ system, adding obscurity will make it harder to break. But it's the poor assumptions that do you in, not an inherent flaw in adding obscurity.

The reason you use widely published encryption algorithms is because they've been vetted for poor assumptions. They need to be open to be vetted, not to be secure, and we've found that's always been a good tradeoff.

<comment><USER7> "The reason you use widely published encryption algorithms is because they've been vetted for poor assumptions. They need to be open to be vetted, not to be secure, and we've found that's always been a good tradeoff."

True. Most people (including Schneier, Ferguson, Rivest, etc) agree that the NSA is secure. This is because they have a veritable army of cryptographers at their disposal. Peer review is the most important part of cryptographic development. The key part of this is that there is probably no other entity in the United States that can satisfy these requirements. AT&T certainly does not have an impressive cryptographic department and they shouldn't pretend like they do.

"The reason security through obscurity is usually bad is because it causes people to make poor assumptions - "He'll never guess I encrypted it with rot-15 instead of rot-13," but for a given secure system, adding obscurity will make it harder to break. But it's the poor assumptions that do you in, not an inherent flaw in adding obscurity."

I don't think anyone would argue that the obscurity in the algorithm is the weakness. However, obscurity can _never_ make a secure algorithm more secure. If your algorithm and key space are sufficient to prevent decipherment before the heat death of the universe, the two months it takes to reverse engineer the protocol are as close to zero as makes no difference.

<comment><USER6> "However, obscurity can never make a secure algorithm more secure."

If you're talking about the security of the algorithm, fine. But you're talking about the security of the system, and the algorithm is seldom the problem. If it takes two months to find the problem with the key management, then your obscurity that added two months just doubled the time to break in.

I still say you should use publicly vetted systems - but the community is in denial over the value (second rate, but still value) of security through obscurity.

Case in point: when Slashdot first released their source code, they didn't escape quotes in passwords, so it was possible to log in as an admin using an appropriately modified SQL statement. Sure, you could have figured what the command needed to be via trial and error before the code was released, but I was lazy. Releasing the code meant that I could now break into something I wouldn't try to break into before. The obscurity protected them _from a certain threat model._ It was still much better when they fixed the bug, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A service provider whose top priority was security _could_ have taken another approach to KM... using him like the canary in a mine shaft, an indicator of problems with their security system (allowing all-numerals password would be just one example of such a problem that ought to be fixed).

</comment><comment><USER9> An 8 digit, all numerals password? Really, Mitnick?

Also, it wasn't just AT&T that is refusing service to him, his webhost HostedHere.net did the same thing.

And if this has been happening over and over again for 9 years why didn't he just want to go to another service provider?

<comment><USER10> Indeed. Other providers host and maintain the security of as-high-profile "targets".

More importantly you have to question how much of the security problem Mitnick poses in this? If he is part of the cause I think AT&T & HostedHere probably are reasonable to want to get rid of him

(btw I suspect the 8 numeral password is a pin number: similar to the ones handed out by banks for online logins. Could still be his fault it is out in the wild though)

<comment><USER11> How is it reasonable for AT&T to admit blatant incompetence? Couldn't they have worked with Mitnick to secure his account and even use his case to attract more celebrity customers?

<comment><USER12> It's probably just a business decision. (assumption)They can provide cell phone service for 1000 people for the same cost as Mitnick since he is a target.

It's the same thing Sprint did a couple years ago when they dumped people that called customer service too much.

<comment><USER13> I'm sure it is, but it doesn't seem like a bright business decision. He claims he spends up to $20K a year - sure, maybe this still isn't worth it to AT&T. But more importantly, you'd think they would see this as an opportunity to make their system more robust for all their clients, save money that way (more than $20K/year? likely), AND turn it into a good PR piece.

<comment><USER10> _Hi, we're AT &T. The company that is SO secure we can even protect legendary hacker Kevin Mitnick!!_

Cue mass attempts to break into AT&T from every angle (which is sure to end badly) :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> 20k per year? He's doing something wrong...

<comment><USER15> It's easy to run up long bills if you roam internationally, $3/minute adds up fast.

<comment><USER16> That's why you get an unlocked phone and buy an international SIM chip that you swap in overseas. $20K/year is ridiculous, and probably an exaggeration or lie on his part to try to make himself look like a desirable customer.

<comment><USER17> Except you also incur roaming charges for receiving calls, and expecting people to call an overseas number (let alone keep them up to date on your whereabouts) really is pushing it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I find Kevin Mitnick going to the authorities for protection a little bit weird. If your claim to fame is that you are the 'worlds baddest hacker' you take the script kiddies as going with the territory. It's like Billy the Kid complaining about the wanna-be's that want to meet him at noon on main street.

"The move by AT&T came this week after Mitnick hired a lawyer to complain that his privacy was being invaded by people posting Mitnick's account information in public hacking forums"

You need a lawyer to complain these days ?

Most other 'celebrities' have these issues but being a high profile hacker makes you a great target.

The best defence against this is don't get caught hacking... that way your privacy stays yours.

What Mitnick should do is give tit for tat, expose the identities of his attackers. For such a hotshot security consultant (all digits?) that should be a piece of cake, really.

That said, AT&T has no business cutting him off, rather the opposite, they should secure their systems and use the publicity surrounding this to brand themselves as the provider that is good enough to secure even Kevin Mitnicks account.

<comment><USER18> Dear downmodders, if you disagree speak your mind. Feel free to downmod away but at least let me know which bit you disagree with and why.

<comment><USER7> _I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness._

\--pg

It seems many people have responded to you though.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How can a non-English speaker(they have diff script)learn how to code? - <AUTHOR> I mean..like if their language..doesn't have Romance language scripts like alphabets. Asian languages, Cyrillic etc. I suppose Italian/French/Spanish have alphabets that is common to English language.<p>How do they relate to the English language and it's alphabetical script? They would have to learn English, yes? <comment><USER2> Coming from a french background so I don't have the experienced ask in the question. But I learned programming quite early on, when I did not speak english, so here is how I can imagine it works: \- Developer who don't know english will learn programming word without any context as to what they are in real life. "string" "array" "forEach" are just like commands that you learn by heart. It's not so different for an english speaker in some regards as if you think about it, a "map" or a "string" don't really evock what they are in programming just from the name.

\- most company that aren't international probably write their code in the language. In french it would be something like

const carteDuJeu = new Carte();

Because of UTF-8, I believe you can use any character, including Cyrillic etc.

Some languages tried to be translated (looking at you VBA) but that just makes a mess where you can't find references to what you want because of the much smaller local community (this might not be as much of a problem in china).

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting. I am getting back to the computer after a long gap(20+ years). Testing the waters with Python and I find it refreshingly simple and easy. It seems to be a different flavor somehow..

I was wondering if it felt this way to me because decades ago, I learnt how to code when I was in school in a non English speaking country and even though my primary medium of education wasn't the vernacular, English was still a foreign language(I 'thought' in my own lanaguge inside my head even though I spoke and studied and wrote in English)

Fast forward 20-25 years, English is now my default language/mode of thinking and I was wondering how easy programming and coding would be to a non English speaking school child in Vietnam or Russia or elsewhere in the world with languages employing a non roman script. I can't relate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> If I remember correctly there was a complete Cyrillic translation of COBOL back in the Soviet days. Other than that, I think that although it would help, it's not absolutely necessary to learn English. Learning the Roman script is, though.

<comment><AUTHOR> Indeed..but there are many languages don't use the Roman script..are they at a disadvantage?

<comment><USER4> Unicode support for URLs came only late (and the encoding looks ugly), so most popular websites even in countries with non-Roman scripts still use ASCII. E.g. Baidu's Chinese address would be 百度.中国 [http://xn--wxtr44c.xn-- fiqs8s/](http://百度.中国/) but they didn't even bother to register it, instead still using [http://www.baidu.com/](http://www.baidu.com/)

So internet users will be at least somewhat familiar with the alphabet.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Waze is so popular in Costa Rica (2014) - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/innovations/wp/2014/10/27/why-waze-is-so-incredibly-popular-in-costa-rica/ <comment><USER2> Costa Rican here. The article doesn't come close explaining the complexity (and inconvenience) of addresses in Costa Rica. We even use landmarks which no longer exist (e.g. from the old pharmacy in X, take a left), or use any distinctive surrounding object for official guidance (trees, fences, wall color).

Landmark usage for directions is greatly due to poor city planning throughout the last century and the address culture grown around it. Most city streets do have names/numbers, but are pretty much unknown to the common citizen. Waze and its contributors have done a truly amazing job. I believe OSM has lagged behind Waze because Waze was the first GPS nav system that actually worked in the country, and was therefore so greatly welcomed.

P.D. Nokia maps also worked decently, but GPS-capable nokia phones were scarce in the market.

<comment><USER3> In the US, there were some pretty significant efforts to standardize road names and house numbering (this largely happened at the county level). One of the big reasons was to improve fire response, which was largely accomplished by pushing the system in the direction of being logical (so roads in a county will often be numbered sequentially and the like).

Are there agencies in Costa Rica that would push such a standardization, or if the existing names and numbers are already reasonable, push the use of them?

<comment><USER4> My understanding in the US is that a lot of the naming rationalization was done as part of the E911 location-aware service. This included giving numbers to properties that either didn't have them or at least didn't commonly use them (like summer cottages). It also involved, for example, giving segments of roads different names if they weren't connected or if they had multiple branches. It also largely rationalized cases where roads had different names in the USPS database and on local maps. (My house effectively had two different addresses when I moved in and I always needed to make sure local service people knew where was house was; on more than one occasion I was accused of giving someone the "wrong" address for my house.)

This largely happened before the widespread consumer use of GPS, but it certainly helped when GPS rolled out.

<comment><USER3> I guess E911 caused some further effort.

My grandfather died in 1994, and one of the things in his garage was an old road sign that had names, rather than the numbers that are in use today (he had been township clerk, I guess he quit that some years before).

Searching a bit finds lots of projects that were done ~1950 or earlier (often in the context of making it easier for new residents to find their way around).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wish they'd have contributed to openstreetmap instead!

[http://www.openstreetmap.org/](http://www.openstreetmap.org/)

<comment><USER6> Pretty sad that they contributed hundred of hours of their time that they could lose any second if Google decided to ditch Waze.

Openstreetmaps allows you to download all the data for free.

<comment><USER5> Yup. And it's really great data, too. Building names, classification of building types, etc.

I did a project with a friend last semester using PostGIS with data from OSM and google glass. We learned a lot.

[http://www.madisonar.com/](http://www.madisonar.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm always impressed by how hard people will work for a for-profit company for no pay. Anyone here ever work for CDDB back in the day?

<comment><USER8> There is return on investment even if it is not monetarily. Users or reCAPTCHA or Duolingo also do work for for-profit companies as well.

From the article:

> "Some people ask 'Why do you work for free? Why do you spend so many hours a > week doing this mapping?' " Hidalgo said. "You feel good about knowing that > the people who drive around everyday save time because you are investing > your time in fixing the roads and doing this mapping."

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > "Most of our streets don't have road names so a lot of the addresses end up > being very much next to some kind of landmark associated with it, and that's > how we give directions," Urbina said. "There's never been good maps > generated to be able to get to where you're trying to go."

How does a country not name its streets? I just can not wrap my head around that very concept. Here in the US, we name hiking trails and put it on the maps.

<comment><USER10> Japan, for instance, numbers blocks and leaves the empty space between them nameless.

<comment><USER11> I walked around Tokyo a bit last year and without my phone + Wifi I would have been horribly lost. There are no street signs anywhere.

<comment><USER4> I can get around Tokyo for the most part at a gross level--as in I can find parks, railroad stations, and the like. But I think I spent an hour the last time I was there searching for my company's office. Guidebook authors should start thinking about including GPS coordinates although increasingly, given a network connection, it's a moot point given Google Maps.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This really shows how using technology can leapfrog very costly gradual infrastructure upgrades in terms of both time and cost. Amazing!

It does make we wonder though... Google Maps / Waze must get a decent amount of information from tax funded sources. Do they give back helpful information such as e.g. traffic flow/conditions in this example as well? Without having to participate in a special 'campaign'?

</comment><comment><USER13> I spent 10 days in Costa Rica last month and didn't have a data plan with me (so Waze is way less useful).

I used (and liked) the maps from Cenrut.org, which are easy to install on a Garmin device I brought with me. You can also rent GPSs from the car rental places, but for a long stay, it's just as cheap to buy a Garmin here in the states and install the free Cenrut maps.

The Cenrut data wasn't perfect, but it was way more than adequate. It would be madness to try to navigate the country from only a printed street map!

</comment><comment><USER14> Same issues here in Panama. We love Waze in Panama!

</comment><comment><USER15> Waze is very useful here in CR. Many businesses here even put a Waze link on their contact page.

<comment><USER16> Do you know why they favor Waze over something like openstreetmaps.org? Is it related to the tooling? Did it just become popular first?

<comment><USER17> Does openstreetmaps have a proper cross-platform phone app with turn by turn instructions while you are driving that works well - and does it have a good majority of costa rican roads?</comment></comment></comment>


A Government Program that Save US Housing Without Costing the Government a Dime - <AUTHOR> http://www.blindreason.org/2009/12/how-immigration-reform-can-help-citiz.html

<comment><USER2> While this might work for H1B visa applicants who would probably be able to secure above average paying jobs, I think you'll be hard pressed to find undocumented immigrants who can afford a house at all much less one that costs 10% more than the median home price.

I'm not sure if US Housing needs to be "saved". The average house price was ridiculously high. I purposely held off from buying a house because the cost was just too high compared to wages. House prices were doubling or tripling (or even more) while income stayed relatively flat. Prices had to come down. They probably still need to come down a bit.

</comment><comment><USER3> And what happens when the immigrants default on the loans?

Oh yeah, the taxpayers will just pick up the tab! So I guess he's correct, his idea does not cost the government a dime. It just costs all of us a quarter when it goes south.</comment>


Where Does Scientific Data Go to Die? - <AUTHOR> http://blog.telemetryweb.com/2010/11/where-does-scientific-data-go-to-die.html

<comment><USER2> Couldn't scientific journals, or journal databases like Springer Link make the data behind papers available?

<comment><USER3> That's a very interesting idea, and it would be relatively easy for them to implement. It does help solve the problem of making the data available over time, which is a big step. But unless they built a canonical data format (i.e. a proper database) underneath it, you still end up with difficulty making use of the data.

Neal (author)</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Where do I start to build Netflix like personalizations? - <AUTHOR> I work at BigCorp. We have tons of good user usage data and we have an opportunity to provide recommendations the same way amazon or Netflix does personalizations. But I am not sure what pieces are needed to build such a recommendation engine. I am talking from trying to understand what I need from server side model generation or can this all be done client side. I am a total n00b here so any suggestions? <comment><USER2> Let's look first at the problem where "the user is looking at item X, what item Y is related to item X".

This could be done on a textual basis by using a tfidf scoring applied to the words in the text for items X and Y

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tf–idf](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tf–idf)

An alternate approach is to look for "people who looked at X also looked at Y" and mathematically this can be done exactly the same way as for documents, except that instead of having a set of "does word W appear in this document X" relationships you have "did user U look at (up vote/express interest) in document X".

The latter works really well if you have a large number of documents. On a large collection of scientific papers, I found that a paper with 10,000 views would generate astonishingly good recommendations. With 1,000 views it was hit-or-miss, with fewer than 100 views it was mostly missed.

The problem here is that you are sampling a huge matrix, and most cells are not going to get sampled enough to get accurate results. One answer to that is dimensional reduction

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

which gives better results with less data because there are many fewer matrix cells which are better sampled.

Please send an email to the address in my HN profile and I'll be glad to talk more.

</comment><comment><USER3> This might be of help to you ([https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os- recommender1/](https://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/os-recommender1/))</comment>


CERN scientists 'break the speed of light' - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/8782895/CERN-scientists-break-the-speed-of-light.html <comment><USER2> This is old news from 22 Sep 2011. They said there was a mistake and that these results are not accurate.

<comment><USER3> Timing error due to a dodgy cable connection, if memory serves.</comment></comment>


Vizio acquired by LeEco for $2B - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2016/7/26/12286756/leeco-buys-vizio-tv-company-2-billion-acquisition <comment><USER2> So much for the S-1. Interesting move. If your goal is to work on software this seems like a pretty good deal for the CEO - 51% of the new spin-off and a bunch of cash and 10 years of "guaranteed" license revenue. Was this an LBO or straight cash? Anybody know? Been reading Barbarians at the Gate lately and have taken a new interest in management agreements and payouts in these things.

</comment><comment><USER3> How does LeEco have so much money? They are also funding Faraday Future, and have been buying up tons of stuff lately.

<comment><USER4> From Chinese stock market.

<comment><USER3> so effectively thin air. this will surely end well. /sarcasm

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I was hyped for Vizio's computers based on this article. Shame it never really happened. [http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/15/3076519/vizio-reboot-pc- am...](http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/15/3076519/vizio-reboot-pc-american- hdtv-success-do-it-again)

</comment><comment><USER6> A bit more about the variously-involved company behind the deal: [http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-chinese-company-behind- the-v...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/the-chinese-company-behind-the-vizio- deal-1469610804)

</comment><comment><USER7> There goes the last American TV manufacturer.

<comment><USER8> Vizio never manufactured a single television.

<comment><USER7> Their Tijuana plant was operated by an outsourcing company, but Vizio seems to have owned it, because it's part of the LeEco deal.

<comment><USER9> I can't say I know its exact manufacturing origins, but I can say without a doubt my TV is a Vizio.

<comment><USER8> Vizio designs products and has other companies make them. They have ~400 employees, all in the US. They aren't making TVs themselves.

<comment><USER10> Does this really matter? Your statement is true for nearly every electronic device.

<comment><USER11> LG, Samsung, Sony to name a few. Having vertical intergration can lead to huge wins

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Another acquisition to put Minecraft ($2.5B) in perspective ...wowzers.

Have to admit I am kind of bummed after just buying a Vizio TV.

</comment><comment><USER13> >"As the owner and father of Vizio, I am very reluctant to let it go. But as the CEO and owner of the company, I know this is the right decision to make for our hard-working employees and loyal shareholders."

Why?

<comment><USER14> Money. Don't be daft

<comment><USER13> Yeah I get that for the sell-out owners, but how is it better for the employees? I'm sure many of them took pride in working for the only American TV manufacturer.

<comment><USER14> There is no benefit which is why he failed to give any.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Yelp 'Extremely Concerned' About 'Billion Dollar Bully' Documentary - <AUTHOR> http://observer.com/2015/03/yelp-extremely-concerned-about-what-investigative-documentary-will-reveal/ <comment><USER2> They should include The Better Business Bureau in their documentary. Now that is a shakedown organization if there ever was one.

</comment><comment><USER3> Good to see Max Headroom found some work.

</comment><comment><USER4> Kickstarter campaign is about to meet its goal</comment>


Pivotal Tracker moving to paid in 6 months. - <AUTHOR>

Jan 19, 2011
Dear Pivotal Tracker User,
First, thank you for using Pivotal Tracker. We couldn't be more grateful for all of the support and feedback we've received from all of you.
We're writing today to tell you that we're introducing pricing for Tracker. All of the details, including price plans and transition information, are in this email.
Over 180,000 users have used Tracker at no charge for the last 2 ½ years. The growth in usage has been phenomenal, and we think Tracker has helped to transform how the world builds software. Our investment in conceiving, and continuously advancing Tracker to where it is today has been substantial and we're proud of the contribution that Pivotal Labs has been able to make to the agile community.
Given the ever-increasing popularity, growing support costs, and the need for continuous product improvements, it is no longer feasible for us to offer Tracker at no charge. To ease the transition, however, Tracker will remain completely free for the next 6 months for all existing users, as well as for new users that sign up on or before February 18, 2011.
Free until July 19, 2011 (6 months from now)
We'd like to recognize all of our valued users who have been a part of our community for so long, and make sure that there is plenty of time to evaluate options and avoid disruption to current projects. We're keeping Tracker completely free for all existing users through July 19, 2011.
In case you've been considering giving Tracker a try but haven't yet, or would like to open a new account to start fresh, we'll also keep it completely free through July 19 for all new users who sign up on or before February 19 (30 days after this announcement).
Free for public projects, non-profits, and educators
We're making Tracker free for public projects: anyone can use Tracker for free (regardless of team size) if you keep your backlog publicly readable. If you're an open source team, you've probably already been doing this anyway. Soon we'll have a searchable directory of public projects, with a live activity feed, which we hope will get you more visibility and increase interest from potential contributors.
We also have free or discounted plans for non-profit organizations and educators at academic institutions, by request.
Pricing starts at just $7 per month
Our goal is to make Tracker affordable for everyone, from bootstrapped startups to larger development teams within established organizations. Price plans begin at just $7 per month, for teams of up to 3 collaborators.  (Discounts are available for annual billing, and there is an additional Special Offer as well.  See below.)
We have two plans designed for smaller teams and early stage startups:
$7 per month for up to 3 collaborators across up to 2 private projects, with 1GB of storage for file attachments $18 per month for up to 7 collaborators, up to 4 private projects, 3GB storage, and use of the Get Satisfaction, Lighthouse, and Bugzilla integrations
SSL encryption, Campfire and Twitter notifications, as well as API use is available for all plans. Community support, via http://community.pivotaltracker.com, will continue to be open for all users.
We also have plans for larger teams, with unlimited projects, integration with JIRA and Zendesk, and priority email support. Prices for these plans are $50 per month for up to 10 collaborators, $100 per month for up to 25, and $175 per month for up to 50. Please get in touch if you have a larger group, by email to firstname.lastname@example.com.
We also have options for on-premises installation of Tracker.
Individual use will continue to be free, with no collaborators, up to 2 private projects, and up to 200MB of storage for file attachments.
Discount for Annual Billing and Special Offer
If you're confident that Tracker is the right tool for your team (and we hope so), you can save the price of two months of service by choosing annual billing.
We also have an additional introductory discount available: Choose a plan with annual billing on or before February 19, 2011, and receive an additional 20% discount for the first year. That's 18 months for the price of 8.
Background on Pivotal Tracker
Pivotal Labs started to develop Tracker about 5 years ago, and we designed it to embody our practices for rapid, iterative software development. We needed a tool for our teams that was overhead- and hassle-free, encouraged communication, and automated as much project management as possible. We built Tracker for our own use but shared it with our clients and other development shops in the Ruby on Rails community.
About 2 ½ years ago, we opened up Tracker to the broader community, enabling teams around the world to take advantage of a tool proven to transform not just software projects, but entire companies.
Over this period, we've received a huge amount of feedback, and we've invested in Tracker by adding new features, providing support, and supporting unlimited use by a variety of people and organizations, including open source developers, fast growing startups, software consultancies, and large, well known organizations.
Recent Changes
Today, there are over 180,000 users, in 158 countries around the world, collaborating on over 200,000 projects. Pivotal Tracker has become an essential service for many companies, from startups to public enterprises.
To keep up with increasing growth, we've recently moved to a new hosting environment with dedicated hardware, expanded our dedicated Tracker development team, and invested in stronger operational capability.
We will continue to invest in scaling and infrastructure and also increase our development efforts on Tracker. We intend to keep Tracker easy to use, and strongly believe simplicity is one of Tracker's strengths, but we do have a long list of improvements we'd like to make, including features that many of our users have been asking for. We'd like to continue the design and usability improvements we've recently introduced, improve and add more external integrations, make Tracker work better for larger teams and projects as well as on mobile devices, allow for more flexible workflow, and so much more.
At the end of the day, we're establishing a paid model so that we can keep improving Pivotal Tracker aggressively based on your feedback, add operational capacity, and provide responsive support.
We look forward to continuing to serve our large community of users in the years to come. If you have any questions or comments, please let us know by emailing email@example.com. <comment><USER2> Here is the official blog post: [http://pivotallabs.com/users/dan/blog/articles/1537-introduc...](http://pivotallabs.com/users/dan/blog/articles/1537-introducing- pivotal-tracker-pricing)</comment>


Planet Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://planetruby.herokuapp.com

<comment><USER2> I suggest [http://rubyweekly.com/](http://rubyweekly.com/) which has more content but Planet Ruby could be a nice complement.

</comment><comment><USER3> For those wondering what it is:

 _a public news site (feed reader /aggregator) for Ruby. The planet subscriptions (feed lists) are split into seven sections (sub planets), that is, 1) Blog Postings, Articles, etc. 2) Official Ruby, JRuby, Rubinius, Rubygems, Rails News 3) Events, Workshops, Conferences, etc. 4) Jekyll 5) Rubygems 6) Podcasts 7) Meta - Updates about Planet Ruby and Planet Pluto ;-)

The planet feed list is a plain text file on GitHub, that is, ruby.ini. You're welcome to add new feeds or suggest new (sub) planet sites. The Planet Ruby ships with six design templates/styles, that is, Standard, Cards, News, Hacker, Digest and Top._

</comment><comment><USER4> Would be great to have an rss feed ;)

</comment><comment><USER5> Site looks horrible on an iPad.

</comment><comment><USER6> Meh.

When I saw those '1's in the 'Hacker' style I hoped for an actual collaborative filtering but this seems to be merely a feed aggregator. That I don't need - I'm familiar with RSS and its readers.

On the other hand collaborative filtering and comments would add some actual value. More value for sure than the ability to change styles (all equally ugly BTW).

<comment><USER7> The advantage of feed aggregators is that they allow you to get content from feeds added later, without having to manually find them and subscribe. A mechanism for dynamic OPML - a "feed of feeds" \- would be better, but as far as I know there's no such format.

<comment><USER6> The value of it is IMHO marginal.

The value of dynamic OPML on the other hand is strictly negative, especially if it was recursive (you'd subscribe to a dynamic feed that could subscribe you to other dynamic feeds etc.) - a perfect storm of data.

<comment><USER7> I don't think it should be recursive, and certainly limits could be imposed.

Apparently it's also already a reality, though I wasn't aware; it seems both InoReader and Feedly already support them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Growth hacker? Bite me - <AUTHOR> http://www.dirktheman.com/rant/growth-hacker-bite-me/ <comment><USER2> A rose by any other name...

Do you believe there are short dev projects which make meaningful, compounding improvements in core areas of concern for the business? If so, holy cow, right? That is really, really, REALLY important to how you'd conduct your business ("do them") and how you'd arrange a career as a dev (at the margin, why work on anything else?)

If you don't believe that that set of projects exists or can be reliably identified in advance, then huge levels of disdain would be warranted... if you're very confident that you're right. The evidence is not in your favor.

</comment><comment><USER3> This article misses the origin of the term 'growth hacker'. There are two primary shifts that got us here:

1\. Marketing moving from being an external function to an internal function that is embedded in the product. Thus product design, product development, and product management skills are becoming very important skills to possess as part of a marketing function.

2\. As marketing channels shift from being largely immeasurable to measurable at a very detailed level the marketing function demands more understanding of data and statistics.

Hence the term "growth hacker". Someone with product design, product development, and product management skills who also has a solid understanding of data and statistics, then leverages these skills to direct marketing efforts whether internal (product driven) or external (advertising/content driven).

<comment><USER4> Agree with all of this except there is no evidence that the A/B testing world as a whole knows anything correct about statistics, in the sense of being able to profit from more sophisticated bets than "this idea seems not too bad". If players bet real money on the probabilities they claimed, they would be bankrupt. Contrast against the auto insurance companies and such who get this stuff right.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This rant seems to mostly be a slam against buzzwords in general (which is a bias I also share)...but I don't agree with his reasoning behind the attack in this case

> _So yeah, maybe a 'traditional marketer' isn't able to come up with the > (admittingly impressive) solution of HOW to push a listing to Craigslist, > but you can't just go saying that he/she can't come up with the idea!_

I haven't followed the discussions about growth hackers, but I can imagine a person whose skillset covers both marketing and code in a way that the whole is greater than the sum of those two parts.

It's not just the "idea" that matters, but the understanding of how discrete data can be usefully collected, analyzed, and disseminated. Call me skeptical, but I don't think there are many marketers who really understand the admittedly pedantic logistics in this...I don't mean that they need to actually code this, but to understand that there is such a way to parse amorphous tasks and information such that something truly useful can be done.

As an example, how many people out there merely had the idea that people like collecting photos and displaying them in an attractive layout? How many of those built a massive startup company from that idea?

<comment><USER6> _It's not just the "idea" that matters, but the understanding of how discrete data can be usefully collected, analyzed, and disseminated. Call me skeptical, but I don't think there are many marketers who really understand the admittedly pedantic logistics in this...I don't mean that they need to actually code this, but to understand that there is such a way to parse amorphous tasks and information such that something truly useful can be done._

I think you underestimate marketers. Some of those guys & gals are practically statisticians. Have you ever picked up a "marketing research" textbook and skimmed through it? Serious marketers know a LOT about how to "collect, analyze and disseminate" data.

<comment><USER5> I don't disagree here. But I don't think we're talking about the same thing. There are statisticians who are great at analysis...when the data is well formatted and granular. These same statisticians are less attune to how you collect and disseminate that data in different ways (a different "way" could be: how do I automate spam Craigslist subsections at relative intervals related to the frequency of postings in each particular subsections, and, of course, make this spam not look like spam?)

In the science and medicine field, there are obviously many brilliant, technical minds. Yet not all of them can properly code, which limits the domain of their work when it comes to efficiency and scope.

<comment><USER6> _These same statisticians are less attune to how you collect and disseminate that data in different ways (a different "way" could be: how do I automate spam Craigslist subsections at relative intervals related to the frequency of postings in each particular subsections, and, of course, make this spam not look like spam?)_

Fair point.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Buzz words are annoying, but sometimes they help communicate...

As companies grow, they have to hire "business people" including dedicated marketers. One of HN's and Silicon Valley's problems is figuring out who is a business person who can add value and who is an "idea person" has has traveled to the valley to kill time over the next 3 years before getting a real job.

The solution is the term Growth Hacker which, while annoying actually serves the purpose of filtering the highest production people from a huge amount of potential marketing candidates.

I'm not sure if we will ever see the term Finance Hacker or Accounting Hacker but I wouldn't be surprised if we saw some other terms develop.

<comment><USER6> Adding new terms to the lexicon _can_ be handy and is, obviously, required on occasion. I'm still a bit skeptical that "growth hacker" really adds any value though, especially since it seems to be somewhat amorphously defined, and it's a label that anyone can anoint themselves with - much like "Social Media Expert" or "SEO Expert."

Get the industry to stabilize on a clear, consistent, meaningful definition of what a "growth hacker" really is and some criteria for being one and maybe it becomes useful.

I mean, Growth Hacker is a shorter phrase than "marketing specialist who can code, with specialized knowledge in product management, viral growth strategies, and data analysis." But is that really what it means?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even before the author mentioned this was marketing, I was telling myself "this is marketing".

Perhaps the term "growth hacker" has arisen because "marketing" has gotten a bad rep. In the world of 1990s software development, marketing drove features based on market research, making developers resent the idiosyncratic nature of the user community, and their proxy: the marketing guy (almost as much as the sales guy who would promise something that wasn't even under development).

In the post 2000s world, every developer dreams of internet gold and striking it rich with their idea (and a marketing guy would corrupt that), so a "growth hacker" sounds less "evil" and more like someone a developer could work with, even though they will likely alter the concept of the product to make it "marketable" (ie, "pivot" the project)

<comment><USER6> _Perhaps the term "growth hacker" has arisen because "marketing" has gotten a bad rep._

It only has a "bad rap" among people who are fairly clueless about what marketing actually is, and/or people who hasty assessments based on limited data points. So, a hacker worked for a startup where the "marketing guy" was seen as evil, and now "marketing has a bad rap" seems to be the meme here. And that would be silly.

Marketing is damn interesting stuff and it's absolutely crucial to a successful business. And good marketers, like good developers, are talented, skilled and hardworking. And, also like good developers, they're hard to find.

<comment><USER8> I don't disagree. That they may have acquired a bad rep (amongst developers, or perhaps hackers) wasn't a value judgment, just an observation.

I try to separate the individuals holding a position from the position itself. I've met great sales people, marketers, testers and subject matter experts. I've also met bad project managers, directors, software architects, and developers.

I think if there was any reason for general business functions to get a bad rep in the late 1990s, it was probably due to the glut of post-Reagan-era business school graduates, the dearth of traditional large corporate organizations to fill them (by then, military-industrial downsizing was underway and heavy industry was moving offshore), and the boom-time investment craze of the early ".COM" era, leading to the ready availability of job roles which could be absorbed (and were often demanded) by investment capital.

<comment><USER6> _I think if there was any reason for general business functions to get a bad rep in the late 1990s, it was probably due to the glut of post-Reagan-era business school graduates, the dearth of traditional large corporate organizations to fill them..._

Yeah, that's reasonable. A lot of things definitely changed in the 80's and bled over into the 90's. The era of "right-sizing" and "re-engineering" and the proliferation of TLA's and buzzwords, and the breaking of that traditional company/employee bond, definitely could have (did?) lead to some perception changes of "business people."

That said, I think there's always been (and maybe always will be, as much as I wish it were othewise) a gulf between the technology world and the business world. It's like the people on each "side" don't really understand each other, don't really _want_ to understand each other, and each underestimates the value of the other. _sigh_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> most growth hackers or growth pros are product managers or product editors,so the post starts with the wrong premise.

Also, your accusations against growth hackers are titled based rather than what they do or learning about what growth hackers do. If growth hackers choose to identify themselves with each other in a new way, I don't think there is an issue. Let them be. Remember, front-end engineering wasn't considered much of a position 5 years ago. Same with UX, UI, data scientist, etc. How about SEO specialist or direct-marketers.... Can they self-idenitfy a new sub-division of marketing?

Adam Smith was right, people specialize as an industry expands to offer greater value in a niche. Growth has become essential to startups. Growth teams are becoming standard at scaling startups. Thus, growth hackers appeared.

It is fine to express a distaste for a growth hacker by what he or she does, seems silly to dislike them for their title. That is like saying "I hate chocolate because of they call it "chocolate""

I must say degrading the work Sean Ellis and Andrew Chen have done by comparing them to meaningless consultants from the dot-com era is disgusting. Andrew Chen is one of the most brilliant viral engineers on this planet. Sean Ellis has rocketed several companies to success and just acquired a KISS company. I don't respect ad hominem attacks, neither should you.

<comment><USER6> _It is fine to express a distaste for a growth hacker by what he or she does, seems silly to dislike them for their title._

I would say exactly the opposite. I expect the average HN reader has tremendous respect for what "growth hackers" _DO_. But I also think that a lot of the kickback against the term is the _perception_ (justified or not) that it's an unnecessary, vacuous term that (ironically) is "just marketing". Or, IOW, a fluffy title that some people have adopted to make themselves sound more interesting.

If these folks were routinely being called Marketing Strategists or something, I doubt there would be all this discussion about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The term "growth hacker":

1\. Focuses on the hybrid nature of the work. In a small team you can't have two departments doing what one smart guy can do, and

2\. Helps purely technical people overcome bias that marketing work is the dark side, show that it's also cool.

It's like a micro restatement of the "Copper and Tin" section of <http://paulgraham.com/bronze.html>. Maybe not the greatest phrase of all time, but this article seems like a bit of a personal overreaction.

</comment><comment><USER11> This is getting cliché. I think at this point I'm now seeing more posts railing against the use of the term "growth hacker", than I am seeing actual uses of the term "growth hacker".

This anti-"growth hacker" sentiment isn't bold or brave anymore. It's repetitive.

<comment><USER12> I was just thinking that. Actual usage of growth hacker seems mostly "tongue in cheek" or "for lack of a better term".

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Fantastic read and one that will ruffle some feathers..kudos.

I find it interesting that in Andrew Chen's famous growth hacker post he doesn't mention the other craigslist "hack"(insert sarcasm) that was even more important to airbnb's growth.

</comment><comment><USER14> [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://www.dirktheman.com/rant/growth- hacker-bite-me/)

Site appears to have bitten the dust

</comment><comment><USER15> Writing a bitter rant on your personal website and posting it on HN yourself = "growth hacking"

</comment><comment><USER16> Isn't this largely similar to another post that was up here about a week ago?

</comment><comment><USER17> My, that's the least readable site I've seen on HN in a while.

<comment><AUTHOR> Font-wise? Layout wise? Although it's a Wordpress frankenstein-job, but I'm always curious about improving the experience!

<comment><USER18> It's just a big mess. Why is the background brown, but then the background of the text black? Do you find those colours complement each other? Along with the blue, the whole design looks really grimy and dingy.

Why are you telling me the date? I know today's date.

I don't like the battery of social network icons, you may disagree.

I also don't like the swearing. I think it's unprofessional, however also very subjective.

Strange mix of sans and serif fonts, with no apparent reason for which is which. "Growth Hacker? Bite me!" is serif, below that "Why the term 'growth hacking' is just another buzz word" is sans. Below that "A rant by Dirk" which is serif, apart from the single word "rant".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I'll definetely look into it when I have the time.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Best resources for learning games theory - <AUTHOR> I'm looking for recommendations of materials to learn the core ideas of pure and applied game theory. <comment><USER2> [http://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Introduction-Theory- Mathematica...](http://www.amazon.com/Gentle-Introduction-Theory-Mathematical- World/dp/0821813390) is a cool little book that introduces matrix game theory. (And I wrote [https://metacpan.org/pod/Game::Theory::TwoPersonMatrix](https://metacpan.org/pod/Game::Theory::TwoPersonMatrix) because of it.)</comment>


Surveillance is the Business Model of the Internet: Bruce Schneier - <AUTHOR> http://www.securityweek.com/surveillance-business-model-internet-bruce-schneier

<comment><USER2> So, a couple things:

I wish I had copies of the decisions handy, but the supreme court appears to not believe that quantity is a quality all its own. That is, until quite recently, the amount of surveillance the police or government could pull off was severely limited by personpower: how many employees they where willing to dedicate. Technological considerations, such as the ability to shove a gps tracking device into a car or use mobile phone tower checkins to get a pretty precise idea of where people have been, have considerably changed this, but the supreme court doesn't seem to think that a change in scale means the law should change. So privacy will probably require support from congress, which is unfortunately filled with the stupid, the venal, and people like Difi who doesn't care a wit about surveillance unless and until she is surveilled.

Also, people are stupid. I saw somewhere -- again I'm missing a reference -- that fb makes on the order of $20-$40 per US user per year. Given the quantity of employees and infrastructure dedicated to monetization via advertising, you'd think they'd be willing to take that much money in exchange for no advertising and come out ahead. So if the US would agree to pay $25/year, we could have ad-free fb (and a fb executive staff motivated by users' needs, where users == you and me, not advertisers.) Unfortunately, people are stupid, so they will never bite. They will, if they can be bothered to care at all, simultaneously bitch about advertising and privacy while being completely unwilling to pay money for services. I have no solution at all for this, but it makes me sad.

<comment><USER3> Facebook may see more potential profit from advertisers than from consumers.

If Facebook can come up with a way to dramatically increase an advertiser's provable ROI, advertisers will kill each other to get to the front of the line. "You mean we can suck even _more_ money out of Facebook users by knowing even _more_ about them, thereby influencing them even _more_ effectively?" In fact "advertisers" can probably make a good ROI from their Facebook spending without ever showing you an ad in Facebook, just by data mining and tailoring their non-Facebook ads. Just because you don't see an ad doesn't mean you haven't been sold.

If Facebook were $25/year for a no advertising account, would Facebook consumers elbow each other out of the way to pay $50/year for more effective ways to see what their friends ate for breakfast? Probably not. And besides, you'd probably still be sold to advertisers as data per the previous paragraph.

I pay for email and I pay for bookmarks (and I don't have a Facebook account). I have a low grade chronic fear over what will happen when my email and bookmark providers can no longer increase their profit to their satisfaction, or to their investors' or acquierers' satisfaction.</comment></comment>