I Flew to Lagos and Got Beaten Up Because of a Nigerian Email Scam - <AUTHOR> http://www.vice.com/en_se/read/i-am-an-idiot-0000167-v20n12 <comment><USER3> I'm glad the guy decided to tell his story. Most people are ashamed to admit that they fell victim to a hustler. They don't want to be seen as stupid, or get ridiculed by others.

About the same time (ten years ago) I went in for a job interview that turned out to be a hustle. They promised they were looking for programmers (really generic, like they didn't know what they were asking for).

When I showed up at the door I was sent into a conference room where a guy was giving a presentation on a new buy-in-application that was "guaranteed" to make money. Everything about the room made it uncomfortable to say no; there was one door with a guy standing in front of it smiling, they would hand out papers and not ask but pleasantly direct you to fill out your information.

I knew it was a scam, when I got up to leave in the middle of the presentation the guys running the show called me out; shaking their head in dismay and making comments as I left. Sort of a shaming ritual for me on my way out.

There were maybe thirty other people in the room, one guy left when I did but the rest stayed, out of that group I'm sure a few probably bought into it just because they were unemployed, down on their luck and willing to try anything.

<comment><USER4> I ran into the same sort of scam back in the day. I was trying to get by as a content writer, and a guy called me up and said, "Look at my site, I think it needs some new content." He wasn't sure what he needed, and it was definitely poorly written, so I figured I could help out. He told me he wanted to meet me at his office at a local community college. Community colleges regularly have offices available for small start-ups, so no red flags had been raised yet.

I showed up and there was apparently a conference going on. The guy said, "I just thought this was the best way for you to see what we do." Fair enough, I grabbed my nametag, sat down, and started taking notes. I was pretty down on my luck and cash at the time, so I wasn't really in a place to be asking too many questions; I would literally take any client I could get.

The presentation was among the strangest things I've ever seen; a guy talking about how he got in at the ground floor and throwing $20 bills into the audience, showing pictures of his mansion and Lamborghini, full of lines like "fire your boss!" and implying that anyone who isn't rich has been duped and isn't as smart as those in the crowd obviously were.

I can't remember what the company was, but it was something about a lawyer on demand; you pay in $40/month, and anytime you need an attorney you have one - like insurance but with lawyers. To be able to sign up you had to pay $250, then you got x% of everyone that signed up under you, x/2% of anyone that signed up under them, and some sort of commission for getting your friends and family to pay the $40/month: The classic multi-level marketing garbage where 99% of the presentation is about making money and 1% is about the product.

There were people who had obviously been placed in the front row talking about how much money they had made, how they were here just a month ago and already had reached level X, and they would methodically nod their heads whenever the money-throwing guy talked.

It was really slimy, and by this point I was just ready to get out of there. The guy brought over an application and said, "Alright, so for you to be a content writer legally we need you to be a part of this program, so you put up the $250 up front and then I'll pay it back once we've gotten our project going." He refused to spot the "membership fee" up front for me, so I left, though he even stood in front of my car to try not to get me to leave.

I had almost forgotten about that.

<comment><USER5> That reminds me of an 'interview' I went on shortly after college. There was a job ad in the paper looking for energetic people to fill a marketing position. My dad warned me against it, but of course I didn't listen. I went to the interview, and it was a big sales pitch on the company, with about 20 of us prospectives. The energetic marketers were doing a big rally, getting everyone pumped up, though being incredibly vague about what we did. They wanted us to go on a field trip with some of their marketers (or something... I don't remember the exact justification), and I'm embarrassed to say that I got in the car with a couple of them. We then proceeded to drive out to some town, get out of the car, and then they put on an AT&T (or sprint, who remembers) badge and started to walk up to people door-to-door to get them to switch long distance. Not quite as bad as getting beaten up or even having them shake me down for money... but still, stuck without wheels, two towns over, basically forced to walk with these dudes through their door-to-door slimy pitches. I think I pretty much deserved what I got.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You fly to Lagos with the willful intent to aid in the stealing of $1M from the Nigerian government and its people, but get beaten up instead. Your error, as you see it, is not that you were greedy and corrupt enough to steal other people's money. But that you were stupid enough to fall for the scam and have the tables turned on you. Interesting.

<comment><USER7> Are we sure this isn't fiction? I'm caught between, "People can't actually be this stupid" and "At least one person has to have been this stupid, otherwise they would have stopped long ago."

<comment><USER8> Remember, this was a decade ago. What were you doing then? 419 scams weren't nearly as widely-known at the time. I'm not suggesting you would have been duped, but lots of normals had no idea about these criminials. For instance, spam filtering wasn't a common part of life for most consumers with a PC.

<comment><USER9> Even in 2003 I didn't think it was a good idea to conspire with unknown parties to commit bank fraud.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "I'm superstitious, so one night I told myself, All right, if I win a game of hearts with less than 15 points, I'll do it. I'd never scored that low in my life, so when I landed at 11 points, I thought it was a sign and decided to buy a ticket."

There's your problem right there. People like this are prone to other irrational thinking. I would bet that the vast majority of people who fall for this stuff are also deeply religious.

<comment><USER11> You know there's a difference between being religious and asking Hearts game to tell you if you should participate in the 419 scam? Most religions actually frown very hard of those kind of things. For Avraamic religions, there's a direct prohibition of such practices in Leviticus 19:26.

<comment><USER12> Most religions frown on other religions, too.

<comment><USER11> I really can't understand why you chose to answer my comment with this. I pointed out pretty clearly that a practice of homebrewn divination, in which the hero of the article engaged, is not "religious" and actually is explicitly forbidden by many religions. In response to that, you offer me meaningless platitude not connected to anything on the topic. What are you trying to accomplish here?

<comment><USER13> Now maybe my brand of Christianity was pretty unusually wacko _(Lutherans are the real nutters right? Total extremists, rivals of those Westboro chaps really... /s)_, but I am pretty sure they explicitly endorsed homebrew divination. The idea that you could _" do it yourself"_ is actually a rather central concept to that particular brand of religion, though instead of tea leaves it used sore knees...

<comment><USER11> I have hard time believing Lutherans really go against direct word of the Bible (which is, as far as I know, according to their faith, a direct word of God) and practice divination, but I admit, I don't know too much about the details of the Lutheran faith. If I had to choose, I'd rather point at Calvinists with their predestination and signs of being among the saved, even though even there you can't really solicit those signs AFAIK. But as for Lutherans - could you explain which practice of Lutherans you mean - <USER2> exactly and using which procedures Lutherans are using for fortune telling?

<comment><USER13> Lutherans, much like modern Catholics (the two seem to differ _mainly_ in organizational layout these days, most of Martin Luther's grievances have been since corrected by the RCC..) and like most other protestants _(I dare not say "all", but it probably is not far off)_ consult with their god. They ask their god for advice and guidance, and claim to receive responses in various forms.

You can clasp your hands and ask your god to tell you how to confront your son about that magazine you found in his backpack, or you can brew some tea and look into the tea leaves for a message from the gods. These are fundamentally the same concept, except the tea leaves method is not blessed by Christians, and presumably the clasp hands method is not blessed by whoever reads tea leaves...

Prayer is functionally indistinguishable from divination.

Divination that is whitelisted by your flavor of Christianity is called "prayer". The sorts that are not whitelisted are called "divination" or "witchcraft." This can be seen clearly within Christianity when you consider the schism between some of the more extreme flavors of Protestantism and Catholicism. I have, on _more_ than one occasion heard protestants describe various aspects of Catholicism as witchcraft and idolatry. Most of the accusations center around the issue of saints and the Virgin Mary, and whether it is acceptable to ask them to pray on your behalf. Many _[all?]_ protestants do not consider this to be a blessed form of divination, thus the less mellow among them consider it to be witchcraft or whatever.

<comment><USER11> >>> They ask their god for advice and guidance, and claim to receive responses in various forms.

I think you taking it too literally. When religious person says "God blessed me with the gift of children", they rarely mean that the God - as an actual supernatural being - came to them in person and produced their children as a gift. Most probably, they know exactly where the children come from, and were actually present when those were conceived and born, and even though God might have been mentioned on both occasions, rarely they would claim The Almighty was personally present there and did the work. It is a metaphor expressing the idea of the Providence and God's control and responsibility about what happens to people. In the same way, when they say "I prayed and God let me see the solution of my problem", they rarely mean God personally came down to them in a burning bush, spoke to them and gave them detailed step-by-step instruction of how to solve their problems. Etc., etc.

>>> Prayer is functionally indistinguishable from divination.

Prayer is nothing like the divination. Prayer is an expression of certain feelings or formulae about the supernatural. Divination is a mechanistic procedure in which one would, after performing required ritual, receive information about the future or otherwise inaccessible information. Of course, you can pray for success of your divination, or you can try to divine if your prayer would be followed by some event, but those are two functionally very different actions. Note that for prayer, one usually is required to be a believer, while for divination you don't really have to believe in anything as long as you perform the ritual properly. This, btw, is a big different between modern religion and old religions - most of the old religions couldn't care less what you think as long as you do proper procedures. Modern ones rather concerned about morals and feelings and beliefs and all that immaterial stuff.

>>> I have, on more than one occasion heard protestants describe various aspects of Catholicism as witchcraft and idolatry.

I have heard the whole Christianity described as idolatry. So what? The question if Christianity is idolatry or not from the POV of anybody is not the question we were discussing.

>>> whether it is acceptable to ask them to pray on your behalf

I can imagine how it may be a problem for an ostensibly monotheistic religion, but that does not make a prayer a divination. Of course, that does not mean actual Christians never engage in practices which are, in fact, divination - but people violating the premises of their own religion is nothing new. I can give you Jews eating pork, Muslims drinking wine and Christians hating their fellow man. It happens. However, the religion as a belief system and as a social mechanism does not endorse it.

<comment><USER13> I don't think you are thinking about this critically. Just skimming the surface off:

" _> >> I have, on more than one occasion heard protestants describe various aspects of Catholicism as witchcraft and idolatry. I have heard the whole Christianity described as idolatry. So what? The question if Christianity is idolatry or not from the POV of anybody is not the question we were discussing."_

I was making a very specific point here. Christians accuse other christians of practicing witchcraft when they practice forms of prayer that _they_ do not approve of.

Asking the Virgin Mary to pray on your behalf in Catholicism is whitelisted, therefore according to Catholics it is not witchcraft at all. According to tackless hardline protestants, it is not whitelisted, therefore they label it as what it really is, a form of divination.

Furthermore, your definition of divination is steeped in Christian bias. What you are really saying is _" prayer is not divination because it is [magical woo] while divination is [magical woo what does not fit the Christian perspective towards relationships between gods and men]"_.

Whether or not you demand an immediate answer or need to be a "true believer" when you engage in the practice are both completely inconsequential. They are still both blatant magical thinking.

<comment><USER14> > Asking the Virgin Mary to pray on your behalf in Catholicism is whitelisted, > therefore according to Catholics it is not witchcraft at all. According to > tackless hardline protestants, it is not whitelisted, therefore they label > it as what it really is, a form of divination.

Er, its not divination in any case, and that isn't what hardline Protestants call it. The issue some Protestants have with intercessory prayer isn't that it is "divination" but that it is, as they see it, inconsistent with monotheism (incidentally, this is the same problem that, e.g., many Muslims have with Christian trinitarianism.)

> Furthermore, your definition of divination is steeped in Christian bias.

Its what the word means. Whether or not that fact is a result of a history of Christian bias is, really, beside the point; if you want a generalized term for superstition modern English has one; abusing a term with a different and clear definition for that purpose just obstructs communication.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _I don't recall the exact wording of the email, but the gist of it was that the governor of Lagos West constituency, Bola Tinubu, had hidden around $1 million in a secret bank account to avoid taxes. The money had been stolen from public funds, the email continued, and the Tinubu family couldn't use it because they were being closely monitored by the government._

What did this guy expect? I mean, it's one thing to fall for a scam like this under the pretense of helping a wronged/deposed Nigerian princess. But it's another to be told you're participating in a corrupt business deal and still go through with it.

My concern is less about the intelligence of the author. Rather, I'm concerned about the morality. Sure, people do bad things when they're in need. I just have little sympathy for someone who knowingly decides to participate in organized crime and then gets taken advantage of. You've made a decision to take advantage of someone else, and then you're going to complain when you get taken advantage of?

<comment><USER16> "My concern is less about the intelligence of the author."

<facetious> He was, after all, playing chess on his PC when the scam e-mail arrived. Chess implies intelligence, right? </facetious>

I agree with you, except I think it's relevant to point out that is naivete in the extreme for anyone to be persuaded by a "Nigerian Prince" e-mail...even in 2003. Would he have been just as gullible had the scammers used postal mail?

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's easy to bash the victim of a scam, but reading through this I couldn't help but feel bad for this guy. He was down on his luck and looking for a way out. He got hit up by the wrong folks at the wrong time, and taken advantage of. Let's remember to blame the thugs who beat and robbed him first and foremost.

<comment><USER18> When you're irrational and superstitious, it's easy to believe you're down on your luck, when actually it's not luck. You're down on the consequences of your own actions. Luck has nothing to do with it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Even given proof that I have no reason to doubt, I am still find hard to believe there's an educated and, judging from the writing, reasonably intellectually capable person that can genuinely believe there's a Nigerian official in Lagos that would reach out to random stranger to seek help with stealing a million dollars. And then he has a friend who, being told everything and asked for the plane ticket money, didn't say "dude, you know I'm your friend, but you need to lay off drugs for a while, they're really frying your brain" but actually enabled him in every way? And that happened not in those mythical good old times when nobody knew what spam is and everybody believed every email, but in 2003!

Shows how much bigger and stranger the world is than one could have imagined.

<comment><USER19> I can believe a corrupt official would reach out to a random person for help, just not that they would have any intention of honoring the bargain. I'd be worried about being killed as a loose end more than anything.

<comment><USER20> "I can believe a corrupt official would reach out to a random person for help"

Why is that? I would have thought that a corrupt official would be reaching out to his cronies, friends, cousins, etc. when he needed help with a scam.

<comment><USER19> Ease of denying it. Ease of eliminating them. There are stories from my friends in South America of cocaine being slipped into bags before travelling through security, hoping innocent random tourists will be caught and they can push large quantities through in the aftermath. Also, I would assume cronies would be involved in finding and setting up a random person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Sadly people are going to rip into this guy for telling his story, I feel bad for him. I know there are many of us who know what it's like to be down and out, desperate and willing to do anything to get back to the top (especially if you have a spouse and kids). You have to remember 10 years ago not many people knew about these types of scams, while they probably don't work as well nowadays, once upon a time many people were tricked, this guy just got it worse than most people probably did.

<comment><USER22> Feeling bad to an extend. After all, he knowingly wanted to participate in illegal money laundering.

I don't think this kind of activity ends well for ordinary Joe.

Greed and easy money are powerful motivators though. There was (is ?) this Nigeria scam where Nigerians would buy electronic stuff from eBay at above market prices and sending fake PayPal emails to make the seller send his object.

I worked as a CSR at PayPal years ago and had to tell French people every day that PayPal had nothing to do with this and that they will never get money nor their device back.

I would feel bad for them sure, but in the meantime their desire to make too good money from some Nigerian was what prevented them to see the red flags.

When something is too good to be true I always try to remind myself that Santa isn't real.

<comment><USER11> The fake paypal thing is rather inventive. I could totally imagine being fooled by such thing if I were busy and not paying attention properly to the details. Especially if the email said something like "the transaction would appear on the website in 1-2 businiess days". If the price diff is not too large it won't raise any red flags - ok, so some dude wants to pay $10 more, nothing special.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I really want someone to tell the story about the one time they flew to Nigeria to help a governor get some money out of the country and it turned out to be legit. That would be far more interesting.

My father used to get similar Nigerian scam correspondences back in the 70s/80s, in the postal mail.

<comment><USER24> _I really want someone to tell the story about the one time ...it turned out to be legit._

In that vein:

[http://xkcd.com/570/](http://xkcd.com/570/) (and do hover for the alt-text)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I feel sad reading this. I'm happy that they left him alive though and with no permanent injuries (what if you were left paralyzed?). Also that he learned his lesson.

As for the other commenters here, have you never done anything stupid in your life? Maybe not on this magnitude, but then all you're doing is trying to rank order yourself ahead of him on the gradient of stupidity. What value does that add?

<comment><USER6> Do you think it would have been better if the Nigerian government intervened and tossed him in jail for a few years? How would you feel if the roles were reversed and it was a Nigerian coming to your country to defraud your government?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I read somewhere that the grammar/spelling mistakes in the original "query letter" are intentional, to filter out all reasonably smart and skeptical people, and thereby "qualify the leads." See how the author managed to justify the mistakes to himself, thereby self-identifying as an easy mark.

</comment><comment><USER27> Obligatory reference for anyone remotely interested in that subject: [http://www.419eater.com/](http://www.419eater.com/)

Just an amazing community of people who troll scammers for fun and entertainment. I once spend a whole night reading through their tales of the trade.

</comment><comment><USER28> My dad almost got roped into at Craigslist scam only one or two years ago.

He was selling a used car on Craigslist and had received interest from someone who was willing to buy it sight unseen but would also need it shipped as they weren't local (single biggest red flag on Craigslist). They were going to mail a check for the cost of the car and extra so that my dad could pay the delivery people that were to come pick the car up the following week.

By this point he had already also given them his phone number and home address so they would know where to pick it up.

They actually mail him the check for a couple grand which happened to belong to Mr. & Mrs. Smith of a neighboring small town. Mysterious buyer had indicated they were located no where near said town. Instead of cashing the check, he manages to save him self by giving the Smith's a call as their home phone was on the check.

Turns our the Smiths had lost their checkbook. I haven't heard the story in a while, I can't remember if they were already working with the police on another fraud check or if they were just recently alerted to their problem. Mysterious buyer/car delivery guy was about to make off with a grand or so and a car.

My dad gave everything he had on the buyer to the local police. I don't believe they were ever tracked down. Totally missed a good sting opportunity in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER29> A very naive and trusting friend of mine got hooked on a Nigerian scam once.

After lots of back and forward, they sent an express UPS package full of $500 travelers checks in USD ($10k if I remember) to her apartment in NYC.

They wanted her to deposit them in her account, and immediately transfer 10% to them, and she could keep the rest.

We took them into the bank asking if they were real, after about an hour they finally told us no, and the only reason they had figured it out was because we asked, and their manager had just taken a course in detecting false travelers checks the month before. He said they were better than the fakes used on his course, and they passed all tests bar the very last and most time consuming one.

Likely a regular bank would have credited her account $10k, she would have transferred the 10%, and many months later the bank would come back asking for everything back. It would have worked, if I had not been visiting when the package arrived.

</comment><comment><USER30> Seriously? Could you really even get $1,300 (or equivalent) in a single draw from an ATM in Lagos in 2002?

Update:

Found this article [1] stating that before 10/2012 the limit was 100,000 NGN, which at the end of 2002 traded at about 125 to the dollar [2]. That would put the withdrawal limit at about 800 dollars, but I'm not sure that's far off enough to call this article a fraud.

[1] [http://businessnews.com.ng/2012/10/10/banks-raise-atm- daily-...](http://businessnews.com.ng/2012/10/10/banks-raise-atm-daily- withdrawal-limits/)

[2] [http://www.likeforex.com/misc/historical- rates.php?f=USD&t=N...](http://www.likeforex.com/misc/historical- rates.php?f=USD&t=NGN&y=2002&m=12&page=)

</comment><comment><USER26> He didn't really get beaten up "Because of a Nigerian Email Scam." He got beaten up because he joined a bunch of criminals to aid and abet their criminal activity.

In other words, I don't think the lesson is about the dangers of replying to emails - it's about the dangers of hooking up with gangsters when you're not a seasoned gangster yourself.

</comment><comment><USER31> As a first generation Nigerian American, it is situations like these that encourage people to make jokes.

But being more serious, I really am sort of appalled at how gullible some people are. Honestly, some of these scenarios are the most shady and preposterous situations, yet they still believe it to be true?

</comment><comment><USER32> A lot of people point out that a person like him would be so foolish but it is precisely people like him who fall for TV ads, who click on Google as and facebook ads which eventually pays for all the free internet services we get such as Gmail.

</comment><comment><USER33> Someone that was trying to do money laundering (knowing in advance that it was illegal) got taken advantage of by bigger conman.

Don't see why anyone would feel sorry for this guy. Would you feel bad for a robber that got caught?

</comment><comment><USER34> Please, people. This article is a spoof, a scam-within-a-scam. I can't believe people actually swallow this story. Someone's having a good laugh right now.

" _All right, if I win a game of hearts with less than 15 points, I'll do it_ " \-- please!

I used to love baiting the 419ers; I would redirect their inquiries to a throwaway hotmail account where I would draw them out with silly questions and comments. Usually it would not last much beyond 3-4 emails, though; they seem pretty good at sniffing out a baiter.

419eater.com is excellent, and there are or were a couple of other good collections out there, some really funny exchanges. In one, this (supposedly) dumb American flew to some town in Thailand instead of Nigeria, and the Nigerian got so mad he cursed and told him to go to hell. So much for that scam!

Sadly, I took down my scam baiting correspondence after I applied to a job with a Scottsdale networking company and their "security guy" did a google search that netted these exchanges. "You need to list these as relationships with foreign entities," he scolded. "Huh? It's just a joke, they might be in Florida for all I know." Nope. No sense of humor. They withdrew the job offer which was just as well; a very large bullet did I dodge that time!

More recently Nigerians, or similar folk, have been posting fake ads on Craigslist. A couple of years ago when we were looking for an apartment, I came across an unbelievably good deal, a huge luxury condo in Newton, Mass., for like $700 a month. It sounded just too good to be true; I contacted them and asked if it was a typo. They said in slightly less good English than in the ad that, no, it's not a typo, and they're going on some sort of mission to Africa for two years (uh oh, here it comes!) and needed a good reliable person to rent their home. Sniffing a scam, I decided to test them by mentioning that we had a pet howler monkey, but not to worry, he's very quiet and well behaved (howler monkeys are in fact considered the loudest land animals) and they didn't bat an eye, so I continued embellishing: he does sometimes fly into fits of rage and throw things, but for the most part he's pretty well house trained. When can we move in? But they stopped writing back.

People do get suckered, but usually it's because they are quite gullible, or lonely, or desperate, or some combination thereof. The character in the vice.com story had all of those qualities in abundance, making the story that much more believable, and he threw in quite a few details that seem factual enough, but overall things just didn't add up.

</comment><comment><USER35> He lost me at "All right, if I win a game of hearts with less than 15 points, I'll do it.."

Superstitious to the nth degree, I can't stand this deeply flawed thinking, ie gamblers' logic. It makes me want to vomit.

E: And it doesn't matter what year, if you're going to let the outcome of a hearts game determine your actions, I have a oujia board to sell you.

E2: After going back and reading it again, this reads too closely to fiction to be real IMO.

</comment><comment><USER36> Never hide anything from your spouse. Ever. Especially not financial troubles. Some openness and trust could have gone a long way here. Perhaps his wife could have helped him figure out their financial problems, maybe she would have even directed him away from the scammers.

<comment><USER15> It's simply not possible (or even preferable) to have _zero_ secrets from your spouse. I mean, I agree it's generally preferable to be open, but I think you're exaggerating. Do you tell your spouse _everything_ about your life?

<comment><USER36> Absolutely every single thing. There are NO secrets. When we married, we became one person. It's great, I promise :)

<comment><USER15> How long have you been married? Don't be surprised if you find yourself wanting to at least be 1.5 people as your marriage goes on.

<comment><USER36> We've been married for almost 9 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Called it. If you are a major, chronic liar, your marriage isn't going to last.

</comment><comment><USER38> Well, at least he admits he's an idiot.

</comment><comment><USER39> The whole story seems to be fiction.

</comment><comment><USER40> They say "You can't con an honest man," is it true?

</comment><comment><USER41> Never has a truer subtitle been written.

</comment><comment><USER42> Darwin's theory proven right once again

<comment><USER43> Do explain how this prove's Darwin's theory...

Or perhaps you meant that Darwinian theory would conclude that this man is likely to purge himself from the genetic pool?

<comment><USER42> Yes that was the point</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Open-source Zendesk-GitHub sync bot to answer Zendesk tickets in GitHub - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/bytescout/zendesk-github-sync-bot <comment><AUTHOR> Zendesk is great for customer support and Github is great for working and managing the code. But how to make it possible for software engineers not to go to Zendesk and be able to answer right from the lovely Github without switching between services?

That was how the idea of this bot appear.

This open-source Zendesk-Github bot was tested during last 12 months on ByteScout.com technical support in production. The general idea was the following: in Github we create a separate "inbox" repository where the bot puts tickets and replies from customers as Github issues. And then it is possible to discuss, to reference this issue from other Github repositories. And when the answer is ready then one just puts a special keyword that indicates that bot should use this comment as a reply to customer's request in Zendesk.

Other features include: \- copying the issue completely with comments to another repository. \- posting comment from Github as a Zendesk Knowledgebase article. \- fetching of optional information about customers from mail marketing system or CRM system (is there an active or expired subscription? etc)

And best of all, this bot can be deployed and run on a completely free Heroku dyno on Heroku.</comment>


Proteostasis collapse is a driver of cell aging and death - <AUTHOR> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/10/15/1906592116 <comment><AUTHOR> Link to a summary article: [https://phys.org/news/2019-10-reveals-collapse- protein-drive...](https://phys.org/news/2019-10-reveals-collapse-protein- driver-aging.html)</comment>


A bug in the Sundown and Redcarpet markdown parsers may lead to XSS - <AUTHOR> http://danlec.com/blog/bug-in-sundown-and-redcarpet

<comment><USER2> No libraries listed on babelmark (or the versions used there) seem to be affected: [http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=_danl...](http://johnmacfarlane.net/babelmark2/?normalize=1&text=_danlec_%40danlec.com)

<comment><USER3> Redcarpet would only exhibit the bug if the autolink extension were enabled, i.e. if it would render email@example.com as a link.

<comment><USER2> Interesting. That makes it much more clearer. I was confused as to why links were being generated without angular brackets being involved.</comment></comment></comment>


Xiaomi Makes Another Big Move in Consumer Electronics - <AUTHOR> http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/09/05/xiaomi-makes-another-big-move-in-consumer-electronics/ HN - lets talk about Xiaomi <comment><USER2> Why do companies keep pushing 3D TV? No one I know actually wants 3D TV.

Now if only they'll release a 42" 4K monitor at $500. I'll be the first to buy. The monitor market has been stagnant for years.

<comment><USER3> I don't even care about 4K. I can't really even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p unless I stand right by my TV (42"). Why would I care about 4K, 4K is just this year's 3D. What are they going to do after 4K? 8K? Holographs? TVs are a commodity business.

<comment><USER2> A 39" 4K has a 113 ppi ([http://pixensity.com/list/seiki-digital- se39uy04-430/](http://pixensity.com/list/seiki-digital-se39uy04-430/))

A 13" Macbook retina has a 227 ppi.

So even a 4K 39" monitor still has a far lower ppi than a retina display. And I absolutely can tell a retina display from a normal display. That means there's a lot of room for resolution to go up to and beyond 4K before it becomes indistinguishable to human eyes.

And I stand right by the monitor when I use my computer. Right now my monitor is about 12" away from my face.

<comment><USER4> Most people do not stand so close to their tv.

<comment><USER5> No, but we absolutely stand that close to our monitors.

The original poster wants a monitor. the child comment talked about a tv. Correct me if I am wrong but HDMI (before 2) cannot deliver 4k at 240Hz, right? Has that changed with the current iteration?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's a lot of 47" 3D-capable sets in the $500 range available now and you can throw on a cheap Android box for $50 and have the same thing. A built-in version like this one from Vizio ([http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-47-Class- Theater-3D-LCD-HDTV...](http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-47-Class- Theater-3D-LCD-HDTV-with-VIZIO-Internet-Apps-1080p-120Hz-refresh- rate-E3D470VX/15992333)) is $598 so I'm not getting why it's making waves?

<comment><USER7> If this is for a Chinese market, there's a good chance that the Chinese prices are higher than US prices (as is typically the case for electronics). From a brief search on taobao.com, it appears as though the average price for a 50" 3D TV there is more on the order of $900, not $500-$600.

<comment><USER8> > as is typically the case for electronics

How the heck did we get to a point where stuff that's largely made in China is cheaper in the US?

Is that the USD privilegue or what is it? Not only does the US get to print their way to prosperity courtesy of world reserve currency status, it seems (anecdotally) anything from gadgets to clothes is cheaper in the US than the rest-of-world.

I mean, no envy, it's just utterly fascinating and somewhat baffling.

<comment><USER9> Products made in China and not exported are subject to different taxes (BTW a tag price in China is the final price, inclusive of all taxes, similar to Europe). In addition, the US probably has a more efficient distribution network, both in the form of better logistical networks and competition between retailers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One thing I really hope Hugo pushes is international availability of the MI2S and the Hongmi smartphones. The former is a handsome 4.3in 720p phone with a quad-core Snapdragon processor, and is one of the thinnest (in terms of width, not depth) 720p Android smartphones which retails for about $300 USD. The Hongmi is a 4.7in 720p device that is retailing in China for ~$130 USD off contract. Even with a modest markup to support the international distribution, the Hongmi could make waves in the low-cost and prepaid smartphone market here in the United States.

</comment><comment><USER11> With their supposed interest in expanded outside of China, does anyone know if they are hiring? To me it is, by far, the most interesting startup right now.</comment>


"Sorry Larry, the cloud can't be stopped" - <AUTHOR> http://www.thetechscoop.net/2011/10/04/sorry-larry-the-cloud-cant-be-stopped/ <comment><USER3> Having fought with Salesforce all afternoon to update some assets for customers, I can verify that while the cloud may not be stopped, it may take quite a while it get here. It's incredibly tedious and slow to enter anything but the absolute simplest level of detail. Outrageously expensive, too, given how much of a time sink it is.

I sure hope "the cloud" has a lot more to offer than Salesforce.

</comment><comment><USER4> From Forbes ([http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/10/05/oracle- boo...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ericsavitz/2011/10/05/oracle-boots- salesforce-coms-benioff-from-conference/))

"The Times notes that Oracle said in a statement that it didn't cancel the event, but instead decided to move the session from Wednesday to Thursday. "Due to the overwhelming attendance at Oracle OpenWorld we had to make several session changes," Oracle said.

But Benioff said he couldn't be there on Thursday morning, and the Times notes that the conference features a Wednesday night concert – Sting and Tom Petty – that would likely run into the wee hours and reduce the attendance at a Thursday morning keynote."

</comment><comment><USER5> Salesforce is 12 years old company with around 10% CRM market. What was their profit last year? 80 million USD?

You would have to be naive to think Oracle is afraid of Salesforce. I think it's more to do with Benioff's rude knows-it-all attitude.

<comment><USER6> Salesforce is a publicly traded company with a market cap of $16B, with $2B in annual revenue.

The gap between the reality of their place and power in the market they enjoy, and the commentary here is ... surprising.

<comment><USER7> If anything, their market cap means they are hugely overvalued.

P/E is 581! This is 5 times more than even facebook :) and 400 times more than Apple.

<comment><USER8> As soon as I read your comment, I decided to to purchase some AAPL stock. When I got to the stockbroking website, the bargain you mentioned was not there. AAPL's P/E is not 1.4525. :(

<comment><USER7> what a typo, sorry, of course it is 40 )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Benioff probably ticked off Ellison's ego when he said Dreamforce was now bigger than Oracle Open World: [http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/01/...](http://www.sfgate.com/cgi- bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/01/BUM31LANR5.DTL)

It'll probably lead to "Who has the best looking beard."

<comment><USER10> As an impartial bike commuter who has his ride home interrupted by both Dreamforce and Oracle World (both shut down Howard st between 3rd and 4th - <USER2> hate them both equally), I can say that the quality of the Oracle World tents and displays are _far_ nicer than Dreamforce's.

So there's that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Larry has given some humorous talks about the "cloud" but I'm at JavaOne this year and Oracle seems to be fully embracing the cloud. It is impossible to attend a Java EE session without hearing about the cloud.

</comment><comment><USER12> Salesforce is not "the cloud". It's a company that produces a web app -- a lackluster app, at that.

<comment><USER13> It's also Heroku

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Fact: Sales Force's "cloud" uses Oracle's database and application server software.</comment>


Autopredict Coding Tools and the Future of Developer Jobs - <AUTHOR> https://insights.dice.com/2020/05/26/autopredict-coding-tools-future-developer-jobs/ <comment><USER2> Neural language models still struggle to respect constraints and produce valid code; with human language, the reader can fill in the gaps, but conventional compilers have no tolerance if you don't have agreement for variable names for one thing.

<comment><USER3> Check out [https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1OyKAYWPRrWKb](https://twitter.com/i/broadcasts/1OyKAYWPRrWKb)

Go to 25:00 for the Python code generation (from a signature + comment) demonstration.</comment></comment>


Disney Bans Netflix Ads as Streaming's Marketing Wars Intensify - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/disney-bans-netflix-ads-as-streamings-marketing-wars-intensify-11570199291?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> What I find especially annoying nowadays is that a lot of shows simply aren't releasing on DVD or Blu-Ray anymore, or if they do, it's in laughably small quantities.

For example; I wanted to buy "Final Space" on Blu-Ray, and it doesn't appear to exist. I then look for DVD, and the only place to purchase that is on TBS's website, and it's been sold out for quite awhile.

I really don't want to have to sign up for another streaming service, I just want to buy the damn show, rip it myself, and watch it on my server; sadly it looks like I'm somewhat in the minority on this, and I suppose I get it, but it does upset me that soon the _only_ way to guarantee that I get to have something forever is via piracy.

EDIT:

I just checked, apparently the DVD for Final Space is back in stock. I think my point still stands, and I think that it's weird that a show that was broadcast in 1080p isn't available on blu-ray.

<comment><USER3> They don't like that you can rip it and then play it back on whatever machines you want, forever. They want to be able to sell you the same content over and over again... either via streaming subscription, or via a new format when it comes out.

<comment><USER4> There's that, but there's also the cost of manufacturing and distributing the physical media. It needs cover designs, labeling, menu design, people expect features like commentaries, etc.

Or, you can invest nothing extra, and the majority of your audience will still engage with the product.

The cost/benefit analysis doesn't point to physical media as worth it.

<comment><USER5> I never understood why they had video media ship their own UI. It's usually annoying to figure out and sometimes absolutely idiotic (like The Fifth Element that forces you to "catch" menu entries by timing your keypresses). It's like if music CD would have you argue with the band before you could hear the music, instead of just pressing "play".

<comment><USER6> Oh, I can shed some light on that !

In another life I did a stint in the subtitle industry (right around the glorious DVD boom and before the arrival of Blue-Ray).

Execs from distributors would sit down in a room once a movie had been subbed and played around the UI to see if "every language can be selected". How to spice up that job and make it look like indispensable ? Become an UI expert in the shades of faux shadow TIFF pictures overlay and timing in sound loop in menus. The fact that magazines were grading DVD's menus and UI also helped. "It's part of the experience". From then on you could not not provide fancy menus.

The funny part ? We had to purposefully disable built-in functionalities (soundtrack switching, subtitles switching, scene skipping, etc.) to enforce some "entertaining" loading times (and the usual anti-piracy scheme). So that the exec can sit in the room discussing for three hours how a menu DVD should look and sound to "give a mood". Rinse and repeat, you got a job.

Fun fact: the whole operation relied heavily on DVD shrink which we used to remove those limitations. Some took the habit to introduce hidden code to disable stuff or still allow skipping.

I am a bit bitter about it but I acknowledge that for most people it's part of the experience and it's expected. But forcing it on people who don't like it ? Bummer.

edit: I don't remember the name of the major software used to produce DVD menus (it was a tool chain anyway) (sonic something ?) but it was horrible compared to flash and flash mx from the mid 2000's. Think: timeline, b-frame based loop, on a slow media, still frame for background, simple transparent overlay TIFF files to render highlighted menu items, the editor was basically a vid and audio track editor with loops and skip points. No code. Mac and Windows versions not compatible.

Adobe had a good hobbyist software but there were small showstoppers problems I can't remember.

Anyway, it went all downhill really fast as the money needed to get a studio on track to do the authoring went from hundred of thousand of euros for hardware to a PC with early NAS and cheap HDD. A guy could set up his own subtitling and authoring studio on a dime. But you needed connections with distributors to make some money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I predict that as content producers attempt to exert more control over how people consume media they will be met with a new "cord cutting" movement that will circumvent the systems put in place to exert such power. We will eventually settle on slow burn for everything with a value added fee on a per- show basis. A mix of the Spotify and the iTunes model, if you will.

Unless, everyone gets so used to pirating things that they ignore the evolutions in pricing models and find it easier to just pirate content.

<comment><USER8> Here's my reaction: I just stopped watching for the most part and started doing other things instead.

If I'm not doing something active now and I just want to sit - I read the funny pages (reddit), I read hacker news, I find questions in my mind to research, I play video games, read a book, start a side-project and/or listen to some music.

My wife still watches all sorts of garbage TV and if not for her I'd have cancelled cable a long time ago.

<comment><USER9> I made a tool which wraps around youtube-dl to manage fine-grained subscription and automatic downloading of various youtube channels. When I want passive entertainment, I have a directory full of interesting, high- quality videos that cater to specific niches I like. The end result is much better than TV ever was- no ads, access whenever I want- even offline- and content made by passionate hobbyists rather than mass marketers.

I feel much happier paying a handful of content creators via Patreon than spending money on a cable or streaming service subscription.

<comment><USER10> That sounds really interesting. How do you manage the library, especially in regard to storage limits, expiring old content, etc?

<comment><USER9> So far I just handle it manually. I've dialed in pretty good preferences for incoming content, (for example, using regex-based whitelists and blacklists to weed out material I'm not interested in from channels that aren't already organized into appropriate playlists) and when I browse the videos directory to find something to watch I delete things that have been sitting there a while which I don't expect to get around to.

There would be a lot more work to do if I wanted to "product-ize" the tool, and periodically youtube breaks it by adding a new feature or moving something around. For personal use, though, it's very needs-suiting. The whole approach is also less of a tempting distraction than browsing youtube itself, so it's easier to manage how much time I spend watching videos. If I ever run out of content, I just go for a walk, or read a book!

<comment><USER11> I'd be curious to see it as well, sounds good/useful even in its nascent state. I have something similar-ish in that I have a makefile/script setup where all I do is dump a file of url's/playlists/people and let a cron job download updates to things on a 12 hour basis.

Then I just have a setup in plex for youtube videos and I have plethora of content to watch when I have time.

Its jarring to use "normal" youtube now and all the ads after using this setup.

Also really nice for archiving channels and/or preparing for when youtube randomly decides to throw strikes on videos and not being able to see them anymore or people setting things to private etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It just feels like the various streaming services are morphing into everything that we hated about cable television.

<comment><USER13> There are differences: no commercials, shows on demand, more shows, and higher quality (arguably) shows. Additionally, it's possible to just subscribe to the one service you really like because they all have a lot of content.

<comment><USER14> Hulu shows commercials even if you pay.

I'm sure Netflix will start once revenue starts slipping.

<comment><USER15> Hulu does offer an ad-free tier, it's like double the cost of the basic plan. I haven't sprung for it yet, but I'm sorely tempted.

I can see Netflix looking to a similar model in the future. What are they at now, $12.99? I can see the current base subscription going to $14.99, while simultaneously launching an ad-supported version priced around $7.99.

Edit: Netflix actually DOES offer a cheaper $8.99 plan currently. This one is restricted to one screen at a time, and does not offer content in HD. So if they stuck ads on it, maybe they could bring the price down to like $5.99.

<comment><USER16> YouTube 30 second preroll ads cost currently around $ 7 per 1000 views and it's decreasing. So to take Netflix from $ 14.99 to $ 7.99 per month they would have to show you around 500 minutes of ads every month. That's 33 of those 30 seconds ads every day, without skipping a day. While you still pay $ 7.99 per month as well. I don't expect consumers will accept that.

So the only way they can make an ad-supported Netflix work is to create some form of much more effective ad (which usually means taking more of your data) or attract a very specific high value audience (makes them too much of a niche player for their size)

<comment><USER17> Premium video ads sell at much higher CPM than YouTube. Hulu makes more money from users on their "with-ads" tier than on the higher-priced "ad-free" tier.

<comment><USER18> I think a lot of people refuse to pay for an "ad-free" tier that still insists on occasionally showing ads, feels scummy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If this is over public airways (like ABC) then Disney should loose their rights to that public space. Netflix should be in court yesterday over this. And the public should be up in arms over this as they are using our PUBLIC airways. For steaming fine but not on PUBLIC spectrum.

<comment><USER20> Wait... is it normal for TV channels to show ads for competitors? (Not owned by the same conglomerate?)

Like... I've never seen an ad for Fox on CBS, or for ABC on NBC. Same as I don't think I've ever seen ads for the NYT inside of the WSJ.

I don't have a strong opinion on the matter... but is a policy against Netflix ads on Disney properties really something new and newsworthy, or just par for the course for companies in the US which compete generally?

<comment><USER19> So lets say you have a public airway to provide TV on and let's say you also own a cable company. Should you be allowed to show ads for that cable company and block ads for commercials at the same rate you charge some soda company for the same time slot for an ad from the satellite company that happens to compete with the cable company you own? Your method of broadcast is over a public owned spectrum. That is the issue. Even for cable, the rights for you to deliver that service is over public land.

<comment><USER20> Honestly, I don't see what public transmission has to do with it.

Either "advertising" should be considered a "free speech" issue from the point of view of the broadcaster -- that they have the "free speech" to allow/disallow whatever ads they want -- whether because of vulgarity, quality, competition, political alignment, whatever they want, including charging different ads different rates if they so choose.

 _Or_ we consider advertising space a "free speech" issue from the point of view of advertisers, that any and all advertising on TV, cable, newspapers, magazines, etc. should be equally available to the highest bidder. Thus a newspaper should not be able to discriminate against an advertiser because of vulgarity, competition, quality, brand alignment, etc.

It's actually a really thorny issue because there are really good arguments on both sides.

<comment><USER19> In general I agree. However let us say I own a website that I put ads on. It is my site, I pay for it. Should I have to allow ads for things I disagree with? I am not saying I know the answer here. It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.

<comment><USER21> > It would be simpler to say "if you take paid for ads you are not allowed to > turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines". Does this apply > to penis pills during kids cartoons? It is not an simpler answer.

Seems to me it IS a simple answer:

"If you take paid for ads you are not allowed to turn down any ad that does not violate public guidelines"

<comment><USER22> What if someone wanted to run an ad against vaccinations? Or the post very ad that you quoted - should Disney be forced to advertise penis enlargement ads during a children's show?

<comment><USER21> "that does not violate public guidelines"

Set guidelines.

<comment><USER22> So can one of those guidelines be "we don't advertise streaming services"? Who gets to set those guidelines? Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be advertised?

<comment><USER21> > Do you want the government deciding everything that can and cannot be > advertised?

Yes, that's the ideal way to do it in a democracy, isn't it? The will of the people should prevail.

<comment><USER22> Now we are going to have a government board that decides what can be advertised? Since the majority of Americans are Christians does that mean in a democracy people can decide banning advertising for mosques? What if the majority decided to ban commercials featuring gay couples? Interracial couples (a large percentage of Christians in the south still think interracial marriage is a sin)? With the electoral college and each state having two senators regardless of population giving a disproportionate amount of votes to smaller states, what are the chances that they would ban advertising for companies that employ the "liberal elite" in California?

The "will of the people" led to laws in the south like Jim Crow, laws against interracial marriage, and criminalizing homosexual sex.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Cancel your $100/m cable service, and replace it with 10 different $10/m streaming services. Progress.

<comment><USER24> Indeed, it is progress:

\- No ads

\- You can watch on demand

\- Orders of magnitude more choice in what to watch

\- Writers have a lot more flexibility. They don't have to be advertiser friendly.

\- Writers don't have to write cliffhangers every N minutes so you come back after the ad break.

\- Writers don't have to worry about sequence like they did with TV/Cable, because they know you'll be able to watch the show in order. Meaning that their worlds and characters can change and have real consequence.

Just pick your favorite 2 or 3 services. You don't have watch _everything_.

<comment><USER25> No ads is not always true, but otherwise I agree with you.

Another benefit is less shitty pricing models, none of this first year pricing after which it goes up 50% that Comcast loves to do, and no year-long contracts.

<comment><USER26> Hulu is the only one with ads, and that's if you get the 5$ version. If you get the 10$ version as implied in the post above, it has no ads.

<comment><USER27> There are a few shows which have ads regardless of plan (Grey's Anatomy is one of them)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I would short Netflix at this market cap...

Even if you don't think Disney is a serious threat, they are losing at their own game to Amazon, which is producing objectively better quality content given their dominance at the Emmys over Netflix (which was nearly shut out).

They have resorted to overpaying billions for old reruns like Seinfeld. At some point people will wake up and wonder why they're paying $15/month to watch reruns and return to actually buying content again for things like that.

<comment><USER29> I think Netflix is in a lot of trouble. For years, their catalog has been shrinking, replaced with Netflix Original Series/Movies. For a while, the Original Series were actually good quality.

Then this past week, watched "The I-Land" which was heavily advertised on Netflix. Watched 1 episode, and then started episode 2, and then quit. It was basically a pile of garbage.

Apparently, I am not along in my assessment.

[https://www.tvinsider.com/815148/the-i-land-netflix- reviews/](https://www.tvinsider.com/815148/the-i-land-netflix-reviews/)

[https://qz.com/quartzy/1712203/the-i-land-on-netflix-is- the-...](https://qz.com/quartzy/1712203/the-i-land-on-netflix-is-the-worst-tv- show-ever/)

Basically, I use Netflix mainly for entertainment for my children. Since they are huge Disney fans, I can't wait for Disney to release their streaming service, so I can cancel my Netflix subscription.

<comment><USER30> The fact that their autoplaying trailers are still blasting in every one of their apps despite vocal outcry in tech press and all over the internet should be enough to let you know that they are circling the drain.

When you ruin your product in effort to game your users, you've already lost.

<comment><USER31> Don't you think maybe Netflix knows something you don't that led them to make that decision despite the "outcry"? They HAVE to have validated the autoplay approach with some data that proves it achieves some goal of theirs.

The fact that they have enough conviction in their data to stick with autoplay despite the bad press should be a very good sign about a company's culture (and therefore their future).

<comment><USER32> Autoplay smells very much like a Netflix vice president's pet project. Everybody hates it but it's politically impossible within Netflix to kill it until that vice president leaves. See Google+.

<comment><USER33> I'm inclined to agree. A big part of my satisfaction with Prime is simply being able to read the descriptions and explore the metadata, leading me to something I might really enjoy without a preview hijacking my sensorium.

What Netflix does is stressful and makes me avoid engaging with their catalog. It's insane they won't let us control that one aspect.

My second frustration was when they crippled their catalog API, forcing abetterqueue offline. I'd plan my entire season around that, and now I feel like I only have what their algorithm recommends to my TV's app, which is usually garbage because my SO and I share an account.

Prime is far from perfect, but it does less wrong, and what that tells me is that maybe Netflix isn't for me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The one thing I enjoyed with Netflix's original shows was that they weren't held back by these archaic regional deals. A show released by them releases globally. Netflix going global was the moment I jumped on. It still irritates me that the major film studios lag in releasing stuff on Netflix worldwide. There's no regional advertising deals to cut. What's the hold up??

Amazon has a similar problem of having a worthless catalogue where I live. Every movie I clicked on during my prime trial said "not available in your region".

HBO was possibly the biggest disappointment where despite not having to cut deals for ads in their shows, their steaming service is still not available globally.

With Disney talking ads in their offering, I have zero hope that they will launch worldwide at the scale of Netflix, and certainly not in Sri Lanka. Maybe India. But not Sri Lanka.

Funnily enough, google play has been the best option for me. I have various networks' TV series purchased on it. And movie night usually means renting the major movie studio produced stuff from Google play. I hope they stick around for a long time to come because they somehow seem to be the one globally available neutral ground left. Weird how that works.

<comment> toper-centage Amazon prime in Germany has many movies where the only available option is dubbed. The original audio is literally impossible to watch. And this together with Germans' total aversion to subtitles, makes amazon prime almost worthless for non German speaking residents.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Google shows gmail at the top. Lawsuits!

Disney won't show competitors ads at all. Meh.

These cases aren't identical, but the difference still feels weird.

<comment><USER36> Yes, it's almost as though the traditional media likes to paint a bad picture of tech companies specifically.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I think the copyright lobby is too strong, but it would be a very positive move to change tv/film licensing to mirror radio's royalty model. Let the best service provider win, with a (more or less) complete catalog.

<comment><USER22> The "radio royalty model" doesn't pay singers but does pay writers. Also, it's only for non on demand music. There is a similar model for programmatic internet streaming like Pandora that doesn't apply where you get to choose your music like Spotify.

Even with that model, the government decides how much is paid and every song costs the same amount. Should studios be forced to license a movie that cost $120 million as one that costs $3 million.

Also, in that case should software developers be forced to sell their software at one government regulated price? Why stop there? Why shouldn't we just let the government set all prices?

<comment><USER37> that's a slippery slope fallacy but movies are generally all priced the same and make up the difference in volume.

Nobody pays different ticket prices at the box office for blockbusters.

<comment><USER22> They charge the distributors more at both the theaters and for streaming.

Also, you didn't answer the question. Are you okay with the government mandating how other products are distributed?

<comment><USER37> like alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, etc? or like copyrighted works, perhaps?

Generally I support a free market approach except for where it's been proven that a free market approach alone won't suffice.

<comment><USER22> So who gets decide whether the free market works? If you're okay with Disney not being allowed to sale their own content on their own website, how is that different from a band, author, or software developer selling their own content.

Between alcohol, pharmaceuticals, weapons, and copyright, one of those four categories is not like the other. Three of those can actively harm people. If you can't see the latest Disney movie how you want it won't do too much lasting harm.

Would you also be okay if the government mandated that open source software authors must allow their software on iOS even though some people claim that iOS distribution violates the GPL?

<comment><USER37> If you're going to tell me that the matter of intellectual property laws have never hurt or hindered anyone on any matter, I'm going to have to categorically disagree with you.

<comment><USER22> So not being able to watch TV the way that _you_ want is akin to the damage that guns, drugs, and alcohol can do? You want the government to step in because you can't watch everything you want on Netflix?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is a perfect sweet spot at the moment where I will happily pay for Netflix at 15 bucks a month and Spotify for 10 and not pirate anything.

The issue with the large congolmerates like Disney taking over is that I worry they're going to return to the 'Cable pricing model' except delivered via internet, and consumers will be back to being exploited for as much as possible with as many Ad's crammed into the content as possible.

Then we'll start pirating again and have to listen to the big conglomerates complain about how much piracy is hurting their business...

<comment><USER30> It's already happening. Office being pulled from netflix is the most recent victim of corporations realizing it's not hard to just clone netflix in house and keep all the profit.

<comment><USER39> I'm not really sure what's going on with Netflix and DreamWorks, but Netflix has a new kids show that looks oddly like the "How to Train Your Dragon" shows that recently weren't renewed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I dunno why they just can't follow the music streaming model and put all of their content on the different streaming platforms like Spotify, Apple, Amazon, Tidal and let the market decide on the differing features.

I guess Hollywood and the movie/tv studios need to have their own Napster moment.

</comment><comment><USER41> This has been said many times but it's worth repeating it. Piracy is coming back and is coming back hard.

The last piracy boom didn't have highly scalable clouds, gigabit download connections, mobile, commercial VPN services, mainstream machine learning, etc. This fragmentation is going to lead to a situation with a high demand for pirated shows and movies and there are plenty of folks in this world willing to capitalize on that.

<comment><USER42> I know a friend who pirates movies they physically own because it's easier to download a torrent than to wait 2 hours for Handbrake to do a rip that won't be as good quality.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Can they spell "anti-trust violation"?

<comment><USER44> They don't need to; they already know how to buy congressfolk.

<comment><USER45> You don't even need to buy them anymore. The current Senate would block anti- puppy murdering legislation if it suited their agenda. I mean, truly, I have no faith that any sensible regulation for this would make it through Congress. It's inconceivable, and that's sad.

<comment><USER46> On the other hand, we don't allow radical legislation to go through and that's a huge positive in some cases. We would never let a Brexit/secession go through because we'd never be able to agree on it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's pretty impressive that Disney would make a pretty penny off their Netflix deal, while Netflix did (IMO) an admirable job with the Marvel IP, and even then at the end the relationship gets described as "adversarial" — by Disney, not netflix. Don't get me wrong I'm gonna watch the shows, but this is some cutthroat stuff.

</comment><comment><USER48> [http://archive.is/xvHsX](http://archive.is/xvHsX)

</comment><comment><USER49> I wish that Netflix was the sole dominant market player in this space such that for all intents and purposes it was the place to get streaming content so that I didn't have a hodgepodge of services to subscribe to with different interfaces and user experiences and content. As the silos of content increase piracy will as well.

I'm tired of my favorite shows being kicked off of Netflix for seemingly arbitrary reasons so I keep local copies around or buy shows on iTunes but as costs rise to own instead of stream I think piracy will increase instead of decrease as it has in the heyday of Netflix.

</comment><comment><USER50> Makes sense. Broadcasters don't allow ads from their competitors on their networks (you would never see an ad for a CBS show on Freeform),so idk why they would allow ads from streamers. Probably thought it was incremental dollars when it just basically meant Netflix was stealing subscribes away from them.

At the end of the day, Disney is still gonna sell that inventory (maybe at a slightly lower premium). So I would see it's worth it to lose $5-10MM a year if it means slightly cutting off the reach of one of your biggest competitors.

</comment><comment><USER51> Ultimately we'll end up at "choose your own channels" but at the cost of 15$ per channel. If you subscribed to all of them you'd be right back at cable prices again, minus sports content.

<comment><USER52> Why minus sports content?

<comment><USER53> > Why minus sports content?

For some reason, people really care about live sports.

It doesn't really fit the streaming model.

<comment><USER54> It does, it just exposes how expensive it is and the sellers don't like that because it will reduce the number of viewers, and then that starts lowering the value of the ads that are paid for, hence lowering the value of the sports teams themselves.

Bundling sports with other media allowed for price obfuscation.

<comment><USER55> yup, a lot of sports streaming companies have gone on a anti-piracy bend recently. a couple of sport streaming subreddits got the ban hammer for eg. RIP r/nbastreams

[https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nba-streams-reddit- banne...](https://melmagazine.com/en-us/story/nba-streams-reddit-banned)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Oh boy, I can't wait for regulation here.

This is strictly worse than cable (with on demand) now. We went so far we slid backwards!

I don't care what company made what thing. I just want to be able to consume the content in an easy way, not have go juggle five different apps.

We need multiple providers that have all the content and that you pay a simple flat rate. They should be indistinguishable commodities like Spotify, Google Play, etc.

<comment><USER52> It amuses me to hear you say that, since for years people complained about bundling from the cable companies. They wanted to pay a la carte for exactly the channels they'd consume, in the belief that the price would be lower by removing the channels that they didn't want.

The situations aren't exactly parallel, but in a lot of ways we got what many people always wanted, but that doesn't make everybody happy. I draw no conclusion from that observation, other than to note it.

<comment><USER57> I think that is the problem with using _" the people want X"_.

I always complained about bundling, and I am very happy with the current situation (yes, even considering that in the next years I will have about 10 services that I _could_ subscribe to).

I would assume that GP might not have complaining at all about bundling and is now unhappy with the current situation where they would have to subscribe to a lot more channels to have the same value for him.

<comment><USER52> I apologize. I hadn't intended an accusation of hypocrisy. I'd tried to phrase around that implication, but I see that I didn't do a very good job of it. I'm going to edit to (hopefully) make that clearer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I didn't have cable TV for the past 15 years or so. Just didn't need that all that garbage for the occasional thing I really wanted to see.

Netflix was the simple aggregator through which I could watch what I liked. Hasn't been for a while, though. There are better things to do with my life anyway than consuming movies and shows.

</comment><comment><USER59> Lots of people saying about moving away from regular TV to streaming, but it depends how I want to watch. Sometimes I want to select an episode and sit down to watch it properly, which streaming is good for. But sometimes normal TV fulfils my needs to drunkenly half-watch a random Top Gear.

<comment><USER60> Agreed. There's something to be said for coming home from work and just doing random channel surfing where you stumble upon a show 15 minutes into a Season 4 episode.

With the streaming services, there's no such equivalent, so if you want to watch something new, you have to start at Season 1, Episode 1. It feels like too heavy of a commitment. In my experience, many shows don't get good until after 6-7 episodes, and I will often start at Season 2 just so I can skip the "character development" arcs and go right into the plotline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> This has completely obvious anti-trust implications. How many major networks are there - 4. And all of them except fox either have streaming services or will have them soon (nbc's peacock, disney/abc whatever its called, cbs has streaming, and fox will have one I'm sure).

</comment><comment><USER62> Or, you know, just don't waste your time/money subscribing to any service at all. I don't have a TV and have never subscribed to a streaming service. My life is perfectly happy and full of entertainment outside work, and my wallet says thanks.

</comment><comment><USER63> This could backfire spectacularly if Netflix retains enough content to remain a viable option for most parents with small children.

But what do I know, I prefer Shaun the Sheep to Mickey Mouse so don't listen to me.

<comment><USER64> that's the problem, I'm not sure I'm finding Netflix interesting these days. I've been finding more variety @ Hulu

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> It seems strange that all these streaming services are spending so much on advertising.

</comment><comment><USER66> Fantastic way to bring back piracy, they really don't learn do they.

</comment><comment><USER18> Why would Netflix even need to advertise? Everyone knows about them.

I'll be pirating any Disney movies that I need to watch, Disney is behind the vast over-expansion of copyright law in the US, and I believe it's unethical to fund their lobbyists.

<comment><USER67> I'm pretty down on Disney, seeing what they have done to Star Wars, and how they are so imaginatively bankrupt that all they can do is mine their successful animated legacy by reworking live-action/cgi remakes. They have also driven ESPN straight into the ground, relegating the flagship sports station a hotbed of woke nonsense and grievance politics.

<comment><USER18> Much of Disney's most valuable IP was taken from the public domain and privatized. They've never been good at creating original stories.</comment></comment></comment>


Tell HN: I will never buy and will never suggest  to anyone any Mac computer. - <AUTHOR>

Recently my Macbook Pro (7,1) Mid 2010 started to freeze out of nowhere and it turned out it's logic board which needs to be replaced. It's been 2 years since purchase and it has this creepy thing. I expected it to run for 5 years against the money I paid but then what do you expect. Then I googled for how much logic board cost and whoop! More than the cost of the new upgraded Macbook available in the market. That's a shame!<p>This is now decided. I will never buy any Mac computer because there is no chance of getting them fixed neither I will suggest anyone to do that as previously my brother and few friends bought one because I said so. <comment><USER2> Talk to Apple about it.

The logic board on my old Macbook Pro failed, I didn't have any receipt available. Took it into my nearest Apple Store and a day later they had it swapped out and working again at no cost to me.

<comment><AUTHOR> We don't have official Apple support in our country.</comment></comment>


Inside Uber's Auto-Lease Machine - <AUTHOR> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-05-31/inside-uber-s-auto-lease-machine-where-almost-anyone-can-get-a-car <comment><USER2> Just a warning -- this page autoplays a video at full volume and the controls to stop it aren't accessible (MacBook 13in running Chrome).</comment>


20 years ago, Steve Jobs built the "coolest computer ever"–and it bombed - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/07/20-years-ago-steve-jobs-built-the-coolest-computer-ever-and-it-bombed/ <comment><USER2> This design was exemplary of Jobs' aesthetics-over-usability designs.

I remember trying to use one in my college's lab. The lab assistant and I spent 20 minutes trying to figure out how to turn it on.

Finally we discovered the power button was hidden _on the bottom_ of the machine.

I still bump into Jobs' philosophy, that simplicity means hiding everything from the user. "Clean" and "minimal" is not always good and often not the most usable.</comment>


Magical Results and P=NP - <AUTHOR> http://rjlipton.wordpress.com/2009/10/11/magical-results-and-pnp/

<comment><USER2> <http://www.maa.org/mathland/mathtrek_12_24_01.html>

<comment><USER3> It would be helpful in the future if you explained links that you were posting.

For those interested, this is another article about the Kruskal count magic trick mentioned in the story.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Realistic POTUS Animojis - <AUTHOR> http://cloan.me <comment><AUTHOR> A bit more context can be found here:

[https://www.producthunt.com/posts/headface](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/headface)

<comment><USER2> I think that a technical blog post with more details and a few images will get much more traction here. How much of this was implemented by you? Did you make the model of the faces? How difficult is to add a new face? The realistic lighting sound interesting, any details?

Bonus points if you give some screenshot of the early versions that went wrong and have funny results.</comment></comment>


Show HN: DataBrokerDAO – A Decentralised Marketplace for IoT Sensor Data - <AUTHOR> https://databrokerdao.com?ref=hn <comment><USER2> Hi, Roderik here, one of the founders of DataBrokerDAO. We would love to hear your comments and questions!

And do not forget to register for the referral program!</comment>


Sequoia Set to Lead $500M Valuation Round for Instagram - <AUTHOR> http://allthingsd.com/20120406/sequoia-set-to-lead-500m-valuation-round-for-instagram/ <comment><USER3> Who realistically sets out to create a business that needs more than 30mm users to be plausible as a revenue generator?

This lends more to the notion that these "app builders" are falling backwards into business opportunities with no clear idea of how to execute.

Can't great apps just exist without the expectation of 1bn valuations and rolling them up as companies?

<comment><USER4> No.

Running and maintaining Instagram probably comfortably costs in the six figures range with 30mm users. Operations at scale require venture capital funding. If Instagram were paid for, the user base would be a fraction - <USER2> more importantly, someone would just release a clone of the app for free, acquire millions of users, raise VC and crush you.

The opportunity cost of Instagram implementing a revenue model today is huge.

Given Instagrams popularity and influence I'd say there is no reason why it won't be as influential as YouTube -- $500mm is almost cheap when you think about it.

"Who realistically sets out to create a business that needs more than 30mm users to be plausible as a revenue generator?"

Swinging for the fence entrepreneurs. We should be supporting them. Instagram opportunities are once in a life time.

<comment><USER5> "Swinging for the fence entrepreneurs. We should be supporting them. Instagram opportunities are once in a life time."

This is exactly the type of thinking I think we need less of. We shouldn't be encouraging people to play the lottery in hopes of a big, very-rare-chance-of- happening win.

We should be encouraging people to work hard to build real, profitable businesses.

<comment><USER4> Instagram is a real business. There is more than one way to skin a cat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If Sequoia goes in at a $500m valuation, few companies will be able to give Sequoia a "decent" return/exit. Indeed this is a "frothy" valuation.

<comment><USER7> "forthy" ! What in the world can they do to make money to justify such a high valuation? Sell filters !?

<comment><USER8> They have to make only $100M/year to be valued at 5 times yearly revenue. It is very likely Instagram can double its user base over the next 12 months now that it supports android. At that point reaching $100M in revenue will be quite easy due to the fact that mobile consumers are very likely to make sub $2.99 purchases/upgrades.

<comment><USER6> I think Instagram is a great company but I personally see too many IFs and moving pieces to support a $500m valuation.

<comment><USER9> I totally agree, there are a number of copy cats out now. Flickr for android copied instagrams product offering, therefore these copy cats should cannabilise some sales. Instagram is very trendy right now so on brand awareness it has a huge edge, the issue is can they sustain this edge two years down the line when the dust settles?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> As a programmer who is generally unfamiliar with business lingo, can someone explain what this valuation round means? Are they saying that Instagram is worth $500,000,000? How realistic is that number?

<comment><USER11> Valuation is (Dollars I pay)/(Fraction of the company I buy). In this case, they are selling 10% of the company for $50 million.

It's not exactly the same thing as saying that these investors would be willing to buy all of Instagram for $500 million because both parties' utility functions are seldom linear. It's the closest thing we have, though.

<comment><USER12> And one more question from not-so-business savvy reader.

If Sequoia got this deal with 2x liquidation preference then if Instagram is sold for $100 then Sequoia will still profit $50M. Correct?

<comment><USER11> 'Liquidation preference' is a term that applies to what I think of as 3 or 4 related-but-separate concepts. In the simplest situation, with no vested options or other complications, yes, the investor would get all $100 million, assuming nobody else has a liquidation preference.

Vested options and other term sheet items like 'participating preferred' make things more complicated, so you really have to read the entire term sheet to figure out who gets what under what circumstances.

Good resources: [http://www.burningdoor.com/askthewizard/2007/04/venture_term...](http://www.burningdoor.com/askthewizard/2007/04/venture_terms_liquidation_pref.html) [http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2005/01/term-sheet- liquidati...](http://www.feld.com/wp/archives/2005/01/term-sheet-liquidation- preference.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Re: _"What is their business model?"_

In an interview with Sara Lacy, [1] Kevin Systrom notes that:

\- "27 million people is not too shabby, but it's nowhere near the scale you need to make a massively large business."

\- they plan to build a tool for advertisers, because using the iPhone app is a "terrible experience" for them

[1] [http://windonaleaf.net/post/20464525754/instagram-perform- ad...](http://windonaleaf.net/post/20464525754/instagram-perform-ads) (via Shawn Blanc)

<comment><USER14> Ads. Great.

$2 is a fair price for the app-- too late now on that one. They could charge for filters.</comment></comment>


Migraine Buddy: an advanced migraine tracking and reporting app - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.healint.migraineapp&hl=en

<comment><USER2> Just finished a PR... I need that one!</comment>