Krugman's take on high frequency trading - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/03/opinion/03krugman.html

<comment><USER3> (a) Does Krugman actually _know_ that, say, GS is making record profits principally from high-frequency trading, or is he just invoking them as a boogeyman because they're already ill-favored by his audience and because they are known to have invested in some high-frequency trading?

(b) What does it even mean to question whether "one thirtieth of a second faster" merits profits? As Krugman well knows, the markets aren't inherently frictionless; when you trade, you trade across a spread between bid and ask prices, a spread representing a premium to your trade that is taken out of the market by middlemen. HFT cuts the spread and hurts those middlemen, but also reduces friction in the market.

Krugman's argument seems to reduce to the notion that the only people who should profit in a trade are principal buyers and sellers; people with a long- term strategy or outlook on an instrument who are trading for a reason. But HFT or not, a huge swath of the market consists of entities that exist solely to connect buyers to sellers and to facilitate price discovery, and it's naive (or disingenuous) to suggest otherwise, or to pretend that markets would work effectively in their absence.

<comment><USER4> Given he uses "one thirtieth of a second" faster I'd say he doesn't know what he's talking about. HFT for equities is an order of magnitude faster than that, at that speed you're just executing a normal algo trade.

But yeh basically the counter argument is liquidity. There's nothing stopping an exchange restricting speed of trades, the reason most of the major ones don't is companies don't want to be listed on a non-liquid exchange.

If HFT damaged the companies being traded than the companies could move to exchanges that didn't allow it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think that the companies being traded on exchanges where HFT is prevalent are the big losers from HFT.

I think the big losses are from the all of the wasted resources being put into making trades faster and faster. It seems to me that if merely swapping one set of machines out from a data center near the exchange and moving a few miles away is going to drastically change how that it performs, something is wrong.

From my personal experience, a brilliant friend of mine left his job at some Silicon Valley startup where he was definitely creating value for society to work at an HFT shop. After a few months of working there, he calls me and we talk about some C++/algorithms stuff (I think he is much, much smarter than me, I just happened to have written a lot more C++ than he has) about how he needs to make his code run microseconds faster so that it can make more trades.

I am all in favor of people who change the world for the better being rewarded immensely. I have no love for the iphone, but since many, many people do, I am sure Steve Jobs is worth his billions. But for people getting rich doing HFT, the only return for society I see are some nebulous claims about liquidity. Can the societal gains be quantified in some manner? If every transaction on the exchange had an added latency of a microsecond, how would things change? What if it was a millisecond? What about a second? How much worse off would the world be?

<comment><USER5> I don't know. People on HN talk about this dichotomy between the value producing Silicon Valley startups, and the valueless of activities like HFT stock trading. In my mind, in most cases, it's not so clear.

I worked in Silicon Valley for 12 years. Many of the projects I worked on had negative financial value - they never made any money. So essentially I was just wasting some rich person's money. The projects that were successful in terms of users and "eyeballs" often had negative social value. The whole point was to induce users to spend more and more time on our sites. Finally, some of the things going on right now in startup-land are quite frankly, creepy. The last project I did in Silicon Valley involved working with all these vendors who essentially are building up dossiers of every human who uses the internet and shopping it around as "market data." When I realized I was basically contributing to a surveillance state, I quit and moved to Manhattan, where at least I'm only fucking around with rich people's money, instead of fucking around with people's lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Krugman is long talented in telling only a portion of a story to fit an agenda. The basic theory of the market is sound, that it reflects the value of a given stock at a given time. High speed/frequency trading simply drives the market to that accurate point that much more quickly.

That said, it's greatly unfair, IMO, that markets are allowed to provide information to select people (for an additional fee of course) that is not provided to the general public. These are supposed to be publicly traded stocks - by providing information to some that others don't receive until some delay (whether it's milliseconds to minutes), then there is _nonpublic_ trading capitalizing on information not yet delivered to the public - <USER2> walks the fine line of insider trading, to me.

<comment><USER7> Who is getting unfair information? Do you mean flash orders? Those no longer exist (for which I'm glad also). HFT in general though doesn't take advantage of unfair market information.

<comment><USER6> As far as I know, flash orders are still legal - just not being offered by most exchanges due to the public heat they received for a period.

<comment><USER7> If so, then they should be disallowed. Regardless, they accounted for for a tiny fraction of all trading volume. I doubt most HFT firms make much from them. Saying HFT is bad because of flash trading is like saying driving cars is bad because once in a while, someone dies from a car crash. The latter part is a true statement, but that's 0.01% of the picture.

On another note, it should be pointed out that flash orders were created by EXCHANGES, not by demand from traders. The exchanges didn't want to have to route orders to other exchanges because of NBBO, so they offered this to traders hoping that someone would come fill the order at NBBO.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Summary:

First the financial industry plunged us into economic crisis, then it was bailed out at taxpayer expense.

[M]any financial-industry high-fliers made fortunes through activities that were worthless if not destructive from a social point of view.

[H]igh-frequency trading probably degrades the stock market's function, because it's a kind of tax on investors who lack access to those superfast computers. . .

[A] bill setting rules for pay packages...a step in the right direction... is opposed by the Obama administration, which still seems to operate on the principle that what's good for Wall Street is good for America.

[W]e've become a society in which the big bucks go to bad actors, a society that lavishly rewards those who make us poorer.

<comment><USER3> But, no: HFT isn't a tax on poor investors; it's a "tax" on poor _middlemen_ who would otherwise be able to profit from spreads that HFT systems are slashing.

If you're a principal buyer or seller of an instrument, because you have a trading objective (capitalizing on an impending market shift, accumulating exposure to a business or industry you believe in, diversifying your portfolio, or simply a speculator), HFTs are (a) at worst simply replacing a middleman that was taking a chunk out of every one of your trades, and (b) at best helping you by refining competition for access to that spread and thus amping up liquidity and making it easier for you to buy or sell.

There certainly do appear to be problems with HFT in particular and large- volume algo trading in general; for instance, it appears to drastically amplify volatility and create crazy swings. _But that's not the argument Krugman is making_. He's saying it's inherently unfair. Bullshit. It's unfair in the same sense that UUNet was unfair to bulletin board systems.

<comment><USER9> From what I've read (which may be outdated), there was a system whereby high frequency traders could discover buyers limit prices by executing a series of small-volume "probe" trades at increasing dollar amounts. Then, once the limit is found, execute the trade at the buyer's limit price. Without HTF, the trade would be executed at a lower price. To me, that sort of asymetry seems unfair -- it's like knowing, in advance of a negotiation, the other person's exact willingness to pay.

<comment><USER3> Again, you're describing a scheme that allows a firm to replace a series of other traders and firms in the spread. The only difference is that instead of a lot of little bites on its way to price discovery, the HFT-inhabited market takes one big one. Meanwhile, you still sell at whatever price you wanted to sell at, and buy at what you wanted to buy at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I thought this snippet was particularly interesting. Do any of the HFT guys here want to debunk this, or at least give the other side of the story?

But speculation based on information not available to the public at large is a very different matter. As the U.C.L.A. economist Jack Hirshleifer showed back in 1971, such speculation often combines "private profitability" with "social uselessness."

It's hard to imagine a better illustration than high-frequency trading. The stock market is supposed to allocate capital to its most productive uses, for example by helping companies with good ideas raise money. But it's hard to see how traders who place their orders one-thirtieth of a second faster than anyone else do anything to improve that social function.

<comment><USER10> I think the largest fallacy is that HFT is about making money solely via high- frequency.

However, HFT is rather a group of market making strategies that operate at high speeds. They'd still work at lower speeds (above a certain threshold). But they 'make it worth it' for businesses, so to speak, because of the volume that can be generated, because high speeds means more trades.

Most people doing HFT are taking very small spreads. Fractions of pennies. But because they can do HFT a lot, this grows a lot. In fact, many HFT equity traders make money via rebates. Which means if anything they are only providing a service to the market (it's someone else coming across and crossing them for a trade).

So HFT is a mixed bag, as others have said. There are predatory strategies that probably do more harm than good -- accelerate crashes, etc.

But all HFT is -- is some slow strategy in the background + an ability to make markets a lot. By making markets a lot -- liquidity is provided. Whether the slow strategy in the background is good or bad -- again, is a totally different thing.

So insider trading + HFT (as Hirshleifer maybe is getting at), which we would include in the HFT category because of the latter component, is bad. But providing a certain risk assessment that other people think is overvalued or undervalued + HFT is not necessarily bad.

Where it gets tricky is that HFT infrastructure usually requires the same foresight that 'knowing more than other people' requires. And so it seems like people are being taken advantage of. But judged purely objectively, HFT is just a measure of speed. I.e., it's just magnitude. The direction is totally up to the market participant (many of whom, it's true -- are ruthless and even amoral).

But people may not appreciate the importance of liquidity (which is what HFT mostly provides). Liquidity -- which of course gets its name from this 'smoothing out' of markets -- i.e., making things more readily accesible based on a wide variety of demands, etc. -- that is the basis for any type of economy or convenience. It's a deep problem that we always probably want to improve.

Should some farmer in Africa who has some idea for taking some plant and using it to treat some ailment be given funding from a bank? In a highly liquid world -- yeah, there's an ATM machine in the middle of nowhere and he enters his information and gets a loan. I.e., this is an extreme example, but this 'convenience' is huge for innovation and making all of life, for lack of a better word, more elegant.

On the other hand, the risks of people who provide liquidity with much higher insights into the market than other people -- is like with any misaligned information relationship. Any type of manipulation is very bad -- and very tempting when you're one of the large market participants. So that should always be safeguarded against.

But yeah, I suppose it's like anything. You want things fast but safe.

ETA. I read the question (parent comment) a little more thoroughly. So I should probably answer -- why does 1/30th of a second make a difference? It rarely does. But nobody makes money solely with speed, right? What we mean by someone makes money by being faster by a couple of milliseconds -- is that there is some well-known strategy out there, and some market participants, with really fast connections, can get into that strategy faster than everyone else. But clearly, in regards to sub-second market entry, these strategies are fairly rare (e.g., trading announcements or IPOs or pairs trading, etc.).

High _frequency_ trading means entering AND exiting quickly (i.e., you have to have some other strategy -- usually a hedge -- that you're doing to get rid of the risk of entering one side of the trade). Being sure about the direction somehow, that's of course the trick. But what HFT traders are counting on is -- for lack of a better way to put it -- dumb commercial paper. On average, they want to have a strategy that eeks out a little bit of a profit. Then, add in all the individual investors and mutual funds, etc., that have a mixed bag of clarity into the market, and extract some of the inefficiency out of it without assuming much risk.

But just because they've figured a way to extract rewards out of the misalignment of interests in the markets -- doesn't mean what they're doing is wrong. It's just annoying to speculators. Because it seems like they are being constantly reminded that the markets are unforgiving unless you have a very clear idea about what type of risk/reward profile you're willing to present.

The best way to fix the financial markets is education and other efficiencies. Anyway, that's just my two cents. I could go into the problems with GS and bailed out bulge-bracket firms -- but suffice it to say, the systemic problems are mostly based on conflations (e.g., conflating a commercial bank and proprietary trading).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think the crux of the argument is really against speculative trading as a whole. The stock market has nothing to do with allocating resources. When you buy/sell stocks, you have a counter party that is doing the opposite. No part of that transaction has to do with allocating resources.

An angel investment allocates resources. A VC round allocates resources. And yes, an IPO does allocate resources. But trading stocks is just a way for mutual fund managers to charge a fee.

Once, owning stock had to do with dividends. But that's back in the day. Now, the only way to reliably make money in the stock market is to spend other people's money and charge them for the honor.

If I'm investing in a company, I should have an asymmetric informational advantage or an ability to direct management. Public companies, by definition, don't make this possible (unless you have significant voting power).

<comment><USER3> Equities are a fraction of what's traded on "the markets", and a huge chunk of "everything that is traded" is traded on electronic markets that could or are HFT'd (fixed income being a notable counterexample, a paragon of the ideal universe you sort of allude to, and an unmitigated debacle when it comes to transparency and fairness).

One doesn't really need to engage your argument about whether equities are truly about allocating resources to observe that electronic markets do play a pivotal role in resource allocation. How do you think anyone knows what wheat, iron, or bulk block cheddar costs?

<comment><USER11> That's the argument I hear from trader friends, to which I respond, the people who produce wheat/iron/cheddar and the people who consume wheat/iron/cheddar can figure that out perfectly well in the absence of speculators and high frequency trading.

Your other points are well taken, but I do think Krugman is largely referring to equities, and I sort of parrot part of the argument made by Mark Cuban in the following link without sharing how I got to that line of thinking:

<http://blogmaverick.com/2008/09/08/talking-stocks-and-money/>

<comment><USER3> There are tens of thousands of consumers and tens of thousands of producers for many commodities. Each of them have different cash flow demands and different tolerances for risk. All of them operate in a world that creates risk.

Sure, products could still be moved without all the market's actors. But they'd move at inferior prices, jackpotting some producers and bankrupting others by sheer chance with little opportunity for smart producers to mitigate (or even profit from) risks.

Even pure speculators serve a purpose in the market; if nobody wants to hedge a risk or lock in a price by dealing with them, they can't succeed; if people do want to do that, the speculator is providing a service to them.

This, by the way, isn't any great insight on my part; it's the first chapter in any book that explains futures and options.

<comment><USER11> Absolutely agreed - speculators make the market more efficient. But why is it that this is the only half of the equation included in the chapter? All the negative impacts of speculators are left out of chapter one, the rest of the book, and the next twenty more advanced texts?

For such a clever & informed group, finance types like to quantify their positive contributions and qualitatively dismiss their negative contributions ("there are -some-inefficiencies when...")

We lose a lot of peak potential value when we depress high finance's ability to leverage and exploit markets, but we also shave off the deepest parts of the trough we inevitably fall into when the "markets" swing back the other way.

History suggests we shouldn't consider the boom-bust cycle as part of our inevitable march forward; sometimes, you bust big enough and you reach your day of reckoning. Why is it a given that this cycle needs to be so dramatic?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I would love a serious, technical discussion of high frequency trading from Krugman. This is just a fluffy op-ed.

<comment><USER3> Serious question: why would you expect a serious technical discussion of HFT from Krugman? krugman : markets : hft :: djikstra : cisc architecture : cpu cache design.

<comment><USER12> "Technical" as in meaty discussion of economic effects, not "technical" as in source code included.

<comment><USER3> We're working from the same definition of "technical": that of market microstructure. I'm questioning whether Krugman, who hasn't made that his specialty, is really someone you'd want to hear expound on it.

Maybe Robin Hanson (on the very technical side) or Robert Shiller (on the very academic side) might be better sources.

You can, by the way, get a pretty good intro to high-level market concepts (particularly, what concerns motivate them) by listening to the free lecture courseware from Shiller's markets class. And I have to chime in to every discussion about how markets work to promote "Trading & Exchanges" by Harris, which is just an awesome, awesome book, and which you can get on Kindle as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> the first thing I thought of was:

coco the monkey

</comment><comment><USER14> "activities that were worthless if not destructive from a social point of view."

Although I do actually like Paul Krugman's writings, and although I do have an opinion about the financial industry, whoever crowned Krugman "social evaluator" of the world? I mean, who is to say Krugman writing stuff on the internet, winning a fake Nobel for a (basically fake) discipline, and scribbling formulas on blackboards is constructive from a social point of view? I know people who would dispute that. In fact, let's not even go into this question for we might find out ugly things about our societies. If I were to put my own "social evaluator" hat on, I'd throw half the stuff I see on TV commercials out. [EDIT: In fact, I might throw the TV and all the associated junk itself out.] Economist Krugman may not like the result on the employment rate when we really introduce this sort of criterion into capitalism. I mean, seriously, who in our society really makes truly valuable or "constructive" stuff, from a social point of view. Isn't a huge chunk of our population involved in making consumer junk and industrial waste? How is a marketer who tickles the basest instincts of people to make them buy stuff they don't need by working harder at jobs they hate any better than a guy who spends his day doing HFT?

<comment><USER15> A very large amount of labor is socially unnecessary. But its not simply making 'consumer junk'. It is by making duplicate products with different packaging, but also all the labor wasted on all forms of advertising and these activities like HFT. What if the economy was run democratically and everyone worked a socially necessary job 4 hours a day! Now that sounds like a better way to go...

<comment><USER8> "making duplicate products with different packaging"

Over-processing Muda!

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muda_(Japanese_term)></comment></comment></comment>


TwittX Twitter Desktop Client - <AUTHOR> http://twittx.salonxsoftware.com This twitter client is absolutly amazing.  It includes all twitters features and search engine as well. It is a must download!!! <comment><USER2> It could be the most revolutionary client in the world but I'd never be able to get over how ugly it is</comment>


Has a Startup Found the Secret to Farming the Elusive Truffle? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/24/business/has-a-start-up-found-the-secret-to-farming-the-elusive-truffle.html <comment><USER2> This is something that I expect the tissue engineering community to break. I know that sounds weird but according to folks I've talked to who were looking at various lab grown structures, fungi are significantly easier than say meat. And an artificial hamburger at $350/lb sounds impractical, artificial white truffles at $350/lb sounds like a money making opportunity.

<comment><USER3> Truffles are like wine. The taste isn't the product. The product is the backstory, the where and how of the production. Those paying top dollar want their food to have a biography of picturesque farms tended by hearty farm folk, with a few inoffensive Labradors throw in. The boots and pants can be muddy, that shows that they are close to the earth. But never the shirts. No self-respecting farmer would dare be seen in a dirty shirt.

This is fashion food. They will pay extra for the lab-grown stuff once fashion shifts back away from the dirt and towards 'clean' synthetics.

<comment><USER4> Well personally I'm near obsessed with truffles and for me it's _all_ about the taste. It's such a unique and complex taste and I think that's the real product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Planet Money had a wonderful episode recently about a boy who's been selling truffles out of the back of his car since he was 15:

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/11/04/500726210/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/11/04/500726210/episode-733-a-trunk- full-of-truffles)

Most notably, he budgets $10,000 pear year for parking tickets as a cost of doing business!

<comment><USER6> There's also a video following this guy (Ian Purkayastha) on one of his daily routes: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJ6IJZJhUU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-sJ6IJZJhUU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> It would be interesting if this were true. I live in Oppède in the Luberon and I can literally see the town of Menerbes from my back yard -- which is incidentally on of the most important world markets for black truffles. Every winter our roads are filled with people from all over the world (generally chefs) who make an annual pilgrimage to by truffles here.

I would be interested in the economic impact of suddenly making truffles as near-worthless as common mushrooms since truffles come almost exclusively from tiny producers -- for many, their entire year's income comes from the yearly truffle market.

I guess my feeling is I wonder if truffle scarcity is a problem worth solving. The downside is destroying a lot of people's livelihood for a product that really isn't that important (people that don't have truffles really aren't wishing they did for the most part.)

The scarcity isn't because black truffles are just so amazing but because there's an allure to eating them. They do have an amazing aroma and every year for about a month or two I am making truffle-everything. But if they were turned into a mass-produced commodity, I would expect them to not be quite so interesting.

This startup is sowing the seeds to destroying the very market they want to disrupt.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the price and relative scarcity of the truffle is a part of its allure. If it became cheap something else would occupy its niche.

At least for me truffles are extremely overrated in the taste department.

<comment><USER9> Agreed regarding the disappointing flavor. My wife and I enjoy sampling a wide variety of foods (e.g., we've recently tried horse tenderloin [delicious], pork brains [bland], wild boar liver [extremely tasty]). We went to a fancy place that had some truffle offerings, and we were excited about trying them, but neither of us liked it at all. It was a strong, not great flavor resembling minced garlic that had been burned to a dry charcoal crisp.

<comment><USER10> I'm curious, were these actual truffle dishes? Or were they simply flavored with truffle oil? Because truffle oil, is by most accounts, awful.

<comment><USER11> The "real" truffle is the "white" one, the "black" one is considered (and it is) vastly inferior and there are several varieties of the "black" one (some wuite good, some a lot less).

Truffle oil is made (the good one) from the rests of the truffles or from too tiny ones, and not-so-surprisingly if you use real, good truffle and real, good olive oil, it is a good product.

Most of it is however made with inferior quality oils and with artificial flavourings, and quite frankly it is usually terrible.

Any dish with truffle be it the superior "white" or inferior "black" kind is usually _any_ normal, not particular savoury in itself dish (like the mentioned "tagliatelle al burro") on which the truffle is added at the end in tiny slices, often (this is what is done at home and in "high level restaurants") by bringing on the table the truffles and the special tool to slice them, and everyone slices what he/she finds adequate on his/her own plate. The tool is like this one: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NucklhqTRU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NucklhqTRU)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> At least here in Italy, it is something like 30 (thirty) years that someone claims to know how to farm (black) truffles (through this or that "new" procedure and/or "scientific finding") but at the end of the day the only money that changes hands is the actual cost of the plants (and the expenses for planting and irrigation) that is paid by the farmer.

It is not at all clear (to me) what the partnership provides, seemingly (just like all the others before them) they do sell the actual plants and delay to when the farmer get the profits the payment of their "training" and "ongoing assistance".

Their UK company sells also single trees online (which you can also conveniently pay via PayPal): [http://plantationsystems.com/shop/](http://plantationsystems.com/shop/)

It is an interesting investment, considering how global climate change in only 35.7 (please note the .7) years will make Spain unsuitable for growing truffles:

[http://plantationsystems.com/climate-change-truffle- supply/](http://plantationsystems.com/climate-change-truffle-supply/)

>However, within just 35.7 years for Spain, the climate will fall outside of the known parameters for truffle fruiting.

P.S.: BTW I would have expected, if not fact checking, as if it was difficult to check Dr. Paul Thomas linkedIn page, at least to doubt that someone that is 35 in 2016 was:

>working on his Ph.D. in 1996

</comment><comment><USER3> Nothing new. Some Canadians have been doing this for over a decade.

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

[http://terranossa.ca/perigord-black-truffle/](http://terranossa.ca/perigord- black-truffle/)

"The Perigord Black Truffle was originally produced in France and Italy in truffle and oak orchards on calcareous soil. Techniques for successful Perigord Black Truffle production have been developed, tested and shown to be successful in New Zealand, Australia and parts of the US. There are now a small number of farmers attempting to do the same in BC, mainly on Vancouver Island, the lower mainland and the Okanogan."

<comment><USER12> Yep, I've had New Zealand black truffles before.

I haven't had European truffles, so I have nothing to compare them to though in terms of quality. The price was about the same as European ones though, I think it was about NZ$3 per gram?

<comment><USER3> Truffle is something you have to eat lots of to understand. I can taste that there is a difference, but I wouldn't judge one truffle as being any better than another. They all taste a little the the dirt they came from and I don't eat them often enough to care. I like a good stilton cheese, but I'm not going to criticize those who thinks it tastes "like feet".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's not much of a secret: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle#Cultivation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truffle#Cultivation)

</comment><comment><USER14> There's already an alternative truffle source - China. They are considered substantially inferior to European truffles.

<comment><USER15> Not to mention that there are Oregon White and Black truffles[1], which are quite good, already grow in the US, and are much cheaper.

Now, if they had figured out to grow the mycelium in vitro at scale, I'd be impressed...

1: [https://whatscookingamerica.net/Truffles/OregonTruffles.htm](https://whatscookingamerica.net/Truffles/OregonTruffles.htm)

<comment><USER16> ... and are also considered inferior (and are certainly different) than European truffles.

<comment><USER17> Some Europeans will always consider wine, truffles, etc. produced in the US as inferior and some Americans will believe it or adopt this opinion to seem more sophisticated but logic would have it that quality wine or mushrooms don't really care if they are European.

<comment><USER16> It's not chauvinism; American truffles are a different product.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Has the American Truffle Company figured it out? "It remains to be seen how > well their system will work," Mr. Michaels said. "The frustrating thing > about the truffle is we still don't know the basic conditions."

No.

Why do headlines still get written this way?

<comment><USER19> See: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge's_law_of_headlines). Also [https://twitter.com/BetteridgesLaw](https://twitter.com/BetteridgesLaw).

<comment><USER20> See tome's law: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9077549](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9077549)

<comment><USER21> I haven't seen that one before, but that seems more of a corollary rather than an independent law.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> No.

<comment><USER23> Thanks for saving me the click.

<comment><USER24> The way I read it, the answer is more likely yes, but it's not confirmed yet, as it takes 5 yaers to get the first crop. This seems to be one of the precious few cases where Betteridge's law doesn't apply; the question mark is there simply because there is still a question, but all available information points to a positive outcome. Not to mention this is New York Times.

<comment><USER25> "A Startup Is Trying to Farm the Elusive Truffle" would have been a perfectly acceptable headline.

The way I see it, the title of an article should provide the key information. The title as is tells us nothing.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


KinderTown Launches Educational App Store For Parents - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/11/kindertown-launches-educational-app-store-for-parents/ <comment><AUTHOR> I worked on this app, so I'd love to hear any kind of constructive feedback from the HN community!</comment>


Ask HN: Becoming a post-prohibition, post-privacy, trust-driven world - <AUTHOR> In just a few years, every house will be equipped with tools that will allow people to create/print almost anything:
- You'll be able to print your own weapons, including guns, bombs, poisons and even viruses.
- You'll be able to print your own drugs, including prohibited ones.
- You'll be able to create fake evidence (signatures, finger prints, photos, audio clips, video clips) that will be indistinguishable from real ones.
It is clear that our system wasn't designed to be compatible with these new realities. The following strategies will be deeply challenged:
- Prohibition. It will no longer be effective, as anyone will have access to anything. The list of prohibited weapons and substances will never be up to date as new ones will be invented daily.
- Trust. We will no longer be able to take evidence, measurements, research or news at face value. We'll need to accept the fact that we're always dealing with information that could be fake. We'll need to rely on trust, more than we ever did before. This will demand new strategies, in order to qualify and quantify trust. Some kind of social score or currency.
- Privacy. Information is easier and cheaper to share than to conceal. Everyone will eventually have access to camera drones the size of a fly. Anyone will be able to produce fake data/footprint about anyone. We're no longer safe from judgement even if we manage to keep everything secret. We're more likely to be trusted if were known to be transparent as opposed to secretive. People will eventually realize the negative effect of privacy, and become more transparent. Those who fail to adapt will be miserable.
What can we do today to ease the transition to a post-prohibition, post-privacy, trust-driven world? <comment><USER2> I don't think it will be a quick transition in "just a few years". There will be a lot of kicking and screaming. Look at what is happening to quadcopters: Lots of regulation, mandatory registrations, no-fly-zones in firmware.

It will eventually be similar for 3d printers and nano-assemblers.

Knowledgeable people will know how to bypass these restrictions, just as it is today. The main difference will be that it will probably get easier.

Regarding privacy, I disagree with your conclusion. I think as people become more aware of the importance of their dwindling privacy they will pay more attention to it and protect it. Perhaps I'm just overly optimistic.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Regarding privacy, I disagree with your conclusion. I think as people become > more aware of the importance of their dwindling privacy they will pay more > attention to it and protect it. Perhaps I'm just overly optimistic.

To believe that we'll still be forced to rely on privacy in the future is fairly pessimistic.</comment></comment>


AVIF Has Landed - <AUTHOR> https://jakearchibald.com/2020/avif-has-landed/ <comment><USER2> While AV1 has high complexity and requires a lot more computation power to decode, AVIF picture is essentially just 1 Frame. At the bitrate used with Internet pictures, I would assume decoding power wouldn't be a problem even on Smartphone.

Cant wait to see how it compares to JPEG-XL.

I think we can forget about WebPv2 which is just VP9. I dont see its value when we have AVIF already.

<comment><USER3> WebPv2 isn't just vp9. It has many features that target image delivery on the web. I think it's worth waiting and seeing what it's like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is awesome! Love the equal size comparison. I've wrote a few years ago an article about BPG which also had support for animation - [https://eek.ro/why- bpg-will-replace-gifs-and-not-only/](https://eek.ro/why-bpg-will-replace-gifs- and-not-only/)

Does AVIF have any support for animations?

Glad to finally see an royalty-free format starting to get traction.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, AVIF supports animations, but I haven't tried it yet, and don't know the state of implementations. In general, I'm not that excited by anim-image formats, I just go for the video format in that case.

<comment><USER5> Doesn't PNG technically support animation, too? It's just that no one implements it?

<comment><USER3> It's pretty well supported [https://caniuse.com/apng](https://caniuse.com/apng)

<comment><USER5> Interesting. I remember (a few years ago) finding out about them through Wikipedia and that I would need a Chrome extension to use them (they had an example). So, I installed it to view it, but I never saw any other usage of it outside of that page/article.

I guess there's not really much space savings[0] over an animated GIF even with an optimized PNG and max compression. It does explain why WebP is replacing GIF though[a]: being a video format, it can compress _much_ better.

Off topic: Is YouTube still using VP8? Or have they switched to AV1 (the basis of AVIF)?

[0]: [https://corydowdy.com/blog/apng-vs-webp-vs- gif](https://corydowdy.com/blog/apng-vs-webp-vs-gif)

[a]: The popular GIF sharing site Giphy actually uses WebP if your browser supports it. Otherwise just browsing their site would use hundreds of megabytes (which isn't good for mobile users with a data cap)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > 'Effort' 10 (which I used for images in this article) can take over 10 > minutes to encode a single image.

Well, there's always a trade-off.

</comment><comment><USER7> The WebP at near the same size as AVIF preserved more of the dark road texture, but for the more saturated parts the AVIF had more edge detail. I'd like to see more examples to see what types of detail/textures AVIF favors dropping vs line edge details it preserves.

<comment><USER3> Try it with your own images on Squoosh.app

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's something related from the same author [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kYBnY6mwg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F1kYBnY6mwg) ("Image compression deep-dive")

</comment><comment><USER8> How is this made to work in browsers that don't support avif yet (i.e firefox)?

edit: Is it WebAssembly drawing on a canvas?

<comment><USER3> Yep! The end of the article covers some of the details.</comment></comment>


SoMe - Loren Feldman's Documentary Project on Kickstarter - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/lorenfeldman/some-its-not-you-its-me

<comment><USER2> Really looking forward to Loren's documentary. His no-nonsense delivery is really grabbing. I don't mean to use a buzz word here in this part for its own sake, but it's rather apropos: Loren likes to disrupt the general flow and consensus on a lot of topics, the least of which being social media. This -will- be a fantastic thing for you to peep, so if you're interested in seeing it happen, check out the Kickstarter and maybe toss him a few bones.

</comment><comment><USER3> :-)</comment>


Rocket League Drops Mac and Linux Support for 'new technologies' - <AUTHOR> https://www.polygon.com/2020/1/23/21078948/rocket-league-mac-linux-support-final-patch-march-features-online-offline <comment><AUTHOR> It's a shame to see support for Mac and Linux dropped. That means I won't be playing the game anymore. I requested a refund and it went through. I suggest others do the same before they start denying refund requests.</comment>


Dogfooding - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eating_your_own_dog_food

<comment><USER2> For most software terms I generally prefer the c2wiki. Its explanations are sometimes more down to earth and common language.

[http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DogFood](http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?DogFood)</comment>


Don't build password-less login - <AUTHOR> https://snaphabit.app/blog/password-less-login/ <comment><USER2> Do you think that the reason Magic Link was unsuccessful might have been from being a novel way to login that your users were just unfamiliar with? Since it's relatively new tech, perhaps SnapHabit was just too fast to implement and was ahead of the learning curve for the general population on a new sign in method.</comment>


Tutor reveals the Ivy-admissions madness of rich penthouse parents - <AUTHOR> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/how_got_nyc_rich_kids_in_college_KQQVjQ2t4AFmy3UaFkvTDK

<comment><USER2> It seems my take away from the article was a lot different from most of you.

What I read was a discussion of how coddling is crippling. That the parents who were financially capable of insulating their children from pretty much any sort of failure were actually setting their children up for failure when it matters most.

It is reasonable to contrast that attitude with the failure-embracing aspect of startup culture. That here there is no stigma associated with a startup failing, it is seen as a learning experience. The idea that falling down is part of the process of learning to run is completely at odds with the attitude of the parents in the article.

<comment><USER3> > _What I read was a discussion of how coddling is crippling. That the parents > who were financially capable of insulating their children from pretty much > any sort of failure were actually setting their children up for failure when > it matters most._

With the money and businesses some of those parents got, they aint gonna need success anyway.

Some might even become Presidents, like their fathers, despite being idiots.

<comment><USER2> The effect on the country of these people moving into leadership roles may be extremely destructive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm thinking this article is a little exaggerated. I applied to, and got into an Ivy, but had no sort of preparation at all. I was suspended over 20 times throughout my schooling, had 0 hours of community service, didn't find out that the SATs existed until my senior year, and my reference letters were from no-name teachers. Yes, some of the things described (working at a neuroscience lab) were true, but they were entirely my initiatives.

More importantly, even at school, I never saw anyone (limited scope, I'm sure) with this kind of description. All my friends seemed passionate about what they were interested in, and the majority were from middle-upper class families.

While I'm sure there are distinct cases of this sort of coddling, I would caution that this is likely more the exception than the rule.

<comment><USER5> Many people at elite schools get phony doctor's notes for unlimited time on the tests. Colleges are notified when a student had unlimited time, but since the US News report college rankings don't take it negatively, neither do they (if they even legally could).

[http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1787712&page=1](http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=1787712&page=1)

"At the elite Wayland High school outside Boston, the number of students receiving special accommodations is more than 12 percent, more than six times the estimated national average of high school students with learning disabilities.

Wayland guidance counselor Norma Greenberg said that it's not that difficult for wealthy, well-connected students to get the diagnoses they want."

[http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_exa...](http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2006/05/flag_on_the_field.html)

"Most of these students' diagnoses are presumably genuine. But in places like Greenwich, Conn., and certain zip codes of New York City and Los Angeles, the percentage of untimed test-taking is said to be close to 50 percent"

<comment><USER6> I never really go the appeal of unlimited time on tests, unless you actually have a diagnosis that requires it. I saw it around me when I was in university but I am unconvinced that it actually helped any 'normal' student.

I mean, what are you going to do with unlimited time anyway? Sure, _some_ tests are designed to be too long for the allotted time, but most aren't. If you need more time on a test that is designed for the normal amount of time, what is going on? Are you deriving formulas that you neglected to memorize? Possible I suppose, but how many students are clever enough to do that _correctly_ on a test when needed but don't just know the material in the first place?

Extra test time as an unfair advantage makes even less sense to me in subjects other than mathematics and physics. What are you going to do, derive an answer to _" Who were Dizzy Gillespie's primary influences?"_?

If it wasn't mathematics or physics, I was always fucked if I didn't know the answer within half a minute or so of reading the question. Even with mathematics or physics, if I was spending much time at all deriving things, it was _generally_ a sure sign that I had failed to prepare and was fucked regardless.

Here is my hypothesis: _Much_ of the elevated diagnosis rates at upper-class schools reflects the fact that people with more money are more likely to acquire diagnosis for non-life threatening ailments their children have. The rest of the elevated diagnosis rates is probably just rich people throwing money at the wall and seeing what sticks. I doubt it gives them an advantage, but they have the money so it can't hurt to try.

<comment><USER7> With unlimited time, you have the opportunity to take little breaks here and there, even if it just means doodling for a few minutes, and this is a huge advantage if you leverage it well.

I run into this daily with my work life now as well...bang your head against a problem for an hour straight, go to the bathroom, come back, and the solution pops into your head like magic.

Edit: Also, the more time you have between answering a question and rechecking it, the more objectively you see things, and notice mistakes that you would miss if you were rushed.

<comment><USER6> You and lmkg both allude to stress, which is something I hadn't considered. Still, if reduced time-based stress is creating accounting for a _significant_ difference, I am almost inclined to say that perhaps that is a legitimate thing to diagnose and accommodate. I think that is pretty close to the intended use of 'infinite test time'.

I never had much success with checking my answers before turning in a test, though I suppose other people very likely do.

<comment><USER8> My brother has had some accommodations, such as being allowed to type answers on a computer, or being able to take the SAT over multiple days, that I think should just be available to everybody. These exams are supposed to test knowledge, not handwriting/the ability to write for long periods of time without getting achy, or the ability to stay focused on a boring test for over 4 hours; nor do those seem all that onerous on schools. Test time falls more into "onerous", and being able to solve math problems or write quickly can be important, but if a student does significantly better in general without a time limit due to stress, it seems somewhat unfortunate to me that they need to go to a doctor to be accommodated, something which largely depends on their parents and has something of a stigma...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In Pushkin's "The Captain's Daughter" there is a very nice piece in the very beginning:

"Матушка была еще мною брюхата, как уже я был записан в Семеновский полк сержантом, по милости майора гвардии князя В., близкого нашего родственника."

"My mother was still pregnant with me, when I was enrolled as a sergeant in a Semenovsky Regiment, by the grace of Guards Major Prince V., our close relative."

</comment><comment><USER10> I have a friend whose company charges up to $1000/hour [sic] for SAT and other tutoring. And parents in NYC and SF pay it. And succeed in getting their kids into Stanford, Harvard, etc.

I have another friend, an accomplished author, who says "I paid for my house writing term papers" for rich, lazy college students. Not sure which schools.

If you're just trying to make it on your own, it's tough to compete against all this. Without SAT tutoring or parental money, I earned degrees from two elite schools, but these days - who knows whether I'd even have got in.

<comment><USER11> > I have a friend whose company charges up to $1000/hour [sic] for SAT

Not understanding the use of [sic] here.

<comment><USER12> I think they're using it to mean "this is not a typo".

Sort of unusual use since they're not quoting anything.

<comment><USER10> That's right. Not a typo. Unbelievable but true.

<comment><USER13> sic is "Spelling in Context". (It's actually latin, but that's the mnemonic for the definition). So unless you're quoting something, it really shouldn't be used.

<comment><USER14> Actually, it's Latin for "thus so", derived from _sic erat scriptem_ , or "thus was it written". Used by a quoter to assure the reader that errors or irregulaties in the quote are indeed the fault of the quotee.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Shared with me by a Facebook friend who thought a lot about the college admission process, and then went into industry before finishing his college degree. Although I enjoyed reading this article, I didn't submit it here because I usually like Hacker News submissions that tell us more about the reality of the external world. This article, as smooth-reading as it is, tells us mostly that the author is in the business of college admission counseling (serving as advertising for the author's business), and buttresses factual claims with inherently unverifiable anecdotes. I agree heartily that children ought to grow up to pursue their own passions rather than gratifying their parents' egos, but I've seen other submissions here that make that point even better.

P.S. The article should be submitted with its original title, by the HN guidelines.

</comment><comment><USER16> I would as much be wont to read the New York Post for any worthwhile commentary on rich people as, say, read The Atlantic for sports coverage.

<comment><USER17> I would never read the Atlantic since they started pandering to the reddit/HN/internet populist crowd (well, they're banned from reddit). Their hugely successful "digital-first strategy" to maximize web ad revenue is covered well by n+1: [http://nplusonemag.com/the-intellectual-situation- issue-15](http://nplusonemag.com/the-intellectual-situation-issue-15)

<comment><USER18> Your URL is dead, I believe this is the right one:

[http://nplusonemag.com/the-intellectual-situation- issue-15](http://nplusonemag.com/the-intellectual-situation-issue-15)

Edit: your URL is missing [http://](http://), for whatever that is worth.

 _Every time a plane flies over New York, we think, "Oh my God — is it another Atlantic think piece?" We mean, "an Atlantic think piece about women."_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> It does seem awfully odd that the very wealthy still, in theory, compete with ordinary people like this. I wonder how long they will put up with it.

<comment><USER20> Oh quite some time I would expect. The current system actually suits the wealthy quite nicely - on the surface it seems like it's a fair system allowing for admissions to be done based on merit. But as the article indicates, in reality the wealthy can buy a ticket for their children. So the proles are happy because they think the system is fair, and the rich are happy because a) they know it's not, b) they know the proles think it is, which gives them social cover.

<comment><USER21> Yet the article also indicates that even the supposed 'golden tickets' into the highest tier schools don't guarantee success. Sure, if your family built the library, they'll probably let you in with mediocre scores, but for the >99% of students to whom that does not apply, the admissions system works exactly as advertised. Who really cares that Theodore Legacy IV gets in when those people comprise <1% of the students? Someone's family needs to subsidize everyone else's tuition...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> College admissions processes generally do a great job of selecting the type of people I hope my children will turn out like (source: I attend Stanford).

How can we get the parents who are paying for services like these understanding that a much surer chance of seeing their child attend the university of their (the parents..) dreams involves something much deeper than paying people to paint a better picture?

I believe that admissions counseling actually has the potential to have a really positive impact on many kids, if they are given the freedom by parents to allow these kids to become the type of applicant that colleges actually desire to admit.

If you are an admissions consultant of the caliber described in this article, shoot me an email - email@example.com, I'd love to chat about turning this industry into something that turns candidates into the right people (starting early enough - age 14 or so), rather than just painting them as such.

<comment><USER23> Thats not a source, thats full disclosure on your bias.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I was on the border line for the college I got into (subpar grades, mediocre test scores) and I can say that being good at a sport is what got me in. Whats funny about it is that the school I went to put almost zero spotlight/emphasis on sport and the sport I was playing was tennis not football. So all the time not studying for the SAT, and playing tennis, payed off in my opinion.

</comment><comment><USER25> Makes me happy that I wasn't a rich kid coddled my entire life. I wasn't accepted to the college of my choice. I've come to enjoy hard work and realizing the pay off, even as I attempt to push myself harder every year at my own pace.

</comment><comment><USER26> The college system will be drastically altered by mooc, for the better. No more of the circus acts.

</comment><comment><USER27> Not really news. Makes one wonder how the heck it could make it to the front page.

<comment><USER28> Because HN readers are highly interested in how to game the same system the same way.

<comment><USER29> I was more interested in it as a potential failure of our "meritocractic" educational system to promote those with true potential instead of the right family connections. Sort of the other end of the spectrum from being born a black male in Oakland and, pretty much regardless of one's potential, being consigned to a lower-middle-class life at best. I want the kids who will invent the next Internet to succeed, regardless of background.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> "Her parents were working late, as they always did, and other than the staff, we were alone in the house."

aaaaaaaaand your daughter's a stripper.

</comment><comment><USER31> Wealthy people can be quite interesting and surprising. A very different perspective on problem solving seen here.</comment>


The Making of an Expert (2007) - <AUTHOR> https://hbr.org/2007/07/the-making-of-an-expert <comment><USER2> "The development of genuine expertise requires struggle, sacrifice, and honest, often painful self-assessment. There are no shortcuts."

Makes sense; a 'solid grasp' is like a solid algorithm: it's not solid until it can handle anything you can throw at it.

But the amount of time 'expertise' requires can vary a lot. Mozart had the technical expertise in music to write a fairly decent fifth symphony when he was nine. Beethoven's first symphony (technically superior, _emotionally_ much superior) came when he was forty.

So it seems a good idea to distinguish -technical- expertise from -mature- expertise (much more familiar with all the special cases and anomalies). (Marriage takes longer to decide on the third time.)</comment>


GoPro to move U.S.-bound camera production out of China - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gopro-china/gopro-to-move-u-s-bound-camera-production-out-of-china-idUSKBN1O91NG <comment><USER2> Does GoPro actually do their own development?

I remember reading an article when they were starting up, snd the founder basically went to some expo in a China and purchased OEM devices and slapped his brand on there.

Edit: This isn't the article but it sheds some more light.

> Once he had the strap sorted out, Woodman would need a camera to go with it. > He eventually found a 35-millimeter model made in China. Woodman made an > old-school prototype using a Dremel tool, plastic blocks, and glue. He > mailed it to China, wired $5,000 to get started, and in September 2004 GoPro > made its first sale when a Japanese distributor ordered 100 units after > seeing the product at a trade show.

[https://www.maxim.com/gear/gopro-founder-nick-woodman- profil...](https://www.maxim.com/gear/gopro-founder-nick-woodman- profile-2017-2)

<comment><USER3> There are an infinite number of shades of grey between "slap brand on an OEM product" and "the full Apple". Companies often shift their approach (in both directions!) over time, and it will vary for different product lines.

<comment><USER4> And "the full Apple" is still someone else makes the product (Apple purchases iPhones from Foxconn):

[https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/technology/iphone- china-a...](https://www.nytimes.com/2016/12/29/technology/iphone-china-apple- stores.html)

<comment><USER5> Yes but Apple also finances the factories and is deeply embedded. The system might just be the most advanced integrated supply chain on the planet.

<comment><USER4> Sure, but plenty of companies actually assemble their own products (like say Samsung).

<comment><USER6> Samsung is not just samsung. Samsung is actually many companies working under the same brand and corporate culture.

You cant talk about samsung as a single company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Think it's a smart decision, the Chinese market is full of DJI or Xiaomi anyway, so they will not be losing any market share there.

<comment><USER8> What? The GoPros sold in the US will just be produced in a third country, the article doesn't say where though. You can still get a Chinese made GoPro in China

The interesting bit is where GoPro will get the cameras for the US market produced.

<comment><USER9> >The interesting bit is where GoPro will get the cameras for the US market produced.

I'd guess Thailand or Japan. I clear international freight through customs for my primary income and see a lot of finished cameras, and even just CMOS, with the most common countries being China, Japan (e.g. Canon) and Thailand (e.g Nikon). A lot of complete digital still image AND video cameras come out of Japan and Thailand actually.

<comment><USER10> Japan has a much higher manufacturing cost (it defeat the purpose of GoPro's move of evading tariff to reduce manufacturing cost.)

Thailand, on the other hand, has a mature digital imaging electronics manufacturing industry. Some of the lower end SONY digital cameras/electronics have been made in Thailand / Malaysia too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does all this stuff lately where companies are pulling out of china or the US or the US is arresting heads of companies etc feel like thucydides trap is just getting closer and closer?

<comment><USER12> If you look at the history of the world there was an apparent (and counter intuitive) acceleration in the rate at which borders and governments were shifting, largely due to war and revolutions. Then we hit about 1945 and suddenly - it all but stopped. The only very large change being the fall of the Soviet Union, which did not involve direct war nor even revolution.

Nukes have made war between major powers a thing of the past, until they can be contained. 'Modern' nukes make Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like a joke. The 'Tsar Bomba' [1] is a nuclear weapon that was tested by Russia in 1961. Its yield, which was not at full capability, was more than three thousand times as powerful as Little Boy [2], the nuke that practically destroyed Hiroshima. You can't win wars against WMD.

A single missile that is failed to be detected or intercepted and you're looking at fatalities in the tens of millions. And there are thousands of these weapons operational and ready to fire today. Russia has even been developing a nuclear torpedo that's designed to create an artificial tsunami that would produce a devastating radioactive wave greater than 500 meters in height that would annihilate a target. The reason for a nuclear torpedo is to bypass all conventional anti-missile ballistic/laser/etc technology.

In my opinion the issue is relatively simple. If China's growth and development continues at even a fraction of its current pace they're going to become the most dominant nation in the world. This will change the world in unimaginable ways. The current powers on top are pretty happy with the status quo, and aren't ready to say goodnight just yet. Traditional war is not an option so I expect we're going to see a continuing increase in aggression on the two new fronts of war: economic and information.

[1] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba)

[2] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Boy)

<comment><USER13> For a while the trend has been towards smaller nukes (called tactical nukes), not bigger ones like in the 60s. The rational being that smaller, more precise nukes have a lower threshold of usability. Destroying Beijing and killing 20M people is a solution of last recourse, and would be disproportionate in retaliation to a tactical nuke, or a conventional attack resulting in massive casualties.

One reference I could find: [https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2018/jan/09/us-to-loosen...](https://www.theguardian.com/us- news/2018/jan/09/us-to-loosen-nuclear-weapons-policy-and-develop-more-usable- warheads)

[EDIT] Of course even these tactical nukes are way more powerful than the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

<comment><USER14> isn't there an american icbm that is capable of basically "carpet bombing" an area with these smaller nukes? i think the point of it was to increase devastation not decrease it since immediate death after a nuke decreases with distance

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Americans consistently underestimated China out of a sense of arrogance I think. Becoming factory of the world was never the end game. Just the mid stage. Xiaoping was planning 50 years ahead. He wasn't thinking that China would always rely on low payed factory jobs.

Take mobile phones as an example: Chinese brands were knockoffs a couple of years ago. Now they are innovating and setting standards.

</comment><comment><USER16> Go to Amazon and search for go pro and you will see tons of white label Chinese products at quater of the price with exact same specs. Considering Amazon accounts for half of eCommerce, I can't imagine the impact of sales for GoPro. Another examples are headlamps, computer peripherals, cables, headphones, hardware tools, coffee makers and so on. There is a massive brand extinction in progress where Western brands which took comfort in designing at home and manufacturing in China are confronted with exact same goods much cheaper. One thing I don't understand is why companies like Go Pro can't stop these clones entering US markets which clearly violated their design copyrights, patents, specs and sometimes even same sounding trademarks.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think GoPro has kind of doomed themselves.

1\. Customer service is horrible/nonexistent. [1]

2\. They made their camera app need an internet connection for no good reason (except to track their customers). [2]

[1] [https://community.gopro.com/t5/Cameras/On-HOLD-for-2-and- a-H...](https://community.gopro.com/t5/Cameras/On-HOLD-for-2-and-a-HALF- HOURS/td-p/53237)

[2] [https://community.gopro.com/t5/GoPro-Apps-for-Mobile/Hey- Thi...](https://community.gopro.com/t5/GoPro-Apps-for-Mobile/Hey-This-is- UNBELIEVABLE-Can-t-control-GoPro-offline/td-p/24661)

</comment><comment><USER18> > GoPro has been trying to drive demand for its trademark action-cameras - > once a must-have for surfers, skydivers and other action junkies — as > competition ramps up.

What are some better alternatives to GoPro available in Europe now? I mean original brands, not cheaper clones.

<comment><USER19> The Yi action cameras seem to get good reviews, and Sony action cameras have some of the best image stabilization around. DJI has recently gotten into the small cam battle with the Osmo Pocket as well (I hesitate to say action cam because I don't believe it is waterproof or shock proof)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Well you can't unlick a turd. They get all their cameras knocked off for $30 and now they want to move their production out of China?

<comment><USER21> They stated the reason why they are moving their US-bound production out of China is to avoid financial shortcomings from the current tariff issues.

They even said that the non-US bound production is staying in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> One interesting thing to note. You might've seen countless GoPro "clones," and might've been wondering why GoPro never seemed to assert their rights.

What is said in Shenzhen is that original digital GoPros themselves were an off the shelf OEM product, and GoPro never bothered to buy the design rights from their OEM.

Does anybody remember Daisy Photoclip from around year 2002? Their OEM had their hand in that. And yes, Daisy Photoclip was as Bulgarian as Iphone was American

<comment><USER4> There are countless X "clones" for any popular (and even unpopular!) consumer electronics devices. Apple certainly asserts their rights and yet you can still buy knockoff iPhones and even visit knockoff physical Apple Stores.

<comment><USER22> What do you want to say here? I don't understand.

<comment><USER23> Probably that it's a fight one can't "win". Better focus on the brand and making people aware of it and it's benefits.

<comment><USER22> My point is that they never bought the right for the design from OEM from whom they bought their first digital cameras, and that OEM itself never bothered to limit access to the design as it makes no money to them.

<comment><USER24> I don't think the rights to a 10-year-old design have much to do with what GoPro and their copycats are selling now. Knockoffs are everywhere, especially where the market-defining product has a large margin.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


HTML5 Apps Will Be Faster Than Native Apps - <AUTHOR> http://blog.quixey.com/2013/01/28/html5-apps-will-be-faster-than-native-apps/

<comment><USER2> I don't understand why there are so many blogposts about HTML5 vs native code, and where quite a few of the html proponents seem to have an agenda of "converting" people to "believe" in html?

<comment><USER3> For the same reason their are so many blog-posts about Apple and converting people to using mac or iOS.

Many people (myself included) believe that the native platforms (iOS, Android, WP, and others that are coming) lead to technology complications in the long- run. The walled gardens wind up being bad for consumers if they want to switch platforms, and needing to write apps for multiple platforms is more challenging than tweaking a web app for the different browsers.

I believe native has it's place, but I also believe that 90% of native apps use and require no native capabilities.

I remember when we moved from installed software to the most important tasks being web-based, and that was very good. Instant updates, try without installing, no installation times, users didn't even need to know that something changed, etc. etc.

I believe we've taken a step backward with the native app stores, and if it weren't for marketing hype, most people wouldn't care about apps, and in fact many people don't really understand the difference. I also believe they don't need to know. A users shouldn't need to consider if they are installing an app, or using a web app. What is the method of providing the service to the user with the least overhead for you and them. What is the best experience. Does the difference between native speed outstrip the convenience of web delivery?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Rdio, Spotify, iTunes… all written using html web views and none of them are fast by any stretch of the imagination.

<comment><USER5> We're sticking our neck out and predicting that eventually they will be.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Does anyone else see a black band on top of the HN page ? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I suppose it's because of Doug Engelbart's death.

<comment><USER3> Urgh. Are we going to do this every time someone dies? HN already has a tendency to get spammed up with fifty copies of approximately the same article with the same comments when this happens, this is only going to make it worse.

<comment><USER4> Why is the black bar bothering you so much?

<comment><USER3> Because I like the comfort of familiarity, and hate change or surprises? It's a reasonably common personality trait among programmers (I can put a medical label on it if you want). When I first saw it I spent a while trying to figure out what was wrong with my browser.

Ultimately I don't see why that matters though; understanding why it's bothering me isn't going to make it not bother me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5986307](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5986307)

</comment><comment><USER6> yes, I do.. and the hacker news UI extension on the chrome is also different..

</comment><comment><USER7> Yes I do. I am not sure why it is here though.

</comment><comment> antonio-R Yes. It mus be a new feature!</comment>


IRA in Ghana: Double Deceit - <AUTHOR> https://www.graphika.com/reports/ira-in-ghana-double-deceit/ <comment><USER2> For a moment I was wondering that the Irish Republican Army was doing in Ghana ! It should say RIRA not IRA

<comment><USER3> Even still...

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

<comment><USER4> Splitters!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't what is worse, the Russophobia, the bad choice of acronym (Irish Republican Army is what most poeple attribute to IRA), or the flat out ignorance to other countries doing the same operations (Israeli groups, British groups -remember a company called Cambridge Analytica).

<comment><USER6> Find those British and Israeli groups and publish a report about them. As for Cambridge Anal: it went down quite spectacularly, so in as far as you're complaining about unequal treatment, I can't quite follow.

(And, by the way, it's the Russians that called it the "Internet Research Agency")</comment></comment>


Facebook Is Looking for Employees with National Security Clearances - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-16/facebook-is-said-to-seek-staff-with-national-security-clearance <comment><USER2> _National_ Security Clearance is hyperbole. Security clearance is more accurate.

A security clearance is somewhat difficult to get and not especially hard to keep (Snowden). However, having a clearance then opens you up to an entire industry. During tough times (2008) that means jobs will be available:

[https://www.clearancejobs.com/](https://www.clearancejobs.com/)

The background checks are thorough. We've had many in the family ( _definitely_ not me), my dad, two of my brothers, two uncles, my ex- girlfriend, brother in law, .... And then we get listed as personal references which is a real pain. A drug conviction will not blackball you but then you have to be completely honest as they will find out and that will blackball you. Debt is a biggie.

[https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm](https://www.state.gov/m/ds/clearances/c10978.htm)

As for the article, I think the inferences people are making are reasonable. Also, given Facebook's scope that they need people with clearances seems reasonable.

<comment><USER3> Out of curiosity, is past drug use considered an automatic disqualification? I've never been convicted of literally anything, my record is 100% clean. But let's just say college was a very experimental period of time. I'm interested in getting a security clearance but that's the only major red flag I see that could count against me.

<comment><USER4> Overview of the current rules.[1]

Getting cleared to CONFIDENTIAL is easy. SECRET involves a background check and filling out the SF-86 form [2].

In some ways, the higher clearances (TOP SECRET, SENSITIVE COMPARTMENTED INFORMATION) are easier. It's not a checklist thing at the higher levels. You get to discuss problems. There are long interviews, lie detector tests, checks of original records, and interviews of people in your past. The FBI used to do this work, but I think it's outsourced now. The current processing time for a TS clearance is about a year.

(It's been decades since I was in that world, but I've held clearances.)

[1] [http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance- jobs...](http://www.military.com/veteran-jobs/security-clearance- jobs/security-clearance-eligibility.html) [2] [https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86-non508.pdf](https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdf_fill/sf86-non508.pdf)

<comment><USER5> Any suggestions for looking for jobs that one can use to obtain a TS clearance (with a tech background)? Always looking to stay as marketable as possible for lean times.

<comment><USER6> You know the place. Also defense contractors and national labs with an interest in small supernovas.

<comment><USER5> Thanks! I hear Hawaii is not too bad.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The immense power centered in a company like Facebook is a security threat, particular to foreigners given that it is an American company. It would make sense to regulate Facebook like an utility company and regionalize or nationalize the scope of its operations.

<comment><USER8> What? No. That is a very very bad idea. That would end up legitimizing Facebooks power and open the door for absolute government control. It is very simple, if you do not like Facebook then don't use Facebook. Tell your friends and family not to use Facebook. They currently only have any power because we give them power.

<comment><USER7> It think it is an illusion to think we as individuals can just boycott Facebook. Facebook have become such an integral part of social life for many, that you not only exclude yourself from an web site by leaving it, but an important social institution not to mention years memories in text, pictures and film. Change must come from political action.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I suppose Facebook is picking it's government allies. This puts it at risk of being banned in countries that have strained relationships with said allies, something FB has been able to avoid till now

<comment><USER10> This isn't what is going on, at least in my opinion. This type of job posting means the government _wants_ facebook to do something. To do "something", facebook needs employeees to perform that work. Whatever work this entails, the government would only like people with XYZ clearance to work on it.

As an example, imagine Uncle Sam calls you(the CEO at facebook), and requests a list of dissidents based on ABC criteria, and would like that list and the research that produces it to be handled by people with security clearances. Your next step is to hire people with that security clearance, so they can do the work and you can start sending Uncle Sam invoices.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does that mean if you spend enough money with Facebook they'll send a Facebook rep to work in your office that _also_ has security clearance? New feature! even better than 2016's version.

<comment><USER12> In case anyone doesn't get the reference, Facebook employees were embedded in Donald's Trump "digital operation's center" during election season:

[http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/technology/article/Pars...](http://www.mysanantonio.com/business/technology/article/Parscale- tells-60-Minutes-Facebook-employees-were-12259557.php)

<comment><USER13> Weren't they also embedded in the Clinton campaign? As well as the Obama and Romney campaigns in 2012?

<comment><USER12> No, Facebook offered their services to the Clinton campaign and they Clinton campaign rejected the offer. It's actually in the 60 minutes piece referenced in the link which is viewable online.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Where are the job postings if they exist? I'm interested.

<comment><USER15> Looks like we won't see them until FB announces more details. Possibly at their senate/house hearing on 1 Nov.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's becoming harder and harder to deny that Facebook is really CIAbook !

<comment><USER17> Is it?

It's also possible that FB, finding itself the victim of continual PSYOPs, is hiring people with backgrounds in that to help defend the company or needs security cleared people to liase with government security teams on that issue.

I'm getting sick of the cheap cynicism that fancies simplistic, dramatic interpretations over nuanced, realistic ones.

(This isn't to say that FB doesnt collaborate with the government in any number of ways -- just that the parent is a lazy, cheap shot.)

<comment><USER18> From the article: _These types of employees are needed when private companies interact and share information back and forth with government agencies._

<comment><USER19> Yes, and this can be as simple as a contractor building a CRUD intranet app for buying post-its for a 3-letter organization.

<comment><USER20> I had no idea facebook was operating in that space.

<comment><USER19> I have no idea what they're building. I'm just speaking to what parent comment is implying about clearance requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Go Facebook. Let's make the internet right the first time

</comment><comment><USER22> If you want government contracts, employees of the contractor also have to have the same level of clearance necessary as the government employee.

This is non-news.

<comment><USER23> Honest question, what kind of government contracts do you think facebook is bidding on?

<comment><USER22> Any random full stack engineer off the street could apply to any government contract, reply to RFPs, and bid on anything.

Everyone is already doing it. You can make $200,000+ a few years out of college as a software engineer if you go the TS-SCI clearance route, from any third tier state school. Oh look and now you can also apply to Facebook with that skillset and clearance.

A company with thousands upon thousand of full stack engineers getting work for full stack engineers? Wow sound the alarms lets speculate on what the contract is!

And yes, they probably also are trying to leverage their broad infrastructure for department of defense applications.

<comment><USER24> FYI the average defense contractor engineer isn't paid nearly that much (as compared to true private industry) and puts in quite a bit of free OT. Senior/PM salaries may get that high in DC but I don't think that is anywhere near the norm. There can be a lot of money made in defense, but it's almost always in the marketing/sales/guys winning the contracts. Most of those guys are ex-government.

Along with a disappointing salary, you also get industry leading job instability. Enjoy job cuts every two years -- sign up to be a defense contractor today!</comment></comment></comment></comment>


WTF is my IP?? - <AUTHOR> https://wtfismyip.com/

<comment><USER2> Does it support IPv6?

<comment><USER3> Yes

Don't know why sites like this keep getting created; the output is usually the same.</comment></comment>


Launch HN: Vitamin P for Positivity - <AUTHOR> https://vitaminp.net/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi HN! My name is Will. I'm currently enrolled in Startup School and have been talking to my wife/partner a lot lately about how all of this negative and depressing news that keeps coming out day after day, really sticks to me and makes me feel down and sad. That said, I definitely don't want to ignore it. We're on this planet together and we are all affected by so many of the negative things going on, one way or another. We have to help each other where we can, and we're going to get through all of this somehow.

But it's important (at least for me), that I try to make some space for some of the positive things that are happening, and also generate some positive thoughts -- otherwise I get really depressed and feel despair about where we or a lot of us might be headed. So I made Vitamin P. It's a once-a-week email with a few links to positive stories in the news! Some other sites already do this, but I wasn't seeing exactly what I was looking for, so I've made this first and foremost for myself. I figure even if I'm the only one that ever looks at it, hopefully it will help me at least to feel just a little bit more positive amidst everything going on.

If you'd like to get a preview of the kind of content, you can see it on your social network of choice [1][2][3][4]. Everything is syndicated, so no need to check all of them.

Anyhow, so that's it - Vitamin P for Positivity - if you have any feedback, please let me know!

Cheers and hope you all have a great weekend.

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

Footnotes:

[1] - Facebook: [https://facebook.com/vitaminpsupply](https://facebook.com/vitaminpsupply)

[2] - Instagram: [https://instagram.com/vitaminpsupply](https://instagram.com/vitaminpsupply)

[3] - reddit: [https://www.reddit.com/r/vitaminpsupply](https://www.reddit.com/r/vitaminpsupply)

[4] - Twitter: [https://twitter.com/vitaminpsupply](https://twitter.com/vitaminpsupply)</comment>


Essay on online dating (solve online dating and you'll get into YC, I promise) - <AUTHOR> http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/19/1419207 <comment><USER2> My startup (not launched yet) is a dating site and one of the features we have is showing the response rate of the users (with some tweaks that solve the problems that I talk about in the next sentence). However, you need to be careful in how you present this data to the user. Because even if a girl's response rate is only 20% it might simply be that she's attractive and has gotten all the guys to contact her and she just can't respond back. So the response rate is not a really accurate way of telling the user "you have a 20% chance of getting a response".

By asking the user for criteria and then saying "20% of users that met her/his criteria received a response" is not a good idea. A lot of users of online dating sites are frustrated with the perfection that they need to achieve. Not everyone can be perfect and fit your criteria, and just because the user doesn't fit the criteria doesn't mean that they can't be a perfect match for the user.

</comment><comment><USER3> Facebook has already solved online dating. My housemates and I got bored last week so we decided that we would each ask out a girl to lunch on Facebook. We had a 100% success rate. Facebook works because it leverages the power of networks and the strength of weak ties. With match.com and plentyoffish there is no identy, no reputation-- that is, no shadow of the future. Facebook has effectively solved this.

<comment><USER4> _X has already solved Y_

That's probably, the most CLASSIC phrase people said when they heared about the lamp, the clock, typography, and will continue to say for every other invention that exists out there. Real entrepreneurs don't start their phrases like that.

You just said that to convince yourself. By the way you used 4 times the word facebook in one 1 paragraph.

That's 7%! So, let me just neglect your opinion.

<comment><USER5> > Real entrepreneurs don't start their phrases like that.

How tastelessly condescending of you ;)

<comment><USER4> sometimes truth is rough

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's not obvious to me that solving online dating is profitable enough. I just met a lead architect on a major personals site, and he noted that none of their success stories are repeat customers. Perhaps the ideal (evil) business model is to find people with a steady income and lots of hope but prevent their success.

</comment><comment><USER7> There's an overlap with job hunting ( <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=131870> ).</comment>


Ask HN: New founder in need of advice - <AUTHOR> Hey guys, launching a startup and need some advice. I'm the technical co-founder/CTO, he is the business development guy.
My cofounder seems to think VC are more concerned with appearance than performance... He thinks the most important thing in a VC's mind is that we have an office with a full team in it every day. I disagree.
He thinks that having our team all in the same city/state is necessary to be taken seriously by investors. I disagree.
I'm constantly getting yelled at any time there is a bug... In his mind if a VC sees a bug, we're finished. My opinion is that as long as we're forthcoming and open and honest about mistakes and communicate with our clients and investors, we'll be fine (to an extent).
He wants a 90/10 split because its his idea and he's put about $80k into the business so far... I think 65/35 is more fair because I've built the software from scratch, have put in about 500 hours so far (no pay), and will continue to work around the clock for free until we're profitable.  10% is pretty unfair right? In his defense, he has crazy connections in the VC industry, has sold a (domain) company before, and has pretty deep pockets. That's the only reason I'm comfortable with going less than 50/50. I'm a sr engineer making $150k/yr now and I've worked for several software startups. Also I'm functioning currently far beyond my CTO capacity -- managing contractors, handling finances, and more.
I also don't think we should raise money... He's got tons of money and we're already making money.  Our burn rate right now is about $10k/month and most of that is going to our designer. At the rate we're at, we should be break even in then next 3 months. I don't see a need to pull in a few million dollars and give up 1/3 of the business. <comment><USER2> With regard to the first half, your cofounder requiring an "office zoo", where visiting VC's can show up unannounced and whistle past, gawk, and throw peanuts at poor creatures who are not in their natural environment, I sympathize.

But you're going to have to pick a side here. Either your cofounder knows what he's doing when it comes to investor relations (and showing off downtrodden employees shackled to their desks can count as that) and you need to trust him, or he doesn't and you shouldn't keep treating him like he does.

</comment><comment><USER3> This post sounds like an attempt to settle an argument - some of the issues you mentioned should be settled as a team. A poorly settled "You're wrong and I'm right" argument might lead to bigger and more serious disagreements down the road.

If it were me... stop what you're doing and sign some papers. Friendships tend to break when dealing with the potential for making a lot of money. Is your relationship worth a million dollars? Maybe. What about a $100 million dollars? You're friendship isn't going to hold up if what you are forecasting is true. (I'm sure Zuck has 'lost' a lot of friends)

Without much other information on your company, here are some considerations:

If you don't get your % split, would you still be as motivated? work as hard? be as involved? What about your partner? How will it affect your business?

Your partner has crazy connections - how has that helped your business? How will it help your business in the future? How come you haven't raised money yet? If you don't raise money, how else does a VC play in your business?

He's put in $80k, why don't you just give him $80k for 100% of the company?

What if you just up and left, would the company be able to continue without you? (aka are you reasonably replaceable?) What if you just took the code and left?

How will all of this play out with the rest of the team?

Just some food for thought. Good luck!

PS. Unless your designer is doing front-end dev, I feel like you are overpaying your designer.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the input! She's full time (though more like double full time) front-end engineer and designer. Designing both the web app and ios and android apps. Definitely worth it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Have you guys incorporated yet? I'm assuming you have but in any case, the sooner you guys settle the shares/vesting the better. How much of an asset do you consider yourself to be in the company? If you were to leave next week, would the company suffer a huge loss? If so, you have the edge and I do believe you deserve more than a 10% stake, even for the work you've done thus far.

EDIT: I also agree that you don't always need to raise money. If you guys have the means to continually fund yourselves (as you mention break-even in 3 months), it's really not necessary especially once you hit a substantial profit margin.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, we're an LLC at this point. He incorporated before I joined.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just for reference, YC invest ~$20K for ~%7 equity. So 30+35/35 doesn't seems to be so bad

[http://ycombinator.com/apply.HTML](http://ycombinator.com/apply.HTML)

 _> 3\. We decide who to fund after each day of interviews. Yes decisions will include the amount we'll invest and the percent of the company we'd want for it. We usually invest $11,000 + $3000n, where n is the number of participating founders, up to 3 (i.e. 2 founders get $17,000, 3 or more get $20,000), in return for between 2% and 10% of the company. The average is 7%._

Another thing. You got no pay yet. Did he get payed during this time?

<comment><AUTHOR> Neither of us have received any pay at this point.

Also, YC invests at that rate for companies without even an idea. We have a product launched in beta making several hundred dollars a day (inflates on weekends), with about 82 signed up clients most of which are going to start becoming more active (spending more money) as soon as we launch our iPhone app. We should be fully launching in the next month, at which point we expect to start raking in way more money.

<comment><USER4> At that rate, you shouldn't even bother with an incubator or accelerator. If profit is looking good, no need to raise funds unless you guys are looking to expand your team.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hang on, you've done 500 hours unpaid work and haven't signed a contract stipulating a profit split?

<comment><AUTHOR> No, we're good friends... We've been more focused on just getting going. Admittedly stupid on my part, but if anything does go sour, I own all the code and all tech stuff is in my name.

<comment><USER7> you are naive to keep working without your arrangement written in stone.

You're good friends - for now. That can change in an instant.

Code "ownership" doesn't matter if he can afford better lawyers than you.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you and will be rectifying it soon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Founder here, on the business side but I've seen and heard plenty of stories about companies where things don't go as planned. Please share even a throwaway email with us - happy to share insights and legal info with you.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm admittedly a bit lost as this is my first time in the position I'm in so any input would be great. Also if anyone is looking for a mentee, I could really use someone to talk to about stuff on a weekly basis.

<comment><USER2> Since you're green we can't see an e-mail address. May want to share a contact method with us directly.

If you're not compensated in writing in the LLC agreement (which you would've signed), and you haven't been compensated otherwise or signed away your rights, then you own the code you've written and can act accordingly when it comes to negotiations. That may not get you very far, but it does give you some leverage.</comment></comment>


Papers I like - <AUTHOR> https://fgiesen.wordpress.com/2017/08/12/papers-i-like-part-1/ <comment><USER2> I discovered #4 through him and I agree both with his summary and the paper itself --- canonical Huffman is astoundingly simple if you look at it in the right way, yet almost everyone doesn't.

ryg is also a member of the Farbrausch demogroup, which has released some amazing demos. This one is probably the most memorable: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3n3c_8Nn2Y](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y3n3c_8Nn2Y)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've recently been following him on Twitter, that guy is a walking encyclopedia!

</comment><comment><USER4> Ryg is amazing and I love his writings. His series on graphics is fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER5> > premultiplied alpha

They should really teach this up in some computer graphics 101 -- it is crazy how many fringing artifacts you see in the wild. Also, is this the same Duff of Duff's device fame?

<comment><USER6> > Also, is this the same Duff of Duff's device fame?

Yep. He did both while working at LucasFilm.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> this is probably immediately evident as soon as you start going through his site, but fabian is a phenomenally smart guy. every one of his blog posts is gold if you care about things like graphics or compression.

</comment><comment><USER8> I wish I could read faster</comment>


HN Point of Order: Should I upvote responses to stupid comments? - <AUTHOR>

People regularly post HN comments that clearly indicate that they haven't read the linked article, and are rightly downvoted for it. My question is: should people responding with clarifications receive upvotes?
Often, someone responds to such "didn't RTFA" posts with a brief summary or pithy comment about how the parent needs to RTFA. This is free karma for the responder, who only needs to restate the article and/or insult the parent, both of which are noise to me. Do others disagree?
The guidelines are not explicit about this, so I am explicitly asking the HN hive mind. <comment><USER2> > I am explicitly asking the HN hive mind.

I doubt such a thing exists.

For me every comment stands by itself, if it adds something original to the discussion then it is a possible upvote, assuming that it has not already received more votes than I think the comment is worth.

That way most situations are covered.

I hope that helps.</comment>