Intel was aware of the chip vulnerability when its CEO sold off company stock - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.com/intel-ceo-krzanich-sold-shares-after-company-was-informed-of-chip-flaw-2018-1 <comment><USER3> Google discloses the vulnerability to Intel in June. On October 26th, Intel files its quarterly numbers and makes no mention of Project Zero or the word "vulnerability" and fails, in Item 1A, to disclose any new risk factors [1]. On October 30th, Krzanich puts in trading instructions [2]. On November 29th, the trades occur; on December 1st, their confirmations are disclosed [2].

I'm not an expert on the sale of stock in public companies by insiders. But implementing sale instructions after finding a material risk factor _and_ a filing that fails to reveal it looks shady.

(I continue to default to the assumption of sloppiness over bad intent, though even that is harshly punishable, albeit with fines versus jail time.)

[1] [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00000508631700...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000005086317000048/a2017q3-10qdocument.htm#sEC4B4E5BB2945CE9B97383143D9B5368)

[2] [https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/00011276021703...](https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/50863/000112760217033679/xslF345X03/form4.xml) _Explanation 1_

<comment><USER4> How is it different from other sells Krzanich has done earlier? It seems that he has been selling/disposing off his shares on a regular basis after each option execution:

[http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=in...](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=11)

[http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=in...](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=12)

[http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=in...](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=13)

[http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=in...](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=insider&sorttype=0&page=14)

The only difference in this case is the trade size. Huge grant was vested and sold:

[http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=sh...](http://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/intc/insider- trades?sortname=sharestraded&sorttype=1)

This might be related to his employment terms.

<comment><USER5> Because in addition to selling of his option shares he also told off all if the other shares he has been holding down to the minimum (250k shares) that he is required to hold as CEO based on the Intel governance documents.

In November he sold as much stock as he legally could in his position, not just the amount he optioned.

<comment><USER6> The holding requirements are contractual, not criminal - there's no law requiring him to hold stock.

The minimum he's required to hold is still more than $10M tied up in a single stock. Wanting to diversify one's assets past that level is understandable.

<comment><USER7> You missed the point, it _implies_ criminal if he sold down differently this time. The contractual details are only important in so far as they dictate his behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> One major counterpoint:

What would have happened if the AMD developer on the LKML hadn't said "AMD chips aren't affected by [one of the bugs]" before the big public post? The big headlines would have all been about "major class of speculative execution bugs that cause data exfiltration on ARM, AMD, and Intel hardware." Only one of the bugs is Intel-specific (admittedly, the worst one), but even the Project Zero blogpost points out that it mostly focused on attacking Haswell microarchitecture.

So while Intel does have some egg on its face, ARM and AMD aren't exactly out of the woods yet. Side-channel attacks as a result of speculative execution are sort of a well-known idea, but the main big news is that they are practical to exploit and exfiltrate data. I would not be surprised to see more exploits of this type affecting different hardware vendors come out over the next year. The reason why there's so much focus on Intel is because people trying to reverse-engineer the exploit found the message saying "AMD not affected" and didn't realize that AMD _is_ affected by _some_ of the bugs.

Quite likely, whatever internal announcements that would have filtered up to the CEO would have focussed on the fact that other vendors are seeing some impact from these bugs (if nothing else, professional ass-covering). So it's hard to see how the CEO would actually find this information out even internally.

Edit: to put it more succinctly, Intel appears to have been preparing for an announcement of "Major class of speculative execution vulnerabilities [with particular impact to Intel]." However, the way the announcement came out was "Apparent major bug... that's Intel-specific... oh, here's the details of this bug [with related bugs affecting everybody]." That doesn't scream insider trading to me.

<comment><USER9> For the question of insider trading, it's irrelevant whether other companies were affected by this bug.

As long as the information was not public (in this case presumably it was an embargoed secret under NDA), and that information is material (this information clearly is as Intel's stock is down about 3% today) then it's illegal to trade on that information.

<comment><USER8> Well, the question is whether one would expect that Intel would be particularly affected. If the message is "everyone is boned," then there's no reason to expect Intel's share price to fall. That the message ended up being "Intel is boned" doesn't mean that insiders expected that to be the message.

To clarify: it smells bad enough to be investigated... but I wouldn't vote to convict solely on the evidence presented.

<comment><USER10> You're muddying the waters.

> If the message is "everyone is boned," then there's no reason to expect > Intel's share price to fall

That's a weak defense agains insider trading: the underlying (and incorrect) assumption is that share prices are 0-sum. It is possible - likely even - <USER2> the shares for _all_ 3 to drop if it affects their businesses. It would still be insider trading regardless of who else on the market is affected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting to compare the reactions in this thread from 1 day ago:

"Intel's CEO Just Sold a Lot of Stock"

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16055851](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16055851)

<comment><USER12> New evidence (Google disclosed the vuln to Intel in 2017 June), means new behavior.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> This looks really bad from a PR perspective. Huge performance effecting security vulnerability and their CEO might have traded on insider info, doesn't look good.

I hope their lawyers have been productive these last few months before this all went public.

<comment><USER14> The vulnerability aside, it looks bad in general when a CEO suddenly dumps all of his stock other than the required minimum.

Throw in Google disclosing the vulnerability to Intel in June, and it looks criminal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Rather damning: "Krzanich's [Rule 10b5-1(c)] plan was created on October 30 and by Intel's own admission, the company learned of the chip vulnerability in June."

</comment><comment><USER16> They'll probably nail him, but not the Equifax C-suite.

<comment><USER17> The laws around PII breaches due to carelessness are largely nonexistent in the US. Laws around insider trading have had more than a century to develop their pointy end.

<comment><USER18> Well that's a problem. PII breaches should have pointed ends as pointed, if not more, than insider trading.

<comment><USER19> That's really hard to do. PII breaches are virtually always by mistake (irrelevant if that mistake is negligence).

Insider trading is intentional.

You can't really legislate serious penalties for mistakes, and negligence is really really hard to prove.

<comment><USER9> The EU already has legislated serious penalties for data breaches, and AFAIK whether it was a "mistake" or negligence is irrelevant:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regula...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Data_Protection_Regulation#Data_breaches)

The US doesn't seem to have much appetite for this kind of regulation though.

<comment><USER20> It's worth distinguishing the US congress and executive branch from the US citizenry, in cases like this.

<comment><USER9> Very true. I'd be interested to know how this issue polls in the US, I haven't seen any data on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Material + non public = insider trading. Anything else is an excuse, not a defense. This should be an open-and-shut case.

<comment><USER22> > Material + non public = insider trading. Anything else is an excuse, not a > defense

Except you're wrong. Material and non-public are not sufficient conditions for a trade to be considered insider. I know the name and common lore seems to imply it, but legally there's many other details attached.

<comment><USER21> There are details of how "material" and "non public" are defined, but those _are_ the two criteria. Don't call people wrong when you have zero facts on your side.

<comment><USER22> A counter-example is enough to prove me right.

I could give you at least one counter-example, ie a real court case from 2017 where two specific entities secretly coordinated a trade for stock in one of them on material and non-public information and was determined legal. (Obviously it went to court because people like you abound, who believe that a complex matters like inside trading come down to "material" and "non-public".)

I'm not going to give you that example though, because I take issue with your arrogance, ie authoritatively claiming that someone has zero facts on their side when you have no idea what you're talking about :-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> One day CEO's will be held accountable for their companies actions.

<comment><USER24> What specific actions by intel are you proposing we should hold the CEO accountable for?

<comment><USER25> Failure to disclose material change in their past quarterly reports, failure to file a 8-k.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The stock seems to be doing fine. Overvalued even perhaps. A P/E of 42 when you have Nvidia hitting them on the high end, Apple and ARM hitting them on the low end, and AMD continuing to commoditize their offerings? I personally would not buy or hold at that price. I don't think there's anything illegal about selling the shares as soon as he executed on them, as he'll need to at least sell some to cover the tax liability, I think.

<comment><USER27> INTC only has a P/E Ratio of 15.86 [https://www.google.com/search?q=NASDAQ:INTC&tbm=fin](https://www.google.com/search?q=NASDAQ:INTC&tbm=fin)

<comment><USER26> Ah my mistake I must have misread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Well, then I guess the CEO is going to prison, and someone at the SEC is going to make their career on this.

<comment><USER28> Don't know why you are being downvoted so much. That's actually what _should_ happen. He probably will stay out of prison but there is no way they can keep him as CEO. This is a textbook example of insider trading from an CEO.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It looks like there will be a surge of purchases of new CPUs. He should have kept hold.

</comment><comment><USER30> Serious question unrelated to the article. Why are half of these comments being flagged?

<comment><USER31> Nit: I don't see any that are flagged. There are some that are downvoted.

My mind-reading skills aren't what they used to be. Some of those downvoted are arguably off-topic or unsubstantive, both of which are frowned upon by HN members. Others, who knows. But then again, this is all speculation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> If nothing else, it sends a clear message of "I wouldn't trust our product".

</comment><comment><USER33> looks like he made about 4% more than he should have. Pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things.

</comment><comment><USER34> Do we already have hints who's doing a power play here? I mean even the leak was a surprise to companies like Google as I see it. Is there someone who wants to become CEO at Intel or a bigger company that wants to become a majority stake holder?

</comment><comment><USER35> Isn't this a case that describes the benefits of insider trading? Him being able to sell his stock in the company alerted everyone that something may be up.

<comment><USER36> What alerted people that something may be up were discussions on LWN and the patch commentaries in Linux kernel code commits.

* [http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-myst...](http://pythonsweetness.tumblr.com/post/169166980422/the-mysterious-case-of-the-linux-page-table)

* [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046636](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16046636)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I wonder if that many people actually care. It is a timing attack only AFAIK.</comment>


'Hamilton' and History: Are They in Sync? - <AUTHOR> http://mobile.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/theater/hamilton-and-history-are-they-in-sync.html?_r=0 <comment><USER2> I disagree with the idea that the musical is painting Hamilton as a blameless hero of the people and glossing over his Federalist policies. For an example off the top of my head, you've got Jefferson (who is not portrayed as a villainous contrast to Hamilton's "goodness" in the musical--not sure how the author came to that conclusion) directly calling him out as an ambitious man vying for Wall Street power in "Washington on Your Side":

        I get no satisfaction witnessing his fits of passion
        The way he primps and preens and dresses like the pits of fashion
        Our poorest citizens, our farmers, live ration to ration
        As Wall Street robs 'em blind in search of chips to cash in
        This prick is askin' for someone to bring him to task

The same character calls Hamilton out for not wanting to come to France's aid in "Cabinet Battle #2":

        He knows nothing of loyalty
        Smells like new money, dresses like fake royalty
        Desperate to rise above his station
        Everything he does betrays the ideals of our nation

        [...] do we not fight for freedom?

        Have you an ounce of regret?
        You accumulate debt, you accumulate power
        Yet in their hour of need, you forget

Hamilton is shown as a man who came to power from an immigrant background against the odds. As far as I've been able to read up on him, though, that's historically accurate--and the play goes into the details of his policies and his personality flaws as well. Coming out of it and thinking that Hamilton is a purehearted hero for liberty seems like an overly simplistic and reductive reading of the play to me.

<comment><USER3> If anything I'd say that the play goes above and beyond what I'd expect to make the other characters look good by comparison. For example take the final song which shows Burr being remorseful about the slaying of Hamilton. In reality he never really expressed remorse. He spoke the words "I would have known the world was wide enough for both Hamilton and me." He was being sarcastic, not expressing actual remorse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Of course Hamilton will cut parts of history short, modify some and embellish others. It's a work of art that has to cram 30 years into around 3 hours of musical theater. Hamilton was probably an elitist, he also was probably not as strongly against slavery as the musical implies. Then again, the musical doesn't really talk all that much about his views on slavery either, just a few mentions here and there.

Historical fiction need not be 100% factually accurate to powerfully inform. I have read more actual history about this period because the musical made it so compelling than I otherwise would have.

In the end it's remarkable how much of the history it gets right (beautifully summarizing the complicated negotiations around the creating of the national bank for example), and how it shows two sides loathing one another and fighting through energetic political discourse eventually found a way to compromise and/or move on in order to build a nation.

Today we have one political party that seems completely unwilling to compromise and another that's heading that way. Nobody wants to accept defeat, nobody want to accept half-a-loaf to keep things going. We should remember that this country was founded on sometimes good and sometimes terrible compromises, but the country moved forward as a result. Yes the worst ones eventually were resolved by blood, and we're still handling the aftermath, but without compromise we'd never have had the chance to figure out which were the better angels of our nature.

<comment><USER5> > Today we have one political party that seems completely unwilling to > compromise and another that's heading that way.

Perception is an interesting thing. Many of us believe one party has compromised too much and caved, being steam rolled by the party that won't compromise a thing even when their majorities are taken away.

Hamilton actually did a pretty good job at an amazing compromise involving the location of the capital and debt responsibility. Both sides got something of worth, and it probably was a part of keeping the states together.

<comment><USER4> Trying to scrupulously avoid inflammatory descriptions but I personally believe the Republican Party has become a shadow of its former self by taking a totally uncompromising and childish approach to policy and governing.

I think it's important to have two parties that have strong ideas, even ones I disagree with. It's not ok to have total obstruction and political total war. Total war just leaves everyone worse off, the country deserves better. I would like to know why back then people disagreed at least as strongly with one another but we're able to move forward and today we've totally lost than.

<comment><USER5> And I personally believe anyone uttering the phrase "I have a phone and a pen" has no interest in compromise or how they shut out amendments when they controlled the Senate, but they get backed by the press. Our country does deserve better, and I'm a bit sick of seeing an obstructionist meme applied to the wrong party.

President Clinton understood compromise and did great things, this President doesn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The whole second act of the musical puts Hamilton's worse qualities on display: his over-consideration with his legacy, his centralization of banking power to further his own rise to power, his hot temper and fondness for duels. I think there are some necessary summarizations and a lot of it gets condensed, but I also think Miranda went to great pains to ensure he got the spirit of the narrative down right. Ron Chernow, the guy who wrote the biography that inspired the musical in the first place, as an historical advisor to the musical.

Slightly off-topic, but the genius community is really great at annotating and calling out the details here: [http://genius.com/albums/Lin-manuel- miranda/Hamilton-origina...](http://genius.com/albums/Lin-manuel- miranda/Hamilton-original-broadway-cast-recording)

<comment><USER7> L-M-M himself comments on the lyrics on Genius fairly often, too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Warning, unabashed Alexander Hamilton fan here.

It's truly appalling that this article questions Hamilton's dedication to abolition. He did a great deal to actively fight slavery during his life and it's all incredibly well documented. Look at the work he did with the New York Manumission Society or the endless political battles he had over abolition. I can't imagine what Hamilton would have had to do to satisfy these people/

<comment><USER8> Who are "these people"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Disregarding "the inherent limits of musical theater as a venue for policy analysis", this is a great look at the underlying issues in Cabinet Battle #1. [http://www.vox.com/2015/11/27/9771784/hamilton-cabinet- battl...](http://www.vox.com/2015/11/27/9771784/hamilton-cabinet-battle-debt)

</comment><comment><USER10> If you want to learn more about Hamilton I highly recommend "Alexander Hamilton" by Ron Chernow. (Which I now see was an inspiration for the play, who knew.) One thing I took away was that the world we live in pretty much what Hamilton envisioned. Another thing is that we're still playing out the ideological disputes between Hamilton and Jefferson.

<comment><USER3> Most of us knew :)

But great suggestion none the less, it really does speak incredibly well to our current political situation and makes the case well that we are living in Alexander Hamilton's america.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I watched the musical in January and I just finished the audiobook version of the Chernow biography of Hamilton (pro tip: listen at 2x speed to save 19 hours) and I have to say the musical stuck VERY close to the biography. A few embellishments for dramatic effect but the substance is all spot on. Unless the biography is flawed, I'd say that 'Hamilton' and History are very much in sync.

In case you want to learn more, I posted "Three Timeless Truths Entrepreneurs Can Learn from Alexander Hamilton" earlier today based on what I learned from the biography: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11475047](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11475047)

<comment><USER12> I'm wrapping up the bio, read, and I gotta say... Chernow's not my favorite biographer (comparing mostly to Ray Monk's bio of Wittgenstein here). On the one hand, the amount of raw material that surfaces is amazing, and I am delighted to have read tons of the Hamilton's own writing and that of his contemporaries.

However, if anything the musical tones down the hero worship from his book, into something more palatable. When he calls Eliza going to the cottage "abandoning" him, and talks about his cheating in terms of him "being too much for her", or his rhapsodizing about him being right about the worthlessness of the French revolution vs. the American one, it starts wearing on you.

edit: Still totally worth a read.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Alexander Hamilton "was more a man for the 1 percent than the 99 percent,"

Every generation inevitably reinterprets history to fit their own narrative.

<comment><USER8> Of course. How else could someone understand anything except within the context of their worldview? Adopting a fully alien perspective requires deep immersion, which only few people have time for, and even they can't do t for all perspectives.

<comment><USER13> > Adopting a fully alien perspective requires deep immersion

Not at all. Reading history from another generation's perspective, which doesn't fit the current generation's politically correct worldview, is simply uncomfortable.

(Every generation has their political correctness, it's just the term that is modern.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I really like this piece from Jacobin, "Reading Hamilton from the Left": [https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from- the...](https://www.jacobinmag.com/2014/08/reading-hamilton-from-the-left/)</comment>


Pirate Bay Founder Remains In Custody - <AUTHOR> http://torrentfreak.com/pirate-bay-founder-remains-locked-up-without-charges-120930/

<comment><USER2> Typical sensational TorrentFreak article. This is normal procedure in Swedish courts. The Swedish legal system is different and what would be called "charged" comes much later in the legal process. He's currently häktad[1] which is stopping him from destroying evidence or leaving the country, like he did previously when he fled to Cambodia.

1: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remand_(detention)#H.C3.A4ktnin...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remand_\(detention\)#H.C3.A4ktning_.28Swedish_law.29)

<comment><USER3> Wow, this is actually a pretty sensible arrangement.

 _A person who was häktad but was not charged (or was freed after trial) is entitled to financial compensation, with an amount determined by the Chancellor of Justice. It is usually around 500 SEK (US$80) per day for the suffering, somewhat more if there was media attention, plus compensation for lost work income. 1200 people were compensated in 2007.[10] If the prisoner is sentenced, the time as häktad counts as a part of the prison time, so that less time will remain after the trial._

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As is allowed by Swedish law, not unusual, and approved by the district court. They can even extend it to a month if they need to.

<comment><USER5> The article says it was originally extended by two weeks, and then recently extended again by another two weeks. Can they extend it more?

<comment><USER6> This comment on Reddit describes it better than I can:

[http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/10pivx/pirate_ba...](http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/10pivx/pirate_bay_founder_remains_locked_up_without/c6fkuji)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Rabble rabble rabble!</comment>


George Soros Transfers $18B to Open Society Foundations - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/17/business/george-soros-open-society-foundations.html <comment><USER2> These kinds of transfers point out two things to me:

\- (obvious) the ridiculousness of wealth accumulation. This is over-discussed so I won't further that discussion.

\- The critical need for better philanthropy. Philanthropy is by and large ineffective. I belive this is because it either isn't taken seriously (pet projects) or generally has no feedback loop or accountability. The best philanthropic organizations by impact are probably research universities, organizations not designed to be philanthropic. That sucks!

I think for all the shit YC gets, this area may ultimately be where they make they make real social progress. YC Research is interesting, but organizations like Watsi and New Story are REALLY game-changing to me. They showed me a model that really works, and I not only give to them regularly but also other organizations I could find with a similarly direct impact (Brooklyn Bail Fund is my favorite).

I think scaling real, accountable impact is a task my generation (I'm 29) is really, really up for. I think we can do it. There will be a lot of shitty, terrible attempts it but I don't think the attempts will stop and I expect it to yield results. I hope that's part of our legacy as a generation.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for highlighting Watsi and New Story. I hadn't heard of either before.

This is good!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> We need more people like him! I suggest everyone interested read his story and how he came from poor to riches and now giving back to our society... amazing humanbeing!

<comment><USER5> Check out for yourself some of the leads here before coming to that extremely naive conclusion.

[http://www.aim.org/special-report/the-hidden-soros-agenda- dr...](http://www.aim.org/special-report/the-hidden-soros-agenda-drugs-money- the-media-and-political-power/)

<comment><USER4> Sorry but conspiracy theorists second coming of Alex Jones does not interest me much.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There is good and bad in this.

It's good that Soros sets an example giving to charity.

It's bad that his donations go to controversial recipients, including some that ends up in the hands of those who use violence to further their causes.

Soros has been tied to racial unrest in the US, attempts to cause intervention in places like Albania, etc. He is not a kind-hearted donor, he is a billionaire with a decided agenda.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it necessary to be a good consumer before being able to do business? - <AUTHOR>

I've been employed as a software developer at Big Co. for several years and have been contemplating taking the plunge into startup-land for a while.  I've basically been saving every penny, so I have a comfortable cushion to fall back on.
The problem is that I think my lifestyle has left me out of touch with reality and I don't have any way of connecting with ordinary people.  I hardly ever buy anything aside from the bare necessities.  I don't have any interesting hobbies or activities that I engage in passionately.
For most of the products and services I see discussed on this site, I find myself thinking, who would ever pay for that?  I can't remember the last time I've felt wow, that's awesome, I have to get that!  If the rest of the world behaved like I did, the economy would collapse.
This seems like a pretty bad place to start, but I've lived frugally my entire life and don't really know how to live otherwise.  Am I hopeless? <comment><USER2> I don't think I have ever bought B2C software other than games, but that never stopped me from selling it. People are capable of empathizing with people unlike themselves, and probably should do so more In tech. ("Scratch your own itch" contributes to making more startups for poor white and Asian twenty something males who don't pay money for software.)

Of course you can connect to real people. Go talk to them. Connection established.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've got the same frame of mind :) I'd _never_ pay for 99.9% of the services offered on the internet. But there's a lot of people who would: think IPhone apps./nIf you want to give it a try then you should, even just for not having the regrets to live with later. You could also do some consulting on the side (but not so much that you don't have the time for your product anymore).</comment>


Maru OS – Your phone is your PC - <AUTHOR> http://maruos.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> GitHub Link: [https://github.com/maruos/maruos](https://github.com/maruos/maruos)

</comment><comment><USER2> while its cool, i cant imagine using my phone as PC, it would be like doing all my computing on a frustratingly slow raspberry pi when I can just use this laptop; not to mention storage on my phone is at a premium now, so not sure how that would be using it as my pc.. Think this idea needs a few years to marinate yet before phones are at this stage. but good work!</comment>


Google has a new OS that may one day kill Android - <AUTHOR> http://bgr.com/2017/05/09/google-fuchsia-os-leaked-images/?utm_campaign=socialflow&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social <comment><USER2> Very interesting Would love to see how this will develop in the future</comment>


Show HN: All Transit: visualization of all public transit data feeds - <AUTHOR> https://all-transit.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hi all! This started as an attempt to visualize all the public transit in the United States, but then was extended to use all the data in the Transitland database [0].

If you zoom into a city in the U.S., you can see an animation of transit vehicles moving around the city (according to their schedules) on a normal Friday afternoon.

[0]: [https://transit.land](https://transit.land)</comment>


Techmate (YC S16) Provides Ongoing Home Tech Support - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2016/07/techmate/ <comment><USER2> Hey everyone - founder of Techmate here. Happy to answer any questions!

</comment><comment><USER3> Techmate rules!</comment>


'Black lives don't matter,' lawyer says after jury awards $4 in police killing - <AUTHOR> https://edition.cnn.com/2018/05/31/us/florida-police-shooting-four-dollar-jury-award-gregory-hill/index.html <comment><USER2> Police in the US really need some counseling on dealing with agression and anger... There should be mandatory psicological exams every year and they should be independent.</comment>


J.C. Penney Apologizes in TV Spot - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/videos/2013-05-01/j-dot-c-dot-penney-apologizes-in-tv-spot

<comment><USER2> Link to the actual ad: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKQAivS0xsE>

If you watch it, it's like they put the voiceover over random stock video photography. It's rather bizarre.

\-- snip --

It's no secret, recently JCPenney changed. Some changes you liked and some you didn't, but what matters from mistakes is what we learn. We learned a very simple thing, to listen to you. To hear what you need, to make your life more beautiful. Come back to JCPenney, we heard you. Now, we'd love to see you.

\-- snip --

</comment><comment><USER3> After talking with my brother-in-law about what has happened on the JCP sales floor, I don't see how they can survive. I think they were probably in death throws before the new CEO and I'm not sure Johnson could have saved them, but now, there's no stopping the death throws.

Johnson was trying to take JCP upmarket (not so much in price/quality as in type of customer) because he knew they were going to be completely squeezed out by the logistics capabilities of stores like Target. Unfortunately, that kind of process takes years and a lot of courage because you will alienate many, if not most, existing customers before new customers come.

But JCP did the worst thing: they stopped right after alienating their existing customers. I think my brother-in-law will be looking for a new job soon. I will have a great deal of respect for the new CEO if they can bring JCP back to their previous level of "glory" and maintain it.

<comment><USER4> Another major issue with going "up-market" for JCP was their retail space situation. Many of their stores were in areas that didn't have a significant market share of higher-income families. If they did have higher income families, the market was already saturated with other higher-end retail stores.

Many of their stores also suffered from high rent even in failing malls, exacerbating their losses as suburban malls failed.

If JCP didn't have their retail lease obligations, they may have succeeded in pivoting to higher market consumers and transitioning to smaller stores and tighter, more informed staff. However, they have decade+ long leases on anchor stores in malls with massive financial penalties for early withdrawal, so they are stuck with massive amounts of retail floor. It's one thing to change your business strategy wit 4,000 square foot retail spaces; it's entirely different if you're locked into 40,000 square feet in hundreds of malls!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> What exactly did jcpenney do that they're apologizing for? Just had a plummeting stock price?

<comment><USER6> Essentially, they were the victims of themselves. For years and years they would mark up the cost of their clothing and other items, and send out coupons to their members which really just brought the prices back down to what they should have been in the first place. When the new CEO took over, he got rid of these coupons, and instead of marking items up, he just left them at the price they would have been had someone actually brought a coupon.

Now you all know how stubborn some older people can be. They want to hunt for a bargain, and not getting that feeling of accomplishment from the feeling of "fictitiously" getting a good deal deterred them from wanting to shop there. They also have begun rolling out mobile payments on iPads/iPhones and many older people think they're not as safe and that someone is stealing their credit card info.

Now I happen to prefer the new store in a store concept as you can actually find what you're looking for more easily as the highlighted brands are in plain view with their own little section of the store and all the associated products are near by. Much better than the old, everything mushed together layout.

tldr: They tried to cater towards the younger generations, but failed to realize their main customer base is still overwhelmingly the older generation of americans who are set in their ways.

<comment><USER3> _Now you all know how stubborn some older people can be._

Age (as is so often the case) has nothing to do with it. My brother-in-law is a sales associate there. Even the teens/twenty-somethings he deals with we're mad about the lack of sale prices.

<comment><USER6> You're right, age certainly isn't always the case.

I preferred the 'new', old square pricing. If I actually needed something from JCP, I could just go and get it. I didn't have to worry about having to wait for some stupid coupon sale to bring the price down to what it should have been in the first place. But I guess you could counter that with the fact that if everyone knows they can just pick 'x' up at a later time at the low price, they would have no incentive to buy it in a timely manner.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> J.C. Penney Shoots Self in Foot</comment>


Ask HN: What is the delay field for? - <AUTHOR> The default value is 3.  In what units?  What does this impact?<p>I wasn't able to find a post which defines this, but I did find some chatter about this field being related to comments... <comment><USER2> A quick glance at [https://github.com/wting/hackernews/blob/5a3296417d23d1ecc90...](https://github.com/wting/hackernews/blob/5a3296417d23d1ecc901447af63dfc27af217f40/news.arc) indicates that publications are delayed by this many minutes before being publicly visible.

Thought the code in the repo is 4 years old and could be outdated and I really just spent 2 minutes looking at it, including the googling for the code.</comment>


NewsBee: A Minimalist RSS reader for OSX inspired by a love of Hacker News - <AUTHOR> http://www.jamiegrove.com/newsbee

<comment><USER2> A RSS Menu clone (or a RSS Menu "light")?

e dot studio: RSS Menu <http://edotstudios.com/products/rss-menu>

RSS Menu in Mac App Store <https://itunes.apple.com/en/app/rss- menu/id423069534?mt=12>

See also:

RSS Menu 2.2 uploaded to Mac App Store <http://edotstudios.com/news/21>

RSS Menu 2.2 review process <http://edotstudios.com/news/22>

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, not quite.

NewsBee isn't trying to compete with RSS Menu. It's actually doing something different.

Most news readers create a distraction by telling you much much news you have left to read. I like to think of this as the +1000 Syndrome of Google Reader.

I created NewsBee because I love keeping up with Hacker News. I just didn't want to pop into a browser each time I got the urge to check in. I also didn't want the overhead or distraction of a typical RSS reader showing me all the things I haven't read.

This is why NewsBee shows one feed and one feed only at a time. It puts the focus on the site and leaves the distraction behind.

This isn't to say there's anything wrong with a full-fledged RSS reader. Quite the opposite. There's a place for those too. NewsBee is just something different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think Reeder is the best thing on the planet for my use, both on osx and ios, but I'm going to give this one a try. I use RSS a lot so even a small improvement in the experience would go a long way.

</comment><comment><USER4> funny i was just browsing for a new RSS reader.</comment>