Ask HN: What's the best setup for ad blocking and tracker blocking? - <AUTHOR> I currently use uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger, but I've become frustrated with having to disable one or both of the above for too many sites--they just break functionality for a good chunk of the web. What's the best setup these days for ad-blocking + privacy/tracker-blocking that doesn't break the web? Thanks! <comment><USER3> I recommend multiple layers. Why? Because some devices/apps will circumvent one of these layers one way or another.

I use Pi-Hole plus WireGuard to route all my devices through my home broadband connection (so even on a hotel/train WiFi, when on LTE, etc). I forward it to Unbound which uses DNSSEC and DNSCrypt. I'm using an EdgeRouter Lite for that purpose. It does add a little bit of latency, but I don't mind, as it also increases my privacy on the insecure link. It also works on say a smart TV or an official Android device (I use a rooted Android device with microG which doesn't implement GAds). My partner sees barely any ads at home due to this setup (I did not bother to setup WireGuard on her smartphone as of yet).

On each individual client device I also use a layer 7 firewall ("personal firewall"). On macOS I use Little Snitch and LuLu. On Linux I use OpenSnitch. I don't use Windows, but if I would I'd at least remove all the tracking stuff (for example with O&O ShutUp). On Android, I don't use a layer 7 firewall which is my bad.

For browser, on every OS I use a configured Firefox (which I did NOT document; my bad!) with a bunch of addons. uBlock Origin (mainly to manually block "you are blocking ads" notices). I use uMatrix, Cookie AutoDelete, Smart Referer, Privacy Badger, Decentraleyes, HTTPS Everywhere, containers for Amazon/Facebook/Google (would like to add Microsoft), CanvasBlocker, Tracking Token Stripper, Forget Me Not, Terms of Service; Didn't Read, and Buster: Captcha Solver for Humans.

uMatrix _will_ break the web. However it is more user-friendly than NoScript ever was. You are going to have to configure such. For websites you regularly use, you can save the temporary changes, or just not use such bloated websites. Also, I recommend the addon Dark Reader and the feature Reader Mode.

To test your setup on your browser, try ipleak.net. One of the things I configured in Firefox, is to disable WebRTC. I don't use an addon for that.

<comment><USER4> Be wary of too many. Your combination of extensions is likely quite unique and finger-printable.

<comment><USER3> AFAIK Firefox does not share the extensions it uses; Chrome does.

Using these tools [1] [2] [3] suggest I'm most profileable by the fact I use macOS. Which I can hide in the useragent string, but is then still detected.

[1] [https://ipleak.net](https://ipleak.net)

[2] [https://panopticlick.eff.org](https://panopticlick.eff.org)

[3] [https://amiunique.org](https://amiunique.org)

<comment><USER4> It's been awhile since I looked into it. From the last study I know on the topic [1]: It is much easier to fingerprint Chrome, however Firefox is susceptible to extension fingerprinting techniques. To be fair, these techniques may have been addressed since publishing - I haven't checked.

It may or may not be worth considering depending on your threat model. There may also be novel techniques published since.

Edit: It looks like amiunique is detecting extensions with Plugin Detector [2] which claims to work on Firefox, and at the very least can detect Adblock (per amiunique).

[1][https://www.cse.chalmers.se/~andrei/codaspy17.pdf](https://www.cse.chalmers.se/~andrei/codaspy17.pdf) [2][http://www.pinlady.net/PluginDetect/](http://www.pinlady.net/PluginDetect/)

<comment><USER3> The threat model is, IMO, pretty clearly defined. If the threat is 3 letter agencies, we'd be trying to fingerprint Tor Browser, and we'd be using Tor (with 2 use cases: one on *.onion only, other one on clearnet via exit nodes). So what we are trying to defend from, is fingerprinting by commercial entities such as FAANG.

I don't use any special plugins; only the default ones (which are a practical, necessary evil). If I were to remove/disable the default plugins, that'd increase my fingerprint.

I've been trying to let websites tell me which extensions I use in Firefox (remember we are using Quantum since Firefox 57, released in November 2017 which changed the way extensions work). The paper is from CODASPY'17, March 22-24, 2017. I haven't been able to reproduce detection of extensions. Keep in mind also, that I use some precautions. I block canvas via CanvasBlocker. I block Javascript via uMatrix. I even block domains via DNS (Pi-Hole) and uBlock Origin.

If I want to be tracked less easily I'd need to not browse fullscreen, I'd need to not use a native Mac browser but run a Windows or Linux VM or a remote SSH connection (which, quite frankly, is quite possible in a terminal these days as per Browsh [1]), and I'd need to use only the default fonts (because I am using specific fonts in ~/Library/Fonts). Some of these fonts there are temporarily or backup fonts. I will remove these to a temporary directory, and load them ad-hoc.

[1] [https://www.brow.sh](https://www.brow.sh)

<comment><USER4> The paper was only the one I remembered off the top of my head. There may be more recent work, more relative to Quantum (although the paper does look at WebExtensions), since then. I also personally like to assume that published research papers are a step behind what is happening in the wild.

But, you obviously have a good grasp on what is in your threat model and what isn't. My original comment was geared more towards the people who pile on privacy extensions, sometimes at random, who are under the impression that more extensions always equals more protection.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have "pi-holed" my openbsd router using both ip blocklists for the firewall and dns blocklists for unbound that refresh automatically every night.

All my clients run firefox with ublock origin and https everywhere. I ran no script for a while but it is quite painfull to manually allow scripts on a lot of pages so I think I have found a nice balance. I have also turned off wasm support in firefox.

If a site doesn't work with the above or shoves large nasty inline popups with "we value your privacy" etc and do not show a clear reject button I leave.

edit: I also pay subscription to most of the websites I use often that support payment and if they don't I email them and tell that I don't want ads and that I'd like to pay for it. Usually one can come to an arrangement.

<comment><USER6> As someone not very knowledgeable with the issues associated with web assembly, may i ask why have you disabled it?

<comment><USER5> I don't trust it yet. That's all.

I want to see how it behaves in the wild before I run it myself.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> If uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger give you too many problems, what you are after is a worse setup. You want a less aggressive system that allows the ad- tech that those sites are relying on to work, which will also allow that ad- tech to display some ads and invade some privacy, but its a perfectly reasonable choice.

Personally, I use uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger (and NoScript for work, per policy). In most cases, if a site doesn't work I've realized I really don't want to be there (and the Internet is likely better off without adding my rant to the comments section of that click bait article I really shouldn't be wasting my time with). It is fairly rare to find a broken site and rarer still to actually need to use it (airlines are the worst), so I don't sweat the time to temporarily disable protection or work out the white list.

<comment><USER8> I never heard of Privacy Badger until you mentioned it.

Their FAQ[0] says it's a replacement to Adblock Plus (which implies uBlock Origin too).

What makes you use both of them together? Why not just Privacy Badger?

[0]: [https://www.eff.org/privacybadger/faq#How-is-Privacy- Badger-...](https://www.eff.org/privacybadger/faq#How-is-Privacy-Badger- different-from-Disconnect,-Adblock-Plus,-Ghostery,-and-other-blocking- extensions)

<comment><USER9> Privacy Badger isn't an adblocker per se. It's designed to block trackers, not ads. Those two often collide, but Privacy Badger won't do a thing to block first-party ads (as an example).

That's somewhat different than uBlock Origin's no-ads-what-so-ever policy.

<comment><USER10> Does PrivacyBadger interfere with uBlock or vice versa? I really like this on paper but wouldn't want to fiddle too much with adding exceptions to each of them just to make sure they don't cannibalize one another.

<comment><USER7> No, they play together just fine. Privacy Badger probably doesn't do much (or anything) in addition to uBlock Origin, but it is nice to wave the EFF flag.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The _best_ setup acc to me for web is Firefox + uMatrix + CanvasBlocker + WebRTC Blocker + DecentralEyes + HTTPS Everywhere + Smart Referrer + StartPage / DuckDuckGo + any DNS over HTTPS provider of your choice. Be prepared for the recaptcha time sink. You could turn on Firefox's resistFingerpriting setting, too. Use Brave or Bromite as an alternative browser for websites that break.

For phones, you could run DNSCloak with AdGuard DNS (iOS) or Blokada (Android). There's AdGuard Pro, Lockdown Firewall, and Guardian VPN+Firewall for iOS that are super neat.

NoRoot Firewall, NetGuard, and GlassWire Firewall for Android that I've found to have acceptable privacy policies. LittleSnitch or LuLu Firewall for Mac, GlassWire Firewall for Windows are some of the other options.

Pi-Hole your routers too for other devices connecting to Internet.

<comment><USER12> > Be prepared for the recaptcha time sink.

You can marginally reduce the recaptcha "problem" by using the Privacy Pass extension, though I can't speak to whether there's a net loss of privacy by using it.

<comment><USER13> I have had it installed for the past half year, and in that time only one pass has been used.

<comment><USER14> In my personal experience, the vast majority of captchas are Google, while Privacy Pass is only supported by Cloudflare. If Google supported it, it would be amazing.

Unfortunately Google uses their captchas to train image recognition algorithms so they have an incentive not to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Apart from the usual recommendations, to Firefox users I recommend enabling first-party isolation by setting "privacy.firstparty.isolate" to true. In this way, the data of every website will be isolated from each other. It is like the Facebook/Google container extension, but for every single website there is. It has yet to break something after one year of use and it has certainly made my browsing feel much less invasive.

<comment><USER16> > […] it has certainly made my browsing feel much less invasive.

How does this manifest itself to you? With uBlock Origin installed (part of the usual recommendations) you don't see any ads at all. I couldn't tell if some website shared data with another website, because the effects that I could observe (e.g., ads that follow me around) are already gone.

<comment><USER17> The fact you're logged into Google everywhere after checking your Gmail...

<comment><USER18> Aaaaah yeah, I've seen several pages trying to either auto-login or auto create a new account with my Google account :(

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've been using [https://www.nextdns.io](https://www.nextdns.io) for the last month.

It's PiHole as a Service.

<comment><USER20> Wow, what a creative use of IPv6 to allow a custom configuration without the use of DNS-over-HTTPS.

<comment><USER11> DNS over HTTPS, DNS over TLS, and DNSCrypt are all abt preventing DNS manipulation attacks and encrypting the DNS traffic to the resolver (if not till the nameserver). Plain old DNS over UDP/53, IPv6 or not, can't be a substitute for that, afaik.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm curious, what websites are breaking for you? I use the same (+ Facebook Container) and I rarely notice breakage. PrivacyBadger is the only one that's broken something for me before (image links from a CDN), I can't recall uBlock Origin ever breaking a site for me unless the site has an anti-adblocker.

If you're talking about the "please disable your adblocker to continue" messages, you can consider something like Anti Adblock Killer [1] which can help bypass those kinds of blocks.

As far as the best setup I think what you have is fairly close to "the best" already without getting more hands-on. You can check out Pi-hole which I've heard is superior, but harder to setup [2].

[1] [https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock- killer](https://github.com/reek/anti-adblock-killer)

[2] [https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/)

<comment><USER22> Off the top of my head, disabling uBlock has been the only way to unblock on- and-off trouble with some ATT-owned websites (ATT's own website, ATTWatchTV.com, etc) and owner.ford.com (original, the beta works fine).

My experience has been generally good, but weird stuff (especially authenticating/login) just won't work sometimes with uBlock and Privacy Badger running.

I also use the HTTPS everywhere Chrome extension, so perhaps that is an added factor that breaks things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> > I've become frustrated with having to disable one or both of the above for > too many sites--they just break functionality for a good chunk of the web

For uBlock Origin[1], the best solution is to report the breakage to filter list maintainers.

Keep in mind that all the lists are community-contributed, with filtering issue addressed as users report them. So you benefit from these when using a content blocker making use of these community-maintained lists.

So when you report a broken site and that as a result the lists are updated, then you contributed back to have the issue addressed for others as well when they visit the site.

The basic default lists/settings should have minimal breakage issues.

* * *

[1] Side note: uBO is a _content blocker_ , not an "ad blocker" \-- I never ever referred to uBO as an "ad blocker". I consider this an important distinction.

</comment><comment><USER24> Edit: I forgot to mention the most important piece: When a site says that it won't work without JS, I accept this and close the tab. Unless it's Google Maps.

My browser has built-in URL-based filters.

I browse with JS disabled except for a handful of sites, which I enable for the session whenever I need it.

My browser makes it easy, with a three-key shortcut to toggle it.

This is about the extent of it.

I used to use uBO, which I still think is great, and enough for more Chrome and Firefox users. Many blessings to its maintainer.

<comment><USER25> > When a site says that it won't work without JS, I accept this and close the > tab. Unless it's Google Maps.

This is the real problem at the end of the day. Some of the worst offenders as far as privacy and security are useful so they're hard to detach from.

Every six months or so I try OpenStreetMap and see if I have the patience to deal with its more limited functionality. So far the answer has been "no" but I'm due for another try...

<comment><USER24> I don't mind letting Google in. I've accepted living in the open.

It's more about wasting my cycles, safety of my environment, etc.

It's certainly nice to not ping 127 trackers per page, a nice bonus.

Google Maps doesn't do that anyway. Except to Facebook, IIRC... Or is that vice versa? Facebook knows where I am too, but at least they're in a no-JS jail, thanks to the half-maintained but sturdy m.facebook.com.

Anyway, feel free to hang out on this lawn as long as you like, it's not like it's mine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> General advice: make sure you have a solution on all platforms. TV, IoT, phone on wifi, phone on mobile network, etc...

At home you need to first subvert your ISP.

Make sure you have a router doing blocking, like a PiHole. For mobile devices always use a VPN and DNS protection like dns-crypt. Use Cloudflare's mobile DNS over HTTPS solution even though that's a single point of failure, decide for yourself how risky you think that is.

Besides browser specific plugins you should implement a host block. The host block lists are not too exhaustive so if you use dns-crypt configure it to log every dns request and add any new hosts to your block list that look surprising.

It's a lot of work, but if that's what you're looking for you may find some fun ways to automate this workflow :)

</comment><comment><USER27> For mobile I use [https://blockerdns.com/](https://blockerdns.com/) (full disclaimer: that's my creation). It's ad blocking through DNS-over-TLS on Android 9 and above.

For home I just run my own bind DNS servers internally. And then for friends and family I have them set their routers to a couple bind DNS servers (same config as my internal ones) in the cloud.

For all of the above I use the same block list. It currently has about 25k entries, and is built with some data from a few of the well known public lists. But I augment that with domains I find by regularly auditing specific websites that are particularly aggressive with ads and specifically trackers.

But with that said, since I've got friends, family and paying users working from that list, I do actively try to prevent the breaking of popular sites and services. For example, personally I'd outright block anything related to Facebook since I quit them years ago, but too many people still use it, so for my list I try to keep a good balance by blocking their pixel and stuff like that, while allowing the resources absolutely necessary for the site.

<comment><USER28> > full disclaimer: that's my creation

Small observation: when you disclose something, it's a disclosure.

<comment><USER27> Ah damn, I botched that one. No more commenting while walking the dog.

<comment><USER28> Don't beat yourself up. It seems lime disclosure and disclaimer are almost consistently used in reverse on HN. It's the strangest thing!

<comment><USER28> *like

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The best setup is cli browser links or lynx.

Next best is Firefox with uBlock Origin, uMatrix, Privacy Badger, Cookie Autodelete, Decentreleyes, and a bunch of about:config alterations. Some sites will break. If a site breaks I either forget about it or open it in incognito.

<comment><USER30> > The best setup is cli browser links or lynx

Agreed. lynx(1) is my primary browser, after configuring its "externals" and some patching of it (then re-compiling) to rewrite URLs (mostly the Google crap).

My secondary is emacs-w3m with heavy URL re-writes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> On macOS I mostly use LittleSnitch, with a few lists, then manually add trackers and calls to weird domains made by apps that shouldn't make them. Upside is, it's system-wide.

Wrote a post about that [https://weekly.elfitz.com/2019/02/12/block-ads-and- trackers-...](https://weekly.elfitz.com/2019/02/12/block-ads-and-trackers-on- your-mac-with-little-snitch/)

But the best setup (still haven't done it) would probably be pi-hole, remotely accessible over some vpn (because you don't want to manage what would otherwise amount to a publicly accessible DNS server). It would cover all your apps and devices.

</comment><comment><USER32> My setup is Firefox with the usual about:config modifications (search for it)

uMatrix

Ad Nauseum

Smart Referer

Decentralized Eyes

https everywhere

Cookie autodelete

VPN with ipv6 turned off since they don't reroute that

With uMatrix I also block all first party cookies and scripts by default and white list as needed.

This only breaks websites the first time you visit them. Only thing that becomes an issue is uMatrix but as you Whitelist the sites you need it just ends up not being a big deal.

<comment><USER33> Very similar to what I have. May I recommend using containers? It works wonders and gives me peace of mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I'm mildly surprised that no one has mentioned [Better]([https://better.fyi](https://better.fyi)). Works very well for me.

The pitch:

Better uses our own list of blocking rules, curated and maintained by Ind.ie. We use the principles of Ethical Design to decide what should be blocked. This is our only blocking criteria, advertisers cannot pay us to compromise our integrity and unblock them.

Better does not block respectful ads. Respectful ads respect human rights, human effort, and human experience. For an example of respectful ads, see The Deck network, winner of our first Cloud of Fame award.

<comment><USER35> > I'm mildly surprised that no one has mentioned > [Better]([https://better.fyi](https://better.fyi)).

It only works on Apple's platforms, and the OP didn't specify what they're using. Furthermore, it's just a Safari Content Blocker with (last I checked) a single list, meaning it has a hard limit of 50k rules, "curated" by (by their own admission) "a tiny two-person-and-one-husky" team.

I'm glad it works for you (and many others), but for a tech-savvy crowd that cares about long-term effectiveness, that's an inferior solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> [https://technitium.com/dns/](https://technitium.com/dns/)

You block domains at the dns, you can download a variety of block lists and you can also create your own. You can log the dns lookups to find out what domains are being used which can be used to further create a block list. The advertising code and tracking code never gets downloaded. Runs on the window pc so you don't have to worry about making changes to anything else upstream, great for laptops and road warriors who use a variety of internet connections.

</comment><comment><USER37> I use firefox with ublock origin and privacy badger and I can't recall the last time I ran into a site that was broken because of it. But, I visit a fairly narrow section of the internet regularly so there might not be much overlap between what I browse and you browse.

I also use the multi-account container add on and the temporary container add on. This allows me to pin a few big sites to their own containers (google, amazon, etc) and open all other new tabs in temporary containers. This setup works great and appears to help keep firefox fast over time. I use duck duck go to search but firefox makes it trivial for me to re-run a search with google if I need to.

I also run an ad blocking vpn on google cloud using Algo. I use google cloud because the vpn can run on the permanently free tier and I only pay for network traffic (which is near zero), and I also enjoy the irony of it. I have wireguard clients setup on all of my devices to use the vpn either permanently (phone) or on demand (laptops). Having this vpn is nice as it makes it easy to block ads in apps on my kids mobile devices.

This vpn setup works ok but not quite as well as when I ran the same thing using Streisand and open vpn clients. I only say this because I have a homebrew whole-house audio setup with a bunch of google audio chromecasts and no matter how I tweak the wireguard client settings I cannot get that casting to work properly. With open vpn clients, those settings are a cinch.

<comment><USER38> I did some tests and found that privacy badger adds a significant amount of load time. I couldn't justify it for the minimal effect it has. If you use ublock with firefox's protections and block third party cookies you are pretty good from a browser point of view.

<comment><USER37> Interesting. I never really had a firm grasp on the overlap in functionality of ublock origin and privacy badger. I threw privacy badger in the mix at some point as I like the EFF and wanted to give it a whirl. I haven't noticed any sites loading slowly, but I'll do a comparison on some of the sites I use and see if it's slowing things down.

<comment><USER38> In my case it really made a difference. Close to 1 second in some cases even, which on a total of 3-4 seconds of course is a big deal.

A way to beef up your privacy protections might be to look at DNS filtering. I use dnscrypt-proxy with a blocklist. You can also put trackers in your hosts file in order to route them to 0.0.0.0. [https://filterlists.com/](https://filterlists.com/) is a nice resource to start out at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Although this isn't exactly blocking, I tend to use Reader View a lot these days. I installed an extension that allows to force using it for any page, and I wish that FF made it default.

<comment><USER11> What's that extension, if you don't mind sharing?

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> A Raspberry Pi running Pi-hole[1] works really well in my household. We have 20+ devices and 2 adults, 2 kids, connecting to a combination of wifi and ethernet and all get DNS automatically assigned to the Pi-hole. I routinely see ~ 20-30% of all outgoing DNS requests blocked by the Pi-hole.

Note you don't need a Raspberry Pi to run Pi-hole, you can run it using a Docker image too.

[1] [https://pi-hole.net](https://pi-hole.net)

<comment><USER41> Does this setup block youtube ads on iPads for example?

<comment><USER42> Not in the app, but it blocks youtube ads in browser. Blocking ads in YT app is next to impossible with pihole.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'd recommend starting with Firefox, and configuring Firefox's cookie settings to always block third party cookies.

Next, if you have a good password manager that can auto-fill logins, set Firefox to delete all cookies (and everything else) when you close the browser. That way, every time you open your browser you're starting from a clean slate. I promise you'll quickly get used to logging in every time, and it won't be that hard.

Next, enable Firefox's Multi-Account Containers add-on. This basically allows you to isolate sites you commonly use into their own cookie realms. Create containers for the sites you want to isolate (Google, Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.) and set those domains to always open in that domain's container. That way, when you click on a link to Facebook it will auto open a new tab in that Facebook container.

Next, install uBlock Origin. I don't think there's a need to install Privacy Badger since you're already blocking third party cookies, but others please correct me.

Next, for websites that don't work with uBlock Origin, create a dedicated container for that domain and set to always open in that container. Then, whitelist in uBlock Origin whatever tracker on that site you need to run things properly. That way, the tracker is isolated to just that domain's container.

Overall, Firefox's Multi-Account Containers are extremely powerful for isolating site cookies and trackers. I wish they would allow you to set different cookie settings per container, so you could by default clear cookies when you close Firefox and add exceptions for specific containers, but even given that deficiency, is still the most powerful browser feature that's come out since tabs.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm also curious about this. A couple years back, I switched from 'AdBlock Plus' to 'uBlock Origin' and the difference was night and day (it blocked SO many more ads).

I've been out of the game for awhile, so I'm wondering what beats uBlock nowadays... Any recommendations?

<comment><USER45> What you noticed was not really a meaningful difference between the two extensions, but just a difference in the default ruleset subscriptions—which you can manage independently.

<comment><USER23> > not really a meaningful difference between the two extensions

That is incorrect.

uBlock Origin has filter syntax not found in ABP[1], so there will be a meaningful difference when it comes to what is blocked or not, and also there is a difference due to policy[2].

* * *

[1] [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter- syntax](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter-syntax)

[2] [https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5zk8y/why-your-ad- blocke...](https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/j5zk8y/why-your-ad-blocker- doesnt-block-those-please-turn-off-your-ad-blocker-popups)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Might not be the best setup, but this gives me minimal issues.

1/ Chrome browser with extensions - <USER2> ([https://disconnect.me/](https://disconnect.me/)), Ad blocker, and Anti- Adblock killer script with Tamper monkey.

2/ Cookies disabled by default.

3/ Any sites which refuses to function without them, open in incognito or guest window.

This gives me minimal problems. Most of the tracking is out via Disconnect, many ads are blocked automatically, and the remaining ones I block manually. I will definitely be tracked by a few websites and third-parties, but this gives me a better balance than just focusing on complete block.

To add to it, google provides you an option for not recording searches and location. Also, keep deleting cookies regularly for the ones you have enabled.

</comment><comment><USER47> I use that setup + a hosts block file, and i recently started using a pi-hole. I also use stylus to block a few custom elements and change themes for a few sites. I mostly visit news sites and some random sites.

The only issues i have had have been on pinterest. What sites do you have issues on?

<comment><USER48> In regards to using stylus to block a fwe custom elements, you can also use uBO's cosmetic filters[1] instead. Converting stylus' styles to uBO filters is easy enough if all you are using them for is hiding a few elements. I guess this has very limited use to you though if you also use stylus' themes, as it won't let you remove an extension.

[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter- syntax#...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Static-filter- syntax#cosmetic-filters)

<comment><USER47> Well thank you good to know, ill have to start experimenting to see how well it meets my needs. I mostly use stylus to to dark theme sites , remove side bars footers and headers, then expand the main article column to be 80 - 100% of the page. I really enjoy just reading an article with no distractions. (reddit is a pain)

<comment><USER48> If you want, I can help you with that some. I know more than I probably should about how uBO filters work.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> IMO uBlock Origin in Medium blocking mode is the best "less is more" setup.

[1]: "uBlock Origin in Medium mode for Lighter and Stronger Protection, with Less websites breakage and hassle"

[https://malwaretips.com/threads/ublock0rigin-in-medium- mode-...](https://malwaretips.com/threads/ublock0rigin-in-medium-mode-for- lighter-and-stronger-protection-with-less-websites-breakage-and-hassle.93311/)

[2]: Blocking mode: medium mode

[https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking- mode:-medium...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-medium- mode)

</comment><comment><USER50> Currently using Brave Browser, AdBlock Plus and Privacy Badger. For my daily usage, I only have a few sites I need to whitelist.

<comment><USER51> What does ABP and PB add to Brave? I have used Brave for several months and found it to be excellent from a speed perspective. I sort of always assumed that if it's able to go that much faster than Chrome, it must be blocking most of the nasty trackers. But perhaps I still need to add in some reinforcements?

<comment><USER52> I think ABP on top of Brave is overkill. I always used uBlock Origin on Chrome and that worked better for me than ABP. Now that I've switched to Brave, I don't have anything additional installed, and I feel like it's blocking almost all of the ads and definitely all of the tracking (in fact, Brave's anti- tracking is sometimes a bit too aggressive and blocks normal function of sites, so I have to disable it on occasion).

<comment><USER50> I'll give it a shot, I switched from Chrome so I was paranoid

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> I use a slightly customized version of the Energized Protection[1] block list, which acts as a DNS sinkhole but is really just a text file that you paste into /etc/hosts. Before that I was using Pi-Hole but I found it too cumbersome to maintain properly. (Additionally /etc/hosts entries are way easier to scan, modify and verify for non-maliciousness IMO.)

In my browser I use uMatrix since it gives me fine-grained control over what websites can do. I have very strict default policies that break most sites but you can set them to whatever you want.

Additionally I've written my own regex-based request blocker[2] for YouTube midroll- and page ads since I don't trust other, more opaque ad blocking solutions that handle those (like AdBlock Plus). It does break all other Google services I'm aware of however. (Which I could patch but I don't really mind.)

[1]: [https://github.com/EnergizedProtection/block](https://github.com/EnergizedProtection/block) [2]: [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/ytblocker](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/ytblocker)

<comment><USER54> Don't you notice a slowdown in your connection on using a 20MB hosts file?

<comment><USER53> Not at all.

I also just checked via dig if there is any slowdown and dig didn't report any. (I first queried google.com with the large hosts file, then replaced the hosts file with a default one, cleaned my DNS caches and requeried and it didn't show any speedup.)

<comment><USER53> Furthermore, I don't know how Pi-Hole works internally so I don't know if it's somehow specially optimized compared to /etc/hosts or implements any caching strategies but wouldn't introducing another server in your DNS chain slow things down more than /etc/hosts which is always present anyways?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> Besides disabling JavaScript you can put hosts file blocklists. This is much faster.

Simple corporation block list (e.g. Facebook, Google) [https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/tree/master/corporatio...](https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/tree/master/corporations)

"Someone Who Cares" list [http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/](http://someonewhocares.org/hosts/)

Ultimate Hosts Blacklist: 1 million blocked domains (once in a while you might need to unblock something) and also a bonus known hacking IP blocklist (prevents common hacking sources). [https://github.com/mitchellkrogza/Ultimate.Hosts.Blacklist](https://github.com/mitchellkrogza/Ultimate.Hosts.Blacklist)

If you have iOS device install an ad blocker app like AdBlock Fast, this plugs to practically all web sessions in the phone.

</comment><comment><USER56> Cookiebro is a great cookie manager since it supports both blacklist and whitelist and can even block single cookies. It also has a built-in Cookie Editor and Cookie Log for monitoring which sites are trying to set cookies.

[https://nodetics.com/cookiebro/](https://nodetics.com/cookiebro/)

</comment><comment><USER57> at home, [https://pi-hole.net/](https://pi-hole.net/) on the go, i use some combination of ublock, noscript, and their equivalents

</comment><comment><USER58> pi-hole over ZeroTier so I can get it wherever I am and latest Firefox with the most secure custom privacy setup. Nothing seems to break but I don't use things like Facebook and Twitter so wouldn't know about them (seems pointless to try to stay private if you're on them anyway.)

</comment><comment><USER59> PiHole + Little Snitch + JSBlocker on macOS Mojave

JSBlocker is cranked up to to the max - no inline JS, or frames or videos, etc. Then as I go about info surfing I progressively enable services that are vetted like some content delivery services, common JS frameworks, etc.

Makes the web actually tolerable.

</comment><comment><USER60> I posted this somewhere else before, so I will just repost as the answer did not change that much.

I use Safari with JS and cross-tracking disabled on macOS and iOS, Firefox with a custom user.js on elementaryOS. I enable JS only when necessary — looking at you, Help Scout.

For actual blocking, I run a Pi-hole on a VPS that connects to multiple DNSCrypt servers that I control, which block everything I want while improving privacy. Planning on replacing Pi-hole with AdGuard Home for DNS over HTTPS and DNS over TLS, since I want to have this server public at some point, for others to use.

If anyone is interested in testing, shoot me an email at firstname.lastname@example.com. No logging, DNSSEC, disk encryption, Canonical Livepatch, 24/7 monitoring and completely open source.

:)

</comment><comment><USER61> I'm using that exact setup and I can't remember when it broke anything. Now uMatrix breaks everything, but that may be for the best. If the modern web is working, you're the product.

</comment><comment><USER62> Check out the no script Firefox add on. If u go to a website that pops up a big screen saying disable ad block u can right click the screen blocking and remove it and bam website works perfect

</comment><comment><USER63> AdGuard for Android works fairly well. I may spring for the premium version.

Elsewhere I use LittleSnitch on my Mac, followed by Firefox (w/associates plugins like everyone else).

</comment><comment><USER64> Cookie Autodelete is a good one. Simple to configure what cookies you want. Doesn't get in the way while still deleting the cookies you don't opt to keep.

</comment><comment><USER65> I use a Pi-Hole and on top of that uBlock Origin. Seems a pretty nice combination. For privacy though, you need to know what level of privacy you're aiming for. At a certain point, adblockers and tracking protectors won't help and you're better of with something like Tor. For like, general daily use though, I very much recommend a Pi-Hole + uBlock Origin. Oh, and Firefox, not Chrome, for obvious privacy reasons.

</comment><comment><USER66> I use a custom built pfSense router running pfBlocker. The web broken, websites that won't function without adtracking doesn't deserve to be visited.

</comment><comment><USER67> [https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/](https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/) and AlgoVPN

</comment><comment><USER68> I use Brave browser plus adguard dns. They support dnscrypt and I've got it enabled on my OpenWrt router. Adguard does break the internet a little bit because they block those tracking links that quickly redirect you to the website that you wanted to go to. I think that the Pi-hole is a better option if you need or want to do any personalized customization to your block list.

</comment><comment><USER69> I'm not that paranoid and I don't really care about blocking ads, just the most egregious tracking. So I use Disconnect and rarely see ads or "please disable your ad blocker", and when I do see ads, I just shrug it off.

I don't know how efficient it is for tracking, but at least I have the moral high ground of going after blocking tracking, not ads in general ...

</comment><comment><USER70> so, this isn't for everyone, but I like the uBlock Origin + uMatrix combo.

This will break a lot at first, but uMatrix allows you to build a whitelist easily, and slowly over time website won't be broken half as much, and it'll be exceptionally rare for you to have to disable the whole extension whenever you want things to get working again.

<comment><USER71> The basic functionality of uMatrix is actually built into uBlock Origin. That's the setup I use. I have all 3rd party scripts and frames blocked by default and allow them on a per-site basis as required. After a while you get a sense for which domains need to be let through for a site to work

<comment><USER72> More info here: [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic- filtering:-qu...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic- filtering:-quick-guide)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER73> I'm using Firefox with uBlock Origin (+ social network blocking lists), Decentraleyes and Firefox Multi Account Containers.

I put every "big data" collector (Google, FB, etc.) in a single container using FMAC.

(And to be honest: I tried uMatrix but it was too work intensive.)

</comment><comment><USER74> Pihole unfortunately doesn't block YouTube ads anymore. Anyone found a solution for that?

</comment><comment><USER75> UBlock Origin on Mac and 1Blocker X on iOS. Pretty happy, only have to whitelist occasionally. But it's usually a surprise and I struggle until I realize one of my blockers is interfering with a site I want access to.

</comment><comment><USER76> Pihole on a raspberry pi ZeroW and ublock origin for desktop and Adblock plus for mobile.

I love ublock's ability to easily block individual elements of a page such as distracting video or moving crap.

</comment><comment><USER77> What are the sites that are not "working" with your setup?

</comment><comment><USER78> I use uBlock Origin and disable JavaScript by default, then instead of enabling those things when sites break, I choose to be more discerning about the websites I visit instead.

</comment><comment><USER79> The following doesn't break my everyday browsing:

uBlock Origin, Decentraleyes, httpseverywhere, DNS over HTTPS (currently Cloudflare, but plan to use my own resolver soon)

</comment><comment><USER80> I honestly get relatively little site breakage; so I'm just fine with that. But if you're having issues I would suggest reek anti-adblock killer.

</comment><comment> lota-putty Setups which are data sinks giving minimal info about end users are the best.

If you outsource processing/filtering, that data has commercial value eventually.

</comment><comment><USER81> I use Pi-hole on the network level, then 1Blocker as a content blocker. It blocks add and analytics trackers, and works on macOS and iOS.

</comment><comment><USER33> z_open's setup is really good. Very similar to mine. A site that has helped me learn enormously about this is privacytools.io. I designed my config based on their suggestions. There are a tons of privacy conscious alternatives to everyday software.

Many of the configs you are going to see here can be reasoned through the suggestions at their site.

</comment><comment><USER82> > What's the best setup these days for ad-blocking + privacy/tracker-blocking > that doesn't break the web?

If one doesn't want to break the web, they shouldn't block ads since most of the web is free _thanks_ to ads.

I use a blacklist approach and only block ads on those websites which clearly have no consideration for usability (popups, autoplaying videos, ...) or for privacy.

I have found that Unlock Origin is great for this approach.

<comment><USER25> > If one doesn't want to break the web, they shouldn't block ads since most of > the web is free thanks to ads.

Things you pay for with your privacy and attention aren't free.

If you visited a website and they charged your bank account without your permission, that would be theft. If you visit a website and they take your data and attention without your permission, that's also theft. I don't agree to the self-serving assumption I've somehow agreed to pay for your content on your terms simply by visiting your webpage. You don't have the moral high ground here.

I'm old enough to remember when people put content onto the internet because they wanted to, not because it brought them ad revenue. The internet was better then, and many of those old-style websites are _still_ the best sources of information on the internet. I also pay for content with money, and that content tends to be much higher-quality. If all the businesses supported by ad revenue go out of business, I'm pretty okay with that.

<comment><USER82> Then do not use those websites, if their morality doesn't suit you.

In your words, using a service without paying for it is also theft.

<comment><USER25> So it's your position that if I send an HTTP request for the public homepage of a public website to a publicly accessible server and that server sends me a response, I'm stealing that response? I'm obligated to render all the content you send me, and run all the code, just because you sent it to me?

No. _If you don 't want me to see your content, don't send it to me_.

If you want me to agree to do something before looking at your content, then send me a contract of some sort and don't send me the content until I agree to the terms of your contract. Otherwise, I haven't agreed to do anything for you just because you sent me your content.

I'll also point out that you said upthread:

"If one doesn't want to break the web, they shouldn't block ads since most of the web is free thanks to ads."

First you say it's free, then you stay I'm stealing it? Which is it, are they free or am I obligated to pay for them?

Imagine if other businesses worked this way. You hear a store is giving away books, so you go and ask them for a free book, and they say, sure, yes, the books are free! But as you're reading the book, you come to a page where it says that by accepting a free book you've agreed to also read a packet of marketing materials for the bookstore, send them a DNA sample, and spend some time mining gold for them. And no, you can't give the "free" book back, you've already started reading it so if you don't do what the bookstore demands, that would be stealing!

<comment><USER82> I guess the stuff you're talking about totally falls under my "only block ads on those websites which clearly have no consideration for usability [...] or for privacy"

I didn't say that ads are great. I said that NOT ALL ads are bad, and without them some great content couldn't exist, because most people need funds for their work and selling stuff or services sometimes isn't an option.

So if you're talking about tracking ads, I'm totally with you. But if you're talking about ALL ads, then your idea may be an utopia.

<comment><USER25> > I said that NOT ALL ads are bad

Ads are inherently trying to make me want something I don't want, so I'd say that all ads _are_ bad.

> most people need funds for their work and selling stuff or services > sometimes isn't an option.

Why is that, exactly?

Nobody has to sell ads. If you business only works because you sell ads, your business model doesn't (or shouldn't) work. I don't think that we as a society benefit from propping up businesses who produce content that is so low-quality that nobody would pay money for it.

> So if you're talking about tracking ads, I'm totally with you.

What ads _aren 't_ tracking me? There are only a few ad networks who even claim not to track you, and it's unclear how many ads those companies actually serve up--it's certainly not a large portion of the ads on the internet. And as far as I know _none_ of the ad companies out there have open-sourced their code, so whether they're telling the truth is a big open question. Advertisers certainly have lied about this in the past. Apple, for example, has been dinged for this a few times, while trying to sell itself as a privacy advocating company.

WITH evidence, click through and conversion rates are very low already, so it's pretty hard to persuade advertisers to advertise without collecting as much data about you as possible. So nearly all the ads out there are tracking ads. Even if you only accept that all _tracking_ ads are bad, the word "tracking" is only a minor technicality.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> I use PolicyControl in Chrome and it works great. I can have fine grained control over each site.

</comment><comment><USER84> PiHole with Cloudflare DNS

</comment><comment><USER85> I just use DuckDuckGo's privacy plugin, that seems to kill most ads.

</comment><comment><USER86> Pi-Hole at the Home Router.

1Bocker for Safari.

uBlock Origin for Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER87> I have a multi-tiered adblocking environment at home and abroad.

At home, I have AdGuardHome installed in a VM acting as my home network's DNS. It's pretty effective and is an alternative to PiHole. This is a first-tier filter I have while at home for all my devices. [https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome/](https://github.com/AdguardTeam/AdGuardHome/)

On the web browser, I have the AdGuard Firefox extension. [https://adguard.com/en/adguard-browser- extension/firefox/ove...](https://adguard.com/en/adguard-browser- extension/firefox/overview.html)

For my mobile phone, it's a little obtuse but relatively straightforward. I have a non-rooted Android phone. I've installed AdGuard for Android there as well. The way it works is it runs a local VPN on my phone, so all device traffic goes through a localhost proxy, which filters the DNS and unencrypted TCP traffic. For HTTPS filtering, it installs a local TLS CA to perform re- signing of websites (you can configure it to ignore EV certificates, as I have, which are more common with online banks and more secure sites). It works pretty well with exception to apps that have built-in ad platforms like Instagram. It blocks 100% of ads in apps like Wunderground, Reddit, and Firefox. [https://adguard.com/en/adguard- android/overview.html](https://adguard.com/en/adguard-android/overview.html). There's also an iOS version of the app on their website.

I have a Google Play Music subscription which comes with YouTube Premium. However, more and more YouTubers are diversifying their revenue, and have gone to completely sponsored videos with embedded ads. For sponsored clips in YouTube, SponsorBlock extension: [https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock](https://github.com/ajayyy/SponsorBlock)

Decentraleyes [sic] is another extension that I use primarily on my phone, but also at work. It allows the web browser to use local versions of CSS/JS frameworks and fonts that would otherwise have to load from CDNs that track your requests. Things like jQuery, Bootstrap, AngularJS, FontAwesome, etc. are all loaded from local copies through this extension. This benefits the user by saving bandwidth and page load time as well as stopping unwanted tracking from the remote party. [https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en- US/firefox/addon/decentraleyes/)

Don't Fuck With Paste. This extension prevents websites from disabling pasting in form fields. Extremely useful when you are using a password manager to enter form data or just copying and pasting from another location. Websites that break paste are just as bad as websites that serve ads in my book. [https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/don-t-fuck- wi...](https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/don-t-fuck-with-paste/) (it's also available for Chrome).

If you know someone or you yourself actually still use Facebook, I also highly recommend Social Fixer. Not only does it block Facebook ads and other page elements, but it lets you keep track of other events like who unfriends you. It has a lot of options and I've been using it for years. [https://socialfixer.com/](https://socialfixer.com/)

Worth checking out are NoScript extension, PiHole, and UBlock Origin. I don't use these but I've heard good things about them and everyone seems to recommend them.

</comment><comment><USER88> Nobody mentioned Waterfox?

</comment><comment><USER89> step one is definitely to get off chrome

cli or FFX + ublock origin, ABP, FB container

</comment><comment><USER90> privacytools.io

</comment><comment><USER91> Use Brave :)

</comment><comment><USER92> For Apple folks: Ka-Block! for Safari, both iOS and Mac, second Firefox Focus's content blocker on iOS. Always on VPN mobile and desktop. Always Private browsing mode everywhere. Kills 99% of germs :)

</comment><comment><USER93> I don't mess with browser extensions anymore, I just use Brave: [https://brave.com](https://brave.com)</comment>


Most inspiring 46 seconds with Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://zuvvu.com/article.php?id=48aedb8880cab8c45637abc7493ecddd Short video on Steve Job's Vision of the world <comment><USER2> Loved that. I feel this all the time. Especially building software for the 'man'. On to be funded though - or at least have time.

</comment><comment><USER3> Lulz</comment>


Microsoft to open retail stores - <AUTHOR> http://www.crunchgear.com/2009/02/12/microsoft-to-open-retail-stores/ <comment><USER2> Good luck with that Microsoft. I think the thing that drives traffic into Apple stores is that people want to experience an OS they haven't used before and see what the buzz around Apple is about. I have heard good things about Windows 7, but will the new OS bring people into the shop the way a "foreign" OS like Apple's does?

<comment><USER3> Microsoft makes a lot more then just an OS ;/

<comment><USER2> True, I suppose I was thinking too narrowly. I guess you'd have the xbox in there with some games running. And Excel spreadsheets. People could really get a kick out of plugging some numbers into one of those! And Word. Nothing like throwing together a mail merge to liven your trip to the mall.

In all seriousness though, this is to compete with Apple for hearts and minds, is it not? I just don't see what their strategy is or how it is goning to work.

I guess I don't have a lot of confidence in MS. Remember the Jerry Seinfeld ads?

<comment><USER3> Its true they're doing this because they see the success of the Apple store, and its true this is scary, but I do hope for the sake of Microsoft that they succeed :P

I say this because I'm not an Apple fan, and seeing people pay so much money for Apple's stuff makes me a tad angry, but hey kudos to Apple for their success. What I want to see is some competition to the Apple store and this is also a good opportunity for Microsoft show its true colours, which I don't think its doing presently.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


TSA officers will never catch every gun going through a checkpoint - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/synapse-blog/tsa-missed-at-least-three-firearms-in-2018-why-theyll-keep-missing-threats-in-2019-5176ea0773bf <comment><USER2> What are the chances of them catching a gun vs stealing your ipad?

</comment><comment><USER3> We should probably stop and ask if it's even important that they do. I mean, of the various terrorist incidents and other crimes that have happened involving airplanes, how many even involved guns at all?</comment>


The Poverty Just Over the Hills from Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2017/06/silicon-valley-pescadero/531423/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> California, especially Silicon Valley, wants to have its cake and eat it too. People want to "preserve the agricultural heritage" of this region, but not allow even the minimal amount of development needed to meet the basic needs of the people who embody that heritage -- because then they would have to give up the luxury of having (the illusion of) an untouched natural coastline nearby. Similarly, they want all the jobs that sustain unlimited business growth in the valley, but without the burden of having to build sufficient housing (too dense) and infrastructure (NIMBY, higher taxes) to support those workers. It just isn't sustainable.

</comment><comment><USER3> Anyone who lives in the Bay Area owes it to themselves to visit some of these areas. The Santa Cruz Mountain communities and Coastal communities are amazing, and close by.

As far as the contents of the article, well, there is an affordable housing crisis just about everywhere in and near the Bay Area. People commute from as far away as Tracy, Los Banos, Modesto, Stockton, and even Sacramento into the Bay Area. Its understandable that these beautiful, relatively close by communities are seeing housing prices quickly become unaffordable for those who live there. As someone working in Silicon Valley, I'd much sooner live in La Honda, Half Moon Bay, or the other assorted coastal and Santa Cruz mountain communities than the cities in the San Joaquin Valley.

<comment><USER4> The coastside needs another highway near Pescadero and to upgrade 91 to four lanes.

Ton of land as well that nobody will ever build on. There's talk that marajuana might turn the area around. Flowers were a huge business and I thought the revenues were higher than 140m. Still the need for housing is desperate. But it is NIMBY central and then you still have the costal commission, and various other lawsuits that will prevent any type of development. Even infill is a difficult.

It's sad. A beautiful place, a lot of inaccessible areas (by design) and a no growth mentality.

<comment><USER5> The demand for housing is high enough that agriculture is getting squeezed - high rents make labor cost more than growers can afford. Details covered in the report TFA mentions: [https://flipflashpages.uniflip.com/2/88537/377983/pub/html5....](https://flipflashpages.uniflip.com/2/88537/377983/pub/html5.html)

It is the same problem as the rest of the Bay Area - every place wants the tax revenue of businesses and jobs, and expects workers to commute, but no place wants the expense of housing and schools - or roads.

Nimby, yes, but also permits: proposals to address a recurring road flooding problem near Pescadero needed ~12 approvals or permits from ~9 agencies. See page 17 of: [http://sanmateorcd.org/PescaderoFlooding/Pescadero%20Rd_Buta...](http://sanmateorcd.org/PescaderoFlooding/Pescadero%20Rd_Butano_Flood_Solutions_Final%20Report%202014.pdf)

The SR 92 traffic is very commute dependent. Prohibiting left turns during commute hours might help, but the 92 West to SR 1 North (2 lanes to 1) would still be an afternoon bottleneck. Widening 92 to 3 lanes, and running 2 East/ 1 West in the AM, and reversing that in the afternoon might be a possibility.

What endpoints did you have in mind for "another highway near Pescadero"? I can't find a good land use map for the South Coast at the moment, but finding a technically feasible alignment might be challenging, even before the permit/Nimby/EIR/lawsuit rodeo gets started. There are a _lot_ of parks & open space areas in the hills.

<comment><USER4> Well make highway 1 four lanes as well.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why aren't cell carriers liable for spam calls? - <AUTHOR> If I get a spam call, the originator of that call is theoretically liable - typically, some VoIP centre in India. Of course, they are impossible to track down.
Why not shift this liability to the last mile? If my carrier connects me with a spam call, they have to pay me the $500 fine per violation.
They could then have voluntary agreements with whoever they are peering with to pay the fine, sort of like how the financial system works. It would then cascade until it reaches a carrier who doesn't care, who would then be liable for the fines.
So:
1. I get a phone call. My carrier is AT&T.
2. AT&T got it from carrier C1.
3. C1 got it from carrier C2.
4. C2 got it from "VoIP Solutions Inc." of the Cayman Islands.
5. VoIP Solutions Inc. keeps poor records or whatever.
Then,
1. I ask AT&T to give me $100. They either do it immediately or lose their license.
2. AT&T asks carrier C1 to give them $100. If they don't, that's AT&T's problem, but they can depeer them.
3. C1 in turn asks C2 to pay them $100, and they too pay up (or lose their peering with C1).
4. C2 asks the Cayman corporation. They refuse.
5. C2 absorbs the loss and fire VoIP Solutions Inc as a peer.
The final link will always be a carrier with poor control over who is connecting to their network - in other words, enabling crime.
This is perfectly incentive-compatible, and it would have worked for e-mail spam too back in the day. It's quite trivial to implement. Why isn't it ever suggested? <comment><USER2> Spammers make many fiber to copper to fiber connections. Every call essentially comes from a black box and every carrier is complicit.

So if you make a "last mile" fine, basically every carrier will be charged "evenly". This plan wouldn't have the incentive structure needed to change carrier behavior.

This video explains it nicely . [1]

[1] [https://youtu.be/WOAapu- XJl8?list=LLfTvbJseqag4h_gPkk1q58g&t...](https://youtu.be/WOAapu- XJl8?list=LLfTvbJseqag4h_gPkk1q58g&t=82)

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, carriers would have to block the black boxes and only allow the good networks on. AT&T can peer with Sprint or T-Mobile, but the shady carriers that lets fiber terminate into copper without asking questions have to do due diligence or get cut off.

It wouldn't be evenly distributed. Your carrier could pass on the fine at least a few hops deep, until it reaches whoever connected the shady VoIP company to the real network. In the video's example, it would be Google Voice, the owner of the hacked VoIP systems' uplink provider, or the anonymous online call services. It's rare that the spammers use payphones or prepaid cards.

Even if it's the same situation as with e-mail spam, this would also be a workable solution for that problem.

Say I have a G-Mail account. I get spam from firstname.lastname@example.com. Now G-Mail have to pay me the fine, and Hotmail have to pay GMail the fine, and X has to pay Hotmail the fine. Sure, they can't track down X, but Hotmail have to pay up for letting bad actors on their network.

We could also generalize this to BGP, of course. I get a port 22 brute-force attempt to my server, I contact my ISP, they pay me. They contact whoever peered them, who pays, until we get to China, where some local ISP says that a PC on their network was hacked. Too bad. Either the Chinese ISP pays up, or they get depeered by their CN <-> HK ISP, or they get depeered by their uplink, and so on.

Here is an example traceroute to the Chinese ecommerce site taobao.com from Cogent. In my example, the fine would travel down this list until it finds someone unwilling to pay up, who then gets depeered.

      traceroute to 188.8.131.52 (188.8.131.52), 30 hops max, 60 byte packets
       1  gi0-1-1-19.5.agr21.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (18.104.22.168)  0.693 ms  0.702 ms
       2  be2605.ccr41.jfk02.atlas.cogentco.com (22.214.171.124)  0.741 ms  0.759 ms
       3  be2806.ccr41.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (126.96.36.199)  6.397 ms be2807.ccr42.dca01.atlas.cogentco.com (184.108.40.206)  6.538 ms
       4  be2113.ccr42.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (18.104.22.168)  17.340 ms be2112.ccr41.atl01.atlas.cogentco.com (188.8.131.52)  17.461 ms
       5  be2687.ccr41.iah01.atlas.cogentco.com (18.104.22.168)  31.636 ms  31.606 ms
       6  be2928.ccr21.elp01.atlas.cogentco.com (126.96.36.199)  47.240 ms be2927.ccr21.elp01.atlas.cogentco.com (220.127.116.11)  47.095 ms
       7  be2930.ccr32.phx01.atlas.cogentco.com (188.8.131.52)  55.345 ms be2929.ccr31.phx01.atlas.cogentco.com (188.8.131.52)  55.417 ms
       8  be2931.ccr41.lax01.atlas.cogentco.com (220.127.116.11)  66.946 ms  67.307 ms
       9  be3271.ccr41.lax04.atlas.cogentco.com (220.127.116.11)  67.073 ms  67.072 ms
      10  22.214.171.124 (188.8.131.52)  69.608 ms  69.608 ms
      11  126.96.36.199 (188.8.131.52)  73.785 ms  73.790 ms
      12  184.108.40.206 (188.8.131.52)  206.204 ms  206.594 ms
      13  22.214.171.124 (184.108.40.206)  200.253 ms *
      14  22.214.171.124 (220.127.116.11)  206.719 ms 188.8.131.52 (188.8.131.52)  202.714 ms
      15  184.108.40.206 (18.104.22.168)  224.543 ms 126.96.36.199 (188.8.131.52)  219.260 ms
      16  126.96.36.199 (126.96.36.199)  222.636 ms 22.214.171.124 (188.8.131.52)  230.753 ms
      17  18.104.22.168 (22.214.171.124)  233.093 ms *
      18  184.108.40.206 (188.8.131.52)  237.192 ms 126.96.36.199 (126.96.36.199)  213.441 ms
      19  18.104.22.168 (22.214.171.124)  204.868 ms 22.214.171.124 (220.127.116.11)  220.342 ms
      20  18.104.22.168 (18.104.22.168)  213.268 ms 220.127.116.11 (188.8.131.52)  197.170 ms
      21  * *
      22  * *
      23  * *
      24  * *
      25  * *
      26  * *
      27  * *
      28  * *
      29  * *
      30  * *

<comment><USER2> sadly, it is not that simple to determine who is a "good network". Every carrier lets fiber route into copper.

Your logic would work, but it is a lot of work for many entities to perform. The simple fact is that neither you nor I can control what the carriers choose to do.

You'd have to design a network from the bottom up if you wanted to enact these kinds of changes.

You're clearly interested in solving this spam problem and I admire the thought you've put into it. I'd advise that you focus on solutions that can be scaled more simply. If you think of all of the "spam calls" that happen, you'd come to the conclusion that your traceroute would happen 10s of billions of times a year.

My advice is to think of ways that don't require the cooperation of multiple entities.

<comment><AUTHOR> > Every carrier lets fiber route into copper.

Indeed, they'd have to stop doing that or require them to put up a security deposit.

> Your logic would work, but it is a lot of work for many entities to perform. > The simple fact is that neither you nor I can control what the carriers > choose to do.

No, this should be required by law. The only one who has to be bound by it is the last mile carrier - the rest is done as a voluntary agreement. If they don't sign it, they can't route calls into the US.

It could be trivially automated. Carrier A sends the message "pay us $X or we depeer you" to carrier B whenever they do not like what they got from carrier B. Their computer system evaluates whether the fine is worth continued peering with A. If it is, they pay, else they don't. This takes milliseconds. There is no need for a human to evaluate the evidence because there is no evidence needed.

Naive implementation:

      def accept_fine(this_fine, value_of_continued_peering, tot_fines):
          return (value_of_continued_peering > (tot_fines + this_fine))

<comment><USER2> The US infrastructure is partially made of copper. It would be very expensive (but doable) to change that.

Laws, carriers, whatever. Doesn't make a difference, we still have no say over enacting your suggestions. We can sit here and theorize all day about what may work, but if you cannot implement or test your solutions in the real world, what's the point?

That's why I suggested coming up with solutions that do not require the participation of large entities. Although I am HIGHLY biased, since I'm working on a peer to peer solution.

<comment><AUTHOR> What do you mean? You would continue to use the copper infrastructure, but fibre connections in to it would be regulated. A serious ISP could still do them, but one that just allows random people to make an account wouldn't be allowed to connect.

So, Verizon could peer their copper network with Sprint's copper network and connect them over fibre, but if Verizon would accept fibre peering with random VoIP providers Sprint wouldn't peer with them because they would be liable for fines.

<comment><USER2> Let's just assume you've described the perfect solution.

Now, how do you make it actually happen?

What steps can you take to go beyond making theoretical comments on a online forum, to having a working experimental version handling calls on my Android phone?

<comment><AUTHOR> It would have to be signed into law, as the title of the thread implies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> We all hate them... But this year we are getting some action.

At the end of 2019, President Trump signed the TRACED Act into law allowing the Federal Communications Commission to protect consumers from robocall scammers.

[https://thehill.com/policy/technology/476335-trump-signs- law...](https://thehill.com/policy/technology/476335-trump-signs-law-to-cut- down-on-robocalls)

And for something funny, check out youtuber "Kitboga". This guy pranks the scammers.

<comment><USER4> The German equivalent [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Network_Agency](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Network_Agency) has such power. They receive 200.000 complains per year (nice accessible online form) and force providers to block numbers. Also if it turns out to be fraud, e.g. you made a contract with the fraudser over the phone, then the contract is void and the company has no legal standing to demand money. If they operated a premium number (calling back costs you money) the provider has to void the amount. Pretty solid, I haven't received a spam call in 5, maybe 10 years. Of course still plenty others do, thus the 200.000 complains per year, and foreign numbers can't be blocked or tracing the calls leads nowhere. For the US it might be a great improvement.</comment></comment>


Ask YC: what inspired you to develop technology - <AUTHOR>

Maybe because father's day is around the corner...
I was reflecting on some wondrous moments in my life that have led me to here in my career, what I do as a tech visionary.  I realized that working along side my Dad helping him take steel rods, engine parts and create a Dragster to race over the weekend at Sears Point, CA made a huge impact on how I see and communicate technology with my business partner.  I also was fortunate in working with my Grandfather in the fruit orchards.  Understand the patterns of agriculture.  Each of these life experiences has influenced my work in technology.
I'm curious, what inspired other hackers. <comment><USER2> I just think it's fascinating how technology could drastically impact our lives. I now can't imagine a world without Google.

And I want to be part of that change!

</comment><comment><USER3> My experience is the exact opposite of yours, Donna.

I never spent much time with my parents or grandparents and have no understanding of what any of them did for a living. (I can name their occupations, but that's it.)

I had a lonely childhood and was bored to death in school. I found solace in art and music, and later, in computers. I could be creative, I could have control, and I could build cool stuff without anyone else's permission, approval, or participation.

Most of the "wondrous moments in my life" have come _after_ becoming a hacker; so in a way, I'm having the childhood I missed now.

</comment><comment><USER4> If I'm coding, it's almost always to build a tool that makes my life easier. Nothing dramatic or inspiring here.

</comment><comment><USER5> Commodore 64 Basic. Thanks, Bill.</comment>


Amazon Employee in Seattle Tests Positive for Coronavirus - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekwire.com/2020/amazon-employee-seattle-tests-positive-coronavirus/ <comment><USER2> Starting to seem like Coronavirus has been in Seattle for much longer than they thought.

Keep an eye on Seattle to see what's coming for other American cities!

<comment><USER3> Also announced a USPS package sorting worker in Seattle has been infected. Feels like there is a massive shoe about to drop in US akin to South Korea / Italy spread.

[https://nypost.com/2020/03/01/usps-worker-tests-positive- for...](https://nypost.com/2020/03/01/usps-worker-tests-positive-for- coronavirus-in-seattle-area/)

<comment><USER4> Yes, but it will take time because the acceleration is proportional to the amount present until it reaches a carrying capacity and burns itself out, or it slows in deceleration because of large quarantines / isolation orders. The problems are many:

1\. The fed/state/county/local officials are placing prevention of panic ahead of telling the truth. NY Gov. Andrew Cuomo said yesterday, with De Blasio next to him, that it's "only 2x more dangerous than the flu," when it's 20x-50x deadlier than influenza (because each flu strain differs).

2\. Like a third-world country, the CDC is hiding information about tests performed and negative results.

3\. The CDC is actively thwarting doctors from ordering SARS-cov-2 tests because of overly-restrictive PUI criteria that don't allow discretion of the doctor, so it's a virtual certainty people with COVID-19 are being told that they don't have it because some pinhead bureaucrat said so and they're going around in public infecting people before they come down with what they may assume is a bad flu.

4\. COVID-19 takes a number of days to manifest itself, and it appears that people are contagious before they have symptoms, so they spread it unwittingly to potentially many others because it's so infectious.

5\. Mild and moderate cases of COVID-19 won't be tested and reported, giving a false sense of the situation.

6\. People who died before the SARS-cov-2 test was available haven't all been tested. There were several bodies that tested positive today in Washington state adding to the death count, but not every morgue is going to do this. Plus, it's possible many such bodies were released for burial and will never be tested.

7\. It takes weeks to a month for recognition phase (the current situation in the US as of writing) to give way to initiation and acceleration phase of pandemic. I figure, based on the current trends, the US is about _2 weeks ± 4 days_ away from acceleration.[a, b] But, by that time, it's too late for many people because they were already infected by numerous infected people who weren't showing symptoms.

8\. The poor and working class rarely have sick days and they can't afford to miss work, so they'll work anyhow. The prevalence of "F everyone, I have to take care of myself first" is what happens when people aren't paid living wages and guaranteed sick days off. And so, more people will be infected and more people will die because of greed.

\----

Then, once a country begins pandemic acceleration, it may last about a month ± 2 weeks before the number of infected drops enough that it's no longer pervasive. [a]

a. Based on China's Wuhan epidemic curve as a rough, approximate model.

b. Five phases of pan/epidemics: investigation, recognition, initiation, acceleration, deceleration</comment></comment></comment>


iPad 2 wasn't Apple's big March 2nd announcement - <AUTHOR> http://www.betanews.com/joewilcox/article/iPad-2-wasnt-Apples-big-March-2nd-announcement/1299175274 <comment><USER2> Great article with a unique viewpoint. Tech blogs, geeks like us and pundits are obsessing over RAM and minute details of the spec sheet while consumers will be playing with the new software, trying on Smart Covers and imagining an iPad 2 as a fashion accessory.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> His 3rd point, regarding color, is to me one of the most compelling reasons Apple maintains such a large market share of portable products over time. No one likes to own the exact same thing everyone else has and so by using color to differentiate, consumers can still feel unique when purchasing mass- produced items.

Has any other company used color in such a way? (the only example that comes to my mind is the original Pokemon games)

<comment><USER3> > Has any other company used color in such a way? (the only example that comes > to my mind is the original Pokemon games)

Nintendo seems to, I have seen their DS units in a lot of colors. Related to Apple and the iPod, SanDisk offers the Sansa in a range of colors. It can be a challenge though, as Apple showed with the mythical white iPhone 4.

<comment><USER4> The Gamecube was also released in a range of colours. [http://www.gamecubeconsole.info/wp- content/uploads/2010/07/G...](http://www.gamecubeconsole.info/wp- content/uploads/2010/07/GameCube-Console-colors.jpg)

<comment><USER5> Nintendo has been doing this kind of individualisation-through-colours for a long while in both their hand-helds[1] and consoles[2].

[1] [http://www.dijitalfix.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2009/04/ga...](http://www.dijitalfix.com/blog/wp- content/uploads/2009/04/gameboy02.jpeg)

[2] [http://www.oldskool.tv/images/OLDSKOOL/november/nintendo_64_...](http://www.oldskool.tv/images/OLDSKOOL/november/nintendo_64_image.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Absolutely spot on! Around the time the iPad1 launched, I told one of my close friends "imagine GarageBand on this!" and it is absolutely thrilling to see such a lovely implementation come to the iPad2. Using the accelerometer to detect the force with which you hit the piano keys is really clever!

<comment><USER7> I just watched the video from the event, and as someone who likes to record music once in a while, Garageband looks completely amazing. As it is, most of the time when I have spare time to spend on making songs I'm not around all the equipment that I need to do that. If it holds up to the promise of the video, it looks like I can go on vacation and just bring the ipad and a guitar, and I can record full song ideas with basic drumming, chords and singing parts, arrange different parts etc.

This looks like it'll be huge for song writers, really. Sure, an acoustic guitar and a simple four-track recorder does the same basic thing, but this is like a mini pro tools. Can't wait to play with it.

<comment><USER8> I agree it looks stellar. But as a developer of songwriting applications ( I believe the "Smart Instruments" are a basic implementation of our ideas ) my heart dropped when I saw the price. $4.99 for this amount of content is amazing, but also impossible for smaller devs to compete with head on.

With that in mind I hope shortly after release Apple publishes some sort of easy way to export directly to Garage Band so that more niche products can ride the coat tails.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Speaking of Apple polish, why is the cover choice between "leather" (luxury car seats, fashionable gloves, sexy clothing) and "polyurethane" (chemical plant, medical inspection, man made, dystopia).

Why haven't they given it a pleasing, desirable, luxury name?

<comment><USER5> People who want a COLOURFUL!!! case don't really care what the material is called. It's colourful! People who want the leather case care very much that it is leather.

Similarly people buying the white Macbook don't care what 'polycarbonate' means, but to the Macbook Pro buyer, 'precision aluminium unibody', 'edge-to- edge glass' and previously 'titanium' are/were selling points.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> No offense intended, but my first impression on the headline was that it was probably announcing that Steve Jobs health concerns are concerns no more, after he presided over the launch. That to me is a big announcement considering that a lot of investors and apple product loyalists have a sense of urgency when it comes the apple chief's health.

</comment><comment><USER11> > _"One measure of the suite's success is journalism school."_

Journalism and other departments within US universities push Apple products because of the high profits those schools earn on Macs and iPods sold through on campus bookstores to incoming freshman using their student (and parental) loans.

<comment><USER12> Yes, it has to be that. It can't be that they are the best tool for the job.

<comment><USER13> Not sure why the gp got down voted, I think his point is valid, albeit wrong. Student bookstores sell computers, hardware and software at a student discount - my uni sold macbooks at a $100 discount from retail price. This stuff is sold (or sometimes even given away) for the purpose of locking students into a platform.

For example, my uni gave away ms software, like visual studio, to try to encourage adoption, train the students to use ms tools (so when they graduate, they are more likely to find a job using ms tools), and to thereby lock us into their platform. It used to be Sun, then MS. Apple is now doing it, and whoever comes after Apple will do it...

<comment><USER14> I think pretty much every company on the planet has student discounts. It's nothing special, it's nothing specific about Apple. (And it makes, economically speaking, a lot of sense: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination>)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The biggest takeaway for me from the event was Steve Jobs

<comment><USER16> You got to take away Steve Jobs?!? :O :D

<comment><USER11> The new thinner lighter version.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Great article. I never thought about the colors. I always chose black and wondered about the other colors. Suddenly it all makes sense.</comment>


Ask HN: Did I hit the Programming Wall? - <AUTHOR> Hi!
I am currently teaching myself programming in Python 2. I attempted to learn programming in Java before, however, I ALWAYS hit the brick wall at OOP. I understand the abstract concepts, however, calling classes and functions (like calling a variable in Python 2 from a class in a imported file, etc.). I just had never understood OOP. I understand literally everything else, like functions, variables, debugging, etc. Any advice for me?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> functional programming

try elixir

<comment><USER2> ps. Dave Thomas has an excellent book on elixir programming.

please read in chapter one the section titled:

"Programming Should Be About Transforming Data"

it addresses point by point your and his concern with object oriented programming. you will be amazed. you might be able to read that part on amazon kindle preview.

Thomas, Dave. Programming Elixir 1.3: Functional |> Concurrent |> Pragmatic |></comment></comment>


E-mail from Bill (1994) - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1994/01/10/e-mail-from-bill <comment><USER2> >"BILL GATES, aged thirty-eight, is one of the richest men in the country—the richest in 1992, and the second richest, after the investor Warren Buffett, in 1993, with a fortune of six billion one hundred and sixty million dollars, according to Forbes. "

Very strange that only just 20-25 years ago, the richest people in the world were "only" worth <7,000,000,000

<comment><USER3> ~12 billion inflation-adjusted, but your point stands.

<comment><USER4> How do you work out 'inflation adjusted' numbers? I've always wondered.

<comment><USER5> The Fed provides estimates on the devaluation of the dollar over time. You'll find all sorts of other well known institutions and individuals that provide their own formulas however. The spectrum is pretty wide, from those that agree with the Fed's numbers, to people that think the Fed is intentionally significantly understating inflation.

<comment><USER6> Though it must be said that the latter are cranks who are impossible to take seriously if you look into their claims - basically an MBA who went off the rail with conspiracy theories...

<comment><USER7> Not just cranks. There are quite a lot of choices as to how you calculate a price index and politics can easily enter in to which choice is taken. I'm not so up on the US index but the UK one tends to weight everyday stuff like the price of a loaf of bread in the supermarket but try coming to London and going to a trendy restaurant and staying in a nice hotel and you'll find those have gone up well above the official rate of inflation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a lot of interesting story in this article, but this sentence caught my eye:

" Our email is completely secure. . . ."

Why would Bill Gates say that? Surely he knew their e-mails were going plain text through a host of providers, network operators and mail relays, or weren't they? Apparently PGP is from 1991, but they are using msmail (judging from the headers) so I don't reckon they were using that.

The movie "Hackers" would come out about a year after that. The cyberpunk genre had been going on a full decade, did Bill really believe no one could read their e-mail? Of course Bill knew about security issues, but was it just not on his mind? Obviously it's not very smart to talk about the sort of thing that is a fundamental threat to business of internet technology to a journalist, but to state outright that it was completely secure seems to be a be going a bit far.

I always wondered why it took so long for Microsoft to develop a proper security story, or even properly developing anything Internet related properly in that time. They could have been twice the company they are now if they took it as serious as this article makes it look Bill took it. Microsoft wasn't anything on the Internet but the company who built your OS and let your mark up your documents for the next ten years after this article.

<comment><USER9> Read the sentence right before that one where he says no one else reads his email. The implication is that he doesn't have an assistant screening his messages. His email is completely secure in the sense that it's a private one on one conversation, which is to say it's as private as a quiet conversation in a coffee shop or at a park for example. I don't think he is implying it's necessarily secure from hackers and eavesdroppers.

<comment><USER10> Or he was just wrong.

Maybe the simplest understanding of his statements is that he simply didn't know of what he spoke. Or maybe he was telling a fib. Either of those two options seem more likely than some convoluted debate as to the common understanding of the word "secure".

<comment><USER9> Well, you could assume he meant "secure" in the same sense as many of us in the industry would interpret it today and conclude that he is a dimwit. Or you could read the sentence right before which gives the context for the use of the word "secure". Reading into any more than that is pure speculation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Around the same time, I read an essay in Wired magazine by Paul Saffo, who is a director of the Institute for the Future, a think tank in Menlo Park, which argued that the information highway is going to cause a flowering of personal expression not seen in our society since the sixties, and that when this happens (maybe in five years) people whom we now think of as computer nerds will have the same hipness that in retrospect we now assign to beatniks."

Neat, he predicted the emergence of the hipster.

<comment><USER12> Did they? It seems like people are only interested in the surface of tech, the sexy acquisitions, the new Steve Jobs movie, the new iPhone. And then I try to bring up why password requirements are security theatre and people's eyes gloss over. I've taken to telling people my job description of "works at tech company" and leave it at that.

<comment><USER13> The anti-password sentiment I've seen sometimes is annoying. They serve their purpose just fine. The worst you get is that password leaks and such happen sometimes and people forget and have to reset them sometimes.

<comment><USER3> He said 'password requirements' not 'passwords.' I'm assuming he meant the nonsense wherein "you must have a number, lower and upppercase letter, symbol, and a demon-summoning pentagram in your password."

[https://xkcd.com/936/](https://xkcd.com/936/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's amazing to get a 90s perspective on the "information highway". Besides advanced home automation, self-driving cars wonder what types of immature technology we're working on today will just be mainstream in the next 2 decades.

<comment><USER15> I was a kid in the 90's so I remember keenly the unmistakeable technological shift. People started saying "information highway" an awful lot. And I remember the first time me and my friend used dial up networking to play Doom 2, and I could see his character's movements on my screen in realtime, and I thought, "I am living in the future."

<comment><USER16> wasn't it "information SUPER-highway"? :)

<comment><USER17> When I was in 6th grade (~1993), someone's dad came to talk about our class about the "superhighway of information" or the "information highway". It always bugged me that he didn't say "information superhighway".

<comment><USER18> It always bugged me _EVERY_ time _ANYONE_ every used the term "Information Superhighway" \-- and still does.

Marketing people make me want to puke -- that's where terminology like that comes from. Just call it the internet and be done with it already!

Oh, and get off my lawn! xD

<comment><USER19> Does anyone still use "Information Superhighway" anymore? I think most people just say "internet".

However in the 90's that analogy helped many non-technical people understand how to think about the internet. Back then did you have a better analogy?

BTW, as a marketing guy, it always bugs me every time anyone uses the term "marketing" when they mean "advertising". I'm not referring to you/your post but rather a general trend on HN and elsewhere.

<comment><USER20> When I throw darts at marketing, I mean marketing, not advertising. I know the difference. Nice try though, marketing guy.

<comment><USER19> As long as you know the difference you can throw all the darts you want.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> "I like Bill. Bill is a smart guy. But I think the problem is that Microsoft has caught the bunny. You know, when you go to the dog track they have that mechanical bunny that makes the dogs run? Well, sometimes a dog is so fast he catches the bunny and then the other dogs don't run anymore. That's the situation in the software business today: Bill has caught the bunny. I admire Bill for catching the bunny, but now we can't have a race. He ought to be loosed from the bunny, to give the other dogs a chance." Scott McNealy, the head of Sun Microsystems (Interesting analogy with zero sum game mindset...)

</comment><comment><USER22> It made me smile that I was reading this in digital form on a computer that fits in my pocket and is always connected to the "information highway".

<comment><USER23> Still has the same connection issues with telecos being asses just like then though. Or is your connection reliable?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > "The pioneers of personal computers including Jobs, Kapor, Lampson, Roberts, > Kaye, are all great people but I don't think any of us will merit an entry > in a history book."

I don't think that will prove true for Mr. Gates or Mr. Jobs.

<comment><USER25> The list is interesting. Jobs or Gates, of course. Lampson, HNers will probably know from his important CS research such as on distributed systems - he'll be mentioned in those sort of history books, although not generalized ones. Kapor: I have to think for a while before I can finally pin him as 'Mitch Kapor, inventor of the spreadsheet'. Extremely important to business and economics and the modern world, almost as important as double-entry bookkeeping, but I don't think Luca Pacoli or double-entry books are mentioned in most history books so probably not. 'Kaye', I have no idea, unless it's a typo for '[Alan] Kay', in which case he could well be in the history books. Finally, 'Roberts'; I had no idea and had to ask Google, and apparently he's the Altair guy, Ed Roberts. The Altair doesn't seem all that important so I could see history books skipping over it and him. So of the 6 (including Gates himself), 3 probably would be, 2 will be in more specialized histories, and all would be featured in the most detailed histories or encyclopedias (indeed, _all_ of them have Wikipedia entries).

<comment><USER6> > but I don't think Luca Pacoli or double-entry books are mentioned in most > history books so probably not

They did in mine - important factor for the wealth of the Medicis and the northern Italian city states around the 14th/15th century as well as the Hansa league later on. Though I went to school in a European country so YMMV.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Oh, boy, those compuserve numbers were annoying to exchange! I found them difficult to memorize and didn't always have pen and paper around.

</comment><comment><USER27> The amazing thing was that as late as 1994, Bill Gates had a public email address.

<comment><USER28> I'm not surprised; I'd be more surprised if it actually went to /dev/null at this point (as opposed to being screened and possibly forwarded for a response.)

As late as 2011, Steve Jobs kept the same public email address: firstname.lastname@example.com. (There's a collection at [http://stevemail.tumblr.com](http://stevemail.tumblr.com)) Some of the replies came within minutes of the originating message, so I wouldn't be surprised if he mostly dealt with the incoming mail himself, as opposed to having it pre-screened. None of those messages are near the length of the Bill Gates replies.

<comment><USER5> Bezos and Mark Cuban both famously have public email addresses. Cuban actually reads his own email, I suspect Bezos has an assistant screen the public email at this point (he claimed recently on stage at a conference that he reads all of his email, color me skeptical).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > The information highway will be the opposite of this—more like the library > of congress but with an easy way to find things.

I thought this line was interesting, seeing as this was before the advent of Google. Bill knew that there needed to be an easy way to find things. MSN search started around the same time as Google, but I believe they used Inktomi rather than develop their own crawler.

</comment><comment><USER30> Reminds me of Mark Zuckerberg.

<comment><USER31> You're not the only one.

>Not long ago, Paul Saffo, of the Institute for the Future, said to me, "Bill Gates is an introvert. He is not the kind of person you want building the social network of the future."

Looks like Saffo got his wish, Gates didn't build it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> There are so many gems in this text :) For example:

> Designing software—or "writing code," as people in the trade say

<comment><USER33> I liked Bill's advice on how to speed up meetings:

"Every time you say 'thirteen,' I'll know that what that means is that all you want to do is what the customer wants. And for every one of these other gibberish slogans, we can also get little numbers. There are a lot of small integers available. We'll just tighten these meetings up. You know, Cannavino, if you want to talk about how you're going to save the U.S. educational system, okay, we've heard that story. That's a good fifteen-minute one. That can be number eleven."

<comment><USER34> Pointers. I like it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> >In Japan, a comic book about the adventures of a boy modelled on Bill Gates is called "Young Jump."

My curiosity has been piqued. Does anyone have a link?

</comment><comment><USER36> When E-mail was written with a capital E - those were the days!

<comment><USER37> And a hyphen! :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> > Sender: firstname.lastname@example.com

Now we know Bill Gates's email address.</comment>


Ask HN: Google Search spam solutions - <AUTHOR>

After reading http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/12/search-still-sucks/ I couldn't help think up a quick fix Google could try, so I'm interested in why this wouldn't work / hasn't been tried yet:
GMail has a 'Report Spam' button, why shouldn't Google search? I'd be happy to log in using my google account before being able to use the spam button, as I'm guessing this would be required to prevent misuse (e.g. has to be reported as spam by n people before affecting a result's rank).
Am I missing something as to why that wouldn't work? <comment><USER2> They have an extension that gives you a report spam option in search results.

Matt Cutts said somewhere that these _do_ go to people.

[https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/efinmbicabejjhja...](https://chrome.google.com/extensions/detail/efinmbicabejjhjafeidhfbojhnfiepj)

</comment><comment><USER3> Because people would make a macro that would "report to spam" their competition from different IP's. It would be a cluster F __*.</comment>