Let ICANN know if you support .com price hikes - <AUTHOR> https://www.internetcommerce.org/comment-com/ <comment><USER2> I kind of want the price to increase, to combat domain squatting. That said, I'd much prefer it if the money went to some charity instead of the ICANN.

<comment><USER3> Squatting can be easily prevented by reclaiming domain names without refund when the domain names have not been used or used illegitimately for more than a fixed threshold period of time.

Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction can be deemed illegitimate use.

<comment><USER4> > _Parking pages or any other use that intends to work around the restriction > can be deemed illegitimate use._

My personal domain doesn't even have an A record in the DNS, only an MX record because use it for all my email. By your definition that would be an "illegitimate use" and I should lose my domain...

<comment><USER5> Would it be an undue burden to require people like you to put up a page saying, "This is my personal domain which I use primarily for email."?

Can we just agree that nobody is posting the full proposed set of rules on HN, and nobody is trying to take away your domain?

Every time this solution to domain squatting is proposed, someone counters with your objection as if it's a huge problem with the idea, but it just isn't. Surely you can imagine a set of rules that shuts down a large number of domain squatters but allows your use case.

<comment><USER6> How do you write rules that allow "this is my personal domain that I use for email" and not squatting? Can't the squatters just say something along those lines?

<comment><USER7> If the squatters have to do that, then their squatting has no value to them. The point of squatters is to eventually sell the domain and if all the domains look "in use" (so no parking allowed), the amount of people sending offers will fall.

<comment><USER8> The "domain squatting" meme is intellectually dishonest and based on envy. People who buy zillions of domains must be allowed if people are allowed to buy as many stamps, boxes of paper, cars, jet skis or houses as they wish. It's called freedom, property rights and being consistent. If you want one of their domains that they registered and paid for before you so badly, inquire if they will sell it; if they choose to or not is their choice, and you are not entitled to it simply because you want it.

<comment><USER9> Domains are real estate. Periodic land reform / redistribution is a staple of human history, when things become patently unbalanced for society as a whole.

<comment><USER10> Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole? What does that even mean? Should everyone be able to get a short dictionary word .com domain?

<comment><USER9> _> Is domain distribution patently unbalanced for society as a whole?_

Not entirely yet, or it would have already entered the political debate. However, in many ways the proliferation (and success) of alternative TLDs indicates that there is an issue. You shouldn't have to use an Indian Ocean domain because .com is squatted to the wazoo.

We have lived through the land-grab era, sooner or later the redistribution era will come.

 _> Should everyone be able to get a short dictionary word .com domain?_

Considering there are less than a million 4-ascii-letter combinations, obviously not. But there _could_ be more stringent criteria for assignment and revocation, like limits per-company and per-individual, escalating costs in a way that hoarding becomes uneconomical, banning parking (which is absolutely doable, you just need an actual human judge), and so on.

<comment><USER10> The redistribution is happening every day, every day people are buying land- grab era domains they can extract value from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> At this point, I believe that even if the population of 90% of the planet were to legitimately oppose this, ICANN would ignore it anyway.

Not that it isn't worth a shot, but I have become highly cynical of the entire organisation.

</comment><comment><USER12> Isn't it odd that prices are going UP instead of down ,even though they flooded the market with tlds? The issue is obviously their monopoly, and it needs to be broken down. Petitions are petty

Actually what would be even better is if browsers started supporting ENS or some similar competing name system

<comment><USER13> Agreed.

Handshake[1] is another such similar competing name system that specifically is aimed at taking down ICANN's monopoly - which they've abused time and time again.

[1] [https://www.handshake.org](https://www.handshake.org)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> No one likes a price increase, but 30% increase to ~$10/year over four years is not making my blood boil.

<comment><USER15> I'm not opposed to it if needed. This part is the one that convinced me it shouldn't happen right now,

> $7.85 of your registration or renewal payment goes to Verisign. The actual > cost to Verisign to provide the expensive infrastructure and the management > of the registry has been estimated at between $2.50 to $2.90 per domain name > per year. Other registries have said they can offer the same services for > cheaper.

I'm wondering why the ICANN wouldn't simply go to another company that would provide them the same service at that same rate. Is Verisign innovating somehow?

<comment><USER16> "Has been estimated" by others?

I'm not a fan of government-style lowest-bidder procurement for something as critical as .com. Among other things, I assume this involves operating the .com DNS servers, and it seems like the current operators are probably uniquely positioned to understand what makes that different from operating e.g. .party or .racing, what weird load patterns it sees, maybe even how much to pay the folks who know the hard parts to keep doing this, etc. Obviously it would be better for the world if Verisign were transparent about their operations and it could be moved, but for potentially $5/domain name/year, forcing the change doesn't seem valuable. (If it were $50, sure, it'd be worth thinking about.)

<comment><USER17> Critical infrastructure operated by a single company. That can't ever go wrong, provider redundancy is overrated.

<comment><USER16> Not that I disagree, but wouldn't that require increasing the price even _more_ so you could pay both companies?

I don't think the argument for "We're paying Verisign too much to be a single point of failure, so let's pay someone else who's never done it less to be a different single point of failure" really holds up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> They ignored completely any message that we sent their way regarding the sale of .org. Filling out this form feels like a huge waste of time.

</comment><comment><USER19> Since domain names are finite, like real estate, why not charge based on demand? In this scenario, in-demand domain names (mostly based on length) would have higher renewal fees than undesirable ones. Perhaps add an order of magnitude in pricing for each character under 7?

      >=7 - $10
      6 - $100
      5 - $1000
      4 - $10,000
      <=3 - $100,000

<comment><USER10> The second hand market already solved this, why does Verisign need to be the one doing this?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Domains are the virtual realestate on the web and we are all just tennants and not owners. So there need to regulation for this "market" against domain hoarding and price hikes. Sadly the US government doesn't care.

</comment><comment><USER21> Switching away from ICANN will have a larger effect than a petition.

If you don't support centralized authority over the DNS root, you can vote with your computer for a new DNS root controlled by the commons [1].

[1] [https://www.handshake.org](https://www.handshake.org)

<comment><USER8> There has to be a common namespace, even if it's controlled by a different entity that's transparent, fair and non-profit. Fragmentation of the namespace breaks the internet. Starting a parallel namespace doesn't address the core problem: the privitization/commercialization of names, registrars and the meta-registrar were all extremely bad ideas because publicly-traded companies are selfish, omnicidal and suicidal. All non-country TLDs should be run at actual cost by one entity that is a nonprofit. No more commercial registrars or meta-registrars; per-country registrars can do whatever they want. If people want to auction-off, buy or sell domains in a marketplace, that's their business. Let's not not solve the problem by avoiding it with phony solutions that cause more problems. Petitions won't work either.

<comment><USER21> Handshake isn't parallel, but instead, it's a drop in replacement for ICANN that is controlled by the people. All existing TLDs continue to function as they did prior.

<comment><USER22> If it is an exact mirror with no differences, there is no reason to use it. Either it will start to diverge, or it is pointless for it to exist.

<comment><USER21> It will absolutely diverge, although it's probable that ICANN will likely continue to mirror the Handshake Naming System on their end.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: PolyBrowser 1.0 – A new way to browse the web. What do you think? - <AUTHOR> https://www.polybrowser.com <comment><USER2> We're proud to announce the "Version 1.0" release of PolyBrowser, which represents a culmination of years of work combined with community support and feedback. We feel that latest release brings together the speed, features and user experience needed to successfully introduce PolyBrowser to the world.

For those who are new, PolyBrowser is a "Panoramic Web Browser," meaning that it stitches your websites together, side-by-side, like a panoramic photo. You can zoom out to see all of your websites at once, or zoom in to see the details, plus much more. PolyBrowser enables you to browse faster by breaking free of the limitations of current tabbed browsers.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm writing this comment from a PolyBrowser tab :)

First of all - great job on shipping! This looks great for a first version, and I think it has good potential.

Granted I've only been using it for about 10 minutes, here is some feedback I have so far. I am using a fairly new Macbook Pro.

* panning between tabs is quite jittery and I get lots of jank when scrolling in general (vertical-in-tab or horizontal-between-tabs). Optimizing this might have been low on the list but I think it would make a huge difference in experience if it were smooth and snappy. I have a decent machine so I don't think it is a hardware constraint.

* The interface is a bit bulky, and layout can be improved, and I feel there is some wasted real estate. It may be a challenge to have visual cues for separation, but simplifying and cleaning up a bit would go a long way.

* When I focus on a text box or otherwise click on a tab, you should bring it into view. I understand there is a good use case for typing something while viewing another tab - but not if I cant see anything at all.

* Probably just an issue for folks with a Mac gesture pad, but the swiping to pan from tab-to-tab also triggers the back action for a page. Probably need to override the browser action and continue panning since that's the action I started with.

Thats all for now! Thanks.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the thorough review. All excellent points! You're right, we focused on getting everything as reasonably polished as possible before launching version 1.0, so that we could expand the audience and get more feedback (just like this). :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm kind of a broken person, I can't use a web browser without getting distracted if it doesn't have vim bindings. This kind of browser really doesn't lend itself to that.

I don't see how this browser will ever suit me or people like me, which is kind of a problem; how do you expect random non-techhy people to discover this if the techhy people don't move first?

I do like the idea. I find myself wishing I could do a vsplit/split in pentadactyl all the time... So much so that I've considered moving to something like surf with i3. But it's not worth it because none of them are polished enough.

I'd like to see Mozilla really take a stab at integrating pentadactyl-like behavior into their new development browser they're creating. One thing that's really interesting to me is that in recent years (~5ish) we've seen a real split in terms of the browser that developers prefer. I think someone can take that market if they did it well.

<comment><USER5> > how do you expect random non-techhy people to discover this if the techhy > people don't move first?

I feel like non-techy people would be much easier to convince to try a new browser than techy people, especially ones so deeply entrenched in things like vim bindings. There's just a much smaller change involved going from a normal browser in a stock consumer OS like Windows to this than going from something like using vim bindings to this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I like the idea you've developed here, it's a really interesting take on the multi-page browser interface.

However after testing your browser, I think I'm probably not your target audience as I primarily use a rather old laptop with trackpad only (no mouse) and a screen that isn't touch sensitive, which didn't lend itself to an easy experience of the panning and zoom controls - right-click and drag is unwieldy for me regardless of the target software.

Apart from that, just a minor comment on your website code - the Google Fonts stylesheet link element should reference the https rather than http link. Otherwise Chrome refuses to load it: [https://i.imgur.com/GaW3Vay.png](https://i.imgur.com/GaW3Vay.png).

Also this is possibly a transient Cloudflare problem, but I received this error on first visiting the website: [https://i.imgur.com/inugvt0.png](https://i.imgur.com/inugvt0.png). It resolved itself upon refreshing the page.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for trying PolyBrowser. We were shooting to make PolyBrowser work even on setups like yours (trackpad, no mouse). You can still use Ctrl +/\- to zoom in and out, and Control Tab to switch tabs, plus drag with the right mouse button. Thanks so much for the screenshots of those issues!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks interesting. Wondering about the performance of it. But it definitely looks cool to have tabs next to each other instead of individually. I tend to have two windows open a lot of the time, but the current browsers don't optimize this use case.

As I'm mainly a Linux user, I'm wondering though: is a Linux build planned (in a near future) ?

<comment><USER2> Definitely! For the first release, we had to focus on the biggest bang (Mac/Win) but Linux is coming (as soon as we can).

<comment><USER8> Nice! I hope the linux release don't take so long.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> AJ-Ryner Tried it on my MacBook Pro 17, Yosemite.

1) I agree with the other comments, UX/UI improvement is needed.

2) Sometime when I try to 'swipe' from my trackpad, it does 'to previous page' on the tab, which is not active - next to the active tab. (two tabs opened only - when it happened, didn't try with more tabs)

3) Scrolling/Swiping speed optimisation :)

Looking forward for more updates! Thnx!

</comment><comment><USER9> Any site I try to navigate to throws the error that the site isn't trusted (gmail.com ???). I click the "Add Exception", and then nothing happens. I'm not able to open ANY website.

Love the concept, hopefully you can get this bug worked out. It's probably because of my companies EXTREMELY strict firewall and proxy...

<comment><USER2> We haven't experienced that issue, even behind corporate firewalls, but will look into it. Thanks!

<comment><USER9> Anything logged on my end that I could send to you? (Edit: can't navigate to your Feedback/Support page either)

<comment><USER2> If you could send screenshots of the error, that would be perfect. Send to (email removed).

<comment><USER9> email containing screenshot is en route.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Can't wait to get home to try it on my Windows 8.1 tablet. Looks like the ideal browsing solution for touchscreens.

</comment><comment><USER11> What layout engine is it using?

<comment><USER2> Gecko. It's based on Firefox.

<comment><USER12> So it should be open source, right?

Wasn't able to find anything on their website.

<comment><USER3> Gecko is MPL - so can be mixed with proprietary code.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Some interesting ideas here.

One thing I noted in a quick play with it on Windows: if you right-drag outside the window, it doesn't get the mouse-up event and you have to right click in the window again to stop it panning.

<comment><USER2> Thanks yangyang. Yes, that's an open issue that we're working on fixing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER2> PolyBrowser is trending on Product Hunt... [http://www.producthunt.com/posts/polybrowser](http://www.producthunt.com/posts/polybrowser) Check it out!

</comment><comment><USER14> Wow, this is most definitely interesting! Is it optimized, though? Are all tabs active at once?

Also, I wonder, is this idea original or was there any attempts at making something similar to this before?

<comment><USER2> Yes, it's optimized for running multiple websites simultaneously. All tabs are visible and running, but whatever you click on becomes the "active" tab, which helps with resources. Also, non-visible tabs aren't rendered by your video card.

We didn't base this designed on any previous ideas. There have been some other attempts to solve similar problems (tile tabs, etc) but nothing that we felt quite "hit it."

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Can you configure it to force all tabs to use only the space of one screen - essentially as a tiling manager? I don't want to lose context when looking at other tabs.

<comment><USER2> There are still "tabs" that jump you to the chosen website, which always drop you in the correct place (centered on screen) so you don't lose context. The only difference is that if the website is smaller than your screen size, you will see the neighboring websites to the side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I really like the side-by-side navigation - felt much better than tabs!!!!

The rest of the browser needs a lot of work tho. It needs to run faster and look much better.

</comment><comment><USER17> Seems that it fails to complete downloading, at least for me. Both Chrome and IE complain about download being interrupted/network error.

<comment><USER2> There is a mirror download link on the download page (hosted on Dropbox) if you are having download issues. Hopefully that works. Please let us know if you still have issues so that we can set up an alternative. Thanks!

<comment><USER17> Tried both, same thing. I'll try again later :).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Ctrl + click doesn't open links in new tabs. Cool idea, but this totally kills it for me.

</comment><comment><USER8> Suggestion: Create a Twitter account to follow the updates!

</comment><comment> chris-at I couldn't find a license. Is it open source?

<comment><USER2> Hi chris-at, the open source license is discussed on our website here: [https://polybrowser.com/faqs/where-can-i-download-the- source...](https://polybrowser.com/faqs/where-can-i-download-the-source-code- for-polybrowser)

<comment><USER19> So it is open-source, but the poly-specific source can't be modified, just reviewed?

Interesting concept.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> search in the sidebar...circa 1999

<comment><USER2> Hey, everything comes back around eventually. ;) No denying that it saves space, and we are going for a search experience that maximizes screen real estate.

<comment><USER21> looks good. nice to see that people are still trying to rethink objects that have been around for years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The outcome of "what if the web looked like our Trello board!?!" A question no one should have asked or answered.</comment>


In NY major crime complaints fell when cops stopped 'proactive policing' (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-proactive-policing-crime-20170925-story.html <comment><USER2> When you arrest or kill a drug dealer, many others come in and fight for his place creating more violence. This is known and shown by studies and every cop's experience ever. They know this and yet they still do it, causing more violence and chaos on the streets, more deaths and more imprisonments. They support keeping things criminalized because many would likely be out of a job, or certainly out of an easy, low-risk job in favor of more difficult, actually useful police work. Police knowingly and intentionally increase violence in the communities they police.

Until we stop criminalizing normal activities, this won't change. The stupidity of the drug war is now clear for all to see. In Colorado and other states you can peacefully walk into a store and buy weed. In a state like Alabama you might spend years in jail for a joint. The stupidity, inhumanity, and cruelty is glaring and disturbing. And the system of violence that is perpetrated by this situation in non-legal states and as regards to other illicit substances starts and ends with the police. They arrest people for breaking windows or some other such nonsense, then throw them in prison, give them a record, and basically turn them into real criminals since they no longer have a chance to contribute to society. The less involvement the police have, the better off society is.

Does it make sense to criminalize jaywalking? We're giving the police a reason to potentially _kill_ someone for crossing the street at the same time. That goes for every petty crime out there. Every single crime that police enforce might require that police use deadly force. Do we want to use deadly force for weed smokers, jaywalkers, and single cigarette sellers? Because that's what the 'broken windows' policy of idiocy advocates. Then we wonder why cops are kneeling on people's necks or choking them out for selling a single cigarette? Because as a society, we condone this and we especially encourage it be done to minorities through the laws we pass, the police we hire, and the rules and procedures we approve for enforcement.

</comment><comment><USER3> >So, with the drop in relatively low-level police activity, what happened to serious crime in the city? The scientists found that civilian complaints of major crimes dropped by about 3% to 6% during the slowdown.

Is 3-6% a significant enough difference to draw conclusions from?

I wonder what is the normal variation in major crime complaints from one six week window to another?

<comment><USER4> yeah, it's not like this is a randomized experiment so there might be confounding factors. Observational studies aren't very useful for determining causation in general

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Malcom Gladwell addresses why proactive policing doesn't work at length in his book "Talking to Strangers". He refers to it as Kansas City style policing. Highly recommended.

</comment><comment><USER6> I do not want to sound flippant, but does that mean that crime did not happen, because it sounds like we are now deciding that 'broken window' is not an issue worth pursuing.

<comment><USER7> A rather terrifying statistic I remember from investigating crime in Chicago:

50% of homicides are brought to justice in Chicago, but the remaining half are not normally distributed in terms of crimes per criminal. ~50 people are responsible for half of the unsolved homicides in Chicago.

I am not going to be able to provide a direct reference for this claim. My point is that the rate of severe crimes can be efficiently diminished by targeting professional criminals and the networks that enable them. Policing minor crimes is counterproductive because the harmful side effects of policing (racial and social injustice, legal costs, adversity between police and citizens) are greater than the benefit to the community of removing misdemeanors like vandalism and drug use. You might say that broken windows policing is not Pareto efficient.

<comment><USER8> I think it is entirely different to handle reports of misdemeanors by the public with integrity and to attempt to catch misdemeanors in progress with active surveillance.

The first can get you trust needed to identify your major criminals, the second creates an alliance of presumed criminals that shares little with the police.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > we find that civilian complaints of major crimes (such as burglary, felony > assault and grand larceny) decreased during and shortly after sharp > reductions in proactive policing

This is based on a pay-walled article that would be interesting to read. One major question that is unanswered in the abstract is whether a reduction in complaints is a useful correlate for reduction in crime. That is just something I don't anything about.

Another question, that I would bet is answered in the article, is if civilian complaints of _petty_ crimes increased or decreased after reductions in proactive policing.

Lastly, the results suggest that proactive policing may not deter major crimes as it is meant to. Do the authers (or others) think this is because proactive policing _causes_ an increase in major crime? Or does it just distract police from major crime? Or is it something else entirely?

</comment><comment><USER10> I'd like to dub this "the Batman effect", but unfortunately it's already taken.

It's a pretty common theme in the various incarnations of Batman that the primary reason Gotham City gets so many crazies is that the existence of Batman either attracts or indirectly/accidentally creates them.

</comment><comment><USER11> Broken windows policing is why I hate police. My chances of calling police under any circumstance is near zero. Having the cops kick your ass for no reason does not help anyone in our society, it only breeds mistrust. That mistrust can last a life time. Its going to take a generation or more to get past this bullshit. Welcome to the United Police States of America.

<comment><USER12> I'm not a fan either, but I think we have to acknowledge that it's an attempt to address a real problem. There really are areas where people regularly try to engage in petty crime, and the government has a duty to address that.

<comment><USER13> The US has the highest per-capita incarceration rate _in the world_ [1].

US: 655/100k

UK: 135/100K

China: 121/100K

Germany: 77/100K

Iceland: 37/100K

It feels like we are consuming just a little too much of the "security" product. Maybe we should try consuming the "justice" product. I hear it's pretty good.

[1] [https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to- lowest/prison_popul...](https://www.prisonstudies.org/highest-to- lowest/prison_population_rate?field_region_taxonomy_tid=All)

<comment><USER12> I agree, but the question is how to get from here to there. Releasing all the nonviolent drug addicts - which we certainly should do! - still doesn't get us close to those other countries.

<comment><USER14> By the numbers, our best bet is probably revamping the prison system to focus on rehabilitation instead of punishment, and then drastically reducing the length of sentences.

Our goal should be to get someone as close as possible to 0 chance of recidivism in as short a time as possible.

<comment><USER15> Education is usually another good place to start. Educated people tend to make more informed choices, and informed choices tend to shape better futures.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> i bet if police stop responding to 911 calls altogether then crime complaints will drop to zero

<comment><USER17> Yeah in fact what they should do is punish the people who report the crimes, that would definitely drop the rate of crime reporting!

You get what you optimize for.

<comment><USER18> > Yeah in fact what they should do is punish the people who report the crimes

This happens surprisingly often in the USA. I won't bother inundating HN with all the sources that a simple search will turn up, but aside from many reports of this happening, I have first-hand experience.

I called the non-emergency police number because my neighbor's large dog had escaped and was kind of freaking out the neighborhood, growling at people it didn't know, barking at people through their house windows, etc... Police showed up 3 hours later, issued me a ticket for being parked 14 inches from the street curb, gave me a verbal warning about "showing more respect" to police when I re-stated the reason for calling them, then left without doing anything about the dog. Protect and Serve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Following the murder of George Floyd, and the violence between citizen and police, I can see the police as a body withdrawing from "policing" period. After Freddy Gray's death, police stopped responding to calls form west Baltimore. We want them to respond to our needs but they're not going to come if people are going to shoot at the squad cars.

<comment><USER20> You are badly misunderstanding the issue and why people are up in arms.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you consider outsourcing your tech team? - <AUTHOR>

Hi, I'm a co-founder of a software house http://rspective.com and I'd like to ask you guys if startups founders/CTOs consider hiring an external, remote tech team? If so, what are the key requirements it has to meet.<p>Thanks, Michal <comment><USER2> Hey guys I'm selling lemonades and wondering if people just want to have a cup in a sunny afternoon. If so, how do you define a good lemonade? Should I also think about adding ice to it? Thanks, Demir</comment>


New Year's Resolution: Lanuch a website/day for 2011 - <AUTHOR> http://www.websiteadaychallenge.com/

<comment><USER2> Isn't this just going to produce a bunch of incomplete crap? Notable that the announcement page itself is displaying a broken html tag (as of this writing).

Might be more useful to think of a real project you've been meaning to do, splitting it into day-sized chunks, and working out a schedule for completing those. Don't be too strict about this either, otherwise you'd risk getting burnt out after a couple weeks.

<comment><USER3> There's much to learn from incomplete crap. It's like an artist making sketches for a year. With dedication I have to believe it'll produce something of value, and something new.

<comment><USER2> I don't think its quite the same as sketching, as art has no purpose except itself, whereas a website would be expected to _do_ something.

I'd think differently if he was just creating a new site _layout_ every day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Not a chance. Even one a week would be a stretch.

I will release 5-10 apps/sites in 2011.

</comment><comment><USER3> Nice. What language / framework will you be using for the first batch of releases?

And what will you do when a site requires attention? e.g. with a traffic surge? Are the old sites going to stay up?

Finally, are you thinking of registering 365 different domains? Oy.

<comment><USER3> wow some dw just downvoted that?

Also, will you have a 90's era link ring? You must.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Looks like he already achieved his goal on January 1st - his site got a million hits.

<comment><USER6> That is the number of likes for the Facebook Platform, nothing to do with him.</comment></comment>


How to run a tech startup - <AUTHOR> http://michaelkk.tumblr.com/post/22263803440/how-to-run-a-tech-startup

<comment><USER2> Aspirational headline, but generally good advice.

One possible dispute would be the "get ramen profitable first" point. There's a strong case to be made for taking money pre-revenue, before your metrics get harder to defend.

<comment><AUTHOR> Agree - there are clearly businesses that require a large amount of upfront capital before any type of monetization can happen.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I would also argue that PPC can be used extremely early for A/B testing landing pages (and other testing uses), as well as, for customer acquisition if your product has the right market fit (cost per acquisition less than profit per sale).

<comment><AUTHOR> Great point - small amount spent on A/B testing to identify wording, layout and messaging is super useful. Tim Ferris even used it to get the title of his book :-). When I wrote the post I was more thinking about actual user acquisition.</comment></comment>


A Stack Overflow user's reply to Experts Exchange blogpost - <AUTHOR> http://blog.williamhilsum.com/2011/02/response-to-experts-exchange-blog-post.html <comment><USER2> With all the interest currently focused on Q&A sites, Experts Exchange actually presents an interesting turnaround opportunity. Despite the last few years of squandering goodwill with their deceptive solution to the findability/paywall paradox, they are still one of the longtime residents of the space, and they still have a massive -- albeit creaky -- corpus of questions and answers. They should hire a strong UX/UI team and do a clean- sheet redesign: new logo, new zen-like appearance without all the noisy clutter, logos, UI "junk", fake blurred out answers with "sign up now!", etc. They should set up a strong information design and analysis team to mine that huge corpus for opportunities to segment their product into paid and free components -- and then update the business model to a legitimate "freemium" approach.

I realize this is all easier said than done, but it does seem like there must be real value under the barnacles. Every time someone scrolls down past screen after screen of ads and blurred answers and has their "I see what you did there" moment, goodwill is squandered and the community impression of deception and spamminess builds.

</comment><comment><USER3> Experts Exchange's need to talk about Stack Overflow is a sign of the shifting dynamic between the two sites and that they feel the need to make it negative indicates, to me at least, the relative strength of the two sites.

The issue is that EE is having to justify $12.95 a month worth of value over SO and, as a user of both sites, it seems to me that for a vast majority of people that value simply doesn't exist. Yes there is a free option but it's so badly hidden that it's clearly not something they have any real interest in and feels like it's there purely so they can say it's there. If that's not the case then then put it next to the various paid options.

Like many companies before them, they've found that their market has changed. What was previously a salable product is now something that is available for free (or at least something broadly comparable is available for free).

To be clear I have no issue with EE's right to charge for their service, I just think it's doomed to failure when the guy down the road doesn't.

There seem to be two options from here:

1) Tough it out and hope that SO doesn't last and that they can keep going with their existing business model. Suggesting that SO is going to run out of money sooner or later is fine. Maybe it will, maybe it won't but don't expect me to pay for your service while they are there and don't charge. That's the reality EE needs to deal with and if that's their strategy they need to hunker down and dig deep because it's going to cost them in the short term.

2) Look for a new business model. Either something totally new or at the very least a tweak to what they're doing now. No idea what it is, if I did I'd probably be doing it myself, but it seems to me that a new reality demands a new model and that simply denying that is railing against the dying of the light.

Maybe there is another choice they can look at but whatever it is, I don't think bad mouthing the competition is going to cut it.

<comment><USER4> Bad mouthing actually works sometimes (read the plentyoffish story the other day?), but I agree it won't succeed in this audience.

Would you think it could compete with SO if EE completely switched gears? Like, releasing all the content under Creative Commons?

<comment><USER5> One of the things I hated about EE in the brief time I saw it before the paywall was that it is really, really ugly. And cluttered. It's actually even worse now... SO, on the other hand is clean and the content is easy to find. Even if EE stopped being sleazy, my eyes would rather go somewhere pleasant.

(And what's up with the people without eyes? It makes the site feel really impersonal. A little odd for a forum.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are lots of lessons here. Basically EE acted with hubris because they saw themselves as the only game in town. SO came along and quickly dethroned them in the programming arena (EE has a somewhat broader base than that).

Charging people for user-generated content is a shortsighted and doomed business model. What's more it's sleazy. I'm reminded of the whole CDDB/Gracenote fiasco from years ago.

Chris Dixon wrote a great blog post about this [1].

EE in this context (or the "evil hyphen site" as Joel calls it) is acting as an extractor. They're simply putting up a barrier and charging a toll.

Compare this to companies like Dropbox and Evernote. These companies provide pretty amazing services (particularly Dropbox) for free. I've seen many people say they pay for Dropbox not because they need the space but because they want to give them money for their amazing services. These companies are builders.

And let's not forget that EE earned a lot of bad will by once being free like SO and switching to this hideous pseud-paywall monstrosity. Treat your users like crap and they go elsewhere. Quelle surprise.

[1]: <http://cdixon.org/2010/06/19/builders-and-extractors/>

<comment><USER3> >> the "evil hyphen site" as Joel calls it.

Was there a reason that they stopped calling it the sex change site? I know that the put the hyphen in there but it was still funny.

<comment><USER7> One would hope because that was juvenile and completely unnecessary.

<comment><USER3> They go hand in hand with a lot of funny things though and has rarely stopped people.

Maybe it just got tired and having only heard it a few times I'm not there yet.

<comment><USER8> Years later I can still get a giggle or two out of WhoRepresents.com

<comment><USER3> I liked powergenitalia, the Italian power generation company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I used to just ignore any Experts Exchange items in search results, although since discovering the ability to scroll down for the answer I do now find EE worthwhile. However I feel far, far more fond of StackOverflow and wish them continued success.

</comment><comment><USER10> The reply from Brutus Lyon[1] does not even warrant a response because everything about it feels wrong. Anyway here goes:

 _> > EE has always had a free registration at <https://secure.experts- exchange.com/registerExpert.jsp> . That people choose to not use it isn't EE's fault._

Your fault is hiding the link from users and sending them to [https://secure.experts- exchange.com/register.jsp?rsid=60&...](https://secure.experts- exchange.com/register.jsp?rsid=60&redirectURL=/) when clicking on the sign-up page. This kind of behavior is extremely offensive and hostile especially considering the fact that your users are from a demographic who can easily see through your BS.

 _> > EE's record, the last I saw, was seven SECONDS. I've seen at least a dozen under 20 seconds. Sometimes you get lucky._

With StackOverflow, I always get lucky. With EE, I _have_ to get lucky to get a good answer (or even to see the answer behind all your paywall and ads).

 _> > You think voting helps you get the right answer; I think it's arrogant and rude that someone else tells you what works best for you._

WHAT? You ask a question because you want help and don't know what works for you. How is answering that question arrogant and rude? (Voting is also an special type of answering mechanism).

Sometimes the most voted answer may not solve your problem, but tell you that what you are trying to do is wrong. I think votes let you know which of the solutions to consider before trying out any of the solutions.

 _> > You think "everything should be free"; I think you charge for your services, and EE has every right to charge for its._

Except that you charge for the content your users created not knowing in advance that you guys will make it a closed system.

 _> > EE is successful because it only promises what it can provide, and keeps that promise._

EE _was_ successful. You are not growing and will go down soon if you continue with your attitude: <http://i.imgur.com/Vm1on.png>

And what promise do you keep? I didn't know that providing different content to Google and to your visitors is your way of keeping promises.

 _> > When the $5 million in VC money runs out, then SO will have to get money from someone -- which means ads or a paywall._

All of SO content is in CC license. If they go rogue, the community will just create a new website with the same content.

Basically all this boils down to what kind of people run the site. I am sorry that the people behind EE cannot see the future.

[1] [http://blog.williamhilsum.com/2011/02/response-to-experts- ex...](http://blog.williamhilsum.com/2011/02/response-to-experts-exchange- blog-post.html?showComment=1297831818465#c2487540992635813811)

<comment><USER3> >> >> You think voting helps you get the right answer; I think it's arrogant and rude that someone else tells you what works best for you.

>> WHAT? You ask a question because you want help and don't know what works for you. How is answering that question arrogant and rude? (Voting is also an special type of answering mechanism).

>> Sometimes the most voted answer may not solve your problem, but tell you that what you are trying to do is wrong. I think the votes let you know which of the solutions to consider before trying out any of the solutions.

Yep, sometimes people up vote things which miss the point of questions (as originally intended) but generally they don't and even when they do (a) the information therein is interesting and useful and (b) the answer is probably of interest to anyone else with a similar problem who might want more than a single opinion on how to handle things.

Surely a fundamental part of these sites is that the person originally asking the question is only one potential user of the answers and others will look at the information after them? The advantage of SO is that it allows you to see two things (1) what did the original questioner think most useful and (2) what does the community think is the best solution to the problem.

The original asker is coming from a real world problem / solution perspective which is great but may have specific reasons for accepting an answer which are not stated in the question and are therefore unclear to me. On the other hand the community judges on only what's there and because it's the voice of many is less likely to be skewed by single specific factors.

But ultimately as someone reading the question after the event both of these are useful to me.

Worst case scenario is you have to review two answers not one - the highest voted answer and the accepted answer. To me that's a very small price which is almost always rewarded with better information so I'm very happy with it.

As for thinking that others voting (essentially contributing their time and experience to read an answer, check it against their knowledge and experience and say "I think this is a great point which is worth reading") is rude and arrogant then possibly he should extend that view to those who are so rude and arrogant as to think they could possibly answer your question. They're both contributions to helping people solve their problem as quickly and well as possible and are basically the same thing.

<comment> mkr-hn "Yep, sometimes people up vote things which miss the point of questions (as originally intended) but generally they don't and even when they do (a) the information therein is interesting and useful and (b) the answer is probably of interest to anyone else with a similar problem who might want more than a single opinion on how to handle things."

\---

I learn a lot on SO from reading responses that don't answer the question.

If I see "How do I do x?," I'm quite happy that someone answered, but I'll get a lot out of that page long discussion on performance implications and alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> The one valid point in the original EE blogpost for me is what is the SO/SE business model.

I'm assuming that there is one, I don't believe Joel and Jeff are stupid, it's just not clear to me what it is.

<comment><USER11> That's where we have Meta.SO for @Tyrannosaurs:

<http://meta.stackoverflow.com/q/79435/130099>

<comment><USER3> Doh, should have thought to look.

Interesting, though not 100% convincing for me. EE is riddled with ads and yet clearly see the need to charge as well. SE and SO both benefit from the ability to target ads really well but programmers in particular are notorious for not clicking which will offset that for the core three sites at least.

In terms of the careers and CV model, it works fine for SO / SF but the rest of SE contributes nothing in that area which begs the question how do they support themselves (just low key ads?) and if they don't then aren't they just an overhead? Or are they deemed to basically be a very cheap by-product of the existing SO technology? In which case they don't really need to bring in much, just enough to cover hosting and ad sales so maybe that's the answer.

But I'm still thinking that there has to be something more.

That said the point about the home workers basically being cheaper is well made - there are two ways to be profitable - high revenues or low costs.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Experts Exchange was the first site to come into my mind when I first heard about Google's Personal Blocker.

<comment><USER13> I was actually thinking of efreedom and the other StackOverflow clones that sometimes appeared ahead of StackOverflow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> (Comment I wrote on my blog)...

Just got an anonymous email - no idea if anyone can verify the truth behind it...

<http://i.imgur.com/BDuMM.png>

"here is no such person as Brutus Lyon, it is Jenn Prentice from Experts Exchange. She always does shit like this under aliases."

I assumed Brutus was working or staff from EE, I don't see why a fake name is needed or the reason behind it / how it changes anything.

</comment><comment><USER4> You know guys, I love Stack Overflow. It's always been an enormous help whenever I had a question that someone had an answer for.

But because I earned more than 1.500 reputation scores ( <http://stackoverflow.com/users/69424/pestaa> ), I feel I have the right to say, the atmosphere does not just feel right as the author states.

Here's how I feel (see the comments):

[http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4131707/mysql-i-have- two-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4131707/mysql-i-have-two-large- fields-which-when-records-are-looped-and-displayed-make/4131753#4131753)

If someone's astounded by seeing a sensible answer on SO, something's wrong.

Hacker News works so much better by putting far less emphasis on karma, and that's why I decided to contribute to HN, and not SO anymore.

<comment><USER14> One person out of almost half a million, I am sure it was in jest, anyway, you were up voted the most showing that anyone coming to that topic will see that you have the best answer. It obviously, in that specific example, is just not what the asker was wanting.

Come back to SO! :)

<comment><USER4> This person has 13k rep, my hunch is he saw at least a fair amount of corners of SO.

But bringing up that specific page was not the basis of my generalization. It was rather a direct case to my observation. It felt like racing, and not fun.

I'll definitely improve the stuff I find useful on SO, but I won't hunt unanswered questions anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> What I want to know is, did Lyon make that post because he has actually deluded himself into thinking that EE is still relevant, or because he thought someone would actually be oblivious enough to read it and stop using StackExchange?

I'm not sure which one reflects more poorly on him.

</comment><comment><USER16> I don't understand why ExpertsExchange is still in business. How can a Q&A site live by asking for a credit card?

</comment><comment><USER17> simple questions are already answered (most of them on S.O.). unfortunately i used to ask questions that has no answer so i just almost stopped asking them.

</comment><comment><USER18> when did people start using the word "Whilst"? This guy's obviously not British...

<comment><USER14> I am British! It is the first thing that came to mind - I think I use both in every day talk... Read the tag line on my blog! "Maybe not the best grammar or writing style... but will try to get my point across!"

Oh well, I hope you still liked the blog post even if you don't like my language usage! :)

<comment><USER18> I liked the post!

I just started noticing more and more Americans using it in blog posts and I wasn't sure when this trend started.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Dude, I still don't see why such a response is even needed.

a) EE is the reason people wanted to block sites from google results.

b) EE never has useful info even if you scroll down

conclusion: IDK how EE even made money to begin with. I guess on the suckers. Because I feel that if I sign up I am throwing my money away since nobody is else who I want answers from is dumb enough to sign up.

Furthermore, seeing as how forums are Q&A places as well, and sites scrub forums like mad to "generate content" I have zero proof that EE is in any way genuine content.

</comment><comment><USER20> I find it astounding the level to which people _hate_ Experts Exchange. Calling them "sleazy" and "slimeballs". Where does all this vitriole come from?

Are you all feeling so entitled that anytime someone wants to charge you for something your automatic reaction is hatred?

Here's the problem that EE solved (a long time ago): "How can I create a Q&A site that runs on a subscription, not an ad supported, model?". The obvious dilemma being that the content needs to be indexed by search engines which necessitates giving it away for free, but when people come into the site you want them to pay for the service.

The solution of having people scroll to the bottom of the page isn't deceptive, it's just an imperfect solution to making people pay to use your site. The fact that you can get the answers for free at all is the anomaly - you're not supposed to be able to!

There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to charge for anything. If it works, it works, if it doesn't work, your business fails. EE aren't breaking any laws, hell they aren't even breaking any _guidelines_. If you don't like it, you don't continue, there's a free trial.

This isn't spam, it's not hurting or hoodwinking or deceiving anyone! This is just a paid service, get over it.

When Mark Bao created a viral marketing campaign to collect a few hundred thousand email addresses and then sell them at private auction everyone here heaped praise on him like he split the atom. Experts Exchange is just running a business and charging a price. If their business sucks then it will die - admittedly there is a hell of a lot of inertia there now because they've been going for so long but WHATEVER! You can't just call people sleazy slimeballs because they're charging for a service rather than giving it away.

Oh and for all you folks saying they don't promote their free signup page enough, look at the fine print below the pricing on this page:

<http://highrisehq.com/signup>

What a sanctimonious and judgmental crowd we have here at HN!

<comment><USER14> The whole point is, they used to be good, it used to serve a purpose... when they have answers low down or tried to hide all together, they were effectively spamming Google and forcing people to sign up /pay for an answer.

It served a purpose in its time, but SO simply does it better now and EE haven't moved on in years.

And as an "expert" I would rather contribute to a free to ask site helping the public.

<comment><USER20> I disagree with that definition of spam, it's more like "freemium". Pay for the convenience of not having to scroll to the bottom of the page? Or simply pay for the answer if you want it and you don't know about the scrolling thing - it's their right to charge for content. All they're doing is advertising that they _have_ the answer and trying to make sure as many people as possible pay to find out what that answer is, because that's their business model.

It's fine if they're irrelevant, it's fine if you'd prefer to be part of a stack exchange community, it's fine if you block them in Google or only search "site:stackoverflow.com how to shot codez" so you never have to look at them again - but the scathing retorts treating these people as valueless carrion who don't even deserve to be on the internet is completely unwarranted!

Really, what I object most to is that people are attacking the characters of those involved and calling them slimy and sleazy because they chose a subscription based business model for their Q&A site. A valid decision that has obviously worked.

It's not like they're Jamster ringtone club tricking kids into spending thousands on their phone bills to get an animated crazy frog singing the most insipid song ever created, they're just providing a service and trying to get money in return.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Women Are Rarely Serial Innovators - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/why-women-are-rarely-innovators-1517585411 <comment><USER2> "Nature is extremely clever, and she has crafted an intoxicating cocktail of oxytocin and other neurochemicals to rivet the attention of parents on their children.... The research on whether this response is stronger for mothers than for fathers is inconclusive."

But one particular interpretation confirms a common biological determinist bias in the tech industry, and so generates endless attention and pontification.</comment>


What Web Page Structure Reveals on News Quality - <AUTHOR> https://mondaynote.com/what-web-page-structure-reveals-on-news-quality-67b845e230db <comment><USER2> What are the unintended consequences of screening out "fake news"? It is a bit alarming to have a whitelist of approved authors, as this article suggests.

It seems to me that the Problem of Fake News is manufactured. The reason there is a Problem? Because the holders of power suffered in the last election.

Let's call "fake news" what it is -- lies and propaganda.

Lies and propaganda will not go away. Ever.

Systemic efforts to shut down lies and propaganda (from the people we abhor) will sooner or later be used against the architects of these systems.</comment>


Ask HN: A company just shared my contact details without asking me what do I do? - <AUTHOR> A company called Pana that schedules travel for interviews just reached out and told me they shared my information (presumably this means email and phone number, but I'm not sure) with Uber so I could book rides. Uber is a disgusting company that I want nothing to do with, and I certainly don't want them to have my email (they've already sent me one email since Pana shared my information). I did not sign an EULA or similar for Pana, Uber, or the company I was interviewing with.<p>Can they really just share my information like this? Do I have any recourse? <comment><USER2> First, I don't have an answer, but I'm commenting because I was reminded of a recent experience I had.

Last week, I turned down a job offer, and it was largely influenced by the information the hiring agency, which the company went through, required me to provide. They wanted all kinds of information about me, and it was clear it was almost entirely unrelated to the company offering me the job. They simply wanted to add me to their line of products, whether I wanted them to advertise me or not. If I didn't provide the information, I didn't get processed.

Needless to say, I'm happily looking for employment elsewhere. I firmly believe this is both wrong, and a practice which should be illegal. If it isn't already?

<comment><USER3> Well, it is in the EU. GDPR commonly is perceived as applying to online businesses alone, which of course is wrong.

As a company you're only allowed to ask for and record the data that's required to conduct the business at hand. Otherwise, you have to tell your customers how their data will be used.

This of course absolutely applies to traditionally offline businesses such as recruitment agencies as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Given they schedule travel on your behalf, and don't actually provide transportation themselves, how would they be able to do this without sharing your information? Not saying what they did is necessarily right but this seems like a legitimate need. Seems like they should have made it clearer from the outset that they would do this though so you were in the know.

<comment><AUTHOR> They probably can't, but they should ask permission first. I didn't sign an EULA or anything that asked if they could share my information with Uber.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Two (somewhat competing) thoughts:

1.) In the grand scheme of things, a company that books travel sharing your info with a company that provides rides isn't the worst thing to ever happen in the world of privacy and interviews. You could take the nuclear option, which would involve naming and shaming Pana and potentially writing some letters. Depending on where you are, this could violate some privacy legislation. Or, you could decide that wasn't too far out of line and merely ask Uber to delete your info and stop emailing you. And, you could keep the nuclear option in mind if they don't respond.

2.) Anecdotally, the interview stage is the best that a company will get. If they're already doing things you consider sketchy, I promise that things won't magically get less sketchy when you take the job. I can think of two 'opportunities' I could have saved myself from if I had internalized that lesson.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think the company I'm interviewing with did anything sketchy, to be clear. They just used yet another garbage startup that's solving a problem that doesn't exist, making the process harder, and can't be bothered to have any responsibility or consider that sharing someones contact details or setting up an account for them without their consent is not okay. It's Pana that's absolutely not okay in my book (although I suppose it's reasonable to say that the company I'm interviewing with should have seen this and avoided them).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Which country are you in? In the EU this could potentially be a violation of GDPR.

<comment><AUTHOR> It doesn't matter really; so far my entire experience with GDPR is that people just claim they think you're not in the EU and tell you they won't remove any of your data (AirBNB did this for friends who tried to get their data deleted, and I've seen similar things from a number of companies who want proof that you're an EU resident, but I'm obviously not sending them even more info like a passport just to convince them to delete my data). I wish the GDPR had any teeth, but companies for now seem to think it doesn't.

<comment><USER7> I does have teeth, but you need to be willing to sue the company to force removal. Data protection agencies are swamped with complaints so you have to take things into your own hands. Article 79 opens up for civil action against data controllers that refuse to obey the GDPR. Data subjects can sue for compensation, but are probably not restricted to compensation. It's a reasonable interpretation of the GPDR that you can sue for deletion.

At the very least your friend should submit a complaint to his country's data protection agency.

In your case I absolutely think that you could have a valid claim for compensation. But the devil is in the detail. For example, on what legal basis is the company you interviewed with processing your data? On what basis is Pana processing it? If you're genuinely interested in trying to claim compensation you can reach out to me and I can give you some directions and reading tips.

EDIT: IANAL, but I work with data protection questions.</comment></comment></comment>


Startup Quote: Matt Mullenweg, founder, Automattic - <AUTHOR> http://startupquote.com/post/4338469386

<comment><AUTHOR> Usage is like oxygen for ideas. You can never fully anticipate how an audience is going to react to something you've created until it's out there.

\- Matt Mullenweg (@photomatt)

<http://startupquote.com/post/4338469386></comment>


Germany sues Mark Zuckerberg and Facebook over failure to remove hate posts - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2016/11/04/facebook-germany-hate-speech-zuckerberg/#c3AEIe9iPmqk <comment><USER2> Wrong. One prosecutor is investigating. Nothing more, yet.</comment>


Does genuine tech innovation happen better in a recession? - <AUTHOR> http://anarchogeek.com/2008/7/20/does-genuine-tech-innovation-happen-better-in-a-recession

<comment><USER2> Not sure about innovation, but it does seem like there's far better signal/noise ration during recession.

When the market's booming, weak ideas and uncommitted teams naturally find it much easier to get some funding - so perhaps the good ideas/teams are just as many (or more) as in a recession, but their overall share is far smaller.

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of it seems to be a result of the misconception of productivity that is so prevalent today. A lot of people seem to think that, because you're not actually _doing_ something, the act of just sitting down and thinking and experimenting with ideas does not constitute being productive. They don't realize that, if everybody simply sat down and banged out work continuously, we'd always be doing things that we already know how to do.

</comment><comment><USER4> Necessity is the mother invention. In the world of web software, tech innovation is also cultural innovation. Remember the New Deal? What if a tech innovation could enable us to do that again, without the government?

If some Ron Paul supporters could use youtube, social news, and email lists to effortlessly fund and fly a blimp for 6 weeks, maybe there is a tech innovation which could enable the nation to effortlessly fund giant wind and solar projects.

</comment><comment><USER5> I believe it does. Innovation almost always comes from the human spirit being tested to its limits. It is then when humans are pushed to their breaking point that they truly innovate.

For instance, there are alot of people are hoping for $8/gallon gas, since $8/gallon gas would catapult the US into seriously investing in alternative energies.</comment>


Surfing Productivity - <AUTHOR> http://blog.parsely.com/post/34237316964/surfing-productivity

<comment><USER2> inspiring post, I see very similar things from the author's perspective...</comment>


Sweden leads the race to become cashless society - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/sweden-cashless-society-cards-phone-apps-leading-europe <comment><USER2> House of cards. Cashless societies mean:

the unbanked are further isolated and prevented from engaging in commerce.

Older generations are left behind. Just trying to switch bankid login from old phone to new phone is a PITA, and I'm tech savvy.

Lack of anonymous transactions means that my banks know about my vices such as gambling, porn, or strippers.

Cascading failures - payment network crashes means no one can authorize traction means long lines at registers. Everywhere.

Just lending money to someone requires a smartphones and apps (swish in Sweden) and bankid (see above)

Battery dead on phone? Sorry, I can't loan you 500kr. (You can still receive on dead battery).

Now, I will be the first to admit that when all the boxes are checked it works pretty well. Swish is amazing.

However, what concerns me is the blind faith people have in this huge tech stack. There is so much that goes into facilitating the purchase of a candy bar from a vending machine. It is an all or nothing scenario. Either it works 100% or you can't use the chip in your card in the terminal to connect to the network to the bank to verify funds available to authorize purchase of said candy bar.

Thankfully there is still cash which in my opinion really greases the wheels of everyday commerce.

<comment><USER3> One of the primary reasons for the push for cash-less societies is for the government being able to put a negative-interest rate on personal savings (for economic and social reasons - none of which are good).

This can't happen if you can take cash out (and to a lesser degree if you can buy gold/silver).

<comment><USER4> Government does not meddle with interest rates. Not here, at least

<comment><USER2> I don't think that is correct.

[http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11895084/How- Sw...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11895084/How-Swedens- negative-interest-rates-experiment-has-turned-economics-on-its-head.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In a cashless society all transactions are controlled and monitored by third parties. There is no potential for individual volition except at the whim of those controlling the systems. Cryptocurrencies will mitigate this slightly but the loss of cash is going to be a huge blow to the individual.

<comment><USER4> I find this approach really curious. All the transactions can be monitored by third parties anyway as all the pos systems are networked and subject to even lesser legal scrutiny than banks. Random adverisers can and do build comprehensive profiles. A company is us claims to have full profiles of all Americans. And yet, if there's a chance a citizen might benefit either via less hassle as in the cash case or via better gov services, everybody goes "but think of the privacy". As a result, societies get downsides of both: there is no privacy whatsoever but no value generated for the citizen.

<comment><USER6> I think GP's point _re_ cash was just that cash transactions are typically anonymous. Obviously you _can_ get around that by e.g. matching up till receipts against video surveillance and facial recognition tech, but I'm not aware that that happens routinely, so in practice you probably have a fair degree of privacy.

<comment><USER4> Cash transactions are anonymous only if most transactions are cash. I take x eur from the bank and give them to you. You put x eur to the bank. That's linkable. And the people sign up to all sorts of savings cards en masse making their transactions at the till completely traceable. It is not about what happens routinely, it is about what can happen. Banks don't give a damn about your transaction history as long as you account balance adds up and neither does the government. With cash, there is an illusion of anonymity. Without cash you actually know what happens.

<comment><USER6> You're right, it's partially linkable, but only partially. If I take out cash from the bank and buy something in a shop, it'll get mixed in with all the cash from everybody else buying things there (which obscures the exact purchase) and for smaller denominations there's a nonzero chance that they might get given out again in change before being banked (which makes it hard to prove _any_ purchase). Until tills start scanning and reporting banknote numbers there's still far more anonymity than you get with digital.

Savings cards I wouldn't touch with a bargepole; I don't imagine anyone who gives two hoots about privacy would.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Why on earth is this considered a _good_ thing? Haven't we learned anything about mass surveillance in the last five years?

<comment><USER8> I do not worry about mass surveillance that much. With all the cameras anonymity of cache quickly disappears in any case.

What really bad is when a police or any arbitrary guy representing a state can order to freeze all the cards and bank accounts for an individual. This is already happening in Russia and is used not only against political activists but sometime against arbitrary persons through police bribes by their enemies. If a person does not have savings in cash, he or she may loose access to all his money in a moment and it takes often weeks to fight those illegal freezing orders. One can literally starve while doing that.

<comment><USER4> And when you have cash, a single robbery can destroy your life savings. Or police can come and seize your money. There was someone in the thread amazed about the trust people put in the complex stack. I'm amazed the trust people put in the ordinary paper-based process. A computer cannot be bribed and leaves a cryptograhic audit trail and does not burn but for some reason a stack of papers under my matress is more trustworthy. There is a lot of irrationality around the topic. I don't know who's right but very clearly it is to an extent about fear of unknown.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I live in Stockholm and haven't used cash for several years. I have no cash on me ever, no coins, nothing. It's liberating. I get very annoyed when travelling and I rediscover the cash-based society and the need to always predict how much cash to carry.

<comment><USER10> I find the opposite is true, that cash is liberating.

1\. I always know how much cash in in my pocket. I typically carry $30-50 which is plenty for everyday transactions.

2\. It's easy to budget with cash. You can never spend more than what you have.

3\. I don't have to worry about paying off card balances.

4\. The chances of getting a credit / debit card stolen are a lot higher than having my cash stolen, eliminating the hassle of replacing cards.

5\. I support my community by eliminating the overhead of accepting cards.

6\. I can easily pay individuals instantly without having to worry about what service to use or delays in transferring from my bank to theirs.

7\. I maintain my privacy.

I'm not even considering the downsides of using a phone for payments (lost / stolen / broken / dead battery / borked update / bad UIs).

All that said I use a mix of cash and cards. Cards do have a lot of consumer advantages (cash back, disputing transactions, etc). Don't pretend that they're far superior to cash though. Both have their advantages and disadvantages. The loss of privacy is a HUGE problem with electronic payments.

<comment><USER9> I agree on the loss of privacy, a big drawback of (current) cards.

As for your other points: Swedes use nearly exclusively debit cards directly linked to an account (so no bills to pay, no interest, no risk of spending more than you have). We all have apps to monitor our account balance.

For P2P payments we use Swish, an app linked to your bank account and your phone number. It lets you pay instantly to anyone with a phone number and it's "free" but of course locks you in to your bank. The UI is decent.

As for "supporting your community by eliminating overhead" I think the overhead is higher for cash, and many businesses seem to prefer cards (many now, like banks, are cash-free). Also, eliminating cash has the advantage of making it harder for businesses to avoid paying taxes.

I also agree that paying with your phone sounds worse than using a card (which takes seconds and never runs out of batteries), but maybe you get your privacy back?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As I see it, this has the potential of being a disaster for certain groups of people in the society. Old and poor. And there are no free solutions, you have to spend to spend. The old paypal tax but on every purchase you do. There are problems with this that has to be solved before it's implemented but aren't yet there for the early adopters, which may then leave too many people behind. These are some of my concerns, but what do I know...

<comment><USER12> Yep, in a cashless society, everything is 3% more expensive.

<comment><USER13> That's not really true. The average fee in Sweden is closer to 1% than 3%, and handling cash is really expensive. Realistically a cashless society should save money.

<comment><USER14> Well yes, it saves people time (and time is money), but it's a trade off and sometimes ends up costing more than it saves.

If your kid wants to buy something, normally you just give them cash and they can't spend anything more. If you give them your card, now they can spend as much as they want ($1000 on Clash of Clans for example). While there are solutions such as giving your kid their own card you transfer the money to, it's a lot more effort than just pulling out a $5, and I'm sure many parents would forgo that route and just hand the kid their card.

What do you do when you want to buy something anonymously? Normally, you'd just pay with cash. Want to donate to Wikileaks without anyone knowing? Use a money order. In a cashless society, you can't do it as simple as that. You need to purchase prepaid debit cards (which costs time). And if the prepaids can be linked with the purchaser, then you'd need to spend even more time buying bitcoins, tossing them in a tumbler, then buying prepaid debit cards. A lot of extra work compared to just using cash or money order.

So yes, a cashless saves time, but it also costs time in other areas. Has Sweden found a balance? Doubt it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Which is pretty much proportional to the adoption of negative interest rates, which wouldn't really be possible on such scale without eliminating physical cash.

</comment><comment><USER16> This is obviously all wonderfully modern and the wave of the future and all that. Yeah Sweden!!! Totally lagom :-)

What the article fails to mention is that the swedish central bank has been able to implement an extremely aggressive negative interest rates policy thanks to The Cashless.

So if you like your savings eaten away by government mandated fiat (see what I just did there?) then of course be all plasticky and virtual.

This ends in hyperinflation as well as taxation cat-and-mouse games between governments and alternative currencies.

</comment><comment><USER17> I would understand the excitement for this if there where some fairly decentralized payment protocol so any single third party would not have the final say in wether or not you could buy/sell something and/or those rights where protected by law, but neither of those are true.

</comment><comment><USER8> In Norway I know only a single shop that still does not accept cards, perhaps on principle. Even farmers selling fruits and vegetables often have a card reader.

However many shops accept only cards from Norway that are connected to the BankAccept system which are significantly cheaper for a shop to accept than credit cards.

Also as a sign of times street musicians sometimes write their phone number for Vipps, a local payment system that allows to send money just by knowing a phone number.

Still the country is far from cachless judging by the number of professional beggars in big cities. Somehow they make a living so people still curry coins.

<comment><USER18> Wow, that's interesting, I'm a big fan of card payments because tap to pay is super convenient (most places in Prague have card readers) but what annoys me is the Visa / MasterCard duopoly. Because this means that a fraction of every payment goes to an American company - it's not a competetive market so they have a sizeable profit margin. It's cool that you have a local alternative, I wish we had that too or at least more than 2 competitors to push profits down, so that card payments don't leak money out of the economy.

<comment><USER8> There is still a problem as shops do not pass savings from using a local payment system to the customer. As some banks started to offer cash-back cards that return up to 1% of payments back, as a customer I have more insensitive to use cache-back credit card than a local one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I live in Sweden and have not visited an ATM for months. Even public toilets have a card reader attached.

I would like to have a way to easily display the balance of the card though, or just the last few expenses, preferably on the card it self.

<comment><USER20> Not affiliated, by I liked this [https://plastc.com/](https://plastc.com/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How am I, for example, supposed to pay my Swedish festival buddies for small stuff like a meal or a few beers if cash is banned? Swish, the popular person- to-person payment app in Sweden, only work for Swedes.

</comment><comment><USER20> The local public service news did a piece on this a while ago and the biggest problem they could envisage was the usability problems. Which is kind of sad, I'm sure most usability issues can be solved one way or the other.

Heres one thing that really should have more focus, remember when visa and mastercard decided to kill allofmp3? [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/allofmp3_attacks_vis...](http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/10/19/allofmp3_attacks_visa_and_mastercard/)

</comment><comment><USER21> Ehhhhhh I think Britain is closer. Contactless payment methods are significantly more common in London. (In fact you'd be hard pressed to say a business which doesn't accept contactless /and/ Apple Pay)

I live in Sweden and there are places that won't take VISA- and banks only give out mastercards which cost the consumer monthly. Not to mention the fact that contactless and Apple Pay are nowhere to be found.

Maybe it's different in Stockholm but in Malmö you can definitely see a negative disparity when compared to Britain.

<comment><USER22> I moved from Stockholm to Edinburgh about a year ago and I definitely use cash a lot more here. Sure contactless is more widespread, but a lot of places don't accept cards or have a minimum spend amount for card transactions.

When I lived in Stockholm I believe I went 6 months without handling any cash, here I can barely last a day without it.

<comment><USER23> Same, I cannot remember when I used cash the last time, but I think it's more than 9 months ago.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What happens when power grids fail, or if war ever breaks out in Europe and internet banking fails as a result? --- At least with cash you can still get the staples at the store.

<comment><USER20> I guess what would happen is that people will invent new cash as needed. Cigarettes being the classic example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> An important goal along the way to chipping the subjects.

</comment><comment><USER26> The busses have refused cash for years now, mostly for security reasons. But the other day one of my favorite cafés also declined the kingly payment method. A good sign indeed. :) A perhaps even better one is that one of the lunch places I go to no-longer requires my pin code when I pay by card. :D

Progress! :)

<comment><USER27> It sounds downright Orwellian. The government, its banks, payment processors all having the ability to instantly lock you out of the economy and watch your every transaction, leaving you totally out of options should you get on their bad side?

That just sounds like another building block in the surveillance Panopticon, psychological assurance that you'll never become dissentious because your continued existence in the economy essentially depends upon the state's grace. It changes the way people act, and even the way they think. It's the disturbing new reality that Snowden, Greenwald, et al. have sought to do something about, and here Swedes seem to be embracing it openly.

It sure sounds like this service could offer some great conveniences to daily living, but is it worth such a heavy price? The erosion of the will to dissent, and the power of the individual over their own lives? Are these an acceptable trade for the comfort of never having to see a coin again?

<comment><USER26> > The erosion of the will to dissent, and the power of the individual over > their own lives

We Swedes are way past that. We live as humble subjects of our government, cuddled from cradle to grave, bowing to their authority much as we once bowed to the king. :P

But every four years the people is abolished and the government choses a new one, so it's still a democracy! ;P

<comment><USER26> I'm only half joking here, and I'm definitely not saying you're wrong. Just trying to explain why we Swedes probably don't think about the cashless society in the same way as americans do.

And by the way, most of my friends would probably describe me as "a borderline libertarian" (by Swedish standards), "fixated" on individual liberties and similar.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Prettyplotlib: Painlessly create beautiful matplotlib plots - <AUTHOR> http://blog.olgabotvinnik.com/post/58941062205/prettyplotlib-painlessly-create-beautiful-matplotlib

<comment><USER2> Slightly off topic but the matplotlib interface always annoyed the hell out of me. The pyplot wrapper meant that there are effectively two ways to do any visualisation,which breaks python "zen" pretty badly ("There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it").

Visualisation is one area where R with ggplot really eats pythons lunch.If anybody has the inclination I would recommend looking into [https://github.com/wrobstory/vincent](https://github.com/wrobstory/vincent) and [https://github.com/ContinuumIO/Bokeh](https://github.com/ContinuumIO/Bokeh) Vincent is a wrapper for a wrapper(vega!) for d3 and works nicely even though its only on version 0.2. Bokeh seems less "user friendly" and finished but it has good funding and Peter Wang who really understands scientific computing behind it so I would bet on it for the long run.

</comment><comment><USER3> Looks to be a useful tool. My only beef is that I can barely read the low- contrast text on white background.</comment>


A/B testing prevents scurvy! - <AUTHOR> http://www.25hoursaday.com/weblog/2007/06/05/ImprovingWebsiteUsabilityWithABTesting.aspx i know the title is a fallacy, couldn't resist <comment><USER2> Or, "Science improves web usability!"

</comment><comment><USER3> y'know what would be great? a rails plugin to facilitate a/b testing.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> aww, i had some text apologizing for incendiary titles. or at least fallacies in them. sry</comment>


Is Foxconn Fleeing China? Sure Looks Like It - <AUTHOR> http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2013/02/24/is-foxconn-fleeing-china-sure-looks-like-it/ <comment><USER3> Nothing is mentioned about robots. It certainly makes sense to use them closer to customers and where wages are higher. It is also easier to run a factory with robots 24 hours a day 7 days a week at times leading up to product launches.

[http://www.tomshardware.com/news/foxcponn-apple-iphone- ipad-...](http://www.tomshardware.com/news/foxcponn-apple-iphone-ipad- robot,19088.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> It appears the author has a penchant for bashing China at every opportunity. Check out this comment[1] and then browse the author's archive[2] to make up your own mind.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2013/02/24/is- foxcon...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2013/02/24/is-foxconn- fleeing-china-sure-looks-like- it/?commentId=comment_blogAndPostId/blog/comment/1030-1747-5774)

[2] <http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/archive/>

</comment><comment><USER5> Ok, so you have a 1.5 million employee company that actually wants to expand it foot print to contries other than china. Brazil, Indonesia and the move to the US was already discussed.

Articles like that happen when political journalists write about economic things. The facts provided are mainly that Foxconn has a) a new growth strategy and... let me think... yeah, that's about it.

But yes, a 10 billion investment plan in indonesia surely is a sign that the iPhone 5 (the only electronic device Foxconn is assembling) isn't selling as good as before. Would Apple stock have risen by 2,4 percent the article would have been about greater growth in iPhone market share in Brazil and the HUGE opportunities manufacturing sites in Indonesia would offer.

Just to end up with the fact that Foxconn flees China because it's a bad place to be. Business as usual in journalism and stock exchanges. :-)

<comment><USER6> > the iPhone 5 (the only electronic device Foxconn is assembling)

What do you mean?

"Notable products that the company manufactures include the iPad, iPhone, iPod, Kindle, PlayStation 3 and Wii U."

Source: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foxconn>

<comment><USER5> Sorry, I forgot the ironic smilley! ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Brazil has walls of tariffs around its lucrative consumers. The U.S. has Hon Hai's largest customer's sourcing ambitions. Indonesia has cheap unskilled labour.

The author, Gordon Chang, is a political analyst. I suspect this may be colouring his perception.

</comment><comment><USER8> This guy is desperately trying to latch on anything he can to sell his prophecy.

<http://www.gordonchang.com/qanda.htm>

Q: When Will China Collapse? A: Within this decade—in other words, by 2011.

<comment><USER9> Well, we have a pretty big property bubble here ATM. Once it goes pop.....

<comment><USER10> China is not a consumer driven economy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's incredibly interesting to me that a share price in an US company can plunge just because their manufacturer in China had some surprisingly low employee churn.

<comment><USER12> it's not because of the low employee "churn", it's because Foxconn has put a freeze on hiring.

People see "hiring freeze" and instantly associate that with slowing down production or growth.

<comment><USER9> Again CNY. Usually during CNY, a lot of your employees don't come back, so everyone expects high churn around now. Except more old FoxCon employees came back than expected, so they were probably hiring more people than they thought they needed. So full stop on hiring. Makes sense given the way the migrant worker labor market works here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Moving production to Taiwan doesn't seem to be a particularaly smart move if the objective is to avoid China related political risk.

<comment><USER14> How so?

The modern take on China-Taiwan relations is free trade and cross-strait economic cooperation. The Chinese have a not-very-hidden goal of having this lead to eventual political reunification. The Taiwanese are much more ambivalent about this concept, but are embracing whatever option leads to continued de facto independence. The Taiwanese-independence issue is no longer the hot button topic it once was.

In short, so long as Taiwan makes no overtures towards actual independence, this relationship is stable, with lifting trade interference being a publicly stated goal on both sides.

Source: I'm a Taiwanese expat.

<comment><USER13> Taiwan making overtures towards actual independence doesn't seem like a very far fetched possibility. It has been a hot button issue on and off over the last decades. If, on the other hand, China and Taiwan actually move towards unification, Foxconn's decision seems even more pointless.

<comment><USER15> The only way Taiwan's _ever_ going to agree to any sort of unification is if the mainland political system changes _dramatically_ (though of course this may the end result of more gradual changes).

If that happens, the effects on China are going to be so huge that they'll make business decisions made today pretty much irrelevant.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Geopolitical concerns can't be even a small part of why Foxconn is expanding internationally. This is just sensationalism over wanting to build the supply chain to build anything in any location on the planet. They aren't just a source of cheap labour anymore. Especially Foxconn International wants to move up the chain and provide more value.

</comment><comment><USER17> The idea of a company the size of Foxconn fleeing China isn't believable. Government regulations, tax structure and cost considerations determine business decision making. And, that's exactly why China's thriving right now. A decade from another low cost center will spring itself up and without doubt businesses will throng that destination.

It for sure makes a great negotiating tactic to extract maximum leniency from the Chinese Govt. Besides, Foxconn is one of the poster boys for Chinese manufacturing might and the Govt. won't let them shut shop over night. It's just bad PR!

</comment><comment><USER18> I don't normally expect to see the words "hissy fits" in a Forbes article ... I wonder if Forbes will be blocked by the great firewall now.

In any case, I tend to agree with the sentiment that you'd better be seen as sane if you want the rest of the world to include you in the global economy.

</comment><comment><USER19> Out of curiosity - does Foxconn procure the parts which it uses to assemble iPhones, iPads etc, or is it Apple's responsibility/domain to procure all the parts, with Foxconn merely putting it all together?

<comment><USER20> There might be stuff like screws that Apple will let foxconn procure based on their spec, but they might not even let them do that.

Apple produces the CPU, procures the screen, the aluminum, the glass, the memory and the glue. At the scale they operate, if they didn't, they won't be able to keep the production pipeline running.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Foxconn is not really the story, let alone their investment plans - the story is that this will create far far fewer jobs than thought - manufacturing, even at Foxconn, is dominated by automation and I would not be surprised if Apple were looking for a gleaming, bright, lights-off factory for the iPhone - <USER2> car factory in Minority Report

Gou has also been reported saying he wants to invest in a million robots at his factories.

Humans are structurally unemployed

</comment><comment><USER22> _> Foxconn Technology Group sent Apple Inc. stock reeling on Wednesday. Shares plunged 2.4% on reports that the world's largest contract manufacturer of electronics—and Apple's largest assembler—had imposed at its Chinese plants a hiring freeze lasting until at least the end of next month._

Sigh. Daily movements in short term market liquidity do not a causation of disparate events make. Movements happen in stock markets everyday for no apparent reason - and using these to buoy your point just shows you how you don't understand financial markets.

<comment><USER9> I heard Foxconn was able to offer decent salaries and got all their new hires in pretty early at the start of the post-CNY hiring season. All their competitors are hurting for workers now, the workers have raised their expectations (if Foxconn can over X, why can't you?) and now there are labor shortages in the Pearl/Yantze manufacturing areas.</comment></comment>


Tempest prognosticator - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tempest_prognosticator <comment><USER2> Sounds like it worked better than it's more popular competitor, the storm glass.

Fascinating combination materials... Whalebone, leeches, glass bells. Seems like something you'd find at the Museum of Jurassic Technology in Los Angeles.

</comment><comment><USER3> From the "Caring for your leech" external link:

 _In many ways, a medical leech Hirudo medicinalis can be an ideal pet. Its' needs are fairly simple and can often be left for a considerable length of time with little concern and if allowed can become attached to the owner quite literally!_

</comment><comment><USER4> Sensor technology has sucked right from the start.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like a new Twitter handle for Nate Silver

</comment><comment><USER6> Wikipedia needs an Actual Steampunk Technology portal. Or at the very least a Victoriana portal.

</comment><comment><USER7> this is fantastic, it could be a parody of olden times technology but it's real!</comment>


Ask HN: What would happen to TOR if net neutrality disappeard? - <AUTHOR> I am genuinely curious.
Would the ISPs just charge a ridiculous rate for TOR bandwidth and effectively block it altogether?
Because that seems like their desired outcome.
"Anything we cannot control should be prohibitively expensive." seems to be the narrative, no? <comment><AUTHOR> There is a discussion here on /r/onions [0] but it's not very high-level imho.

[0] [https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/7eofhr/how_would_ne...](https://www.reddit.com/r/onions/comments/7eofhr/how_would_net_neutrality_affect_tor/)</comment>